Mr. Raymond Byrne:

We certainly do that. We consult on what it is possible to do within the limits of our resources and also in terms of what people who have made submissions to us suggest. Turning to some of the Chairman's points, for instance on naming and shaming, in all of the recommendations we have made on things like the financial sanctions imposed by regulators, we are very clear in saying sanctions must involve a public statement of the detail, including naming the entity. We are very conscious of the issue of transparency and publicity. The range of powers we are proposing here need the oxygen of publicity. We are absolutely committed to that in our recommendations.

We do not exclude from any of our work the possibility that we would identify work that needs to be done in addition to the recommendations we make. Often, in consultations following publication of our initial consultative document, if an issue is raised that we have not identified in our initial document, we make those proposals. On the regulation of those who are giving advice on debt and where people have fallen into debt, our report that was implemented in the Personal Insolvency Act of 2012 recommended that those who are giving advice on debt need to be regulated. We are very clear. There may well be deficiencies in regulation. We are very conscious that in the lead-up to the banking crash there were issues around poor regulation and poor internal governance in banks. They have already been identified, including in the banking inquiry. We would not in any way be complacent about regulation. I refer also to the proposal on deferred prosecution agreements. In the United States, these can be done privately; in effect, a deal is done privately with a district attorney there. We think that is unacceptable. The only proposal we would make would be for such an agreement to be made openly in court, where all the terms and conditions have to be approved by a judge. We certainly would fully approve of any provision that would involve the publication of whatever arrangements might be put in place.

In terms of issues around what can or cannot be said about pending investigations, as it happens, under the presidency of Ms Justice Laffoy, the commission is examining the issue of contempt of court and the scope of that law. We certainly would understand a need for reform and recommendations in that area. That is something on which the commission is currently conducting an inquiry. The Chairman's comments are aspects that we would certainly incorporate into our discussion of that area of law.