Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The counter-argument is well made, that the amendment would affect the interests of third parties. The Revenue Commissioners act on behalf of the State. Other interests that are looked after are employees and unpaid service providers. They deserve to be protected in the case of a large company getting into financial difficulty and not being able to make payment. This is a much more complex issue than the little guy versus the big guy. This has an effect through a fairly complex web of relationships in a supply chain that has others involved.

I do not see the compelling argument in the line taken by the Deputies. Other countries have recognised the situation as well. I do not see the big gain the amendment would achieve other than in the situation of a company getting into severe problems and then it would erase all the other knock-on effects that are not as straightforward as the Deputies suggest. I do not think this is an area we should seek to stray into. What we are trying to do is regulate the relationships between suppliers and the grocery undertakings in the normal course of business. It is a much wider issue that the Deputies seek to raise and it is not appropriate to the legislation.