Jim O'Callaghan
Dublin Bay South · Fianna Fáil · Ireland
“This relates to section 69 of the Bill as passed by Dáil Éireann, which amends Schedule 5 to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 to add the Courts Service to the Schedule.”
“The first four amendments in this group are minor drafting corrections. They corrected the wording in four places so that the Bill reads consistently. It is changing the word "references" to "a reference". They make no change to the substance or effect of the Bill.”
“The ARP scheme was introduced in July 2022 to recognise the generosity of members of the public who opened their houses, whether in their entirety or through the provision of a room, at their own expense to provide shelter to people displaced by the Ukraine war. The Department of Social Protection administers the scheme on my behalf.”
“I have no doubt it will be challenged, and I have to be able to convince a court, if it is being challenged, that this legislation weighs up conflicting interests and recognises there is a mechanism for somebody who has reformed himself to get off the register.”
“The scheme has been a lifeline for people from Ukraine displaced by the conflict, given high rental market rates and scarcity of rental accommodation.”
“I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle in the first instance for presiding over these Stages of the legislation. I am very pleased that this legislation has been enacted. I want to thank a few people very briefly. I thank Deputy McAuliffe for introducing me to Jason Poole. I thank Senator O'Loughlin for her work on this issue in the Seanad.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,181 lines we hold for Jim O'Callaghan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 24 of 84.
“I thank Deputy Butterly for her question. I fully recognise the crucial role played by legal practitioners in the effective administration of justice and, equally, that the criminal legal aid scheme is fundamental to upholding the constitutional and human right to a legal defence. The whole purpose of the reform of the criminal legal aid fee structure in the District Court is aimed primarily at improving efficiencies, speeding up case resolution and reducing unnecessary adjournments, while also ensuring fair remuneration for legal practitioners. It is proposed to replace the current appearance-based sliding scale with a flat fee model. For cases in the District Court, regardless of the number of appearances, a generous set fee will be payable to solicitors.”
“If somebody wanted to give evidence and say this conviction was out of character, that they have known this person for 20 years and that there were circumstances behind it, then that should be done under oath. I do not want to give the Deputy a commitment today about introducing legislation to that effect but it is something I will give consideration to.”
“It is a complicated issue. Sentencing is complicated. When we discuss it here the emphasis is hugely on the situation of the victim, as it should be. For too long in Ireland the victim did not get the recognition in the criminal justice process. However, a court also has to take into account the individual circumstances of the convicted person. That can be complicated and sometimes evidence of that convicted person - the offender - is necessary. How should that evidence be given? I certainly do not think it is appropriate for that evidence to be just a handwritten note or somebody who does not know the person that well providing that evidence. That is evidentially useless.”
“That will also remove the informality of it. Sometimes people think they will just write a letter. Generally they are pointless and inappropriate but if you want to assert something about somebody's character you should do it formally.”
“The Deputy mentioned homicide. Obviously it does not really arise in, say, a murder conviction because somebody is going to automatically face a mandatory life sentence. In terms of manslaughter, it does not apply at present. In general what happens in a case like that is the counsel representing the convicted person at the sentencing hearing will set out what he or she believes are mitigating factors the court should take into account. My view, which I spoke about even before the 2024 legislation commenced, is that it would be preferable if somebody wants to give character evidence in a serious offence - and I emphasise serious, as this cannot be happening the District Court or we would just clog it up - the most appropriate way to do it is on affidavit or by giving evidence in the witness box.”
“Certainly, when it comes to serious offences, if you wish to give character evidence in respect of an individual, then the preferable way to do it is in the witness box or on affidavit. Sentencing is a complicated issue and a difficult part of a judge's function. Not only are you sentencing the offence but you are sentencing the offender. You need to have information, if you are a judge, about the offender in order to determine what level of sentence should be imposed. If somebody has a series of previous convictions and there are other issues, a court will take that into account when imposing a sentence. Similarly, if it were a first offence or out of character that is something the court needs to take into account. The appropriate way to do it is not by writing a letter or doing an informal character note.”
“It is important, and I commend the Deputy for mentioning section 14 of that legislation because sometimes it is forgotten about. It was commenced in August 2024, so it is only beginning to operate in the past year or so. In effect, it means that if somebody wants to give character evidence in respect of a person being convicted of a serious sexual offence, or of rape, which is the most serious, in order to give that character evidence, they have to do it on oath or affidavit. The former means giving evidence in the court. I think that is the most appropriate way for character evidence to be given in serious offences. Obviously, if people are convicted in the District Court for minor offences I do not think it a tenable requirement that anyone wanting to give character evidence has to give it in a District Court.”
“I remain committed to recommendation number four but the most important priority is to get gardaí out on the streets, so people feel a sense of safety, not just in the city centre but in residential areas throughout the country.”
“I remain committed to recommendation number four. I want to see an extra 1,000 gardaí in Dublin. However, the Deputy was in government as well. He knows that things do not just happen with a click of the fingers or overnight. In order to get 1,000 new gardaí into the force in Dublin, I need to recruit them nationally. That cannot happen overnight. I am sure the Deputy can appreciate the challenges associated with that. The point I was making to Deputy Gannon is one I made about something said by a previous opposition spokesperson, that when you walk around Dublin and not just Leinster House, high visibility of gardaí is evident. That is the case. People say it to me and to lots of people in this House. It is apparent and it is making a dramatic improving impact on the city and people's sense of safety.”
“Not only is recruitment going well and we have had a new recruitment campaign but retention within An Garda Síochána is high. Less than 1% resign from An Garda Síochána annually, which is extremely low.”
“We are committed to following what is set out in the task force report. I cannot give a date as to when there will be 1,000 extra gardaí in the city. What I can give is assurance from being around the city centre that we now have high-visibility policing in Dublin city centre. That has had a transformative effect. We are getting gardaí out on the streets patrolling who were previously in stations. It is providing a great sense of confidence and safety to people who come into Dublin. My view is that it has had a significant impact, and I commend the Commissioner in that respect. Obviously, in order to keep that going and ensure that other aspects of Garda services are continued we need to get more recruits in. It is about getting the numbers up but it is a positive outlook at present.”
“Today, there are approximately 14,661 sworn members. We are getting close to the highest ever. In fact, this year I believe we will beat the highest ever and I hope to come back to the House on that.”
“In order to achieve the objective Deputy O'Gorman and virtually every other Member of this House wants in their constituencies resourcing and numbers need to increase but they are looking good. Two weeks ago, the Minister of State, Deputy Collins, and I were at a passing out in Templemore and 193 new recruits passed out. More importantly, the following Tuesday 200 went in. We are consistently seeing 200 go in and come out for each intake. I need to see that continue. I was pleased the other day to launch the latest recruitment campaign for An Garda Síochána. Since September 2024, 728 probationary gardaí have been assigned to the Dublin metropolitan region, and I believe recruitment is gathering momentum. People are now realising that being a member of An Garda Síochána is an interesting job. There is a whole variety of units available.”
“I thank the Deputy for his question. It certainly is the Government's objective in the programme for Government to recruit 5,000 more gardaí during its term. We certainly want to achieve the objectives set out in David McRedmond's report that there would be 1,000 more gardaí for Dublin. This is very much dependent on resources and the numbers that come into An Garda Síochána. I also have to be conscious that although we are both Dublin Deputies, other Deputies are understandably insistent that whenever new recruits come out some go to their areas as well. I do not get involved in directing the Garda Commissioner as to where recruits should go but I tell him that I want to see high-visibility policing.”
“I would have thought that if the person convicted dies in prison that should be provided. However, I am worried about putting it into law.”
“I am looking through section 8. There is a lot of information that must be provided to the victim in terms of an appeal, a parole application and the release of the individual. This is information that should be provided. Deputy Carthy's specific question is whether a victim should be told when their abuser or attacker who has been convicted dies. I need to consider that. Obviously, we could have a situation where somebody committed an offence in their early 20s and gets out in their early to mid 30s. If we were to impose this obligation, it could mean that 40 years later there would be an obligation on the State to inform a victim that the person who attacked them some 50 or 60 years previously has died. I need to make sure that could operate effectively.”
“It is certainly the position that in the case of people who have life sentences imposed upon them, the Parole Board, because of legislation that has been introduced, can restrict their movements or develop exclusion zones in order that they are prevented from going into certain areas and have to stay away from their victims. This is something I will consider. I must also take into account the need to allow people coming out of prison who have served their sentences to get on with their lives. There is a mechanism in that regard.”
“I thank Deputy Carthy for referring to the committee's hearing. I was aware of that the civil protection orders Bill was being considered. I am also aware of the case of Sonya Stokes. This is an area I will look at. Providing information to victims about a person convicted of an attack upon them is something that is understandably useful to victims of crime. There is also the issue of exclusion orders. One thing people find very traumatic is the prospect that they could bump into their attacker after he is released from prison.”
“Once the directive is agreed by us and our European partners, I will introduce proposals not too long afterwards, hopefully. As a matter of standard practice, officials in the Department review victims' rights legislation. It is anticipated that this process will include consideration of whether additional guidelines or protocols are required.”
“Ireland has actively engaged in the negotiations. In many respects, the enhanced provisions reflect practices that are already in place nationally under existing legislation. The aim behind the revised directive is to address existing gaps in protection and support by introducing higher and more consistent standards for victims of crime throughout the EU, including in relation to access to information and support services, reporting mechanisms, data protection, individual assessment of victims' needs, enhanced support during court proceedings, access to legal aid and compensation. The direct answer to the question is that there will be a review of the rights to which victims are entitled. As Deputy Carthy knows, however, the 2017 victims Act was a transposition of an EU directive. That directive is being amended.”
“I thank Deputy Carthy for raising this matter. This provision was very novel when the legislation was enacted nearly ten years ago in terms of that fact that it set out statutorily the information that victims of crime are entitled to. Deputy Carthy's question refers to section 8. In effect, the 2017 Act transposed Article 6 of the EU victims directive into domestic law. It established minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims. Section 8 relates to a victim's right to receive information about their case. I am pleased to tell Deputy Carthy that political agreement has been reached between the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament on an amending victims' rights directive. The text in this regard is being finalised for formal adoption. This is expected to happen shortly.”
“The only basis I can go on to assess whether crime numbers are going up or down is that of the recorded figures coming from the CSO. Based on these, high-visibility policing and the work of An Garda Síochána are proving effective.”
“Residential areas are not being left behind. What is happening is that increased Garda resources are being placed in areas that require high-visibility policing. We are starting in the inner city. As stated, this will be rolled out to more residential areas and throughout the country. The recorded crime statistics released on 26 March 2026 are quite revealing. They report a reduction in recorded crime in nine categories for 2025 in the Dublin metropolitan region, DMR, north central and north Garda divisions. These categories include damage to property, the environment and burglary-related offences. I am informed the Central Statistics Office, CSO, reported a reduction in recorded crime in eight categories for 2025 in the DMR west Garda division. High-visibility policing is having an impact in reducing crime.”
“There are a lot of gardaí in Dublin Central at present. As Deputy Gannon knows, we have initiated a high-visibility policing campaign. That is still operating, and there are very many gardaí in the city centre. I want to see more gardaí deployed in suburban areas such as Glasnevin and Cabra, and I think that will happen as numbers increase.”
“In terms of the narrative the Deputy outlined in respect of his constituent, I repeatedly attend meetings of residents' associations at which, very appropriately, members of An Garda Síochána turn up. The message I consistently hear is that if you want to get the assistance of An Garda Síochána, the most appropriate thing to do is to phone 999. I know that we sometimes think we should only phone 999 if it is an emergency. In fact, the most effective way of having a complaint processed expeditiously and efficiently is to phone 999. I urge people such as the Deputy's constituent to do that. On the previous occasion I was in the Dáil speaking about Garda numbers, one of Deputy Gannon's Opposition colleagues - not someone from the Social Democrats - said that he cannot leave Leinster House without tripping over gardaí.”
“My information from An Garda Síochána is that if information is required in respect of Glasnevin or Cabra, that can be provided. There is good Garda representation there. What we want to do is to try to change the local community safety partnerships from joint policing committees, which sometimes just had a phalanx of senior gardaí sitting there listening to councillors. We need a broader representation and that is what I think this committee will provide.”
“Gerry Breen is no longer a public representative, but I certainly have great confidence in Cieran Perry and, indeed, Gerry Breen. There are currently 26 members appointed to it. The purpose is to try to ensure that we get across-the-board representation of youth services, the business community, older persons, and addiction and substance misuse support services, which are very important in Dublin Central. The constituency encompasses Cabra, Glasnevin and the north inner city. The issue the Deputy is concerned about is in respect of the superintendents. It is my understanding that there are superintendents from Mountjoy, Store Street and the Bridewell on it. The Deputy's concern is that Cabra and Glasnevin superintendents may not be on it. I want to emphasise that there is flexibility in terms of the attendance of superintendents.”
“The local community safety partnerships are extremely important in terms of what the Government and I are trying to do within local communities. I commenced the operation of these partnerships in April of last year. Throughout the country there have been a number of meetings of the local community safety partnerships. I think they will be a major improvement on what was there before, namely the joint policing committees. I am very pleased to note that the Dublin Central local community safety partnership had its first meeting on 26 January. Councillor Cieran Perry was elected as chair and Gerry Breen was elected as vice chair. I worked with both of them on Dublin City Council. They are two fine public representatives.”
“I am giving you an answer here and now. I am very pleased to note that he described my reply as "incredibly interesting". That is the first time anyone has described a response of mine as incredibly interesting. It is important to note that there will be measures put in place and there will be engagement with the beneficiaries of temporary protection to ensure there is no cliff-edge. When we look at the level of supports that have been provided to date by the Irish Government, we can see that they have been extraordinarily generous. The amount of money that was spent in 2024 was €1.2 billion. This year, we will be spending €600 million. We have reduced expenditure by 50%. Even Deputy Carthy must welcome that.”
“The Minister for housing, Deputy James Browne, was very much part of the deliberations of the Cabinet subcommittee on migration when the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, and I presented the proposals. That is an issue that has been carefully considered. I think Sinn Féin is supportive of the measures I have announced.”
“We will also ensure that information is provided to displaced people and that there is co-ordination, monitoring and exchange of information between member states and with the Ukrainian authorities. Nothing is going to be done on a cliff-edge basis. There will be adequate notice provided to individuals. The very generous response from Ireland to date in terms of people availing of temporary protection will continue, but we need to taper off measures and support provided.”
“As the Deputy knows, temporary protection will continue until March 2027. A decision will have to be made by the European Council in respect of what will happen after that. My view is that it will likely be extended, but on a restricted basis. In terms of what the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, and I are doing, the proposals which we have outlined and which will hopefully be confirmed by Cabinet on Tuesday week will provide an opportunity for people to transition to other legal statuses before the end of temporary protection. We are also recognising that, in fact, very many of the Ukrainian people here will want to go back to Ukraine. We want to facilitate their reintegration. That is something that is being sought by the Ukrainian Government as well.”
“It is important to emphasise that we have to ensure we do not have any cliff-edge ending of these supports. We have been exceptionally generous in terms of temporary protection. I welcome the fact that Sinn Féin was very supportive of the measures that were introduced in 2022. We are now going to have to taper them off in a measured and considered way.”
“Certainly, at domestic level, the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, and I are making significant progress with it. We put forward a proposal to the Cabinet committee on justice, migration and social affairs in respect of what we say should happen in respect of proposals dealing with temporary protection. I am pleased to say that on Tuesday week I will be bringing that proposal to Cabinet. The Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, and I will be elaborating on the detail of it afterwards. What is clear from the results of the subcommittee is that we will be ending the State accommodation that has been provided since 2024. However, it will remain in place for vulnerable groups of people. It is also the case that we will be reducing the accommodation recognition payment, ARP, from €600 to €400.”
“Deputy Carthy has raised the issue of temporary protection. At the outset of all these debates, it is important that we understand and emphasise the reason temporary protection was initiated in 2022. The reason, of course, was the unlawful and illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia. It was because of this that is was agreed across the board in the European Union that temporary protection would be initiated. It was the first it was initiated. Temporary protection is designed to provide protection which is temporary, while an issue such as an invasion or human rights violation is happening in a country. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to tell Deputy Carthy when the war in Ukraine will come to an end. Obviously, a decision has to be made at European level in terms of what is going to happen from March 2027 onwards.”
“As Minister for justice, I appeal for people with knowledge of this to come forward and give information. However, most of these people were involved in or supported paramilitary activity, and regrettably the history of legacy matters to date has shown us that they will not give information. This does not take away from the responsibility that I and that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have to ensure we can try to provide some answers for the families. I reaffirm the Government's absolute commitment to co-operating with the Omagh bombing inquiry. We have done so to date and will continue to do so, notwithstanding any commentary in respect of it.”
“It is a useful mechanism. I thank Senators for their contributions. When we talk about legacy, inquiries, tribunals and commissions of investigation, let us not lose sight of the fact that the people responsible in this instance for the Omagh atrocity were the people who murderously parked a car in the centre of Omagh town with a large bomb in it. They are the people responsible for this and they have to face up to their consciences. People will be aware of that and there are people out there who have evidence they could give to the inquiry. That evidence should be provided by them. Rather than always looking to the Irish State and what the Irish State is providing, there are people out there who have information, and they should give that.”
“Ultimately, for an inquiry to reach findings and prepare a report, it can only do so based on evidence. The documents are not evidence unless they are adduced in evidence and proven by an individual. Similarly, we need oral evidence from persons who have information. Unfortunately, I suspect we will not find out the persons responsible for the atrocity through the inquiry. What the inquiry seeks to do is identify whether or not anything could have been done by the UK state to ensure that it was stopped or averted. The scope of the inquiry is, to the extent necessary, to investigate issues relating to whether the Omagh bombing could have been prevented by UK state authorities. For that purpose, the inquiry is obviously keen to find out what information An Garda Síochána had and provided to the RUC in advance of the bombing.”
“We can compel people in this jurisdiction to give evidence, but we cannot compel people to give evidence in another jurisdiction. When it comes to compelling people I believe that the overwhelming number of members of An Garda Síochána or officials who may need to give evidence will do so voluntarily, as will be the case with former Ministers, Taoisigh or whoever else needs to give that evidence. We had a template for this previously under the 2019 legislation, where co-operation was provided to the Kingsmill inquest. The coroner responsible subsequently commended the Irish Government on the co-operation that was given in respect of the Kingsmill inquest. We have seen that this is a type of mechanism that has been effective in the past, and I believe it will be effective in the future.”
“On top of that, I introduced changes to the data protection regulations last year to facilitate disclosure of information. The last part of the preparatory work in advance of the hearings that this State is putting in place is this legislation. It will mean that if there is evidence that can be given by a member of An Garda Síochána or the Defence Forces, or a former Minister, that can happen. It can happen in this jurisdiction with the chairman of the inquiry here, and then the evidence given here can be transposed into the evidence of the inquiry in Omagh and relied upon for the purpose of his inquiries. In my opinion, that is a smart response to a legal difficulty that has arisen because of the two different jurisdictions. Senator Clonan spoke about compelling people to give evidence.”
“That referred, in particular, to documents that An Garda Síochána has in respect of the bombing or of its investigations into the bombing. There were thorough investigations done, and obviously the Garda has documentation that may be relevant to the inquiry. It is a sign of the co-operation and commitment of An Garda Síochána, and of me and the Irish Government, that to date 29,000 pages of documentation have been provided to the inquiry under the memorandum of understanding. There is a mechanism set out. I am not sure if there were redactions, but if there were on grounds of national security or protection of sources, there is a mechanism to enable the inquiry to see behind those redactions. This is a memorandum of understanding that has been put in place to facilitate the inquiry.”
“There are obviously many documents and many people in the United Kingdom who would be able to assist that inquiry. I hope and presume that all relevant documentation possessed by police forces or intelligence agencies in the United Kingdom will be provided through the inquiry and be publicly available for inspection by the inquiry. I similarly hope that the persons who have evidence to give will give evidence so the chairman can hear the full detail of what occurred. What we are doing here is trying to facilitate that, and we are doing it in a number of ways. First of all, I did it in April 2025 by entering into a memorandum of understanding with the chairman of the inquiry, which said that I would provide to the inquiry all relevant documentation concerning the Omagh bombing.”
“We have been able to agree a mechanism between the United Kingdom and Ireland as to how this inquiry can be facilitated by this State. It is challenging and difficult when there is an inquiry or judicial process in one state that needs the co-operation or involvement of entities in the other state. That has always been a difficulty. Notwithstanding the outstanding co-operation that exists between An Garda Síochána, the PSNI and the judicial authorities on both sides of the Border, there is always going to be a challenge when different legal systems confront each other, as they do on the Border of this island. That is why the legislation we are introducing here is so important. A decision was made by the United Kingdom Government and Parliament to establish a bombing inquiry into Omagh.”
“As I have repeatedly said to families, however, inquiries, tribunals of inquiry and commissions of investigation do not deliver justice. They provide answers to questions being asked by the authorities. Ultimately, the real question the families of the Omagh victims want answered is who is responsible for this atrocity. There are people out there who have that information. If they have that information, they should bring it before the inquiry or to the attention of the PSNI. In circumstances where that has not happened, and it has not happened in this case for 28 years or so, it is necessary for the states to step in to try to provide some answers, even if justice cannot be provided. The Bill we are dealing with is specifically in respect of the Omagh bombing, the worst atrocity of the Troubles.”
“Unfortunately, there have not been convictions before the criminal courts that have been sustained and that the families could refer to and point out the people who are responsible for the murder of their family member. We know the Real IRA was responsible for the atrocity, but the individuals have not been fully brought to account before the courts so that people can say justice was done. In circumstances where the families can point to a court determination that justice has been done, the states, Ireland and the United Kingdom, tried to fill the gap by saying that although we may not be able to deliver justice, we will try to deliver answers. That is why inquiries are necessary and why the Omagh bombing inquiry is happening at present.”
“I thank Senators for their contributions and acknowledge support across the House for the legislation I am introducing to the Seanad today. Obviously, the purpose of this legislation is to try to deal with the issue of legacy. Legacy is a big issue in Ireland that probably was not dealt with in the way people envisaged it would be. The reason legacy arises is that in many instances justice has not been delivered. When a bomb was placed in Omagh in August 1998 in the knowledge that it would create havoc and murder and mayhem, the people responsible for that are the people who planted the bomb in Omagh on that day. Senator Gallagher raised some of the history of prosecutions in respect of this atrocity.”
“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. The inquiry has announced that it will commence its evidential hearings on 21 September. I am committed to having this Bill on the Statute Book by then. I hope to get the support of the Seanad. I commend and thank the justice committee for waiving pre-legislative scrutiny. I also want to acknowledge the intensive engagement between the inquiry team and my officials over the past months. I thank the inquiry for its constructive approach as we seek to work together to support the inquiry in fulfilling its terms of reference.”
“That said, I would draw the attention of the House to the provision that enables core participants and their legal representatives to attend with the chairman and inquiry team. Those core participants represent many of the families. The section also makes clear that the nominated judge may issue directions on the arrangements for the taking of evidence. I would draw attention to the explicit reference to any arrangements necessary for securing the safety of people. Once the evidence has been taken, it will be a matter for the nominated judge to certify it and bring it to the chairperson. That brings me to the close of how the bespoke mechanism is intended to operate.”
“Section 7 deals with the designation of witnesses. 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. Sections 9 to 11, inclusive, deal with the taking of evidence. Section 9 provides that the nominated judge shall ask the agreed questions, while section 10 enables the chairman or counsel to ask the inquiry to ask follow-up questions. This is a new feature compared to the 2019 Act. Section 11 sets out that the evidence is to be taken on oath, with the same 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.”
“If the inquiry forms a view that a former ministerial office holder has relevant evidence to give, it is appropriate that the State has 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 to be requested to provide assistance. Their participation will be voluntary and subject to their written consent. However, as I stated I expect co-operation from all concerned who are requested to assist. 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 the State. The Bill seeks to provide a means for those retired members and officials or ministerial office holders to provide evidence to the inquiry under Irish law.”