Amendments Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

Do I need to move all of the amendments?

No, just amendment No.1. The Deputy should not rush it.

I move amendment No.1:

In page 5, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:

“(3) A consultancy grant shall not be made for the engagement of consultants to provide advice or studies in respect of any activity of military relevance.”

There are a series of amendments from myself and Deputy Gibney in this area. On the Second Stage debate, the Minister said that this Bill has no implications for our neutrality, but it has serious implications for our neutrality. My understanding of our neutrality is that we do not support or promote the arms industry. My understanding, and the view of most people in this country, is that our neutrality comes from opposition to war, militarism and empire.

The Irish Neutrality League, set up by Connolly, Pearse and Markievicz, was set up in 1914 at the outset of the First World War because the people who went on to fight for the liberation of this country, in some cases laying down their lives to do so, opposed the slaughter of the First World War and militarism. They did not want to be involved with imperial blocks that sent young working-class people in their millions out to be slaughtered. That is what our neutrality is about.

In an apparently innocuous Bill about industrial development, and who could be against that, the Government is actually trying to integrate us more and promote more Irish involvement in the arms industry. We will get on to section 8, the part that deletes the requirement for the Government to be notified if the IDA or Enterprise Ireland promote or support companies engaged in the area of military and defence. It removes oversight of that area, which was not even discussed when pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill was done. That was sneaked in at the last minute and is going to remove oversight of involvement of Irish companies and State agencies in the promotion of the arms industry. We should not be involved in promoting that.

It was very clear when we rang the alarm bells about this - quite honestly this all could have been missed because the Government was engaged in a sleight of hand but luckily it was rumbled - that the Minister gave away the truth when he talked about small and medium enterprise in this country, whatever small indicates in this context, essentially getting in on the benefits of European defence expenditure. This is the European arms industry, which is being ratcheted up in a very big way and, crucially, is implicated in the horrors we have seen visited on the Palestinian people during the genocide. He referenced things like drone technology as an area we want to get into. In case the Minister does not know, but of course he does, drone and digital technology and all that kind of stuff are absolutely central to the genocide in Gaza. It is absolutely central to what Israel is doing to the Palestinian people, to the modern warfare in what is happening between Ukraine and Russia, and the war in the Middle East started by Trump and so on. This is about us trying to cash in on a deadly industry that is about killing and murdering people using the most modern technology: AI, digital technology, drones and so on. We should not be promoting that. We should be promoting industries that are good for humanity and move us in the opposite direction from militarism, war, arms spending and so on, rather than further integrating into it.

I do not know if the article from The Currency has been mentioned but I quote it extensively. It was published earlier in the year and showed that in 2023 and 2024, millions of dual-use exports were sent to Israel and to the Israeli military from this country in the midst of a genocide. More recently, The Currency produced a new article showing that in the same two years, €28 million worth of dual-use technology - in other words technology that can be used by the military - was sent to Israeli defence and security companies. In other words, these are armed companies which produce the hardware and digital software and so on and so forth that the Israeli military uses, as we speak, to commit the genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. I do not know if that more recent article has even been discussed in here yet. The dual-use exports were not just going to the Israeli military, they were also going to Israeli security and defence companies. Fair play to The Currency. What is excellent in the article is that it states that officials in the Department were warning the Government that end users were going to use them for military means in Israel. For example, from the FOI stuff I got back, officials were advising the Minister and the Department that the end user had direct ties to the Israeli defence industry, and there risk-register profile entry stated that it was believed the end user is at risk of diverting these dual-use goods to potential military-end uses. That was ignored.

The officials could see where this stuff was going and that it could be implicated in the horrific crimes of genocide. It would appear the Government decided it did not want to know because we can benefit and that we want to move into and profit from this expanding area that involves killing people. I accept that after 2024, because of the uproar over the genocide and the pressure exercised on the Government, things began to change, but I do not trust the disposition of this Government. Look at its failure to impose economic sanctions. We are still doing €3 billion or €4 billion worth of trade with the Israeli regime, which is engaged in genocide. Do I trust the Government when it will now not even be notified about this stuff? No, I do not. That is why I moved these amendments and I am sure others will say they are doing it for similar reasons. We should not be engaging in and expanding our involvement in the deadly arms industry.

I have to echo some of Deputy Boyd Barrett's sentiments, particularly around the disguising of a massive policy shift in our neutrality under the guise of industrial development legislation. In recent discussions with the Minister, Deputy McEntee, around this, I quoted the Minister of State, Deputy Byrne, who spoke about the changing face of warfare. We know it is not just about building bullets that kill people now. It is much more complex and huge technological innovation is playing into the arms industry. It is not just bombs and bullets that kill people but everything behind that, around the technology and infrastructure of warfare. That is what we are dealing with and what we are pushing back on today.

I will speak to amendments Nos. 2 and 5, both of which introduce guardrails around that. Amendment No. 2 adds the following text: "No grant under this section will be made for consultancy services which relate to military or defence activities." Amendment No. 5 adds:

(8) No loans, investments or disposals of land shall be made by the IDA under this section to any company which engages in activities of military relevance, including defence manufacturing or providing military goods or services.

(9) Enterprise Ireland and the IDA shall not cause a company to be formed and registered under this section if the purpose of that company is to engage in activities of military relevance, including defence manufacturing or providing military goods or services.

The purpose of amendment No. 2 is to ensure grants for consultancy services for business are not for military-related purposes. The allowed purposes are technological innovation and digitalisation; environmental protection and sustainability; and business transformation, development and strategy. Our key concern in the Social Democrats is we are seeing militarisation creep into all of these aspects of businesses, particularly following the lead of the European Commission, which is actively seeking to integrate our tech innovation and industrial development as a European Union with the military and arms industries. That is not conspiracy or pie in the sky. That is overt and explicit policy direction coming from Brussels.

The amendment seeks to ensure Irish taxpayer money is not directed to arms companies or to helping companies become arms companies. What is too often lost in this discussion is that there is an opportunity cost. Every cent directed from business support funds, EU Cohesion Funds or research funds to military businesses is money that the Government does not have to support family-run companies which are trying to navigate rising business costs, help local SMEs expand or help medical start-ups conduct important research. It means people who would otherwise focus their talents and efforts on a business that benefits the environment, makes a medical good or creates and innovates to support society are instead encouraged to follow the money and use that talent and effort to create a war economy.

Amendment No. 5 further pushes that any material support provided by the IDA and Enterprise Ireland is not aimed at companies engaging in activities of military relevance, particularly that they do not take part in the formation of companies which do this. There is an inherent risk involved when Irish State agencies provide funding, lands or material supports, or become shareholders or create companies which engage in activities of military relevance.

The principles underpinning this are simple. We do not want to pivot our economy towards war and arms, and that is what this does by stealth and in disguise. It is turning our backs on neutrality. The Government is already doing that with the Defence Act by removing the triple lock but this is brazenly saying we want to abandon our neutrality, even though, of course, the Government is not admitting the removal of the triple lock is jettisoning our neutrality. On top of that, as a European member state, we have a choice right now when there is a clear direction of travel away from the peace project origins of the founding of the European Union towards a project which has at its centre militarism, war, the arms industry and economies propped up by those. That is the direction of travel. There is no hiding that. Nobody is even trying to hide that in Brussels. We have a role as a European member state, and one of the few which are neutral, not to just go along with it and say, "Oh, that's where the money's going, we'd best follow that", but instead to say "No", push back against it and say that we do not stand for this and we will not stand for it. We must remind our European colleagues that we are a peace project. I hear from those in Cabinet time and again that the EU is the greatest peace project - well, they should act like it is and tell our European colleagues we will not do this. Do not just try to buy in because that is where the money is.

We are against the use of public funds to subsidise the arms industry and we understand the Government's approach seeks to cash in, essentially, on European funds for companies engaging in military activities. The arms industry has always been profitable and the level of profitability has never been the measure by which Government should approve State supports to companies engaging in military activities and creating goods for military use. The reason we require Government approval is based on the understanding that the creation, with public funds, of weapons that may be used in a manner over which we have no control is wrong. We also believe shaping our industrial development around the arms and military sector risks creating sector lock-in and reliance on arms for economic and industrial development, which can have serious consequences for our economies, for policies across Europe, for diplomacy and for defence.

Being one of 27 member states and one of the few neutral ones means being a constant reminder that this is a peace project, a Union founded in peace, not one which supports war and arms as a key economic indicator. We see this policy shift happening across the EU. What is not being spoken about when we talk about the billions for the defence sector is the cost. When we use Cohesion Funds, research funds and business support funds for military purposes, there is less money for the genuine social cohesion that the European project was born for. For important research and indigenous businesses which are not in the military sector, we must resist it and resist using it as a foundation for this gargantuan policy change.

Our neutrality matters. I support amendments Nos. 1 to 5. We need to be conscious of the ramifications for our neutrality of what the Government is trying to push through. Currently, any engagement by Enterprise Ireland or the IDA with companies which engage in activities of military relevance must be done with the prior approval of the Government. This is not an argument that defence companies should be prohibited in Ireland, nor is it an argument for investing in our Defence Forces; it is an argument about public money and State assets. Therefore, ministerial oversight is critical.

I was not convinced by the Committee Stage debate that necessary safeguards were in place, and I do not think anybody across all parties in the committee was convinced. Why should the State finance or facilitate supports through its enterprise agencies for activity of this nature? There is already billions in funding available from the EU, for example, so why are we subsidising them? God knows there are many things in this country that need to be subsidised and supported. We talk to businesses every day of the week about competitiveness and about how they are struggling. Why then are we suggesting we open the doors to give the support that could be given to them to this when it threatens our neutrality?

I thank the Deputies for tabling these amendments but I am unable to accept them. First, I will focus on the objectives of section 4 and 5.

Section 4 deals with the capacity of the enterprise development agencies, IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland, to provide environmental grants and consultancy grants. The objectives of these incentives for businesses are to invest in actions that drive decarbonisation and our national objectives with respect to green and digital transition. They also align with the Government's goals, as set out in the programme for Government, to support high-quality jobs, mitigate climate change and drive competitiveness. The proposals set out in section 4 are in no way related to military matters. Likewise, the ultimate objective of section 5 is to support jobs, economic growth and strong regional development.

Having listened to the Deputies, it is disingenuous to say that the proposal in this Bill is aligned to war, military matters or subsidies for the arms industry. That could not be further from the facts. Every substantial safeguard to protect Ireland's national security, reputation and international obligations remains fully in force. The Bill does not in any instance affect the Government's policy on military neutrality. If we look at the availability of suitable property solutions, we are looking at how we can centrally attract mobile FDI, particularly in the current highly, competitive international markets, and for companies to see Ireland as an attractive place in which to do business. In that context, the joint property ventures provided for in section 5 can play an important role in supporting job creation. Again, section 5 of this proposal is in no way related to military matters.

As a Government, we will continue to support Irish-owned companies to grow and scale, along with providing direct investment towards each step of their decarbonisation. At the same time, as global competition for FDI intensifies, Ireland needs to remain agile and ambitious to win investment. The purpose of the Bill is to support these objectives. Through its different sections, it amends different Acts to specify defined purposes. Applying exceptional conditions to unrelated supports, as proposed in these amendments, is piecemeal and is not coherent from a policy perspective. The amendments conflate unrelated issues. Deputy Boyd Barrett spoke about issues around export licences. These were substantially discussed on Committee Stage when the Minister was very clear on the export of dual-use items. The Department explicitly and carefully assesses export licence applications, having regard to their relevance, the regulations and criteria. Their authorisations are decided on that basis.

For the reasons I outlined, I will not be accepting these amendments.

The Minister of State will have a more difficult time explaining the deletion of section 8. Let us take him at face value and say that these things are not connected. What, then, is the problem with our amendments? If the Government is talking about giving the IDA powers, for example, to set up DACs for purely benign purposes that have nothing to do with the arms industry or the military sector, why would it have a problem with our amendments? The Minister of State said there is no connection, so why does he not just accept them and we would all be happy? Nobody has a problem with the IDA or Enterprise Ireland providing grants - I do have problems with DACs on another level but we will set that aside for today - or in supporting the development of companies that are engaged in environmental research or other areas of research that are non-military and not related to the defence sector and the areas that we are concerned about that might impinge on our neutrality. The reason the Government does not want to accept the amendments is that there is another agenda. It is to do with ReArm Europe. We will talk more about that. It was alluded to there by Deputy Gibney.

The €800 billion is a big pot on money that Ireland wants to move in on and seize potential benefits from, but it means contributing to an industry that visits death and destruction on people, and has done very recently. The Government was caught out in its involvement in that when arms companies in Ireland and the Israeli military itself got dual-use technology from this country, which was almost certainly used to kill Palestinian people during a genocidal massacre. I do not see why the Government would have a problem with our amendments if what the Minister of State said is true. When we look at the rest of the Bill, in particular what we will be discussing in a minute, the Government is engaged in a stealth manoeuvre here.

The Minister of State accused us of being disingenuous and conflating issues. I would push back and say that it is the Government that is being disingenuous in putting this forward. Deputy Boyd Barrett makes a perfectly valid point. If the Government does not have an issue and this is not about military spending, then it should accept our amendments. Everything in the public eye tells us that we are seeing a shift in spending in Europe. This measure seems to me to be clearly jumping on that bandwagon and taking advantage of that move towards militarisation. We are seeing a multi-annual financial framework reorientated towards military spending. We are seeing the knock-on effects of that in smaller countries not getting access to the funding they should get access to because, of course, it is the largest countries that have the arms industries that will benefit most from this. The Government's response is not to say, "That is not fair and we should not be doing it." Its response is to say, "We want to get in on that cash as well; we want to jump in there." That is what is happening.

There is nothing coming from the Government around the fact that this means there is less money for social cohesion in Europe. Our best defence against the propaganda of war and the disinformation coming at us from Russia and elsewhere is to double down on investing in our communities, small businesses and the people who need this money to survive and thrive in life. It is not to direct this money towards bombs, bullets and all the associated industry related to war and arms. Whether the Minister of State admits it or not, that is what this legislation is trying to do. If he does not admit it, why will he simply not accept these amendments?

The Government is going in the wrong direction here. It is very pertinent. We are looking at this on the enterprise committee. Until 2024, at the height of genocide and ethnic cleansing, we were exporting weapons to Israel. That is the fact of the matter. Now, it is against the advice of the Government officials. There has to be an explanation provided as to why that has happened. That is the reason we are examining this in the enterprise committee.

The Minister of State is saying we should trust the Government, with the IDA and Enterprise Ireland, to do this. This does not make sense, and it will not make sense to the constituents of the Minister and State and me, and other people throughout this country. Money is needed for CAP and so many other things. The Government has decided that this is the direction it wants to go down. It wants to go down the route of providing subsidies, land and whatever is needed and providing for consultancy services which relate to military or defence activities. Even if we were to pick out just one of those amendments, we are going to be paying consultancy services that relate to military and defence activities. The Government is on the wrong road.

For the purpose of this Bill, a lot of the matters being raised are unrelated to the specific amendments that have been tabled. We should be making it easier for our agencies, IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland, to meet their objectives. If that means providing for consultancy grants or environmental grants, that is very much a core objective of this Government in terms of our green and digital transition. The agencies are working closely with client companies as they continue to navigate these strategic challenges.

This proposed grant would be an important addition to their toolbox. International challenges are very much on the horizon due to geopolitical uncertainty. That, from everyone's understanding, is impacting supply chains and the speed of technology change. It is really important that our agencies are adapting, with the growing technology and the introduction of AI as a key consideration for many enterprises. It is really important as a State that we, ultimately, continue to support companies which are making that green transition or increasing their digital maturity. This is the essence of what we are trying to do within this Bill. For that reason, we will not be accepting these amendments.

Okay. The arguments have been made. I repeat that while the relevant sections we are trying to amend here, sections 4 and 5, do not explicitly refer to the arms industry and refer to relatively benign uses, we are asking for an assurance - the next section is the reason it throws doubt on these sections, and the Minister of State's decision to move out section 8 - as it does refer to, for example, consultancy grants around technological innovation, digitalisation and so on. What we are saying is in areas like that, they should be absolutely explicitly not for the military and defence sector. If grants, which could be up to €7.5 million for consultancies, €15 million in total, or land and property and so on, are not in any circumstances going to go to the security or defence industry, what is the problem with saying they will not? Why is the Minister of State refusing to accept the amendments? We are just asking for a safeguard against the use of this money by companies that would be engaged in those areas. Of course, I think he knows, and we will get on to the next section, that for many of these companies there is a grey area between digital technology, innovation in that area, and even so-called environmental stuff, and the military sector. There is a grey area that is exploited by those companies in order to produce dual-use technology, which is then used to kill people. That is where the relevance of The Currency articles and so on comes in, and the dual-use technology where officials were warning the Department that they think this will be used by the end user for military means even though the end user was saying "Of course not." The end use, of course, was an arms company deeply implicated in Israel's crimes.