Ms Clare McNamara:

I thank the Deputy. I will start with gun jumping and give him an explanation of what is involved in that. Under Irish competition law, mergers or acquisitions which reach certain thresholds have to be notified to the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, CCPC, and they cannot be put into effect without obtaining clearance from the CCPC. Failure to notify any such merger or acquisition or putting it into effect before clearance by the CCPC is referred to as gun jumping. Currently, the offence of gun jumping is under section 89 of the 2002 Act and it can be prosecuted on a summary basis or on indictment by the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, only. What we are trying to do here is put in a provision that the CCPC can bring a summary prosecution in respect of gun jumping. It will ease the burden on the DPP and, in effect, is trying to deal with that.

In terms of the level of incidence of it, I do not have that information to hand. I can certainly inquire of the CCPC, but as I say, the intention of the provision is to allow the CCPC to take the summary prosecutions for gun jumping offences to reduce the burden on the DPP and to increase the enforcement in that area.

With regard to leniency and immunity, there is a non-statutory immunity programme that the CCPC operates with the DPP in terms of cartel behaviour. However, this Bill will be dealing with immunity from administrative sanctions and leniency in terms of such sanctions by having the fine reduced if there is co-operation with the CCPC. The decision on immunity from criminal prosecution will always be a matter for the DPP. This is around reduction in administrative fines in return, it is hoped, for co-operation leading to the prosecution of the cartel.

The directive also puts in place a system of a marker for immunity. If a person is applying for leniency, for example, head 30 of the Bill refers to applications for immunity from administrative fines. It sets up the system for the competent authority, for example, the CCPC, to grant applicants for immunity from administrative fines a marker in their place in the queue, effectively. It gives them the time to gather all the evidence they need to provide to the CCPC to get the immunity or the leniency they are seeking. It is a brand new provision in Irish law and this is one of the more novel aspects of this directive. It is intended to support the administration of this new provision for those who assist the competent authority. It means that if more than one undertaking is co-operating, whoever gets to the authority first marks their place in a queue and cannot be jumped in the queue by the second undertaking that comes to assist. I hope that sets out or clarifies some of what is involved in terms of the leniency and immunity programme.

The question the Deputy asked about the inspection powers and the time to seal the premises shows the importance of having pre-legislative scrutiny with his committee because it is a very important question. It is one we will have to talk to the Parliamentary Counsel about in terms of making sure that this head, when it is being drafted, puts into place a very strict timeframe, because in the same way as the level of fines are not meant to be putting undertakings out of business, the same should be true of sealing premises and gathering evidence. We should not be in the business of impacting upon the profitability of an undertaking in the meantime. That is certainly something we have taken note of, and we will make sure that, when we are talking to the Parliamentary Counsel, that is looked at closely.

The Deputy spoke about data. I am hoping that my response to Deputy Bruton's question around this area and the fact that there are new developments at EU level all the time in this area answered that question. Already there are two new proposals around the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act, which are looking at the gatekeepers of those data. I hope that has answered that question.

In terms of the surveillance, I cannot add to what I said when I was answering Deputy O'Reilly on that. This is very important in terms of cartel behaviour.

Additional covert surveillance powers are something we only see in terms of the criminal investigations of cartel behaviour, not in investigations of other anti-competitive behaviour that would result in fines. I hope that answers the Deputy's questions