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 if they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, a member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask any member partaking via MS Teams that prior to making their contribution they confirm they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus.

Should a division occur, any member participating remotely will be required to make their way to the meeting room within the normal division time to vote before returning to their original location.

We have received apologies from the Cathaoirleach, Deputy James O'Connor, and the Leas-Chathaoirleach, Deputy Brian Brennan.

This meeting has been convened to consider Committee Stage of the Industrial Development (Amendment) and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill 2026 which was referred to the committee by order of the Dáil on 14 May 2026. I welcome Deputy Peter Burke, Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment. I propose we publish the opening statement provided by the Minister on the committee's website. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I thank members for the opportunity to present the Industrial Development (Amendment) and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill to the committee this afternoon. I welcome the support it received during its Second Stage reading in the Dáil. As previously set out, this is a short but important Bill which further empowers IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland to accelerate investment, employment and regional development. Its purpose is to further enhance the ability of the enterprise development agencies to drive investment and meet strategic goals in areas such as sustainability and carbon abatement.

The Bill will ensure the enterprise agencies have the legislative tools they need to incentivise companies to accelerate their green and digital transitions and will make the approval of environmental protection aid grants less complex and less time-consuming.

It will also allow IDA Ireland to enhance its property and infrastructure offering by co-investing in such projects with third parties, such as the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund, ISIF, to meet client demand. The Bill also streamlines the ability of the agencies to support projects in the defence, security and resilience, DSR, sphere.

The miscellaneous provisions included in the Bill will enhance the safety regime around the storage of flammable liquids, clarify Enterprise Ireland’s Freedom of Information obligations, amend the Chemicals Act 2008 to give full effect to EU detergents regulations and increase the period members can serve on the board of the Health and Safety Authority, HSA, from three to five years.

The Bill strongly supports a number of objectives outlined in the programme for Government and the action plan on competitiveness and productivity, namely job creation, regional development and reducing carbon emissions.

This Government continues to support Irish-owned companies to grow and scale, along with providing direct investment towards each step of their decarbonisation journey. At the same time, as global competition for foreign direct investment intensifies, Ireland needs to remain agile and ambitious to win further investment.

As EU state aid rules change, IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland need flexible legal powers which enable them to react quickly to maintain competitiveness. This legislation will help them to reduce carbon emissions, meet national climate goals and stay competitive in attracting and keeping businesses that create jobs and growth. Overall, this Bill will help Ireland to attract investment and support innovation in areas that matter for our longterm economic strength and national security.

It is critical that this Bill is enacted to ensure the enterprise agencies have the powers they require to fulfil their mandates and to quickly deliver the strategically important objectives they have been tasked with achieving.

Amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 1:

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

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

The thinking behind all my amendments arises from concern about the involvement of the IDA and Enterprise Ireland in the promotion of the arms industry. We will get on to the question of section 8 when we reach that but it was when I spotted what is in section 8 that I became alarmed about the trajectory of Government policy in this area and started to consider the whole Bill in that light. It seems to me that in this Bill, the Government may be looking to free up Enterprise Ireland and the IDA to get more involved in promoting military industries and the arms industry and Ireland’s involvement in those things, which I would be very much opposed to. Despite the protestations of the Ministers on the Second Stage debate that none of this has any impact on Irish neutrality, I am concerned that it does. To my mind, Irish neutrality should be about doing the opposite to promoting the arms industry. There is very definite ramping up of the arms industry in Europe at the moment. We have a big push for greater military spending. We have Donald Trump goading Europe to spend more in the military area. That in itself is a good enough reason to do the opposite of what Donald Trump says but instead Europe seems to be rushing headlong into developing the arms and defence industries in Europe and spending more in these areas.

It concerns me that this is what is going on here, or that this is what the Bill is significantly about. I want to try to forestall that with these amendments.

I suggest that the IDA and Enterprise Ireland should not be doing anything that is about promoting the military or arms industries. In section 4, that includes not making grants to consultants in relation to military activity. In section 5, it includes not making loans to a company in respect of land where the company promotes activities of a military kind and not disposing of land to a company where it engages in military activity. I do not believe that we should be encouraging the development of those industries. There is an opportunity cost when you do. When public funds go into those kinds of areas, those are public funds that could be going elsewhere and into industries that are benign and socially beneficial, such as those involved in developing medical equipment or other things that are beneficial to society and do not harm or destroy society or human life. That is the logic behind these amendments. I would be interested to hear the Minister's response. I would be particularly interested to hear what he can tell us about the involvement of the IDA and Enterprise Ireland in the military sphere and sector. How much involvement is there currently? Is it Government policy to promote engagement with the arms and defence industries? Is Government policy now that there is a bigger push to get involved in that area?

Something that emerged around the time that this Bill came into the Dáil was the revelation that in 2024, in the midst of Israel's genocide in Gaza, €20 million worth of dual-use goods were approved by the Minister's Department to go to the Israel Defense Forces, IDF. That is an alarming example of where our engagement with the arms industry can then end with us being involved in something really horrific, namely, the uses that the IDF puts to the technology that we might be providing to them to perpetrate a genocide against the people of Palestine. That genocide continues. Probably on the back of the International Court of Justice, ICJ, advisory opinions and the huge worldwide outcry at the horrors Israel was inflicting, the Department seems to have subsequently decided to stop approving licences - the Minister could go through the detail - for the provision of dual-use goods to the Israeli military. That means the Department started to become aware that we were doing something wrong and that we might previously have been contributing to Israel's capacity to commit genocide. That €20 million represented a surge from the €12 million in the year previous, which was 2023. That, in turn, was a huge surge on previous years, where the value of similar goods going to the IDF was €1 million or less. There was a jump in 2023, the year the genocide in Gaza began, and another jump in 2024, in the midst of the genocide. In 2025, there seems to have been a change of policy by the Department, which reflected its concern that those goods might be being used by the IDF to perpetrate the crimes against humanity and the genocidal crimes that Israel is committing in Gaza. All of that suggests that we are involved in industries that contribute to terrible crimes, in this case by Israel, but potentially by other regimes and states, unless this area is massively policed or, indeed, just abandoned completely. Those are my initial comments. I would be interested to hear the response of the Minister.

I thank the Deputy for his amendment. I will focus first on what the amendment is about. Right now in our country, in the area for which I am responsible, our industrial emissions account for approximately 10% of our carbon emissions. Critically, we have a significant task to reduce emissions by 35% by 2030 and to get to a trajectory to achieve carbon neutrality, net zero, by 2050. In that process, we obviously work with significant companies and companies in our indigenous sector to ensure they are reducing their carbon emissions. We put together a €300 million environmental aid fund, working hand in glove with many businesses to reduce their emissions. We are trying to support them with consultancy on how to achieve that. The digital transition is a significant challenge to many sectors that also have to do work on reducing their carbon emissions.

Let us consider the smallest family businesses and what the local enterprise offices, LEOs, do with consultancy through our climate for business toolkit. That is exactly what we are trying to replicate. We want to do it in a fashion whereby it is not embroiled in red tape. We want to be able to act quickly in an agile fashion to support sectors to ensure they get the correct advice about the applications they should be bringing forward to reduce their carbon emissions. Work is now ongoing on environmental, social, and governance, ESG, and requirements for customers and supply chains. There are huge challenges in significant sectors to demonstrate to the wider public and their customer base that they are reducing their carbon emissions. That is the full intention of the amending Bill.

On the Deputy's wider concerns, we want to ensure that Irish SMEs can benefit from when our Defence Forces are increasing their capacity. There are, as the Deputy will be aware, exciting Irish companies operating in the cyberspace, space technology and maritime areas. There is considerable work ongoing in respect of the challenges we have with the infrastructure we are going to be putting offshore for renewables and with our subsea cables. We are doing work in maritime surveillance and counter-drone technology. All of those areas align with the vision of the Commission on the Defence Forces. Over the next number of years, I want to see Irish suppliers, jobs and companies benefit from that investment in our own country. What we are doing here is changing the procedure that delivers that. There is no policy change here whatsoever. We are changing the procedure in order that our State agencies do not have to go to Cabinet for approval every single time. That slows the process in the agencies' work to deal with the challenges in front of them.

The Deputy will also be aware of the significant increase in funding through the European Competitiveness Fund. That funding has increased by approximately 300%. There is now huge emphasis on resilience, security and defence. I again want to ensure, in non-combative ways, that Irish SMEs can benefit from those significant funds that will be enshrined in our Defence Forces. We saw the significant HSE cyberattack that was carried out. I do not want to lock out Irish SMEs from building their capacity and working at the forefront of our defences with those different technologies.

That is exactly where we are coming from. We are a neutral state and that policy has absolutely not changed. I am a firm believer in our neutrality, and always have been. That is obviously not on the agenda.

In relation to our engagement with the State of Israel, this Government has been recognised internationally as being at the very forefront in standing up for the vulnerable citizens in Gaza, including aid, the various steps we have done through the ICJ case, to recognising the State of Palestine and ensuring that we stood shoulder to shoulder with the international community in calling out the genocide that has been carried on and continues to be carried on by the IDF. We have been clear and are firmly of that view. We are bringing forward the occupied territories Bill, which again demonstrates the progress on that. Notwithstanding, that is not on the agenda. We are focusing very clearly on allowing our SMEs, Irish employees and indigenous sector benefit from investments in our Defence Forces in order that they do not have to go to overseas suppliers as they increase resilience, security and investment.

Is the amendment being pressed?

I want to continue the discussion with the Minister. He did not answer any of my questions.

That is the Deputy's opinion.

It is not my opinion. It is any reasonable assessment of the answers that the Minister gave me. I asked what is the extent of our engagement or the engagement of Enterprise Ireland and the IDA with the military and defence sector. Will the Minister give us figures? How many companies involved in the military sector are the IDA and Enterprise Ireland backing or are involved with? Israel is on the agenda in the sense that the Minister's Department approved €20 million worth of dual use exports to the IDF and the Israeli defence ministry in 2024. I think it was €12 million in 2023 at the height of a genocide. Those are Irish companies, presumably, producing those dual use technologies, which are then used by a military force engaged in genocide, even according to the Government. Micheál Martin finally acknowledged that there was a genocide going on. That means stuff being produced here in Ireland was going to a military force that even our Government now acknowledges was committing a genocide. That would be of concern. For example, is it the case that Enterprise Ireland or the IDA are supporting those companies? Do we know?

Absolutely not. That is the Deputy's question answered. There has been no policy change in relation to our export controls. In relation to companies dealing with our State agencies, there are a number of companies in space technology, maritime technology and drone technology that are working and can be supported through European competitiveness funding, which is a fund of approximately €409 billion that will be coming forward in the next number of years. We want to ensure that our Defence Forces can work with those companies as they protect our own infrastructure. This is not offensive work; it is work for our Irish State. It can protect our cyber and maritime infrastructure. We, as a neutral country, equally have obligations in relation to protecting our country, infrastructure and citizens. Particularly in the cyber space, there is a huge number of opportunities-----

If the Minister-----

If the Deputy could let me finish.

Okay, fair enough.

I went through the Deputy's first question that was in relation to grants. I went clearly through in clinical detail what we are using the grants for in relation to our environmental aid programme. Second, the Deputy asked me about the State of Israel and its interaction. I went through exactly what the Government is doing there. I have also answered that there is no change in policy in relation to our export controls, which I duly pointed out is not up for discussion here and is not under the remit of this Bill, which explicitly works for State agencies in building up support for companies that are working in key strategic sectors for the Irish economy and we will not have our Defence Forces using overseas suppliers where ultimately, the indigenous economy will not benefit from that.

To be clear, the grants going from Enterprise Ireland and the IDA only go to companies engaged in the development of military stuff where it is going to Ireland.

No. These are not so. The consultancy grants have got nothing to do with the defence and resilience sector. The grants are for digitisation and sustainability, such as how we support companies on that journey. What the Deputy is referring to is a later sector in the Bill-----

Is the Minister supporting my amendments then? Because then he would not have any problem with my amendments.

No. I am not supporting any of the Deputy's amendments.

Why not?

Stop interrupting, if you do not mind. I am happy to answer the Deputy's questions for as long as it takes.

Okay, go on.

Through the Chair. Keep it professional, please.

Essentially, the grants are specifically for digitalisation and environmental aid. We have pointed out in the Bill that we have a huge challenge in bringing our economy to a 35% reduction in our carbon emissions by 2030. I pointed out that small family companies can get consultancy to show exactly how to reduce their emissions. Rather than going for big broad investment first, what is the course that we can chart to bring about that infrastructure and expenditure and the key areas that we can deliver on it? That is what the investment here is about.

In relation to supporting companies in the defence sector, we are very clear that our support will be in areas of Irish companies through very significant European funding that has increased quite substantially in areas including cybersecurity, in which we have a huge network at the moment and a huge challenge in relation to the ever-evolving hybrid threats that we are facing as a State. I want Irish companies, SMEs and jobs to benefit from European funding and, as our Defence Forces tender and go to the open market for that, that we are not exclusively relying on overseas suppliers.

I wish to ensure for our maritime surveillance and technology that is going to be deployed that we are protecting on our onshore and offshore investment. If we look at the offshore investment right now, we have 5 GW of energy that we are trying to develop on the east coast. As well, there is an ambition to get 37 GW over the next three decades. That is a very significant investment by the State that will have to be protected. We have subsea infrastructure and cables. We are on the periphery of Europe. That infrastructure is centrally important to keep Europe linked to the rest of the globe. Ireland has an obligation regarding the Defence Forces that is quite well set out in the commission and the work we have done. The chart of that investment over the next year with €1 billion being spent this year on capital funding by the Department of Defence. Be it in space technology, cybersecurity or maritime surveillance, I want Irish SMEs to benefit from that. It is not offensive work; it is defensive work on behalf of the State. That is exactly what the later sections are referring to.

I am conscious that Deputy Conway-Walsh is seeking to come in.

If Deputy Conway-Walsh wishes to come in, then she can.

This is a very important discussion to have. Everybody agrees that the Defence Forces need to be fit for purpose. Everybody shares the concerns that we have, particularly around sonar and radar and our readiness, preparedness and all of that. We can take that off the table. This begs a couple of questions. There is huge money to be made in this space. A total of €800 billion is going to be spent within the EU. There is an awful lot of lobbying and industry lobbying to get the maximum amount of money out of the space for that. Why do we need to insert subsidies into that space when there is so much money already there? How can we have control over what is made here? If there are uniforms to be made for the Defence Forces, why would they not be made in Ireland? Why would jobs not be created by that or for other technical stuff that needs to be done?

What we need to be assured of as a committee is, first to not be injecting subsidies into where they do not need to be injected. Second, how we can have control and further control over how those goods are used? It is obvious to us at the moment that notwithstanding the licensing restrictions and other restrictions that are there that they are not as effective as they need to be to reassure the public that the destinations for some of these materials are not controlled. They are the two key questions in terms of the need to inject subsidies and what controls are we going to have. I would not want to see a minimisation of the controls that are already there. In fact, there need to be greater controls now because there is so much more money at stake.

Those are my two questions that I would like the Minister to address.

Deputy Conway-Walsh will be very aware of the changes to InvestEU and its successor, the European Competitiveness Fund. They have brought about a €409 billion budget. That is very well documented. It is stated that about €131 billion will be in the area of resilience, security and defence. That is an increase of about 392% over the previous iteration. We are trying here, in areas that are strategically important to the Irish defence sector, the Irish economy and our Defence Forces, to be able to use our SMEs to leverage investment in areas of critical importance that I have mentioned, like cybersecurity, the work we have to do in maritime surveillance, and space technology. We have some Irish companies that are right at the forefront of innovation in those spaces. We have companies that are working with the European Space Agency, which has increased significantly over the past decade. We are now part of the Artemis Accords, which have been recently signed, and exploration of space in a peaceful manner. It is a matter of trying to leverage that investment in order that our Irish SMEs can benefit. This is a long way beyond uniforms. This is modern technology, ensuring that our SMEs, our businesses and our employees can benefit from that investment, particularly the investment that our Defence Forces will be using through its capital investment programme over the coming years, that they can use our Irish companies, that we are not reliant on overseas suppliers and that we can at least have an opportunity, from an Irish perspective, to tender for that investment. This is not offensive work. We are very clear: there is no policy change here. This is a procedural change to allow our agencies to work in a manner that involves less red tape and does not involve going to Cabinet every time. It is about the need to support a company in an area that is strategically important to a neutral country. That is very much to the forefront.

In relation to export restrictions, our export controls have not changed. Our policy has not changed in that area. We operate a very strict regime of licensing whereby we have to see physical proof of the end user in any products that are exported. That is managed through the Department in line with the policy decisions-----

Minister, we are not doing that. That is the problem.

We are doing that.

Through the Chair, please.

There will be no policy change in that area. In line with the European authorities, where, obviously, policy is set, we essentially investigate, check, through our export control regime, the end users, and licences are refused if we are not satisfied where software or a product ends up.

Can the Minister absolutely assure us of that then? The information we have contradicts what he is saying. He is saying he knows and can stand over the end user of any of the products that are produced here right now by companies based in Ireland.

There is a very strict regime in place and the policy is very robust.

So the Minister can absolutely stand over that fact.

I do not do the checks myself, as the Deputy can appreciate, but the policy we have set as a Government is very robust and we are very clear in terms of our perspective as a neutral country and the work we do to satisfy ourselves that the end users of any exports are in compliance with our regime. That policy perspective has not changed. Obviously, this Bill is not about that. The Deputy should be aware of that.

No, but it does-----

I am not going to argue. I am telling the Deputy right now that our policy has not changed. I cannot go any further. She can argue about semantics. Our policy has not changed.

It is not semantics. I just need to be assured, as we go through this Bill, that the Government absolutely stands over its ability to be sure that the end user of any of the goods that are produced are not used in a way we would not want them used as a country and that this is completely underpinned by our military neutrality. That is the only assurance I am seeking - that the Government stands over this. Whichever Minister it is, there has to be joined up thinking here anyway but, collectively, as a Government, the Minister is giving me assurance here today that no goods produced in this country-----

Yes. All export licences are considered in compliance with the European authorities, which is very important, and our own national priorities. They are investigated and we have to be assured where they end up in terms of the physical end point of any product or service.

But how do we do those checks?

Richard, sorry-----

Fire away, Rose.

What we are talking about here is a transfer of a lot of money, so is there an ability of-----

Not in this Bill.

No, but is the Government able to go into these factories or operations to satisfy itself that it knows that what is being produced here satisfies our military neutrality and satisfies us that it is not going to the wrong sources?

Deputy Boyd Barrett, did you want to come in as well?

Yes. The Minister's own Department, when the Currency magazine, through freedom of information, forced it to release documents about the dual-use exports going to the Israeli military, made a belated acknowledgement - from what I can see, in 2025, although maybe the officials or the Minister can clarify. I will quote, for example, from one of the releases:

Granting a licence for the export of these items to this end user could be viewed as undermining the advisory opinion [they are referring to the 2024 advisory opinion of the ICJ on Israel's presence in occupied Palestinian territory] given that these items may assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation in the Palestinian territories.

From what I can see, that resulted, in 2025, in licences not being approved that, previously, in 2024 and 2023, while the genocide was ongoing, were approved. Presumably, they were the same types of exports from the same companies which were approved in 2023 and 2024 and in previous years on lesser amounts, although it is significant that there is a massive surge in 2023 and 2024 of these exports to the Israeli military. We now know in 2025 of a decision not to approve similar licences. The Department is maintaining that it just takes them on a case-by-case basis but it is not really credible that we have €20 million, €12 million the year before and then, suddenly, "No, we cannot do this because we are afraid the end user might be using them to do things which are against international law", that they are not the same kinds of things being used by a military that is in the dock for genocide and we are tied up with that case. That looks like a change to me, and it looks like a change prompted by the fact that, suddenly, the Minister or his Department becomes alarmed about the uses to which the Israeli military are putting dual-use exports from this country, which have to be approved by the Department, and then a Bill is brought forward that will mean that the Government will not be notified when support is given to companies that might be operating in this area. That, to me, stinks to high heaven.

Go raibh maith agaibh, Deputies Boyd Barrett and Conway-Walsh. Are there any further contributions on the matter?

Well, I want to hear the Minister first. There is no limit on time on Committee Stage, sure there is not?

No.

As I said, there has been no change in policy. If Deputy Boyd Barrett is not prepared to accept that answer, I cannot do anything about that.

Second, in relation to this Bill, the Deputy is conflating two separate issues. I have been very clear in my assurances that there is no change in policy in the perspective of this Bill. What we are trying to do is ensure that, as regards our Defence Forces, our Irish SMEs can tender for the capacities we will build up over the coming years in the areas of cybersecurity and maritime surveillance and the huge amount of work we need to carry out in the commission, which has been very public and very clear in terms of the vision we have over the coming years, particularly in relation to European funding. I do not want to lock our SMEs out of European funding. Export controls are absolutely another matter that are not for discussion here. I have been very clear and helpful in saying that all export investigations are carried out under our Department. Essentially, applications in relation to dual-use products or services are diligently carried out. We have to be assured, working with the exporter, to ascertain what the end user is for those products or services. If there is any ambiguity or if the Department is not satisfied, those licences are refused.

What is this Bill about if there is no change in policy? In all of the sections to which I have submitted amendments, I think "without Government approval" is the wording or words to that effect. In section 8 and the requirement for Enterprise Ireland or IDA support for certain areas related to defence not having to go to the Government any more, that is a change, is it not? Is that not the point of the legislation; that something is being changed? What is being changed? The Minister referred to removing red tape. The red tape when it comes to the deletion of section 8 is the requirement that where Enterprise Ireland and the IDA engage in an area to do with defence and security, they had to notify the Government before and now they do not. Is that not a change? What is the point of the Bill if it is not a change?

On this business about the environment and environmental protection, I would like to point out to the Minister that more than 5% of global emissions come from the military sector. In fact, one of the biggest polluters in the world is the US military. Contributing to the military industrial complex does a lot of environmental damage. Wars do an incredible amount of environmental damage. It makes a mockery of attempts to address climate change if countries like Israel, the United States and Russia continue to bomb and kill people. The military apparatus required to do that does extraordinary damage to the environment and produces an enormous amount of climate emissions.

I thank the Deputy. I would hope he would not misrepresent what I would say at the committee. I said there was no policy or procedural change in relation to our export controls, which there is not. This Bill has nothing to do with export controls. That is the line of questioning the Deputy has focused on. There is no change in that regard; I absolutely stand over that. There is no change in policy in what this Bill is about in relation to supporting SMEs through grant funding through European authorities like the European Competitiveness Fund and to allow them to be supported by Government agencies in relation to those funding streams. There is a change in procedure, not policy. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure every Irish company does not have to send a memorandum to Cabinet to get clearance for support through the European Competitiveness Fund in areas like radar, sonar, maritime surveillance, space technology; all key areas where Ireland needs to be at the forefront of innovation and which our SMEs and jobs can benefit from. That is where the procedural change is, not a policy change. Export controls is a totally different area. There is nothing in this Bill to do with export controls.

I beg to differ, if we are going to give money to companies that export. That is, unless the Minister is telling me the companies we could give these moneys to - such as grants, consultancy grants or ventures acquiring land, etc. -are not engaged in exports under any circumstance and the Minister can give assurance that none of the companies export to an end user who might use the things they are exporting for military purposes. I doubt the Minister is saying that.

They cannot do so under the current export control regime. It is not changing. It is illogical to suggest Irish companies do not export; of course they export. The key thing is that under our export control legislation, there is no change. Every product or service exported that has a dual use label goes through the regime with the Department. That is not changing. I am not sure where the Deputy is coming from.

The problem is the reason in 2025 that the Minister's Department decided not to approve export licences was it identified the possibility, likelihood or potential that the things it had previously approved a licence to export for might be contributing to the violation of Palestinian human rights. It was the Minister's Department that identified that risk; no doubt under pressure from decisions made by the ICJ, the ICC and public outrage over what Israel was doing. Now, the Department will have less oversight over decisions the IDA and Enterprise Ireland make in relation to supporting companies possibly producing those very things that have been used by, among others, the Israeli military to do things our Government considers to be genocidal, as do lots of other people, and which the International Court of Justice believes may be genocidal. That is serious. The Bill reduces what the Minister calls red tape and I call oversight by the Government and his Department of those things. Presumably there was a reason the Department had that oversight. Why did the Minister have that oversight when things were being produced in that area? Had it nothing to do with the fact that there was a concern in terms of our involvement with the military industries? The Minister had that oversight and then decided to remove it at just the time when we discover we may have been providing technology to the Israeli military to commit crimes against humanity against the Palestinian people. Would that not be a reason to tighten oversight rather than relax it?

In connection with the changes that have evolved over the past number of decades, the world does not stand still. The threats facing Ireland have changed dramatically in terms of hybrid and cyber threats and how different technologies are leveraged against the State. That is why it is important we have key SMEs in our country that can get capacity, take advantage of those modern technologies and support our country in defensive mechanisms and capacity building. That is exactly what this Bill is about. It was decades ago and we are looking through is a very different prism in the way technology has evolved and, critically, the way Europe has changed in respect of its European Competitiveness Fund and the portion that goes to defensive measures. Irish companies should not be locked out when one is clearly supporting our very strict criteria as a neutral country, which is always the case. I am a very firm believer in our neutrality. Critically, all companies involved with the IDA and Enterprise Ireland must comply with the Control of Exports Act 2023. There are no changes in policy in relation to companies that export or the controls and criteria that underwrite and give assurance to us as a Government that there are no unintended consequences or that products or services do not end up in the wrong hands. We are very clear about that. There has been no policy change. I am trying to ensure our SMEs can benefit significantly from investments in key technologies that have a defensive aspect like radar, sonar, maritime surveillance, space technologies, cybersecurity and all those areas that will be important in the future.

I find it remarkable that the Minister is using the change in technology as the justification for what he is doing. If anything, the changes in military technology, I would say, support far more my concerns. We are seeing the greater use of drones, for example, to murder people. Instead of sending the main element of military aggression these days, boots on the ground, increasingly, regimes like the Israelis, the Americans or the Russians are using drones to kill people and to commit terrible crimes against people.

Drones were used to devastating effect in the genocide in Gaza and to assassinate people left, right and centre. Drone technology is what is being used. We can see that is what is happening with military technology generally. Drone technology is becoming a bigger component of horrific, brutal, terrible military activity that is proliferating around the world. Our involvement in those industries requires quite a bit of oversight, I would have thought, yet the Minister wants to reduce the oversight. He wants to reduce the red tape. I suggest there needs to be quite a bit of red tape around technology that could contribute to the sort of crimes we have seen Israel commit or, for that matter, that Russia is committing with the use of drone technology. From what I can see, there is nothing to stop the moneys that might be deployed or made available by the IDA or Enterprise Ireland going to companies that then export to people who will use these technologies in ways that involve violations of human rights or the commission of war crimes or crimes against humanity. The Minister is reducing the Government's oversight in that area rather than increasing it when that type of technology is proving to be a bigger element in war and the commission of those sorts of crimes than it was in the past.

It is important to point out how much Israel gets from the Horizon Europe fund for research and development, and that is not research and development for children's toys. There are no controls over what Israel gets from Horizon European funding, which should be going to other countries. The finance committee wrote two or three times to get Ireland to stand up and stop Israel from accessing huge funding from Horizon Europe. There are so many contradictions in this space.

I want to ask about the consultancy part of it. The figure for what can be done without prior Government permission is going from €400,000 to €7.5 million and, in one instance, from €800,000 to €15 million. They seem like huge jumps for consultancy. It says that the aggregate amount of grants to be provided is €7.5 million. Why do they need to be that large? What period does the aggregate funding cover?

The €7.5 million refers to technology acquisition. It is not for consultancy at all.

Is it not? It is under consultancy grants.

Consultancy grants will typically be limited by the de minimis state aid rules, which are up to a maximum of €300,000 in terms of consultancy.

It is important to get this right. Over what period is the Minister saying no company can get any more than €300,000 for consultancy grants?

Over a yearly period. It is limited by state aid rules.

So, a company could get €300,000 every year?

Every three years.

It is every three years. Okay. Are there any restrictions on where that consultancy comes from? Can it be sourced globally?

Every consultancy has to be tendered. As I pointed out under environmental aid, this is a transition we have to make to support companies in the technologies they use to better reduce their carbon emissions. It is also looking at the digital transition, which is very challenging for a lot of SMEs, as members will be aware. Just as the Deputy's local enterprise office has the climate for business toolkit, a consultant comes in, can look at energy efficiency methodologies or what a business's online offering is, and can then recommend to that business the exact pathway it should go down for investment. Bigger companies are no different. Neither are the medium-sized companies that Enterprise Ireland deals with. A business can get good-quality advice that will ensure the infrastructure investment it makes goes into the right areas to reduce its emissions or, if it is on the digitalisation side, improve the business's revenue streams.

Nobody has any problem with that.

How is the impact of this Bill going to be monitored and reported back so that we know it is doing what the Minister says it is intended to do and that there are no unintended consequences?

Both State agencies have very strong reporting requirements though their annual and biannual reports to me. We would also have very strong powers under the Bill whereby if any State agency were to engage in activity that was not in line with our policy of neutrality or with Government policy, we would have the power to change that. Those agencies never have, though. All the engagement they have had has been in supporting Irish entities to grow at scale if they are Irish born or to attract inward investment. This is a key Bill that will support them. For the next generation sites going to the west of Ireland, this is a key vehicle to facilitate that and to allow the infrastructure and partnerships with ISIF to work to deliver those at scale. It is very important legislation to support our State agencies and, critically, ensure that companies are supported to make that transition.

There are some very exciting examples across our indigenous economy that are investing quite significantly to go on a pathway to carbon neutrality but we must ensure that they get support at the start of the journey.

It is now 1.56 p.m. The Minister is making statements on tourism in the Dáil at 2 p.m. We are still on section 4, dealing with Deputy Boyd Barrett's amendment. I propose that the committee adjourn until Wednesday, 1 July.

It is actually 2.25 p.m. when I will be in the Dáil.

It is 2.25 p.m., so we have another 25 minutes. We can continue. I apologise.

On foot of the answer the Minister just gave to Deputy Conway-Walsh, I want to clarify something. Section 21B(3) states:

Without the prior permission of the Government, the total amount of money granted to a particular undertaking under this section shall not exceed in the aggregate the higher of—

(a) €7,500,000, or

(b) €7,500,000 in excess of the aggregate amount of grants provided to the undertaking ...

What is that referring to if there is a limit of €300,000?

That is referring to state aid rules, in that the undertaking cannot go beyond €7.5 million. We have €300,000 over the three years but state aid rules obviously dictate that the €7.5 million is for a technology acquisition, and anything that increases beyond that threshold has to be notified to the Cabinet.

So, it can go up to that threshold. The grant can be up to €7.5 million without notification.

The figure of €7.5 million is the national limit. With state aid rules, though, it cannot go beyond €300,000.

I am looking at the legislation. This is very confusing. I think the Minister can understand. I do not see a figure of €300,000 anywhere. I do see €7.5 million.

The €300,000 figure is in European legislation.

Why does the Minister have €7.5 million in this Bill?

That is the national limit.

Does that mean Europe has a limit of €300,000 but we have a limit of €7.5 million?

Yes, because there was flexibility. State aid rules can change quite dramatically and quickly. The national limit was €7.5 million. However, state aid European legislation dictates that there can only be €300,000 in a three-year period. However, the national limit that has been set is €7.5 million.

Okay.

The Deputy can see state aid rules changing-----

I certainly can.

I can see it, too.

That is alarm bells ringing straight away. We set it at €7.5 million-----

This relates to environmental consultancy grants, by the way.

Yes, consultancy grants.

Environmental consultancy grants.

Companies that may be engaged in environmental areas. That is a blurry line to define. Some people think that nuclear power is environmentally friendly. I do not. What constitutes an undertaking that is engaged-----

The Deputy is conflating a lot of different things.

I am simply saying my concern, just to be clear-----

Nuclear power is specifically banned under the planning Acts. How can the Deputy raise the issue of nuclear power when it is specifically banned in Ireland? He is conflating many issues into a straightforward piece of legislation.

I am simply pointing out that lines can be blurry. I am talking about boundary lines on what is environmental research, or an undertaking engaged that meet the criteria, because that is the way it is phrased here. It could meet the criteria for doing certain environmental work but that same undertaking could be involved in military research or the production of military technology. There is nothing to preclude that. In fact, everything the Minister is saying is that he wants Irish SMEs, as he calls them, to be involved in this area. He is saying that he wants companies to be able to benefit from the expansion of this area. It is highly likely, after what he just said, and the fact that we set a ceiling of €7.5 million, that the state aid rules in Europe are going to change. Does he have any information to the effect that this is being planned in Europe? Has there been any communication with the European Union about possibly increasing the state aid limits allowed per country by the European Union? Has the Minister had any communication to the effect that this might be happening?

No, I have not. Bear in mind that what the Deputy is referring to is under environmental aid. I am not aware of any changes. There have been a lot of changes from a European perspective on competitive funding and state aid rules over the last number of years, but I am not aware of any future changes at this point.

The Minister keeps saying that it is only environmental or he implied that, although he then made references to the defence, security and resilience area and the need for Irish companies-----

It is a different area. It is a different section of the Act. This is in relation to environmental aid. We are trying to ensure that consultancy. To help support firms in the sustainability transition, they can get supported through consultancy grants that help them in the infrastructure and expenditure that they have heretofore. As I said quite clearly, in supporting firms in relation to the European Competitiveness Fund, and cybersecurity and maritime surveillance, that is separate through the ECF.

If that is the case, and we will move on to section 8 when we get to it, which is very explicitly to do with the defence, security and resilience, DSR, section, as the Minister described it on Second Stage, why then does the Minister have a problem with my amendments? These simply state that these grants should not go to companies that are involved in promoting military activity. If it is all about the environment and the environmental transition, why does the Minister have a problem with my amendments? I do not understand. He is saying that under no circumstances would these grants contribute to the military area, so what is the problem with the amendments? All I am doing is saying that they will be confined to the things the Minister says they are about, and will not be used to promote activity in the military area. What is the problem?

I am bringing this legislation forward. I am strictly of the view that the enterprise agencies have a very significant need for me to bring forward an environmental aid programme that is not linked to job creation, and that is very solid in terms of trying to get assessments done quickly. It has got nothing to do with defence. It has got to do with getting environmental aid support into companies. This is our legislation. I am absolutely opposing all the Deputy's amendments. I am making that quite clear. It is our objective to ensure we are supporting Irish SMEs to scale, to grow and to meet their environmental, social and governance, ESG, requirements. We are ensuring that we are taking seriously our reduction in carbon emissions. We are trying to get to that figure of 35%, which is very significant, by 2030. Firms need that support to do just that. I am confident from working with the State agencies that their objectives are very clear in this regard in any support they give for the digital and environmental transitions.

I think we have well-aired the issues on these amendments.

I think so.

On a procedural point, we will still go through section by section-----

We are going to go through section by section.

-----and we can discuss section 8 when we get to it.

When we get to it, yes. On that, procedurally, we had a very wide-reaching debate there that strayed into so many areas that probably are not related to section 4.

A matter of opinion.

We can debate that as well. Let us focus on each section and as a committee we can work down through it. Before I ask if the amendment is being pressed, does Deputy Conway-Walsh have anything further to add?

I do not but I think it is a very important discussion. What we are trying to do is put safeguards in place. There should not be constraints on us getting to a situation where we-----

Absolutely. That is why we have had such a robust debate and I welcome that. I have no issue with that. That is what we are here to do. We need to make sure that the debate focuses on a specific section so that we can be efficient.

My apologies for not being here in person but I have been listening to all the debate on this. I just find it hard to sit for very long after an injury. I wanted to come in to ask a few questions specifically on what the Minister has outlined as the environmental aspects.

My first question relates to value for money for the consultancies. We have seen before where consultants have been given a lot money and it has been wasted. We have seen it in relation to transport in Irish Rail. Obviously, we are not talking about the same amount of money in this circumstance, but I would be interested to know what best practice the Department has looked at in terms of the allocation of grants for consultancies. What checks and balances are in place?

What types of environmental projects is the Department particularly pushing? We have an energy self-sufficiency crisis. While we want to get money from AI, in terms of our well-being as a population we cannot do it right now when 30% or more of energy is being taken by the data storage companies. We have to ramp up to a situation where we have a massive surplus of energy. Then we can start looking at these companies that are trying to come into Ireland and we can, I hope, have a societal benefit from that. In that context, what type of projects is the Department trying to focus on in terms of the grants? Is it about indigenous companies trying to increase their energy efficiency or is it purely about reducing the carbon footprint of any particular enterprise?

I thank Deputy Gogarty for his very important and relevant question about this Bill. We have a €300 million fund for decarbonisation. There is €200 million for Enterprise Ireland clients and €100 million for the IDA. What we are trying to do is work with companies as they improve their processes, such as trying to electrify a lot of their manufacturing processes to ensure that we are reducing carbon emissions. For example, Diageo is embarking on a transformational project to reduce its usage of water and power to bring the company, over the next decade, to being carbon neutral. The State is supporting that company through the environmental aid package. In the food sector, a huge amount of work is being carried out by very significant companies in Ireland in trying to reduce their carbon emissions. Customers and supply chains are demanding this through ESG governance, which has now really revolutionised how people think, how supply chains work and how reporting requirements go to customers and end users.

What we do in relation to consultancy is that if the IDA is working with a company, consultants will have a look at the tendering process. For the IDA, for example, Enterprise Ireland will carry out a strategic assessment on the proposal to ensure that it is value for money. I have to point out that our State agency has an exceptional record in this regard, on any expenditure on different components, on consultants or on value-added activity for the economy. Once consultants have been tendered, and go through that process and it is approved, they will look at how the investment should take shape. They will identify the key expertise needed to allow a decision about which areas carbon emissions can be reduced and where the investment should be. As I have seen, it can be quite successful.

As I pointed out, a small consultancy firm operating with a local enterprise office, LEO, can look at making a small shop more energy-efficient. It considers whether fridges need to be changed or if LED lights are needed. These areas are where the key investments should go. A bigger company can be more complex and need advice. We need to support companies because the transformation will not happen on its own. If we as a Government do not incentivise and encourage companies very strongly to become more sustainable and to embark on that journey, it will not happen and we will not reduce the 10% of carbon emissions we have right now in the industrial sector.

On the point about value for money, some of the contributors to this committee before have pointed out that we did not have enough expertise in-house.

In terms of that value-for-money objective, would it make sense to invest in having home-grown consultants with a wide range of knowledge that could probably cover 80% of the needs of our industrial base so that companies could use those assets that are employed full time within the agency rather than giving them money to get consultants, because usually there is a margin on top of that and maybe it is not the best cost? Has the Department looked at that angle as well?

We have significant evaluation techniques. The Deputy will appreciate, if he looks at the sectors, if he looks at diagnostics, med tech and all the life science sector, and if he looks at the challenge in relation to decarbonisation and lower carbon cement, that whole sector is very challenging, as is the food sector. There are so many highly technical mission-critical skills needed for these sectors, it is impossible to have experts in every one. We as a Department have to manage our resources to realise our objectives. It is important that we can get very technical skills from the marketplace once that rigorous assessment is done and to make sure we are getting value for money in that the end output will reduce emissions and bring some companies into a carbon-neutral position. That is critically where we as enterprise support agencies want to be supporting that journey if we can come to a position whereby we can grow our economy but reduce our carbon emissions and, by 2030, get that 35% reduction with the support through our environmental aid scheme. I will be looking to get more finance from that scheme in later years. At this point in time, IDA Ireland has almost used up its €100 million and Enterprise Ireland is working its way through completion of commitments for its €200 million, which is quite significant. The results, which I can see first hand by visiting clients and companies, and their reduction plans are quite ambitious and definitely merit support by the Government.

I want to flag something for Report Stage arising out of the discussion that we have had. If I flag things now, I can submit them.

To be honest, having listened to the Minister, I am more concerned than ever that he is reducing oversight in an area where money is going and the possibility that that money could end up with companies that are promoting the military sector and where the end user of some of these exports might be people who are engaged in violations of human rights or the commission of war crimes or crimes against humanity.

For that reason, there probably should be specific safeguards about not giving money to companies that are engaged in trade with the State of Israel. I want to flag that as well as the more general concerns that, specifically, there should be oversight, and restrictions, indeed, on IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland giving money to any company that is engaged in any way at all with the State of Israel. I reserve the right to bring amendments on Report Stage in that regard.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 6, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:

"(c) not make loans to, invest monies in and sell, transfer, lease or otherwise dispose of land at its disposal to, a relevant company which engages in or promotes any activity of military relevance.".

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 6, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:

"(c) not make loans to, invest monies in and sell, transfer, lease or otherwise dispose of land at its disposal to, a relevant company which engages in or promotes any activity of military relevance.".

This is section that really alarmed me about where this Bill is heading and what it is up to. Can I clarify, in the first instance, whether I am correct in saying that this particular amendment was not discussed at pre-legislative scrutiny?

I was not here for pre-legislative scrutiny. The committee might be able advise the Deputy better than I would.

Sure. I am not on the committee.

I will ask the clerk to the committee to provide Deputy Boyd Barrett with an answer to that question. Maybe after the meeting, he might be able to give the Deputy some information on it as to whether that was debated or not. I know we took a vote recently on the pre-legislative scrutiny. I will have to check that and come back to the Deputy. I do not have the information to hand.

For clarity, I think what the Deputy is referring to is that it was introduced at Cabinet. The pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill would have taken place before that, as far as I know. Is that correct?

I will get a definitive answer.

Okay.

As far as I understand it, that is the case.

The Minister seems to be confirming that this particular amendment may not have been discussed with the committee on pre-legislative scrutiny. That, in and of itself, rings alarm bells for me. The Cabinet decided, after pre-legislative scrutiny, to insert this particular amendment.

I will read out, because this is what alarmed me, what was in the explanatory memorandum. It states:

Section 8provides for the deletion of Section 8(5) of the Science and Technology Act 1987 which requires the enterprise development agencies to secure formal Government approval before they engage in, or promote, any activity of a primarily military relevance. The amendment allows the agencies to engage with and support enterprises in the defence, security and resilience sphere in the same way as with enterprises in other sectors, subject to compliance with all existing controls and legal obligations governing the sector.

Prior to this amendment, which was not discussed at the committee and was not envisaged in the original Bill, the Cabinet decided to insert this into the Bill and relegate support by Enterprise Ireland or IDA Ireland for companies engaged primarily in the military sector to being just the same as any other sector. The military sector is not the same as any other sector because it is about the production of technology for war, for killing people and for destroying things, and it needs extra oversight. It needs more red tape, particularly when we are a generation that is witnessing in front of our own eyes a genocide taking place and where military technology is playing a really huge and horrific part in the commission of that genocide.

Surely this is not a time when a country that describes itself as neutral and has a proud tradition of opposing war and militarism - indeed, that was founded in a struggle against war, militarism and empire - would want to loosen the regulations, the restriction and the oversight in the area of military technology that can be used to devastating effect and even to commit a genocide in the 21st century. Surely this amendment is moving us in the opposite direction one would wish to go when we are witnessing a genocide taking place.

The Minister has been fairly strident in refusing to answer the questions on the approval by his Department of licences for the export of goods from this country to the Israeli military in the midst of the genocide, suggesting that is somehow not relevant. It is very relevant. It is so relevant that the Minister's Department decided at some stage that it should stop approving. Why would the Minister want a reduction? Is it not a reason for grave concern that, at the last minute, the Cabinet has decided to amend this legislation to remove oversight over Government support or public funding support for companies engaged in a military area?

Our export control regime provides, ensures and underwrites protections. Essentially, we are not supporting any genocide or any of the products or services used by Irish companies. Under current legislation, that will not change. It is important to point that out again.

On what the Deputy describes regarding warfare and offensive mechanisms, what we are doing is very different. I already took pains to point that out. The Deputy can disagree with my responses, as he is entitled to do, but I believe I am honestly answering his questions on these matters. When I point out the opportunities Irish companies have in cybersecurity, space technology and maritime surveillance and the funding in a European context under the new European Competitiveness Fund, I imply that if we did what the Deputy proposed we would be locking Irish companies out of all of these. Ours is not offensive behaviour. It is essentially a matter of protecting our public services, Defence Forces, infrastructure, subsea cables and maritime surveillance, in addition to all the key areas from which I want to see Irish jobs and Irish SMEs benefit. That is exactly why the Cabinet decided to make the change. It will be subject to further debate on Committee Stage, in the Seanad, and in the Dáil on Report Stage, as it should. I have no issue with probity and transparency. I have been very clear that this represents a strategic advantage for SMEs in our economy. I do not want to lock Irish businesses out of opportunities in cybersecurity, secure communications and all the other areas mentioned by other Deputies, and quite rightly mentioned on Second Stage in the House.

Let me tell a very brief story about a man called Refaat Alareer, who-----

I have to apologise and do not mean to interject, but-----

Not at all. I can see the time. The Minister has to go.

The Dáil has resumed with no Minister in situ, so if everyone agrees, we will adjourn. As our consideration of the Bill has not been completed, I propose that we adjourn until Wednesday, 1 July 2026. Is that agreed? Agreed.