Mr. Philip Andrews:

I thank the Senator for the question. The question of broader reforms involves balancing. There is a benefit in providing greater access to justice for small harm claims that otherwise would not be able to obtain access given the costs we are talking about. On the other hand, taken to the extreme, a regime can promote excessive litigation. That is not desirable either. The Law Reform Commission report from 2005, as accompanied by the Kelly report in 2020, provide what the Law Society of Ireland thinks is a balanced way in which consumers can have direct access to collective actions other than via the scheme in the Bill. This would involve a careful certification process by the President of the High Court and an opt-in arrangement rather than an opt-out, with a relatively strict legal test to be applied by the President of the High Court that would essentially be assessing if the multiparty action is fair, efficient and justified. On that test, we think there would be a reasonable balance struck between the two competing interests I mentioned earlier.