Maurice Quinlivan (Limerick City, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank all members and witnesses for participating in today's committee meeting in line with the exceptional measures we must take. Apart from myself and members of the committee secretariat, all members and witnesses are participating remotely.

Apologies have been received from Deputy James O'Connor and Senators Róisín Garvey and Marie Sherlock.

Today I am pleased the committee is able to begin its pre-legislative scrutiny of the general scheme of companies (corporate enforcement authority) Bill 2018. The previous committee in the Thirty-second Dáil commenced its consideration of this legislation but its work was far from completed. The matter is one of the priorities for the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. I also have a keen interest in seeing its passage through the Oireachtas.

I am pleased we are joined remotely from the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement by Mr. Ian Drennan, director, Ms. Suzanne Gunn, enforcement lawyer, Mr. David Hegarty, enforcement manager, Mr. David McGill, digital forensics specialist and Mr. Conor O’Mahony, head of insolvency and corporate services.

In line with normal practice, members have been provided with documentation on this matter, including Mr. Drennan's opening statement, a briefing from the committee secretariat and the Library and Research Service regarding the general scheme, as well as written observations on this matter from several experts and stakeholders.

I must explain some limitations in parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses regarding references witnesses may make to another person in their evidence.

Witnesses who are physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected pursuant to both the Constitution and statute by absolute privilege. Today's witnesses, however, are giving their evidence remotely from a location outside the parliamentary precincts. As such, they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts.

Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of that person or entity.

Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in respect of an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that witnesses comply with any such direction.

To commence our consideration of this matter, I invite Mr. Drennan to make his opening remarks. As his written statement has been circulated, it would be helpful if he were to highlight the main issues in it. Unfortunately, due to Covid restrictions we are limited in the amount of time we can allow speakers.