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 4 of 18.
“A national electronic termination of pregnancy dataset has been established to support service improvement and workforce planning. Education and training activity has expanded, with multidisciplinary education, foetal medicine study days and workshops, and the development of patient information leaflets. A programme of work is also under way to provide a suite of national clinical guidelines and patient information booklets. The feedback received directly from clinicians indicates that the service is working well. This is particularly significant if we take account of the fact that this was a new service built from the ground up. While it is acknowledged that a number of women continue to travel abroad for termination services, this figure has significantly reduced from 3,053 in 2017 to approximately 240 in 2023.”
“I refer to the comprehensive body of work being undertaken by the national termination of pregnancy service improvement group. Work arising from the independent review of the legislation, the O'Shea review, and the HSE-commissioned review of section 11 of the Act, the Regan review, is being progressed across ten dedicated work streams. Significant service development has taken place since the publication of the reviews. All 19 maternity hospitals now provide termination of pregnancy care, supported by designated clinical leads and co-ordinators. More than 490 community providers are delivering early medical abortion. The national governance structures have been strengthened through the relevant structures and governance group.”
“As my colleague the Minister, Deputy Carroll MacNeill, has done, I too acknowledge the women and families who have had heartbreaking personal circumstances in pregnancy and who have been the motivation behind this Bill. There are, of course, many perspectives involved in the issue of termination of pregnancy services. As legislators, it is important that we facilitate open and frank discussion and consideration of issues. We must respect the input and views of all in this House. Constructive debate is always helpful. I do not need to repeat all of the information the Minister has outlined but I will aim to make some critical points. The Government is committed to increasing access to safe termination of pregnancy services. In this regard, considerable progress has been made.”
“I thank the Deputy for raising the issues he has raised. I am sure the Minister, Chief of Staff and management of the Defence Forces are following this discussion very closely. Any of the outstanding issues which the Deputy has raised and indeed any of the issues which will be raised at today's delegate conference will receive maximum attention over the coming weeks and months.”
“I am assured that all necessary measures are being taken to ensure the protections of the working time directive are implemented fully on the ground. In that context, the working time directive subcommittee through the conciliation and arbitration scheme continues to meet on a regular basis. Using this forum, any issues which have arisen which pertain to the practical implementation on the ground of the protections set out in the directive have been brought to the attention of the Defence Forces management.”
“The military authorities have advised that in the intervening months, numerous briefings have been undertaken across the Defence Forces in addition to the availability of an instructional video. In addition, an instruction document from the Chief of Staff providing guidance to commanders and their personnel on all aspects of the implementation process, coupled with the Defence Forces' non-financial labour budget system, which is now in place, both provide important management tools in ensuring that the provisions of the directive are correctly applied. The Defence Forces are also leading on the development and implementation of a permanent electronic time and attendance system which is expected to be in place later this year. In the meantime, an interim time and attendance system has been put in place.”
“Upon the removal of the blanket exemption last year, the Chief of Staff was clear in communicating the responsibilities of Defence Forces management on the implementation of all aspects of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 across the entire Defence Forces. This included ensuring that commanding officers are fully aware of their management responsibilities with regard to both activities coming within the scope of the directive, and for those activities which are exempt. Military management is continuing to progress the implementation of a number of remaining health and safety protections and a Defence Forces working group has been convened for this purpose. Some of those measures requiring additional funding beyond existing resources are to be addressed in line with the normal Estimates process.”
“This body of work is rightly seen as a significant step forward in the extensive transformational journey already well under way in the Defence Forces. A range of additional health and safety measures were also agreed, with a number of them already implemented, including the provision of one return commercial home-reunion flight to Ireland in respect of an operational tour of duty of six months, where the security assessment by the military authorities determines that the individual cannot avail of leave in-theatre. In addition, enhanced Wi-Fi services in UNIFIL have been put in place.”
“As the Deputy will be aware, it is over 12 months now since the blanket exemption from the Organisation of Working Time Act for Defence Forces personnel was removed in January 2025, and the majority of Defence Forces personnel now enjoy the protections of the Act, including daily and weekly rest and maximum weekly working time over a 17-week period. I have mentioned that, due to their specific nature, a number of military activities continue to be exempted from the provisions of the working time directive. However, it is important to point out that a number of health and safety protections for those involved in such tasks have been agreed, including prescribed compensatory rest periods, which are now incorporated into Defence Forces regulation.”
“I thank the Deputy for raising this important matter. The Minister for Defence is at the annual PDFORRA delegate conference today. Bringing the Defence Forces within the remit of the Organisation of Working Time Act has been a key issue for the Defence Forces representative associations for a number of years. The inclusion of the Defence Forces under the Organisation of Working Time Act required careful consideration and extensive consultation in getting here and recognises the unique nature of the work carried out by our Defence Forces members. A particular consideration was of course those military activities which, due to their nature, continue to be exempt from the Act.”
“I hear what the Deputy is saying about vetting but, whether it is with the Defence Forces, people who are applying to An Garda Síochána or those applying for citizenship, the timelines for some parts of vetting are outside of our control. As I said, if people have lived at multiple addresses or in multiple countries, awaiting replies and clearance on vetting from other jurisdictions outside our control can sometimes lead to delays which, unfortunately, we cannot control.”
“To conclude on some of the key enabling measures that we have introduced for recruitment and retention, we have also increased the patrol duty allowance payable to Naval Service personnel at sea, which has been doubled after ten days at sea in a calendar year. We have seen the extension of the Naval Service tax credit for a further five years, the extension of the service commitment scheme for pilots in the Air Corps and air traffic control personnel, and we have seen engagement of external expertise to support recruitment in the Naval Service. To support recruitment and the implementation of related measures, budget 2026 has provided a record allocation of €1.49 billion to the defence sector, an increase of €145 million over 2025.”
“A range of new recruitment competition streams have successfully launched in recent years and include new competitions for air traffic controller cadetships, aircraft maintenance technicians, grooms in the Equitation School and dental nurses. Additional new competitions for chefs, communications and information services or cyber roles, medical officers and aircraft maintenance technicians have all launched in recent weeks. The 2026 cadetship competitions closed in March, with over 2,800 applications received. The key enabling measures include increases in the maximum ages of recruitment and retirement respectively, the extension of private and secondary healthcare to all personnel, and the application of the provisions of the working time directive across the Defence Forces, subject to certain exemptions.”
“The military authorities have informed me that the security clearance process can take anything from six weeks to nine months for candidates, depending on a variety of factors, such as their previous country or countries of residence, how many addresses they have lived at, prior interactions with police or security services and the speed at which foreign authorities respond to requests, to name just some of the complexities. Recruitment to the Defence Forces remains open and ongoing via a wide range of pathways, including general service recruitment, re-entry schemes and multiple direct entry competitions for specialist roles.”
“It should be noted that some candidates may be subject to fewer or additional stages of the process, depending on the specific competition for which they have applied, but the majority of candidates follow the process as outlined. A new candidate management system, Resumo, was introduced in December, making the process easier for applicants. Candidates now receive automated correspondence at all stages of the process to maximize engagement and ensure they are kept informed of the status of their application. My written reply contains a list of overall average times of progression by stage for all general service recruitment candidates who applied in quarter 1 of 2026. The Deputy has it there in the reply, so I do not need to go through the table. It gives the average number of days for each stage of the process.”
“The total number of applications for careers in the Permanent Defence Force exceeded 16,500, and more than 7,000 were received by the end of March of this year. Increases in application numbers and the overall strength of the Permanent Defence Force demonstrate that the key enabling measures which the Government has introduced to support and drive Defence Forces recruitment and retention are yielding positive results. On the specific matter of the recruitment process for the Defence Forces, the military authorities have advised that the process of candidates being recruited to the Permanent Defence Force comprises several stages, which include shortlisting, psychometric assessments, fitness and interview, medical, Garda vetting and security clearance, offer and attestation.”
“I thank Senator McGrath for raising this important matter and for giving me the opportunity to reply. I begin by reiterating the Government's strong commitment to boosting recruitment to and supporting the retention of personnel in the Defence Forces. Military authorities have advised that the strength of the Permanent Defence Force stood at 7,778 as of 31 March, the latest date for which this figure is available. Last year saw an increase in the overall strength of the Permanent Defence Force by almost 200 personnel, which was facilitated by the achievement of a total of 790 inductions during 2025, the highest figure in 20 years. We want to build on the growth achieved in 2025 and have set a target of 850 inductions to the Permanent Defence Force for 2026.”
“Early and constructive consultation with residents, community groups, voluntary groups and local stakeholders, including local businesses, helps to improve transparency and build public awareness. As the provisions of the 2024 Act are commenced, meaningful community participation will remain a central element of a modern, democratic and plan-led system that seeks to deliver sustainable development and an improved quality of life for communities across Ireland.”
“Again, I thank the Deputy for raising this important issue. The Planning and Development Act 2024 recognises that strong and sustainable communities are best supported through meaningful public participation in local development planning and decision-making. Effective planning is not solely about technical assessments or infrastructure co-ordination; it is also about ensuring communities have a genuine opportunity to shape the future of the places in which they live, work and raise their families. The Act strengthens the importance of engagement at all stages of the planning process, from the preparation of development plans and local area plans to consultation on individual planning applications and broader regeneration initiatives.”
“Public participation requirements ensure that communities are given opportunities to engage during the preparation of development plans, local area plans and planning schemes, including in relation to the zoning of land for different purposes. Statutory public consultation periods and engagement initiatives undertaken by planning authorities in developing these plans help to promote accountability and democratic transparency within the planning system, recognising that such plans ultimately guide and inform decision-making on planning applications. The reforms introduced by the Planning and Development Act 2024 seek to create a more coherent, efficient and accessible planning system while preserving strong safeguards for democratic participation and inter-agency co-ordination.”
“The Planning and Development Act 2024 strengthens the emphasis on a plan-led approach to development, with co-ordinated planning and collaboration between public bodies to identify future requirements for schools, healthcare facilities, transport systems and utilities before major developments are approved. Importantly, the planning process is not limited to institutional consultation alone. Public and community engagement is a core principle underpinning the 2024 Act. Members of the public, community organisations, environmental groups, business interests and other stakeholders have an important role in shaping the future development of their areas.”
“I thank Deputy Cooney for raising what is a very important matter and giving us the opportunity to update the House. Stakeholder public engagement is one of the most important principles underlining the planning system, with the need for engagement with local communities being of particular importance to enable every citizen to have their say in how their area grows and develops over time. Under the Planning and Development Act 2024, planning authorities are required to consult State agencies, prescribed authorities and members of the public when preparing development plans and determining planning applications. These legal requirements ensure that planning decisions are transparent, sustainable and consistent with national and regional policy objectives.”
“Uisce Éireann will continue to work to accelerate the delivery of this vital infrastructure and this process has already been greatly aided by reforms that the Government has made as part of implementing the accelerating infrastructure report.”
“Uisce Éireann is investing over €2 billion in leakage reduction under the revised national development plan. Fixing leaks is, of course, essential but it is only part of the solution. Fixing leaks alone will not meet the needs of the region nor will it address the issue of over-reliance on the River Liffey. A new sustainable source of water is required alongside continued leakage reduction. The project went for planning permission in December last year and construction is hoped to commence in 2028, subject to planning permission being granted and not challenged via litigation, so Uisce Éireann is hoping to complete the project by 2032. The project will work in tandem with Uisce Éireann's other major project, namely, the greater Dublin drainage project.”
“It is important to restate why we need the project. Currently, the water supply in the eastern and midlands region faces a number of serious challenges. A single source - the River Liffey - supplies 85% of the water requirements for 1.7 million people in the greater Dublin area. This dependency on the Liffey results in a serious vulnerability to risks such as prolonged drought and-or contamination, not just for Dublin, but for the whole of the eastern and midlands region. With forecasts showing that the region will need 34% more water by the year 2044 than is available today, this situation is not sustainable. The project will address these challenges and provide a secure water supply for housing development and economic growth across eastern and midlands region. The project works in tandem with ongoing leakage reduction efforts.”
“Uisce Éireann’s community engagement clinics are continuing throughout 2026 and a dedicated community liaison officer is working with the local communities along the route. The Government is committed to getting this vital infrastructure built as quickly as possible and will continue to support Uisce Éireann to deliver it.”
“All of this is being considered as part of the planning application process for the project and I would also note that the EIAR and other planning documents have been published by Uisce Éireann. On the lands required for the project, Uisce Éireann has engaged extensively with the main farming organisations - the Irish Farmers' Association, IFA, and the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers' Association, ICMSA - and an agreement has been reached on a standard agricultural wayleave package with both landowner representative organisations. I am pleased to note that around 81% of landowners have already signed up to this compensation package and Uisce Éireann is continuing its community engagement efforts.”
“Extensive preparation and studies have been undertaken and Uisce Éireann will continue to monitor the project during and after its construction. The potential environmental impacts of the project are being considered as part of the statutory planning process and will ultimately form part of the determination to be made by An Coimisiún Pleanála. This includes an extensive public consultation. As part of the planning application for the project submitted last December, a 30,000-page environmental impact assessment report, EIAR, was submitted by Uisce Éireann. The EIAR includes details of any likely significant environmental effects that may arise and the proposed mitigation measures that are being put in place.”
“The current cost estimate is €4.6 billion to €6 billion and construction of the project is scheduled to commence in 2028, with Uisce Éireann aiming to complete the project by 2032, subject to planning and other statutory approvals. It is important to note that the project will abstract a maximum of 2% of the average flow of the River Shannon at the Parteen Basin downstream of Lough Derg. The water levels at Lough Derg and the Parteen Basin will remain in the control of the ESB and the abstraction will not affect the normal operating water levels. Uisce Éireann’s modelling shows that the abstraction is sustainable, will have a neutral effect on water quality and will make no visible day-to-day difference for any water users.”
“I thank the Deputy for raising this important issue. There is a critical need for a new water source for Dublin, the east and the midlands. Currently, the River Liffey supplies 85% of the water requirements for 1.7 million people in Dublin, Meath, Kildare and Wicklow. By relying so heavily on one river, there is no alternative if there is a contamination or weather event and no backup if equipment failure affects supply. The project will provide Dublin, Meath, Kildare and Wicklow with a resilient, safe and secure water supply. It will also provide infrastructure with the capacity for future offtakes to serve communities along the route in Tipperary, Offaly and Westmeath.”
“Stakeholder organisations are encouraged to make submissions to the meetings, engage with other stakeholders and contribute at the meetings. Any stakeholder organisation that would like to contribute to these engagements is welcome to engage with our Department on the matter. Various stakeholders expressed their appreciation and satisfaction as to how the series of meetings has progressed does far. They thanked the Department for its willingness to initiate a programme for change and look forward to working with it to achieve a positive outcome.”
“I thank the Senator for raising these issues. I agree with what he has said about inconsistencies in different Garda divisions. One of our aims, and the reason we set up the stakeholder forum, is to try to iron out these issues. I reiterate that An Garda Síochána is the competent authority for licensing and possession of firearms within the State. Therefore, our Department does not have access to the current firearms licensing digital database. However, the Department is continuing positive communication and consultation on reform of the firearms licensing system with An Garda Síochána. The Department intends to continue stakeholder engagement meetings and the proactive and open engagement that has taken place.”
“A consultation phase is due to take place in the coming months with firearms representative organisations with regard to the findings of the recent engagements. The objective of these meetings is to provide a mechanism for ongoing engagement with firearms stakeholders from a broad range of areas within the firearms community, ensuring their valuable insights in specific areas of firearms can be considered in any future policy and legislative changes that may arise. The stakeholders attending these meetings include several of the representative organisations, experts in technical areas of firearms and members of An Garda Síochána's firearms policy unit. Several of the stakeholders were also members of the previous firearms consultative panel.”
“I can advise that ongoing engagement has continued with firearms stakeholders. The most recent engagement took place on 28 April 2026, when more than 20 representatives of the firearms community and firearms stakeholder organisations attended the meeting with my officials. This was the fourth in a series of meetings that have taken place since 18 September 2025. During this series of meetings, a multitude of items across the firearms sector has been discussed. This series of meetings is due to continue throughout the year. Many stakeholders who attended have expressed positive feedback to Department officials on the conduct and outcome of the meetings. Certain members have expressed their gratitude in regard to the productivity of the meetings. They were encouraged by the Department's efforts to maintain momentum in the process.”
“An Garda Síochána also meets with firearms stakeholder organisations in respect of relevant matters and officials from the Department also liaise regularly with the firearms policy unit of An Garda Síochána on firearms-related matters. In 2025, the Department organised a series of engagements with firearms stakeholders in Wicklow, Limerick, Carrick-on-Shannon and Mullingar. I and officials from my Department have also met with representative organisations, including the Target Shooting Ireland Olympic shooters and the National Association of Regional Game Councils, NARGC. In these and other engagements, I have confirmed my support for more regular and structured engagement between policymakers and firearms users, which has taken place since the previous meeting of the firearms consultative panel in 2019.”
“I thank Senator Brady for raising this important issue. The reform of the firearms licensing system has been under consideration for a number of years and extensive consultation has been undertaken. An Garda Síochána is the competent authority for licensing and possession of firearms within the State. The Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration is the competent authority for maintenance of the register of firearms dealers and the import and export within the European Union of firearms and ammunition. The Department of justice holds meetings with individual firearms organisations on request and engages with various firearms stakeholders, including representative firearms organisations, in various ways.”
“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, and whether it is appropriate that the chairman would be a judge in his own cause. These are secondary to the fundamental issues with what is proposed and for these reasons we are not accepting the amendment.”
“In regard to the proposal that a refusal to answer a question would be subject to a review by the chairman of the inquiry for adequacy and reasonableness, it is necessary to recall that the inquiry is established under the law of another sovereign state. The chairman 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 suggest that 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 that he might take on the case made could have no validity under Irish law.”
“As I set out in my response to the previous amendments, the mechanism provided for in the Bill is a bespoke mechanism designed to enable the taking of oral testimony 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 judges being only those approved in advance. Furthermore, it is difficult to see how the process proposed would work in practice in the course of the evidence being taken before a High Court judge. It would certainly require an adjournment of the process and would prolong it.”
“Providing, as section 11(5)(b) of the Bill does, that the witness is not required to answer any of the questions put by the chairman, or by counsel to the inquiry on his behalf, is necessary to avoid negating the safeguard of the head of the body making a decision, following consultation with Ministers, to refuse to answer certain questions at the outset on the grounds of likely prejudice to sovereignty, security or other essential interests of the State and to discharge obligations, including in relation to the investigation of criminal offences. The proposed amendment is incompatible with the legal framework being provided for in the Bill.”
“The Deputy's 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 subsection (10). The amendment is drafted on the basis that many of the Deputy's earlier amendments have been accepted and is therefore not amenable to being accepted for that reason alone.”
“The Deputy is seeking to insert a new subsection in section 11, after subsection (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 him or herself. In any event, it is linked to the Deputy'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 ensure the provision of assistance to an inquiry established in another jurisdiction, while ensuring necessary safeguards are in place, so we are not accepting the amendment.”
“In the case of the chairman or his counsel, it is unclear whether such challenges would be determined under Irish law or UK law. As will be clear from my remarks, I am satisfied the mechanism in the Bill is both legally necessary and legally sound, and is capable of operating reasonably efficiently so as to ensure requests for assistance are responded to as comprehensively as possible and without any undue delay. As such, we cannot accept the amendments.”
“It is entirely a matter for the chairman to decide if or how core participants may make submissions to him in relation to the matters on which he may seek assistance from State authorities under section 5 of the Bill. It is not a matter that is appropriate to the Bill. The elements of the amendment that would see the core participants making submissions to the nominated judge as to lines of questioning and seeking the judge's permission to directly question the designated person are wholly incompatible with the bespoke mechanism provided for in the Bill and the rationale underpinning such a mechanism. Apart from these fundamental problems with the amendment, giving the chairman, counsel to the inquiry and the nominated judge decision-making roles would likely bring legal challenges or appeals into play.”
“22 is linked to the amendments to section 5 which sought to dispense with the requirement for the chairman to specify the questions he wished to have answered and to instead submit a more open request identifying topics, areas and matters. That amendment has not been accepted and I cannot accept this amendment. 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, suggest lines of questioning to the chairman and ask questions of witnesses with the permission of the chairman.”
“The amendment would 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 it was possible to make such a provision in the Bill, notwithstanding the process is to be conducted otherwise than in public. Amendment No.”
“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 the opportunity to seek clarity on the answers given. There are also drafting and technical difficulties with the amendments. They purport to refer to section 6, which concerns requests for assistance from former ministerial officeholders, but no amendments equivalent to those proposed to section 5 were proposed to section 6. We cannot accept the amendments.”
“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. This is not the intention and would risk prolonging the process. Amendment No. 21 seeks to replace section 10. It 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 access to all factual knowledge to examine the designated person and pursue any lines of inquiry, such a role is incompatible with the rationale underpinning the bespoke mechanism provided for in the Bill. Section 10 as it stands goes as far as possible.”
“The judge dealing with the matter is in effect carrying out a commission-on-oath-type role. It is not a hearing per se and the judge does not have a judicial role in relation to the content of the questions, the answers or the clarifying questions that may be asked under section 10. The amendment seeks to turn the process into a hearing, which would see the judge take on the role of examiner deciding the lines of inquiry to pursue and the questions to ask the designated person. This is not the intended role of the judge, nor is it one 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 extensive materials available to the inquiry.”
“I touched on the difficulties with amendment No. 20 in my remarks on amendment No. 1. As it is linked to the change proposed to section 5(2), which has not been accepted, I cannot accept this amendment. This also applies to amendment No. 21. The amendment to substitute section 9 would fundamentally alter the bespoke legal mechanism being provided for in the Bill, which 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. On this reason is founded the principle of the questions asked of the designated persons by the nominated High Court judge being only those approved in advance. 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.”