Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

We move to the second part of our discussion on the development of local and community arts. This meeting has been convened here in committee room 1. I welcome our guests, who somehow patiently sat through the first session and are here for the second session as well. They are all very welcome. First, I welcome Mr. Joe Caslin, street artist, teacher and activist, and Ms Una Mullally, writer. From Visual Artists Ireland, I welcome Mr. Noel Kelly, chief executive director, and from the Walls Project CLG I welcome Mr. John O'Connell, executive director, and Mr. Gabe McGuinness, festival manager. If they can bear with me, I have a little housekeeping to go through.

The format of the meeting is such that I will invite our witnesses to deliver their opening statements, which are limited to three minutes each. That will be followed by questions from my colleagues. As the witnesses will probably be aware, the committee may publish the opening statements on our web page.

Before we proceed to opening statements, I wish to explain some of the limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references witnesses 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 in respect of the presentations they make to the committee. This means that they have absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they may say at the meeting. They are, however, expected not to abuse the privilege, and it is my duty as Chair to ensure that that privilege is not abused. Where witnesses give evidence remotely from a place outside the parliamentary precincts, they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness physically present does. Witnesses are also asked to note that only evidence connected with the subject matter of the proceedings should be given and that they should respect directions by the Chair and parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should neither criticise nor make charges against any 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 that person's name 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, and I would ask them to do so.

I propose that we now proceed to the opening statements, beginning with Mr. Caslin.