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 5 of 18.
“I am satisfied, following 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. Finally, 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 evident that oral evidence is required until after the preparation of witness statements. This seems rather back to front. I 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 the taking of oral evidence is required. We are not accepting the amendments, basically.”
“However, as we stated 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 my Department is giving consideration to formally setting out an agreed process for handling such requests. This will be in the interests of transparency and ease of the inquiry. As I understand how the inquiry is approaching its work following its examination of a written witness statement, it may decide that matters remain 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.”
“My Department, as the central point of contact for the inquiry, has already received requests for assistance relating to the taking of witness statements from a number of persons and is engaging with An Garda Síochána about the processing of those requests. Insofar as they may be former officeholders, it will 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 Deputy's amendment, that the head of a State body can ensure that a former officeholder provides a written statement. A head of a State body has no power to direct a former official and no sanction available to impose in the case of non-compliance.”
“A substantial volume of material has been disclosed to date - over 26,000 pages - and that process is ongoing. The inquiry is examining those materials and materials disclosed by the UK state authorities, including the PSNI and intelligence services. The legal representatives of the core participants of 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. Through this process, the inquiry is identifying persons from whom it wishes to take written statements.”
“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, of necessity, given that the inquiry is established under the laws of another sovereign state, premised on the chairman of the inquiry specifying the questions that 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. 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 Deputy will be aware, a memorandum of understanding is in place with the inquiry regarding the disclosure of Irish State materials.”
“The Deputy is seeking to insert a new section after section 5 of the Bill providing for the taking of written witness statements from officeholders and former officeholders. 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 officeholders, which presents technical and drafting issues with the Deputy's proposed amendments to later sections of the Bill. There is some confusion in the drafting of the amendment, since, for example, the officeholder may well be the designated person who is to give the oral evidence before the nominated judge of the High Court.”
“While what is provided for is voluntary assistance in recognition of the fact that past officers are private citizens and cannot be compelled to provide assistance to a foreign inquiry, as I stated on Second Stage, I expect co-operation from all concerned who are requested to provide assistance. As will be clear from our remarks, we cannot accept these amendments.”
“While such persons can, of their own volition, decide to attend before the inquiry in the UK, 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 to which they are entitled under Irish law. They would, in effect, be putting themselves at risk of being held criminally liable for failure to comply with orders of the chairman. These considerations resulted in the scope of the Bill going beyond what was provided for in 2019 in respect of the provision of assistance to UK Troubles-related inquests.”
“The amendment raises many other issues, for example, 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 may have any means of declining a request to assist, but 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 officeholders to assist. Like everyone, I am conscious that the inquiry will likely wish to seek to hear from those with first-hand information of the events prior to the bombing. I am also conscious that, due to the passage of time, most, if not all, of those persons will be well into retirement.”
“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 that 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 that he might take on the case made could have no validity under Irish law.”
“Leaving aside some confusion in the wording of the amendment, which refers to consent being required in the first paragraph and to a refusal to consent in the second part, the proposal is fundamentally flawed. It seeks to assign the chairman of the inquiry the role of reviewing the case set out by the persons 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.”
“I thank the Deputy for his amendments. As I understand the Deputy’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 or the Civil Service 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.”
“We are entirely at one on that point and we are satisfied that the test as set out in section 5(4) and the layers approach adopted, which require consultation with the Minister or, in some instances, two Ministers, safeguards against this risk. For these reasons, we cannot accept the amendments.”
“Fourth, I would draw the Deputy'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, we are 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 the assessment that prejudice is likely to occur. The Deputy 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.”
“Third, as I alluded to, where the head of a 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. 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 by, for example, a partial disclosure, the provision of a gist of the evidence or the use of codes to anonymise certain persons.”
“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 in relation to the disclosure of materials implementing measures to support the disclosure of sensitive personal data and bringing forward this Bill, and it will inform our consideration of any request from the head of a body to refuse to accede to a request on any 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.”
“We do not believe that these qualifications overcome the ultimate effect, which would be to lower the threshold. Amendment No. 8 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 not believe that this amendment is necessary or adds anything when the totality of section 5 is considered. First, 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.”
“The language mirrors that used in the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 2019, which provides for co-operation with UK Troubles-related inquests and has been used successfully. The test as set out is, in our view, a higher threshold for the head to overcome than that proposed by the Deputy. The Deputy’s proposed threshold as set out in amendment No. 7 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 note that the Deputy’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.”
“I thank the Deputy for these amendments. As we understand it, the intent of the amendments to section 5(4) of the Bill is 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 this amendment achieves that. Rather, it would seem to have the effect of lowering the threshold for refusal. The test, as set out in section 5(4)(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.”
“There is no intention to create such an avenue, and doing so would certainly risk prolonging the process. Our preferred approach is set out in the Bill and has been carefully designed to maximise the evidence available to the inquiry in a manner that is consistent with our sovereignty, laws and obligations to protect the safety and security of the State and the rights of its citizens. We are unable to accept the amendments.”
“This would involve the judge putting himself or herself in the place of the chairman of the inquiry, but without 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 Deputy is 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 could 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. We do not believe that this is a workable proposition. There is a second fundamental problem with the proposed amendment, and this becomes clear when the later proposed amendment to section 9 is considered, which is amendment No. 20. 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 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 outlined on Committee 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, laws and 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 the UK Troubles-related inquest.”
“Leaving aside such issues, the effect of this amendment would be to fundamentally alter the nature of the bespoke legal mechanism provided for in this Bill to assist the Omagh bombing inquiry. It would do so in two respects: 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 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 the amendments, it is necessary to recall why a bespoke legal mechanism, namely, this legislation, was required to assist the inquiry in the first place.”
“I thank the Deputy for his amendments. Amendment No. 1 seeks to substitute section 5(2) of the Bill and, in doing so, seeks to provide that the chairman of the inquiry would, instead of specifying the questions he wishes 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 Deputy has not put down a similar amendment to section 6, which deals with requests for assistance from former holders of ministerial office. This creates drafting and technical difficulties in respect of the Deputy’s other amendments to later sections of the Bill.”
“I reiterate that this Government is aware people are concerned about both energy security and end-energy costs at this unprecedented time. As the geopolitical situation continues to evolve, we will remain focused on ensuring that Ireland’s energy security remains robust while endeavouring to assist those experiencing real and immediate financial pressures.”
“In addition, the Department of Social Protection can also provide support through the additional needs payment to help households meet expenses, including those who face difficulties with fuel bills. The current conflict highlights why Ireland must reduce its reliance on imported fossil fuels, accelerate the deployment of renewables and expand interconnection with trusted European partners. Since 2015, Ireland has more than doubled the share of electricity in the system coming from renewable sources, which was over 40% in 2025. This Government is prioritising the delivery of more renewable energy and the development of the electricity grid to build resilience and connect renewable energy with demand. A total of €3.5 billion in equity has been provided for Ireland’s onshore and offshore grid.”
“These measures come on foot of Ministers holding a series of constructive meetings with representative groups, which culminated in this further significant support package to address the ongoing crisis. Senators should note that there has not been any increase in relation to household electricity or gas since the conflict began. However, a range of protections are in place for customers experiencing difficulties in paying their bills. Anyone who is struggling with their bill is strongly encouraged to engage with their supplier. Suppliers will not disconnect customers who engage with them. The Minister, Deputy O’Brien, has engaged with the four biggest energy retailers in recent months to ensure that hardship funds and focused measures are in place for any customers in difficulty.”
“These measures include: reducing excise on diesel by a further 10 cent, VAT inclusive, bringing the total reduction on diesel to 32 cent, VAT inclusive; reducing the excise on petrol by a further 10 cent, VAT inclusive, bringing the total reduction on petrol to 27 cent; reducing the excise on marked gas oil, that is, green diesel, by a further 2.4 cent, VAT inclusive, bringing the total reduction on green diesel to 7.4 cent, VAT inclusive; extending the NORA levy reduction from 1 June to 31 July 2026; and deferring the planned increase in carbon tax, scheduled for 1 May until 14 October. This will provide further support to customers of marked gas oil, kerosene, natural gas, solid fuels and other non-propellant fuels.”
“Stock may be released from Ireland’s stockholding in the event of a shortage of refined product on the domestic market or, as recently happened, to participate in an International Energy Agency collective action to alleviate a global oil shortage. As Senators will be aware, the Government has agreed a new package of measures on fuel costs to support the transport, farming and fisheries sectors. The measures follow significant recent engagement with industry representatives and are in addition to the previously allocated €250 million in targeted supports to assist those experiencing real and immediate financial pressure.”
“In terms of fuel availability more generally for essential sectors, the Department is actively monitoring the situation and is liaising closely with national and international partners. It is important to note that the Department has convened the oil security of supply group, which meets weekly, and consists of relevant Departments and agencies, in addition to Fuels for Ireland and oil companies. Ireland’s fuel supply chains remain robust and reliable. Furthermore, the National Oil Reserves Agency, NORA, has operational responsibility for the day-to-day management of the State’s strategic oil reserve. NORA currently holds 90 days of oil stocks.”
“On the current situation more specifically, the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment has been proactive in engaging with stakeholders around oil supply. The Department is proactively monitoring supply in line with the oil emergency response plan. This plan provides the basis of Ireland’s response and provides the Minister with substantial legal powers to secure and protect supply if necessary. The plan and underpinning legislation and structures have been substantially enhanced and updated following the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, building on the strong foundations that were in place. As a result, Ireland is much better prepared to manage any emerging situation with respect to a fuel shortage arising from the conflict in Iran.”
“I thank the Cathaoirleach. As Senators will be well aware, oil and gas prices have been volatile since the conflict began in the Middle East and the situation is dynamic. Furthermore, the issue of Ireland’s energy security has been at the forefront of this Government’s mind for quite some time. Energy Security in Ireland to 2030 was published in November 2023 and outlines a strategy to ensure energy security in Ireland for this decade, while ensuring a sustainable transition to a carbon neutral energy system by 2050. The report was published as part of an energy security package containing a range of supplementary analyses, consultations and reviews, which have informed the recommendations and actions related to energy security.”
“This new accelerated process mirrors elements of the future broader procedure and screening required by the EU pact on migration and asylum, while still adhering to the International Protection Act 2015. We will continue to improve the efficiencies and the transparencies where possible in relation to the international protection process.”
“As the Senator will be aware, Ireland has opted in to the EU asylum and migration pact, which will come into effect in June of this year. The pact will provide a fair, sustainable and efficient asylum procedure. This will be achieved through convergence in asylum practices across the European Union and through the introduction of streamlined and faster processing times. As part of efforts to improve efficiencies in the processing of applications, applications have been processed at both the IPO offices in Mount Street and at the Citywest reception centre for some time now. On 1 July 2025, the Department introduced the first phase of a gradual transition to a new accelerated end-to-end process for applicants entering the international protection system in Ireland.”
“Information recorded in this regard is not stored in a manner that allows detailed data to be extracted. With the transition to the migration pact under way, system updates and moves to improved databases will allow for enhanced data processing and reporting. I can confirm that, from June, it is planned that all interview data will be collected in a manner that will allow for reporting. I assure the Senator that the Department is committed to enhancing transparency and effective communication of the Department's work, including in the area of international protection.”
“Where an applicant does not attend a scheduled interview but is able to provide a reasonable explanation or a medical certificate, the interview is rescheduled. In relation to cases before the International Protection Appeals Tribunal, IPAT, where an appellant does not attend their scheduled hearing, a communication issues to them and their legal representative advising that they have a timeframe of three days in which to engage with the tribunal or else the appeal will be marked for withdrawal. If a response is received within the three days, the assigned tribunal member will consider if the explanation is acceptable to proceed. Where there is no contact, the tribunal issues a notification letter advising that the appeal is deemed withdrawn.”
“In relation to applicants for international protection who do not present for their personal interviews, this can be due to a number of reasons, including where the applicant is unable to attend due to illness or extreme weather situations. When an applicant provides a medical certificate or a reasonable explanation, either prior to or within three working days of the missed interview, a new date for their interview is arranged. In situations where no medical certificates or reasonable reasons are forthcoming, the applicant's case is considered as potentially non-co-operative. This involves applications being assessed on the basis of the information that is on the file at the time.”
“I thank Senator Keogan for raising the matter, which I am taking of behalf of the Minister, Deputy O’Callaghan. I assure the Senator that it is a central priority for our Department that our migration laws are robust and enforced. Over the last number of years, there has been a significantly increased investment into the international protection system to improve efficiencies and output, as well as enhancing the application, interview and decision-making process for applicants. In 2025, the International Protection Office, IPO, delivered over 20,200 first-instance decisions. This is a 44% increase compared with approximately 14,100 decisions made in 2024.”
“He said: can we be clear, anyone who has based their reporting of the proceedings ... on the basis that ... [the inquiry] suggested that the government of Ireland was the sole cause for the need for the postponement, anyone who has reported on the basis ... that the government of Ireland was being blamed, has made a serious error and must correct it. Returning to the Bill, I have listened to the contributions here today since taking over from the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, here in the Chamber. I will brief him on those contributions. He looks forward to working with Deputies to ensure this Bill makes its passage through this House and the other House as soon as possible. We thank the Deputies for their contributions.”
“I will put on record that the decision by the inquiry last December to postpone its March evidential hearing was disappointing, particularly for survivors and for victims' families. At its procedural hearing on 19 March, the inquiry announced that the postponed hearings will now begin on 21 September. The announcement of a date for the rescheduled hearing is welcome. The inquiry referred to the disclosure of Irish State materials as being only one of several reasons the March hearings were postponed and did not seek to assign blame to anyone, least of all the Government of Ireland and our authorities. I refer Deputy Kelly to the published transcript of the inquiry's hearing of last Thursday, 19 March, where counsel to the inquiry felt the need to correct inaccurate media reporting on this matter.”
“The Government has also committed to putting in place the arrangements necessary to facilitate the fullest possible co-operation with the UK legacy commission, once it is established. The UK Government has made a reciprocal commitment in respect of legacy investigations and inquiries in this jurisdiction. Legislation is required in both jurisdictions. The progress on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill in the UK Parliament is to be welcomed. While our legislation can only be published and proceed through the Houses once the UK Bill is in place, the Minister hopes to be in a position to publish his proposals before the summer and to bring them before the Houses as quickly as possible once the UK Bill is law. Deputy Alan Kelly asked whether the disclosure process by the Irish State was to blame for the six-month delay to the inquiry.”
“The Bill is focused on the terrible atrocity that was the Omagh bombing but there were many others committed over the course of the Troubles. Many were the subject of the Kenova report, which we debated in this House last month. Reaching agreement on the joint framework to address the legacy of the Troubles last autumn was a major step towards providing routes to truth and accountability for those many other families and survivors. The Government is committed to giving effect to its commitments under the framework. The Garda legacy liaison unit has already been established to act as a single point of contact for victims in relation to unresolved incidents in this jurisdiction.”
“The reality is that there is an undeniable tension between the Government's desire to assist an inquiry established under the law of another sovereign jurisdiction and the duty of the Government to work within the laws of Ireland and to safeguard the essential interests of the State and the rights of citizens. The Minister has sought to go as far as possible, using the 2019 statutory mechanism as a template but adding to it in some notable respects, not least in facilitating the families and survivors to be present in the High Court to hear any evidence at first hand. The Government is satisfied that this bespoke approach is legally robust and will maximise the evidential opportunities available to the inquiry.”
“I note that the inquiry, at its hearing last week, identified a number of contributing factors, including the scale of disclosure by our authorities, as making the original date unviable. The Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, and the Garda Commissioner have dedicated resources in place to ensure timely handling of all requests from the inquiry. The Bill will complement the measures already in place by enabling the taking of sworn testimony for the purposes of the inquiry. Some may query why it is necessary to provide for a bespoke mechanism whereby the evidence will be taken before our courts and not before the inquiry in the UK.”
“The bona fides of the Minister's Department and An Garda Síochána have been acknowledged publicly by the inquiry, most recently at its hearing last week, and that is welcome. There is of course much more to be done. As the inquiry made clear, the volume of potentially relevant materials held by An Garda Síochána and other State bodies should not be underestimated. It is important that the process is conducted in a rigorous manner rather than being rushed. The fixing by the inquiry of a date for its first evidential hearings to start in September is welcome. It was disappointing that the original date set for this month was postponed, particularly for the families and the survivors.”
“I thank the Deputies for their productive engagement during today's debate. I will convey the many assurances of support for the passing of this Bill to the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan. My belief and that of the Government is that we must do all we can to assist the inquiry so that its investigation into the fundamental question of whether the bombing could reasonably have been prevented is as comprehensive as possible. Actions speak louder than words, and the Government has demonstrated its commitment through the concrete measures the Minister has already taken. The measures relating to the disclosure of materials are working well, with a significant quantity of materials having been disclosed to the inquiry and further disclosure continuing on a rolling basis.”
“It is also available to communities across Ireland. Last year, 127 communities were funded from the community safety fund to the tune of €4.4 million.”
“As I said, a safety co-ordinator and an administrator have been funded. Equally, many of the main participants on the new safety partnerships are State agencies that are also very adequately funded, such as An Garda Síochána, Tusla, the HSE and local authorities. The whole idea of these partnerships is to bring people together, along with community representatives, to make sure the priorities, needs, demands and asks of the local communities are being prioritised into action plans, particularly by the State agencies. It is about directing and empowering the State agencies to make sure they are responsive to the needs of the local community. As the Deputy knows, the community safety fund has been created from the proceeds of crime, which are assets and money seized by the Criminal Assets Bureau.”