2026-05-14

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." I am pleased to bring the Industrial Development (Amendment) and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill before the Dáil. This is a short but important Bill which further empowers IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland to accelerate investment, employment and regional development. My Department keeps the statutory framework of the enterprise agencies under review as the Government's enterprise policy objectives evolve. The purpose of this Bill is to ensure the enterprise agencies have the legislative tools they need to incentivise investments that underpin Ireland's strategic goals. The Bill strongly supports a number of objectives outlined in the programme for Government and the action plan on competitiveness and productivity, namely job creation, regional development and reducing carbon emissions. The Government continues to support Irish-owned companies to grow and scale, along with providing direct investment towards each step of their decarbonisation journey. At the same time, as global competition for foreign direct investment, FDI, intensifies, Ireland need to say agile and ambitious to win investment. This Bill introduces a dedicated environmental aid grant, allowing the agencies for the first time to assess projects on solely carbon emissions criteria under the grant powers of the Industrial Development Act 1986, streamlining the approval process and cutting red tape. The Bill also provides for agencies to support their clients in accessing external consultancy services, enabling them to obtain professional advice and guidance on the green and digital transitions. This support will help businesses to grow on a sustainable and competitive footing over the long term and will be particularly valuable for SMEs, which often do not have in-house expertise in areas such as digitalisation or decarbonisation. It also amends the Industrial Development Act 1995 to allow IDA Ireland to enhance its property and infrastructure offering by co-investing in projects with third parties. This amendment will allow IDA Ireland to leverage its property budget, expanding its ability to provide property solutions in regional locations. Currently, IDA Ireland can only invest by itself, although it collaborates with others, including local authorities. Once this new legislation is enacted, it will be able to partner with other organisations to deliver enterprise property solutions, once the terms have been approved by the Ministers for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment and Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation. In relation to opportunities in defence, security and resilience, DSR, the Bill deletes section 8(5) of the Science and Technology Act 1987, which requires the enterprise development agencies to secure formal Government approval before they engage in, or promote, any activity of a primarily military relevance. The rationale for this is that Ireland’s enterprise landscape is evolving in a rapidly changing European and global context. Increasingly, the Irish enterprise base needs to respond to DSR-aligned technology opportunities which are emerging. As the Department of Defence has noted to me, this area has developed to include fields such as cyber defence, space domain awareness, maritime security tasks and hybrid threat monitoring. The European Competitiveness Fund, expected to begin operating in 2028, will consolidate and build on existing EU-level investment instruments designed to strengthen European industrial capability, including in defence and space. A key enabler to maximising our engagement in EU funding initiatives is the capacity to utilise the competence and capability of both Enterprise Ireland and IDA Ireland. The section 8(5) provision is broad, open to varying interpretations, and creates ongoing practical difficulties in determining when - and to what extent - teams in Enterprise Ireland or IDA Ireland may engage with existing or prospective clients that might be considering opportunities in DSR technologies. It is outdated, given the comprehensive, multilayered regulatory environment that now exists in this sphere. The proposed amendment allows the agencies to support, financially or non-financially, enterprises in the DSR sphere as with other parts of the economy, subject to compliance with all existing controls and legal obligations governing the sector, including rigorous project appraisal, the export controls regime, ministerial powers and Government oversight and the defence procurement safeguards. It does not affect existing Government policy on military neutrality. Furthermore, this Bill provides a vehicle for other unrelated legislation from my Department. First, it includes amendments to the Dangerous Substances Act 1972 related to flammable liquids to ensure that Ireland’s dangerous substances legislation and licensing regime is fit for purpose and ensures a safe working and retail environment. The Bill will amend and bring the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 up to date with the code of practice for the governance of State bodies, which recommends that board appointments be for a period of three to five years. The Bill amends the Chemicals Act 2008 to ensure, in the transposition of related EU legislation, that Ireland is not considered in default of its obligations under EU law due to the penalties being insufficient. The Bill also includes an amendment clarifying Enterprise Ireland's Freedom of Information Act responsibilities. I will briefly outline the main provisions of the Bill, which comprises 11 sections in three parts. Part 1 is technical in nature. Section 1 contains standard provisions relating to the Short Title, construction and commencement of the Bill, while section 2 is a definition of the Dangerous Substances Act 1972 and section 3 is a repeal and saver related to that Act. Part 2 amends the Industrial Development Act of 1986, 1995 and 1998, beginning with section 4. Section 4 provides for the addition of a section 21A to the Act of 1986 which provides for the enterprise agencies, IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland, to make grants for environmental protection initiatives on terms and conditions at their discretion, including solely environmental conditions such as carbon abatement, once initial approval criteria have been met. In addition, this section provides for a new section 21B of the 1986 Act, allowing the agencies to support their clients in accessing external consultancy services for advice or studies in respect of technological innovation, environmental protection, or business development. Section 4 also updates the technology acquisition grant thresholds to align with the individual and aggregate grant thresholds of other grant categories in the legislation. These are the thresholds which apply before specific Government approval must be secured. The threshold for individual grants will be amended to €7.5 million and the aggregate threshold will be amended to €15 million. Section 5 amends the Industrial Development Act 1995 by the addition of a section 6A which allows IDA Ireland, either itself or jointly with Enterprise Ireland, to co-invest with third parties, such as other State agencies which make strategic investments, to develop property solutions for industrial or commercial activities, through the creation of jointly owned designated activity companies. Section 6 amends the wording of Section 7C of the Industrial Development (Enterprise Ireland) Act 1998 to clarify that grants given by IDA Ireland under section 21A and 21B of the 1986 Act are not to be counted towards Enterprise lreland’s aggregate threshold in section 7C. This is the threshold which applies before specific Government approval must be sought. Part 3, the final Part of the Bill, includes a number of miscellaneous amendments. Section 7 removes the definition of "petroleum-spirit" and consequential references to the latter from the Dangerous Substances Act 1972 and replaces this definition and references to petroleum-spirit with a definition of "fuel" that includes flammable liquid, as outlined in the EU classification, labelling and packaging regulation. The purpose of this amendment is to extend the scope of the requirements under the Act for anyone storing certain quantities of petroleum or other flammable liquids to hold a licence issued by the Minister or an appropriate local or harbour authority. This amendment also enables the summary prosecution by local or harbour authorities of a person who, in contravention of the provisions of section 21 of the Act, has in their possession or control fuel under the meaning of the Act without having a licence to do so issued by the appropriate local or harbour authority. Section 8 provides for the deletion of section 8(5) of the Science and Technology Act 1987, which requires the enterprise development agencies to secure formal Government approval before they engage in, or promote, any activity of a primarily military relevance. The proposed amendment will allow the agencies to engage with and support enterprises in the defence, security and resilience sphere in the same way as with enterprises in other sectors, subject to compliance with all existing controls and legal obligations governing the sector. Section 9 provides for bringing the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 up to date with the Code of Practice for the Governance of State Bodies published in 2016, which recommends that board appointments be for a period of three to five years. Currently, appointments to the board of the Health and Safety Authority are for a period of three years in line with the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005. Section 10 provides that in the transposition of EU legislation on detergents, the Minister is not considered to be in default of obligations under EU law due to the penalties being insufficient. Section 5 of the Chemicals Act 2008 is amended to facilitate the making of regulations for the purpose of giving effect to obligations arising under the treaties governing the European Communities or under Acts adopted by institutions of the European Communities. In addition, section 29 of the 2008 Act is amended in relation to offences. Section 11 amends Schedule 3, Part 1, of the Freedom of Information Act 2014 to ensure that Enterprise Ireland’s disclosure obligations under the Freedom of Information Act are not overridden by the statutory confidentiality obligations contained in the Industrial Development (Enterprise Ireland) Act 1998. I commend the Bill to the House and look forward to engaging with Deputies on the matters to which it relates on the floor of the House today and on Committee and Report Stages. I have a medical appointment in about half an hour, so I may have to leave early. I just wanted to make people are aware of that. I will be listening to everything that is raised during the debate.

I appreciate the Minister telling us that. Deputy Bennett is next.

Sinn Féin welcomes the overall intention of this Bill. We have been calling for the streamlining of enterprise supports for a long time now. Sinn Féin and I are glad to see the progress in this space. Measures that improve access to supports, modernise industrial development legislation and help businesses transition towards a lower carbon and digital economy are long overdue. There is no question that many businesses are facing enormous pressures. Rising energy and fuel costs, increasing operational expenses, insurance costs and the demands of digitalisation and decarbonisation are all placing huge strain on businesses across the State. Where this legislation seeks to simplify access to supports, reduce unnecessary administrative burdens, and improve the delivery of grants and consultancy supports, Sinn Féin supports these objectives. The success or failure of this Bill will depend on one thing, namely whether SMEs are genuinely prioritised. SMEs are the backbone of our economy. They account for 99% of business and employ the majority of workers across the State, particularly in rural towns and villages and regional economies. Too often, enterprise policy in the State has focused heavily on attracting and supporting large multinational investment while indigenous Irish businesses struggle to access the same level of support and strategic attention. That must change. Environmental protection grants and digitalisation supports all sound wonderful on paper but they must not become schemes that are easily navigated by large corporations, while smaller businesses are left behind due to complex bureaucracy or lack of resources. For many SMEs, particularly family-run and locally owned businesses, the challenge is not willingness. Businesses want to invest in energy efficiency. They want to modernise, reduce emissions and lower energy costs. The problem is affordability and accessibility. Many small enterprises simply do not have the upfront capital or dedicated administration staff to navigate lengthy applications, consultancy processes or complicated terms and conditions. Supports must be practical, accessible and responsive to the realities facing smaller firms. If a small manufacturer in Monaghan, a tourism business in Cavan or a family-run enterprise in rural Ireland cannot realistically access these supports, then they are not worth the paper they are printed on. Sinn Féin particularly welcomes efforts to widen environmental protection grants, consultancy supports for sustainability and digital transition. Businesses need support to adopt greener technology, improve competitiveness and reduce long-term costs. This is not only important for climate targets, it is critical for future resilience in the indigenous sector. However, simplification must still go hand in had with accountability and transparency. Public money must always be subject to proper oversight and deliver clear economic and social value. On the provisions relating to strategic investment and designated activity company, DAC, structures, Sinn Féin believes there is merit in strengthening the State's capacity to deliver industrial sites and strategic infrastructure, but, again, regional balance matters. Enterprise investment cannot continue to be concentrated in Dublin and a handful of urban centres while other places struggle to attract jobs and investment. This legislation must support balanced regional development and sustainable local employment across the State. I will briefly touch on my constituency of Cavan-Monaghan. Last week, I visited Silver Hill Duck, which is marking the beginning of construction of a new processing facility in Emyvale in County Monaghan. It is a great Irish company that provides good employment locally. Enterprise Ireland was there, as was the Minister of State, as they should be. Silver Hill Duck is an example of tremendous success; a company that started with six ducks in 1962, now provides more than 6 million ducks worldwide. Sometimes in the past we had issues with IDA Ireland and Ministers when things did not go to plan and with factories or sites where projects were not developed or where there were business closures or job losses. I ask the Minister to reflect on this and, in practice, to engage and be on the ground, even more so when challenges arise. That is even more important in communities in Cavan and Monaghan, which have seen not only a dearth of inward investment under successive Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Governments but sometimes a dearth of interest. In one case, IDA Ireland completed an advanced technology building in Monaghan business and technology park in 2021 but it still remained vacant last year. I would appreciate it if the Minister could provide an explanation for this as well as outline future plans for the site. To address the proposed removal of section 8(5) of the Science and Technology Act 1987, while the amendment is intended to modernise access to EU defence and security-related funding opportunities, Ireland's military neutrality must remain fully protected. Overall, Sinn Féin welcomes the intent of the Bill. We support measures that make enterprise supports more efficient, more accessible and better suited to the challenges businesses now face but we will continue to work to ensure SMEs, indigenous enterprise and regional communities are not treated as secondary considerations. This must be a priority. If our small businesses succeed, local communities succeed, regional economies grow and jobs are protected.

As my colleague stated, we support anything that improves the lot of business from the point of view of streamlining systems, services and grant application schemes. There are concerns about this legislation that I will deal with. The intent can be fine but unless we have the resourcing and capacity, we will have particular issues. At a meeting of the Good Friday Agreement committee recently, representatives from various chambers of commerce, including those in Dundalk and Newry, contributed. They were almost singing from the same hymn sheet about the work that needs to be done regarding cross-Border co-operation. I have raised this issue many times with Ministers and taoisigh in the context of the necessity of dealing with the taxation issues that exist across the Border. A particular issue exists whereby those who live near the Border cannot work remotely in the other jurisdiction. This creates a difficulty for them and, in particular, for the companies that employ them. I put on the record once again the necessity for this to happen. Their big issue is industrial development and enterprise in the area, and they spoke about the M1 Border corridor and the real benefits we have in the area, including the new relationship between Queen's University Belfast and Dundalk Institute of Technology to develop what will hopefully become Dundalk university college in the very near future. What we really need is infrastructure. The first issue the representatives to whom I refer spoke about was wastewater infrastructure. We know about the need for this in the context of both future industrial development in the Dundalk area and housing. Decisions were made regarding a new development of 502 houses. The latter could not proceed because of insufficient infrastructure. This is an issue that cannot be dropped. In my area, there is a local enterprise office which is linked with Enterprise Ireland. There is also InterTradeIreland, and IDA Ireland has a huge footprint in the area. We need to see new industrial sites to allow for the possibility of having a new WuXi, medtech, pharma or tech of any sort. When the development of housing is refused, industrial development will also be refused. I thought it was utterly shocking that, whatever about me, other elected representatives are bringing up the issue of Uisce Éireann and the need to upgrade the infrastructure. Everyone in Dundalk heard 2027 being give as one date for the upgrading of the pumping station on Coes Road in Dundalk, but now we hear it could be in 2029. The date for the completion of the treatment plant on Point Road in Dundalk has been put back from 2030 to 2033. None of that is good enough. Not only do we need to make sure we have serviced sites available for industrial development, we also need to make sure that we have the basic infrastructure required. We can have all the legislation the Minister brings forward, but it will not make any difference if we cannot get rid of wastewater. The latter is causing particular issues with regard to housing and flooding, particularly in the part of Dundalk where I live. Sinn Féin has always had a great interest in supporting indigenous enterprise. When we see the measures in the Bill to strengthen this and help businesses transition successfully to a low-carbon economy, we all accept that it is the only way to go. Therefore, anything that facilitates it is to be welcomed. When we speak about local economies, we sometimes become fixated on the large operators and foreign direct investment. This is not to take away from their importance but we know that an awful lot of Irish-owned SMEs provide the backbone of local economies. We have all seen the issues with the economy being overly exposed and overly reliant on some of these big operators. We need to make sure we have State supports and investment opportunities and that we see facilitation in relation to this. I do not think anyone would complain about any of this. We need to see an expansion of enterprise grants. This means having clear pathways for SMEs to access funding. When we talk about funding schemes or grant schemes, the biggest issue we generally have is the difficulty in accessing them and a complexity that does not necessarily help. We are generally talking about people who run very successful businesses and have capacity. We need to look at this from the point of view of not only having the schemes available but ensuring they are streamlined as much as they can be. This is accepting that due diligence needs to be carried out. What are we speaking about when we refer to SMEs? The latter are 99% of the businesses in the country, and they employ the majority of workers at in or around 68%. As much as I speak about the M1 Dublin to Belfast corridor and its importance for the economy in that part of the world, it is a part of the world where we need to see more seamless interoperability, which I spoke about earlier. We need to see a greater level of balance. We know that this has impacted not only on industrialisation in particular parts of the country, but also on employment and other matters, for example, how we have not facilitated infrastructure like roads, wastewater, clean water, etc. We cannot have a conversation with somebody who runs a small business without talking about the issues that exist for them. Some of those relate to the complexity of filling out grant applications and so on and navigating that system. We have an inability to accept that we are dealing with the most expensive electrical costs in Europe. It is all well and good having task forces and talking about taking action. I was disappointed when Deputy Pa Daly brought forward Sinn Féin legislation to give further powers to the Commission for Regulation of Utilities, CRU, to tackle this, as we had an element of Government support but not a sufficient amount to support the legislation. The Government said it was too early to deal with this and that it was looking at it. We were a long way into high energy costs long before the madness in the Middle East. We need to make sure that we look after people as best we can. We cannot mitigate all the pain, but this Government could have gone further. I reiterate the need for a cost-of-living mini-budget. It is a necessity. While I welcome that there was a cost-of-disability forum and consultation and that they will affect next year, we are failing those with disabilities at this moment in time. We all know the benefits we could be seeing with artificial intelligence. However, we have already seen issues. We can talk about Meta. While I was told that the recent job losses at PayPal were different, there has been huge displacement, particularly in the tech sector, as regards artificial intelligence. We need to have a considerable interest in job retention and getting the benefits of artificial intelligence. We also have to look at delivering further jobs even if they are different from the ones being displaced. The Government has to keep an eye on this. It does not make sense that we are not reducing the administrative burden. The Minister of State, like many here, has spoken to businesses about the complexity and burden placed on those businesses by some of these schemes. We have to look at that. I spoke about energy. We want to see that transition to sustainability, so we will need to see grant schemes that can deliver on same and reduce the long-term costs for businesses. I turn to the amendment of the Science and Technology Act 1987 to remove the requirement of formal Government approval before enterprise agencies engage in activities of primarily military relevance. There is nobody who will not be worried about that, given the interoperability and close relationships of many companies, particularly with those engaged in illegal war. We can talk about the US regime but there is also what we have seen over many years from the genocidal Israeli regime. I am incredibly worried by these moves, which fit into the move away from our independent foreign policy of non-alignment and neutrality. I do not think anyone has an issue with making sure that we are sufficiently resilient as regards protections in terms of cyber and subsea cables, but I do not think that can be correlated. We know that there are companies we should not be dealing with, namely, ones dealing with those engaged in killing civilians by the thousands. That is in no way good enough. When we talk about businesses, we also need to make sure that our services run well. I commend Debbie McCole, my colleague from the ambulance service, who is a Sinn Féin councillor in Drogheda. We should have seen the Government act quicker. We are glad that things are in the Labour Court. We need to see movement on that. I will have a particular issue to take up with the Minister of State later.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. It is substantial and wide-ranging legislation touching on everything from environmental grants to consultancy supports, from technology acquisition thresholds to the establishment of new joint venture property vehicles. There are even amendments to the Science and Technology Act, freedom of information, FOI, provisions and the governance of the Health and Safety Authority. It is, in effect, a legislative omnibus, and as with all omnibus Bills, it demands careful scrutiny. At first glance, the Bill appears technical and administrative, even benign. However, beneath the surface lie important questions about transparency, accountability, strategic direction and the balance of power between the Oireachtas, the Government and our enterprise agencies. Our purpose is not to oppose for opposition's sake, but to interrogate thoroughly and constructively as to whether this Bill is fit for purpose and aligns with our national priorities or safeguards the public interest. Before turning to the specific provisions, we must position this Bill in its broader context. Ireland's industrial and enterprise landscape is undergoing major change. The twin transitions of green and digital are no longer aspirations. They are urgent imperatives. Our commitments under the climate action plan require rapid decarbonisation across all sectors. Our competitiveness challenges, highlighted repeatedly in the Action Plan on Competitiveness and Productivity, demand innovation and technological adoption at a pace we have not previously achieved. At the same time, global industrial policy is shifting. The United States has embraced a muscular interventionist policy through the inflation reduction Act. The European Union has responded with a green deal industrial plan and revisions to the general block exemption regulation. International competition for investment, talent and technological leadership is intensifying. Against this backdrop, it is right that we examine if our legislative framework for enterprise support is modern, flexible and aligned with EU state aid rules. It is right that we ask if IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland have the tools they need, but it is equally right to ensure that these tools are used responsibly and strategically. One of the central features of this Bill is the creation of a new environmental protection aid grant category. On the face of it, this is a positive development. The Industrial Development Act 1986 does not provide a dedicated mechanism for environmental grants, forcing agencies to shoehorn decarbonisation projects into categories designed for employment creation or output expansion. This is clearly outdated. However, several questions arise. First, what safeguards will ensure that environmental grants deliver genuine emissions reductions? We have seen in other jurisdictions and in some EU programmes that environmental funding can be captured by projects that are marginal or already commercially viable without State support. The Bill allows the IDA and Enterprise Ireland to assess applications solely on environmental criteria, but it does not define those criteria. Will the Minister publish detailed guidelines? Will there be independent verification of emissions savings? Will grants be contingent on measurable outcomes? Second, how will the Government ensure that environmental grants do not become a substitute for regulatory action? There is a risk that companies may receive public funding to meet standards that they should be required to meet anyway. The Bill refers to supporting projects beyond mandatory EU requirements, but again, the definition of "beyond" is left to administrative discretion. We need clarity to avoid subsidising compliance. What is the scale of the funding envisaged? The Bill creates the legal basis for environmental grants but it does not commit resources. Without adequate funding, this provision risks being symbolic rather than transformative. The Minister of State should outline the expected annual allocation, the anticipated demands and the criteria for prioritisation. How will regional balance be ensured? Decarbonisation challenges differ across regions and sectors. Heavy industry in one region, manufacturing clusters in the west and data centres in Dublin all face distinct pressures. The Bill is silent on regional equity. We need assurance that environmental grants will not disproportionately favour large multinationals at the expense of SMEs or regions outside the main urban centres. The Bill introduces a new provision allowing the IDA and Enterprise Ireland to fund consultancy services to support green and digital transitions. This intention is sound. Maybe SMEs lack the expertise to begin their decarbonisation or digital transformation journeys. Consultancy support can be a catalyst in this. However, we must interrogate the implications. For instance, what control would prevent the creation of a consultancy gravy train? God knows we have seen enough of that to date. We have a long history of over-reliance on consultants, and without strict procurement rules, transparency requirements and value-for-money assessments, this provision could become a lucrative pipeline for private firms with limited accountability. Will the Minister of State commit to publishing annual reports on consultancy spending, including the names of providers and the outcomes achieved? Why is this being done through the Industrial Development Acts rather than a dedicated transition support programme? The Bill frames consultancy support as an enterprise grant, but consultancy is a service, not an investment in fixed assets or technology. Should we not consider a more holistic cross-departmental approach to transition planning rather than embedding consultancy grants within industrial development legislation? Also, how will conflicts of interest be managed? Consultants who advise companies on transition strategies may also have commercial interests in selling technologies or services. This Bill does not address that. We need clear, ethical guidelines. What is the expected duration and scale of consultancy support? Is this intended as a short-term intervention to kick-start transitions or a long-term structural feature of enterprise policy? The Minister of State must clarify all of these things. The Bill proposes raising the thresholds for technology acquisition grants requiring Government approval from the outdated punt amounts of £400,000 and £800,000 to €7.5 million and €15 million, respectively. On one level, this is common sense because inflation, technological costs and the scale of modern industrial projects make the old thresholds obsolete. However, the question is not whether the thresholds should be raised but whether they should be raised to this level. What analysis underpins the new thresholds? The Bill aligns technology acquisition grants with other grant categories but alignment is not a justification in itself. Has the Department conducted a review of grant sizes over the past decade? How many grants would have required Government approval under the old thresholds versus the new ones? Without this data, we cannot assess the impact on oversight. Does this change reduce democratic accountability? Government approval is not a mere formality but a safeguard. Effectively raising thresholds shifts decision-making power from the Cabinet to agencies. That may improve speed but it will also reduce scrutiny. We need to ensure large-scale technology acquisitions, which often involve sensitive intellectual property, are subject to appropriate oversight. What mechanisms will ensure transparency? Will all grants above a certain level be published? Will the Oireachtas receive annual reports detailing the number, size and purpose of technology acquisition grants? Perhaps the most consequential part of this Bill is the amendment to the Industrial Development Act 1995 allowing IDA Ireland or the IDA jointly with Enterprise Ireland to establish DACs with third parties, including the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund, ISIF, for the development of industrial and commercial property. This is a major shift in how the State develops strategic property infrastructure and certainly deserves close examination. Why is this change necessary? The Minister argued that joint ventures would allow the IDA to leverage its budget but "leverage" can mean many things. Does this reflect a shortfall in capital funding for the IDA? Is the Government moving towards a model where the State becomes a minority partner in strategic property development? If so, what are the implications for control, risk and long-term planning? What risks does this create? Joint ventures can expose the State to financial, legal and reputational risks. DACs in particular are designed to limit liability and restrict transparency. They are not subject to the same reporting obligations as public bodies. Will these subsidiaries be subject to freedom of information legislation? Will they publish audited accounts? Will the Oireachtas have any insight into their operations? How will the public interest be protected? If the IDA enters a joint venture with ISIF or any other partner, who determines the strategic priorities? What happens if the commercial interests of the partner diverge from the national interest? Will the Minister commit to issuing a public policy framework governing the establishment and operation of such DACs? What is the long-term vision for industrial property development here? Ireland faces significant challenges in providing serviced sites, advanced manufacturing facilities and green energy infrastructure. Are joint ventures a temporary measure or a permanent restructuring of the State’s role? The Bill does not say. The Bill will also amend the Science and Technology Act 1987, freedom of information provisions relating to Enterprise Ireland, the Health and Safety Authority’s board appointment rules, the Dangerous Substances Act 1972 and the Chemicals Act 2008. Each instance may be justified and worthwhile individually but their inclusion in an industrial development Bill raises questions. The first is why these amendments are bundled together. Omnibus Bills can and have obscured matters from scrutiny. The Minister of State should explain why these changes could not be introduced through separate, focused legislation. The second question is on what the rationale is for deleting section 8(5) of the Science and Technology Act. We are told this would modernise and streamline engagement with enterprises in the defence, security and resilience sphere but defence-related industrial activity is sensitive and removing statutory constraints without a clear explanation for that is extremely concerning. What safeguards will remain in this area? The third question is on what the implications of the freedom of information amendments are for Enterprise Ireland. As we all know in these Houses, transparency is essential in enterprise policy, so any narrowing of freedom of information coverage certainly must be justified. Why are technical amendments to dangerous substances and chemicals legislation included in this Bill? Are the amendments urgent? Are they related to industrial development? Again, the Minister of State must clarify this. Beyond the specifics, the Bill raises broader questions about the direction of our industrial policy. Environmental grants, consultancy supports, technology acquisition funding and joint venture property vehicles all point towards a more active State role. That may be appropriate but it requires an absolute and clear strategy. Will the Government publish KPIs for decarbonisation, digitalisation and property development? Without metrics, we cannot evaluate impact. Much of the Bill appears orientated towards large enterprises, yet SMEs make up 99% of Irish businesses. As my colleague from the Louth constituency, Deputy Ó Murchú, stated, they must not be left behind. Industrial development must also support balanced regional growth. The Bill does not address this explicitly. As agencies gain more autonomy, the Oireachtas must have stronger reporting and accountability structures. This Bill contains many sensible and overdue reforms. It modernises outdated legislation and aligns this country with EU state aid rules. It equips our enterprise agencies with tools to support the green and digital transitions. It seeks to accelerate decarbonisation and enhance competitiveness. Good intentions, though, are not enough. Legislation has to be robust and transparent. It must protect the public interest and ensure accountability, and it certainly has to be clear. I urge the Minister of State address the questions raised today. How will environmental grants be safeguarded against misuse? How will consultancy supports avoid becoming a costly dependency, as we have seen so many times in this country? Why are technology acquisition thresholds being raised so dramatically? What transparency will apply to the new joint venture DACs? Why are unrelated legislative amendments bundled into this Bill? How will SMEs and regions be supported? What oversight will the Oireachtas retain, a topic so very important to all of us here? If the Minister can provide satisfactory answers, then this Bill can be strengthened. If not, we risk creating yet another framework that is flexible for agencies but opaque for the public. Ireland needs a modern industrial policy. There is no argument against that. We need one that is green, innovative, regionally balanced and democratically accountable. This Bill can contribute to that vision, but only if we scrutinise it rigorously. I look forward to further debate on Committee Stage.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this legislation. I thank the Minister and his officials for bringing it forward. This is a largely technical Bill. It updates the Industrial Development Acts and modernises the powers of the IDA and Enterprise Ireland. It removes an outdated restriction in the Science and Technology Act 1987 and introduces a number of sensible miscellaneous provisions on consultancy grants, property co-investment and the Health and Safety Authority, HSA. Fianna Fáil supports this Bill. I will come to the detail in a moment, but this is a week in which we must step back and look at the longer arc of Irish industrial development. This is the centenary week of my own party, Fianna Fáil. It is also the week when, 55 years ago, former Taoiseach Seán Lemass died. While we debate a Bill to modernise the agencies he helped to establish and build, it might be appropriate to reflect for a moment on his contribution. Lemass was the architect of the modern Irish economy. He was the Minister who, in the 1930s, set up the Industrial Credit Corporation, supported the establishment of Aer Lingus, Bord na Móna and Irish Shipping, and built the spine of the semi-State sector. He was the Taoiseach who, in 1959, working with T. K. Whitaker, brought forward the First Programme for Economic Expansion 1958-1963, the document that opened our economy, ended the years of stagnation and laid the foundations for everything that followed. That decision was not a popular one at the time. It was against the orthodoxy of the previous generation. It required Lemass to argue patiently within our own party for the best part of a decade. He believed an open, outward-looking Ireland would be a more prosperous Ireland, and he was right. Like Lemass, we live in turbulent times. Economic and social systems are being tested. The international order is shifting beneath our feet. Trade tensions, geopolitical uncertainty and the pace of technological change are reshaping the landscape for every open economy, and few are as open as ours. The challenges Lemass faced in the 1950s - a stagnant economy, a closed society and a country in danger of falling behind - were of a different kind to ours, but the test is the same. When states and societies are tested, those who rely on hope decline, those who adapt just survive, but those who are willing to transform lead. Lemass was a leader who believed in the power of transformative policies to improve the nation. Where clear direction is given, the public service can and will deliver. It worked with Lemass to establish the likes of Aer Lingus, Irish Shipping and, critically, the First Programme for Economic Expansion 1958-1963, which laid the foundations for the transformation of Ireland into a modern, open European economy. We debate this Bill at a turbulent moment internationally, yet Ireland enters this period from a position of real strength. More people are at work in this country than at any other point in our history, the public finances are in surplus and Irish enterprise continues to compete and win on the world stage. This did not just happen by accident. It was the product of steady, serious Government policy that has guided this country through a pandemic, a war in Europe and now a more uncertain global outlook, with the calm and conviction the moment demands. This Bill before us is part of that work. It does three substantial things. First, it gives the IDA and Enterprise Ireland a new power to award environmental protection aid grants assessed on environmental criteria. For the first time, our agencies will be able to support projects on carbon abatement grounds alone without having to force them through criteria designed for a different purpose. That is a sensible and overdue reform. The IDA has described the current arrangements, quite bluntly, as an onerous constraint. The Bill removes that constraint. Second, it allows the IDA, with ministerial consent, to co-invest in property and infrastructure with third parties, including ISIF. The availability of serviced industrial property is one of the deciding factors in major investment decisions. If we want to keep winning the competition on a global stage, our agencies need the tools to deliver. Third, it removes section 8(5) of the Science and Technology Act 1987, which I mentioned previously, a provision written for an agency that no longer exists and that has had a chilling effect on the work of our agencies in defence, security and resilience. In a Europe investing heavily in cyber, satellites, maritime security and hybrid threat monitoring, Ireland cannot afford to have one hand tied behind its back. The substantive safeguards, export controls, ministerial oversight and Government approval of overall policy all remain in place. The deeper point of this Bill, though, is in the first of those three reforms. It is in the recognition that the next phase of Irish industrial development is going to be defined by transformation in solar, wind, public transport, energy and the digital transition. That is where the investment and jobs are going. That is why Ireland needs to position itself to lead or it will find itself being left behind. Societies that transform do best, those that rely on hope decline and those that adapt just survive. If we want our children and grandchildren to inherit a country that is prosperous and secure, then we need to be the country that transforms. That means decisive investment in renewable energy - onshore and offshore wind and solar - and grid infrastructure. It means a public transport system worthy of a European capital and of every town in this country. It means honest investment in the housing and water and energy infrastructure that our economy and society need. It also means giving clear direction to the public service, because when clear direction is given, our public service can and will deliver. It did it for Lemass in 1959. It implemented structural reforms in concert with social partners from 1987. It also delivered during the pandemic. The public service will do it again if we in this House are clear about what we are asking it to do. Lemass once said that a rising tide lifted all boats. He meant it as a description of what economic growth, properly directed, could do for Irish people. A century on from the founding of Fianna Fáil, that ambition remains. This Bill is a modest and technical step, but it is a step in the right direction. It strengthens our agencies, modernises our framework and gives us better tools for the work of transformation that lies ahead.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this legislation. Broadly, we in the Social Democrats welcome the Bill and its efforts to modernise, align and work towards just transitions in the environmental and digital spaces. I will touch on some of the positive aspects before I share some of my major concerns regarding the Bill. These positives include the increased grant thresholds, as well as easier approval and a stronger focus on the development of environmentally friendly initiatives. Sections of this Bill also give clarity to the IDA and Enterprise Ireland, allowing them to complete their goals with greater efficiency. Those measures are certainly welcome. The farming land solar panel scheme had excellent take-up and demand but only enough funding for roughly 10% of the requests. We need to scale up the investment available in renewable energies, and this Bill works towards that goal. Further budgetary funding, though, is required to get to the green transition that Ireland needs. Other provisions in the Bill are also welcome but I want to focus my remaining time on a big issue that my party has with this legislation. Section 8 of this Bill is a disgraceful attempt to allow the IDA and Enterprise Ireland to invest in and promote military investments, despite our national policy of military neutrality. It would allow this investment to take place without governmental approval. It peels back checks and balances on the choices made by these agencies which use taxpayers' money. The Bill states that Enterprise Ireland and the IDA would be able to make investments and engage in partnerships without that oversight. The Bill does not make any regulations to replace the currently-required Government approval. In addition, it is important to mention that military applications of AI are not governed by the incoming EU AI Act. This is something that we have discussed in the past number of weeks at the Oireachtas AI committee. What that does is create a gaping hole in the regulations here as the IDA and Enterprise Ireland are facing no controls and no accountability. It is clear that when this goes wrong and an unconscionable investment is made, we will see the Government acting as if it had no role in legislation that allowed shame and scandal to come to our nation. This is a rapidly evolving space in so many different areas and the response from the Government is one of hands-off. This decision to allow the IDA and Enterprise Ireland to make these investments is only explicable in the context of wider trends internationally. The Government seeks to allow this investment because at a time of war and uncertainty, it wants State agencies to essentially cash in. It is wrong to invest in weapons of war when Ireland could be a beacon of hope and peace. These agencies are not in need of those new markets to sell to. It is an ideological decision and a serious disservice to the workers in the IDA and Enterprise Ireland. As I mentioned, we have been discussing this in the AI committee in recent weeks because much of the defence and arms industry is looking towards AI and the tools that are deployed in war. We have discussed how that governance happens and I want to read from the contribution of one of our witnesses, Ms Rosanna Fanni, a Belgian academic who is an expert in this space. She said, "The EU AI Act excludes any uses of AI for defence and security purposes, mainly because of the treaties and the non-responsibility of the EU to act upon these things. This also comes to the point I made about the importance of national approaches.". Commenting on the use of non-kinetic AI systems in defence, she went on to say that it "relies heavily on non-state actors, namely private companies. Those private companies may sometimes also have different interests or may not be 100% aligned with the national values, so to speak, especially with regard to Ireland's principle of neutrality.". In his opening comments the senior Minister, Deputy Peter Burke, explained the change in regard to section 8 and said that it "does not affect existing Government policy on military neutrality". I want to see more detail on that. I have to be assured that this does not compromise Ireland's neutrality but I just do not believe that is the case. I appreciate that this fits into the broader European move towards a European defence union. Those are not hyperbolic words from me. That is the specific language that is used by the European Commission. Indeed, I asked the European Commissioner for Budget, Anti-Fraud, and Public Administration, Mr. Serafin, about this at the Oireachtas European affairs committee and it is clear that the multi-annual financial framework is pivoting towards military spending. It will favour companies that spend money developing arms across Europe. As a result, it will favour the larger countries and member states in the European Union. For me, this is a move away from social cohesion, democracy and all of the values that we hold dear in the European Union. There is no reason for Ireland to play into that. We can resist it. We can hold true to our neutrality and to our values of human rights, solidarity and compassion and push back against this draw towards militarism in every way, in terms of our neutrality and defence policy but also when it comes to industrial development and enterprise. I will be tabling amendments on Committee Stage in relation to this. That said, I reiterate that we welcome the Bill overall and will be working closely to make sure we get those points in.

Thank you, Deputy Gibney. You are not next, Deputy Boyd Barrett. You are ahead of yourself. We have Deputy Clendennen-----

He just appeared.

Yes and with your indulgence, we have a crowd of ladies from Wexford in the Public Gallery, the rural Wexford ladies. You are most welcome. You are in for a thrill when Deputy Boyd Barrett starts to speak but before that, we are going to have Deputy John Clendennen.

I thank the Chair for giving me the opportunity to speak in advance of Deputy Boyd Barrett. I hope I will be as entertaining. I want to welcome members of Daingean Development Association who are in the House for a tour and who may be in the Public Gallery at some stage today. I acknowledge the work they do consistently in the town. They have a festival scheduled for 14 June and anyone who might want to attend-----

Do you mind me asking, for the benefit of the Deputies following, will you be using all of your time?

Yes, I will be there or thereabouts.

Okay, thank you, Deputy.

To get to the nub of the matter in relation to the Industrial Development (Amendment) and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill 2026, I will begin by acknowledging the work of the Government in relation to enterprise, tourism and employment in recent times. I welcome the constant references to simple, lighter and faster in terms of how we do business. We need to reflect that more and more in terms of what we see and in being competitive, not just in our domestic market but on the international stage and in how Ireland reflects itself right around the world. I listened to various contributions in recent days in this Chamber and heard Deputies comparing Ireland to the 1980s, a time of high interest rates and unemployment when people did not see a future on this island. We have moved on considerably from that. We now have more people in employment today than we had living here 50 years ago. We are an island that is at the heart of Europe and the centre of the world. If we look at our trading and relations with America alone, over 200,000 people wake up every day and go to work in Irish companies that have invested in the US. Where once that was one-way traffic into Ireland, with investment on these shores, we are now seen globally as a serious player in relation to investment, innovation and development. Long may that continue. As a TD for Offaly and someone who has spent a lifetime involved in small businesses and international businesses, I have seen the variance in what it takes at the smallest of business levels, where it can be very difficult to know where the next cheque is going to come from, in terms of payment, or whether there is going to be enough turnover at the end of the day to actually make things work tomorrow. That is a severe stress. There are small, microbusinesses that still deal with those issues and concerns today. One of the issues I have highlighted in recent times is that businesses today have to close for two days a week in order to be viable for seven days. We have to get to a stage where there adequate supports for them from an environmental and digital perspective, or whatever the case may be. This week the Minister, Deputy Burke, and I attended the AGM of the Vintners' Federation of Ireland. Whether they are butchers, bakers, candlestick makers or publicans, people are under real pressure in relation to energy, insurance, the cost of labour and making ends meet. There are proposals in relation to excise on kegs of beer that should be considered in advance of the budget. We have seen the benefits of enterprise supports, particularly green energy supports which are really helping business to transition at every level. It is important that we continue them and have a level of dynamism in our engagement with businesses. We need to make supports available without bureaucracy or a cumbersome approach. When we talk about the IDA and Enterprise Ireland, it is important to also recognise the essential involvement of the local enterprise offices, LEOs, and the county councils. There is a shared ownership of our LEOs between Enterprise Ireland and our county councils. The work they have been doing has been commendable but we cannot take it for granted. This Bill in particular sets the scene in relation to legislative changes that are necessary in the context of the rapidly changing and evolving global economy to ensure that foreign direct investment continues on a balanced regional development basis. This morning I attended the Bord na Móna energy conference in Tullamore in County Offaly in my constituency. It was great to hear about a level of innovation that has seen the company go from brown to green in less than a decade. Ten years ago, we were talking about redundancies in that company and facing a cul-de-sac and an end of the line in terms of where it was going. Today, we are seeing innovation, progress in the whole area of renewables, digital technology advancements and the ecosystem all of that creates. We are seeing large multinational companies, but also start-ups that were former employees of the likes of Bord na Móna, taking advantage of this green opportunity. It is exciting but we need to be ready for it. I see this Bill playing an important role in that regard. Historically, grants were really about a company's turnover, how many more employees it was going to bring to the table and how much more activity would be seen in the village, town or area. We need to change the dashboard slightly in that regard. That is what the Bill does in its focus on sustainability, efficiency and emissions and also recognising the whole area of artificial intelligence and how it is playing such an important role in businesses today. Another area of action is accelerating decarbonisation. Looking at the grants that have been introduced in recent times, we can see an effort to ensure productivity and climate actions. It is important not just that we have the dashboard but that we report on this on a regular basis. Taking the example of local enterprise office grants, we can consider whether there are particular sectors that are ahead of others in the take-up of those grants and whether there is something we need to do to address a situation where there may be sectors lagging behind. That is something we need to monitor. External consultants are very much necessary. We cannot expect every business to have all the expertise under its own roof. External consultants are essential in giving advice. Sometimes, however, when consultants come to the table, they give all the advice in the world but they do not actually push the business on one inch. We need to figure out how we can integrate them more into the fabric of a business rather than just have them come in for half an hour or two hours of mentoring or whatever it is. There should be a responsibility or onus on them to come back six or 12 months later to see how the measures they put forward have been introduced to the business and whether they have resulted in effective change. Establishing and investing in jointly owned subsidiary companies with third parties such as the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund, ISIF, would allow Enterprise Ireland and IDA Ireland to work together to deliver critical industry and commercial property infrastructure. That is vitally important and it needs to be done on a balanced regional development basis. We cannot be all things to all counties or regions but we definitely need to establish key priorities for each region and each county. In my county of Offaly, we have a very ambitious plan for where we want to go with specific sectors. We want to ensure not only that we deliver for the county in that regard but, on the back of that, we see enterprise parks established in each municipal district. It is not just about generating commercial rates for the county; it is also about generating employment. It is important that we get the mix right. Enterprise Ireland, the LEOs and the county councils are integral stakeholders in leading this. Fundamentally, many businesses want to expand and diversify but the capital outlay involved in such an expansion plan makes the whole thing unfeasible. We need to see the likes of ISIF coming in as a financial pillar to support that type of growth. Measures to modernise and streamline our engagement with enterprise projects in defence, security and resilience would be welcome. This is a reality of the world we live in today. Twenty, ten or even five years ago, there was hardly a debate in this Chamber around defence. The reality now is it is front and centre in all our minds. We live in a period of significant geopolitical risk and we cannot take defence for granted any longer. Action in this regard is very much welcome. Whether it is a small or larger business, LEADER funding has been critical to the development of many micro-businesses, particularly in rural areas, over recent decades. If EU funding is lost as part of CAP negotiations, we need to find a new home in which LEADER funding can sit. It can give the impetus to ensure that where there are opportunities, particularly in rural areas, they can be followed up, materialised and go on to make a real, tangible and material difference in communities. Foreign direct investment companies and the jobs they bring to Ireland make the front-page news. Sometimes, we overlook and almost take for granted the level of employment provided by small businesses. Incrementally, every year, such companies might add two or three more jobs until, within a decade, they are providing 50, 60 or 70 jobs. Such companies are key pillars of local economies. They are built up over time, have sponsored sports clubs and cultural events and are supporting their communities in many different ways. This is an important Bill. It cuts to where we need to be in terms of the objective of doing things in a simpler, lighter and faster way. It ensures efficiencies and that we can push on with our competitiveness. Every business owner wants a commitment from the Government that we will try to reduce red tape, bureaucracy and the cumbersome aspect of many online grant application forms. We need to ensure the supports are readily available in a manner that supports businesses rather than putting an additional burden on them. That must be the fundamental approach. I welcome and support the Bill. I acknowledge the ongoing work in this area by the Ministers of State, Deputies Dillon and Smyth, and the Minister, Deputy Burke. The legislation is progressive and it is badly needed. It will be very much welcomed by the enterprise sector from the perspective of looking to remaining agile, competitive and fit for purpose both on the global stage and in every village, town and city across the country.

I want to ring the alarm bell in respect of this legislation. Its introduction represents a sleight of hand whereby an apparently benign and innocuous Bill that is supposedly about supporting enterprise and industry is, in fact, a Bill that is being used to smuggle in something much more sinister. That is what is happening with the Bill. If I am right about that, it proves the Government absolutely cannot be trusted with Irish neutrality, cannot be trusted not to engage in war profiteering and, even worse, cannot be trusted not to actively be complicit with genocidal crimes being committed by the likes of the Israeli state. In making that fairly strong charge, I refer to section 8 of the Bill, which deletes the current requirement for companies engaged in defence and security technology to notify the Government and seek its approval to engage in such activity. That provision was not included in the draft scheme and nobody know it was there before it appeared, all of a sudden, in the Bill. To be clear on why that should worry us, I refer to the following in the briefing document from the Oireachtas Library and Research Service: "There is a notable implication of the proposed Section 8 of the Bill which, if enacted, would allow the enterprise development agencies [that is, State agencies] to engage with and support industries primarily associated with defence, without Government approval." We are debating this legislation in the same week that The Currency website published an article after 12 months of battling with the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment to get information about Government approvals for dual-use technology going to the Israeli military. Following that fight, we discover in Niall Sargent's article in The Currency this week, which people can read for themselves, that between 2020 and 2024, approximately €35 million worth of export licences to the Israeli military were granted by the Department because it had to get a licence and approval and so on. Most of that happened in 2024, the year of the genocide committed by the Israeli military. In 2020, the export licences to the IDF were worth €1.5 million. In 2021, they were worth €84,000. These are not meaningless sums. In 2022, they were worth €1.8 million and in 2023, the year the genocide began, they jumped to €12 million. In 2024, they jumped to €20 million. Why is it that The Currency has had such a hard time eliciting that information from the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment? It is of course because it is absolutely damning. The end user for dual-use technology is the Israeli military machine, engaged in a genocidal slaughter of the people of Gaza. In January of the year it is doing this - slaughtering tens of thousands of people in the most horrific way, levelling Gaza, some of its leaders, such as the deputy speaker of the Knesset, saying it is okay to kill everybody in Gaza and describing the Palestinians as human animals and everybody knowing what is going on - the International Court of Justice, ICJ, gave a preliminary ruling saying it believed there was a plausible case of genocide taking place. In that year, the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment approved a surge in exports to the Israeli military from this country. The Irish Government now wants to reduce the obligation on companies which might be engaged in the production of that kind of technology from having to seek Government authorisation. To me, that stinks to high heaven, particularly given the fact that this was not in the original draft scheme of the Bill. When the Minister spoke he said the proposed amendment allows the agencies to support financially and non-financially enterprises in the DSR sphere. DSR sounds totally innocuous. It was not even spelled out in the Minister’s speech, so we will just pass by it. What does it mean? Sure nobody is watching this debate and nobody is asking what that might mean. It was described in the most innocuous terms, although there was a giveaway line at the very end, which states "it does not affect existing Government policy on military neutrality." I wonder why the Government felt the need to say that. There is a connection between these two things. In the wider context, Ireland does about €3 billion worth of trade with the State of Israel and is one of its biggest trading partners in Europe against the background where Israel is in the dock for genocide and the most horrific crimes. There are arrest warrants out for Netanyahu and Gallant. Israel is in the dock for apartheid, the annexation of Palestinian territory, and ethnic cleansing. It is not stopping; it is escalating what it is doing. All of this happened in 2024 and then a Bill all of a sudden pops up with a section that was not included in the original draft scheme of the Bill, saying that from now on, the Industrial Development Agency, IDA, and Enterprise Ireland do not have to notify the Government if they are supporting companies doing business in this area. That absolutely stinks and it looks like a cover up of Government facilitation, although sort of hiding it, of industries profiteering from selling technology to people like the Israeli military and God knows who else. If it was just the Israeli military, which is committing the most heinous crimes, that would be bad enough. This is outrageous. Deputy Devlin was quoting Seán Lemass and waxing lyrical about him, his development policy and so on. It would be very rare that I would favourably quote Éamon de Valera but I am going to quote something he did favourably. It may be of interest to people in this House and the wider public to know that possibly the first ever instance of this State sanctioning another state for war crimes was initiated by Éamon de Valera in 1935 because of what, at the time, were viewed to be the genocidal crimes of the Italian regime in Abyssinia, today called Ethiopia. The Italians used, in one of the first instances of chemical warfare, mustard gas and other chemical agents on Abyssinian combatants and civilians in violation of the Geneva protocol; bombed Red Cross hospitals, tents and ambulances; massacred approximately 30,000 people in Addis Ababa; targeted clergy and intellectuals; burnt villages; slaughtered livestock; and destroyed thousands of churches. This happened in 1935 but it sounds familiar, does it not? It sounds very familiar. What did Éamon de Valera do? I am not a fan of Éamon de Valera but he instigated sanctions and they were passed by the Dáil. He enforced financial, commercial and other sanctions against Italy because as a country that had come into existence in a struggle against imperialism, Éamon de Valera and it seems the Oireachtas of the time knew it was a duty of a State born of a struggle against colonialism, ourselves victims of colonial genocidal policies which lead to things like the Great Hunger and all of the horrors colonialism visited on us, to impose sanctions. They were not worried about whether there was going to be economic blowback, and we were a poor country then. Éamon de Valera and the Oireachtas of the time said we had to act against this. It was deemed at the time to be genocidal, with Africans, by the way. Take note, Bertie Ahern. African people were being slaughtered by Europeans and fair play to Éamon de Valera and the Oireachtas of the time, they imposed sanctions. What is this Government doing? It is approving licences for a state engaged in genocidal slaughter. It cannot have been the case that the people who approved those licences were not aware at the time that it represented a massive surge to go from €1 million in one year, €85,000 in another year to €12 million and then €20 million. That is a massive increase in the exporting of that technology to the Israeli military. I debated with Deputy Barry Ward on the radio this morning and he was trying to make some sort of separation between technology that would go to the Israeli military that is complicit in the genocide, and technology that would go to the Israeli military that is not complicit in the genocide, in the midst of a genocide. Fair play to David McCullough who made the point that even they were contributing to the technology that helped them to pay the soldiers, they were complicit. If we were sending the Russian Government biros, it would considered be unacceptable complicity with what Russia is doing in Ukraine but we have a surge in exports from this country approved by the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment to the Israeli military while it is carrying out a genocide. That is absolutely shameful. In the same week, we have a Bill doing this. Fair play to Niall Sargent from The Currency for chasing this story. It should be read. He says it took 12 months of battling to get this information. Why did he have to battle to get it? Because it is shameful. That is why. The Government should explain this stuff. Here is the lesson I draw from it, as if we did not have enough evidence with the US military going through Shannon Airport, overflights potentially carrying weapons, etc., to the State of Israel and the refusal of the State to impose even the most minimal sanctions on the Israel. The Government simultaneously pays lip service to its solidarity with the Palestinian people and approves licences for the Israeli military while the Israeli military slaughters men, women and, most horrendously of all, children, babies and infants. The defence minister who is presiding over the Israeli military, the so-called IDF - in reality, the occupation force - actually said that Israel was going to starve people and deny them the means to exist.

I did not interrupt the Deputy previously and I am loathe to do so now, but I must ask him to qualify, for the purposes of the Official Report, whether he is paraphrasing or quoting directly from speeches that have been made in the Knesset. He has made a few remarks. Will he qualify whether he is paraphrasing or quoting?

I am paraphrasing.

That is all I ask. We just have to be careful. Thank you.

Since the Ceann Comhairle mentioned that, it might be worth quoting them directly. For example, Yoav Gallant, the defence minister, that is, the minister in charge of the IDF, described the Palestinians in the context of the assault on Gaza as "human animals".

Does the Deputy have a document?

Yes, that was in front of the ICJ. It was part of the evidence submitted to the ICJ.

Okay.

This is very much in the public domain. Members of the ruling party, Likud, made public statements calling for - I am now reading from Sadaka's document on the genocidal intent - a Nakba against the Palestinian people and talked about "erasing the Gaza Strip from the face of the Earth". The Prime Minister, Netanyahu, referred to the Palestinians as "Amalek". This is a well known biblical reference which refers to the Hebrew Bible. The reference is to a certain part of the latter, which states: Now go attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. That is what Netanyahu was referring to when he used the term "Amalek". There is a lot more evidence. I do not have it all in front of me. All has been submitted to the ICJ. This is what they were doing. They were saying they were going to do it and our Government approved a surge in licences for the military machine that was carrying out these atrocities against the Palestinian people. It is absolutely shameful. I will conclude on this. I have made the point, but I feel the need to sound the alarm bells about this. In the context of all that, we now have a Bill, not flagged in advance, with a section in it that seeks to reduce the obligations on State agencies to notify the Government when they are supporting companies that are engaged in the production of technology in this area. That is very bad.

I welcome the chance to speak on this Bill because I can see the logic in the State being prepared for the way industry, technology, national security and environmental concerns are changing. I take on board what the Government said about this Bill giving our enterprise agencies the flexibility to operate in a globalised system that is more competitive, more AI enhanced and more security sensitive than ever before. The Industrial Development Acts of the 1980s and 1990s - when I grew up - were not designed for an era of AI quantum computing, cyber resilience, cyberattacks or climate-driven industrial focus. Just like Ireland evolved, as was referenced by a previous speaker, from the 1950s policies of Lemass - and many tributes should go to T.K. Whitaker for those - the situation has again taken a massive leap forward. The pace is increasing all the time. However, when we modernise the machinery of the State, which is laudable, we have to make sure that checks and balances remain. We have to have that ambitious side, similar to the 1950s pioneering spirit, but we also have to make sure that we spend wisely in terms of how we invest. I broadly support the direction in which the Bill will take us, but I wish to raise a number of concerns, in a constructive way, which I hope will be reflected in the strengthening of the Bill as it goes through the different Stages. The first has been referred to by a number of Deputies already, including Deputies Gibney and Boyd Barrett. It is the most headline-grabbing one from a lot of perspectives. I refer to the removal of the requirement for the Government to give approval before agencies engage in activities of primarily military relevance. The Government argued that the provisions in place up to now are outdated, that dual use technologies blur the line between civil and military and that Ireland needs to be able to participate in emerging European frameworks and so on. This is all true. Across the EU, dual use research and development spending increased by 40% between 2018 and 2023, according to the European Commission's 2023 defence industrial strategy report. The European Defence Fund has been allocated €7.95 billion for the 2021 to 2027 period under the European Defence Fund Regulation (EU) 2021/697. That is a massive amount of money. It reflects a continent that, for its own reasons - we can see why the Poles and Germans would like this - is rearming technologically and militarily. Even if we are constrained in certain aspects due to our military neutrality, our membership of the EU is being pushed in that direction. We cannot pretend we exist in a bubble. We are neutral, however, and as long as the population wishes it to be so, we cannot remove what is, in effect, a safeguard without replacing it with something, perhaps more modern, but at least of equal standing or better. This is where I have the concerns. Deputy Boyd Barrett referred to it quite eloquently a few minutes ago. Section 8 of the Bill being added at a later stage is worrying because, once the requirement for explicit approval is removed, the moment is also moved forward when someone in a position of power can ask what exactly we are supporting and whether it fits in with our military neutrality. Are we not, lads and lassies, actually supporting genocide? Where does the buck stop? It may not stop at the Minister any more. Who is accountable? Cynics might say that is the reason, to get rid of that accountability, to give us - to borrow an American term, a weasel word - strategic flexibility. Basically, if it is a deliberate attempt to do something like that, it is an abomination. If it is an oversight, it needs to be fixed through the parliamentary process. If we are stepping into the defence security and resilience space - whether we say it explicitly or not - we have to have structures that reflect our neutrality. That means we still need a statutory reporting requirement to the Oireachtas, whether it is to the Committee on Defence and National Security, with regular updates by the Minister in the Dáil or Seanad, or something similar with the same level of agreed scrutiny that Opposition parties and Independents would be happy with. It means having a clear definition of what the phrase "primarily military relevance" means in the current age. The meaning might change in five years' time, so we have to have good definitions. We do not know whether this refers to funding that would create jobs while also facilitating the guarding of undersea cables. Does it have anything to do with Russian submarines or security equipment for EU Presidency events? Does it mean giving the Israeli armed forces a leg up, even if only to help them with their HR systems? We need an independent oversight mechanism. I listened to the discussion on the radio this morning between Deputies Richard Boyd Barrett and Barry Ward. It was quite interesting. I want to put this on the record because I will not be here this evening for the debate on Deputy Boyd Barrett's Private Members' Bill. I acknowledge that the Government has valid points to raise on what the proposed legislation can do unilaterally in terms of whether or not we can override the European Union element. If, however, we are serious about being signatories in the context of calling out Israel for genocide, then we should bring this type of legislation as far as possible in order that the EU will be obliged to say, "Well, actually, you can't do this. It is illegal." At least symbolically, we will have shown we are serious about what we purport to care about as a country. We need transparency at all stages. Another aspect of this legislation involves environmental protection and carbon abatement. The Bill allows projects to be assessed solely on environmental criteria; given my Green background, I fully support that. We have to accelerate the decarbonisation process. The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has made it clear that Ireland must reduce emissions by 51% by 2030 in the context of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021. Unfortunately, we are projected to fall short by a wide margin in that regard. That is on the basis of an EPA report from 2024. I have consistently called in the Dáil for these targets not just to be met but also to be exceeded, especially in terms of energy security, self-sufficiency and the related urgent requirements to upgrade our electricity grid. Again, we need financial transparency. Even if the goal is a good one and we are trying to do the decent thing in a world with lunatics like Trump and others denying that climate change is an increasingly dangerous reality, we need clear reporting on the types, number and scale of grants and on the expected outcomes and measured outcomes. We need to know that the money being spent is changing behaviour, whether individual consumer behaviour, industrial behaviour or through Government agencies, so that we are achieving our objectives, rather than just rewarding stuff we were going to have to do anyway, and that we are going back to the visionary idea of T.K. Whitaker in the 1950s. If this Bill is being brought in to create something more modern and to help us better achieve our aims, that is very welcome, but it should go above and beyond our existing targets. Another angle I want to look at is the expansion of IDA Ireland's co-investment powers. I am not concerned about some of those relating to the more pro-business side of things. I am definitely pro business but I am not pro giving business a licence to print money at the expense of the consumer. Co-investment is a good idea, even if it crowds out some private developers. If a strategically important project requires to be pushed forward and if it strengthens things from a regional or decarbonisation perspective or provides more jobs, then the State should not be afraid to take the lead. We have seen too many cases where we have waited for the so-called market to solve a problem and let the companies come in and do it. That sometimes means the problem either never gets solved or is not solved fast enough, or else it generates massive profits for private companies and little community dividend. Many onshore wind farms, for example, go into communities but very few in the communities would say they got a good share of the profits or the projects have enhanced their quality of life in return for the inconvenience. I am a huge supporter of wind energy, but we have to ensure that there is a community dividend. This would also apply from a national perspective to offshore wind and stuff we have not pushed because we are depending on private companies, like wave, tidal, solar, to some extent hydrogen, battery storage investment and deep sea harbour development. All are areas where the State could lead the way off its own bat, or at least through co-investment, with the caveat that the State be the lead investor. Any State investment, including co-investment, carries a financial risk. Commercial property values and land values have experienced big swings over the years - 10% to 15% in recent years in the office and industrial segments according to the CBRE Ireland market outlook 2024. Construction cost inflation has averaged 7% to 9% annually since 2021, as we know from a number of reports like the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland tender price index for the period 2021 to 2024. That has only got worse since the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the more recent war in the Strait of Hormuz and related fuel price hikes, which also push up the price of doing business. We would want to be careful, especially in the scenario of these conflicts and the risk of a related global recession. We do not want to be holding property purchased at a peak price or paying over the odds in a bidding war unless we can guarantee we will get a return. I am digressing slightly because I have a little bit of time available. The whole process of NAMA was a good idea, particularly in the context of buying all the property, securing it and then trying to get a return on the investment. We got billions back. If you index day-to-day prices, however, you will see we undersold things from the point of view of what we got for the State. That was in the context of a global economic crisis with the troika putting pressure on us. If the likes of IDA Ireland will take on more risk by getting involved, hopefully as the lead, in these co-investment projects, the Oireachtas has to have scrutiny, not to the level of micromanagement that will actually stop stuff happening, but definitely pre-notification of major co-investments above a reasonable defined threshold. It means annual reporting on the performance of assets and published risk management frameworks so we know the basis on which decisions are made in advance. We have had too many overspends and too few returns in the past. I wholeheartedly agree with empowering the agencies, but we need to ensure oversight. That brings me to a broader point in the context of the Bill and possibly beyond it. The governance structures overseeing our enterprise agencies have not necessarily kept pace with the expansion of their mandates over the years. They are asked to do more than in T.K. Whitaker and Lemass's time, or the seventies, eighties or nineties. We now have the green transition, the digital transition, the so-called defence, security and resilience technology, growth and infrastructure. While co-investment is not new, it is new in this context, especially with the lead agency model I have been suggesting. In 2020, the OECD published the principles of good governance for independent public bodies and set out international best practice standards for how semi-automonous agencies like IDA Ireland, the HSE, ComReg, the EPA and Enterprise Ireland should be structured and held accountable. This model is widely used by governments to benchmark whether agencies with significant operational independence can still operate in a transparent, accountable and democratic framework. Looking at this from the OECD's perspective, when agencies expand their mandates, as this Bill, to a degree, proposes, without parallel reform of how they are governed, there is a risk the accountability gap increases and the scrutiny decreases. We need, in every case above a certain amount, risk-weighted assessment aligned with best practice internationally, particularly at EU level and maybe looking at the UK specifically. It means a stronger as opposed to a weaker role for the public accounts committee in reviewing the activities of agencies and for the enterprise committee of which I am a member. On the flammable liquid provisions, updating safety standards is necessary, but we also have to be mindful of the compliance burden on small operators, particularly those in rural areas. Industry estimates suggest it could cost up to €15,000 per site for upgrades and inspections, depending on the scale of the equipment involved. Those who came up with those estimates would say that because the information comes from an Irish petroleum industry association compliance costs survey from 2023. However, they do have a fair point to make to the effect that if you want to manage safety, you should try to do it in a way that does not potentially put companies out of business. I hope that clarification can be given as this Bill progresses as to how standards will be phased in, what sort of supports will be available and how we can ensure they do not undermine local businesses. They are not related to the Bill specifically, but there are a couple of other matters I would like to talk about briefly, purely because they are relevant to where industrial policy goes. I have mentioned these matters previously, both at the committee of which I am a member and in other debates in the House. I am of the view that we should create something similar to Silicon Valley in the midlands, in the triangle comprising the lands between Tullamore, Athlone and Mullingar. My constituency has a high concentration of pharma and software industries. Some 20% of those who work in these industries come from overseas. They are all living in my area, which they are entitled to do, but they have very high-income jobs, which means that houses prices locally are being pushed up. Equally, because all of the companies they work for want to locate in the Dublin area, the increase in traffic does tend to add to the gridlock. It would make a lot of sense from an industrial perspective that an area the size of Silicon Valley would be covered by that triangle, a 20 km space in the middle of the country, where future policy would encourage or even specify that the companies have to go to those type of hubs. That is where they would be located. We would possibly need to build a new city to accommodate them and plan it properly in order that it would be a 15-minute city where all of the facilities and amenities would be within walking distance and where people could work in a much more modern way. That would also mean that if people living in places like Dublin Mid-West are going to be commuting for 50 minutes in order to get to work, it would make much more sense for them to westwards rather than adding to the gridlock eastwards and along the M50. The other matter I want to reference is that of our ports, particularly in the context of co-investment funding. We need deep-sea ports on the west coast. We need battery storage and maybe hydroelectric, a Turlough Hill-type project, that would be capable of holding onto the energy generated by using offshore wind, the waves on the west coast and the tides in the Shannon Estuary and off the coast of Dublin. We have wave energy potential in the context of which we are way behind both Scotland and Denmark. All of this could contribute to massive export potential in terms of electricity. I listened to a debate earlier today about the potential for bringing nuclear power to Ireland. I am not opposed this ideologically, but there would be a need to ramp things up and spend money on imported uranium or thorium, cheap as they might be in the current context. We could do that, but we have the potential, using battery and hydro storage, to be self-sufficient in electricity terms , to provide the energy for data centres and get an income from them and to export energy to the UK and France. If we do need a nuclear element, we could take some nuclear energy from France, if we ever the need to do so, during an off-peak period. With wave, wind, solar and tidal power, and also if we ramp up the grid and the private wires element, I cannot see why we would ever be short of energy at any time of the year, particularly as we have enough capacity to cater for our own needs, although our export capacity might slow down at different times. We need to look at strategic investment and partnership with companies in the context of that element of industrial policy, because it would be a win-win situation for everyone.

I thank the Deputies for their contributions and for their constructive and useful feedback, which I certainly welcome. Many supported the broad thrust of the Bill and its underlying objectives. The Bill will further enhance the ability of the enterprise development agencies, IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland, to drive investment and employment across the country. It will also ensure the enterprise agencies have the legislative tools they will need to incentivise companies to accelerate their green and digital transitions. It will allow IDA Ireland to further enhance its property and infrastructure offerings. A key element of that will be supporting regional, balanced development. That is very much evident in its strategic plans and we can see that magnified in every corner of this country with some property banks, but also with advanced building solutions being developed and have been developed to meet client demand and support regional needs. The Bill streamlines the ability of the agencies to support defence, security and resilience. In summary, it is designed to drive investment and support innovation in areas that are strategically critical for Ireland. Many Deputies raised concerns about the general scheme of the Bill that was published and approved in February of 2025. Over the past year, we have witnessed the growing challenges but also the opportunities in areas of our economy that are related to defence, security and resilience. They have become increasingly clear, given the extraordinary budget allocations for security, at national and European level. Looking at the challenges we face with regard to moving the level of ambition within our Defence Forces to the next level, significant investment will be required and it is against this backdrop that it is time to replace that blanket constraint. What we are focused on doing is providing this amendment, which solely relates to the functions of enterprise agencies and their capacity to support Ireland's strategic objectives. It will allow the agencies to support, financially or non-financially, enterprises in the defence, security and resilience sphere, like other parts of our economy, but importantly it is subject to compliance with all existing controls and legal obligations governing these sectors. For this Government, it is about ensuring that we can maximise funds from European programmes, such as the forthcoming European competitiveness fund. It is about ensuring Ireland benefits from this. Enterprise Ireland and IDA Ireland must be able to engage confidently with potential partners, with companies and consortia operating in this sphere. If we do not do that, someone else will. These amendments in the Bill provide the clarity that is required for agencies to participate fully and appropriately in these programmes, supporting Irish researchers, supporting small to medium enterprises right throughout our country, and also ensuring the multinational firms that want to collaborate with the innovation, defence, security and resilience fields can actually do so. That is a good thing and one that would be welcomed. It does not impact the activities of enterprises themselves as activities in this sphere are controlled by a comprehensive, multilayered framework involving primary and secondary legislation under the Control of Exports Act 2023 and Ireland's obligations under international treaties, including in relation to human rights. Enterprise Ireland and IDA Ireland are subject to overarching Government policy, ministerial policy direction and strict internal governance and compliance standards. It is very important to emphasise this because I have heard Deputies, including Deputy Boyd Barrett, make assertions regarding "sinisterism" and the charge that we tried to smuggle this into the Bill. This could not be further from the truth. The Government has a regulatory and compliance framework for enterprises operating in the State and that is not affected by the deletion of this section. All existing checks and controls remain fully intact, including the EU regulation around the Control of Exports Act, the provisions of which are unaffected. We operate export licence applications. These are considered by our officials in accordance with criteria set out within the relevant dual use and military EU and national regulations and in line with Ireland's international obligations and responsibilities as a member of non-proliferation regimes and export controls remit. That is an important point with regard to Deputy Boyd Barrett's accusation that we are in some way complicit in the ongoing genocide in Palestine. This Government has been very strong in upholding international law but we also ensure that each application is assessed individually, with detailed consideration of the nature of the items, the destination country, the identity of the end user, the intended end use and the potential misuse, using all reliable information available at the time from a range of different sources. That has to be factored in. All of this presents complex factors, which are considered in every application. If there are any concerns that goods exported will not be used for the specified end use or by specific end users, they will be detailed in the application. If the exporter does not provide enough information regarding the intended end use, our officials make an informed decision. The bulk of dual-use items exported from Ireland, including those to Israel, are mainstream business ICT products such as software, hardware, networking, data storage and cybersecurity and have been categorised as so. We want to continue to support indigenous Irish companies. We see this Bill as an important vehicle for multinationals that are based here and IDA client companies to continue the good work they do and we look forward to progressing it through the House.