Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

We have made every effort to negate the risk of the new variants of Covid-19 to members, witnesses and staff. I propose that we approve the minutes of the private meetings of 30 March 2021 and 29 April 2021, already approved in the virtual private meeting earlier. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I remind members of the constitutional requirement that members must be physically present within the confines of the place in which Parliament has chosen to sit, namely, Leinster House or the Convention Centre Dublin, in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit members to participate where they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave immediately.

Before we start, I wish to explain to the witnesses some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards reference they may make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected, pursuant to both the Constitution and statute, by absolute privilege. However, the witnesses are giving evidence remotely from a place outside of the parliamentary precincts and, as such, they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness who is physically present. Witnesses may think it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not criticise or make charges against a person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if statements are potentially defamatory in regard to an identifiable person or entity, witnesses will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction.

An international applicant is anyone who is seeking international protection status, whether that is refugee status or subsidiary protection status. Direct provision is the means by which the State meets the basic needs, such as the need for food and shelter, of such protection applicants directly rather than through full cash payments while their claims for protection status are being processed. The system of direct provision was officially 21 years old on 10 April 2021. There have been many studies and reports on direct provision over the years, including two by parliamentary committees, the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions in 2015 and the Joint Committee on Justice and Equality in 2019. The Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions recommended in May 2015 that the remit of the Ombudsman be extended to include the direct provision system. This was done in April 2017. We are here today to discuss the fourth commentary on direct provision from the Ombudsman, The Ombudsman and Direct Provision: Update for 2020.

On behalf of the committee, I extend a warm welcome to the Ombudsman, Mr. Peter Tyndall, who is accompanied by Mr. Sean Garvey, principal officer, and Ms Linda Joyce, assistant principal officer. I propose we publish the opening statement from the Ombudsman on the committee's website. Is that agreed? Agreed. I invite the Ombudsman to make his opening statement.