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. 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 of the person or entity. Therefore, if a member's statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that any such direction be complied with.

The minutes of the meeting of 20 May have been circulated. Are they agreed? Agreed.

The next item on the agenda is correspondence. No. 0033-2026 is a submission from a constituent, Mr. Stuart McCaul, on his concerns regarding the current debate on energy policy and infrastructure delivery in Ireland, and the issue of nuclear power. In case members have not read the full correspondence, the points mentioned include: creating and staffing a credible nuclear regulator; developing specialist technical expertise; establishing safety, inspection and emergency response frameworks; building planning, licensing and oversight capacity; and creating a functioning ecosystem capable of managing nuclear infrastructure over decades.

At our last meeting, we agreed to look at the issue of nuclear energy at some stage in the future as part of critical infrastructure. The correspondent does not ask for a meeting with the committee. I propose that we take this correspondence into account as part of our further discussions. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 0034-2026 is a submission on the issues and implementation of the national development plan, NDP, of February 2026. This correspondence was sent from Dr. Michael MacNicholas, an academic, on 21 May 2026. As the committee will conduct its own examination of NDP implementation in the autumn - the NDP only started last summer and we will do a review of the first year after year one, that is, in the autumn - I suggest we take note of this documentation and consider it as part of our review. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Before we move to the next matter, we have two choices. We can bring in the witnesses from the GAA who are waiting or have a discussion in relation to finalising, if possible, our draft report. I think we will take the visitors who are waiting outside first. After that, we will move on. The committee has seen a draft discussion document and suggested amendments from various members of the committee. I think we will hold that over. That will be a discussion in private session anyway because it is internal work of the committee at this stage.

I propose that the committee suspend for a moment while the witnesses take their seats.