Conor Murphy
Industrial and Commercial Panel · Sinn Féin · Ireland
“Given the complex legal issues the appeals would involve, such as the interaction of legal residency, habitual residency and social housing support, it would have been better to have one single, independent appeals office located within the Housing Agency, similar to how social welfare operates.”
“I move amendment No. 16: In page 16, after line 39, to insert the following: “(i) the household or members of the household were refused access to emergency homeless accommodation provided under Section 10 of the Housing Act 1988”. I will speak to amendment Nos. 16 and 17.”
“I move amendment No. 19: In page 17, to delete lines 12 to 16 and substitute the following: “(6) A social housing appeal shall be made to an independent appeals office located within the Housing Agency within 28 days of the notification by the housing authority to the household concerned of the making of a determination in respect of the…”
“In relation to this Bill, the amendment seeks that the habitual residence conditions do not act as a barrier to those who have perhaps not worked here or have been resident here but have worked away for all of their lives and do not have a history of paying into the State or have a history of employment here but are Irish residents but pe…”
“I move amendment No. 2: In page 6, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following: “(5) Within twelve months of the commencement of this Bill the Minister for Housing shall lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of Part 2 of the Bill for returning Irish migrants, and in particular those Irish citizens returni…”
“The intentions behind this Bill may well have been good but the delivery of it has left a lot to be desired. One of the issues that came up during dialogue has nothing to do with migrants but concerns people from Ireland who have been working away abroad all of their lives and with to come home to retire.”
The complete record
Every one of 447 lines we hold for Conor Murphy, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 9.
“I thank the Minister of State for her assurances that these matters are already covered. The experience in Europe, and these laws reflect European laws, is that there has been an unwillingness to do anything about the genocide and those involved in perpetrating it. Many of them come from European countries, join the IDF and go back home again. People with lead responsibility in the Israeli Government have travelled to European countries and there has been no follow-through on the legislation. If it is simply a matter of political will that the legislation will be followed through, Ireland needs to look carefully at whether this reflects that type of European legislation.”
“It was previously revealed that IDF military personnel had trained in the Irish military college over the previous six years. This is something that would not be permitted under our amendments. The amendments I have tabled are no less important than the introduction of the occupied territories Bill in the stance that this State takes against genocide and war crimes. I ask the Minister of State to accept them all and for the Committee to support them.”
“The failure of the State to have any sanctions or restrictions against those travelling and participating in war crimes and genocide as part of an armed force leaves the State open to the allegation that we are complicit in this genocide. We have to remind ourselves of what we are dealing with. As a State, we cannot stand by and allow citizens to serve the IDF or any other armed forces engaged in war crimes. Sinn Féin's amendments are designed to outlaw citizens of this State travelling or training to participate in genocide or war crimes. They also outlaw recruitment by the armed forces of such a state. Our amendments would have the effect of preventing the IDF or other armed forces engaged in genocide or war crimes from training with the Defence Forces.”
“While right now this arises in relation to the actions of the IDF, it may in future arise in relation to armed forces of other states engaged in war crimes that recruit what are in fact mercenaries. The IDF recruits foreign fighters, just as others do who are targets of this legislation. The EU directive dates from a period when ISIS was at its peak and there was a significant problem with people travelling from Europe to join ISIS. While it is not the case that many Irish people join the IDF, it is important that, as a State, we make it clear that participating in the actions of armed forces in other states engaged in war crimes and genocide is unacceptable, and those who do so will be held accountable for their actions.”
“My apologies for being late. I accept responsibility for not having moved the first amendment. The series of amendments to this section, in my name and the names of my colleagues, is necessary to lay a foundation for later amendments to define circumstances in which it would be an offence to join, train or recruit for an armed force that is engaged in crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide. This is not anything fanciful. The existing legislation ignores the greatest terrorism crimes of our time, which are the actions of the Israel Defense Forces in Palestine. The current laws that we have do not prevent people from joining a military engaged in genocide with gross human rights violations.”
“I move amendment No. 2: In page 3, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following: “ ‘organising or facilitating travel for the purpose of serving in the armed forces of a state engaged in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide’ shall be construed in accordance with section 4F;”. I was going to speak on a group of amendments.”
“At some future stage, I would love to see a further expansion in relation to things like travel insurance and other issues that prevent people from living life to the full following a successful clearance from treatment. Nonetheless, this is a very important start to all of this. We wish it well and will obviously support it fully. It is critical that people out there see that these institutions can be used for the good and protection of people, for righting wrongs and for undoing injustices. This Bill certainly does that, so I wish it well and hope it gets the fair wind it deserves.”
“All that can be said in relation to this has been said, so I will not reiterate all of the points. I acknowledge the work of Catherine Ardagh on this. She championed this cause for so long. I also acknowledge the Minister of State's work in bringing this forward. People have spoken eloquently about the Bill's importance. There is hardly a family in the country that has escaped the impact of cancer, and my own is no exception. This is primarily about addressing an injustice and one that is all the more acute because it is heaped on people who have come through a critical, tough and life-changing experience and are trying to come out the other side of that. I acknowledge the work that has been done here and the diligence in engaging with all of the organisations that need to be brought on board for this.”
“While we welcome the creation of the decentralised IT system to facilitate engagement and reporting by SMEs, will the Minister clarify the status of this and if it will be live by the August compliance deadline? The proposed legislation is rushed with many questions remaining in terms of key provisions, particularly in terms of sovereignty, safeguards and rule of law and, as such, we will be unable to support the Bill at this Stage.”
“While the Government indicated that the impact on the Courts Service, which is already under significant pressure, in the context of dealing with excessive backlogs will be minimal, in reality, the Courts Service has been far more circumspect in its analysis of what this might mean for it. As stated, the service is already stretched beyond capacity. Additional clarity is also required on safeguards in place to protect citizens' rights. Digital Rights Ireland has described the e-evidence package as having minimal fundamental rights safeguards. Will the Minister outline the safeguards which exist in relation to data requests from member states which have lower democratic protections than those in operation here? In respect of small businesses, we are concerned about the administrative burden this legislation may introduce.”
“When Department officials appeared before the committee, they were completely unable to outline what the costs of dealing with the majority of requests may come to. No clarity was provided. That is further compounded by indications from Department officials that it is intended that additional roles will be ascribed to the office such as in European investigation orders. There is no real clarity in relation to that. The Bill will allow foreign authorities to obtain identifying data from Irish-based companies at speed. As the Minister said, Ireland could be processing hundreds of thousands of requests every year. Will he outline what the impact will be on the Garda and the courts? Will they require additional resources, given that we will be the focus of most of the activities relating to this in Europe?”
“Thus, a new office for international co-operation must be established. As the Minister indicated, Ireland is a significant European headquarters for a considerable number of social media platforms, digital companies and regulatory functions. Clearly, he has estimated that, as a consequence of this, the number of requests made to Ireland to deal with this could be in the hundreds of thousands annually. There are no details provided, apart from the office set-up costs in relation to the office or its ongoing functions beyond the €2.8 million identified. There are projections of up to 150 staff required for that. The Minister has quite rightly said that this will enhance Ireland's reputation, but only if we have sufficient resources to carry out the functions that are being demanded of us.”
“The deadline for Dáil Committee Stage amendments was prior to the Bill's Second Stage Reading. That is fairly bad practice and completely undermines the democratic scrutiny function of the Oireachtas. The Minister stated that the date for transposition was 18 February. Despite the significant efforts of his officials and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, the deadline could not be met. We are not sure what the exact fault or hold-up was in that regard. We are now faced with the Bill be steamrolled through the Oireachtas in order to try and meet the relevant deadlines. Some explanation of that would be welcome. There are a number of other concerns. It is significant legislation. The Department of justice has acknowledged that there is no existing criminal justice body equipped to deal with the tasks required by the e-evidence package.”
“I welcome the opportunity to discuss the EU e-evidence package and this legislation, which seeks to transpose the package into Irish law. We support the basic tenets of the Bill, which seeks to make cross-border requests for electronic evidence such as social media posts and emails more efficient. We live in an increasingly globalised and digitalised world. As we know on this island, crime does not respect borders. I understand the necessity of this type of legislation. I support the sharing of e-evidence in the appropriate circumstances, while also respecting people's right to privacy. There is a number of difficulties with this Bill, one of which has arisen from the manner in which the Minister is seeking to enact it. The rushed nature of the Bill's passage through the Dáil leaves a lot to be desired.”
“Sinn Féin tabled amendments in the Dáil that would have made it an offence for citizens of this State to join, train with or assist armed forces engaged in genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity. They would also have prevented such forces from recruiting in Ireland. That is not hypothetical. In 2024, The Ditch revealed that Israel Defense Forces personnel, along with personnel from 13 different countries, were trained at the Irish Military College between 2018 and 2024. Under our amendments, that would not have been permitted. Given the gravity of our concerns, we will vote against the Bill on Second Stage. As it stands, there are elements of it that are authoritarian, unnecessary and open to abuse, and we cannot and will not support legislation that undermines fundamental democratic rights in this State.”
“We have particularly serious concerns about the section dealing with public provocation of terrorism. This is the section referred to by Senator Keogan. The language of glorifying terrorism is not neutral; it is the language of reactionary unionism in the context of this island, language that has been used in the North to criminalise families attending commemorations for loved ones killed during the conflict. It is reasonable to argue that the follow-through of that, as Senator Keogan suggested, could well affect those commemorating the 1916 Rising or the events at Béal na Bláth or Kilmichael. These are events that could be brought into that same ambit. Why would we import the kind of language in question into the laws of this State? Why would we introduce provisions that we know have been misused and abused in the past?”
“I cite these as examples of how what may be intended consequences can be taken either by prosecutors or by the Judiciary in the direction of unintended consequences. The legislation is also too broad in its definition of terrorism. I fear that, under its terms, those involved in liberation struggles or resisting oppression or occupation could be criminalised. We only need to look at what is happening internationally. We have seen Irish citizens engaged in legitimate protest against the genocide in Gaza being accused of terrorism by the Israeli Government. Our colleague Senator Chris Andrews has spoken about his treatment at the hands of the Israel Defense Forces, and, likewise, that of Dr. Margaret Connolly, sister of Uachtarán Catherine Connolly.”
“I will cite two examples, both from Britain, but nonetheless examples of either the wilful misinterpretation of legislation or the unintended consequences – perhaps some might consider them to be intended – of such legislation. One is where a member of the band Kneecap faced terrorism charges for waving a flag on a stage in Britain. The reality was that the main objection the prosecutors had to him was his support for the people of Palestine, who continue to live with genocide and occupation. The other example relates to the interpretation by a judge of legislation that pertains in Britain. Four protesters at a protest against Britain's support of Israel were convicted of public order offences and then had these interpreted as terrorism charges by the judge. They were given very lengthy sentences.”
“Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. We have a number of serious concerns regarding the legislation. While I fully recognise the need for robust and effective laws to deal with real and ongoing threats of terrorism, and the Bill does indeed deal with many of the emerging challenges in recent years in relation to bad actors in particular, we must ensure terrorism-related provisions are not misused to target legitimate political protests, activism or freedom of expression. Unfortunately, the Bill as drafted fails to guard against this, so we will not be supporting it today. The expansion of the definition of the provisions relating to provocation of terrorism is deeply problematic.”
“If, God forbid, it is a Farage-led Government, we could be into the possibility of a referendum being called on a whim to satisfy some other need that is not present with us. The Brexit experience tells us what can happen when things are moved in a chaotic way. Therefore, I ask the Leader to encourage the Government, when a new Prime Minister is in place - it seems likely to be more of a coronation than an election - to begin serious engagement and discussion, because what happens on the island of Britain has an impact on us on this island, particularly in the North. We need to make sure that we do our best to ensure the smooth transition to unity on this island that we all desire in the time ahead and that it is done in an orderly fashion and with good relations with our nearest neighbours.”
“As we move towards the 30th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement and recognise the contribution it made in a very positive way, not just to relationships in the North, but on the island and between Ireland and Britain, we can see the stark contrast with what Brexit brought us. The potential contained in the Good Friday Agreement is for constitutional change and a settling of the unfinished business of Ireland on this island, through referendums. I ask the Leader, therefore, to encourage the Government to begin the necessary discussion with the British Government. Who knows who might make up the British Government in three years' time - if it happens in three years' time - when there is a general election?”
“Unfortunately, it was supported by the DUP at the time, which wanted to see the hardest possible Border in Ireland. It was a project that was brought forward with no thought for the impact that Brexit would have on either part of this island. The chaos of it continues to unfold. We are now on the sixth or seventh Prime Minister in almost as many years; I have lost count, as many will have. In normal circumstances, we might tell our neighbours to get on with their business and wish them well, but that continuing unfolding of chaotic politics and lurch to the right has an impact on both parts of this island, but particularly on the North because the British Government still holds jurisdiction there.”
“I also congratulate Senator Ahearn on his elevation to his new position. Having got to know him over the 18 months I have been here, I have no doubt that he has the qualities that will make him a good Leader of the House and I look forward to working with him in the time ahead. I like to think that my refraining from showering praise on him last week, from a Sinn Féin perspective, might have assisted in securing the job for him, so I am glad I held my tongue at that time. As I said, I have no doubt that he will make a good Leader. In that context, this week marks the tenth anniversary of Brexit, an experience that none of us holds any deep sense of contentment in remembering. It was a project brought to us by English nationalism and essentially far-right politics in England.”
“We believe the addition of time limits would strengthen that process and add a further level of accountability. If we are going to do what it says on the tin with the legislation, we need to strengthen it to make sure that is the case. This amendment was put forward in the Dáil and was not supported. I hope that the Minister has had an opportunity to reflect on that and to see a genuine attempt to strengthen the provisions of the Bill to achieve exactly the outcome that we all hope to achieve from its passage, and that he can now reconsider supporting the amendment.”
“I move amendment No. 5: In page 5, line 40, after “completed” to insert “and to comply with relevant binding time-limits that will be issued by the Minister within four weeks of the passage of this Act”. As most of us said at the outset, we are supportive of the idea of the Bill. We want to see critical infrastructure being done more efficiently, speedily and cost effectively. We hope the legislation in front of us will achieve those outcomes but we have added suggestions and proposals to put to it. None have been successful thus far but we continue to press the case. This amendment proposes to insert a provision on the relevant binding time limits. This is about accountability. As we have all said, this is very significant legislation. The Government is saying that this piece of work needs to be fast-tracked.”
“We put forward this amendment in the hope that the Government would reconsider the position it had outlined previously and consider including these two areas in the listed parts of critical infrastructure in the Bill.”
“I move this amendment because there are very obvious things, pressing things, which we speak about and debate every day in this Chamber and, I am sure, in the other Chamber in relation to housing and healthcare provision and facilities for such, and there is the idea that they would not be considered critical infrastructure at a time when there is such huge pressure, particularly on housing but also on healthcare. I know the Government has argued that there is flexibility to include healthcare and housing, but then why stipulate some areas and not stipulate those two areas? That is the question. Arguably, housing is the most critical infrastructure that is required. It is the primary crisis facing the Government and has been for some time, so I do not see the logic in not naming it in the Bill.”
“I move amendment No. 1: In page 3, to delete lines 26 to 31 and substitute the following: " "infrastructure” means any infrastructure that enables essential facilities and systems of the State to function effectively and includes, but is not limited to— (a) housing, (b) health facilities, (c) transport facilities, including ports and airports, and transport systems, including roads and railways, (d) energy generation, transmission and distribution systems, and (e) water supply, wastewater and waste management systems;". Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. We raised in a previous debate the extent of what was considered critical infrastructure.”
“Senator O'Loughlin mentioned this last week, and it was remiss of me not to congratulate Cuan Mhuire on its 60th anniversary, which was held over the weekend. Sr. Consilio and the work she has done has not only saved countless lives but countless families. I have to declare an interest because I am a director of Cuan Mhuire, as was my mother before me. She is commemorated in the garden in Athy, where Cuan Mhuire's facilities are. It has done wonderful work across Ireland. I just wanted to join in congratulating it on its 60th anniversary.”
“Legislation is being launched in the other House today which, if enacted, would compel the Government to produce a Green Paper on Irish reunification and establish a citizens' assembly. That has the potential to transform the discussion. By happy coincidence, it is on the same weekend Fine Gael launched its intention on a blueprint for Irish unity, which will be published in the autumn. I look forward to the time when all of the parties here can work together on this. There has been organic growth in momentum in the population, among academics and among various voluntary organisations. This brings it to the institution itself to assist us in delivering on this, which is the biggest project in all of our lifetimes.”
“Kilmainham Gaol clearly holds a special place in the hearts of Irish people. For almost 150 years, it has been a direct witness to virtually all events of great significance in modern Irish political history. It was the sight of the incarceration of the United Irishmen, Robert Emmet, Anne Devlin, the Young Irelanders, the Fenians, the Invincibles, Charles Stewart Parnell, members of the Land League, and, of course, all of the 1916 leaders were executed within its walls. The board of trustees wishes to host a commemorative event and relaunch an iconic historical book, Ghosts of Kilmainham . I hope they can get an answer quickly from the Minister with responsibility for the OPW.”
“I raise the issue of Kilmainham Gaol and the request the board of visitors made to the OPW, which should be made directly to the Minister, to organise an event, permissible under its terms of reference, to honour the voluntary workers and families who between the years of 1960 and 1986 restored the prison from complete ruin. They are people like Charlie Gorman, otherwise known as the suicide roofer, which tells you the circumstances he was working under. He is an uncle of Teachta Máire Devine. He pushed through the gates in 1960 determined to refurbish this hallowed site, which had been left to rot. The OPW has not responded to this request and I would like the Acting Leader to ask for this to be responded to as promptly as possible to allow the event to take place.”
“This was the one inquiry and investigation the British Government tried its best to prevent happening. Now that they have finally got that inquiry, I hope we all wish that they get the truth behind his murder that has been hidden for many years and the family gets some degree of closure. That will make a significant contribution to ongoing challenges in dealing with the legacy of conflict in the North.”
“Leadership means stopping the poisonous narrative of fear and loss that has been fed to loyalist communities for a generation and which makes them easy prey for right-wing agitators in Ireland and abroad. It also means calling out the burning of religious effigies, our national flag, images of non-unionist politicians and mock-ups of refugees on boats on loyalist bonfires next month. It means promoting an honest dialogue based on respect and tolerance that equips communities to meet the many challenges that lie ahead. I offer my support to the family of Pat Finucane who have finally, after 37 years, secured an inquiry into Pat's murder. I had the privilege of knowing Pat and I met him on a number of occasions. The family has fought tooth and nail for 37 years.”
“People from ethnic minorities, many of whom provide vital services, particularly in the North's health service, have been attacked and had to flee burning homes with their children in loyalist areas of Belfast. It is reminiscent of anti-Catholic pogroms that happened in many decades over the last century. We have to be clear and unequivocal in calling out racist thuggery for what it is. Political leaders have spoken collectively in response to this and that is to be welcomed but political leaders cannot stand shoulder to shoulder with masked loyalists who are shouting racist and sectarian abuse in Scarva on Saturday and decry the same elements as they go on a racist pogrom and rampage a few nights later.”
“I raise again - it was raised yesterday and in the Dáil Chamber - the second night of rioting and disturbance in Belfast and some other areas of the North. All of us were shocked and appalled by the images of the attack on the man in Belfast on Monday. A man has been charged and will face judicial process in due course. The response to that has been absolutely outrageous. The North has the unenviable record of being the area with the highest level of violence against women, and has had it for many years. We have seen some horrific murders of women in recent years. The community response to all of that has been dignified vigils and solidarity with families of victims, including the family of Natalie McNally from my county of Armagh, who have politically called out the racist pogroms we have seen in response to the attack in Belfast.”
“Section 6 needs further explanation. On the face of it the Minister has the power to issue directions to any public body. That is specifically not the power to change or make a decision, but it can be a power to put pressure on the decision-making process. That might impact on a proper decision being reached. Given the nature of politics in this country, that is something that needs to be teased out further. We intend to come back on some of those. I would be grateful if, today or on the next Stage, the Minister would elaborate on some of those issues raised.”
“That is something that needs to be teased out further as this progresses through its course in this House. I understand the issue referred to by the Minister on section 15 of the climate Act and some of the impacts it has had on projects. It is a similar issue holding up the A5, which will connect through Tyrone and Donegal into the rest of the country. That matter is in the courts at the moment. There is a responsibility because there is a challenge delivering critical infrastructure to keep pace with development happening across the island. That is something we need collaboration on. We also need collaboration to find ways in other areas where the Government can do that to offset carbon increases that will emerge from some of these critical infrastructure projects. That is a clear requirement that needs to be brought forward.”
“There are other startling facts and figures regarding capital delivery in the State. Uisce Éireann recently stated to the infrastructure committee that it will take until up to 2050 before gaps in water infrastructure currently blocking the building of homes will be filled. In a housing crisis that is a startling admission, yet Government does not want housing to be specifically referenced as critical infrastructure in this Bill. On the issue of prioritisation, and the Minister has outlined the process that will be followed, but even if it comes back to it all, it is what the Government has decided and thinks should be prioritised. That raises obvious concerns given the nature of electoral politics. Who decides what is and what merits being called a critical project?”
“We have further concerns with the Bill as to how the Minister will designate what constitutes a piece of critical infrastructure and what does not. The Government does not have a great track record at delivering capital projects. We discussed this yesterday in the context of some OPW projects. There have been major delays and huge cost overruns on projects pertaining to water infrastructure, flood relief, healthcare delivery and transport projects. A glaring example of how not to do critical infrastructure delivery is the national children's hospital, currently over budget by a staggering €1.5 billion, delayed by four years and counting, and with 15 missed deadlines being reported to the public accounts committee. This project must be one of the worst examples of Government mismanagement on record.”
“I thank the Minister for his presence. This is an important piece of legislation. Sinn Féin did not oppose the legislation in the Dail as we recognise that key infrastructure projects need to be delivered as quickly as possible. However, we have many reservations about it that we expressed and we continue to have them, including that the Government requested that pre-legislative scrutiny on this Bill be waived and that amendments we submitted on Committee Stage in the Dail were not supported at all by the Government. It is difficult to understand why the Government would not include housing, education or healthcare projects in the list of projects that enable essential facilities and systems of the State to function effectively. We intend to submit amendments on Committee Stage if and when this Bill reaches that Stage.”
“I thank the Minister of State for his responses to date. Clearly, we have not agreed on all the matters we have brought forward but they were brought forward with good intent. We will study his responses very carefully and go through the observations he has made on the amendments on the conduct of the inquiry and the assurances he has given in relation to the Government's approach to the conduct of the inquiry and the passage of this legislation. We will obviously continue to discuss this in due course.”
“It preserves the same protections as a person would have in criminal proceedings but requires that any refusal to answer under section 10 be specific, justified in writing and reviewable. Subject to those safeguards, witnesses must answer all relevant follow-up questions arising from their evidence or documents.”
“Any refusal shall— (i) be provided in writing or on the record, (ii) set out the specific legal basis for the refusal, and (iii) be subject to review by the Chairman for adequacy and reasonableness, and (c) subject to paragraph (b) , a designated person giving evidence under section 10 shall answer all questions put to him or her, including supplementary or follow-up questions arising from— (i) answers given under section 9 or 10 , (ii) any written statement provided under section 5(5)(a ), or (iii) any document, record or information relevant to the topics, areas of inquiry or matters specified in the relevant decision under section 5 or 6 .”. This amendment clarifies the limits on compellability when evidence is taken.”
“I move amendment No. 25: In page 12, to delete lines 5 to 10 and substitute the following: “(5) For the purpose of giving evidence— (a) under section 9 , a designated person shall not be compelled to give any evidence which he or she could not be compelled to give in criminal proceedings in the State, (b) under section 10 , a designated person may refuse to answer a question only where answering would give rise to a substantial and objectively reasonable risk of prejudice to a legal right or privilege recognised in criminal proceedings in the State.”
“I move amendment No. 24: In page 12, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following: “(5) Without prejudice to subsection (4) , the Chairman and counsel to the Inquiry shall be entitled to make submissions or representations to the nominated judge concerning the scope, relevance and permissible extent of questioning under section 9 or 10 .”. This amendment confirms that the chairman and counsel may make submissions to the nominated judge on the scope and relevance of questioning. It reinforces judicial oversight while ensuring the inquiry's leadership can guide how evidence is tested, and help to maintain fairness, focus and consistency during examinations conducted under sections 9 and 10.”
“This amendment strengthens participation rights by allowing certain affected parties to propose questions or topics, make submissions on the evidence and even apply to put questions directly to a witness. It ensures that their concerns are formally considered by the chair, counsel or the judge, enhancing fairness and transparency in how the evidence is tested.”
“I move amendment No. 23: In page 12, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following: “(5) A person referred to in subsection (3)(f) , (g) or (h) may— (a) propose to the Chairman, to counsel to the Inquiry, or to the nominated judge any questions or topics that the person considers relevant to the evidence being taken under section 9 or 10 , (b) make submissions or representations to the Chairman, to counsel to the Inquiry, or to the nominated judge in relation to the evidence being taken, and (c) apply to the nominated judge for permission to put questions directly to the designated person giving evidence, and the Chairman, counsel to the Inquiry, or the nominated judge, as the case may be, shall consider any such proposal,submission, representation or application.”.”
“(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) , the Chairman, or counsel to the Inquiry on his or her behalf, may— (a) put documents or records to the designated person, (b) pursue supplementary or follow-up questions, and (c) probe any matter that reasonably arises from the evidence, provided that the examination remains within the scope of the topics, areas of inquiry or matters specified in the relevant decision under section 5 or 6 . (4) Nothing in this section shall require the Chairman, or counsel to the Inquiry on his or her behalf, to confine questioning to clarification of answers given under section 9 .”.”
“(2) The Chairman, or counsel to the Inquiry on his or her behalf, may ask questions for the purpose of examining the designated person on any matters arising from the evidence, including— (a) matters arising from answers given to the nominated judge, (b) matters arising from any written statement provided under section 5(5)(a) , (c) matters arising from any document, record or information relevant to the topics, areas of inquiry or matters specified in the relevant decision under section 5 or section 6 , and (d) any inconsistencies, omissions or issues reasonably requiring further exploration for the purposes of the Inquiry.”