The meeting is in public session. Is it agreed that we suspend the meeting until 3.30 p.m.? Agreed.

This meeting has been convened to discuss Committee Stage of the International Co-operation (Omagh Bombing Inquiry) Bill 2026. I welcome the Minister, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, and his officials to the meeting. It is important to note that in order to participate in a division in committee, members must be physically present. We will now proceed with consideration of the Bill.

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach and the committee for convening today for this very important legislation. As the Leas-Chathaoirleach indicated, we are going through Committee Stage of the International Co-operation (Omagh Bombing Inquiry) Bill 2026. The Bill has a single purpose - to assist the Omagh bombing inquiry to carry out its work as it seeks to answer the fundamental question of the families, survivors and others as to whether the bombing, the single worst atrocity of the Troubles, could have been prevented by UK state authorities.

From the outset, the Government has made clear its intention to assist the inquiry to the greatest extent possible. The Bill before the committee today is another important step in delivering on that commitment. The Bill deals with the taking of oral testimony and will sit alongside the concrete measures I have already put in place to facilitate the disclosure of documentary materials to the inquiry, which are working well, as acknowledged by the inquiry at its hearing last month.

Delivering on our commitment to assist an inquiry established by another sovereign state is not without its challenges. There are legal complexities that must be navigated to ensure consistency with the laws of Ireland and the Government’s duty to safeguard the essential interests of the State and rights of citizens. The Bill seeks to meet these challenges by providing a bespoke mechanism to facilitate the taking of sworn testimony from State bodies and former ministerial office-holders before a judge of the High Court. It builds on our existing model in the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 2019, which members will be aware was enacted to enable the taking of oral evidence from An Garda Síochána for the purposes of United Kingdom Troubles-related inquests, such as the Kingsmill inquiry.

Like that existing mechanism, the Bill is premised on sworn testimony being taken by a nominated judge of the High Court acting as a conduit for the evidence. The evidence given is based on questions identified by the chairman of the inquiry and agreed in advance by the head of the State body concerned. Where a head of a body is proposing to refuse to accede to a request to answer a particular question, the Minister for justice and, where relevant, the line Minister, must be consulted. In the case of former ministerial office-holders, the Minister for justice assumes the decision-making role in relation to the questions identified by the chairman.

Importantly, the Bill includes a number of notable new features that are designed to maximise the evidential opportunities available to the chairman and to support transparency. These include extending the mechanism to State bodies other than An Garda Síochána, and to both serving and retired gardaí, members of the Defence Forces, departmental officials and former ministerial office-holders, on a consent basis. Core participants to the inquiry, mainly the families, and their legal representatives will be facilitated to be present and hear first-hand the evidence given before the High Court judge. This is particularly important as the core participants are in the main the families and survivors. The inquiry will also be able to ask some questions to clarify answers given by the witnesses.

My aim in designing this bespoke mechanism was to go as far as possible in seeking to ensure that the chairman of the inquiry has all the information he requires to discharge his terms of reference. I am pleased that it was possible to include these new features while at the same time ensuring that the mechanism is legally robust. I have noted the comments by Deputies in the course of the Second Stage debate and look forward to hearing further contributions today.

May I may some general remarks in respect of section 1?

Absolutely.

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach for facilitating my speaking in the Dáil. It is a bit surreal having a debate on and detailed scrutiny of legislation, when at the same time we are endeavouring to bring the Government down. Nevertheless, this is important legislation. Sinn Féin supports the families of victims and survivors of the 1998 Omagh bombing in their search for truth and justice, just as we have supported victims and survivors from other atrocities during the conflict. These families have campaigned for 27 years for an inquiry and deserve full transparency and full disclosure about the events that led to the killing of their loved ones.

In order for the fullest co-operation possible with the Omagh inquiry and to allow the inquiry to get on with its work, it is important this legislation is facilitated in getting through the Oireachtas in a timely manner. That is why, as the Leas-Chathaoirleach knows, the committee agreed to waive pre-legislative scrutiny, but it is also vital that we get this legislation right. A key concern I have, and I raised it on Second Stage, is the lack of meaningful engagement with victims' families. Families told me that they were not shown the draft legislation before publication and have expressed disappointment that the Minister has not met them, despite an earlier commitment that their needs would be placed at the heart of the process. A number of them now feel sidelined in a process that should be trauma informed and centred on their experience. I intend to raise a number of matters during this Stage that reflect some of the concerns that have been raised directly with me by representatives of the families of victims and survivors. I will bring forward amendments that reflect those on Report Stage. I hope the Minister will work with me on that.

Under the Bill, any provision of oral sworn evidence to the inquiry by former members of An Garda Síochána, former members of the Defence Forces, former Ministers and former office-holders will be done on a voluntary basis. There are some concerns regarding the voluntary nature of this evidence and how that might work in practice. Concerns have also been raised that national security limits could restrict disclosure because governments, particularly the Government of our nearest neighbour, have used those provisions to protect intelligence services and operations. Under the terms of this Bill, officials may decline to provide evidence and broad security claims could be used to justify withholding sensitive or potentially embarrassing information. We have seen, particularly by the British Government, the misuse of these types of provisions far too often in relation to national security, for example, in failing to disclose information related to collusion. We have to be clear that national security is an important provision, but it cannot be used to conceal failings or wrongdoing.

The families and survivors of the Omagh bombing also have genuine concerns that the current draft may give rise to difficulties that could undermine its intended purpose. These concerns need to be addressed as well. As I said, during Second Stage, I was surprised when a representative for the families indicated that the Minister had failed to meet the families to discuss the draft legislation despite a request. During Committee Stage and Report and Final Stages, I hope that the Minister will be in a position to take on board suggested amendments and address the concerns that have been raised by those representing the families of victims and survivors of the Omagh bombing.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 7, to delete lines 1 and 2 and substitute the following:

“(i) be likely to cause a specific, identifiable and substantial risk of prejudice to the sovereignty or security of the State, and only where such risk cannot reasonably be mitigated through redaction, protective measures, or partial disclosure,”.

This involves the deletion of lines 1 and 2 and their substitution by wording that would read "be likely to cause a specific, identifiable and substantial risk of prejudice to the sovereignty or security of the State, and only where such risk cannot reasonably be mitigated through redaction, protective measures, or partial disclosure". We have repeatedly highlighted how national security has been cited by British governments to restrict disclosure in legacy investigations, often leaving families without full access to information about past events. This amendment reinforces the fact that we should not follow that example. It ensures that co-operation with the Omagh inquiry is not undermined by undefined or broad national security claims and that designated individuals can be questioned in a structured and transparent process. The purpose is to support truth recovery, provide clarity for those affected and guarantee that legitimate security considerations cannot be used to prevent the inquiry from receiving relevant evidence.

Amendment No. 2, if I can speak to it, calls for the insertion of an additional paragraph between lines 6 and 7 that defines that:

a refusal may not be based on a general, speculative, or unparticularised assertion of harm to State security or essential interests. The relevant head shall record in writing the precise nature of the risk relied upon and the reasons why less restrictive measures would not adequately protect that interest.

This amendment is again designed to ensure there is no misuse of national security as a rationale for not providing information to the inquiry.

I thank Deputy Carthy for his amendments. Before I deal with the specific amendments, I agree with him that this is very important legislation. As a society and as a country, we are trying to deal with the consequences of legacy. We want to see it enacted, not just in this jurisdiction but in the United Kingdom as well. It is important from the point of view of the Irish Government that we get this right and that we put in place a statutory mechanism to facilitate the Omagh bombing inquiry which is ongoing. I am pleased to say that there is very good co-operation between my Department and the Omagh bombing inquiry which has already started. To date we have provided documentation from the State, to a large extent Garda documentation, to the inquiry. Approximately 25,000 pages of State material have already been provided. That is a good sign of successful engagement. The inquiry is pleased with that and is engaging with us in respect of it.

Deputy Carthy mentioned an issue about lack of engagement with the families. It is important that there is engagement with families in order to hear what they want to happen and what type of a statutory process they would like to see achieved. However, it is now the case that a tribunal has been established in Northern Ireland for the purpose of investigating Omagh. When it comes to that tribunal seeking to get information from the Irish Government, it is important that I engage with the tribunal. If I start engaging with individual families as to what they want, it is going to upset the lines of communication between this State and the tribunal. A tribunal has been established, we want to support it, and I want to give it documentation and facilitate the giving of evidence to it. That is why the obligation and the objective should be to engage with the tribunal, obviously taking into account the interests of the families who are before it.

I have one final point before dealing with the amendments. Deputy Carthy indicated the issues about national security. They form one of the items identified in his amendments. I completely agree with him that national security information does not mean embarrassing information to a government. That is not national security information. It certainly would not be the type of basis upon which I would categorise documentation as being a risk to the security of the State simply because it may be embarrassing.

I will proceed now to look at amendments that have been proposed by Deputy Carthy. What he is proposing in the first instance is an amendment to section 5(4)(b)(i). The test as set out in section 5(4)(b)(i) requires the head of a State body, be that the Garda Commissioner, the Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces or the Secretary General of a Department, to be of the opinion that acceding to a request would be likely to prejudice these fundamental concerns of the State. That mirrors the 2019 legislation that I referred to earlier which was used for the purpose of assisting inquests in the UK. The test as set out in the draft Bill represents a higher threshold for the head to overcome than that proposed by Deputy Carthy. The Deputy's proposed threshold and set out in amendment No. 1 simply requires that the head be of the opinion that acceding would be likely to cause a risk of prejudice to these fundamental concerns of the State. I note that Deputy Carthy's first amendment seeks to qualify the risk of prejudice that would be required by stating that it must be a specific, identifiable and substantial risk and that it should only be used as a ground for refusal where risk mitigations, such as redactions or partial disclosures, would not afford sufficient protection. I do not believe that these qualifications overcome the ultimate effect, which would be to lower the threshold.

Deputy Carthy's amendment No. 2 picks up a similar theme and seeks to provide that a refusal may not be based on a general, speculative or unparticularised assertion of harm. I do not believe this amendment is necessary or adds anything when the totality of section 5 is considered. In the first instance it is clear from section 5(3) that the head of a body may refuse a request for assistance in full or in part. This option is essential. It is my firm view and that of the Government that we must do everything possible to ensure that the chairman of the inquiry has access to the information he needs to carry out his work and answer the questions of the families. This position has informed all of the actions I have taken to support and facilitate the work of the inquiry, including putting in place a memorandum of understanding in relation to disclosure of materials, implementing measures to support the disclosure of sensitive personal data and bringing forward this Bill, and it will inform my consideration of any request from the head of a body to refuse to accede to a request on any of the grounds set out in section 5(4).

Second, the decision to refuse rests with the most senior officers in our State bodies. They are bound to act lawfully and with integrity and to make decisions on an objective, reasonable and rational basis in the public interest. Third, as I alluded to, where the head of the body is of the opinion that acceding to a request would be likely prejudice the sovereignty or security of the State, the head must consult the line Minister and, where the Minister for justice is not the line Minister, also the Minister for justice. This is an important safeguard in the process. It will, of necessity, require the head of the State body to set out in writing the basis for their opinion, including the nature of the prejudice that is likely to occur and why it cannot be mitigated by, for example, partial disclosure or the provision of a gist of the evidence or the use of codes to anonymise certain persons. Finally, I draw the Members' attention to the requirement in section 5(6) that where a decision has been taken to refuse a request in respect of a particular question, that decision and the reason for refusal must be set out in writing to the chairman of the inquiry.

Taking the section as a whole I am satisfied it has been designed in a manner that ensures that any decision to refuse would be taken only after very careful consideration and be well-founded on an assessment that prejudice is likely to occur. Deputy Carthy has referred to a concern that national security grounds must not be misused to prevent the disclosure of information that might be embarrassing to services or to conceal wrongdoing or failures. As I said, I agree with him entirely on that point, but I am satisfied that the test as set out in section 5(4) and the layered approach adopted, which requires consultation with the Minister or, in some instances, with two Ministers, safeguards against this risk. For those reasons I respectfully cannot agree to those amendments.

I move amendment No. 2.

In page 7, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:

"(iv) for the purposes of subparagraph (i), a refusal may not be based on a general, speculative,or unparticularised assertion of harm to State security or essential interests. The relevant head shall record in writing the precise nature of the risk relied upon and the reasons why less restrictive measures would not adequately protect that interest.".

Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 7, to delete lines 7 to 11 and substitute the following:

"(5) A relevant head to whom a request for assistance is made shall notify the former office holder of the request. The consent in writing of the former office holder shall be required only where the former office holder demonstrates that answering the specified question would give rise to a substantial and objectively reasonable risk of prejudice to their legal rights or to the performance of functions lawfully exercised during their tenure. A refusal to consent shall—

(a) be provided in writing,

(b) set out the specific grounds relied upon, and

(c) be subject to review by the Chairman for adequacy and reasonableness.".

Amendment No. 3 deletes lines 7 to 11 on page 7 and substitutes them with a new provision.

This amendment is again about ensuring that the process delivers truth for the families. It clarifies that former officeholders may only withhold consent where they can show substantial and objectively reasonable risk to their legal rights or past lawful functions, that any such refusal must be in writing and specify the grounds relied upon, and that this refusal can be reviewed by the inquiry chair for adequacy and reasonableness. This safeguard is important because it limits refusals to cases of genuine and demonstrable risk, requires written justification, ensures the inquiry chair can review decisions, thereby strengthening transparency, and prevents unjustified barriers to the provision of evidence.

Amendment No. 4 to section 6 again seeks to strengthen the effectiveness of this legislation in helping families of victims and survivors of the Omagh bombing get to the truth. The amendment provides that a former Minister's consent is only required where a substantial and objectively reasonable risk to his or her legal rights or past lawful functions can be shown. Again, any refusal must be on the basis of specific grounds set out in writing, and may be reviewed by the inquiry chair for adequacy and reasonableness.

As I am speaking to amendment No. 3 and we are dealing with section 5, I will indicate that it is my intention to bring forward a further amendment to section 5 that would replace the requirement to specify in advance exact questions with a requirement to outline topics, areas of questioning and relevant documents. This would preserve fair notice for witnesses while preventing rehearsed and scripted answers. It would also align the legislation with the inquiry's own rule 10 protocol, ensuring consistency and effective evidence gathering. The Omagh inquiry's rule 10 protocol sets out who can question witnesses, when others can request permission and how this keeps proceedings fair, focused and non-adversarial.

Again in respect of section 5, I intend to propose a further amendment on Report Stage that would introduce a new section 5A that would require witnesses to provide written statements before giving oral evidence. This would ensure a clear baseline account that might remove the need for oral testimony in some cases. It would also make any subsequent examination more focused and efficient. Both the inquiry and the draft memorandum of understanding support this approach. It strengthens the overall effectiveness and clarity of the co-operation process. I invite the Minister and his officials to look at those issues. Perhaps they will bring forward a departmental amendment on Report Stage to address those concerns, which have come directly from representatives of families.

I thank Deputy Carthy for amendments Nos. 3 and 4. At the outset, it is important to emphasise that the purpose of the Bill we are hoping to see enacted is to facilitate the giving of evidence in Ireland by people who are officeholders, former officeholders or former holders of ministerial office who may have information relevant to the Omagh bombing. As I indicated earlier, to date we have provided approximately 25,000 pages to the Omagh bombing inquiry. I have no doubt that the inquiry, which is the body responsible for deciding what avenues to proceed down, is going through all of that documentation. I presume it will have questions it wishes to put. It will also be able to identify individuals it may want to call to give evidence. It may also want to get evidence from this State to prove particular documents that have been provided to it. As the Leas-Chathaoirleach will know, the fact of us giving it a document does not prove the content of the document. If the inquiry wants to prove that, in certain instances, it may be required to hear the oral testimony behind it. The reason I have made these introductory comments is that I strongly expect that the people the inquiry wants to call to give evidence will co-operate and come forward to give evidence. I do not see any basis for former Ministers or former members of An Garda Síochána not wanting to co-operate.

Nonetheless, the amendment Deputy Carthy is proposing seeks to deal with former officeholders, whether past members of An Garda Síochána or the Defence Forces, former civil servants or former ministerial officeholders, who are called to give evidence before the High Court. The amendment tries to introduce a form of compulsion. This would be subject to the persons concerned having the right to demonstrate that answering the questions "would give rise to a ... risk of prejudice to their legal rights or to the performance of functions lawfully exercised during their tenure". The risk of prejudice would need to reach the level of a "substantial and objectively reasonable risk of prejudice". In such cases, their consent would be required.

I have concerns about the amendment Deputy Carthy has put forward because it seeks to assign to the chairman of the inquiry the role of reviewing the case set out by the person for refusing to consent for adequacy in reasonableness. In effect, the amendment appears to assign to the chairman of the Omagh bombing inquiry the role of deciding whether the person has the right to refuse to consent to provide oral testimony before the nominated Irish High Court judge. In considering this proposal, it is necessary to recall that the inquiry is established under the law of another sovereign state. The chairman of the inquiry is necessarily limited to applying the law of the United Kingdom. Were he to be assigned a role in determining the adequacy and reasonableness of the case put forward by the person concerned, he would only do so by applying the law of the UK. I respectfully suggest that is not a tenable proposition. It is also the case that the chairman's powers do not extend beyond the UK. Any view that he might take on the case made could have no validity under Irish law.

The amendment raises many other issues, for example whether the outcome of the chairman's review would be subject to appeal before the courts here or in the UK, thereby introducing delay into the process, or whether a person suffering ill health would have any means of declining a request to assist, which is an issue that could arise considering that the bombing took place so many years ago. However, these are secondary to the fundamental problem with the proposal.

An important consideration when developing this Bill was how provision might be made for past officeholders to assist. Like everyone, I am conscious that the inquiry will likely wish to seek to hear from those with first-hand information about the events prior to the bombing. I am also conscious that, due to the passage of time, most, if not all, of those persons will be well into retirement. While such persons could decide to attend before the inquiry in the UK of their own volition, if they choose to do so they will remain subject to certain residual obligations in respect of sensitive information acquired during their service but without the benefit of the privileges and immunities to which they are entitled under Irish law. In effect, they would be putting themselves at risk of being held criminally liable for failure to comply with the orders of the chairman.

It is these considerations that resulted in the scope of the Bill before us going beyond what was provided for in 2019 in respect of the provision of assistance to UK Troubles-related inquests. While what is provided for is voluntary assistance, in recognition that past officers are private citizens and cannot be compelled to provide assistance to a foreign inquiry, as I stated before the House on Second Stage and as I said just a moment ago, I expect co-operation from all concerned who are requested to provide assistance. Because of that, I will not be accepting the amendment. I believe that deals with all of the amendments Deputy Carthy has put forward.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 8, to delete lines 31 to 33 and substitute the following:

“(5) The Minister shall notify the former holder of ministerial office of the request. The consent in writing of the former holder of ministerial office shall be required only where that person demonstrates that acceding to the request would give rise to a substantial and objectively reasonable risk of prejudice to their legal rights or to the lawful performance of functions exercised during their tenure. Any refusal to consent shall—

(a) be provided in writing,

(b) set out the specific grounds relied upon, and

(c) be subject to review by the Chairman for adequacy and reasonableness.”.

May I speak to section 9? I wish to inform the committee that it is my intention to bring forward an amendment to section 9 on Report Stage in order to address the fact that, as it stands, this section restricts questioning to the nominated judge, which is overly tight, and requires that the exact questions be authorised in advance.

It creates a narrow, predetermined scope that limits flexibility and prevents broader or exploratory lines of inquiry that might be required in such a hearing. My intention is to bring forward an amendment that would allow the nominated judge to examine unapproved topics and areas not necessarily confined to pre-approved questions, express power to place documents and follow up with documents. The purpose of that amendment would be to enable effective and responsive examination in response to concerns that have been raised by representatives of the families of the victims of the Omagh bombing. I ask that the Minister and his officials examine whether they could table an amendment to that effect in the meantime.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 11, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:

“(2) For the avoidance of doubt, a designated person may be asked, and the person taking evidence may put to them, any supplementary, follow-up or clarifying questions that arise from the evidence given, whether or not such questions were specified in the request for assistance under section 5. The scope of questioning shall not be limited to the questions specified in the request, provided that all questioning remains relevant to the matters under inquiry.”.

There have been concerns from family members of victims and survivors of the Omagh bombing about the process for asking questions. As I said, it is something on which I will table further specific amendments on Report Stage. I acknowledge what the Minister has indicated in terms of meeting with the families and their representatives. There will always be an excuse when dealing with complex legal issues not to meet with people or stakeholders, but in this instance I accept the Minister's bona fides that he wants legislation that delivers for the families. It is important that an engagement takes place because they make compelling points about a number of parts of the legislation. The amendment confirms that designated persons may be asked any supplementary or clarifying questions arising from their evidence, even if it is not listed in the original request. It ensures that questions remain flexible, comprehensive and relevant to the inquiry's work, preventing what could be very narrow interpretations that could limit or actually delay the full exploration of facts if people are asked to come back.

I thank the Deputy for the amendment. I reiterate that there is very good ongoing engagement between my Department and the Omagh bombing inquiry. Even in respect of the legislation, we have taken on board some suggestions that they made to us and have included them. I am not asking the Deputy necessarily to agree with me on this, but if I were to go down the route of engaging with the families, the families wanted something else in the legislation and the tribunal did not want it or thought it was not necessary, I would have to align myself with what the tribunal wants because the tribunal is there, set up by statute, to inquire into issues concerning the Omagh bombing inquiry. It is only for the purpose of assisting that inquiry that this legislation is being passed. That inquiry is the one that is in the driving seat, and it is doing an important job in trying to get truth for the families.

The section deals with the questioning of a designated person by or on behalf of the chairman. It is important to recall why the scope of the questioning is limited in the way it is, that is, to questions seeking clarification of the evidence already given to the nominated judge. This comes back to why a bespoke legal mechanism is required to assist the inquiry in the first place. There are, as I have outlined previously, legal complexities that must be navigated in the relationship between Ireland as a sovereign independent state and an inquiry established under the laws of another sovereign state. While the Government is fully committed to assisting the inquiry, we have to ensure we do so in a manner that is consistent with our sovereignty, our laws and our obligations to protect the safety and security of the State and the rights of citizens.

Following extensive engagement with the Attorney General's office on how these two goals could be navigated, what is provided for in the Bill is a robust legal mechanism very similar to the 2019 Act that was brought in to assist UK Troubles-related inquests. The mechanism enables the taking of the oral testimony in a manner that protects the rights of witnesses while also providing for the possibility of protecting sovereignty, security and other essential interests of the State and meeting obligations to investigate crime, protect life and comply with data protection obligations. It does this by requiring that the questions to be answered by the witness must be approved in advance. The proposed amendment, by potentially allowing the question by or on behalf of the chairman to go beyond seeking to clarify the answers given to the approved questions, would risk negating this safeguard.

Apart from this substantive difficulty with the proposed amendment, there are also some technical or drafting issues with it. I will not go into them unless the Deputy wants me to do so, but for those reasons I cannot accept the amendment. The way this will proceed is that a High Court judge will be nominated, the core participants, the inquiry legal team and the chairman will come down, and the High Court judge will deal with the questioning. If there are then any further questions the chairman wishes to ask, that will be dealt with under this section. It is a very thorough mechanism of ensuring that the tribunal queries are known to the State officials who want to give evidence or who are going to give evidence. That is beneficial as well in order that we can have the answers available.

I am told I have to leave relatively soon. I am sorry about that.

One of the Minister's colleagues has made a big announcement in the Dáil.

What is that?

The Minister of State, Deputy Healy-Rae, has resigned.

Apologies. May we-----

We can either-----

Shall we go to the end of this section very quickly?

Shall we do that and then suspend or would the Minister like to suspend-----

I have another couple of minutes. Let us keep going.

My intention with any of these amendments is to ensure that what I believe are genuine concerns and issues, and practical issues coming from some of the families and their representatives, are reflected in the legislation. If there are technical issues that the Minister or the Department has concerns about in respect of any of my amendments, I am happy to work with them.

While we are dealing with the section, I intend to table an amendment on Report Stage to replace the narrow clarification power with authority to question on matters arising from evidence to allow the chairman to place documents, probe inconsistencies or perhaps seek follow-on answers. Again, the legal representatives for the families of victims and survivors have been very clear to me that what is in the legislation is way too restrictive and would be a huge impediment to allow follow-up questions, as would be the case in virtually every other hearing-type scenario. That is a concern that has been raised and, as I have indicated, I would be very pleased to work with the Minister to find a solution that would deal with all the issues.

Shall we suspend?

If you like.

What do Members think?

I will have to go in about two minutes. The committee could go through it quickly. There are no more amendments. There is one-----

Has Deputy Carthy a comment?

I am sorry. There is one further amendment.

There is one further amendment.

Could we suspend then?

We will suspend until 4.35 p.m.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 12, to delete lines 9 and 10 and substitute the following:

"(b) under section 10, a designated person may refuse to answer a question only where answering would give rise to a substantial and objectively reasonable risk of prejudice to a legal right or privilege recognised in criminal proceedings in the State. Any refusal shall—

(i) be provided in writing or on the record,

(ii) set out the specific legal basis for the refusal, and

(iii) be subject to review by the Chairman for adequacy and reasonableness.".

This amendment would ensure that a witness can only refuse a question where there is a real objectively reasonable risk of prejudice to a legal right or privilege. The amendment would ensure that any refusal to answer any question coming from the Omagh inquiry must be explained on the record, with the legal basis set out and the chairman empowered to review whether it is adequate and reasonable. Again, the objective is that we have legislation that is fit for purpose to allow the families to get to the truth.

On this section, I want to highlight a number of amendments that are required on Report Stage. It is my intention to bring forward an amendment that would remove the absolute right under section 11(5)(b) to refuse follow-up questions while retaining the essential privilege against self-incrimination in section 11(5)(a). We need to ensure that we can avoid a situation where any witness facing a difficult supplementary question can simply just decline to answer. The privilege against self-incrimination is the standard safeguard and a sufficient one to ensure accountability while still protecting individual rights.

It is also my intention to bring forward an amendment that inserts a new section 11(4)(a) allowing representatives of core participants to propose questions or topics to the chair, counsel to the inquiry or to the nominated judge, to make submissions and to apply for permission to question witnesses directly. That is to strengthen transparency and maintain the confidence of bereaved families and survivors.

It is also my intention to bring forward an amendment on Report Stage that will clarify that section 11(4) includes a right to make submissions on the scope of questioning under sections 9 and 10. The purpose of that amendment is to ensure that the chairman can argue for an appropriate examination scope before the nominated judge to strengthen the clarity, fairness and effectiveness of the inquiry process.

Again, I ask the Minister and the officials to look at those areas which have been raised directly by the representatives of some of the families of the victims of the Omagh bombing.

I thank Deputy Carthy for putting forward amendment No. 6, which is an amendment to section 11. It seeks to limit the grounds on which a designated person may refuse to answer a clarifying question asked by the chairman of the inquiry. As I said in my response to the previous amendment, the mechanism provided for in the Bill is designed to enable the taking of oral testimony in a manner that protects the essential interests of the State and the witnesses. It is for this reason it is founded on the questions to be asked of the designated persons by the nominated High Court judge - the Irish High Court judge - being only those approved in advance. In ease of the inquiry and in the event of minor points arising that could be clarified on the day, section 10, as Deputy Carthy knows, allows the chairman to ask questions to seek to clarify the answers given. Providing that the witness is not required to answer any of those questions is necessary to avoid negating the safeguard of the head of the body making a decision to refuse to answer certain questions at the outset on the grounds of likely prejudice to sovereignty, security or other essential interests of the State and to discharge obligations, including in relation to the investigation of criminal offences. The proposed amendment is incompatible with the legal framework being provided for in the Bill. Furthermore, it is difficult to see how the process proposed would work in practice in the course of the evidence being taken before a High Court judge. It would certainly require the adjournment of the process and would prolong it.

With regard to the proposal that a refusal to answer a question be subject to a review by the chairman for adequacy and reasonableness, this falls for the reasons I outlined earlier in respect of amendments Nos. 3 and 4. The chairman of the inquiry is limited to applying the law of the UK and it is not a tenable proposition that the adequacy and reasonableness of the arguments put forward by a witness before the High Court in Dublin would be judged in such a manner on the basis of UK law. The chairman would also in this instance be a judge in his own cause. For those reasons, I cannot accept Deputy Carthy's amendment.

Would any Deputy or the Minister like to make any final remarks?

I thank colleagues, the Leas-Chathaoirleach and indeed Deputy Carthy for the amendments. My belief and that of the Government is that we must do all we can to assist the Omagh bombing inquiry so that its investigation into the fundamental question of whether the bombing could reasonably have been prevented is as comprehensive as possible. The Bill will complement the other concrete measures I have already taken by enabling the taking of sworn testimony for purposes of the inquiry. These measures include agreeing the memorandum of understanding with the chairman last April to guide the disclosure of State materials. That has been done. We have produced 25,000 pages. They also include implementing measures to support the disclosure of sensitive personal data. These measures are in operation and working well, with a significant quantity of Irish State materials having been disclosed to the inquiry, and further disclosures are ongoing on a rolling basis.

The reality is that complex legal issues arise in seeking to assist an inquiry set up under the laws of another country. In developing the Bill, I have gone as far as possible, using the mechanism from the 2019 co-operation Act as a template but adding to it in some notable respects, not least in facilitating the families and survivors to be present in the High Court to hear any evidence first hand. It will be of benefit to the families to be in the court when the questions are being asked and indeed answered. I am satisfied that this mechanism will maximise the evidential opportunities available to the inquiry. I have listened to members' contributions today and look forward to working constructively with Deputies to ensure the Bill is on the Statute Book before the start of the inquiry's evidential hearing, which is 21 September next.

I thank the Minister and his officials for their attendance.