I advise members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where he or she is not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, a member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask any members participating via MS Teams that, prior to making their contributions to the meeting, they confirm they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. If their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction. As witnesses are probably aware, the committee will publish the opening statement on its website following the meeting.

Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. If their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction.

Today, we move into the trade part of our responsibilities as an Oireachtas committee. We are engaging with the American Chamber of Commerce Ireland, or AmCham. I welcome Mr. Paul Sweetman, chief executive; Mr. Colm O'Callaghan, director of public affairs and advocacy; and Ms Aoife O'Brien, communications manager. The format of the meeting is that we will hear the witnesses' opening statement, followed by a question-and-answer session with members of the committee. Members generally have seven minutes and that includes answers, and there will be a second round. I am pretty strict about the time so that we get through as many members as possible and keep it tight. When witnesses are giving answers, there is a timer on one of the screens so they can see exactly what is going on. We will be flexible in terms of making sure witnesses get to say everything they need to say.

I ask the chief executive to make the opening statement.

Good afternoon. I thank the Chair and members of the committee for the opportunity to appear before them today to discuss the two-way transatlantic relationship between Ireland and the United States. I am CEO of the American Chamber of Commerce Ireland and am joined by my colleagues Colm O’Callaghan, director of public affairs and advocacy, and Aoife O’Brien, communications manager.

AmCham is a not-for-profit, non-partisan organisation focused on supporting the transatlantic business relationship. We support our members through networking, leadership and advocacy. Our members are the Irish operations of US companies in every sector present in Ireland, Irish companies with operations in the United States and organisations with close linkages to US-Ireland trade and investment. In many cases, the Irish operations of US companies represent global headquarters or Europe, the Middle East and Africa, EMEA, hubs for certain aspects of their business.

In working to strengthen the transatlantic relationship, we are building upon strong foundations. Almost 1,000 US companies have operations in Ireland, spending over €40 billion each year in the Irish economy. Notably, our economic relationship with the US is clearly two-way in nature. Ireland is the fifth largest source of foreign direct investment into the US, with Irish companies employing almost as many people in the US as US companies employ in Ireland. Over 200,000 people are employed by Irish companies in the US across all 50 states.

In our most recent member insights survey, 92% of AmCham members stated they plan to increase or maintain employee numbers over the next 12 months, while nine in ten said their corporate headquarters have a positive view of Ireland as an investment location.

What is clear from our conversations with the business community is that there is a real sense of optimism emerging, and that they are ready to grow their footprint and impact in Ireland by accelerating innovative projects and strategic investments.

To support investment and growth in the future, Ireland’s competitiveness at a national level is key. Ireland is now the seventh most competitive country in the world, according to the 2025 IMD World Competitiveness Index. We are second in the world when it comes to attitudes and values, an essential component in driving business growth, talent development and innovation. However, when it comes to delivering basic infrastructure, Ireland ranks 44th. We know from surveying our members that housing and infrastructure represent some of the most pressing challenges to their growth and expansion, with these factors ranking above tariffs as the greatest risk to continued US FDI in Ireland over the next five years. Cost competitiveness is also a foremost concern for business, with 100% of respondents identifying it as important in supporting and maintaining FDI employment in Ireland. Tackling these challenges will also enable Ireland to double down on its competitive advantages. A total of 63% of AmCham members identify Ireland’s highly educated and skilled talent pool as the country's number one competitive advantage. Delivering needed infrastructural and housing capacity to attract and retain talent in Ireland will be crucial to supporting business investment in the years ahead.

From engaging with members across the country, we have a prevailing optimism that a new era of growth and success for Ireland is within reach. A total of 70% of respondents to our latest survey said their corporate headquarters plan to invest and expand in Ireland over the next five years, with no responses in the negative. For instance, with regard to AI, 82.5% of respondents stated that they think AI will cause their organisation to increase or maintain investment in Ireland in the next five years. This is already evident, with 92.5% saying they have increased or maintained AI investment this year alone. The potential for Ireland in this regard is significant. In this context, 40% of respondents to AmCham’s member survey identified the adoption of AI or emerging technologies as the biggest business opportunity for their firm in Ireland in the next five years.

Further, Ireland, as the primary gateway into the European Union for American business, sits at the heart of the EU-US transatlantic economy, which is worth $1 billion every six hours. A significant opportunity exists with the upcoming EU Presidency to showcase Ireland’s vital role as the key bridge between the EU and the US. The EU Presidency also represents an opportunity for Ireland to be to the forefront of strengthening the EU’s competitiveness, thereby enhancing Ireland’s competitive edge as a location for business to invest and grow.

As we look to the future, it will be the countries with the strongest contender attitude and those that have delivered on national competitiveness that will succeed. Given the enduring strength of the US-Ireland relationship, we are confident that we can secure an impactful economic future built on a thriving transatlantic relationship. In AmCham, we are committed to doing everything possible to support and strengthen the Ireland-US two-way relationship and ensure Ireland’s potential is fully realised. I thank the committee and we would welcome any questions members may have.

I read the opening statement earlier and it sets out a very exciting time. It is very positive and I thank Mr. Sweetman.

I apologise for being late for the statement but I have some questions prepared. I came a bit prepared anyway and I thank the witnesses for being here today. How does the Chamber currently assess the health of EU-US trade relations post Covid, particularly since President Trump has come to power? How do American companies view the EU's current investment climate compared with Asia or any other market?

I thank Deputy McCarthy. The EU-US trade relationship is viewed on both sides of the Atlantic as an incredibly important relationship. As I said in the opening statement, the relationship is worth $1 billion in trade every six hours. It is phenomenally important to companies in Europe and in the US. Both markets provide huge opportunities to organisations. Post Covid we have seen a number of investments, particularly in Ireland, from US companies and vice versa from European and Irish companies into the US. It is growing from strength to strength but there are a number of things we need to focus on, particularly competitiveness at national and EU level, to make it thrive.

With regard to broader markets, when we focus on the EU there is a challenge of competitiveness and it is something that we really need to double down on. Ireland can take a lead role in pushing for the competitiveness of the EU when we look at the competitive advantages that other markets may have in attracting investment.

When Mr. Sweetman says Ireland can take a lead role, in what way does he see how it can do this? Can it encourage other countries to follow suit? What is Mr. Sweetman's reason for saying this?

I thank Deputy McCarthy for this follow-on question. Ireland's industrial policy has been based on a theme of competitiveness and it has won investments over a number of years. We can use this pedigree of delivery to also address EU competitiveness. We have seen the Draghi report and the points contained in it and the competitiveness compass. Ireland has a lot to say on how to improve competitiveness. We have a very strong opportunity when it comes to the Presidency in the second half of 2026 to really reinforce this message.

What are the views of the Chamber on the carbon border adjustment mechanism and its potential impact on transatlantic trade?

What we really have to focus on is making sure that a regulatory regime exists whereby there can be a level playing field between the two jurisdictions. On a broader level, this is something we have seen the US describe as a challenge for investment in the EU, where there needs to be a level playing field for US companies as they operate in the 500 million person EU market. It is something that we have to keep cognisant of. It is at the heart of the competitiveness agenda and the regulatory agenda. The EU is pushing for simplification and we need to try to help as a member of the EU in how we can achieve this.

In the order of things I am the next speaker today. It does not come around to me that often. Will Mr. Sweetman give us a broad brush stroke of the sectors the 1,000 companies operate in, going from largest to less significant in size terms?

The four main sectors with regard to US investment are medtech, pharma, financial services and technology. We can broaden this out in terms of advanced manufacturing and semiconductors. We really have a lot of the key players in each of these sectors. I would not say one is more predominant than the other. In many ways they operate in different regimes doing different things. Some are very much based on manufacturing and others are very much based on services. These are the four predominant sectors.

Mr. Sweetman used a phrase I have not come across before and it seems deliberately a little vague. It is "contender attitude". What does "contender attitude" mean? The context, if I am correct, is that the countries that can demonstrate the best contender attitude would be in pole position from a trade perspective with the USA. What does this mean?

To elaborate on this, it is a case of Ireland trying to do what it can and to show companies and investors that we are up for making sure Ireland is a competitive location so their investments can thrive. This contender attitude was incredibly strong in the 1980s and 1990s when we won investment where we did not have investment before. Winning those investments encouraged others to look at Ireland. We have been incredibly successful at this over the past four or five decades. There can be a challenge with success in the sense we can get complacent and see that winning investment is something we have always done so it will always continue. When we use phrase "contender attitude" it is to bring us back to that period when we really fought very hard to do what we could to win investments. The world is getting far more competitive for investment. There are new jurisdictions that are competing for the same investments that we have always competed for.

I commend the work of IDA Ireland in putting its shoulder to the wheel in this regard, but we have to be cognisant that we need to push hard on competitiveness and to win investment. The world has changed.

What countries are contenders with us? What are the winning attitudes?

It depends on the sector being dealt with, but when I look at the figures from across the globe, I see Singapore is very strong at winning investment in particular sectors. Parts of continental Europe are very strong at winning some tech sector and pharma investment. We also have to remember that the US is a competitor in its own right because companies there have to decide whether they should have an international operation at all.

With regard to what we need to do, many jurisdictions are facing competitiveness challenges related to housing, infrastructure, energy and so forth. We are not alone in these aspects. However, the phrase “contender attitude” refers to showing significant progress on many of these aspects. A five-year plan could have 60 one-month goals within it. If we can show investors what we are doing on particular projects and themes in November, December and January to show we are moving along the right trajectory, it can be very positive to them. It would also show that, where we do face challenges, we respond to them. This gives companies comfort that when new challenges arise, we will use the same attitude to overcome them, even if they are unknown unknowns.

So, €1 billion is the figure for US–EU trade flow every six hours. This is impossible to grasp. Mr. Sweetman mentioned that Ireland is ranked sixth on competitiveness but that it is 44th on infrastructure and housing. Could Mr. Sweetman tell us a little more about being 44th and what we have to do?

It is a really telling statistic. We are seventh globally with regard to competitiveness. When you delve into the statistics in this regard, you see there are some areas where we are performing very well. We are in the top ten for a number of items. However, with regard to basic infrastructure, such as the energy grid, water and wastewater infrastructure and public transport, we perform poorly. According to the International Institute for Management Development world competitiveness index for 2024, we were ranked between 30th and 40th with regard to infrastructure. Therefore, there has been a disimprovement over time from an already low base. It is far easier to move up the rankings from 44th to 34th than it is to move from 14th to fourth. Therefore, there is a lot of low-hanging fruit we need to push on, but it is about investment in basic infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, the electricity grid, housing and anything to do with quality of life and the movement of people and goods.

I was surprised by the positive, dynamic nature of Mr. Sweetman’s report. It is very forward-looking. It has exciting energy in terms of our trading relationships with the US and EU. There is a lot of anxiety nationally and at EU level that is not reflected at all in the report. Based on interactions we have had with other witnesses and as part of our roles as TDs and as members of other committees, how realistic is the report about trading relationships? There was a hell of a lot of anxiety. I am aware that Mr. Sweetman has covered tariffs and that there is more work to be done in this regard, but I wonder how stable, secure and lasting the agreements are. Why is the level of anxiety over trade with the US not reflected at all in what Mr. Sweetman is saying? He does not seem to feel a need to refer to it.

With regard to where we want to win and maintain investment, what we are hearing from companies is that it is national issues, not international issues, that will determine whether Ireland wins or loses investment. It is important to emphasise that because when the dust settles with regard to geopolitics, tariffs, etc., it will come down to how competitive a country is at winning investment, be the pile larger or smaller. I must also emphasise that the survey of our members that we referred to was conducted before our Independence Day launch on 4 July of this year. It does reflect, however, that tariffs are the third highest risk to continued investment here, but above those are things like public infrastructure and housing. Significantly, people may assume tariffs are at number one, but they are actually at number three.

I welcome our guests. On a personal level, I welcome Mr. Colm O’Callaghan, in particular. He and his family are neighbours of mine from home. We are very proud of his success in this sphere and his involvement here. I am delighted to share a forum with Mr. O’Callaghan as a neighbour. I also welcome his colleagues.

I wish to ask a popular question that relates to the Chairman’s line of questioning. A common concern relates to the Irish whiskey trade with America. Mr. Sweetman might comment on this in the context of tariffs. Could he take that question first if he does not mind? I will go through a list of small matters.

This speaks to the broad point that certain sectors will be much more impacted by the tariffs than others. I realise there is a lot of work in the back channels between the Ireland and the US to try to reduce the tariffs on Irish whiskey. We need to double down on these efforts because the tariffs will cause serious challenges for the sector.

If they are not reduced.

Exactly.

So, the common fear is valid?

I would agree.

Is Mr Sweetman optimistic about a reduction?

There are good channels of communication. There are very strong associations dealing directly on this matter and they know what is going on from day to day.

There is a lot of positive sentiment in America towards Ireland and Irish whiskey.

I believe so. Also, we should not underestimate the power of the economic statistics. The fact that Ireland is the fifth largest investor in the United States is significant and it is becoming well known. Therefore, we are viewed in a different light. I hope that when it comes to specific sectors, we will be able to have carve-outs for them.

Mr. Sweetman cited housing as a challenge. There is nobody in the room who is not painfully aware of that, from every perspective, and those of us with families are painfully aware of the challenge young people face in acquiring a first home. As we speak, how real are the challenges of the housing shortage and housing costs in maintaining and increasing investment here? Apart from what can be seen in any statistics, we see that apartment-building has increased significantly in Dublin. Does Mr. Sweetman derive hope from this?

Housing is a serious issue for members. It is the top issue that we hear about when we ask about investment challenges here. One reason it is so concerning is that it directly impacts talent and skills, be it home-grown talent or talent that comes from abroad. There has to be a good quality of life in Ireland, and that is inextricably linked to housing. The demand of teams within organisations we represent is for quality housing. It is well known that there are challenges in this area. People are watching our progress and we need to push progress and continue to deliver.

Does Mr Sweetman agree on what I said about apartment-building in Dublin? Does he believe-----

Would the Senator mind repeating that part of the question?

There is anecdotal evidence of a considerable amount of new apartment building in Dublin. Is this alleviating things? Is it giving Mr. Sweetman a better marketing tool?

That will certainly help. It is a question of the number and quality of those units, be they houses or apartments. They will be very effective.

Let me refer to what is obviously a chestnut for this committee. It is very real to all of us from a hundred perspectives. Without going into the politics of the Middle East, and without developing a treatise or having a separate meeting on the Middle East today – that is not on today’s agenda – could Mr Sweetman comment on the alleged potential damage in America arising from the occupied territories Bill?

Is that hyperbole or is it a real fear? If it is a real fear, is it nonsense? I know the fella who wrote the major article in the New York financial times or whatever the newspaper was, and which triggered the whole discussion, is a Jewish lobbyist. Can AmCham comment on it?

Certainly. The first thing I will say on this is the ongoing humanitarian crisis in the occupied territories requires urgent solution and Ireland should-----

I have taken that as a given. I am asking Mr. Sweetman specifically to address the issue.

Specifically, on the occupied territories Bill-----

On the allegation that it would damage us.

Looking at it from the business lens, it represents an economic and reputational risk for Ireland in terms of our position as a leading destination for foreign direct investment.

Does Mr. Sweetman think that is real? Is it something he fears?

The reputational risk is real.

It is real, based on Mr. Sweetman's knowledge. That is disturbing. In any event, we still have to do the right thing. That is all I want to ask at this juncture.

I thank Mr. Sweetman and his colleagues for a positive and invigorating presentation. I have learned a lot. The first thing which occurs to me is that, given the importance of the relationship between Ireland and the US, we should look at how this committee could engage on a more regular basis with AmCham to identify the challenges and opportunities that exist, so that we can see, in a cross-party manner, how we can assist in that particular area.

I am interested in what Mr. Sweetman said about Irish investment in the US. For several years, I have been conscious of how mobile Irish capital is and that it will travel anywhere in the world where an opportunity to make profit exists. When we look at the level of employment now generated by Irish businesspeople in the United States and compare it with the US investment here, taking the relativities into account, Ireland is far more invested in the US than the US is invested here.

Mr. Sweetman spoke about housing and infrastructure. God knows, we all know how awful and appalling they are but I heard Bernie Sanders speak not so long ago in this country and he did not paint a picture of nirvana as far as housing in the US was concerned. His picture was of a country facing challenges in providing houses and workers. In fact, the point I think he was making was that workers from outside of the States were needed to come in and build the houses. President Trump will certainly not be encouraging that so one wonders how, on the other side of this coin, that particular matter is going to be addressed.

I will ask a couple of specific questions. In terms of Ireland, the US and China, President Trump has come back from wooing Xi Jinping and it seems to have been all sweetness and light, at least on the American side. Does Mr. Sweetman advice to give us on how we, in our bilateral relationship with the EU, could benefit in our dealings with China, or are they matters that should be separated and avoided?

On the question of investment, President Trump is clearly determined to bring jobs home, which is something we could want to do ourselves if we were not in a situation where we are unable to fill the jobs we have in the country already. If Trump is committed to bringing jobs home, are we in truth looking at working to maintain existing levels of investment and employment for the duration of his period in office, rather than looking at increasing investment? Is there any reasonable prospect at all of additional investment against the sort of political background that exists?

I might take the second question first. Our read on it is there is going to be opportunity for increased investment from the United States in Ireland. What we will need to focus on, though, is competitiveness in order to win that investment. From our discussions with companies on investments inside and outside the US, there is a clear sense from organisations that it will be both. It will not be one or the other. When we look at a number of sectors, supply chain and market presence are absolutely essential, as is looking for the right talent and skills availability. When we look at Ireland, for example, we have an incredible pedigree of individuals who can deliver significant projects for US multinationals time and again. That is incredibly powerful, not just for winning investment but for giving confidence to US companies that investments can be made where they are going to succeed.

My sense is that we are going to continue to see that in global investment. If the pie gets smaller, it will still come down to our ability to compete for that but, because of the supply chain and access to the global market, a presence will be required outside of the US. To reiterate, companies have indicated it will certainly be both. It is not one or the other and I take confidence from that.

Then when we look at our own statistics, and again this is from the survey earlier this summer, it is the case that companies are talking about further investment in Ireland over the next 12 months in terms of employee headcount and projects. Close to 70% said they would be looking at new projects over the next five years. These are very compelling statistics that could give us faith but, again, we have to focus on competitiveness.

With regard to Ireland, the US, the EU and China, from our centre of expertise, we focus very much on the US-Ireland relationship and the EU-US relationship. One thing that is core for us is always the competitiveness of Europe. However, I think that will play with regard to any market Europe is going to try to invest in or encourage companies to invest in.

Deputy Ó Murchú is deputising for Deputy Ó Laoghaire.

I am a poor stand-in but I will do my best. To follow on from where Senator O'Reilly left off, all of us will agree there is a need for a long-term solution in relation to the Middle East. An awful lot of us would consider what the Palestinian people have been through as nothing short of genocide. We need to see some sort of route map through to freedom and justice for the Palestinians. I would also say the American Administration has a significant opportunity now, as it always has had, to improve circumstances. I do not think anyone could say it has played a particularly fair role as regards the Palestinians over a considerable period, but particularly in the recent past. As regards the occupied territories Bill, does Mr. Sweetman accept that the territories are not an integral part of what people would call "Israel proper" and that the proposed legislation does not propose a blockade on trade with Israel? It it is very specific to the occupied territories, which are illegally held.

I thank the Deputy. "Yes" would be the answer.

That is a fact that we have to maintain. I agree with Senator O'Reilly that sometimes you just have to do the right thing. We would like to think the American Administration would also do the right thing and I would like to think that any companies that have any sway with it would have those sorts of conversations.

Obviously, Ireland has its own specific political conditions. We, like the rest of the world, are dealing with the uncertainty that has been caused by the US Administration as regards tariffs. In July, we had the EU-US trade deal under which we are looking at a likely tariff of 15%. A British-US trade deal led to 10% tariff on most goods. What is Mr. Sweetman's view on the impact this will have on the all-Ireland economy?

There have been numerous conversations and attempts at mitigation where the Dublin Government and the Executive in the North are looking at the best means of avoiding the greatest level of divergence and the impact it could have. Does Mr. Sweetman believe there are any more safeguards that are required other than the Windsor Framework and the ongoing negotiations? Please outline anything that could improve that set of circumstances.

Yes. The 10% tariff is not going to be cumulative and other tariffs can be added but the 15% tariff is a cap for us.

I get that. We all hope that the best comes from negotiations but you can never bet on what the end result is going to be-----

Certainly.

-----or what Donald Trump decides to put on the truth.

As a side point, the Deputy has made a very powerful point. The uncertainty is still challenging for companies in the sense that if you do a basic return-on-investment calculation and put in a variable of tariffs there is certainty around that now but the challenge is whether that will be the case in a month or six months' time. I do not want in any way to diminish it because it is still significant. As I said, it is third in our risks to long-term investment and anything that is ranked third is a major risk. It is something on which we have to keep an eye.

On all-island investments, any investments to Ireland are incredibly powerful and a rising tide that lifts all boats.

Is there anything specific that needs to be done at this point in time other than to watch, wait and react?

At this point in time that is certainly the approach we have to take. I would encourage, and it always comes back to this, looking at the competitiveness agenda. I am sorry to be a broken record on it but it is quite clear to us that when you do the thought experiment of what we need to do, it always does come back to the simple competitiveness aspects of what companies are going to need, such as talent or public infrastructure.

To give some anecdotes, we have been in touch with a number of companies. We have met the senior leadership teams of a number of organisations and some have multiple sites or operations. Within those conversations, over the past six months, particularly at the highest peak of the discussions on tariffs, we talked about what we knew and the insights we were getting. The question-and-answer parts of those sessions invariably went to local challenges on infrastructure - water, public roads or transport, etc. - that the companies highlighted as some of the biggest challenges. Anecdotally, that tells me a lot about where companies are at. We are certainly speaking about tariffs and the challenge and uncertainty around them, but about getting the basics right too.

It is a case of dealing with the issues that can be directly dealt with. I was going to mention next that there has already been talk about the infrastructural deficits in housing, health and particularly water and energy. Over the years it has been proposed many times by ourselves that we need to have serious investment to make up for these deficits, which are impacting right across the board and will have an impact on our capacity for future development.

Absolutely.

That is before we talk about the societal impact in relation to housing.

Yes, societal and economic growth are inextricably linked. I could not agree more with the Deputy. It is something we absolutely have to invest in on a continual basis. We are coming from the back foot on some of this.

It is a case of "I would not start here if I were you".

There is an opportunity in the sense that if it is known that we have challenges, what is next is to show that we are making progress, moving on this and taking it seriously. Such a trajectory of approach and growth will be noticed by investors. As others have said in the committee, we are not alone in facing some of these challenges as other jurisdictions where investors are looking are facing them too. It is not so much the presence of the challenge but how we are addressing the challenge that will give confidence to companies or turn them away from making investments.

We must address this rather than just talking about it; it is as simple as that.

In the nine seconds I have left I want to say that we deal with an awful lot of the exports to America in the areas of pharma, food, drink, aviation and medtech. I ask Mr. Sweetman to give a quick synopsis of the chamber of commerce's engagement with those companies on the particular fears that exist now on the basis of the world of tariffs in which we exist. What does the Government policy need to be as much as possible to facilitate them at the minute?

Mr. Sweetman will have to save his answer.

Of course.

I thank the Deputy and call Deputy Brian Brennan.

I am fascinated by the EU-US and Ireland-US relationships in terms of trade. Would we be in a stronger position if we could fight our own battle rather than going in with the EU?

Being a member of the EU has been incredibly important for Ireland in terms of trying to enhance our capacities and competitive advantages. In areas like developing talent and skills, the funding we have received from Europe has been incredibly powerful. Being a part of the EU has been incredibly important to Irish companies as they invest within the US. On the flip side, one of our biggest competitive advantages for US companies investing here is that we are the gateway to the EU. We have common law jurisdiction, English is the spoken language and we are the gateway to the EU. These are the things that we hear as some of the top reasons for companies investing here.

In terms of people investing in Ireland, and trying to dissect Dublin from rural Ireland, I feel sometimes that we do not look outside of Dublin. This is a question for IDA Ireland as well as the American Chamber of Commerce Ireland. What are American investors looking for now?

The investment by US companies is quite evenly split between Dublin and the rest of Ireland. Companies look for a number of things when they invest here. The top thing is talent and skills, so they will go to the locations where they feel talent and skills are available. Across Ireland, there is a huge offering all the way through the regions for talent and skills capability. US investors look at every jurisdiction and location within Ireland and there have been some great successes. We have seen a few big announcements this week in the southern region where companies are investing because of the talent and skills that are available.

I am from the south east and represent Wexford and Wicklow. I am from a lovely town called Arklow. Unfortunately, in the last two weeks, and the same situation is replicated throughout Ireland, a factory has closed down. I can see investment coming in and people increasing their workforce but now we are looking for someone to fill that gap. Earlier Mr. Sweetman mentioned infrastructure. Arklow has the biggest waste treatment plant in Europe at the moment. The workforce is a proven workforce so they have ticked all those boxes. With the current geopolitical situation and an uncertain world, can we really say that people are looking to come in here and start now?

First, it is very upsetting for us to see any job losses or closure of facilities and it is something that we try to prevent. We will work with the organisations to understand the reasons and to see if there is anything within our control that we can do to support any changes in that regard.

Deputy Brennan mentioned the specific competitive advantages of infrastructure, and talent and skills capability. We need to highlight and show that there are these capabilities available. There is a job to be done to make sure that investors as they are coming in are aware of all of the pockets of innovation, talent and skills that are available in this country. Broadly speaking, we will still continue to see US investment in Ireland across all regions.

Are they new clients?

I would say so. One thing to keep in mind is that we are looking at an acceleration in strategic operations, or operations that have a significant responsibility for global roles within companies. This is a huge opportunity for Ireland. One aspect that we need to do more on is that senior roles are coming to Ireland, through which numbers of units and teams are built around, but they are based on the capability of what can be done from a strategic perspective for those organisations. I think that is really a space where we can go. One thing that we need to be aware of is that we probably have to have more and more of that type of investment, which may yield lower job numbers but will be more significant in terms of its presence and strategic nature within the global organisation. If we can encourage more of those investments to come in, we will be in a very good place for longevity in terms of those investments staying here and thriving here.

It is good to hear Mr. Sweetman's positivity and I admire that. Not finishing on a downer, this is hugely important - it was brought up a number of times today - in relation to Gaza, the American Chamber of Commerce Ireland's stance on Gaza and its commentary on Gaza. Is there no place for corporate responsibility? We have been told by people who were sitting exactly where Mr. Sweetman is sitting now how minimum the amount of money involved is. Is America afraid that Ireland is taking the lead and a moral responsibility? Why is there such a fear when there is so little money involved in goods and trade over there? Why is there so much lobbying going on at the highest level? Are these the people we want to run our world? That is the question I have. We have to go beyond the business. I am lucky enough in the past six months I have been around the world. When I wear an Irish badge, that opens doors and people say that we are taking the lead. We were the first ones almost to stand up. That should count; it should not be ruled out. We should never forget - I know Mr. Sweetman is not - the kids at the end of this who are suffering. We have to stand up.

To reflect on comments from earlier, we look at it through the business lens and I am quite aware that is one of multiple lenses to look through on this. We can report back what we do here from our companies on this as an organisation - it is the reputational damaging aspect of it on an economic source FDI location. That is the lens we can bring to the committee here today.

Is Mr. Sweetman telling me that somebody is not going to put in a factory in Ireland because we supported the kids of Gaza while in the middle of a genocide?

I do not have an answer to that question, but all I do know is that reputation has been damaged.

Clearly, we do not want to shoot the messenger. However, we are interested in that being fleshed out for us, if Mr. Sweetman can do so. It is important from a number of perspectives. What is the reputational piece?

At the basic level, any barrier to trade is damaging for business and can possibly impact Ireland's competitiveness for FDI. Regarding reputation, the committee is well aware of the debates that are happening within the US over what is happening in the Middle East. Therefore, any moves that Ireland is making, particularly on the occupied territories Bill, is the source of that reputational damage. The discussion is polarised and therefore any stance that is taken on one particular area or another falls into that space. The reputational is growing from that polarisation of views.

What are they saying about us?

A lot of what has been said about the reputational damage side has been discussed in the media. It is quite well known in terms of the challenges that have been brought up.

I do not know if it is.

There was mention earlier about an article in The New York Times, etc. Our conversations are based on interactions with organisations that have a presence here.

What did they say?

They give us the feedback simply that there is reputational damage for Ireland in terms of investments being made here. To answer Deputy Brennan's question, it is not clear if that is going to fundamentally impact whether investment is made or not. There are a lot of other factors to that question being answered. That is the message we are getting about the view of Ireland and our reputation as a location of choice of FDI. However, it is not quantified. I cannot say it is a certain factor or percentage.

As CEO of AmCham, does it concern Mr. Sweetman?

Certainly. Anything that reputationally damages Ireland as a location for FDI concerns me.

What is the reputation piece? What are they saying? Ireland is what?

The views that were given is simply the line that it is reputationally damaging. We do not explore it any further other than saying that we need to reassess based on that. Deeper conversations can be had with individual organisations. Looking at it on the conglomerate and broad perspective, it is simply the reputational damage, but it is not quantifiable.

As Chair of the committee, it is important for me to make the following point because there were charges made at this committee and we refuted all of them. They are all on the record. We considered that the work we did was reflective of the members of the committee, proportionate and modest in its reach. We would be grateful if Mr. Sweetman can represent that back clearly. We might have some suggestions towards the end of the meeting, but I am grateful for that. Mr. Sweetman is the messenger here today.

I apologise for being late; I was speaking in the Chamber. To further this line but in a slightly different direction, Mr. Sweetman has answered quite clearly in so much as he can in terms of the view that there could be reputational damage in the eyes of American industry, commerce and politics in respect of this. When we had IBEC before the committee during pre-legislative scrutiny of the occupied territories Bill, someone asked a question and I am going to ask the same of Mr. Sweetman. Have any of the chamber's members come to it in the past year or six months and said that they will not grow any further, will reduce their footprint here and will reduce the number of employees they have here as a result of our support such as it has been to this point - bear in mind it has not even come to the Dáil yet - of the occupied territories Bill?

The short answer to that is "No".

That is an important distinction because not once have we been informed in any terms that either a big company or a group of companies will be taking action and there will be X amount of job losses or potential job losses. It seems to stall at this reputational damage line. Reputation is in the eyes of the beholder. Some of us would say that our reputation internationally has been enhanced and will be enhanced by taking a stance on the genocide and the issues that have gone on there. I thank Mr. Sweetman for his answer and how forthright he was.

There is a right wing think tank based out of London which reported that Ireland's influence in Washington has been diminished in recent months and years, primarily due to the occupied territories legislation. Is it Mr. Sweetman's view that the State's influence in Washington has diminished, whether through this or anything else over the past year or so?

I thank the Deputy for the question. It is good to be able to talk about this. I would not agree regarding our influence waning as such in the US or being diminished is the word to use. Something that we have to be cognisant of is that we need to work on our what influence is in the US. One thing that may be surprising is that the fact we are such a significant investor in the US is not consistently known across the United States. We need to make sure we broadcast that as much as possible. I look at the diplomatic corps we have in the US. We now have a new embassy opened on 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue. We have eight consuls general in the US. We have 12 honorary consuls on permanent mission at the UN. Ireland has a significant diplomatic presence along with a significant economic presence. One piece that I see is that both the economic and diplomatic presence work hand in glove in trying to articulate the key messages. We also have a strong relationship with state legislators as well across each of the states. This is something we need to double down on and work hard on. To ensure that we continue to have this influence, it is something that requires effort, but the effort and the tasks at hand are clearly there. We just need to follow that same trajectory. I would be confident that our influence can maintain and increase if we are willing to put the effort in.

Mr. Sweetman mentioned what attracts investment in here being skills predominantly, although there are other factors. Security is a huge discussion topic internationally at the moment. I do not want to go too much into that space here. In the area of cybersecurity and having security over cyber information systems, our resilience and our bulwarks against that as a State, is that something that is in conversation with the chamber's members or potential investment?

The area of cyber is something Ireland has to be incredibly strong at. We have put a lot of investment into the cybersecurity space over the last number of years to get us to a level that is acceptable internationally, but we need to be cognisant that the strength of Ireland's cyber defences and its cybersecurity prowess is something that companies will look at when they are making a location here. As much as any other piece of infrastructure, this is something we have to be conscious of too. It is not something where we can just say we have made investment and got to a particular point. We continually have to improve in it.

Is Mr. Sweetman confident we are doing that? Do we need to do more? It is not to point fingers as such. What is his view on it?

We are making a strong effort at the moment, but the risk is that we get to a point where we say this is enough. It will require continued investment. It is not something that we just sunset and then it is done. It is something that companies will be aware of. In terms of cybersecurity on its own face, it is something that individual business managers, CEOs, etc., see as one of the top risks and issues for them that make them nervous.

Does Mr. Sweetman have any insight into how long these ongoing section 232 investigations in the US will take in terms of the areas that impact Ireland, such as semiconductors, med-care and that kind of thing? Does he have any insights in that regard?

It is a challenge in trying to say when we will see reports out, but one thing I will say that should give some certainty to people and organisations is there is now a deal between the EU and the US - we know there is a 15% cap. In our engagement with the US, we stay very close to the US Chamber of Commerce, where we can, on particular briefs and issues. We also go to Washington DC and other locations to engage with various government departments to try to get as much insight as we can with regard to timelines that we can bring back to give certainty to our members. The challenge, in terms of everything that is happening, is timelines are part of that uncertainty as well and are causing difficulties for companies.

I will go back briefly to another issue. The risks in housing infrastructure were talked about. To go back to the occupied territories piece, because AmCham is concerned about that, where does that rate on its risks register?

Unfortunately, we did not have that as a specific call-out or dropdown in the survey we did in July, but we can certainly add it to the survey we plan to do for our Thanksgiving event that will be coming up in a couple of weeks. We gave about ten or 15 options to people. Again, it was focused on what I call tangible competitiveness challenges, so responses were based on that. We do not have where it fits within that hierarchy.

AmCham might share that with us.

To go back briefly to the occupied territories Bill, it is important to say there has been a lot of spin about it. We have received a lot of threats, but the UN maintains a list of multinationals that are involved in the illegal settlements. Out of that list, only a handful, maybe two or three, are actually based in Ireland. The vast majority of companies in Ireland, whether they are American or otherwise, have no involvement in these illegal Israeli settlements.

We have heard about this idea of reputation. I will challenge that a little. In the context of coming here, it is irresponsible to tell us there is reputational risk without going into any specifics about that, to be honest. Reputation is a two-way street. There will be positive benefits. There will be companies that have no wish to make profit off horrific war crimes and are very happy that Ireland is taking this stance. I would like to hear about this in the context of Spain because it has this legislation. Does Mr. Sweetman see an equivalent reputational risk, when it comes to Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Slovenia or all these other countries that have passed a similar piece of legislation, and EU countries that are seeking to comply with international law?

On specific jurisdictions with similar legislation, the information we have for the committee today is based on our engagements with the companies within our membership. I could not speak to the same level with regard to the impact in those areas. However, we would be very happy to speak to our "sister American chambers" within those jurisdictions to assess that as well.

Okay, thank you. It is about whether or not we want companies in Ireland to be operating and making commercial profits from war crimes. That is really what the question comes down to.

Moving on from that, because we have discussed it, forgive me for my ignorance, but could Mr. Sweetman briefly explain exactly what he means when he talks about competitiveness? Is he just referring to taxation or is he talking about infrastructure? What are the top four things he is referring to, when he talks about competitiveness?

A number of things will fall into competitiveness. We tend to focus on what is working very well that we have to maintain and what is something that we have to correct. In the very positive bucket, we tend to focus on talent and skills. Ireland has a very strong reputation for productivity and availability of talents and skills. What we constantly push with Government and policymakers is that we need to maintain that pipeline as powerfully as possible. We also talk about the ease of doing business. The ability for companies to engage with the political system and the Civil Service system is very powerful in Ireland. People like the stability that comes from Ireland in terms of the investments they may make. That is in the very positive bucket and there are a number of others on that side.

In terms of challenges, we tend to talk, on the competitiveness side, of infrastructural challenges. These break down into energy, water, public infrastructure, etc.

All right. Thank you for that; it is helpful. Mr. Sweetman also mentioned the Draghi report and the competitiveness agenda we are seeing at the EU. I see that as a deregulation agenda, in many ways, particularly around environmental and human rights protections. In the current US Administration, we have seen a move away from discussions around environment and the climate impact of companies. We have also seen a move away from diversity, equity and inclusion. How will American companies uphold those values? These are not just values that Ireland holds but are also legal requirements we have around the environmental piece, human rights and DEI. How will companies be aligning that to ensure they are upholding them in the Irish context?

On those two topics of sustainability and diversity, equity and inclusion, these are very important issues for us as the chamber. I will take DEI as the first piece. Coming back to talent and skills, a diverse workforce is inextricably linked to the success of organisations. Talent is key for growth. Diversity within that is key for growth. We have ranked with our members that talent and skills is the number one reason they are investing here. We have the sixth highest share of international workers within the EU and Ireland. About one fifth of our workers are non-Irish. This is something-----

Is that one fifth of American companies?

It is workers within Ireland overall who are non-Irish. This diversity is crucial to the competitiveness offering that Ireland offers. AmCham wants to do everything it can to make sure that continues.

In the context specifically of the pushback we are seeing in the US on that, does Mr. Sweetman see a tension or challenge that might happen from companies trying to implement those policies here but domestically they are maybe being discouraged from that approach?

What it will come down to is that organisations are asked to deliver when they make the investment here. That has often been based on the talents and skills available. If there is any threat to that talent and skills availability, that will be where companies will get pushback, if they are not delivering on what they promised, be it job numbers or project delivery. In fact, within the chamber, we have a number of programmes in place that are trying to support that diversity agenda within talents and skills. We have a women in global organisations peer mentoring programme and we are active supporters of organisations like the 30% Club and Balance for Better Business.

There is a delivery component of having diversity and the benefits that brings to delivery, but it is also a question of equality. It is not just that we are doing it because we want better outcomes or outputs; we are doing it because it is the right thing to do. That is an important thing to highlight.

I assume Mr. Sweetman read the Politico report yesterday, which referenced the bullying tactics that people reported - I think it was a meeting in the UK - in relation to US diplomats. There was a trade discussion about basically killing the green agenda around shipping rules. Mr. Sweetman does not necessarily need to comment on that story as he might not have seen it, but how is this kind of strongman approach we are seeing in US Administration diplomatic relationships impacting on AmCham's members and how they go about having these trade discussions and entering into new markets in Ireland? What impact is that having?

I will focus on that question through the lens of sustainability. I might address that as well-----

Please.

-----because the Senator asked about it earlier. One of the top three areas for research for US companies based here that we have surveyed is sustainability. Nearly all AmCham members have said it is important for Ireland and the EU to meet their sustainability targets and that Ireland should prioritise its own activities in areas like renewable energy and so forth. Taking that as one side, that sustainability agenda is incredibly important to members.

In terms of the diplomatic engagements, from our membership we have always been encouraged to make sure there is open dialogue. Regardless of what is maybe being talked about or what tactics are being used, that open dialogue must continue and we must work with administrations that are on front of us. We are a non-partisan organisation and we try to encourage that philosophy to be taken when we are dealing with any particular issues and the systems within that as well.

Senator Garret Ahearn, the Vice-Chair of the committee, is next.

I thank the Chair and welcome Mr. Sweetman, Ms O'Brien and, in particular, Mr. O'Callaghan, whom I have known for some time. Mr. Sweetman spoke about competitiveness and how Ireland needs to improve it. What is our pitch now? I am from Clonmel, in Tipperary, which has been very fortunate for almost 50 years now in terms of multinationals locating in the town. We have Merck Sharp and Dohme and, more recently, Boston Scientific and Abbott, which employ thousands of people in County Tipperary and giving a good quality of life to people working there and their families. There is the knock-on, indirect impact on the region as well. Ireland's pitch in the 1990s was that we have improving education and infrastructure, we are English-speaking and we are part of the European Union. What is different in our pitch now?

The pitch is, in many ways, similar to that.

How do we improve it? Our competitiveness is to improve our pitch. How do we improve our pitch?

Let us take talent and skills, in that we are improving and moving up in terms of the quality of what we have to deliver. What we are able to say now in regard to talent and skills is that we have world-class talent and skills. As an example, there is a nuance within talent and skills, and I will put it into two buckets. One is qualifications on paper, which other jurisdictions can catch up with over a generation. The other is qualifications of experiential learning. What I mean by that is the pedigree of delivery. We have now a cadre of leaders and people who work on teams who know how to deliver projects for US multinationals. That is something that is not replicable across the world. Ireland has a capability, achieved over the decades of investment, of delivering time and again, and successfully, and we are now top of the pile when it comes to that.

When I say the pitch is in some ways similar, we may be talking about the same headings but some of those headings have become more powerful. For example, we are an English-speaking country within the EU. If we had that pitch ten or 20 years ago, it would have been that we are one of two such countries. Now it is different. Again, we have the ease of doing business. Stability, which in some ways would have been at the bottom of the list when we talked about competitiveness ten years ago, has floated to the very top. Stability is now unique for a number of jurisdictions that are looking to invest. The pitch, in some ways, is similar but the emphasis is on how far we have come in areas. Business is still business and what companies are looking for tends to remain the same. What Ireland can deliver and how we have improved on those offerings to deliver success for businesses are the main pitch now.

I have seen in Clonmel that multinationals come in and the pitch is given to them. A lot of their trust is based on a region that has already proven it can work with multinationals and support them. The likes of Boston Scientific or Abbott in Clonmel saw that Merck Sharp and Dohme had been there for 20 years at the time and that it was working well. Now Clonmel has a proven track record, as a small inland town, that can accommodate big multinational companies. I would be interested in Mr. Sweetman's perspective. Now that the UK is out of the European Union, is it still our competitor and how has that changed for us? Obviously, we have the attractiveness of saying we are part of the EU and saying we are the only English-speaking country. How is the UK pitching investment and how is that working for it?

It is an interesting point. I have sat in rooms where I have seen the IDA and the UK's IDA equivalent and many jurisdictions around the world present how they pitch for companies. They focus on what companies need. There are some advantages that Ireland has over the UK that are incredibly obvious, such as membership of the EU, etc. However, it will come down to other things as well. If we are talking about infrastructure being a challenge here and a company, all other things being equal, says it wants to see infrastructure delivery being much quicker, if it sees that happen in other jurisdictions, be it the UK or elsewhere, that will improve that jurisdiction in terms of the investment. There are cautionary tales we can learn from the UK in terms of losing investment. When we focus on some particular sectors, investments have been pulled out of the UK, not because of international issues but because of national issues focused on policies for a pharma sector, medicines pricing or something like that. This is a real clarion call that competitiveness at a national level does impact where these international companies are going.

As Mr. Sweetman mentioned the possibility of losing companies, Deputy Brennan mentioned Arklow, which is obviously very distressing for a town and the people working there. That has happened in Clonmel before, with Digital and Seagate back in the 1990s. It is obviously very stressful but I always find with a town if it has been proven it can attract companies previously, it can attract them again. You cannot lose something if you do not have it, so the power of being able to attract people to a town is the first hurdle to get over.

In terms of protecting those companies in Ireland at the moment, what is AmCham's perspective on the budget last month, in particular measures brought in by the Minister, Deputy Burke, in terms of the research and development tax scheme? A lot of decisions in the budget this year were taken to protect investment we already have. Has Mr. Sweetman had any feedback on those decisions made by the Government last month?

Yes. I will address two pieces. On attracting investment, while not directly answering the question the Senator just asked, many companies that have looked at where there have been job losses see talent available and they will try to acquire that talent by making an investment because they know it is available. There is hope when we see some very dark times where companies have decided to pull out.

In regard to the budget and protecting investment, I would go further and say there are opportunities there to grow investment. Two things I would call out are the increase in the research and development tax credit to 35%, which is a positive move, and the signal of the billions being invested in infrastructure, which is also a positive move. If we wanted to do an elevator pitch for organisations to say the direction Ireland is going in, those two items stand out.

Even though Ireland is 44th in terms of infrastructure, is there a belief within the multinationals that are considering Ireland as a possibility for investing that, because of these capital investments in infrastructure, we will improve over the next number of years?

The short answer is "Yes".

I thank Mr. Sweetman for the short answer.

I apologise for being late. I had Seanad business that had to be attended to.

That is no bother.

I thank Mr. Sweetman for his opening statement. One of the most interesting things I learned from reading it was that our economic relationship with the US is two-way and that Ireland is the fifth largest source of FDI into the US, with Irish companies employing as many people. In fact, when comparing the statistics, it would seem that there are more people employed in the US by Irish companies than the other way around. It is really good to know that the relationship is healthy and performing well.

I have a few questions.

When does Mr. Sweetman expect the US to conclude section 232 investigations in terms of setting the new global tariff rates for the pharma and semiconductor sectors? The timeline in that regard is important. When will the process be completed?

I thank the Senator. Unfortunately, I will not be able to give a timeline in that regard. It is within the gift of the Administration to decide when those are completed and published. What we are doing with our key contacts within the US, both within the Administration and Departments, and our colleagues in the US Chamber of Commerce is to get as much insight as possible into when those studies will be completed and when reports will be published. It is a challenge, because it adds to uncertainty. If we could be crystal clear on that issue, we would love to be.

I thank Mr. Sweetman. It would be important to get another briefing when that happens. The Chairman has requested that when the chamber does its next survey, which will be around Thanksgiving, the committee should get the information. Obviously, we must concerned about the boycott legislation and the challenges that may arise in relation to including services in the occupied territories Bill. While it is important that there are concerns among those in the business community about genocide and what is happening in Israel, we must at the same time take cognisance of those who are employed here by US companies. Coming from Kildare, where there is a lot of FDI and employment, I would be concerned about possible repercussions.

Mr. Sweetman outlined some of the risks. What are the biggest opportunities for companies investing in Ireland in 2026 and beyond? It would be good to hear some of the positive aspects.

There are two spaces that are really going to open up for Ireland. We can be a leader in attracting investment for artificial intelligence and digital transformation. Second, in the context of research development innovation, there is a huge opportunity for Ireland, with the right policies, to attract investment in that space. The research and development tax credit is a helpful component of that. It goes back to the direction that I think Ireland will be taking, whereby it continues to move up the value chain in terms of what we can deliver for organisations and how we can support them on a strategic global level.

We know that a well-educated workforce is a big part of what attracts FDI to Ireland. Does Mr. Sweetman have any message in respect of higher education that we need to address at this point in order to enable that type of investment to come here?

One aspect I have been pleasantly surprised about over my time engaging with members is the strong engagement between individual companies and their local universities or institutes of education to do research projects, and to support professorships and pipelines of talent. There is a strong connection between universities and individual companies. We would encourage the continuation of that. Universities and companies are keen on doing that. It can be a competitive advantage for us. It certainly has been, in terms of winning investment. That engagement has been incredibly powerful.

That is good to hear. My colleague Senator Ahearn touched on the topic of opportunities after Brexit. How does Mr. Sweetman feel that Ireland can strengthen its position as a gateway to the EU for US firms in Europe? There are opportunities there that we need to grasp.

The big piece is to come back to the competitiveness challenges we are facing. If we can be seen to be moving strongly on infrastructural challenges and to support talent and skills development, and maintain that high pipeline, these are the areas that we would encourage Ireland to continue that will attract investment. The area of regulatory hubs, encouraging Ireland to be a leader in supporting European regulation from Ireland, is a space in which we could do a lot over the coming months and years. That will attract US investment to Ireland.

I thank Mr. Sweetman for that. It is obviously important that we get a sense of the feedback that Mr. Sweetman gets from US companies. What has he heard from US companies about navigating Irish bureaucracy around trade compliance? There is a lot of red tape there, so I would be interested to hear what he is hearing back.

There are two parts to that. Going back to stability and the ease of doing business, US companies find that access to policymakers is strong. Whether or not both parties agree at the end of discussion, the access is strong. On the other side, there are significant challenges with regard to planning legislation and getting projects over the line. I believe, however, that work is ongoing. I hope we will see some results over the coming months on how we are going to address that.

There were some really interesting questions and answers there. We will have a second round for anybody who wants to contribute. I am up first.

Mr. Sweetman's contribution has been useful. We will be visiting Washington in early December, so Mr. Sweetman might inform his members of that. We will be going to Washington as the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade. We have a pretty intense programme, as committees generally do on these kinds of trips.

My constituency is Dublin South-West. We have district meetings with representatives of the AWS facility there. We have seen the positive side of data centres and energy. To put in a nutshell, the impact a company such as AWS has had not just locally but nationally, one of its senior management team described how, when asking a group of schoolchildren about where and what the cloud is, they were able to tell them that the cloud is in Tallaght. That is a powerful message and an easy piece of narrative to remember. It makes concrete the reality of the digital world we live in and the central role that a place like Tallaght can play. Something as ephemeral and intangible as the cloud in our minds is located in Tallaght. That is a big deal.

I chair an ad hoc cross-party committee on rare diseases and orphan drugs. Mr. Sweetman may not be in a position to comment on the following but I ask him to take it away with him. This country is , to some degree, the home of pharma. Yet, in terms of the cost of drugs, research and development, and, in particular, clinical trials, we are not at the races. I have often thought that if I were a public affairs lobbyist for these companies, and I am not because I am a TD, I would be saying to those companies that they employ a lot of people and invest in people here and should be pushing for a much more encouraging environment in those spaces. Can Mr. Sweetman speak to that at all?

We should consider having an annual meeting here and, also, a separate, informal meeting between the committee and the chamber and some of its members, if Mr. Sweetman wants to do that. It is a dynamic space. I have not discussed the matter with the committee but I think it is something people would be keen on.

I thank the Chair. On the clinical trials aspect, this is something that with the right policy levers we can encourage more of in Ireland. There is a significant opportunity if we play our cards right, particularly in the research and development space if we can make the right tweaks to the research and development tax credit. Mr. O'Callaghan is our expert in that regard, so I can hand over to him to address that point. There is an opportunity there.

We would certainly like to work with the committee on what needs to be done in that space.

As we look at the research and development compass and where the research and development tax credit can move in the years ahead, we are looking at areas like intellectual property being held in Ireland but certain activities taking place outside of Ireland. This would be key for using that as an incentive to support clinical trials, for instance, being run from Ireland to take in that broader population as well. There is definitely a major appetite among pharma companies based here to try to leverage Ireland as a location to run that from. It is about enhancing the incentives we provide in the context of how they are driving business and investment and bringing responsibility in that regard to Ireland.

Broadly speaking, as we look at that sphere of research and development, Ireland has traditionally been very good at development. However, there is a huge opportunity now to attract research investment in, which, in that investment landscape, is probably a smaller footprint and a higher value, longer term investment we are seeing at a time when we are in a tight labour market and looking to attract talent to Ireland as well.

I do not want to labour the point - maybe Mr. O'Callaghan can come back to us on this - but pharma is powerful piece of the Irish economic story. As an observer, I am saying you do not use your leverage to reduce the cost or increase the supply of orphan drugs. That seems to be the problem. Sometimes, it seems to be on the Government side of that. Those companies - not the American Chamber of Commerce - should maybe use the economic leverage they have in the country. The orphan drugs and rare diseases issues are something we all face here. That is becoming the case more and more. It often strikes me that these companies have a big footprint here. We are not talking about them pushing their weight around, but a message has to be sent to the central system that there is a much bigger role that can be played here that would result in reduced costs and far more availability of these drugs in comparison with the regimes that obtain among our European Union counterparts. That is something we could do.

Absolutely. We will be working on quite a new position paper in respect of the life sciences that we will be able to share with the committee in the coming month.

Terrific. That would be great.

I will have to leave in a couple of minutes because I have to attend another meeting at 4.45 p.m. On the difficult conversation around the Middle East and the occupied territories Bill, Mr. Sweetman said that investment in Ireland is predominantly based on national issues as opposed to international issues, which is accepted. We have talked about the reputational damage that Ireland has possibly experienced across America. If there has been reputational damage, I suspect members of the committee will see that on their visit to the US next month. We might get some sort of understanding of whether it is the case. It seems, on the basis of what people who come in here and speak about the matter say, that there are no real data on it. Nonetheless, we certainly need to keep it in mind.

Let us say, for argument's sake - we do not know for certain - that there has been reputational damage that will, possibly, have an impact on current or future investment here. From the narrative that comes particularly from politicians in America, it does not seem that there is a full understanding of what we are seeking to introduce, as Deputy Ó Murchú said earlier. I suspect the witnesses would have seen the proceedings of a number of the meetings of this committee on the occupied territories Bill. One of the main topics of conversation has been whether we should include services. Would it be the witnesses' perspective - and I do not want to get too political on this - that regardless of the shape of the Bill we introduce, namely whether we include services or not, there will be reputational damage either way? There are a number of arguments for not including services. Legally, it might not be possible. Implementing it might be difficult and reputational damage would be a consideration. However, it seems that it does not matter what type of Bill we introduce. The American side, which is very much against it, will inflate it into something it is not. Essentially, would the inclusion of services broaden the negative and reputational impact or is it just that the Bill will cause reputational damage?

To answer the question briefly, it is the Bill that is causing the concern. I would encourage the committee, when it is over there, to arm itself - it will have the facts and figures, obviously - on what is being done in order to educate and understand. With regard to services specifically, if members do-----

Could Mr. Sweetman repeat that? We need to arm ourselves-----

In the context of the rationale, explanation and so forth. I refer to enhancing the level of understanding of what is being done.

I know what Mr. Sweetman is saying - and I know he did not mean it in this way - but I suspect that our committee will be trying to educate people on it over there.

That is what I am suggesting.

Perfect. I am sorry, I misinterpreted what was said.

I am sorry for phrasing it that way. Specifically on services, notwithstanding what I have just said, the challenge will be in the enforcement and implementation of the services side on a practical level.

The implementation is obviously a worry for the Government, and whether there is going to be a court case in respect of it. The simple aspect of reputation relates to the Bill, regardless of what it contains. If we have a Bill that does not include services, the reputational damage will be potentially very bad in America. If we have a Bill that includes services, the reputational damage will be the same.

It could be enhanced, but, as we went through earlier, it is difficult to arrive at quantifiable figures on the scale of that reputational damage. That is a challenge, but we will try to work on it and provide some data.

That would be useful.

If Mr. Sweetman could do that, it would be helpful.

We could get a paper on it. I call Senator Joe O'Reilly.

I have a very brief question. I lost track of this, but some weeks ago there was a threat from President Trump concerning tariffs on genetic pharmaceutical, medicines, tablets, etc. There was a scare about this in Ireland at the time, which Mr. Sweetman would know about. Has the threat receded or is there any update on it? I am sorry; I have not been conversant with it since the initial fear.

I thank the Senator. Unfortunately, I do not have a direct update on that for him.

Does Mr. Sweetman have a sense of what is happening?

The one thing I would say that should give us confidence in this sphere is that we have seen a lot of fluctuation as to what the tariffs could be, what could be imposed and what ultimately was imposed. The solution to come to an agreement was making sure there no knee-jerk reactions and that we made sure there was an open channel of dialogue and communication between Europe and the US. I would encourage that this process continues. It has yielded results. That channel has been open and worked before.

To go back to the occupied territories Bill, when Mr. Sweetman speaks of reputational damage, how is that information given to the American Chamber of Commerce by, let us say, those who believe it would cause it or there is a fear of it? How exactly did that happen?

It is in conversations with members individually within some of our groups that we will get that feedback.

It is with the American Chamber of Commerce's members, but it has been at a very general level. Where are they getting it from? Is it coming from the US Administration to companies?

Yes. Primarily, it is coming from direct conversations with members, either on a one-to-one basis or within groups or committees where the topic is discussed. That information is coming from their discussions with either the company executives or policymakers they are engaged with on the US side.

All right. We are obviously talking about America. If we are talking about policymakers, we are talking about a huge pro-Israeli - call it Zionist or whatever you want - lobby. It would be very interesting to see what the impact has been and whether there has been any in relation to Slovenia and Spain. My view is we have to do the right thing. I am also of the view that this reaches critical mass on the basis of the genocide and all that has happened. If the EU could make the correct move as regards the EU-Israel association agreement, it becomes increasingly harder to impact detrimentally on American business in Ireland.

We hope that the Administration would see that the best way is to put pressure on the Israelis to do the right thing, even though we have not seen much of that. I wanted to get that noted.

The American Government has negotiated a peace and a ceasefire.

I realise that. As I say, despite all the difficulties, we are in a better place than we were and we would like to think that this will lead to-----

The ideal, eventually-----

Of course, none of it is ideal. We accept a lot less than we would like but there is the possibility of going further. I suppose we have seen it as that.

If I could ask two quick questions-----

Sure.

In relation to artificial intelligence, we all know the possibilities but I suppose I am conscious of the recent worries about the possibility that we are in a boom that could see a bust and how some of the guesstimates in relation to AI are probably years behind where they could have been if we were talking about coding or whatever. Does Mr. Sweetman see any issues in that regard?

It is an important question to address on AI because you could look at this as challenges or fears and you can look at it as opportunities. The predominant feedback that we are getting from organisations within our membership is that artificial intelligence is an opportunity for growth.

One hundred percent.

We would see that, if we double down on this and if we support companies in making investments in training and development in this space - all of the aspects that will encourage AI's growth - it will be an opportunity where we can be a leader rather than a follower. If we are a leader, that is where we will succeed and win investment and jobs, whereas if we are a follower, there is a risk that it could be damaging to growth.

I am interested in the positives and the negatives. I accept the negatives are infrastructure, housing and tariffs. Everyone does. It was the order they were in that caught me a bit on the hop when I was reading Mr. Sweetman's opening statement. On the positive side is the workforce and our tax levels, which are still attractive. That is number one. I want to get a feel for that and whether I am missing anything.

In relation to AI, I am interested in establishing whether, when it is discussing figures, the chamber is discussing the amount of turnover, the amount of employment or both. We are hearing all about AI, for example, that it is going to be very positive and we are going to try to lead the way, but will we lose jobs by gaining turnover?

I might hand the AI question to Mr. O'Callaghan.

On the Deputy's first question, the talent and skilled workforce is the number one reason companies are investing here. Anything that we can do to support the quality of life for that talent and skills base is essential: the scale of take-home pay right through to availability of crèche places and school places, the cost and availability of housing, etc. Anything that we can do to promote the desire of people with talent and skills to stay in or come to Ireland and to develop their lives here is going to be a real attractive piece for companies investing here because that is why they come here. They know that they can achieve far better through the Irish workforce than in many jurisdictions in the world.

Is it tax as well?

Tax is certainly important for individual workers. I mean anything that we can do to make it as attractive as possible. We must always look at what competing jurisdictions are offering, particularly for mobile workers who may make a decision to work somewhere in the globe and who look at their own Excel sheets and determine what things are going to make that attractive.

Will Mr. Sweetman give me the top three in terms of attractive? Is workforce the number one-----

Yes.

-----or is it tax?

Workforce is number one. Sixty-three percent of our members have said that workforce is number one. It is head and shoulders above the next.

Excellent.

Does that represent a change? Has that always been an outcome of the chamber's surveys?

Over the last number of years, it has consistently been talent and skills.

On the AI piece, we say 65% of our members are going to invest in AI or data analytics in the next 12 months and 60% in digital transformation or technology. That is investing in both the technology and the workforce. However, when we look at what members are going to do in terms of employee numbers, we see 93% of our members are either going to increase or maintain their workforce in the next 12 months.

The key challenge we are seeing in terms of workforce is the skills gaps where members are looking for workers. The top skills gaps are digital and data engineering and machine learning in AI, so there is a significant focus on attracting and developing skills in AI to really grasp the potential that is out there. That is a key focus in terms of getting and developing the talent and skills we need into the future. A key part of that is going to be upskilling and lifelong learning.

Is our education system helping the chamber in that or are we way behind?

There is a huge opportunity in terms of the engagement between universities and business. Businesses are reporting positive engagement with universities in that context and, indeed, in developing shorter term programmes. There is also a huge and important opportunity in the skills area in terms of apprenticeships and on-the-job learning, given the pace of technological change. I would say we are hearing very positive soundings from business on that but a lot of opportunity there.

I thank Mr. O'Callaghan.

The final speaker is Senator Stephenson.

In relation to AI, while I appreciate the issues of upskilling and moving people on, it would be interesting to hear whether the witnesses see any impact in terms of job losses. Obviously, that is something we hear about all the time. What have the witnesses considered in terms of the changing regulatory impact with the EU AI Act and will that have an impact on companies?

I noted in his opening statement that Mr. Sweetman stated that 92% of the chamber's membership wanted to maintain or grow employment. I wonder how that relates to so-called "high-quality jobs" in terms of permanent, unionised and well-paid jobs. That is obviously a big concern of ours. There is also the EU minimum wage directive, which has collective bargaining in it. It would be great to hear about whether the chamber's membership would support collective bargaining. The likes of Apple, Pfizer and Coca-Cola already have trade unions in place and I am wondering how the rest of the membership would react to that.

With regard to AI, the key to this is going to be getting ahead of it and making sure that we have upskilling opportunities and retraining capabilities for those who are going to be impacted by AI. At a global level, there will be people who will lose their jobs because of AI but there is also a net gain on employment because of the opportunities that AI provides. When we focus on Ireland, we are going to have to ask what pieces make sure that we are at the forefront of seeing this as an opportunity for growth. If we get ahead of it, if we provide the right research, development and innovation supports, if we provide the right training skills, and if we support the adoption of AI and how it can be used within organisations and within government, these are the things that are going to make us a market leader in various aspects. If we can achieve that, it will have a positive impact on employment in Ireland.

In terms of the EU AI Act, this is something that we need to be cognisant of. It is a broader issue of the regulatory burden and the regulatory regime that are facing companies within Europe. Through the US company lens, what they want to see is a level playing field. Every piece of legislation that we can focus on to achieve that is something that we need to make sure Ireland speaks up on. While the EU AI Act is relatively new, more broadly speaking, the competitiveness challenges that the US is saying it has with Europe have long been stated over the past two or three decades. It is not unique to the time we are in. It is just coming more to the fore now.

In terms of the growth in employment, this is 92% of chamber members who are going to maintain or increase. Sixty percent is the number who are going to increase, and 32% are going to maintain employment. These are still incredibly positive figures.

In terms of growth, it is around high-quality employment. When you look at the investments that are being made here, they are strategic investments, be it in the delivery of advanced manufacturing drugs or in areas of cybersecurity, technology or delivering sophisticated products and managing sophisticated projects in service areas such as financial services. These are areas that are going to require high levels of skill. In many ways, that is the competitive advantage that we need to push to move up the value chain in terms of the capabilities we can offer and the roles that can come based on that. The more we can push that, the more sustainable and sticky those roles are going to be into the future.

Just to be clear, does AmCham's interpretation of quality jobs include the right to collective bargaining?

Our view of high-quality jobs is based on what those roles are within an organisation and how they provide strategic support to the global organisation and lead parts of that strategic organisation.

Does AmCham have a sense from its membership or from the surveys it does around collective bargaining and the right to unionisation?

When we talk about high-quality jobs, that does not come into the conversation.

Does AmCham survey its members on those questions? Does it include questions on collective bargaining and on member companies' interests in that area? Is that included in its surveying? I know it did a survey in July.

Yes, collective bargaining is something our organisations would not like to see introduced mandatorily.

They would not like to see it.

They would not like to see it introduced on a mandatory basis.

I would like to round off the discussion. We have been away and one of the things that came up was a feeling about the occupied territories Bill. Because it is a few months since we have gone into this in detail, bits and pieces keep coming back to me on the threads we have dealt with. Underpinning the boycott legislation is a fear of antisemitism. I think it is rooted in a fear of antisemitism.

I ask the witnesses to pass on to their members that it was stated here that no motive of this committee can be attributed to that. Very much on the record are the actions of the Israel Defense Forces and the Netanyahu government and the plight of innocent women and children, particularly, notwithstanding the horrific events of 7 October which the committee clearly acknowledges as well. We look forward to the opportunity to have a good discussion on that.

The witnesses' presence has been very informative and helpful. I thank the CEO, his director of advocacy and public affairs, Mr. O'Callaghan, and Ms O'Brien, who maintained a stoic silence throughout but was attentive to everything. I was very conscious of that. Perhaps they will look at inviting us to an informal after-Christmas event some time and will put that in their calendar. That would be useful. I would not like to see a year go by before we had a further discussion.