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

We discussed this matter on the last occasion and, as Senator Darragh O'Brien acknowledged, there is nothing wrong with the retention of title where both sides agree within the contract. The issue arises as to whether we should make this a compulsory element of every contract. As we pointed out, it has a knock-on effect on workers and other suppliers who might be exposed in the event of insolvency if one particular batch of suppliers has a retention of title and others do not. I pointed out on Committee Stage that some jurisdictions would state because of the nature of such retention of title clauses, they should be registered in order that other parties who might be trading with the same company would see these as registered liens, as it were, on what otherwise might be assets in an insolvency situation.

I can understand why Senator Darragh O'Brien is raising this matter but seeking to make retention of title compulsory is not the way to go. What we need to do is to regulate, as we seek to do, the supply chain on a fair basis and leave this as an issue between the parties to decide on whether such terms are open to them.

The Senator also raised the wider issue of whether Ministers should be trying to control prices as opposed to controlling the terms of the contract. We have debated that matter pretty thoroughly here. The issue of trying to control prices or allow people by writing their invoice to declare what the price must be is profoundly anti-consumer and that would be resale price maintenance in normal circumstances, which would be a common abuse of competition law.

That one might include in legislation terms that would effectively police, on behalf of certain groups, their price arrangements makes no sense. The order that allowed this was withdrawn a number of years ago by the then Minister, Deputy Micheál Martin. He made the right call and we are striking the correct balance.