Mr. Se?n Murphy:

I echo what Mr. McHugh has said. One of the challenges we face under the grocery good regulations, GGRs, and I expect it might be the same for the office going forward, is securing what I have described as robust and actionable information. That information is, ultimately, what informs either investigations, attitudes towards, or aspects of what might be going on in the markets for very understandable reasons. In fact, the UTP directive, which provides much of the genesis for what we see in the Bill, identifies that and calls out that there is a fear of retaliation. Suppliers might not wish to come forward or, certainly, might not be forthcoming, because of a possible fear of de-listing or an equivalent. We welcome the fact that there are provisions in the Bill that deal with that, in that if there is evidence to show that somebody suffered as a result of making a complaint the office has an enforcement role in that regard.

From the GGR experience, we were always at pains to stress that we would need useful information. In circumstances where there was a feeling that there was non-compliance with some aspects of regulations, we did not find that a formal complaint was forthcoming. Where the current Bill, as laid out, encourages engagement, co-operation and interaction with the various stakeholders, this could be developed and in some way assuage the fear that might be out there of coming forward with a complaint. In reality, unless one has actionable information, it is very difficult to move on it and to form a basis for an investigation. That is the background to our observation.