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 they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement, and therefore a member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask any member partaking via Microsoft Teams that prior to making their contribution to the meeting they confirm they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus. Members are also 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 that person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity they will be directed to discontinue their remarks, and it is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

As the witnesses are probably aware the committee will publish the opening statements on its website following this meeting. They are also 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 her, him or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might regarded as damaging to the good name of that person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity they will be directed to discontinue those remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Today we are delighted to be engaging on the international trade environment but we have to suspend because there is a vote in the Dáil Chamber. We will return when that is over and I will introduce the witnesses.

It is the end of the term and the Government makes demands on Parliament that we wish it would not, interfering with our work for the sake of its work, but we have to do what we are asked to do because we are whipped. I anticipate this may happen once or twice again in the afternoon. I hope it does not, but in the event it does and if we have a sufficient number of Senators here, we can leave the witnesses in their capable hands briefly, not for too long.

For the information of the public watching, we begin our engagement today on the international trade environment. Again, for anybody who may be watching, this committee shadows the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and that Department has four levels of engagement. One is Anglo-Irish and North American; the second is international, which is everything from Sudan to Ukraine to the Middle East; the third is the diaspora and overseas aid; and the fourth is international trade. We rotate between those four themes pretty regularly.

Our witnesses today come from Chambers Ireland. We have Mr. Ian Talbot, chief executive, a regular visitor to the House and advocate for business, and Mr. Shane Hughes, policy and international affairs manager. From the Irish Exporters Association, we have Mr. Simon McKeever, chief executive officer. The witnesses are very welcome. The format of the meeting is that we will hear their opening statements, followed by questions and answers with members of the committee. I ask members as usual to be concise. Usually we have seven minutes, which includes the answers, but we would have a second round. I will pass the floor to Mr. Talbot. If it is not included in his opening statement, he might give a little background on Chambers Ireland, why he is here and why we should be listening to what he has to say.

I thank the members of the committee. We are delighted to be here today. That is somewhat addressed in our statement. I am always happy to talk about the great work of chambers around the country. We have 36 affiliated chambers - all of the Deputies' constituencies have a presence in them - and we are very much in touch with local businesses. One of the challenges and opportunities for us is always to try to relay the messages from the local areas up to ourselves and to convert those into a message we can deliver to the Government and make progress on. Within those chambers are approximately 10,000 businesses, many of which are dependent on trade and international connections. It is certainly an objective of ours to get more businesses trading internationally. The global trading environment has shifted considerably in recent years and Irish businesses now navigate a less predictable landscape. Persistent concern around the potential reintroduction or escalation of US tariffs, alongside a broader shift towards protectionism, continues to weigh on business confidence. For a small open economy like Ireland's, these developments pose clear risks to established supply chains and manifest in a chill on investment and lost opportunities while that uncertainty persists.

At the same time, we are seeing a more assertive EU trade policy, closely tied to an increased emphasis on economic security through securing critical raw materials and strengthening supply chain resilience in the key green and digital sectors. That agenda matters, but it must be implemented in a way that completes rather than fragments the Single Market. Unbalanced focus on national interests by individual member states also undermines collective EU effectiveness. If every member state defaults to defending narrow national positions, the EU becomes constrained in acting decisively to close the competitive gap with rival economies. Compromise and a solution-minded orientation will be key to progress as Ireland takes on the EU Presidency for the rest of the year.

We fully support free, fair and open trade, and it is imperative that market access is broadened. Businesses embedded across multiple markets are better placed to absorb disruption and sustain operations during volatility, and to capture growth opportunities beyond traditional markets. Recent progress with partners such as India, Mercosur countries, Australia, Indonesia, Mexico and the recent digital agreement with the Republic of Korea will unlock significant opportunities across a range of sectors. Much more can still be done at EU level. Progressing the capital markets union or the savings and investments union would help unlock a wider range of financing options, reduce reliance on bank lending and greatly improve access to growth capital for businesses.

On the domestic side, infrastructure remains a core competitiveness issue. Energy, water and wastewater, and transport constraints are already limiting investment decisions in some regions, and we have long advocated for this to be addressed by the State as a national priority. Security and defence can also no longer be viewed separately from competitiveness. As global instability increases, the ability to invest adequately in this area is itself becoming a marker of economic resilience, and Ireland must ensure its approach keeps pace. Real progress can be made by improving businesses' capability to actively access the Single Market, leverage our close relationship with the United Kingdom and utilise free trade agreements, both to export and to diversify supply chains. The same applies to trading with EU-aspirant countries. Many SMEs have the potential to compete internationally but face real barriers in market knowledge, capability and resources. There is scope for the National Trading Fund to help bridge that gap as part of a national trade strategy. In addition, expanding access to export credit insurance would help businesses mitigate commercial risks overseas, giving them greater confidence to enter new markets and diversify their export base. Critically, trading with like-minded partners benefits society as a whole.

The more we import from other markets, the more we broaden the range of goods and services available to consumers. This supports increased competition and, in turn, more competitive pricing over time, which helps address cost-of-living pressures.

Underpinning all of this is the need for a functioning, rules-based multilateral system. We remain hopeful that WTO reform is still possible, and we strongly support making the moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions permanent. Allowing it to lapse would introduce new costs and uncertainty into digital trade at precisely the moment when digital services are becoming more central to how smaller businesses in niche markets compete internationally.

Finally, we urge all members of the committee and all Oireachtas Members to support the holding of a referendum on the Unified Patent Court, UPC, and to support a "Yes" vote. The UPC has been utilised by other EU countries for over 13 years and can play a critical role in protecting and promoting innovation, making intellectual property, IP, protection across the EU more accessible for entrepreneurs. Its competitive benefit lies in reducing the cost and complexity of enforcement across multiple jurisdictions. Seeing such positive stories at the Stripe Young Scientist Awards every year really brings home how important passing a referendum on the UPC is for the innovators and job creators of the future.

Ireland's openness to trade and investment has been the bedrock of our economic success, and the transformation of the State since accession to the EU, the then EEC, in 1973 is living proof of that. That model is worth protecting and building on, and worthy of the committee's collective, wholehearted support. We look forward to members' questions.

The Irish Exporters Association represents a lot of manufacturing companies in Ireland that export and a lot of transport companies. We are unique in that we have a strategic view of what happens in terms of getting stuff on and off the island in a trade-compliant manner.

As an organisation, we are a representative body, a lobby group and a trading group. We tend to be close to the supply chain part of the business, so we have a lot of training courses in and around customs, for instance. We run the export industry awards and we handle a lot of export certificates, particularly for the pharmaceutical industry. As such, we see the volumes involved in that sector. It is astounding to see what happened last year in that industry. We also provide a lot of practical assistance to our members, particularly when things go wrong or they get stuck with things. We are able to get involved and help them through our network.

I thank the Cathaoirleach, Deputies and Senators for the invitation to appear before the committee to discuss recent trade developments and what they mean for Ireland's export economy. The Irish Exporters Association represents Ireland-based exporters and the transport and supply chain operators that help them get goods and services to and from markets around the world.

Ireland is in a strong position, but also an exposed one. In 2025, goods exports reached a record €260.3 billion, up more than 16%. Exports to the United States rose to about €112 billion and accounted for almost 43% of all our goods exports. Medical and pharmaceutical products alone represented more than half of our total exports. That is an extraordinary performance, but it also shows how concentrated our headline export story has become by sector, ownership and market.

The first four months of 2026 show why this matters. Exports were well down on the same period last year, partly because of the unwinding of exceptional front-loading into the US market. The US fell sharply, the UK strengthened, and the EU softened, including Germany, which is a market that a lot of Irish exporters have prioritised since Brexit. The point is not that Ireland's export model is failing; it is that volatility now exposes concentration risk very quickly.

For exporters, the trading environment has changed and uncertainty is the new norm. Tariffs and tariff threats are back at the centre of trade policy. Geopolitical risk, sanctions, customs complexity, export controls, regulatory divergence and supply chain disruption are now part of doing business. We saw this most recently with the difficulties in and around the Strait of Hormuz. Importantly, that did not cause panic. Exporters have built up a muscle memory from dealing with Brexit, Covid-19, the disruption arising from Russia's invasion of Ukraine, recent US trade policy and the rise in trade nationalism. That resilience is real but it needs to be recognised, supported and strengthened.

This is where our concern lies. Ireland has been very successful in attracting and retaining world-leading foreign direct investment, and we must protect that. The next stage of enterprise policy must put much greater emphasis on the scale, resilience and international reach of Irish-owned exporters. The published figures from Enterprise Ireland, Bord Bia and Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM, all point to the importance of agency-supported export activity across food, drink, seafood, technology, services and manufacturing. However, getting to a precise figure for exports generated purely by indigenously owned Irish companies remains difficult. What we can say is that the best available estimates suggest they remain a very low percentage of Ireland's overall export figure, and I would guess it is 10% or possibly less.

Our argument is simple. We need to be more ambitious for our own exporters and we need more Irish companies exporting, more Irish-owned exporters in more markets and more Irish-owned companies super-scaling into serious international businesses, or what we call global champions. This is not about choosing between FDI and indigenous enterprise; it is about building a more balanced and more resilient export economy.

Competitiveness is central to that. Exporters can manage disruption, but they cannot absorb indefinitely the cumulative impact of high energy costs, insurance, commercial rates, regulation, reporting burdens, planning delays, infrastructure constraints, housing costs and skills shortages. Ireland must control the controllables. If we want firms to take risks abroad, that domestic cost base cannot be allowed to undermine them at home.

We are proposing two flagship initiatives. The first is a global export resilience and diversification initiative. This would help companies enter attractive markets where Ireland currently has low penetration, as well as increased opportunities within the EU Single Market. It would also reduce concentration risk, strengthen supply chains, build customs and regulatory capability, support sustainability compliance and help firms manage geopolitical and commercial risks. It should be backed by a much stronger international footprint for Enterprise Ireland and by a State-backed export credit insurance scheme.

The second is a €1 billion national internationalisation and super-scaling initiative. Ireland is good at creating start-ups and taking early-stage companies to medium scale. That is part of our natural enterprise product life cycle, but we now need to be just as serious about helping more of those firms become global champions. That means scale-up capital, support for international acquisitions, overseas establishment, leadership development, strategic partnerships and supply chain diversification. We should build on what we do well but raise our ambition. By 2035, Ireland should be actively supporting many more Irish-owned and headquartered companies to grow with a global footprint. This should include a much greater targeted approach to developing firms with revenues above €100 million, €250 million and €500 million, alongside a stronger pipeline of companies capable of exceeding €1 billion in global revenues.

The point I want to leave with the committee is this: the trading environment is more uncertain, more political and more complex. Ireland cannot insulate itself from that reality, but it can prepare for it. If we invest now in diversification, resilience, competitiveness and the super-scaling of Irish-owned international businesses to create global champions, we can protect jobs, deepen regional enterprise, strengthen economic sovereignty and keep Ireland an outward-looking, successful trading nation.

I thank the witnesses for their statements. I am very taken by the two initiatives the Irish Exporters Association wants to pursue. I have three questions. Where were Chambers Ireland and the Irish Exporters Association when it came to the Mercosur debate? They allowed the space to be entirely dominated by the agricultural voice. We did not hear anything from them. This committee did not receive any correspondence. Nobody was banging the door down to get in here and make the case for Ireland on that. We had a detailed briefing a year ago in relation to Mercosur. I was persuaded by the arguments around it, as were many of my colleagues. Business allowed that space to be dominated by other arguments.

I really would like a frank exchange on that.

The second thing is fuel prices. I was in the Netherlands over the weekend. Petrol was €2.12 per litre and diesel was €2.20 and €2.21 a litre. What are the witnesses' views on the subsidies that we have now? What direction do they believe fuel is going in? What is the impact on exporters? It created quite a political debate and quite a furore earlier in the year.

On the international space and trading risks, the general language in relation to China has been to de-risk and deleverage. Commissioner von der Leyen qualified this week and said yes to that but not to decoupling. What are the witnesses' views on that and where Ireland should be? This is notwithstanding what they said about Ireland being part of the European Union and not looking at a narrow nationalist kind of perspective when it comes to business. The witnesses have five and a half minutes. Who wants to go first?

We share the Cathaoirleach's frustrations on Mercosur. We felt that perhaps we did not invite ourselves onto this committee. We felt we made as much noise as any business organisation. We wrote on several occasions to all TDs and Senators on the topic. We put out lots of stuff in the media that did not necessarily get the coverage. We spoke to our MEPs as well about various votes in Europe. We were very disappointed on this but a general thing we are concerned about is when trade-related matters go to the Dáil, and we have seen this on the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, over the years and we have seen it potentially on Mercosur and so on, it seems to be hard to get a majority of TDs to vote in favour of the thing that has supported Ireland's economy for the last 50 years, which is good trade relations. That is a real generic concern that came through specifically on Mercosur. I did several radio interviews. I do not want to take up all the time but I feel that-----

We progressed CETA quite efficiently here.

You did when it came, but the initial arguments that came up delayed the ratification. The interim application of CETA has been very effective and shows the opportunities that could be there for Mercosur if people look for them as well. There was, however, a very strong lobby from a subsector in relation to Mercosur and that is still out there. People are concerned about the impact of Mercosur but we do not believe they should be.

On fuel prices, I was in Portugal three or four weeks ago and saw that the prices at the petrol pumps were €2 plus for everything as well. One of our concerns always is that we like to see things that are done that can support all businesses. We understand that sometimes particular sectors need particular support but we like to see things that will support all businesses in all sectors. We would certainly see the opportunity to say, "Where is the money best spent in the coming budget?", particularly in terms of rewarding risk. The other big thing we are very focused on is the National Training Fund and allowing that fund to be used to start to do things like training more businesses on exporting, training more businesses in the digital area and so on so. We think this is a priority. It is in the nature of our business that things that impact all businesses around infrastructure, housing and so on are very important for us.

On China, it is a very difficult conversation to have. I am just back from a visit to Washington and certainly in America everyone is particularly concerned about China. They talked about China more than they talked about Russia or Iran or anything else. Here, clearly we have had a very strong relationship with China over the years. It is very difficult and this is where compromise and negotiation are very important. We have also noticed, for example, the large number of Chinese cars on the road. That is a concern for the European car industry, which is fundamentally important to some of our bigger economies in Europe and therefore the funding of the multi-annual financial framework, MFF, which is due to be considered in the Irish Presidency. It is really important. It is back to making sure that we do not have specific national interests overriding the common good in the European Union.

I do not disagree with the Cathaoirleach in relation to Mercosur. As an organisation, we are supportive of the Mercosur deal and we certainly made our views known in the various different trade forums that we sit on. Perhaps we should have been a bit more vocal about it but we certainly see it as an opportunity for Irish businesses more than a non-opportunity. With certain products, it is much easier and cheaper for certain companies in Ireland now to export into South America than it is from other parts of the world. It is now cheaper to do it and we have an advantage over other parts of the world. I absolutely take what the Cathaoirleach is saying that we should have been more vocal but we were behind closed doors. We certainly support it.

There are a couple of aspects to fuel prices. On a personal level, I think we are going to see the oil price coming lower because there is probably going to be an oversupply in the market over the next while. The prices are certainly trending lower out there, as long as nothing happens in the Gulf. From a transport point of view, any change or any kind of increase in fuel prices will get laid off into the customer at the end of it. Some of the bigger transport companies have within their contracts the ability to put a fuel surcharge on if it comes. A lot of them do not. A lot of smaller companies do not have that ability. Some of the bigger companies would have paid a surcharge to some of the small transport companies, but the issue around the price of fuel and that being laid off into the end customer is quite real.

What was not referred to is energy prices in general. Any kind of prolonged higher price in oil or gas will be detrimental to production and to things being made. It is not just on those. The other commodities that were caught up in the Gulf were things like fertilisers. One third of the world's urea for fertilisers was going through there, as were sulphur, methanol, graphite, aluminium, helium and glycol. These are all sources for production that are used in the agricultural industry and for the making of chips so that there is a secure environment.

I am going to have to come back on the China piece, if I want to stick to my own minutes here.

On China-----

Just briefly.

China is becoming a real issue. We would be fairly close to our members in dealing with issues that they are dealing with. There are things coming up at the moment where they are being undercut on price. The carbon border adjustment mechanism, CBAM, is where a company in Ireland is bringing in raw materials and paying a CBAM on it at the moment. In respect of the same product they end up making, in some cases, a finished product from China is being imported in and the CBAM has not been captured in the harmonised system, HS, code, so the item can be imported into the European Union much more cheaply. There are also issues coming up around EU-funded programmes where price is key in a tender. If the price of the Chinese item is cheaper than the price of the European item, then we have European funding going into Chinese goods. The reality is that because of automation and robotics in China the goods can be produced much more cheaply than elsewhere.

I thank the witnesses. I have to move on. For my colleagues, I will take that time off my second round.

I have to go to the Seanad at 4 p.m. so I would appreciate it if the witnesses would help me get through my six questions. We will try our best.

As part of his speech in Strasbourg to the European Parliament today, the Taoiseach said a focus of this Irish Presidency is to get the Capital Markets Union, or the savings and investments union. Mr. Talbot referenced that in his opening remarks. For those who are viewing, and indeed for some of us here, will Mr. Talbot explain how that would work in practice? It is rumoured that the Tánaiste is proposing a State savings scheme in the budget. To what degree is that the same thing?

The Senator can put his six questions.

I will ask all of my questions. That will work better. I will try to shorten them, and I do not mind who answers.

The witnesses said that we need to diversify markets. What is the biggest opportunity for Irish business? Where would the witnesses, if they were the Minister, direct focus?

How can we attract foreign investment and still grow our indigenous businesses?

Many small businesses want to enter new markets but they are finding it difficult. They encounter a lot of barriers. What one policy could the Government change that would have an impact and make it easier for small businesses to get there?

Infrastructure, energy and housing were highlighted as challenges for businesses that impact on Ireland’s competitiveness. Will the witnesses flesh that out? Which one is the biggest challenge, and what response do they suggest in that regard?

With growing geopolitical uncertainty, what should be our priority to ensure resilience and competitiveness at a domestic level, apart from our role in the Presidency?

We will start with Mr. McKeever.

I might take the second, third and fourth questions and allow Mr. Talbot to answer the others.

Mr. McKeever is very kind. He got in first. Well done.

Those questions are more in his bailiwick.

The single biggest opportunity for us to diversify our markets is to do more business in the EU. If we could reduce some of the burden on businesses doing business within the EU, help businesses to understand how they can do more business in the EU and not over-regulate ourselves out of existence, it would be helpful. When it comes to diversifying to extra markets, our proposal is that companies going into new markets where we do not have a big presence should receive a tax break.

The Senator asked how we can attract FDI and grow our indigenous businesses. We are successful at growing small- and medium-sized indigenous businesses. Enterprise Ireland does that extremely well. It is brilliant at it. What we are not doing, however, is bringing businesses with a turnover of €50 million or €100 million up to €1 billion in turnover. The €250 million businesses are not being brought up to €500 million, nor are the €500 million businesses going up to €1 billion. We have a culture of selling early. There is a mindset of taking the money and getting out early. We are very successful at doing that.

Over the weekend, a report in the Sunday Independent detailed how one company per week or maybe per day is being sold overseas. Enterprise Ireland needs to get a return on its investment, which it is doing. What ends up happening, however, is that we have this base in Ireland of entrepreneurs who reinvest in a business of that scaling size. We do not have the competence to go beyond it.

The world is fracturing into three centres, namely, Europe, Middle East and Africa, EMEA, in which Ireland will play a clear role; the Americas, in which the United States will be at the centre; and the Far East, where China will be central. My experience of truly global companies is that they have centres in each of those areas and are growing out of them. We need to help our companies understand how they can go from €100 million to €250 million, and from €250 million to €1 billion. They possibly acquire a company in another part of the world to achieve that. What happens in hyperdeveloped economies is that all the research and development and intellectual property, as well as a fair chunk of the manufacturing, stays in Ireland, but there are centres in other parts of the world. Look at the American multinationals, for example. They are making things in different parts of the world because they have access to those markets. We do not have the competence in that regard.

The other piece is that we do not have the funds. At the moment, the average investment going into a small scaling company is approximately €400,000. We need to be putting €50 million or €100 million into these companies. We need an export credit insurance scheme that will underwrite them going into a foreign market, which other countries have. There is a whole level of infrastructure that we do not have.

I will address the question on the capital markets union, CMU, last because I could spend the most time on it. Briefly, with regard to the diversification question, Mr. McKeever mentioned the Single Market, but I would add the UK as well. It is our nearest neighbour. It is right there.

In respect of how we get more Irish companies in the face of continuing FDI, we need to reward risk-taking more than we do in this country. It is another reason people sell up. The danger with the AI market is that our young entrepreneurs and innovators will not even be able to get off the ground here. They will have to go to America. For example, look at the money SpaceX raised in America last month. It is an extraordinary amount of money. It does not leave much to go around elsewhere. For people who want to make hay in the digital sphere, there is money over there that is not over here. This will all come back to the CMU, by the way.

On barriers, we need simplification and the spending of the National Training Fund. I keep coming back to that. We need to spend that wisely.

The Senator asked what the main priority is among infrastructure, energy and housing. That is difficult. Housing is kind of the key. By the same token, however, we need sewage works and available public transport. We cannot emphasise any one area. Rather, we must get better at doing more in balance and delivering stuff. There is talk of housing estates lying idle because they cannot connect to sewage or water systems, for example. We need to make sure that we do not have that scenario happening.

The Senator asked what the priority is for resilience at domestic level. It goes back to that infrastructure point. Hopefully, if we secure better infrastructure and more affordable housing prices - I use the term "affordable" in the broader sense rather than the specific sense - they will help bring down the cost of living and it will give people opportunity.

Another thing on our mind is demographics. In Ireland, we have 1.6 children per family. We need 2.1 children per family to grow our economy. That is a crisis. How much a lack of housing is building-----

Will Mr. Talbot repeat that figure?

As I understand it, and it can be double-checked, our rate is 1.6 children per family unit. To grow our economy, we need that figure to be a bit above two, such as 2.1 per family unit. Otherwise, we will end up with this huge demographic problem where we have fewer young people coming through the workforce paying taxes to pay the pensions for people, who are living longer lives.

Okay. I will stop Mr. Talbot there.

May I speak about the CMU?

No. He can do so in the second round.

I will do it in the second round.

There is a set of rules here. I would get into all sorts of trouble. The next speaker is Deputy Bennett.

I welcome and thank all the witnesses for coming in today. Chambers Ireland said that domestically, infrastructure remains a core competitiveness issue and it specifically highlighted the issue of energy. CSO figures published this morning revealed that data centres are responsible for up to 23% of the electricity consumed in the State. This exerts huge pressure on businesses and highlights the need for the Government to respond and support ordinary workers, families and employers, whose employees might be seeking wage increases in response to rising living costs. Chambers Ireland’s members also face the cost of doing business. Does Chambers Ireland have any concerns about the burden data centres are putting on infrastructure and the negative impacts it is having on the cost of doing business? Has Chambers Ireland raised that with the Government?

A new €3 customs charge has been brought in. Why has that been brought in? What impact will it have on small businesses?

Mr. McKeever mentioned that half of all goods produced in the country are exported. Will there be sanctions? Will Trump place more sanctions on top of those exports? How will that affect our businesses, both in Ireland and globally?

I also had an issue regarding transport companies. This issue was brought to my attention one year ago and I submitted some parliamentary questions on the matter, but I wish to hear the witnesses’ opinions in this regard as well. This a North-South issue whereby transport companies are being charged when they come into the South. They are taking goods over and back, but a charge is being implemented.

I wondered whether the witnesses had come across that. Given that our unity Bill is being dealt with today, it might be very timely to see that we need to have a united Ireland. We should not have any borders and there should not be any transport issues on the island of Ireland.

There is no border.

There is no border but we want a united Ireland so that no English government is involved in it at all.

Regarding energy and data centres, the answer is very complex in its own way in that we are all using vast quantities of data now. We are all using AI and it is the fuel of the modern economy. We all have a mobile phone. I have thousands of photographs on my phone that are all churning away in a data centre. Even if you do a Google search, it does an AI search for you rather than just a straight "Tell me what shop in Monaghan sells X". That data is just a part of the modern economy. If we look at data centres and employment just as a building and the number of people it employs, we cannot look at that in isolation from all the technology companies that have huge investment in Ireland and huge numbers of jobs going with them. It is the fuel that is driving the modern economy. It is the modern petrol in its own way. It is driving that engineering future.

Should thought not have been put into how data centres were going to affect our electricity means here in Ireland?

The speed at which this has happened is just phenomenal. The speed at which we have all started using ChatGPT and Claude is just phenomenal. It takes so long in this country to get planning permission and everything that goes with it across the line. Look at one of the key pieces of infrastructure - the North-South interconnector. That will help the all-Ireland energy market and so on.

That goes underground.

We will not open up the North-South interconnector issue in detail today but it takes a long time to get everyone happy to move forward on these things. The speed at which the economy is evolving now is unprecedented. There was a saying four or five years ago, when I probably heard it for the first time, that nothing will ever move as slow as it does today. In other words, it is going to get faster and faster.

I have not really looked at the implications of the €3 customs charge. On the face of it, I would have thought it is potentially good for Irish companies. If they bring stuff in, it is an opportunity for them to be more cost-effective.

But they are going to be charged €3 to bring anything in.

It is only a temporary solution before a more permanent solution in 18 months time.

The other thing I want to mention that is important for us in the international trade area is that cross-Border worker issue - the taxation scheme for somebody who is working in Monaghan and living in Northern Ireland and vice versa. We know that causes great anxiety.

Mr. Talbot will be supporting the unity Bill this evening in preparation for it.

I do not have a vote.

If he had, and if he were a Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil, an Independent or Social Democrats Deputy, he would be supporting it.

We are a business organisation. We support businesses.

I am not aware of any extra charges on Northern Ireland transport companies coming into the Republic.

Maybe it is something Mr. McKeever could look into.

I certainly will but I would have thought that I would know about it if it was there. I will look at it.

The de minimis rules and the €3 charge referred to by the Deputy involved an EU duty relief that has been scrapped basically. The Americans did it about a year ago as well. They scrapped their de minimis rules. It is to combat a lot of small parcels that are coming in from outside the EU. We have already mentioned a particular country. That is what that is about. You pay €3 on the product item in your consignment under €150. If you have two skirts in it, you pay €3 or if have a skirt and a teddy bear in it, you will pay €6.

Once it goes over €150, there is a bigger charge. Is that correct?

Above €150, it would be captured by normal customs rules. Probably in November this year, an extra €2 charge will be put on top of that. It is expected to be about €2 in terms of an administrative charge.

Mr. McKeever said that in part it is designed to combat smaller goods coming in from outside the EU. Clearly, he is talking about companies like Shein. Will he elaborate on that because that is a point that is lost? On the one hand, we are talking about the threat of China. This is a measure to in part combat that.

It is to combat all the low-value, low-item e-commerce items that are coming in because a lot of them are being broken down into tiny consignments and sent into the country. It is to capture that. I know that some traders who are bringing in goods and selling them on are being affected by it as well, but the purpose of it involves goods of low value from outside the European Union that are coming into the European Union. We operate under EU customs rules and it is not just Ireland. It is the whole of the EU. That is to capture and to combat low-value items that are being broken down and brought in in smaller amounts.

On my question about President Trump and exports, is that affecting us or will it affect us?

If we look back over the period since Donald Trump came into office, I do not want to call US trade policy a gift but it keeps giving and there is more to go. There are still some rulings on the pharmaceutical side to come. The joint statement that was issued the other day does not mention the aluminium and steel tariffs that we are hoping to get down to 15% by the end of the year. They are not mentioned in it so there is still some more work to be done on that. I do not think that the whole thing with the US flexing its muscles around its trade policy is over. We can see that if President Trump gets upset about something being done, he is lashing out and threatening a tariff. The courts are slowly reeling in and turning over a lot of what he is doing, but the section 301 tariffs he is bringing in now are much harder to overturn than the ones he brought in immediately after the US Supreme Court ruled - the big piece of cardboard he had with all the tech.

This is a very interesting conversation with such diversity, with Deputy Bennett and her comments about a united Ireland, which are all so relevant in relation to trade. I do not think that in my lifetime, we have ever been through such a geopolitical crisis with the effect on industry. When I was elected, I was made Leas-Chathaoirleach of the Oireachtas Committee on Enterprise, Tourism and Employment. One of the first things I did was say that I was going to go to every single factory in my constituency and visit as many small businesses as possible. That is where you hear what is happening on the ground. It is frightening. The resilience of businesses is shown in how they survived. After speaking to them, my two main concerns would be people moving from the high street to online shopping. We all have our houses and we see vans going up and down the road, every couple of hours at this stage, and obviously somebody is losing out there. The second concern, which has been touched on here, is AI. The general opinion is that the major factories are way ahead of the posse whereas the smaller businesses are behind. I am interested in hearing the witnesses' comments on that.

Moving on to exports, we had Ger Hyland from the haulage industry in this very room before the enterprise committee. I visited a haulier down in Wexford. I got into the car after that meeting and I just said to myself that there were 100 people working in the middle of nowhere literally on the crossroads outside of Ferns. I got into the car and I asked how in God's name that man and that family were making money between energy, the difficulty getting and holding on to staff, increases in the minimum wage, paperwork and insurance. Everything was piling up.

We have to get around that.

I am hugely interested in Mr. McKeever's two initiatives. One is to go further afield. I spent five years in Sri Lanka. They know how to drink whiskey over there. I do not drink it, but you never see a brand of Irish whiskey behind the counter. I think there are 32 million people living there. There are 1.6 billion people in India, which has a very similar culture. How is Ireland getting into that market? I loved the question but how do we get there? Is it Enterprise Ireland that drives it on? I threw some questions at Mr. Talbot first and then moved on to Mr. McKeever, asking him to expand on both those initiatives.

I totally agree with the witnesses. Per capita, Ireland must be right up near the top globally in terms of the number of start-up businesses but when we go to the next level - bringing them on to multimillion pound companies - we are left short-changed.

I do not know how businesses have survived. I have just written down that we had Brexit, the Covid pandemic, the first Trump term and then Ukraine. Now we have the second Trump term and other things going on - the Straits of Hormuz and everything else. It is really incredible how optimistic most of our businesses are about surviving everything that is going on, never mind the humdrum, day-to-day things like the insurance bill that comes in. It is really extraordinary. Never underestimate people's desire to be risk takers, be optimistic and just get on with it. It is huge.

That optimism is critical and brings me back to something I said earlier about risk taking. It ties into the Deputy's question to Mr. McKeever about start-ups not scaling. I do not think we have a good culture in this country of applauding successful businesspeople on their way and helping them to grow to the next level. Most companies are seeing an inability to raise finance, for example, which brings us back to the capital markets union. The options are bank loans and not much else. We need a much greater culture of equity investment, for example. We need to reward people with better, for example, the key employee engagement programme, KEEP, the employment and investment incentive scheme, EIIS, and the capital gains structure, to keep people in Ireland and keep building businesses. There are some entrepreneurs whose speciality is start-ups and not scale-ups. It is a very different thing to scale up a business when you have had a good idea and can only take it so far. We need to encourage those people to keep investing in new start-ups in Ireland. That is key.

Regarding the Deputy's question about people moving online, this is a real concern for us around the country. We are big supporters of town centre development initiatives and of sustainable cities and towns under the sustainable development goals, for example. We need to make sure our towns and cities are developed. That means above-the-shop living, proper public transport that works and is effective, and so on. These are all critical to build our city centres, get life back into them and get more retail opportunities, where there is footfall in towns rather than towns being hollowed out to outside retail parks or to some of the higher margin businesses like vape shops or whatever it might be. We truly, strongly believe in the importance of building our towns and cities and getting the right structures. Some of this goes back to aspects of housing. How do we get more people living on our main streets?

I ask Mr. McKeever to come in here as I am conscious of time.

On the transport industry, we as a nation need to start treating the transport industry as a vertical industry, like the life science industry and the food industry, in that we have some extremely large global players in it, some medium ones that handle a lot of the freight given to them by the freight forwarders, and then there are the Irish, indigenous-owned hauliers that handle a lot of the carriage of the goods. I do not think we have a full understanding of it because that industry has the same constraints and the same leadership development and is the same as any other industry sector insofar as somebody needs to get hold of it and help the companies grow.

If we look back at the Covid pandemic and Brexit, it was really at the haulier level. We do not have a lot of hauliers in our membership. We have a lot of medium and very large companies and one or two haulier members. The industry depends on the downstream. Where a guy has five, six, seven or eight trucks, it is a very small business and it deals with the same issues as small businesses elsewhere.

The Deputy is right that we need to respect the industry. I do not think this country respects industry until there is a crisis, such as we saw with the Strait of Hormuz or during the Covid pandemic. We need to respect these companies and look after them properly.

I was asked what is stopping us. On diversification, if we strip out the USA, the eurozone and the UK, our exports last year were €260 billion, comprising €112 billion to the USA, €78 billion to the eurozone and €21 billion to the UK. That makes around €210 billion. If we stripped that out, it would be the predominantly large global businesses, of which we have very few. Members will see what I mean in terms of big figures and big businesses. We are in the ha'penny place in terms of indigenous-owned Irish businesses. We absolutely need both. Northern Ireland is our 11th biggest export market. A new way of thinking and a greater level of ambition by the country are needed. When you talk to some of these medium-sized businesses that are trying to grow, sometimes they feel a little bit held back because while there is ambition, they are very measured in their growth and the way they want to go. That needs to be de-risked.

I am going to try to get us back on track here. We will take our version of a hydration break but not a proper break. I will give two minutes each to Mr. Talbot and Mr. McKeever. If there was a question they did not get to answer thus far, they have two minutes to do so now.

I will answer on the capital markets union. I am not sure we all fully understand what the differences between a capital markets union, a saving and investment union and a banking union actually are. It seems the savings and investment union is what the Commission believes it can get over the line easiest. However, the opportunity is there for us to have a single, central point for investors - depositors, we will call them - to put into a central European funding system that can then be dispersed to support European businesses generally, in which Ireland can play its part.

At the moment in Ireland, if we are looking for Irish investors to invest in Irish business, we know Irish banks are sitting on huge deposits. As people and investors, if we have money to spend, we are much more comfortable putting it on deposit with a bank. We know there is a Government guarantee of the core deposit, etc. If we look at America, people are much more likely to invest in the stock market. Here, for someone trying to invest in the stock market there is a very limited number of companies in the Irish Stock Market. That limits geographic exposure, meaning there is a higher risk attached to investing in the Irish Stock Market.

If we look at some of the funds that might be available at the moment, we have the deemed disposal rule, which means that whether someone sells or not, they have to pay a tax bill after eight years, if they were lucky enough to make any money. There are all these things. That ties into the Tánaiste trying to introduce some sort of scheme to improve on that. That is really important. Culturally, however, Irish people are much happier to put money on deposit. I think it is largely about risk. They are comfortable putting it on deposit because if they look back to 2008, they will know the Government will come in to save their deposits. It would not come in to save their funds or their investment in AIB or Bank of Ireland at the time. People are much more accepting of the risks around deposits. We need to change that view.

Mr. Talbot is all caught up now. Is there anything Mr. McKeever did not get to answer?

I might just go on a slight tangent, if that is okay.

For two minutes, yes.

I have been giving a presentation to people over the last while, in which I call out four or five things. The first is what has been happening with US trade policy and what we have been dealing with there. That is ever changing. As regards the US and Iran, the biggest thing that happened there has been the disruption to transportation. The supply chain and transportation have actually changed very quickly.

Routing by air went through different hubs. It then changed and went by sea and truck. The transport industry very quickly found a way around that.

There have been rising queries around China, which I have mentioned. On CBAM and the EUDR, EU regulation is becoming very burdensome on businesses. The other one, which Mr. Talbot mentioned a minute ago but which we need to spell out, is the very big concern about the UK. I go back to the numbers I gave when I called out the US, European Union and the UK from a trade point of view. When we look at indigenous Irish businesses, most of our trade is going to the UK. We have a huge dependency on the UK. There is a very real concern about the political and economic situation over there. As we go through the next two years and head into a general election over there, that will be keeping a lot of our members awake at night.

Never mind the next two years; the next two days will be very interesting over there.

That is true; the next two days will be very interesting. We talk to the members and those are the issues that come up and that we are dealing with. There has been resilience in the community. When we were dealing with the Strait of Hormuz issue, we talked to companies and it is not a palaver any more. They have dealt with all of the other issues, so the mindset is about how we deal with this and get around this. It is about moving quickly to finding solutions to this. We have pretty good infrastructure in the country that helps us deal with that.

We are all caught up now. Normal rules now apply. If any of the witnesses breach those, I have a Graham Norton pulley here.

An ejector chair.

Yes, now you have it.

I was looking to get the witnesses' opinions on the corporate sustainability due diligence directive, CSDDD, at an EU level and how that has impacted the chambers' members. We saw a rollback of some of those protections, such as the environmental and human rights protections, when the Omnibus I package was voted on last October at EU level. I know Chambers Ireland has made a commitment to the sustainable development goals around gender equality and the environment. Linked to that, are the chambers' members, by and large, still implementing environmental sustainability plans? It is no longer mandatory for as many companies as it was going to be, with the rollback of some of the protections under the CSDDD because of the Omnibus I package. It probably applies to exporters as well. Are the chambers' members still pursuing those goals? There is still strong interest among consumers in sustainable and human rights compliant supply chains. How are the members managing that in the context of EU requirements becoming weakened, particularly in the context of issues like child labour and biodiversity loss in the supply chain?

Going back to the question of trade uncertainty and what that means for the members, we have talked a lot in the last year about diversification and the Government supporting the diversification of markets. What does that look like for the chambers in practice? Are they getting the supports they need? I was out of the room but I know the witnesses spoke a little bit about the importance of trade agreements. The Social Democrats had our concerns about elements of the CETA agreement but absolutely supported all the hard trade elements of it. What more can be done in that area of diversification? I am not sure if the Cathaoirleach mentioned, although I am sure he has done previously, that Ireland is the fifth largest FDI investor into the US, and we rely on them. We have this really precarious trade environment but we have so much to offer. How do we maintain this in diversifying our markets?

That was my second question. My first question was about the sustainability, human rights and environmental reporting requirements and whether the members are still pursuing those goals.

I thank the Senator. I am delighted she has seen our work on the sustainable development goals. They are very important to us but that programme is 11 years old and we are very worried about where the SDGs are going. The UN has been a target of the Trump Administration, for example, as well. What will happen before they are due to expire in 2030? Will they be extended? We do not know for sure but after ten years, people get tired of hearing the message. In our pre-budget submission, which came out last week, we are still publishing our measures based on the sustainable development goal they relate to. It is still very important to us and the things we are looking for.

Most of our companies are still focused on environmental concerns but there is probably a greater emphasis now on the cost savings that can be generated. That is fine if we can make progress, but we keep coming back to issues like how slow it has been for us to decarbonise the electricity network because the electricity cost affects every single one of us, either in our private life or in our business life. It is just a cost. We have had so much opportunity with resources like wind in this country and we could make more of that. It is great to see so much solar power coming onto the grid. We are doing the right thing and the solar story is a really strong one at the moment, given the volume of solar energy that has been added to the grid. I have not looked at the figures but I think we are possibly up to one quarter of our electricity generation coming from solar because of the good weather. A lot of good things are happening.

Some of our international investors are still investing in the programmes but they are probably not promoting them as much as they used to. That is a concern for us as well in that as part of our promotion of the sustainable development goals, understanding what other people were doing was very important from a peer learning perspective.

Are the members still pursuing that in their supply chains as well as domestic production, in terms of what they might be bringing in?

I think they are but they are just not as public about doing it. That said, the overall number of all the things coming at companies, between the CBAM, the CSDDD, deforestation regulations and so on, is overwhelming. Small businesses have to cope with piles and piles of administration. It has somewhat gone away with the omnibus package, but a lot of our smaller businesses that supply larger companies were very concerned about the fall-down impact. It looked as if the imposition was on the big companies but they actually had to find out the information from the companies below them. To Mr. McKeever's point, most of our exporters are dealing with the UK market, so I think we are very comfortable on issues like human rights.

From our point of view, the way we have addressed dealing with our members on those issues is by holding training courses on the CSRD, the CSDDD, the EUDR and the CBAM . The EUDR and CBAM training sessions are in demand; the others are not. There was some demand for CSRD training when it was brought in. That is not to say the companies are not complying or doing what they should be doing. The EUDR and the CBAM are causing a lot of headaches for companies because they have the potential to cost them a lot of money. In particular, the CBAM has that potential as it ramps up over the next five or six years in terms of the percentage that will be charged.

The Senator asked about trade uncertainty. It is increasingly uncertain; there is no doubt about that. It has gone a bit bonkers, to be honest. What can we do? More needs to be done to help people understand the trade agreements. We run training courses to help people understand what they get in the trade agreement. On diversification, we really need to understand that our headline export figures are dominated by the FDI community in Ireland. The indigenous base of Irish companies and what they are doing is actually a very small proportion of the headline figure. It is about ambition and derisking it. An export credit agency, such as that which other countries have, could help up. We cannot compete with a company from another country because they have that backing. We should incentivise diversification. We should incentivise a company to go into South Korea or wherever they might want to go so that they choose to go there rather than into the US or somewhere like that.

I thank the witnesses for the presentations. They were very interesting.

Something that has not been spoken about is Ireland's defence and national security. Has that been an issue in selling Ireland Inc for a lot of foreign direct investors? I am aware 200,000 jobs are coming in from the United States and another 160,000 jobs are related to that. When it comes to Ireland's defence mechanisms and how much we can protect ourselves, be it a sea cable or whatever, has that been a hindrance in getting foreign direct investment from the Asian markets or other markets that are concerned about how secure Ireland is if there were such an attack, whether it be on a sea cable or cyberattacks?

I would also like to talk about our investment into the African, Asian and South American markets. I know many people are citing this as the new way forward and how we go forward to reduce our dependency on the United States in some politicians' minds. How realistic is getting Irish products and Irish investment into, and returns from, those Asian, South American and African markets that are opening up to the rest of the world?

I welcome the €3 custom charge. I am delighted not to see a Shein parcel come through my door ever again. We have to be cognisant of fast fashion and what it does to the environment in this country as well. It is a very good directive from the EU.

I ask for a comment on the following from the panel. When it comes to the number of businesses we have in the constituency I represent in Cork, and in neighbouring constituencies, including research and development, manufacturing and human trials in the pharmaceutical industry, how do we keep those within Europe? How do we retain that in Europe? In particular, I wonder about the manufacturing side of things across not just Ireland but Europe. I believe it is a challenge for all of Europe.

A comment was made earlier regarding the number of Chinese cars coming into the country. Why do we see a problem with that? We know the German cars that are built in Europe and a lot of European cars, with perhaps the exception of SEAT and Peugeot at this stage, are quite expensive for the Irish market. How do we combat that on a European level?

I have no doubt questions have been raised in boardrooms in the United States about our ability to defend our cables. It has to be the case that it is an issue. There is a broader issue with what Ireland does in getting access to the defence and security supply chain in the European Union. It is a very sensitive national debate but we are on the periphery of Europe. Questions are raised by our European partners about our ability to defend and provide security in and around our critical assets. We cannot shirk away from that.

On Chinese cars, I am only answering this one because I am a petrolhead. What is very concerning in all of that is if you watch what is happening in the German motor industry, which is a critical part of not only Germany's economy but the whole EU economy, it has been absolutely brought to its knees. The Chinese cars are good. They have skipped the plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, PHEV, generation and gone straight to electric cars. They are largely built robotically and their tech is very good but the real concern is what is happening to the German car industry as a result and what that means for Germany and the whole of the EU. That is the big issue at an EU level.

I am all for doing more business in Africa, Asia and South America. We probably need more assets over there and Enterprise Ireland needs more support but it still goes back to what our level of ambition in this country is. Do we want to continue to have small- to medium-sized businesses or do we want to grow them ever larger? We are very successful at creating small businesses but what is the level of ambition and how can we support those entrepreneurs to really grow and fulfil their level of ambition abroad? That is not to say they are not doing that but there is a saying in the tech world called "10xing". I feel our companies hold themselves back a little bit. That is about ambition, de-risking it, export credit insurance and having more boots on the ground provided by Enterprise Ireland. It also involves helping Enterprise Ireland build that confidence level about how you grow businesses from medium to large businesses.

I thank the Deputy. On Ireland's defence, people are more aware of the situation but there is another issue we are coming across within Europe. That is where other European countries are seeing that Ireland has a competitive advantage whereas they have to spend between 2% and 5% of their GDP on defence, depending on how close they are to the eastern European area. That is money we are not spending in Ireland that we are able to spend on other programmes. They are increasingly concerned that Ireland is not playing fair in the money we have available for other programmes because we are not spending it on defence.

On Africa, Asia and South America, we encourage it. I point to the CETA agreement where Ireland's exports to Canada were €0.9 billion per year before CETA. In 2024, they were over €4 billion. There is four times the amount of trade with Canada than we had before CETA. If you look at other trade agreements, they might not all be as good as that but that is a largely English-speaking market that is relatively close by. It is a good example of the value of free trade agreements.

How do we retain everything we are doing? We do it through infrastructure and education. We need to keep spending on it. To acknowledge Mr. McKeever's point, Volkswagen announced they are laying off potentially 100,000 people and there is a question about the extent to which the Chinese state is subsidising its car industry and how that stacks up as well.

I will throw in something there. If you look at our exports to South Africa in 2024 and 2025, €280 million of that was exported in 2024 and €350 million was exported last year. That is just to give a sense of the scale of the exports to the various countries. We exported €700 million worth of goods to Brazil, €500 million worth to India and €830 million to Saudi Arabia. You can then look at Belgium, where we are sending €17 billion of exports a year and the Netherlands where we are sending exports worth €23 billion. We think some of our statistics are getting lost there because Belgium is a huge co-ordination centre for the pharma industry and the Netherlands has the port of Rotterdam. We think something is skewing the way the statistics are being calculated over there because a lot of our long-sea trade that is shipped goes through the port of Rotterdam in the Netherlands.

Mr. McKeever is a petrolhead. I was a car head when I was a kid and I always remember one stat. Anybody who is old enough to remember knows Great Britain was an incredible leader in the manufacture of cars, but none of those brands that we recognise nowadays that still have an echo of the great British car industry are owned by the British. I remember distinctly as a 12-year-old reading in an English newspaper that Honda - this was 1977 - had opened a factory in Japan that had more robots in it than the entire British car industry. The British car industry simply never recovered from that and they do not manufacture any of their own cars any more. That is probably the real fear about this wave of Chinese cars coming towards the European Union.

I read something somewhere that it costs China one quarter of what it costs the German auto industry to build one of their cars because of the use of robotics. They have just skipped a whole generation of an industry. I am not sure if they skipped from 4.0 to 5.0 or whatever it is. The fear in Europe is the dumping of cars. That is the issue.

Apologies. I will have to ask and run as the vote has been called.

There was reference to the South African market, but South Africa facilitated Ireland's participation in the G20, which would not have been done otherwise. That is an example of a different reputation and a different direct engagement. Part of that was based on South Africa's perception of Ireland's respect for international law. That was named as one of the reasons, and because of the rules-based international order. I would like if the witnesses could come in on a couple of the ethical issues that are here. We talked about the German manufacturing piece as well. One of the big plans for Germany is to segue a lot of that into defence manufacturing, which is the big industry there. There is a huge push and, with respect to us pulling our weight in Europe, one of the biggest beneficiaries of the push towards defence and military expenditure is Germany, which also received support in the last bailout. There is a question there.

I would like a little bit more on the defence piece. Both the witnesses were saying this is a sector for investment, but it is also a sector with very particular ethical issues. We have seen concerns about investments in cluster munitions. In the case of the exporters, there are question marks around dual-use goods, which the witnesses might comment on. For example, a sevenfold increase in the export of dual-use goods to Israel directly maps onto the bombardment of Gaza, from €10 million up to €70 million the following year. It was a huge jump and it was in respect of dual-use goods that have a military function. I would like to hear a comment on that ethical safeguard piece and how that should be reflected, particularly since there were appeals in both opening statements for further public investment. Chambers Ireland is seeking a national trading fund, while the Irish Exporters Association has looked for a direct internationalisation market fund and export credit insurance schemes. There is a call for public money to support these activities. What are the proposals or thoughts on the ethical oversight and measures that should accompany such investment of public moneys? Are there internal mechanisms within the Irish Exporters Association in respect of those dual-use goods and where there is an anomalous pattern?

I had a question on the unified patent court as well. My concern would be if it were to limit the ability to do compulsory licensing. We saw in respect of things like the TRIPS waiver the ability to respond to a social need at a national level, because it would move it. That is why the European courts----

I am going to stop the Senator there.

I just want to comment on the SDGs, which is the final piece----

You are not going to comment now because we have a vote and we are well overdue. TDs are going to have to go to the Chamber. If we stop the clock, I will give you 30 seconds on the SDGs when we come back. That leaves the witnesses just three and a half minutes.

The Senator has asked her questions. I said I would give her 30 seconds on the sustainable development goals.

I wanted to commend Chambers Ireland on its SDG work. I have been following for a number of years and it has been key in it. I am interested in what an intensification of effort would look like. New things have emerged that seem to be accelerating much faster, for example on the AI side. I would be interested in hearing about the risk for Chambers Ireland's members, since it has such a place-based approach, in terms of financial exposure and job displacement in the context of AI. How is that being looked at?

On the NTF, it is the National Training Fund and it is actually paid for by employers through PRSI contributions. It is a fund specifically collected from employers for training.

What about the trading fund?

I mentioned the National Training Fund, the NTF.

It was printed as "national trading fund". That was the confusion.

That is our fault. Sorry about that.

I am of course familiar with the National Training Fund.

Great. Sorry about that, Chair. On the dual-use thing, there are genuine ethical and policy challenges there. We want Ireland to be a centre for responsible innovation. That is really critical. We do need clear, predictable and proportionate regulation in this space. We have to look at the modern world, including cybersecurity. For example, the HSE was attacked during Covid, which was catastrophic at the time. We have all the risks about our offshore communications infrastructure and our gas pipelines. There are a lot of things we need to be developing solutions for. From our perspective, we are a representative organisation, not a regulator. Our members do not report to us asking what they can or cannot do. They see that as the role of the regulator.

I will move that straight on to the SDGs. It is why we have been promoting the SDGs over the last ten years. I was saying in response to Senator Stephenson earlier that we are very worried about where the SDGs are going. They have only four years left. What is going to replace them? The UN has been under criticism from the Trump Administration and so on.

It just does not feel as powerful as it might have been. We are very concerned about the succession plan for the SDGs and where they go. After ten or 11 years, people are not listening as closely as they might have been ten years ago. They are tired of that message, they have heard about the SDGs and they are moving on as well. We are equally concerned and very keen to keep that mantle going.

I am not sure if the Senator asked a question about the UPC. We did not think it had any impact on TRIPS. We really see the UPC as a great opportunity, particularly for our young innovators, to have access to the whole European market for innovation rather than just the Irish market, and for protection. That ties into many of the international legal aspects around things like CETA as well. Companies trading abroad or trying to do business in international markets also need some comfort that they will have some sort of neutral protection when they are investing into other people's markets where they, for example, might not be as confident in the court system overseas.

On security and defence, the first thing to say is the world has changed. We are operating in a very different world compared to the one in the past. As a nation, we have certain responsibilities. It is about resilience. Sixteen per cent of the EU's territorial waters sit under Irish jurisdiction and 75% of transatlantic data cables pass through Irish waters. We host global cloud and AI infrastructure that underpins Europe's digital economy. We have responsibilities with that and we need to manage those ourselves. It is about the resilience of all that for us in Ireland and for the EU and our responsibility in that.

I absolutely get what the Senator is saying about dual-use goods. That is the responsibility of the Department of enterprise. We do not handle that as we are not a regulator. If we see any issues, we alert the members to that. We do not regulate our members, but I get it and it is very important. From an industry point of view, we are not advocating that we start building missiles and bombs but we have an excellent cybersecurity industry in Ireland. What are we doing with that to make sure it becomes part of the supply chain around Europe? Within ethical boundaries, we need to advance ourselves here in Ireland.

The Senator asked a question about the State investing money, which I think related to the €1 billion fund I called for. I am not alone in calling for that amount of money. There have been other reports issued as well but that is what is seen as the amount of money required to carry out that super-scaling piece I spoke about earlier. We are looking at an investment that is in the tens of millions of euro rather than in the hundreds of thousands of euro to really get ourselves from the level of industry we have indigenously to a much greater size, which I think we need to do.

I was really asking about the ethical standards attached to that.

I thank the Senator.

That was just to clarify my question.

That is fine but we have run out of time.

At a later point, I might come back in because I am aware of the search for the fund but I was actually asking about the ethical standards piece. Mr. McKeever dealt with them separately but it is not just about regulation; it is also about a request for public investment. In that context, the ethical questions come to the fore.

It would have to be done ethically, absolutely.

I call the patient Deputy Shay Brennan.

It is great to hear the witnesses talk so much about the need to support indigenous industry. Ireland has been very successful in attracting foreign direct investment and the super level of corporation tax on profits we are taking in, but you would have to have concerns about the long-term viability and sustainability of that. Long may it continue but I worry that sometimes we are - I will not say neglecting - maybe not giving indigenous industry the level of support we would in the absence of the current level of FDI. I ask the witnesses to please keep that up.

I have a series of questions and I am not sure how many I will get through. I will go down my list and see how far we get with it. The first question is about the trade numbers and the actual trade figures. The significant fall-off in trade in quarter 1 2026 compared to the same quarter in the previous year is well-documented. We know that is down to front-loading and that explains a lot of it. That is masking a softness in exports overall. When you compare it to quarter 1 2024, we are still down but by a much smaller amount. That is not showing export growth; that is showing a fall-off in exports.

It was €68 billion this year versus €73 billion in 2024.

I welcome any comments on that. Analogous to that is something we have not mentioned yet, which is the foreign exchange rate. Membership of the eurozone has been very beneficial. We do a lot of our trade there and we do not have to worry about it but if you look at the euro versus the dollar, the dollar is now 10% weaker today than it was at the start of 2025. We are talking about trade tariffs of 10% or 15%. There is a 10% move that has made European goods in the US 10% more expensive and, not just in this room but in general, we are not really talking about that. That is a situation that could get worse. We are looking at the ECB introducing a series of interest rate hikes and the US might hold rates steady. That will push those exchange rates further apart again and that is something we need to discuss. I wonder whether smaller Irish exporters are au fait with foreign exchange hedging. Is enough information and training going into bringing them up to speed on that aspect of things?

I will move on to export credit insurance. Both organisations in their opening statements called for its reinstatement. We did away with it in 1998. A large part of the reason for that was it was not being utilised and private insurance had filled that gap. What has changed now? Has private insurance gone away? Why are we looking for the State to come in and provide this?

I will speed up a bit here because I am watching the clock. One statement I would not mind further clarification on is one of Mr. McKeever's. He said indigenous exports are a very low percentage but it is not actually measured. I am very concerned that we are not measuring that and I would like to understand why. He did not put a figure on it but-----

I did.

-----there must be estimates. Maybe he could remind me of that. The national, international and super-scaling initiative is a nice round €1 billion. Over what timeframe is that envisaged and who would administer that? How solid are we on EU state aid rules there because that might be an issue? I have eaten up the clock so I might come back with other questions but I would appreciate an answer to those.

On the trade numbers and whether there is an underlying weakness, I have talked to some of the indigenous Irish companies. I talked about resilience earlier on. Are they as ebulliently confident as they were in the past? No, they are not. They have had to deal with an awful lot all the same and they are worried. They are more worried than they were in the past - there is no doubt about that. They are constantly dealing with things. That would be the first issue.

I agree with the Deputy on the foreign exchange rate. There is a 10% extra tariff there, for want of a better word. If the EU pushes rates up and the US does not put rates up, the dollar will weaken. Actually, it will go the other way. Do small companies know all about hedging? Do Irish business people know about hedging? Yes, they do. When I talk to the bigger Irish entrepreneurs, they wear it as a matter of pride that they are all over that issue themselves. When you get down to the smaller companies, they know less. Foreign exchange has completely changed in the country. There are still the banks but there are all of these digital providers that offer it now so it has very much become a commodified product. There is a newer generation who are probably more digital savvy than when I was a foreign exchange trader. I am not quite sure it is as big as an issue as it was.

Let us be honest, there were other reasons export credit insurance was abandoned back then as well. When you talk to the export credit insurers, they will tell you that for countries that have a state export credit insurer for small businesses, when the businesses are going for a tender and have the export credit insurance from the state behind them, it is a much stronger proposition than not having it. On the super-scaling piece, I have not looked at state aid rules but it would be an aggrandisement of what Enterprise Ireland does. It should sit with Enterprise Ireland and we are talking about it over a period of ten years because Enterprise Ireland has some ambition to grow between now and the end of this decade.

What was the last question on the indigenous piece?

I was curious about the €1 billion and the timeframe around that investment.

Ten years.

Who does Mr. McKeever see running that? Would that be-----

It would fit into Enterprise Ireland. The Deputy asked a question before that. Was it on trade numbers or was it another one? I cannot remember.

It was the very low percentage comment on indigenous exporters.

Bord Bia, Enterprise Ireland and Bord Iascaigh Mhara all publish figures about the number of exports that they support. When I was pulling them apart, Enterprise Ireland covers food and drink. I could not quite get whether it was covering the Bord Bia ones as well. In 2025, Bord Bia supported companies exporting €19 billion. Enterprise Ireland companies exported €39 billion. Within there, there are some non-indigenous Irish companies that they also support. If we took that as a total of €50 billion, we are looking at 20% of our merchandise exports, but Enterprise Ireland also includes services.

I have found it very difficult to get a figure purely for Irish-owned businesses. I apologise, I know I keep going on about Irish-owned business. The FDI sector is massively important. If we add the corporate tax take to the dependence we have on it as a trading market as well, it is huge. We need to do more to grow more businesses in Ireland. In my preparation for this, I had those numbers in my original statement, but I thought I could not rely on them, and I took them out. It is €50 billion if we add all three agencies together, but there might be some overlap between Enterprise Ireland and Bord Bia. There are services figures in Enterprise Ireland as well. My guesstimate is that it is somewhere in around €26 billion to €30 billion a year of the €260 billion last year.

That is very low.

It is well known. That is the stark reality that we are dealing with. Our GDP and export figures are completely oversized by the FDI sector, which are exports leaving the country. The services thing needs to be looked at a bit differently. If we are selling pharma product around the world, we are selling pharma product around the world. The good is physically moving. There is risk in our dependence on one single market, which is massive across so many things. We are a small economy and a small country with small businesses. We have about 30 companies that are trading about €1 billion. A lot of them are privately owned. If we want to get out there, we need to have loads more of those. When I talk to companies, they tell me that they keep making the thing here, but I am telling them that maybe they should make it over there. The company will grow quicker if they make it over there and expand over there at the same time they are expanding here.

There will be three centres in the world from a supply chain point of view. One is the EMEA. Ireland has a critical role to play in that. One is the Americas. The United States is going to dominate that. The other one is Asia. China is going to dominate that. The world is fracturing in that way. We need to up our ambition.

I do not have much to add to some of Mr. McKeever's answers. It is more his specialisation than mine. On the exchange rate, it is a matter very close to my heart. The biggest one has been since Brexit. Sterling is probably down 20% or 25%, but Irish companies have continued to do business. It sort of lends the way to the argument that Irish companies have some capability to manage foreign exchange issues. The dilemma is that no country ever became rich with a weak currency either. It is getting the balance right. There is plenty of training, but there is always more opportunity for people to learn more about how to do it better. The Brexit exchange rate was a huge hit for a long time, and we have got over it. That is the biggest issue nearly in ways in that area.

Regarding the export credit, I agree with Mr. McKeever. I thought it was for quite a specific reason that we got rid of it in 1998-----

There was a long saga. Ultimately, the figures that were given at the wind-up were that only €30 million was used in the final year in 1998. Therefore, it served no purpose.

Figures were a lot smaller then. It is hard to put that into context now. It leads on to the last thing that I was going to say. I need to be very careful with my wording here. I am not saying that we have a market failure with Irish indigenous companies, but we have this enormous market success of FDI. It is leaving Irish indigenous business in its wake. That is where, in terms of things like tax theory, if we have market failure, we need intervention to get things moving better. I am not saying that we have market failure; I wish to be clear about that. The Irish indigenous market, however, desperately needs to be expanded. That is why we keep going on about the need to improve our attitude towards risk taking, equity finance and all the things that will get people into business and keep them in business. I was reading things today and I get old things from childhood of close company provisions coming up and family business taxation. There are all these things where we have got this wonderful tax scheme that international companies have been able to avail of, but are we doing enough from a tax perspective to get our indigenous sector off the ground? At the moment, it looks like they need more.

We have about nine minutes left. We can open it up to a group discussion now. The rules are dispensed with. We have a little bit of time. We might hear from Mr. Hughes. Does anyone have any questions?

I wish to come back on three issues. The first is FDI. I am delighted to see that investment, but I have a huge fear. If they decide to pull out, where are we regarding the Government, tax take and employment? The second is our dependence - I love the figures that Mr. McKeever has thrown out - on the UK and the USA. I often look at the numbers in the populations in both those regions. They are not huge compared with China, Japan and India. They are billions. We are dealing with-----

They have a wealthy middle class. They are the people who buy your stuff.

The world is evolving. Regarding young people in Sri Lanka when I went there first 20 years ago compared with now, they have been abroad. They have been to Ireland and worked. They have been to London and worked. They came back. They-----

It is called the emerging middle class. They are the people who tend to buy Irish indigenous produce.

We are both agreeing that is where it is going-----

Yes.

-----and numbers, that is where it is going. That is where we should be looking at. Going back to FDI, it is the promotion of the indigenous industry now more than ever because we do not know what is happening in the world. We do not know what the presidents of certain countries are going to do over the next 12 months, let alone 12 days. We have to protect, encourage and support.

In this vital six months when we have the chair, what should be our priorities?

I have a point from my days as a local councillor, which are long behind me now. We talk about corporation tax and dependency on foreign direct investment from a small number of companies. When I was leading it, the commercial rates base of South Dublin County Council, which is not far off being self-financing, was heavily dependent on maybe ten companies, which were responsible for 95% of the commercial rates. It is not just at the national level; it is at the local level. Nobody is going to pull out together, but at that granular level, it is significant.

The Chinese ambassador to the European Union was here last week with the Irish ambassador. The last time I had a conversation with the Chinese ambassador, that middle class in China was 400 million. Last week, it was 500 million. It is the size of the European Union.

We have this huge trade balance with China, so we are unusual in the European Union in that it is they who have the deficit with us. Is there anything else that Deputy Shay Brennan wanted to ask before we move on?

I have a couple more questions that are completely off topic. This question is probably for Mr. Talbot. Chambers Ireland is calling for the WTO moratorium on the duties on electronic transmissions to be extended. What is that and what is the impact of that on a company and on the actual economy as a whole?

Through the Chair, perhaps Mr. Hughes will answer this one.

With pleasure. In practical terms, it is a duty on electronic transmissions. Consider, for example, a very niche kind of business that provides a digital service or something that has to be transacted digitally. Basically, if the moratorium was not on a permanent footing, they would have to pay a customs fee.

Certain countries are pushing really hard to do away with this moratorium, such as India, South Africa and Indonesia, which are big economies. The concern is that we do not know what they are going to tax. They could even tax emails going in and out of servers in India, for example, perhaps at 1 cent on an e-mail transaction. The fear is that they could introduce a tariff that could get completely out of control, and in the digital world nobody knows where this is resident, whose tax base it is, who is charging it, who is collecting it and so on. The moratorium has been in place since the 1990s and just keeps getting rolled over at every WTO ministerial meeting because they cannot get those big three or four countries to actually agree to make it permanent.

So, every year you are going back to just get this extended.

We talk about making it permanent, but with the terminology, is a moratorium permanent? We just want to make sure.

I understand. I did not realise that was even there. On the Unified Patent Court, UPC, I can see why it would be of benefit to Irish companies, of course, but that kind of works both ways. Irish companies would certainly use a lot of IP, particularly in current times where a lot of IP is being warehoused here by major multinationals. Is this something they will welcome or is this going to spook them?

I do not think it is terribly relevant to most of those multinationals putting their IP here. This is just the ability to have a single patent effective in all the European Union countries that have signed up for it. It means that a patent here is valid in Germany, France, Italy and so on without having to individually register it in those countries. It just opens up the Single Market. It is a key component of the Single Market, when we think about it. Not having it is a barrier. If a company is in Germany, it has a market of 60 million people to sell to. In Ireland a company has a market of only 5.5 million people. That is another-----

I thank Mr. Talbot. I get that bit. I am more worried that all of this IP is something that could move at the drop of a hat, and any change has to create some concerns or at least some thought among US executives about why that is in Ireland.

It is only in relation to a dispute. It is only if you want to protect your patent. Where do you go to court? Nobody wants to end up in court voluntarily, so it is a protection rather than a new rule about intellectual property.

I will throw a complete curve ball out there, which I have suggested before on hedging and all the commodities, and I mentioned a load of them earlier. We have an organisation called the NTMA that hedges a lot of our bond risk. Could it hedge our national commodity risks? Could we have had a hedge taken out for oil? We could do it on the futures market and hedge it both ways on the futures market. Could we hedge the national requirement for foreign exchange for small businesses in something like that, with a fee applied to it in some way, shape or form? I have suggested this before. The NTMA is very effective. It manages our bond risk, and there is underlying currency risk with all of that. Could it do an oil hedge for the country as a whole? We would then be taking out that volatility.

I get what the Deputy is saying. We are so successful at FDI and it has brought a lot of management expertise into the country. It has revolutionised the country. We need it, we want more of it and we want to keep everything we have, but it just seems a little bit riskier than it used to be in terms of being able to hold onto it. Going back to the defence point, I do think that the cables are really important in all of that.

Regarding the UK and USA, when we look at Irish indigenous businesses trading in both countries, there is a familiarity in both countries that tends to help us with both. Doing business in the UK is relatively easy with the language-----

Our exposure to the UK was significantly higher before the FDI boom, so we have reduced our dependence to some extent.

We have, but for indigenous Irish businesses it is still the same. When I was looking at the figures for the three agencies - I cannot remember the exact figure so do not quote me on this - I think it was something like 75% of the combined number was going to the UK from those three agencies. That was slightly concerning.

When I was doing my research on the €1 billion fund, I found that other countries do very well in having that super-scaling fund because they have very large pension funds because they are so much bigger than us. They have access to that and much bigger private equity. In this country, the entrepreneurs that come out of that scaling loop Enterprise Ireland has means they get out selling at €50 million or €100 million. What Enterprise Ireland does, and does brilliantly, is that it has a few bob, it knows that journey and it gets in and supports a lot of companies along that way. What we do not have, except for a few businesses, is the competence to get up to that higher level, so we missing that whole loop so badly, and I have been saying this for the last ten years. We need get beyond ourselves a little bit in terms of everything does not have to be made in this country. Get the company to a certain size and then ask where is the most efficient place to do it and what does the organisation look like back at home. Most of the jobs in manufacturing will stay here but they will probably be serving parts of the world that are not wherever you are going. I worked in another organisation in another country years ago and you could see what their global companies were doing. They would go into a region, expand in it, buy companies and then start exporting from that part. In our case, the profits would still be registered in Ireland - the corporation tax. We have got this huge dependence on corporation tax from foreign-owned multinationals, but if we make our own big companies and they are growing all around the world, their profits would be domiciled back here, so it would be a win-win for us. Having talked to some of the companies and entrepreneurs, there is a reluctance to go beyond the border in terms of everything has to be made here. I think we are missing ambition. We really need to boost our ambition in terms of let us be really large, what does that require, and what does it take to do that. Part of it is freeing up the mindset of some of these entrepreneurs to do that and to pay our respects to them, because they have actually invested so much to get there, by de-risking that move for them going forward. It is a case of how you help them do that and whether the State owns part of that risk. We are missing a complete trick in that.

We are right on the clock. That was a very provocative conclusion. I would like to give the witnesses a bit of homework, if I can. We do not have time to discuss it today, although we would have liked to. We may get to see the witnesses before the end of the year, or next year anyway, if we are still here. We had a trade mission to Canada and the US before Christmas. What we encountered in Canada was fear, anxiety and a dislocated relationship they never envisaged they would have to suffer in that kind of way. Even if that were to be reversed in the next presidential election and a benign character came in trying to heal all the wounds, the fact is that the die is cast there and cast for a considerable time into the future.

A Farage premiership, to me, poses exactly the same threats to the kinds of things we have taken for granted. The witnesses have spoken about our reliance, in particular small businesses. I would say the Canadians never thought what was going to happen with the Trump presidency would have the consequences it did for them. He is on the record over the past decade saying Ireland should leave the European Union. It would be great if in a bit of downtime over the next month or in the autumn, the witnesses put a bit of thought into that and shared their thoughts with us. We could have session on that. It would be useful.

I thank the Chambers Ireland chief executive, Mr. Ian Talbot, and Mr. Shane Hughes. I do not know if it is Mr. Hughes's first time before a committee but he is on the public record in a very positive sense. I also thank Mr. Simon McKeever, chief executive officer of the Irish Exporters Association. I really enjoyed that interaction. The meeting is now adjourned until after the summer recess. That does not mean we are not doing other work.

You do not have to tell us that, Chair. We know you are still working.

I did not realise this was the last session. I thank the secretariat, who work really hard to get these meetings up and running and get our witnesses here, and our communications people, who brought us to the wider world. I thank them for their work on that.