George Lawlor: Scrutiny Needed for Industrial Development Bill

Thank you, Ciann Comhairle, Minister. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this bill. It's a substantial and wide-ranging piece of legislation, touching on everything from environmental grants to consultancy supports, from technology acquisition thresholds to the establishment of new joint venture property vehicles, and even amendments to the Science and Technology Act, 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. But 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. So our purpose here is not to oppose for opposition's sake, but to interrogate, thoroughly and constructively, as to whether this bill is fit for purpose, whether it aligns with our national priorities, or whether indeed it 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, green and digital, are no longer abstract aspirations. They are urgent imperatives. Our climate 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, for instance, has embraced a muscular interventionist approach to the Inflation Reduction Act. The European Union has responded with the 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 whether our legislative framework for enterprise support is modern, flexible and aligned with EU state aid rules. It is right that we ask whether IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland have the tools they need. But it is equally right that we 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 existing 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, obviously, outdated. However, several questions arise. Firstly, what safeguards will ensure that environmental grants deliver genuine emissions reductions? We have seen in other jurisdictions and, indeed, 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 IDA and EI 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? Secondly, 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. And also, 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 should outline the expected annual allocation, the anticipated demands and the criteria for prioritisation. How will the regional balance be ensured? Decarbonisation challenges differ across regions and sectors. Heavy industry in one region, or manufacturing clusters in the west of Ireland, or data centres in Dublin all face distinct pressures. The Bill is silent on regional equity. We need assurance that environmental grants are not, disproportionately, 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 IDA and EI to fund consultancy services to support green and digital transitions. Again, this intention is sound. Maybe SMEs lack the expertise to begin their decarbonisation or digital transformation journey. Consultancy support can be a catalyst in this area, but we must interrogate the implications. What control will prevent the creation of a consultancy gravy train? We have a long history of over-reliance on consultants. 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 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 Act rather than through a dedicated transition support programme? The Bill frames consultancy support as an enterprise grant, but consultancy is not an investment in fixed assets or technology. It is a service. 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. Fourthly, 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 simply has to clarify all these things. The Bill proposes raising the thresholds for technology acquisition grants, requiring government approval from the outdated punt amounts of 400,000 punts and 800,000 punts, to 7.5 million euro and 15 million euro, respectively. On one level, this is common sense. Inflation, technological costs and the scale of modern industrial projects make the old thresholds obsolete. But the question is not whether the thresholds should be raised. It is 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. It is a safeguard. Raising thresholds tenfold effectively shifts decision-making power from Cabinet to agencies. That may improve speed, but also reduces scrutiny. We need to ensure that large-scale technology acquisitions, often involving sensitive intellectual property, are subject to appropriate oversight. Also, 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, jointly with Enterprise Ireland, to establish designated activity companies, DACs, with third parties, including the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund, for the development of industrial and commercial property. This is a major shift in how the State develops strategic property infrastructure, and it certainly deserves close examination. Why is this change necessary? The Minister argues that joint ventures will allow 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? And 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 FOI? Will they publish audited accounts? Will the Oireachtas have visibility into their operations? Also, how will the public interest be protected? If 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 interests? 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 service 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 doesn't say. The Bill also amends the Science and Technology Act 1987, FOI 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 of those may be justified and worthwhile individually, but their inclusion in an Industrial Development Bill raises questions. Firstly, why are these amendments bundled together? Omnibus Bills can and have obscured scrutiny. The Minister should explain why these changes could not be introduced through separate, focused legislation. Secondly, what is the rationale for deleting Section 8.5 of the Science and Technology Act? We are told that it will modernise and streamline engagement with enterprises in defence, security and resilience sphere. But defence-related industrial activity is sensitive. Removing statutory constraints without clear explanation is extremely concerning. So what safeguards will remain in this area? Thirdly, what are the implications of the FOI amendments for Enterprise Ireland? As we all know, in this Chamber and these Houses, transparency is essential in Enterprise policy. So any narrowing of FOI coverage certainly must be justified. Can we answer why are technical amendments to dangerous substances and chemicals legislation included here? Are these urgent? Are they related to industrial development? Again, the Minister has to clarify this. Beyond the specifics, the Bill raises broader questions about the direction of industrial policy in Ireland. 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. SMEs, which make up 99% of Irish businesses. As my colleague from Lowell constituency stated, they must not be left behind. Industrial development must support also 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. It aligns this country and 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. But good intentions are not enough. Legislation has to be robust and transparent. It must protect the public interest. It must ensure accountability. And it certainly has to be clear. So I urge the Minister to address the questions raised today. How will environmental grants be safeguarded against misuse? How will consultancy supports avoid becoming a costly dependency as we've seen so many times in this country? Why are technology acquisitions thresholds being raised so dramatically? What transparency will apply to the new joint venture DACs? Why are unrelated legislative amendments bundled into this Bill? And how will SMEs and regions be supported? And what oversight will the Oireachtas – so very important to us all here – what oversight will the Oireachtas retain? If the Minister can provide satisfactory answers, 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. Absolutely, there's no argument against that. We need one that is green, innovative, regionally balanced and democratically accountable. This Bill certainly can contribute to that vision, but only if we scrutinise it rigorously. And I certainly look forward to further debate at committee stage.