I very much welcome this Bill, which is highly necessary. It provides a legal mechanism for testimony before a High Court judge with regard to the inquiry. At the initiation of the inquiry, the families were given time to speak about what happened and the aftermath in relation to their loss and those who were injured. It was harrowing. I remember the day that happened. I remember exactly where I was. I remember watching the television. I think the news was extended for another hour, and it kept going on. I remember listening. Back then, there was not the same amount of radio and television, and there certainly was not Internet at a high level. I kept listening to the news and watching for television updates. The number of people who had been killed or were passing away kept going up and up as the evening went on. I remember waking up to a new number the following morning. It was horrendous. We talk an awful lot about what is going on in the world, especially at the moment. This was mass murder on our island. It is something that needs to be said in here because it was not said by the first two speakers. The people who carried this out are the lowest of the low. The people who covered it up are equally the lowest of the low and, without a shadow of a doubt, the worst kind of human beings that ever existed on this earth. I would love to use some other language, but I will not because of where I am, but that needs to be said in here, and that has not been said yet. There are people who covered up what happened. We all know it. I very much welcome the trajectory of where the Minister has gone with this, although I have some concerns. In July 2024, the Government committed to assisting the Omagh bombing inquiry to the extent permissible under the Constitution. I know there are limitations, and that is why we are bringing in this legislation. It was in the programme for Government that we would do so. We have to bring in bespoke legislation in this regard. It is locked in under section 3 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 2019, which has been used previously. The new features of the Bill include extending the mechanism to State bodies other than An Garda Síochána, including both serving and former members of An Garda Síochána, and the Defence Forces, which is necessary and welcome. From a historical point of view, this is more wide-ranging than just those two State bodies. There is also the extension in relation to Department officials and ministerial office-holders. Facilitating core participants, particularly survivors and family members of victims, to be present to hear the evidence given first hand is very welcome. That the inquiry will be able to ask questions to clarify evidence is also welcome. I have some concerns. The lead counsel said on 19 March 2026 that the new phase of hearings will take place six months later than scheduled. That is a concern. Chapter 3 is the next stage of the hearing, and it will include how the bomb was constructed, warning calls, claims of responsibility, arrests and subsequent court hearings. The delay is due to material originating from the Republic of Ireland not being available. I am taking this as a delay based on volume rather than anything else because the volume of material being brought forward has been so extensive. The most important thing is that this inquiry, and how we are legislating for our component of it, is survivor-led and independent to progress meaningful truth and reconciliation for victims and survivors of this atrocity. That will take significant work across a breadth of different issues. In recent Dáil statements on Operation Kenova, we commended the body’s rigour, independence and emphasis on survivors. At this juncture, other tragedies, such as the Dublin-Monaghan bombing, must be investigated with the same rigour and independence. Of course, a single Bill or a joint framework will never come close to dealing properly with our past. That is obvious. This has to be about the people who have been hurt, who have suffered and who have been bereaved. The right to truth and justice is absolute. It cannot be partial or selective. We need to be committed to dealing fairly with the past, and to justice and legacy mechanisms that meet the relevant standards and the European Convention on Human Rights. While we in the Labour Party welcome this Bill, several questions require consideration and clarification. Under section 5, it is for the head of a designated State body to make a determination as to whether the information they are being asked to provide should be privileged from disclosure on grounds of sovereignty, security or essential interests of the State. Section 6 does largely the same thing for former ministerial office-holders and officials. These categories under which co-operation can be refused are so vague that they are meaningless. Given the way this is drafted in the Bill, I fail to see how the head of a designated body is supposed to make such a determination. It is subjective and customisable to their own opinions, rather than giving a confirmed, direct provision for determination by the designated head of any body that is requested to do so. It is really at their will. This needs to be more defined. I am not alone in saying this. Others who have looked at this are saying the same thing. It is too open-ended. It is not defined enough. That is a serious concern because it is at the core of everything in it. That is before we ask the fundamental question of this process, which is whether it allows for full and frank disclosure to get to the truth of what happened. Of course, there should be safeguards for those giving evidence, which is essential, but whether the Bill will allow for fulsome investigation is an open question, based on what I just said. The Bill seems to only make provision for oral questions, which must be submitted in advance of vetting. There is no provision for access to records. Will that be sufficient to represent real access to justice for victims and survivors? Will that get to the truth they have been waiting for for so long? It is not prescribed enough or detailed enough. There are so many outs for those who, though they have to be protected under the Constitution, need to give evidence and give access to information, records and data. We will not get all the information these people desperately deserve and require. I hope the Minister takes on board what I am saying. We will consider amendments on Committee Stage to deal with this. We did not do pre-legislative scrutiny as a committee; maybe that was a mistake. I know there are time pressures. However, this is very generic and needs more emphasis and focus. Let us remember the bombing took place in 1998, almost 28 years ago. Most officials will probably have retired in the years since. I assume nearly all of them will, especially if they were at a senior level yet the Bill will apply to retired officials only with their advance written consent. Will these provisions give affected families reassurance we can get to the truth? With these open questions, it is deeply concerning the Minister has not met with the families and survivors to discuss the outworkings of this important legislation. In his reply, he might provide the Dáil with an update on his stance on this. Will he be doing so in the coming weeks? If not, why not? Is there a legal, constitutional basis for not doing so? Is there an updated response as to why he has not done this or will not do it? We have a Bill published. There is something for the families and those affected by this to critically analyse and give their thoughts on. In a dignified way, they have earned, which is the wrong phrase to use, as they deserve the right to a meeting with the Minister to discuss this. The Minister is a reasonable person. He has met others and has had very good meetings with others who requested them. He has dealt with one or two of them in a way I commend him on. Why will he not do it in relation to one of the largest atrocities , if not the largest, on this island ever? I do not understand it. Will he explain why? Is there something we are all missing? This legislation is published, so why will the Minister not do it? Is he being advised not to? There are some times when he has to be brave and say to his officials, "I don't agree with you and I'm willing to do this." Sometimes standing up for what is right is more important than being perfect as regards taking on board advice. The families have serious questions that deserve to be analysed. They have critically examined the legislation. They did not have prior knowledge of it. It was not given to them beforehand but now they have had time to observe it and have been in touch with me and many others in the House. This does not just raise questions about the basic dignity and respect these families deserve; it inevitably raises questions about the efficacy of the Government's approach to the legislation. If the Minister is not willing to meet with the families, it raises further questions regarding how we can be confident in the Government's proposals and legislation. Will he please answer that in his reply?

Sentiment score: 0.06