Niall Collins
Limerick County · Fianna Fáil · Ireland
“We believe that EU membership is about being aware of the advantages of membership and making sure these are understood by the public. We want to encourage the Irish public to participate in that national conversation.”
“On behalf of the Minister for Transport, I thank the Deputies for raising these important issues. On 1 April, the Road Traffic Control of Certain Vehicles Regulations 2026, known as Grace's law in memory of Grace Lynch, were signed into law.”
“The Department of Transport is examining the issue of mandating the use of protective equipment for e-scooters and e-bikes along with other road safety-focused measures. Proposals in this regard are under consideration by the Ministers. The Department is also considering the matter of registration for e-scooters.”
“The strategy, A Career for EU, aims to improve Irish participation and success rates in EU recruitment processes for institutions such as the European Commission, the European Parliament and over 50 EU agencies.”
“They already benefit from significant Exchequer-funded rent supports through the housing assistance payment or rental accommodation scheme and, critically, must comply fully with the housing standards for rental houses regulations.”
“The timetable for implementation of all new and enhanced services is subject to funding, operational readiness and capacity. The public transport sector is currently experiencing a significant workforce shortage, particularly among drivers and mechanics.”
The complete record
Every one of 893 lines we hold for Niall Collins, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 18.
“I will now outline the reasons. During the passage of the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013, a detailed debate was held in this House on the issue of hare coursing. The Dáil voted overwhelmingly to allow the continuation of hare coursing in accordance with certain rules. The 2013 Act in particular states that the hare can only be coursed in a space from which it has a reasonable chance of escape. If a hare is chased in a space where it has no reasonable chance of escape, it violates section 12 of the Act and constitutes a criminal animal cruelty offence. Where a specific case of animal neglect or cruelty is identified, offences may be prosecuted under the 2013 Act. When the Act was enacted, it significantly increased the penalties.”
“I convey the apologies of the Minister, Deputy Heydon, who is unable to attend. I am taking the debate on behalf of the Government. I wish to clearly state at the outset that the area of animal welfare is of the utmost importance to me, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Government as a whole. Our Department devotes considerable resources to protecting the well-being of animals and dealing with breaches of animal welfare legislation. The Government remains fully committed to promoting good practices that respect the welfare of all animals. The Government fully recognises the strong views on both sides of this debate and policy area, which have been the subject of extensive debate over the years. On behalf of the Government, I am opposing the Animal Health and Welfare (Ban on Hare Coursing) Bill 2020.”
“I thank all of the speakers for their contributions and pledges of support for the motion. Hopefully, it will be the last occasion that we will be here renewing this on a twice-annual basis. As we indicated, it will be legislated for on a permanent basis. We listened to what the speakers had to say. Some of the issues raised were on topic and some of them were off topic. A lot of them had to do with the local authority realm as well. Obviously, Government does not run local authorities. It shows the importance of the local authorities that they have such an impact on the vibrancy of the hospitality sector and also on the town and village centres. They play a very important role.”
“Accordingly, it is proposed to extend the operation of the Act for a further period of six months until 30 November next to allow for ongoing certainty for all those operating in the hospitality sector, their patrons, local authorities and An Garda Síochána. In summary, I am here to ask for the support of the House to extend the provisions of outdoor seating which have proven to be popular in the industry, local businesses and patrons. As previously stated, these provisions have been included in the Criminal Law, Civil Law and Defence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026. I commend the motion to the House.”
“The Government considers it to be in the public interest to provide for the sale or supply of intoxicating liquor in certain circumstances in seating areas located outside licensed premises. This allows licensees of such premises to conduct business and to operate in these outdoor seating areas. It is important to extend this operational period for another six months to give clarity to licensed premises, local authorities and An Garda Síochána. The increased availability and popularity of outdoor dining and socialising has been welcomed by many. Its innovation is reflective of the demand for more variety and choice in the ways in which we socialise and in the types of venues and social spaces that are available. It is also crucial to the viability of many local businesses across our towns and cities.”
“The measures provided for in the Act also ensure that An Garda Síochána know that those premises engaged in the sale and supply of intoxicating liquor in outdoor seating areas are doing so lawfully, providing An Garda Síochána with the power to direct licence holders to comply with this legislation as it relates to outdoor seating areas, facilitates the enforcement of the Act and is an important safeguard. The House will agree that it is essential that An Garda Síochána continue to have clarity in relation to its powers for public order purposes, and equally, that licensed premises owners understand their obligations to maintain order in outside public areas where they are selling alcohol.”
“As the progression of the Bill through the Houses is ongoing, it will not be possible to bring these provisions into operation prior to 31 May next. The extension of provisions in the 2021 Act today will allow the hospitality sector, local businesses and patrons to continue to enjoy the benefits of outdoor hospitality while the measures to place matters on a permanent footing are going through the Houses. Earlier this month, the Government agreed to extend the provisions of the 2021 Act for a further six months.”
“Those in the hospitality sector faced enormous challenges, and the State intervened and provided significant and worthwhile supports that kept many of those businesses going. The provisions of the 2021 Act were in place until 30 November 2021 and have been further extended nine times by resolutions of each House of the Oireachtas in November 2021, May 2022, November 2022, May 2023, November 2023, May 2024, October 2024, May 2025 and November 2025. The relevant provisions regularising the position in respect of outdoor seating areas on a permanent basis have been included in the Criminal Law, Civil Law and Defence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026, which was published on 9 January 2026, completed Second Stage in the Dáil on 22 January and completed Committee Stage on 19 May.”
“I move: That Dáil Éireann resolves that the period of operation of sections 1 to 7 and 9 of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021 (No. 14 of 2021) be extended for a further period of six months, beginning on the 1st day of June, 2026 and ending on the 30th day of November, 2026. I am here to introduce a resolution to extend the sunset clause in the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021. Deputies will be aware that the Act was introduced in July 2021 and this allowed the hospitality sector to continue to provide the sale and supply of intoxicating liquor in outdoor seating areas. This Act was introduced during the Covid-19 pandemic. Much of the legislation enacted at that time was introduced in response to the real challenges faced, in particular by local businesses, because of the pandemic.”
“The amendment seeks to limit the grounds on which a designated person may refuse to answer a question asked by or on behalf of the chairman of the inquiry under section 10. The amendment is drafted on the basis that many of the Senator’s earlier amendments would have been accepted. As they have not been accepted, this amendment is not amenable to being accepted for that reason.”
“The Senator is seeking to insert a new subsection after section 11(4) dealing with the right of the chairman and counsel to the inquiry to make submissions or representations to the nominated judge concerning the scope, relevance and permissible extent of questioning under sections 9 and 10. It appears to extend to the questions that might be put by the nominated judge, core participants or their legal representatives or the nominated judge, himself or herself. In any event, it is linked to the Senator’s amendment to section 5(2), which has not been accepted as it would change the whole basis of the bespoke mechanism that has been carefully designed to enable the provision of assistance to an inquiry established in another jurisdiction while ensuring that necessary safeguards are in place. I cannot accept the amendment.”
“Apart from these fundamental problems with the amendment, in seeking to give the chairman, counsel to the inquiry and the nominated judge decision-making roles, it would likely bring legal challenges or appeals into play. In the case of the chairman or his counsel, it is unclear if such challenges would be determined under Irish law or UK law. As will be clear from my remarks, we are satisfied that the mechanism in the Bill is both legally necessary and legally sound, and is capable of operating reasonably efficiently so as to ensure that requests for assistance are responded to as comprehensively as possible and without undue delay. I cannot accept this amendment.”
“It is entirely a matter for the chairman of the inquiry to decide if, or how, core participants may make submissions to him in relation to the matters on which he may seek assistance from Irish State authorities under section 5 of the Bill. It is not a matter that is appropriate to the Bill. Other elements of the Senator’s amendment seeking to have the core participants make submissions to the nominated judge as to lines of questioning and seeking the permission of the nominated judge to directly question the designated person are wholly incompatible with the bespoke mechanism provided for in the Bill and the rationale underpinning the need for such a bespoke mechanism.”
“23 is linked to the Senator’s earlier amendments to section 5 which sought to dispense with the requirement for the chairman to specify the questions that he wished to have answered and instead submit a more open request identifying topics, areas and matters. That amendment has not been accepted and I cannot accept this amendment. In considering amendment No. 23, I would recall that the inquiry is established under the law of the United Kingdom and operates in accordance with the rules and procedures applicable to such inquiries in that jurisdiction. Those rules govern the right of core participants to make submissions and suggest lines of questioning to the chairman and, indeed, to ask questions of witnesses themselves with the permission of the chairman.”
“The Senator is seeking to insert a new subsection in section 11 after subsection (4) dealing with the rights of core participants to the inquiry. The core participants are largely family members and have a formal status before the inquiry with rights to receive documents and make submissions to the chairman. There are 62 core participants, of whom 58 comprise families or groups of families, represented by a range of legal firms. The Bill makes provision for them to attend and hear at first hand the evidence given before the nominated judge of the High Court. This is an important new feature compared with the 2019 Act and I am pleased that it was possible to make such provision in the Bill, notwithstanding that the process is to be conducted otherwise than in public. Amendment No.”
“I would note that there are also drafting and technical difficulties with these amendments. They purport to refer to section 6, which concerns requests for assistance from former ministerial office holders, but no equivalent amendments as proposed to section 5 were proposed to section 6. We cannot accept these amendments.”
“22 which seeks to replace section 10 of the Bill, this would see the chairman of the inquiry, or counsel to the inquiry on his behalf, having a similar role to that proposed for the nominated judge under section 9. While the chairman or his representative would have all the factual knowledge available to him to examine the designated person and pursue any lines of inquiry, such a role is simply incompatible with the rationale underpinning the need for the bespoke mechanism provided for in the Bill. Section 10 as it stands in the Bill goes as far as possible. It has been drafted in ease of the inquiry so that in the event of minor points arising that could be clarified on the day, the chairman will have an opportunity to ask questions to seek to clarify the answers given.”
“This is not, as I have said, the intended role of the judge nor is it a role that he or she would be equipped to undertake as he or she would not have the factual knowledge to do so. The judge would in effect be putting him or herself in the place of the chairman to the inquiry but without the factual knowledge of the extensive materials available to the inquiry. In addition, as I referred to earlier, assigning the judge a decision-making role would likely raise the issue of whether the judge’s decisions could be challenged or appealed. This is not the intention and would certainly risk prolonging the process. Turning to amendment No.”
“Under section 9, the role of the High Court judge is solely to act as a conduit for the evidence to be given by the designated person in response to approved questions. The judge dealing with the matter is in effect carrying out a commission on oath-type role. It is not a hearing per se . The judge does not have a judicial role in relation to the content of the questions to be asked or the content of the answers or of the clarifying guestions that may be asked under section 10. The Senator's amendment seeks to turn the process into a hearing and would see the judge take on the role of examiner, deciding what lines of inquiry to pursue and questions to be asked of the designated person.”
“I have already touched on the difficulties with this amendment, No. 21, in my remarks on amendment No. 2. As it is linked to the change proposed by the Senator to section 5(2) which has not been accepted, we cannot accept this amendment. This also applies in the case of amendment No. 22. The Senator’s amendment to substitute section 9 would have the effect of fundamentally altering the bespoke legal mechanism that is being provided for in the Bill which, as I have said, is designed to enable the taking of oral evidence in a manner that protects the essential interests of the State and the rights of witnesses. It is for this reason that it is founded on the questions to be asked of the designated persons by the nominated High Court judge being only those approved in advance.”
“Finally, I do have to say that I am doubtful as to the logic of creating a mechanism whereby the inquiry makes a request for assistance in the form of oral evidence under section 5 even though it may not be established that the oral evidence is actually required until after the preparation of witness statements under the Senator’s proposed amendment. This seems a somewhat back-to-front approach, if I may say so, and we prefer the logic of the mechanism in the Bill, which is based on the chairman only making a request for assistance where he has established that the taking of oral evidence is required. For those reasons we will not accept the amendment.”
“As I understand how the inquiry is approaching its work, following its examination of a written witness statement, it may decide there are matters remaining that necessitate the taking of oral evidence or that there are no outstanding matters and it does not require the person to provide oral evidence. This applies in the case of UK witnesses as it does in the case of Irish State witnesses. We are satisfied from our consultations with the Office of the Attorney General that there is no need for legislation to support the provision of assistance in relation to the gathering of such written statements. It can be done administratively.”
“The head of a State body has no power to direct a former official and has no sanction available to them to impose in the case of non-compliance. However, as I stated before the Seanad on Second Stage, we expect co-operation from all concerned who are requested to provide assistance. We anticipate that more requests for witness statements may be received and our Department is giving consideration to formally setting out an agreed process for the handling of such requests. This would be in the interests of transparency and ease of the inquiry.”
“Through this process, the inquiry is identifying persons from whom it wishes to take written statements. My Department, as the central point of contact for the inquiry, has already received requests for assistance in relation to the taking of witness statements from a number of persons and is engaging with An Garda Síochána in relation to the processing of those requests. In so far as they may be former office holders, it will, of course, be a matter for them as private citizens to decide whether they wish to provide witness statements as they cannot be compelled to provide assistance to a foreign inquiry. It is not the case, as proposed in the Senator’s amendment, that the head of the State body can ensure that the former office holders provides a written statement.”
“The questions specified by the chairman will arise from his consideration of the materials that the inquiry has gathered in the course of its work, including witness statements. As the Senator will be aware, there is a memorandum of understanding in place with the inquiry in relation to the disclosure of Irish State materials. A substantial volume of material has been disclosed to date - over 30,000 pages - and that process is ongoing. The inquiry is examining those materials and materials disclosed by UK state authorities, including the PSNI and the intelligence services. The legal representatives of the core participants to the inquiry, principally family members, are also examining the materials shared with them by the inquiry and drawing any potential lines of questioning to the attention of the inquiry team.”
“While there is some confusion in the drafting of the amendment itself, for example, the office holder or former office holder may well be the designated person who is to give the oral evidence before the nominated judge of the High Court, what is proposed is at odds with the mechanism provided for in the Bill and does not take account of how the State is working with the inquiry. The mechanism provided for in the Bill is, out of necessity, given that the inquiry is established under the laws of another foreign state, premised on the chairman of the inquiry specifying the questions he wishes to be asked and the answers to those questions, insofar as they are acceded to, being put into evidence under oath before a nominated judge of the High Court.”
“I thank Senator Murphy for this amendment. The Senator is seeking to insert a new section after section 5, providing for the taking of written witness statements from office holders and former office holders. The statements would be provided to the designated person who would, in turn, provide them to the chairman of the inquiry. If the chairman is satisfied with the contents, he may decide that he does not require the person concerned to give oral evidence. I note that no provision is made in respect of former ministerial office holders, which presents technical and drafting issues with the Senator’s proposed amendments to later sections of the Bill.”
“In effect, they would be putting themselves at risk of being held criminally liable for failure to comply with orders of the chairman. It is these considerations that resulted in the scope of the Bill before us going beyond what was provided for in 2019 in respect of the provision of assistance to UK Troubles-related inquests. While what is provided for is voluntary assistance in recognition that past officers or private citizens cannot be compelled to provide assistance to a foreign inquiry, as I stated before in the House at Second Stage, we expect co-operation from all concerned who are requested to provide assistance. It is clear from that my remarks that we are not accepting the amendments.”
“These are secondary to the fundamental problem with the proposal. An important consideration when developing this Bill was how provision might be made for past office holders to assist. Like everyone, we are very conscious that the inquiry will likely wish to seek to hear from those with first-hand information of the events prior to the bombing. We are also very conscious that due to the passage of time, most if not all of those persons will be well into their retirement. While such persons can of their own volition decide to attend before the inquiry in the UK if they choose to do so, they would remain subject to certain residual obligations in respect of sensitive information acquired during their service but without the benefit of the privileges and immunities which they are entitled to under Irish law.”
“The chairman of the inquiry is necessarily limited to applying the law of the United Kingdom and were he to be assigned a role in determining the adequacy and reasonableness of the case put forward by the person concerned, he could only do so by applying UK law. I respectfully say this is not a tenable proposition. It is also the case that the chairman's powers do not extend beyond the United Kingdom, and any view he might take on the case made could have no validity under Irish law. The amendment raises many other issues, such as whether the outcome of the chairman’s review would be subject to appeal before the courts, here or in the UK, thereby introducing delay into the process, or whether a person suffering ill health would have any means of declining a request to assist.”
“Leaving aside some confusion in the wording of the amendment, which refers to consent being required in the first part and to a refusal to consent in the second part, the proposal is fundamentally flawed. It seeks to assign to the chairman of the inquiry the role of reviewing the case set out by the person for refusing to consent "for adequacy and reasonableness". In effect, the amendment appears to assign to the chairman the role of deciding whether the person has the right to refuse to consent to provide oral testimony before the nominated Irish High Court judge. In considering this proposal, it is necessary to recall that the inquiry is established under the law of another sovereign state.”
“As we understand it, in the Senator's proposed amendment to section 5(5) and its equivalent in section 6(5), he is seeking to introduce a form of compulsion for former officeholders, be they past members of An Garda Síochána, the Defence Forces, civil servants or former ministerial officeholders, to give evidence before the High Court. This would be subject to the person concerned having the right to demonstrate that answering the questions would give rise to a risk of prejudice to their legal rights or to the performance of functions lawfully exercised during their tenure. The risk of prejudice would need to reach the level of "a substantial and objectively reasonable risk of prejudice". In such cases their consent would be required.”
“The Senator has referred to a concern that national security grounds must not be misused to prevent the disclosure of information that might be embarrassing to services or to conceal wrongdoing or failures. We are entirely at one on that point and I am satisfied that the test as set out in section 5(4) and the layered approach adopted, which requires consultation with the Minister or, in some instances, two Ministers, safeguards against this risk. For these reasons we are not accepting the amendments.”
“It will, of necessity, require the head of the State body to set out in writing the basis of their opinion including the nature of the prejudice that is likely to occur and why it cannot be mitigated, for example, by partial disclosure or the provision of a gist of the evidence, or the use of codes to anonymise certain persons. Fourth, I draw the Senator's attention to the requirement in section 5(6) that where a decision has been taken to refuse a request in respect of a particular question, that decision and the reason for the refusal must be set out in writing to the chairman of the inquiry. Taking the section as a whole, I am satisfied that it has been designed in a manner that ensures that any decision to refuse will be taken only after very careful consideration and be well-founded on an assessment that prejudice is likely to occur.”
“It will inform our consideration of any request from the head of a body to refuse to accede to a request on any of the grounds set out in section 5(4). Second, the decision to refuse rests with the most senior officers in our State bodies. They are bound to act lawfully and with integrity and to make decisions on an objective, reasonable and rational basis in the public interest. Third, as we have alluded to, where the head of the body is of the opinion that acceding to a request would be likely to prejudice the sovereignty or security of the State, the head must consult with the line Minister, and where the Minister for justice is not the line Minister, also the Minister for justice. This is an important safeguard in the process.”
“In the first instance, it is clear from section 5(3) that the head of a body may refuse a request for assistance in full or in part. This option is essential. It is our firm view and that of the Government that we must do everything possible to ensure that the chairman of the inquiry has access to the information that he needs to carry out his work and answer the questions of the families. This position has informed all of the actions that we have taken to support and facilitate the work of the inquiry, including putting in place a memorandum of understanding, MOU, in relation to the disclosure of materials, implementing measures to support the disclosure of sensitive personal data and bringing forward this Bill.”
“I note that the Senator's amendment seeks to qualify the risk of prejudice that would be required by stating that it must be a "specific, identifiable and substantial risk" and that it should only be used as a ground for refusal where risk mitigations, such as redactions or partial disclosures, would not afford sufficient protection. We do not believe that these qualifications overcome the ultimate effect, which would be to lower the threshold. Amendment No. 9 picks up a similar theme and seeks to provide that a refusal may not be based on a "general, speculative or unparticularised assertion of harm". We do no believe that this amendment is necessary or adds anything when the totality of section 5 is considered.”
“The test, as set out in section 5(4)(b)(i), requires the head of the State body, be that the Garda Commissioner, the Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces or the Secretary General of a Department, to be of the opinion that acceding to a request would be likely to prejudice the fundamental concerns of the State. The language mirrors that used in the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 2019 that provides for co-operation with UK Troubles-related inquests and which has been used successfully. The test as set out is, in my view, a higher threshold for the head to overcome than that proposed by the Senator. The Senator's proposed threshold as set out in amendment No. 8 simply requires that the head be of the opinion that acceding would be likely to cause a risk of prejudice to these fundamental concerns of the State.”
“I am replying to amendments Nos. 8 and 9 as they are grouped. I thank both Senators for their amendments and comments. As I understand it, the intent of the amendments to section 5(4) of the Bill is to seek to narrow the circumstances in which the head of the State body is required to refuse to accede to a request for assistance for reasons linked to the sovereignty or security of the State, or other essential interests of the State. We do not believe that the amendments achieve this, rather, they would seem to have the effect of lowering the threshold for refusal.”
“There is no intention to create such an avenue and doing so would certainly risk prolonging the process. I prefer our approach, as set out in Bill. It has been carefully designed to maximise the evidence available to the inquiry in a manner that is consistent with our sovereignty, our laws and our obligations to protect the safety and security of the State and the rights of citizens. We are unable to accept the amendments.”
“This would involve the judge putting him or herself in the place of the chairman to the inquiry but without the factual knowledge of all the material available to the chairman through the disclosure process or the chairman’s lines of investigation. This would be to greatly alter the intended role of the nominated judge, who is to act only as a conduit for the evidence. The nominated judge is not acting judicially or involved in the administration of justice. In addition, assigning the judge a decision-making role would likely raise the issue of whether the judge’s decisions could be challenged or appealed. As the Senator will be aware, Article 34.5.4° of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction from a decision of the High Court.”
“The head would not have sufficiently detailed information to do so. Were the head to accede to broad topics, witnesses would be put in the invidious position at a later stage of the process of having to decide whether answering a specific question would give rise to a risk of prejudice to the security of the State and so forth. I do not believe this is a workable proposition. There is, as I have said, a second fundamental problem with the proposed amendment, and this becomes clearer when the later proposed amendment to section 9 is considered, that being, amendment No. 21. It appears that it would be for the nominated judge of the High Court to examine the witness on the “topics, areas of inquiry or matters" and decide what questions to pose.”
“The mechanism enables the taking of the oral testimony in a manner that protects the rights of witnesses while also providing for the possibility of protecting sovereignty, national security and other essential interests of the State and meeting obligations to, inter alia , investigate crime, protect life and comply with data protection obligations. The Bill does this by requiring that the questions to be answered by the witness must be approved in advance by the head of the State body concerned. The proposed amendment, by only requiring the chairman to specify "topics, areas of inquiry, or matters”, is not compatible with an obligation on the head of the State body concerned under section 5(4) to refuse to accede to a request on the basis of any of the grounds listed in that subsection.”
“As the Minister outlined on Second Stage, there are legal complexities that must be navigated in the relationship between Ireland, as a sovereign State, and an inquiry established under the laws of another sovereign state. While the Government is fully committed to assisting the inquiry we must ensure that we do so in a manner that is consistent with our sovereignty, our laws and our obligations to protect the safety and security of the State and the rights of citizens. Following extensive engagement with the Office of the Attorney General on how these two goals could be navigated, what is provided for in the Bill is a robust legal mechanism akin to that legislated for in 2019 to assist UK Troubles-related inquests.”
“Leaving aside that issue, the effect of this amendment would be to fundamentally alter the nature of the bespoke legal mechanism that is provided for in this Bill to assist the Omagh bombing inquiry. It would do so in two respects: first, by weakening the in-built safeguards designed to enable the taking of oral evidence for the purposes of an inquiry established in another jurisdiction; and second, by altering the role of the nominated judge of the High Court who is to act only as the conduit for the oral evidence. When considering this amendment, it is necessary to recall why a bespoke legal mechanism is required to assist the inquiry in the first place and why this legislation is required.”
“I thank Senator Murphy for his amendments, which seek to substitute section 5(2)of the Bill and, in doing so, to provide that the chairman of the inquiry would, instead of specifying the questions that he wished to have asked of an officeholder or former officeholder, specify “the topics, areas of inquiry, or matters on which the Chairman requests that evidence be taken”. I note that the Senator has not put down a similar amendment to section 6, which deals with requests for assistance from former holders of ministerial office. This would create drafting and technical difficulties with many of his other amendments to later sections of the Bill.”
“It is certainly true that An Garda Síochána continued relentlessly to invest substantial resources in preventing and detecting dissident activity in this jurisdiction following the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, working in close co-operation with the RUC and, subsequently, the PSNI. It is an unfortunate reality that this continues today, and that the recent attacks on police stations in Lurgan and Dunmurry remind us that the threat from paramilitary groups persists, and that they are willing to act with total disregard for the harm they may inflict on communities. That is as much as I have to add.”
“In reply to Senator Clonan, who has been somewhat careful in his language, it has been implied here that the Irish authorities knew a lot more about the bomb in advance of its detonation on 15 August, and that members of An Garda Síochána may have had knowledge of the bomb until its passage. The position is that would be an unsubstantiated allegation. If it is true, the allegation is of the utmost seriousness and the Senator should refer any information he has to An Garda Síochána for full investigation, or to the Omagh bombing Inquiry established by the UK Government to investigate whether the bombing could have been prevented.”
“The Department will work closely with all relevant stakeholders to ensure that any development of the drug treatment court is effective and sustainable. I assure the Senator that the Minister is committed to advancing approaches to reduce reoffending and support rehabilitation. We acknowledge the important work that has been undertaken to date by the drug treatment court.”
“As I outlined, the evaluation is currently under consideration by the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration. This will be a key step in deciding its future. The evaluation will provide an indication of what is working well and where improvements can be made. However, it is essential to proceed with this based on strong evidence and ensuring that the necessary supports are in place and available with all relevant services. The Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, will carefully consider the evaluation's recommendations and engage with relevant colleagues and stakeholders on the next steps. Consideration of resources, inter-agency co-ordination and the availability of the appropriate treatment services are necessary.”