Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the European Ombudsman, Ms Emily O'Reilly. I always wonder why the office is not called "ombudsperson". It should be changed. I find it uncomfortable, like "chairman". Maybe it is something else Ms O'Reilly might achieve before the end of her term.

The committee had the opportunity to meet her this time last year in Brussels and it was a very rewarding engagement. The committee is interested in the work she has been doing on transparency and in particular a case that she opened on transparency in the Council of the European Union, which examines the legislative process. Separately, the Dutch Parliament has also been considering transparency. This committee is considering it as well. Only yesterday, Ms O'Reilly made recommendations following almost a year of work with inquiry and public consultation. The published recommendations were circulated to all members of the committee yesterday but they may not have had a chance to read them in detail. The timing of today's engagement is very helpful.

Most of our engagement today will focus on transparency in the Council but if Ms O'Reilly has the time, the committee will also be interested in other areas of her work. When the committee was in Brussels the Brexit negotiations were at an early stage and, considering how important they are for citizens, she strongly advocated for transparency.

Her work has never been so vital as it is with the negotiations that are under way at present. We are delighted that, as an Irish person, Ms O'Reilly holds that position. I was there when you were campaigning and successfully won the election. It is one of the few prestigious positions in the European Union to which a person is elected by the Parliament, not appointed. It is a great achievement for you and for Ireland.

Before we begin, I must remind everybody of the rules on privilege. You are all aware of them but for legal purposes it is necessary to read them out. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the joint committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Ms O'Reilly will be aware of all this so it was probably unnecessary. I invite her to begin.