Brian Brennan (Wicklow-Wexford, Fine Gael)

Before we proceed, I have a few housekeeping matters to go through. I wish to explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references witnesses make to other persons in evidence. The evidence of a witness physically present or who gives evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected, pursuant to the Constitution and statute, by absolute privilege. Witnesses within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the presentations they make to the committee, which means they have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they say at the meeting. However, they are expected not to abuse this privilege and it is my duty as Chair to ensure that this is the case. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in respect of an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks and it is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Members of the European Parliament, MEPs, participating in this committee session from a jurisdiction outside the State will already have been advised that they should always be mindful of their domestic law and how it may apply to them giving evidence. The decision as to whether they take legal advice in respect of the evidence they propose to give should also be informed by this. A number of MEPs 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 witnesses physically present do. They have already been advised that it may be appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. They are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that 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 or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory regarding an identifiable person or entity, they may be directed to discontinue their remarks and it is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

I advise members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate in a meeting where he or she is not adhering to this constitutional requirement. A member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask any member participating via MS Teams to confirm that he or she is on the ground of the Leinster House campus prior to making a contribution to the meeting.

Members 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 as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name or reputation of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with such a direction.

I propose that we publish the opening statements and submissions provided by witnesses on the committee's website. Is this agreed? Agreed. I suggest we invite our witness to speak for up to 10 minutes, or perhaps longer because we only have one witness, and that will allow all members to ask questions and make comments for round one of seven minutes, to start off. We will then see how it is going and we will see what time is needed to come in again. We will decide on the time for the second round depending on how many questions are asked and how it runs. Members may be called as they appear on week two of the speaking list. Members may speak more than once. Is this agreed? Agreed.

The committee decided to carry out scrutiny of the following EU legislative proposals; COM (2025) 80 and COM (2025) 81, covering the corporate sustainability reporting directive, CSRD, and the corporate sustainability due diligence directive, CSDDD, also referred to as the omnibus package. This is our second public meeting on this topic. The committee invited members of other relevant committees: the Joint Committee on Climate, Environment and Energy, the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs and the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade. We have also invited members of the European Parliament elected from the constituencies in Ireland.

I welcome our witnesses here today, including the following officials from the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment; Mr. Colm Forde, assistant secretary, commerce, consumer and competition division; Mr. Conor Verdon, principal officer, company law audit and accounting policy and legislation unit; and Mr. Colm O'Neill, assistant principal officer, company registration and regulation policy unit. I call on Mr. Forde to make his opening statement.