Apologies have been received Cathaoirleach Seán Fleming.

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 a public 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 the good name 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 that they comply with any such direction.

There is a vote being called. We will suspend for the duration of the vote.

The minutes of the meeting on 11 February have been circulated. Are they agreed? Agreed.

We have three items of correspondence to consider today. The first is No. R-2026-0010-INDP, which contains additional information from EirGrid and Bord na Móna. This correspondence was received from EirGrid and Bord Na Móna regarding additional information arising from their engagement with the committee held on 14 January. Do members wish to discuss this further or do they agree to note and publish the correspondence? Agreed to note and publish.

The second is No. R-2026-0011-INDP, which contains additional information from the Office of Public Works. The correspondence was received from the OPW regarding additional information arising from its engagement with the committee held on 21 January. Do members wish to discuss it further or do they agree to note and published this correspondence? Agreed to note and publish.

The third is correspondence received from the Disability Federation of Ireland, DFI, regarding its report, entitled "Bridging the Gap: Research Summary Report on the Implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities at a Local Level". When before the committee on 11 February, the DFI referenced a piece of research it had commissioned and published last year. This report highlights good practice for disability inclusion at the local authority level. It identifies gaps in delivery and provides a series of recommendations. Do members wish to discuss this further or do they agree to note and publish the correspondence? Agreed to note and publish.

That concludes the correspondence for today.

Before we move on to the next business, it was suggested last week by Senator Stephenson that we add a witness to our upcoming meeting on procurement and tendering on 4 March. The Senator suggested adding Mr. Paul Sheridan from the Construction Industry Federation, CIF, as his practical experience may be complementary to the meeting. He is director of main contracting. Members will recall that he appeared before the committee in the lead up to Christmas. The Senator herself is not here to discuss this but I am-----

Do we need to have him at the meeting? We have already had him before the committee.

He has practical experience, which might counterbalance the theoretical from the other side. There is a logic to it.

But we have already had him in.

It is a different topic.

I know that.

It would be theoretical versus practical. If you just invite someone with theoretical experience, they may talk about what we would do in an ideal world. It could help to have someone sitting there with practical experience to counterbalance the conversation who could say that, in reality, that does not work.

I know, but that is more like a debate than witnesses coming in and giving us open statements. We do not normally have a situation like that.

It is a different topic, though.

I know it is a different topic. What I am saying is that there would be somebody coming in here-----

You could bring one in for the first hour and the other could counter for the second hour.

That sounds more like a debate as opposed to-----

We have different groups with different dynamics. We had EirGrid before us a few weeks ago and we then had the IDA.

We had EirGrid, Bord na Móna and the IDA before us but they were all singing off the one hymn sheet, as such.

That is not a good thing either.

The other way is not the format we normally would use.

At the same time, there is no strict format. This is our committee. I get what the Deputy is saying and I take his point but the counterpoint to that is there is no set way the meeting should be structured. It is not like we say we will hear from one side this week and from the other side next week.

Could we have one group before us in the first hour and one in the second hour rather than-----

Rather than having them all in the room at the one time. I think so.

It is two against two. Are we happy-----

What happened?

I will reread it before we move on. There was a suggestion from Senator Stephenson that we should add a witness to our upcoming meeting on procurement and tendering. The Senator suggested adding Mr. Paul Sheridan from the CIF, as his practical experience may be complementary to the meeting. He is the director of main contracting and members will recall he appeared before the committee in the lead up to Christmas. Deputy McCormack's point was that Mr. Sheridan has appeared before the committee already and the others have not. The point that Senator Stephenson makes - I agree with her, to an extent - is that the practical experience of Mr. Sheridan would counterbalance the theoretical experience of the other witnesses coming in front of us. It would be both.

Deputy McCormack said that would be more like a debate and we did not want to get into that, so Deputy Clendennen suggested we hear one group in the first hour and the other in the second. I am open to either but Deputy McCormack said this is how we do our business and I said that we do not have a set way of how we invite different groups. Sometimes, there is a dynamic where someone might come in and say that, in theory, this is what happens but someone else can go say that that is not how it works practically. That would be very informative for the group. That is all.

I am not pushed, either way. Mr. Sheridan was in already. We are so busy, yet we would be giving ourselves a second go at the same witness. However, if the committee wants to bring him in, I would not push against it.

Okay. We are still in public session. Do we need to have a vote?

If we want to bring him in, on balance-----

Deputy Clendennen suggested Mr. Sheridan coming in half-way through.

Yes. We will go with that.

That is a good compromise and the proper way to go.

Let us do it like that.

I am happy with that.

Okay, that is agreed.

Before we move to the next business, we will suspend briefly while we bring in the witnesses.