I move amendment No. 1: In page 6, to delete lines 18 to 24 and substitute the following: “(2) A request for assistance under this section shall specify— (a) the topics, areas of inquiry, or matters on which the Chairman requests that evidence be taken in accordance with this Part, (b) any documents, records, or categories of documents relevant to those topics or areas of inquiry, (c) the purpose for which the evidence is requested, and (d) where the Chairman so wishes, any office holder or former office holder of whom the Chairman requests that evidence be taken in relation to a particular topic or area of inquiry specified in accordance with paragraph (a).”. Sinn Féin supports the families of the victims and survivors of the 1998 Omagh bombing in their search for truth and justice. The families who have campaigned for 27 years for this inquiry deserve full transparency and full disclosure about the events that led to the killing of their loved ones. In order to ensure 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 we at the justice committee agreed to waive pre-legislative scrutiny but this legislation must also be done right. This is what these amendments that I will move today aim to do. A key concern Sinn Féin has is the lack of meaningful engagement with victims' families. Families were not shown the draft legislation before publication and have expressed disappointment that the Minister has not met them, despite earlier commitments to place their needs at the heart of the process. This has left some feeling sidelined in a process that should be trauma-informed and centred on their experience. A number of the amendments Deputy Carthy tabled for Report Stage reflect concerns raised directly with him by representatives of the families and the victims and survivors. 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 officeholders of Departments of the State 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, often protect intelligence services and operations. Under the terms of this Bill, as they stand, officials may decline to provide evidence and broad security claims could be used to justify withholding sensitive or potentially embarrassing information. Far too often in the past, we have seen the British Government, in particular, misuse these types of provisions in relation to national security to fail to disclose information related to collusion, for example. We have to be clear that national security cannot be used to conceal failings or wrongdoings. While every jurisdiction has lawful national security issues, we all recognise that the question is how wide or narrow these aspects are and how they are defined in law. We have seen national security clauses used as a vague, undefined concept by the British Government to effectively veto the release of information it did not want to release, so the way the concept is applied here is of paramount importance. A number of the amendments that Sinn Féin has tabled deal with this matter. 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 Deputy Carthy said during Second Stage, we were surprised when a representative for the families told us the Minister refused to meet them to discuss the draft legislation. The amendments that Sinn Féin has tabled are designed to strengthen this Bill and to ensure that the concerns of the families and survivors, as brought to our attention, are addressed insofar as is possible. I hope the Minister of State will engage with this aim in a constructive spirit, recognising that Sinn Féin’s amendments are intended to be helpful, and give genuine consideration to accepting them. Amendment No. 1 addresses a matter raised by legal representatives of the Omagh families. It replaces the requirement to pre-specify exact questions with a requirement to outline topics, areas of questioning and relevant documents. It preserves fair notice for witnesses while preventing rehearsed, scripted answers. It also aligns 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. This amendment clarifies that any request for assistance must outline the specific topics, documents, purposes and, where relevant, the officeholders from whom evidence is sought. It replaces references to "questions" with "topics, areas of inquiry, or matters". A number of subsequent amendments that will substitute “topics, areas of inquiry, or matters” for "questions" are consequential amendments to this amendment. I hope the Minister of State will accept this amendment and subsequent consequential amendments grouped with this amendment.

Sentiment score: 0.17