International Co-operation (Omagh Bombing Inquiry) Bill 2026: Second Stage

Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration (Deputy Jim O'Callaghan)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am pleased to introduce the Bill to the House. This Bill has a single purpose - to assist the Omagh Bombing Inquiry established by the Secretary State for Northern Ireland in February 2024 to investigate whether the bombing could have been prevented by the United Kingdom's state authorities. Its terms of reference are set out in the Schedule to the Bill for ease of reference. The Government has made clear its commitment to facilitating and supporting the work of the inquiry to the greatest extent possible. The Bill before the House is another important step towards delivering on that commitment. The Bill deals with the taking of oral evidence before our courts and will sit alongside the measures I have already put in place to facilitate the disclosure of documentary materials to the inquiry. Colleagues may recall that in April of last year I entered into a memorandum of understanding with the inquiry to provide it with relevant documents held by the State.

The bombing of the town of Omagh on 15 August 1998 was the single worst atrocity of the Troubles. It was a senseless, brutal terrorist attack resulting in the loss of 31 lives and at least 220 people were injured. The Government has condemned the abhorrent criminal actions of those who planned and perpetrated the attack and planted and detonated the bomb. I do so again today. The families and survivors in their eloquent testimony to the inquiry's commemorative hearing last year gave voice to the enormity of that loss and its enduring toll. The formal decision taken by the Government on 9 July 2024 to assist the inquiry and to authorise officials to engage with the inquiry to explore mechanisms for working together was taken in recognition of the importance of the inquiry for families and survivors and their quest for truth and justice. The programme for Government also clearly reiterates our commitment stating that we will "play our full part in legacy processes ... including facilitating and supporting the Omagh inquiry".

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 the constitutional and other rights of citizens. Successive Governments have navigated similar challenges in the past, including assisting the Northern Ireland courts during the civil proceedings taken by the families and enacting primary and secondary legislation to support cross-Border co-operation with United Kingdom authorities.

I have referred to the actions we have already taken to support the Omagh inquiry. These include agreeing a memorandum of understanding with the chairman of the inquiry last April to guide the disclosure of State materials and implementing measures to support the disclosure of sensitive personal data. These measures are in operation and working well with a very significant quantity of State materials, principally Garda Síochána materials, disclosed to the inquiry with more being disclosed on a rolling basis.

I understand that to date approximately 20,000 pages of material have been provided by the Irish State to the Omagh bombing inquiry. I welcome the acknowledgement by counsel to the inquiry at its hearing last Thursday of the "considerable efforts that have been made" by Irish authorities and the "effective progress" that has been made to respond to the inquiry's requests. My Department and the Garda Commissioner have dedicated resources in place to support the disclosure process to ensure that it is conducted with rigour and that all potentially relevant material is made available to the inquiry in line with the memorandum of understanding. This is vital and the Government is at one with counsel to the inquiry when he said, on announcing that the first evidential hearings will now start in September, that it is important that the inquiry is not rushed and that it is as comprehensive as it can be in addressing its terms of reference.

The Bill before the House provides a bespoke legal mechanism to facilitate the taking of sworn evidence from State bodies and former ministerial officeholders before a judge of the High Court at the request of the chairman of the inquiry. The approach is modelled on the mechanism contained in the Criminal Justice (International Co-Operation) Act 2019, which Deputies will be aware was enacted to enable the taking of oral evidence from An Garda Síochána for the purposes of UK Troubles-related inquests such as the Kingsmill massacre inquest.

Importantly, this Bill includes some new features. These take account of the nature of the inquiry and its broader terms of reference and are aimed at maximising the evidential opportunities available to the chairman and enhancing transparency. As I go through the key sections of this relatively short Bill - 12 sections in all - I will touch on these new features. The Bill is a stand-alone Bill concerned solely with the provision of assistance to the Omagh bombing inquiry. The mechanism it provides will be available to the chairman of the inquiry over the lifetime of the inquiry and will allow for assistance to be sought as matters arise in the course of its work. This single focus recognises the significance of the bombing and also the need for speedy enactment. As the House will be aware, I intend to bring forward separate legislative proposals before the summer to progress implementation of the Government's commitments in the joint framework on addressing the legacy of the Troubles that was agreed with the United Kingdom Government last September.

Part 2 of the Bill contains the substantive provisions detailing the application and operation of the bespoke legal mechanism to enable co-operation with the inquiry and the safeguards that will apply. As referred to earlier, it is premised on the taking of evidence in this jurisdiction before the High Court. This mirrors the bespoke mechanism first developed in 2019 and safeguards both the essential interests of the State, including its sovereignty, and the rights of Irish State witnesses while seeking to maximise evidential opportunities for the inquiry. As I have said, the bespoke mechanism is triggered by a request from the chairman of the inquiry for assistance. Such a request may be made to An Garda Síochána. However, section 4 allows the Minister to designate other bodies at the request of the chairman. Those other bodies include Departments of State and the Defence Forces. This is a new feature compared with the 2019 Act and recognises that bodies other than An Garda Síochána hold records that are potentially relevant to the inquiry.

Section 5 deals with how the chairman may request assistance from a State body, be that An Garda Síochána or another designated State body, and the steps to be taken by the head of the State body on receipt of such a request. The head of the State body could be the Garda Commissioner, the Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces or the Secretary General of a Department. An important development on the 2019 Act is that a request may, in addition to specifying the questions the chairman is requesting be asked, specify current and past officeholders, be they members of An Garda Síochána or officials, from whom the inquiry wishes to hear. The head may accede to a request in full or in part but must refuse a request where to do otherwise would be likely to prejudice the sovereignty and security of the State and other essential interests of the State, would be likely to prejudice a criminal investigation of criminal proceedings in the State or would otherwise be inconsistent with the functions, whether statutory or otherwise, of the designated State body. I emphasise that the assessment requires an individual consideration of each question and the potential evidence concerned. No classes of records are automatically excluded from being put into evidence using this mechanism. I also emphasise that the decision by the head of the body is subject to an important check. Prior consultation is required with me as the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, and where relevant the line Minister responsible for the body, before a decision may be taken not to accede to a request in respect of a particular question. The head of the body is required to make the decision as soon as is practicable. This is important to ensure that momentum is maintained and the inquiry is not subject to any delay. The section also ensures transparency around decision-making by requiring the reasons grounding any refusal to be notified to the chairperson.

Section 6 is similar to section 5 but concerns requests for assistance from former ministerial officeholders, that is, those who have held the office of Taoiseach, Tánaiste, Minister or Minister of State. This extension seeks to take account of the inquiry's terms of reference, which include investigation of the approach taken by United Kingdom state authorities to security normalisation before and after the Good Friday Agreement. In the event the inquiry forms a view that a former ministerial officeholder has relevant evidence to give on the approach taken by the UK authorities, it is appropriate that the State would have in place a suitable mechanism to facilitate the taking of such evidence.

As I have outlined, sections 5 and 6 make provision for past members of An Garda Síochána or the Defence Forces or former officials and holders of ministerial office to be requested to provide assistance. Their participation will be voluntary and subject to their written consent. This consent-based approach arises from such persons being private citizens who cannot be compelled to give evidence for the purposes of an inquiry outside of the State. However, I expect co-operation from all concerned who are requested. They may, of course, of their own volition decide to attend such an inquiry. If they were to choose to do so, they would remain subject to certain residual obligations in respect of sensitive information acquired during their service but with none of the benefits of the privileges and immunities to which they are entitled under Irish law. The Bill seeks to provide a means for those retired members and officials or former ministerial officeholders to provide evidence to the inquiry under Irish law.

Section 7 deals with the designation of witnesses. It is for the head of the State body, having come to a decision as to whether the request for assistance may be acceded to in full or in part, to designate those who will give evidence before the High Court. In the case of those no longer serving, their prior consent will be required.

Section 8 deals with the nomination of the High Court judge who will act as the conduit for the evidence to be taken under sections 9 and 10. The request to the President of the High Court must be made as soon as is practicable. Again, this is intended to avoid any undue delay to the work of the inquiry.

Sections 9 to 11, inclusive, deal with the taking of the evidence. Section 9 provides that the nominated judge shall ask the agreed questions of the designated person, while section 10 enables the chairman or counsel to the inquiry to ask follow-up questions for the purposes of clarification. This is a new feature compared with the 2019 Act and is intended to allow for minor matters to be clarified on the day rather than by way of a fresh request for assistance under section 5.

Section 11 sets out that the evidence is to be taken on oath, with the witnesses having the benefit of the privileges and immunities available before the High Court. The evidence is also to be taken otherwise than in public. This is appropriate as it does not involve the administration of justice. That said, I draw the attention of the House to the provision that enables core participants and their legal representatives to attend along with the chairman and the inquiry team.

Those with core participant status before the inquiry include many families and survivors, along with United Kingdom state bodies. Enabling the families and survivors to attend the High Court and hear the evidence at first hand is an important new feature to ensure as much transparency as possible. The section also makes clear that the nominated judge may issue directions in relation to the arrangements for the taking of the evidence. I draw attention to the explicit reference to any arrangements necessary for securing the safety of the person giving the evidence. Once the evidence has been taken, it will be a matter for the nominated judge to certify the transcript and make it available to the chairperson of the inquiry. The dissemination and publication of the transcript will be a matter for the chairperson of the inquiry.

That brings me to the close of how the bespoke mechanism is intended to operate. As I have said, it will be open to the chairman to use the mechanism as needed over the course of his work. The Government, through a representative at the opening hearing of the inquiry on 30 July 2024, committed to doing everything in our power to support co-operation, including putting in place new legislation if that was what was required. This Bill will deliver on that commitment.

The inquiry has announced that it will commence its evidential hearings on 21 September. As I have said before, I am committed to having this Bill on the Statute Book before the start of those hearings. I hope, with the support of this House and the other House, to see it complete its passage before the summer recess.

Before concluding, I take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank those on the Joint Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration for the decision to grant my request for a waiver from the requirement to undertake pre-legislative scrutiny on the general scheme. I also acknowledge the intensive engagement between the inquiry team and my officials over the past months and thank the inquiry for its constructive approach as we seek to work together to support the inquiry to fulfil its terms of reference.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Deputy Matt Carthy

Cuirim fáilte roimh an deis seo. I apologise to the Minister for missing some of his speech and also apologise to the House that I have to leave immediately after my own because this debate is clashing with a meeting of the Oireachtas justice committee. That affects a number of Members. I ask the Minister to engage with his officials to try to ensure that justice debates in future will not clash with meetings of the committee because a number of members of the committee would like to be here for the duration of the debate.

The purpose of this Bill is, as the Minister has outlined, to provide a specific legal mechanism for the taking of oral testimony before a High Court judge in this jurisdiction for the purpose of the Omagh bombing inquiry. That Omagh bombing inquiry was established by the Northern Secretary of State in February 2024 to investigate whether the bombing in the town of Omagh, County Tyrone, on 15 August 1998 could have been prevented. The Irish Government made commitments to assist with the inquiry and this Bill is to facilitate this assistance. Sinn Féin fully supports this co-operation.

Last year, the inquiry heard four weeks of what could only be described as heart-breaking testimony from the victims and survivors of the Omagh bombing. It was important to do that at the very beginning of the inquiry, in my view.

Sinn Féin had supported the demand of the families of the victims of the 1998 Omagh bombing for a cross-Border public inquiry. The families, who have campaigned for 27 years for that inquiry, deserve full transparency and full disclosure about the events that led to the killing of their loved ones. The Government declined to establish a parallel independent inquiry in this jurisdiction, something a number of the families had been calling for, but in the absence of that, the fullest co-operation possible with the existing inquiry is needed.

The Bill allows the Irish authorities to take sworn evidence from Garda members, Defence Forces personnel, civil servants and former Ministers to support the Omagh bombing inquiry. It sets procedures for requesting, giving and protecting such evidence, provides judicial oversight and amends existing international co-operation law to facilitate the process. The mechanism provided for in the Bill is modelled on that contained in section 3 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 2019 for the taking of oral testimony from members of An Garda Síochána for the purposes of Troubles-related inquests and this legislation follows on from a memorandum of understanding that was agreed in April 2025.

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 State will be done on a voluntary basis, and 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, and particularly that of our nearest neighbours, often 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. Far too often in the past we have seen the British Government, in particular, misuse these type of provisions in relation to national security for failing to disclose information related to collusion, for example. I want to say clearly that national security must not be used to conceal failures or wrongdoings. While every jurisdiction has lawful national security issues - we all recognise that - the question is how wide or narrow these 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 that it did not want to release, so the way the concept is applied here is of paramount importance.

The families and survivors of Omagh also have genuine concerns that the current draft may give rise to difficulties that could undermine its intended purpose, and these concerns need to be addressed. I was taken aback and surprised when a representative for the families told me the Minister is refusing to meet with the families at this stage. I remind the Minister that in December last, when he announced the drafting of this legislation, he stated that "the legitimate needs and expectations of victims’ families and survivors who have long searched for truth and accountability" would be at the heart of this approach. I would question how the Minister can marry making such a statement with refusing to meet with members of families and survivors. I urge the Minister to listen to the families directly in relation to concerns they have about this legislation.

The families were also taken aback at the fact they were given no sight of the legislation before it was published. The unfortunate consequence of that is that it has left families in some cases feeling unimportant to a process that should have had them at the core, which would have been trauma informed. I would make that case to the Minister to reconsider that position. The list of people the Minister is refusing to meet seems to be getting longer and longer. That is unfortunate, especially because I can point to instances where people who have been campaigning have met the Minister and those engagements have been productive and worthwhile.

The Minister mentioned that the justice committee co-operated with his office in waiving pre-legislative scrutiny to allow the Bill to move swiftly through the Oireachtas, because at the end of the day we all want a system in place that has the full support of the families and victims of the Omagh bombing. That decision to waive pre-legislative scrutiny might not have been the same had members realised there was going to be an issue in terms of engagement with the families. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that meeting takes place before we get to Committee Stage because we want to make sure that the legislation is fit for purpose and, just as importantly, that the voices of the families of the victims of the Omagh bombing are listened to.

As this legislation makes its way through the Oireachtas, we are reminded of how the British Government has hidden behind national security concerns for its failures to disclose vital information to Troubles-related victims. We saw, for example, the refusal of the British Government to establish a public inquiry into the 1997 murder of Sean Brown. The First Minister, Michelle O'Neill, rightly described the British Government's behaviour in that case as disgraceful and accused it of showing deep disrespect to the Brown family and the fine, clear High Court and Court of Appeal rulings.

We are also reminded of how little co-operation this State has got from the British Government on incidents of collusion in this State.

I am minded, as we approach the 52nd anniversary of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, of the continued lack of co-operation from the British Government in handing over papers and files relating to the atrocities, despite the repeated demands from this House. Again, this is completely unacceptable.

Prior to this legislation being brought forward, the Irish Government reached a memorandum of understanding with that inquiry, which included commitments on disclosures to the Omagh Bombing Inquiry. The reason I am raising other cases is that the priority now should be to get similar commitments on disclosure regarding events in this State from the British Government. We need to ensure all families and victims have recourse to truth and justice. We have seen several reports being published and limited investigations have been carried out but, again, this State has never delivered a full public inquiry with statutory requirements to compel all relevant evidence relating to Dublin and Monaghan, particularly in respect of material held by British authorities. There has never been a sustained diplomatic or legal pressure applied to force disclosure from the British Government in cases like that, and that has to change. It is absolutely right that the Irish Government co-operates in respect of inquiries, such as the Omagh Bombing Inquiry. That is unanimously agreed across this House.

We should also have the right to state that we expect the same level of co-operation from the British Government, which has not been the case up to this point. The British Government must release all information relating to not only that attack but to all others that were perpetrated by the so-called Glenanne gang, and in all instances where British state actors or agents colluded in attacks and murders on this island, be it in the North or South.

Before I conclude, I wish to make a couple of observations on the need for this State to deal properly with historical investigations, including but not solely narrowed to, the cases related to the legacy of the conflict and collusion I raised with the Minister last week. To be honest, I found his response quite dismissive. If we are serious - and I think we have every right to - about challenging the British Government on its failure to provide truth and justice or to provide an avenue for legacy issues to be addressed, then we also have to look at the record in this State.

In addition to State cases related to collusion and the legacy of the conflict that has been mentioned, there are far too many unresolved cases of historic investigative failures. I have mentioned the issue and legacy of the Garda Heavy Gang, which has never been addressed and for which there has been no accountability for the number of miscarriages of justice that group was involved in, yet nobody has been held to account. It was incredible for the Minister to state there has been no accountability in terms of the facts we know. Agents of this State framed people for crimes they did not commit, including by coercive confessions, with one case resulting in the death of a person who was framed for a crime they did not commit. Nothing or very little has been done for cases related to the legacy of the conflict where there is evidence of collusion, such as the cases of Eddie Fullerton, the Dublin Airport bombing, the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, the case of John Francis Green and the case of Martin Doherty.

We also have cases with clear investigative failures that have been raised several times in this House, including the case of Fr. Niall Molloy, the case of Terence Wheelock and the case of Shane O'Farrell. All those cases continue to cast a dark shadow over the criminal justice system in this State. The reason I raise all those cases is that we have to mean what we say when we say victims of historical injustices have a right to answers, truth and justice. That is why I believe there is a very strong case for the establishment of a historical inquiries unit in this State, along the lines of what has been proposed by the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and the Committee on the Administration of Justice. I will say it again: we have all been rightly critical of the approach of British governments relating to issues regarding the legacy but our own record and the record of this State also needs to be addressed.

I will say again in my closing remarks that we have to and should co-operate with legacy investigations in other states, particularly where there is pertinent information within State bodies here, as with the Omagh bombing. We also need to ensure we can say, hand on heart, that the outstanding cases in this State are fully investigated.

I commend the victims and survivors of the Omagh bombing on the dignified manner in which they have campaigned for truth and justice. Those of us who engage with families across the board, and from different perspectives, are never but overawed and inspired by the way and manner in which they ensure the memory of their loved ones is protected and held in esteem. Their ability to secure truth and justice never wavers. Finally, the principle we should agree on is that all those who have been bereaved as a result of conflict on this island, from whatever perspective, whether their family members were killed by British state agents, republicans, loyalists or loyalists in collusion with the British state, regardless, they all have the same right to truth and justice. We should make that a principle we all agree to and that we agree this House will do whatever is necessary to create the mechanism for which that will happen.

Deputy Martin Kenny

As the Minister is aware, we fully support what the legislation we are discussing here today is trying to achieve, which is to form a situation where the State can co-operate fully with the Omagh inquiry to ensure there is a complete transparency around what happened in Omagh. I remember that incident very well. In my home area of Cloone, County Leitrim, we were commemorating 200 years since the French came through it in 1798. There was a weekend of commemorative events but there was this shadow over it because of what happened in Omagh and the terrible tragedy of the many people who lost their lives in the most tragic of circumstances. At that time, we, as a society, were trying to move to a peaceful process and to move forward. Thankfully, the peace process was strong enough to withstand what happened in Omagh and the many other incidents similar to it.

What we are dealing with here today is very clearly a situation where we need to ensure we get maximum co-operation from the State in every way possible. The Minister mentioned the process that is set out and how that process will work. He mentioned how there will be a judiciary overseeing all of this and that this will be done in a transparent and clear way. The Minister also mentioned that in section 5, there are some robust checks in regard to a possible non-acceptance of a request. I would hope that would not come to pass, and I am sure that is the Minister's position. I hope we would not see any prospect of any section of the State refusing to co-operate in any way with this process.

The families of those who lost their lives on that day and those who were injured deserve to get full co-operation from this State and from everyone involved that can possibly throw any light on this subject. At the time, I remember the RUC chief constable, Ronnie Flanagan, said he was putting a special task force in place to assist the local RUC to investigate the situation in Omagh. There are very many who doubt what the role of that was and how it was facilitated, if it actually assisted or if it was an obstacle in trying to resolve the situation and to have a full and complete investigation.

However, we are where we are. We have a robust inquiry in place, and we have to ensure the State responds to it adequately. As we in this State put processes in place to ensure there is an adequate and robust response to the request from the Omagh inquiry to get full and accurate information of everything this State knows about what happened with that atrocity, we also have to look at what the British state has done with regard to similar situations and how there has been a huge reluctance in the British state to provide information.

The Dublin and Monaghan bombings were mentioned, and there are many other instances similar to that, where there are families who want to get answers, clarity and transparency as to what happened and how the circumstances came about where they lost their loved ones. All of us have a responsibility to try to do everything we possibly can to ensure that happens.

In particular, the sovereign state, whether it is the British State or the Irish State, has a unique and central role in ensuring that full transparency is delivered to everybody in respect of that. While we, of course, want to see the full rigour of the inquiry brought to bear on all of this, it is probably a year since a memorandum of understanding was set in place, and we are now following through with this legislation. The Minister will have the full support of everyone in the Houses to deliver this and ensure it is in place before the inquiry comes back into session in September.

I fully support what is being done here. All of us commend the families of the victims of Omagh, and the many other families who are also looking for justice and transparency in regard to all of this. There is some difficulty with part of the legislation. For instance, if a set of questions is put forward by the inquiry, and those questions are answered and then generate other questions, it has to go back over the same process again. Perhaps more space needs to be made for cross-examination, or if that is not the right term, then we must ensure there is a full means of assessing the outcome of a particular piece of information if it creates other questions. That can be done without having to revert to the beginning of the entire process. There needs to be a way of ensuring that can happen. It is one of the concerns that representatives of the families have regarding the legislation.

In general, we are all on the same page. We want to ensure that this is delivered, and that the families of those who tragically lost their lives in Omagh, the victims and the survivors, get a sense that this State is going to co-operate fully. That will put further pressure on the authorities in the North to ensure they also co-operate and provide the information that is required.

Deputy Alan Kelly

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?

Deputy Cormac Devlin

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I thank the Minister and his officials for bringing forward this important and necessary Bill, which I support. It is an important step in delivering on our programme for Government commitment to facilitate and support the Omagh bombing inquiry. It reflects the seriousness with which this State must approach the search for truth and accountability in relation to one of the darkest atrocities of the Troubles.

The Omagh bombing took place on 15 August 1998, just four months after the Good Friday Agreement had been signed. It was an act of appalling evil, and those who orchestrated and executed that bomb are pure evil as well. A total of 29 people were murdered, including a woman pregnant with twins, and hundreds more were injured. The trauma of that day did not end with the explosion. It has lived on for survivors, their families and entire communities ever since.

As Chair of the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, we have met with victims and survivors and have heard directly of the pain they continue to carry, but also the dignity, persistence and courage with which they continue to seek answers. Their call is not unreasonable or excessive; it is a basic call for truth, accountability and respect. Peace on this island was not inevitable; it was built painstakingly through courage, compromise and public leadership. It was hard-won and if peace is to endure, our commitment to truth, justice and accountability must endure too.

We cannot say we honour the Good Friday Agreement if we turn away from the unfinished business of legacy. We cannot say we support reconciliation if victims and survivors are left carrying unanswered questions decade after decade. This Bill matters because it provides a statutory mechanism for the State to assist the Omagh bombing inquiry in a more structured, transparent and legally robust way. It builds on the steps taken by the Government, including the memorandum of understanding, which the Minister and the chairman of the inquiry signed, on the disclosure of State materials. It also reflects the data protection regulations introduced to enable the lawful disclosure of sensitive personal data.

The Bill adds a further layer of practical co-operation. It creates a bespoke legal mechanism to facilitate the taking of sworn testimony before a judge of the High Court for the purposes of the inquiry. It provides a framework that seeks to maximise the assistance that can be given while safeguarding the essential interests of the State and the rights of witnesses. That balance matters.

Assisting an inquiry established under the law of another jurisdiction is legally complex. It raises serious issues around sovereignty, security, due process, witness protection and the integrity of criminal investigations. It is, therefore, right that the legislation is careful, structured and grounded in law but we should also be clear on the principles. Complexity cannot be an excuse for delay and legal difficulty cannot become an excuse for inaction. Families have waited far too long.

I welcome the provisions in the Bill that strengthen transparency and ensure that the core participants, families and survivors can hear evidence directly before the High Court. That matters because this process must remain accessible and grounded in the experiences of those affected.

The processes must not become remote or abstract exercises. They must remain grounded in the lived reality of those who have borne the consequences of this atrocity for nearly three decades.

I also note the provision to extend the mechanism, on a voluntary basis, to former ministerial office-holders, as referred to by the Minister. This is a significant measure that reflects the breadth of the inquiry's work and the need to ensure that where relevant evidence exists, there is an appropriate lawful pathway for that evidence to be heard.

More broadly, the Bill speaks to something bigger than one inquiry alone. It speaks to the bona fides of the State in relation to legacy itself and to the credibility of our commitment to cross-Border co-operation. The Minister indicated that more than 20,000 documents have been handed over, which is welcome. The Bill speaks also to our understanding that lasting reconciliation requires openness, honesty and a willingness to confront difficult and sometimes painful truths.

The Good Friday Agreement was not just a political settlement. It was a moral turning point on our island. It asked people to choose democracy over violence, hope over hatred and partnership over permanent division. The Omagh bombing was a direct assault on that hope. Supporting this inquiry, and supporting the search for truth in respect of Omagh, is part of defending what the agreement made possible. It also creates confidence around co-operation between Ireland and the UK. It underpins our support for legacy issues. The State must be as transparent as possible and so too must the UK Government.

I welcome this debate and the support for the Bill. I do so in solidarity with the victims, survivors and families who have campaigned for so long and with such dignity. I do so in the belief that truth and accountability matter and in the hope that the hard-won peace can be protected, the truth will be revealed, justice can be delivered and the work of reconciliation between the two traditions on this island can continue.

Deputy Gary Gannon

Before I discuss the legislation and the legal mechanisms of co-operation between states, it is important to pause and remember exactly what we are about today. This is by no means just another Bill. It is about the 29 people and two unborn children killed in Omagh, the 220 people injured and the families who, nearly three decades later, are still searching for answers. It can be too easy for atrocities to become a moment in history, a date or an event. That should never be allowed to happen. For the families, this atrocity is their present and something they carry with them every single day. Sometimes the scale of loss is so overwhelming that it risks becoming abstract. We must never allow that to happen.

I will name just a few of the victims of that day. Alan Radford died helping his mother to do the weekly shopping. The deaths of Avril Monaghan, her 21-month-old daughter Maura and her mother, Mary Grimes, saw three generations killed in one horrific moment. It was Mary Grimes's 66th birthday that day. Avril was 33 years old and heavily pregnant with twins, Eimear and Evelyn, whose lives never even got a chance to begin. Avril's daughter Aoibheann put it more powerfully than any of us ever could when she said:

The pictures of Eimear and Evelyn's scan are a reminder of the futures that never became a reality. The loss that we as a family have experienced cannot be measured and there is no replacement for the time we would have had with our mam, Maura, Eimear, Evelyn and granny.

That line alone should stop every single one of us in our tracks because it shows how the Omagh bombing took entire futures.

As we discuss this Bill, we must be very clear that the process must always come back to people. Michael Gallagher's son Aiden was killed that day. He was 21 years old. Michael Gallagher did not just grieve; he fought. For 25 years, he fought through the courts, against institutions and against every obstacle placed in front of him. His legal challenge produced the 2021 High Court ruling that found there was a plausible case that the bombing could have been prevented and that directed the establishment of a human rights-compliant investigation. Without Michael Gallagher, there would be no inquiry. It is important to state that clearly in the House today. The inquiry we are legislating to support exists because a bereaved father refused to accept that either state could simply move on. That is what citizenship looks like at its most determined. We owe it to him and to every family affected to match his determination with our own.

The Omagh bombing inquiry is examining whether this atrocity could have been prevented. It is a profound and difficult question but a very necessary one. For the families, the question has never gone away as to whether something more could have been done, whether the bombing could have been stopped, whether lives could have been saved and whether those murderers could have been prevented from doing their dastardly deed. To answer that question, the inquiry needs access to evidence, co-operation and transparency. Crucially, it needs the full participation of the State.

We need to be honest about what the inquiry is actually examining. Its terms of reference include alleged intelligence-sharing failures between the UK Government and the Irish authorities in the period leading up to the bombing. That is not a peripheral issue. In fact, it goes to the heart of why the co-operation of the State matters so much. There may have been information held on this side of the Border. There may have been decisions made or not made at the highest levels of the State. I certainly am not making any allegations of such but I am saying the question exists, is live and it goes through the thoughts every day of family members who lost their loved ones in Omagh. It is a question that must be answered.

That is precisely why the voluntary participation of former office-holders is not an abstract procedural matter. It is potentially central to getting to the truth. This legislation creates a mechanism to allow sworn oral evidence to be taken in this jurisdiction before a High Court judge from members and former members of An Garda Síochána, the Defence Forces, senior officials and former Ministers. I absolutely welcome that. Without their co-operation, the inquiry simply cannot do its job and, without the inquiry doing its job, the families will not get the answers they deserve and for which they have fought for so long.

I note the architecture that preceded this Bill. It includes the memorandum of understanding on disclosure of state materials, the data protection regulations that enable transfer of sensitive personal data and the directives to the Garda Commissioner to support co-operation. They were meaningful steps and they deserve acknowledgement. It is important to be honest about what this Bill does and does not do. Two issues sit alongside the legislation and cannot be ignored. The first is the delay in proceedings. The inquiry's evidential hearings examining the days immediately before and after the bombing were due to begin on 9 March but have been pushed back six months to 24 September. The families were informed of the delay on 6 March, three days before hearings were due to begin. Part of the reason for the delay is the sheer volume of state material still being processed. The lead counsel to the inquiry has confirmed the full Irish disclosure will not be complete until June. I want to be fair here. The inquiry's own counsel has praised the efforts of the State and An Garda Síochána in meeting deadlines. That is to the State's credit but the process is still at an early stage. For families who have waited nearly 30 years, early stage simply is not good enough.

The second issue is the special advocates dispute, which is a live issue before the courts. Michael Gallagher is judicially reviewing Lord Turnbull's ruling that the inquiry has no power to appoint special advocates. The latter exist to represent the interests of excluded parties at closed hearings held in private because of national security sensitivities. The argument being made on behalf of the Gallagher family is a serious one, namely, that without special advocates, families could be entirely shut out of hearings where, in effect, findings about state failures are made. It simply cannot be right that a father who forced this inquiry into existence through decades of legal struggle could be excluded from the room when the most sensitive evidence about what the states knew is being heard. This Bill does not and cannot address that dispute, which is a matter for the courts. However, the House should put it on the record that the rights of families to meaningful participation in the process should never be negotiable. I ask the Minister to clarify the Government's position in this regard.

I move to the voluntariness question. The consent requirement in the Bill runs through the entire mechanism for former office-holders of any kind; not just former Ministers but also former Garda Commissioners, senior Defence Forces officers and departmental officials. Any of them can decline to give evidence. I understand this is constitutionally necessary because we cannot compel sworn testimony before a foreign inquiry. The law has limits in that regard. Will the Government actively encourage relevant former office-holders to participate? Will it make clear that non-participation where someone holds potentially relevant evidence is not an acceptable posture?

Creating the mechanism, and leaving its uptake entirely to an individual's conscience, should not be sufficient. If former officeholders have relevant evidence, they should give it, and this Government should say so plainly.

This Bill was granted a waiver from pre-legislative scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration. That was the right call, given the urgency of the legislation, and I do not criticise it for a moment. However, it means that this House bears a responsibility today to ask questions that would ordinarily arise at the pre-legislative scrutiny stage. That is what I will try to do. I encourage the Minister to engage with these questions substantively as the Bill progresses. Complexity cannot become an excuse. Two jurisdictions, sensitive material, legal constraints and constitutional limits are all real but none of that is a reason for delay or half-measures. Every delay is felt by the families. Every bureaucratic obstacle is a reminder that they are still waiting. We are a Republic and claim to value accountability, truth and the rights of citizens. The families of the victims of the Omagh bombing are citizens of this island and they deserve that the State bring the full weight of its co-operation, its institutions and its political will on their behalf.

We in the Social Democrats welcome the Bill, but we will judge it not by what it enables but by what it delivers. I want to put three specific questions on the record. Will the Minister commit to a timeline for the completion of full Irish State disclosure to the inquiry? Will the Government publicly encourage former officeholders who hold relevant evidence to participate and not merely make mechanisms available? Will the Government set out its position on the special advocate's judicial review and on the rights of families to meaningful representation at closed hearings? For the families of the victims of the Omagh bombing, this is not about politics, legislation or frameworks, but is simply about the truth. It is about whether this State played any part, through action or inaction, in what happened on that hideous day. It is about whether after nearly 30 years we finally have the courage to find out. The families deserve that. Michael Gallagher deserves that. Aoibheann deserves that as do Eimear and Evelyn, lives that never even got to begin.

When we speak about the brutal and horrific tragedy in Omagh, it is incumbent on me also to mention the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. I have met families living in my constituency who experienced the most profound tragedy on the day of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. They lost loved ones and were left disfigured. They also still wait for truth. So many families in so many walks of life in Ireland have asked these simple questions. What happened on that day? Why has nobody been held responsible? The families of the victims of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings are asking for the exact same thing that we are potentially delivering today, which is some degree of co-operation and truth from a jurisdiction that is not their own. For the sake of all those families, it is incumbent on us all that we demonstrate the urgency and resolve to give them the truth, however long they may have waited and had to fight. Everybody deserves to know what happened on days when their loved ones were lost, lives were changed, and cities and communities were torn apart.

Deputy Shane Moynihan

Is mór agam an deis seo a thapú labhairt ar an mBille seo, Bille a bhfuil fáilte ann dó. Tá a fhios agam go gcuirfidh clanna na n-íobartach fáilte roimhe. Cabhróidh sé leis an bhfiosrúchán a bheidh ar siúl. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the International Co-operation (Omagh Bombing Inquiry) Bill 2026. I strongly support this Bill, which is an essential step in honouring our commitment as the Fianna Fáil Party in the programme for Government to fully facilitate and support the Omagh bombing inquiry. It is also an important signal of our commitment to the victims, families and survivors, people who have endured unimaginable loss and have waited too long for truth, transparency and accountability.

The Omagh bombing on 15 August 1998 stands out as the single worst atrocity of the Troubles with 29 people murdered, hundreds injured, families absolutely shattered and a community traumatised. The horrific irony of this is that it happened four months after the Good Friday Agreement was signed, at a moment when hope was finally emerging across the island. I still remember where I was when I learned of the awful atrocity that had been committed. When I watched the news, we had a visitor from overseas staying with us. She turned to me and said, "I thought all this violence had ended." A horror and sadness filled the entire country when we saw what happened in Omagh. The then President, Mary McAleese, captured that pain but also the determination and hope emerging across the island when she spoke in Drogheda later in 1998. She reminded us that our duty is not only to remember victims but also to ensure that their memory guides us to a future where such horrors can never happen again. She also drew attention to the fact that we needed to be mature and open, and embrace the shared histories that brought us to where we are today. Those words remain as true now as they were then.

Part of that need for maturity, openness and embracing those shared histories is bringing this Bill to the Dáil and I commend the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan and the Minister of State, Deputy Collins, on that. The Bill augments the suite of measures already implemented, including the memorandum of understanding which the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, signed with the chairperson of Omagh bombing inquiry last April on the disclosure of Irish State materials and the data protection regulations signed by the Minister last month to enable the disclosure of sensitive personal data to the inquiry.

Despite multiple investigations over the years, no one has been held fully accountable for the Omagh bombing. There have been legitimate questions during this time, questions around intelligence handling, cross-Border co-operation and whether more could have been done to prevent this atrocity. As these questions persist, closure evades the families of those who lost their lives. The current Omagh bombing inquiry, established by the British Government in 2024, is explicitly tasked with determining whether the bombing could reasonably have been prevented by British state authorities. I have on many occasions discussed in this House the importance of the need to address the legacy of the enormous impact of Troubles-related violence and the legitimate needs and expectations of victims' families and survivors who have long searched for truth and accountability. We have a responsibility, whether it be moral, political or legal, to ensure that no delays arise from the Irish side with regard to what we can do to facilitate and support the inquiry into the Omagh bombing. This Bill gives us the mechanism to do just that.

By establishing a robust statutory framework to honour our commitment to assist the inquiry to fulfil its terms of reference while also protecting the essential interests of the State and the rights of witnesses involved, this Bill creates a bespoke legal mechanism allowing all evidence to be taken under oath here in Ireland before a High Court judge for transmission to the inquiry. Importantly this is not a brand new innovation; it builds on the model used in the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 2019 but goes significantly further by extending participation to An Garda Síochána, the Defence Forces and departmental officials; by allowing family members, survivors and their legal representatives to be present during evidence taken before the High Court judge; and by allowing the chairperson of the Omagh bombing inquiry or their counsel to ask clarifying questions directly, thereby maximising the evidential value of every session while also protecting necessary safeguards, Irish national security, the rights of witnesses and the essential interests of the State. Participation by former Ministers is voluntary but the mechanism is now there. That is important because it is something that the inquiry specifically asked for. This Bill is about delivering steps towards transparency, towards accountability and towards fulfilling our commitments in good faith.

In recent months we have had a lot of discussion on the issue of legacy with the publication of the Kenova report and the summary of the Operation Denton report. They have exposed deeply troubling patterns of collusion, failure to act on intelligence and decisions that cost innocent lives. The Kenova report showed British state collusion across the board. Operation Denton showed collusion with loyalist paramilitaries. These revelations underline a simple truth: legacy investigations can uncover new and vital information when there is co-operation, when there is courage and when victims' families are represented and respected as partners in the process. Both reports recognised the constructive role played by the Irish State, by our Departments and by An Garda Síochána in assisting cross-Border investigations. This Bill strengthens that tradition of co-operation, a co-operation which has been at the core of Ireland's engagement with the United Kingdom on how we address the issue of legacy. It clearly signals that we will not shy away from difficult truths, including truths that may touch on our own institutions. As An Taoiseach has said, "If you are sincere in wanting to build a real peace ... you cannot with any honesty deny so many people truth and accountability for the terrible crimes committed against their communities".

I cannot let this opportunity pass without again drawing attention to the fact that there is still an unmet need for openness and accountability relating to the 1974 Dublin and Monaghan bombings, something called for by multiple resolutions in this House.

It is deeply regrettable that the full Denton report has not yet been published. Survivors and families have waited far too long. This House has on three occasions sought access for an independent, international judicial figure to all original British files relating to the 1974 Dublin and Monaghan bombings, and I repeat that call today. Openness and accountability are not merely standards we should demonstrate ourselves; we should ensure we call for them from our partners as well.

I realise there are those who will say this Bill does not go far enough, who wanted extra powers of compulsion and who wanted a parallel inquiry here. I understand where those perspectives come from. This Bill does what is legally possible under our Constitution while still ensuring that substantial assistance - real, meaningful assistance - can be provided to the inquiry as it unfolds. The Government has made clear that it will keep this under constant review and that if additional steps are required either during or after the inquiry, they will be considered.

The Omagh families have waited more than a quarter of a century. They deserve answers, they deserve honesty and they deserve full co-operation from every public institution on this island. This Bill is a significant, carefully constructed and necessary step towards achieving that goal, honouring a commitment made in the programme for Government and honouring our commitment as a State under the joint framework on addressing Troubles legacy issues. Most importantly, it honours the memory of the 29 people who left their homes on a warm August day in 1998 and never returned. I am proud to support the Bill and commend it to the House.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

The Omagh bomb was the deadliest atrocity of the Troubles in the North of Ireland. It was second only to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, which killed more people in the seventies. On 15 August 1998 the Real IRA, a group opposed to the IRA ceasefire and to the Good Friday Agreement, killed 31 people, including two unborn children, and injured 220 others. Confused telephone warnings were made which did not specify the location of the bomb, and the police mistakenly moved people towards its location. The Real IRA denied that the bomb was intended to kill civilians and apologised, but this has to be one of the most damning and reckless actions ever to have taken place during the Troubles. The victims included people of all ages and backgrounds. Catholics, Protestants, Spanish tourists, southerners, women and children, nationalists and unionists were all killed on that day.

In 2013 a legal case started to try to understand if it was possible for the security forces to have prevented the Omagh bomb. Five years ago, in 2021, Mr. Justice Mark Horner at the Belfast High Court stated that there was a "real prospect" that the 1998 Omagh bomb could have been prevented by the security forces. That is an earth-shattering sentence for a judge to say. The idea that a corporate decision was possibly made by the British security forces to allow the bomb to proceed is deeply shocking. Did the British security service prioritise the protecting of informants over the protecting of citizens? Was there a failure to connect intelligence? Were there political reasons for not stopping the bomb going ahead?

It is also incredible that the wheels of justice are so slow in grinding forward. It has been 28 years since that bomb ripped through Omagh. I remember that in 2021 Micheál Martin said he would consider if the South could facilitate information being disclosed and evidence being taken in the South of Ireland. That is five years ago. It has been five years since the Taoiseach made that statement, and it has taken that time to get the necessary legislation in front of us.

I welcome this Bill and the Minister's role in making it happen, but it has taken an age for it to happen. The Bill allows for oral testimony to be taken before the Irish courts for the purpose of the Omagh bombing inquiry. It allows a specific legal mechanism to facilitate the taking of sworn testimony from State bodies and former ministerial officeholders before a judge in the High Court. It is modelled on the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 2019, which allowed oral testimony to be heard for the purposes of Troubles-related inquests outside of the State. Family members and survivors and their legal representatives will be allowed to attend as regards the evidence given before a High Court judge, and the Bill will allow for counsel to the inquiry to ask questions to clarify evidence given by a witness to the judge.

There is a bigger truth we need to focus on as well, welcome and all as this Bill is. We need to focus on the bigger issue of the unresolved investigations where families are searching for truth and justice and have been refused them for many years. We have to look at how we can resolve this on this side of the Border. For years and years the British Government has refused to tell the truth, refused to give evidence, protected informants, protected collusion and refused to let information be known about what happened under its authority. However, we should not let that paralyse us in terms of the actions we need to take in this State. We need to create structures ourselves for all-Ireland investigations and public inquiries. Atrocities and wrongdoings do not recognise the Border; they need an all-Ireland approach. The Border is actually a competitive advantage for the perpetrators of these killings.

In 2023 Aontú introduced the Commission of Investigation (Collusion of British State Forces) Bill to provide for public inquiries into collusion between British state forces and other groups and individuals between 1968 and 1998. It passed First Stage in the Dáil. If the Bill were to pass all Stages, it would see an inquiry constituted in this State to investigate the British state either where it committed murder or if it assisted in the committing of murder or prevented prosecution in certain serious offences in Ireland, North and South.

Interestingly, in that same year, 2023, the former Minister for justice Charlie Flanagan commented in relation to the Omagh bombing that the Republic should have a parallel inquiry into that atrocity and that the public need to be able to see vital evidence held in this State given over to allow for the truth to be known. Victims and survivors are entitled to know who did what and who was responsible for what. If this Aontú Bill were to pass, it would institute an investigation into what happened. We know that the British state forces had a role in so many killings and so much loss of life in Ireland, North and South, and many of those cases were covered up. They were covered up at the time but the British state distanced itself from that cover-up. The recent legacy Bill is the son and heir of that cover-up and, in fact, the British have their fingerprints all over that Bill. The new iteration of that Bill is extremely problematic as well because it still allows for the British Secretary of State for the North of Ireland to prevent the holding of investigations and inquiries. The Secretary of State for the North of Ireland has previous on this. He has fought the family of Sean Brown in all the courts of the land in Britain to prevent them from having a proper investigation into the murder of their father. It is incumbent on this Government that it does not allow the British to pass a law whereby a politician determines whether an investigation can be had. The Minister or I should not have an opportunity for an investigation concerning ourselves be determined by a politician. It should be determined by the Judiciary and the Judiciary alone.

There are many ways we can allow for evidence to be taken and heard abroad and documents that have already been used by the Police Ombudsman in the North of Ireland or many of the different investigative tools in the North of Ireland to be used in an investigation into the South in order that we can bring forward truth and justice to the families that need them. It is beyond time the Government started to institute that process in this jurisdiction. The Government has gone some way in doing that in this Bill to allow for information to be collected here for an inquiry in the North of Ireland, but the opposite can be done as well to make sure we get to the truth. That truth is needed. So many families have now waited 50 years since the killing of their loved ones while the immediate family - their mothers and fathers or even their brothers and sisters - have passed away, with the fight for justice in the hands of grandsons, granddaughters, nephews and nieces. This Government has an opportunity to draw a line under that and make sure there is access to justice. I urge the Government to take that opportunity.

Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú

We supported the demand of the families of the victims of the 1998 Omagh bomb for a full cross-Border public inquiry.

Obviously, the Government has declined to establish a parallel, independent inquiry in this jurisdiction. In the absence of that, we need to see that we would have the fullest level of co-operation. Families have many grievances not only about the heinous act that occurred in 1998 but also in relation to the investigation. Many questions need to be answered about what information was known previously. I think that is only right.

On some level, we are dealing with what has been a failure in the past. We also know as we do this that there is an absolute demand from across this House that we ensure that our engagement with the British Government is about ensuring it stands up to the promises it has made about a decent legacy framework and a step back from the protection that has been provided for British state forces, which is in no way acceptable to basically anyone on this island. I have yet to hear from somebody who is in support of it. That is an absolute requirement.

We have been through a period where the only positive I can say is that there is at some level a greater level of understanding of the dirty war that went on in the North. I would like to draw attention to two particular cases. We have just commemorated the anniversary of Dundalk bombing of 19 December 1975, in which 62-year-old Jack Rooney who worked for the council and 60-year-old tailor Hugh Watters were killed. That was a bomb attack at Kay's tavern. That is a family that has been abjectly failed by the State over many years. That happened on the same night that Trevor Brecknell, Patsy Donnelly and Michael Donnelly were killed by the same outfit, the Glenanne gang, in Donnelly's bar in Silverbridge. We know there have been significant inquiries and we know what has happened in relation to Operation Denton, but we need to see the full outworking of that inquiry and the full information. We know there are other families that have been failed. That is right through, whether we are talking about Castleblayney, Belturbet or the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. We need to make sure we provide a framework and delivery for those who have been abjectly failed.

I would also bring up the case of Seamus Ludlow, a forestry worker who was killed in Dundalk. This happened 50 years ago, on 2 May 1976. The family has recently met with the Garda. I put it to the Minister of State that there is a need for real engagement on this case. We know that the Glenanne gang was a UVF gang which obviously had cross membership of British state forces and a number of other engagements. What we are talking about here is a gang that literally was members of the British Army who killed Seamus Ludlow, a man who was not involved in anything. Not only do we talk about the failure of Governments at the time - particularly Liam Cosgrave's Government - but we have had families who did not get the investigation that was required. We have had families to whom disinformation was provided at times even by gardaí. We have had families at each other's necks. There has been further information in relation to this particular case. The families were quite happy that, as I say, an investigation was ongoing. They engaged recently, and were told that despite the fact that there are witnesses and new information, this case is not going anywhere. I ask the Minister of State to bring it to the senior Minister from the point of view that I think we need to make sure this State ensures no stone is left unturned.

Deputy Carol Nolan

I welcome this Bill. It is certainly a long and overdue step that will allow Irish State bodies, serving and former members of An Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces, civil servants and even former Ministers to give oral evidence before a High Court judge to assist the Omagh bombing inquiry. However, I want to be clear that this legislation arrives almost 28 years after the horror of August 1998 when 29 people, including a woman who was nine months pregnant and her unborn twins, were murdered in Omagh. For nearly three decades successive Governments made up of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Labour Party and the Green Party have failed those families, with delay after delay, broken promises and a shocking lack of political urgency. Even after the UK inquiry was established in February 2024 and Ireland gave its commitment in July 2024, it has taken until 2026 to bring forward this Bill.

I want to take this opportunity to pay special tribute to my colleague and friend, Deputy Mattie McGrath, who is very vocal on this issue. Since 2013, Mattie has stood shoulder to shoulder with the Omagh families. He organised a delegation from the Omagh victims support group to brief Members of the Oireachtas on 1 May 2013. Just days later, on 8 May, he stood in this House during Leaders' Questions and called directly on the Taoiseach for a cross-Border public inquiry. He spoke of the courage of Michael Gallagher, who lost his 21-year-old son Aiden, and of all the families who have fought so bravely for truth and justice. Deputy McGrath has never wavered in that support and today the House should acknowledge his work on behalf of the victims.

Justice delayed is justice denied. The families of Omagh have waited long enough. I support the passage of this Bill but I urge the Minister to ensure it is implemented without any further delays or foot dragging.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration (Deputy Niall Collins)

I thank the Deputies for their productive engagement during today's debate. I will convey the many assurances of support for the passing of this Bill to the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan. My belief and that of the Government is that we must do all we can to assist the inquiry so that its investigation into the fundamental question of whether the bombing could reasonably have been prevented is as comprehensive as possible. Actions speak louder than words, and the Government has demonstrated its commitment through the concrete measures the Minister has already taken. The measures relating to the disclosure of materials are working well, with a significant quantity of materials having been disclosed to the inquiry and further disclosure continuing on a rolling basis. The bona fides of the Minister's Department and An Garda Síochána have been acknowledged publicly by the inquiry, most recently at its hearing last week, and that is welcome.

There is of course much more to be done. As the inquiry made clear, the volume of potentially relevant materials held by An Garda Síochána and other State bodies should not be underestimated. It is important that the process is conducted in a rigorous manner rather than being rushed. The fixing by the inquiry of a date for its first evidential hearings to start in September is welcome. It was disappointing that the original date set for this month was postponed, particularly for the families and the survivors. I note that the inquiry, at its hearing last week, identified a number of contributing factors, including the scale of disclosure by our authorities, as making the original date unviable. The Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, and the Garda Commissioner have dedicated resources in place to ensure timely handling of all requests from the inquiry.

The Bill will complement the measures already in place by enabling the taking of sworn testimony for the purposes of the inquiry. Some may query why it is necessary to provide for a bespoke mechanism whereby the evidence will be taken before our courts and not before the inquiry in the UK. The reality is that there is an undeniable tension between the Government's desire to assist an inquiry established under the law of another sovereign jurisdiction and the duty of the Government to work within the laws of Ireland and to safeguard the essential interests of the State and the rights of citizens.

The Minister has sought to go as far as possible, using the 2019 statutory mechanism 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 at first hand. The Government is satisfied that this bespoke approach is legally robust and will maximise the evidential opportunities available to the inquiry.

The Bill is focused on the terrible atrocity that was the Omagh bombing but there were many others committed over the course of the Troubles. Many were the subject of the Kenova report, which we debated in this House last month. Reaching agreement on the joint framework to address the legacy of the Troubles last autumn was a major step towards providing routes to truth and accountability for those many other families and survivors. The Government is committed to giving effect to its commitments under the framework. The Garda legacy liaison unit has already been established to act as a single point of contact for victims in relation to unresolved incidents in this jurisdiction.

The Government has also committed to putting in place the arrangements necessary to facilitate the fullest possible co-operation with the UK legacy commission, once it is established. The UK Government has made a reciprocal commitment in respect of legacy investigations and inquiries in this jurisdiction.

Legislation is required in both jurisdictions. The progress on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill in the UK Parliament is to be welcomed. While our legislation can only be published and proceed through the Houses once the UK Bill is in place, the Minister hopes to be in a position to publish his proposals before the summer and to bring them before the Houses as quickly as possible once the UK Bill is law.

Deputy Alan Kelly asked whether the disclosure process by the Irish State was to blame for the six-month delay to the inquiry. I will put on record that the decision by the inquiry last December to postpone its March evidential hearing was disappointing, particularly for survivors and for victims' families. At its procedural hearing on 19 March, the inquiry announced that the postponed hearings will now begin on 21 September. The announcement of a date for the rescheduled hearing is welcome. The inquiry referred to the disclosure of Irish State materials as being only one of several reasons the March hearings were postponed and did not seek to assign blame to anyone, least of all the Government of Ireland and our authorities. I refer Deputy Kelly to the published transcript of the inquiry's hearing of last Thursday, 19 March, where counsel to the inquiry felt the need to correct inaccurate media reporting on this matter. He said:

can we be clear, anyone who has based their reporting of the proceedings ... on the basis that ... [the inquiry] suggested that the government of Ireland was the sole cause for the need for the postponement, anyone who has reported on the basis ... that the government of Ireland was being blamed, has made a serious error and must correct it.

Returning to the Bill, I have listened to the contributions here today since taking over from the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, here in the Chamber. I will brief him on those contributions. He looks forward to working with Deputies to ensure this Bill makes its passage through this House and the other House as soon as possible. We thank the Deputies for their contributions.

Question put and agreed to.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 24 Mar 2026

International Co-operation (Omagh Bombing Inquiry) Bill 2026: Second Stage

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 24 Mar 2026