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

Sorry, I should have said we are in public session for housekeeping purposes. I ask everyone to bear with me. I will have to repeat some of that. I warmly welcome everyone. Today's discussion is on the theme of freedom and security of the press operating in areas of conflict. I warmly welcome our guests, both those who are present and online. I welcome the esteemed Mr. Yaroslav Yurchyshyn, who is a member of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and chairman of the Ukrainian parliamentary committee on freedom of speech. We look forward to hearing what he has to say. We also welcome Professor Tarlach McGonagle, who is professor of media law and information society at Leiden University and also works at the University of Amsterdam; Mr. Tim Dawson, deputy general secretary of the International Federation of Journalists, IFJ, who is joined by IFJ affiliate and National Union of Journalists assistant general secretary, Mr. Séamus Dooley; Ms Chantal Joris, legal officer with Article 19; and Ms Amelia Evans, deputy director of advocacy at the Committee to Protect Journalists.

The format of the meeting is such that I will invite our witnesses to deliver an opening statement, which is limited to three minutes. This will then be followed by questions from members. They are probably aware the committee may publish opening statements on its webpage. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Before we proceed to opening statements, I will explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references witnesses 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, a number of today's witnesses are giving evidence remotely from a place outside the parliamentary precincts and as such may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness physically present does. Witnesses participating in this committee session from a jurisdiction outside the State should also be mindful of domestic law and how it may apply to the evidence they give. Witnesses may think it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter.

Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on 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 that person or entity. I expect the witnesses present are very familiar with the limitations to statements made publicly. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks.

Members, too, are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they shall 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.

I propose that we proceed to the opening statements. The chair of the Ukrainian parliamentary committee on freedom of speech has the floor. He has three minutes.