Mr. Se?n Murphy:

The observations we made are with respect to the Bill itself. We welcome that there is a suite of interventions available ranging from alternative dispute resolution, compliance notices, summary prosecution to prosecution on indictment. In our experience and opinion, having that available gives the office that flexibility to put in place a proportionate response to breaches that it may come across. For example, it not a case that for somebody with a hammer, every problem is a nail. It is a case of the office satisfying itself as to what the breach was, the intent behind it and then having something other than, let us say, something straight through to a prosecution, because in many of these relationships, it is often the case that parties will have to continue to trade with each other. Therefore, we want to maintain relationships if at all possible, which might be difficult following a criminal prosecution. I suggest that have an ADR facility certainly would encourage something such as that. A lesser intervention, but an intervention no doubt, is that compliance notice where the office is of the opinion that there has been a contravention, puts it to the party that offended and the party has an opportunity to either accept it or appeal it. Ultimately, it then ends up before the Circuit Court, which can either accept it, vary it or vary conditions. We welcome those. It indicates a good regulatory model. It is one that we have had much success with over the years and one that we would advocate for.