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

Sentiment score: 0.20