All of our amendments were drafted in consultation with the Omagh families and their representatives. That is where we are coming from. They should be at the heart of this legislation. It is disappointing that the Minister did not take the time to meet them before this Bill was drafted. Under this amendment, the procedure would preserve fair notice for the witness and give him or her the fair notice that he or she needs. It stops rehearsed or scripted answers and allows for a flow of conversation, which is more transparent and gets to the truth of things. That is one of the reasons for this amendment.
Sentiment score: 0.03
I move amendment No. 2: In page 6, line 27, to delete “questions” and substitute “topics, area of inquiry or matters”.
Sentiment score: -0.15
I move amendment No. 3: In page 6, line 29, to delete “questions” and substitute “topics, area of inquiry or matters”.
Sentiment score: -0.15
I move amendment No. 4: In page 6, line 31, to delete “any such question” and substitute “regarding any such topics, area of inquiry or matters”.
Sentiment score: -0.15
I move amendment No. 5: In page 6, line 36, to delete “questions” and substitute “topics, area of inquiry or matters”.
Sentiment score: -0.15
I move amendment No. 6: In page 6, line 38, to delete “questions” and substitute “topics, area of inquiry or matters”.
Sentiment score: -0.15
I move amendment No. 7: 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,”. Sinn Féin has repeatedly highlighted how national security has frequently been cited in Britain to restrict disclosure in legacy investigations, often leaving families without full access to information about past events. This amendment reinforces that such an approach cannot apply here. It would ensure that co-operation with the Omagh inquiry was not undermined by broad or undefined national security claims and that designated individuals could be questioned in a structured, transparent process. The purpose of this amendment is to support truth and 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. 8 is designed to ensure no misuse of national security as a rationale for not providing information to the inquiry. This amendment would ensure that refusals of co-operation could not rely on vague or speculative claims of security risks. It would require officials to set out clearly the specific harms they allege and to explain why less restrictive options would not suffice, strengthening transparency and accountability within the inquiry process.
Sentiment score: 0.09
I move amendment No. 8: In page 7, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following: “(iv) for the purposes of paragraph (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.”.
Sentiment score: -0.24
I move amendment No. 9: 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. 9 is about ensuring that the process delivers truth for families. It clarifies that a former officeholder may withhold consent only when they can show a substantial, objective, reasonable risk to their legal rights or past lawful functions. Any refusal must be written, specify the grounds relied upon and can be reviewed by the inquiry chair for adequacy and reasonableness. This safeguard is important because it limits refusals to genuine demonstrable risks, requires written justification and ensures the inquiry chair can review decisions, strengthen transparency and prevent unjustified barriers to providing evidence. Amendment No. 19 seeks to strengthen the effectiveness of this legislation in helping the families of victims and survivors of the Omagh bombing to get to the truth. The amendment provides that a former Minister’s consent is only required where they can show a substantial objective, reasonable risk to their legal rights or past lawful functions. Any refusal must be written, set out on specific grounds and may be reviewed by the inquiry chair for adequacy and reasonableness.
Sentiment score: 0.11
I move amendment No. 10: In page 7, line 9, to delete “question” and substitute “topic, area of inquiry or matter”.
Sentiment score: -0.15
I move amendment No. 11: In page 7, line 17, to delete “questions” and substitute “topics, area of inquiry or matters”.
Sentiment score: -0.15
I move amendment No. 12: In page 7, line 19, to delete “questions” and substitute “topics, area of inquiry or matters”.
Sentiment score: -0.15
I move amendment No. 13: In page 7, line 22, to delete “question” and substitute “topic, area of inquiry or matter”.
Sentiment score: -0.15
I move amendment No. 14: In page 7, line 29, to delete “questions” and substitute “topics, area of inquiry or matters”.
Sentiment score: -0.15
I move amendment No. 15: In page 7, line 34, to delete “question” and substitute “topic, area of inquiry or matter”.
Sentiment score: -0.15
I move amendment No. 16: In page 7, line 38, to delete “questions” and substitute “topics, area of inquiry or matters”.
Sentiment score: -0.15
I move amendment No. 17: In page 7, line 39, to delete “questions” and substitute “topics, area of inquiry or matters”.
Sentiment score: -0.15
I move amendment No. 18: In page 8, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following: “Written statements from office holders and former office holders 6. (1) This section applies where a relevant head has, under section 5, acceded in whole or in part to a request for assistance for the taking of evidence from an office holder or former office holder of a designated State body. (2) Before any oral evidence is taken in accordance with sections 9, 10 and 11, the relevant head shall ensure that the office holder or former office holder concerned provides to the designated persons a written statement addressing— (a) the topics, areas of inquiry or matters specified in the request for assistance, (b) any documents, records or categories of documents identified as relevant under section 5(2)(b), and (c) any additional matters on which the designated persons consider that a written account is reasonably required for the purposes of the Inquiry. (3) A written statement provided under subsection (2) shall— (a) be signed by the office holder or former office holder, (b) contain a declaration that it is true to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, and (c) be furnished within such period as the relevant head may specify, having regard to the efficient conduct of the Inquiry. (4) Upon receipt of a written statement under this section, the designated persons shall provide it to the Chairman as soon as practicable, subject to the condition referred to in section 11(8). (5) Where the Chairman, having considered a written statement provided under this section, is satisfied that the statement adequately addresses the matters for which evidence was sought, the Chairman may notify the relevant head in writing that oral evidence from the office holder or former office holder is not required. (6) Where the Chairman determines that oral evidence remains necessary, the written statement shall form the baseline account for the purposes of any subsequent examination, and the oral evidence shall be confined, insofar as is practicable, to— (a) clarification of matters contained in the written statement, (b) examination of inconsistencies or omissions, and (c) any further matters reasonably arising from the written statement or relevant documents. (7) Nothing in this section shall prejudice the power of the Chairman to request further written information or clarification from an office holder or former office holder where necessary for the purposes of the Inquiry.”. This amendment reintroduces a requirement for witnesses to provide a signed, truthful written statement before giving any oral evidence. It establishes a clear baseline account and ensures that key issues and documents are addressed in advance, and allows the chair to dispense with oral testimony where the written material is sufficient. Where oral evidence is still needed, questions can focus on clarifying gaps, inconsistencies or outstanding matters. The inquiry and draft memorandum of understanding both support this approach, which strengthens the clarity and overall effectiveness of the co-operation process.
Sentiment score: 0.27
I move amendment No. 19: 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.”.
Sentiment score: -0.09
I move amendment No. 20: In page 10, to delete lines 21 to 36 and substitute the following: “Questioning of designated person by nominated judge 9. (1) For the purpose of taking the evidence specified in a decision under section 5(3) to which subsection (6)(c)(i) of that section applies, or specified in a decision under section 6(3) to which subsection (6)(c)(i) of that section applies— (a) no person other than the nominated judge shall ask questions of the designated person, and (b) the nominated judge shall examine the designated person on the topics, areas of inquiry or matters specified in the relevant decision, and may, for that purpose— (i) put to the designated person any document, record or information relevant to those topics or areas of inquiry, (ii) ask any questions that arise reasonably from the designated person’s answers, from any written statement provided under section 5(5)(a), or from any relevant document, and (iii) pursue such supplementary or follow-up questions as the nominated judge considers necessary and appropriate for the effective and fair examination of the designated person. (2) Nothing in this section shall require the nominated judge to confine the examination to any predetermined or pre-approved list of questions, provided that the examination remains within the scope of the topics, areas of inquiry or matters specified in the relevant decision under section 5 or 6. (3) The nominated judge shall conduct the examination in such manner as he or she considers necessary to ensure that the evidence taken is full, accurate and capable of assisting the Inquiry in the performance of its functions.”. As it stands, this section overly tightly restricts questioning to the exact questions authorised in advance. It creates a narrow, predetermined scope that limits flexibility and prevents broader or exploratory lines of inquiry needed to get to the truth. The amendment will ensure examinations are fair, thorough and not restricted to preset questions, allowing the judge to pursue relevant documents, follow-up queries and full evidence for the inquiry's work. The amendment gives the nominated judge explicit authority to present relevant documents and pursue follow-up questions within the defined topic. The purpose of the amendment is to enable effective and responsive examinations, which representatives of the families want to see. Amendment No. 21 will allow the chair, or counsel on their behalf, to question a witness after the judge's examinations, probing any matters arising from the evidence. It permits follow-up questions, use of documents and exploration of inconsistencies, while keeping all questions within the defined scope of the inquiry's authorised topics.
Sentiment score: 0.22
I move amendment No. 21: In page 11, to delete lines 1 to 9 and substitute the following: “Questioning of designated person by or on behalf of Chairman 10. (1) Upon completion of the examination of a designated person by the nominated judge under section 9, the Chairman, or counsel to the Inquiry on his or her behalf, may ask questions of the designated person. (2) The Chairman, or counsel to the Inquiry on his or her behalf, may ask questions for the purpose of examining the designated person on any matters arising from the evidence, including— (a) matters arising from answers given to the nominated judge, (b) matters arising from any written statement provided under section 5(5)(a), (c) matters arising from any document, record or information relevant to the topics, areas of inquiry or matters specified in the relevant decision under section 5 or section 6, and (d) any inconsistencies, omissions or issues reasonably requiring further exploration for the purposes of the Inquiry. (3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the Chairman, or counsel to the Inquiry on his or her behalf, may— (a) put documents or records to the designated person, (b) pursue supplementary or follow-up questions, and (c) probe any matter that reasonably arises from the evidence, provided that the examination remains within the scope of the topics, areas of inquiry or matters specified in the relevant decision under section 5 or 6. (4) Nothing in this section shall require the Chairman, or counsel to the Inquiry on his or her behalf, to confine questioning to clarification of answers given under section 9.”.
Sentiment score: -0.00
I move amendment No. 22: In page 12, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following: “(5) A person referred to in subsection (3)(f), (g) or (h) may— (a) propose to the Chairman, to counsel to the Inquiry, or to the nominated judge any questions or topics that the person considers relevant to the evidence being taken under section 9 or 10, (b) make submissions or representations to the Chairman, to counsel to the Inquiry, or to the nominated judge in relation to the evidence being taken, and (c) apply to the nominated judge for permission to put questions directly to the designated person giving evidence, and the Chairman, counsel to the Inquiry, or the nominated judge, as the case may be, shall consider any such proposal, submission, representation or application.”. This amendment strengthens participation rights by allowing certain affected parties to propose questions or topics, make submissions on the evidence and even apply to put questions directly to a witness. It ensures their concerns are formally considered by the chair, counsel or judge, enhancing fairness and transparency in how evidence is tested.
Sentiment score: 0.19
I move amendment No. 23: In page 12, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following: “(5) Without prejudice to subsection (4), the Chairman and counsel to the Inquiry shall be entitled to make submissions or representations to the nominated judge concerning the scope, relevance and permissible extent of questioning under section 9 or 10.”. This amendment confirms that the chair and counsel may make submissions to the nominated judge on the scope and relevance of questioning. It reinforces judicial oversight while ensuring the inquiry's leadership can guide how evidence is tested, help and maintain fairness, focus and consistency during examinations conducted under sections 9 and 10.
Sentiment score: 0.18
I move amendment No. 24: In page 12, to delete lines 5 to 10 and substitute the following: “(5) For the purpose of giving evidence— (a) under section 9, a designated person shall not be compelled to give any evidence which he or she could not be compelled to give in criminal proceedings in the State, (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, and (c) subject to paragraph (b), a designated person giving evidence under section 10 shall answer all questions put to him or her, including supplementary or follow-up questions arising from— (i) answers given under section 9 or 10, (ii) any written statement provided under section 5(5)(a), or (iii) any document, record or information relevant to the topics, areas of inquiry or matters specified in the relevant decision under section 5 or 6.”. This amendment clarifies the limits on compellability when evidence is taken. It preserves the same protections a person would have in criminal proceedings but requires that any refusal to answer under section 10 be specific, justified in writing and reviewable. Subject to those safeguards, witnesses must answer all relevant follow-up questions arising from their evidence or documents.
Sentiment score: 0.04