Vol. 1065 No. 4
7. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Finance the number of Israeli bonds that have been sold in Ireland since 2023 and the value of these and if he will introduce legislation to forbid the Central Bank of Ireland from facilitating the sale of bonds for countries that are in breach of human rights law and the Geneva Convention; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16062/25]
60. Deputy Cian O'Callaghan asked the Minister for Finance if he will take steps to ensure that the Central Bank is not facilitating the sale of Israeli war bonds and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16240/25]
197. Deputy Marie Sherlock asked the Minister for Finance the measures he proposes to take to amend Ireland's obligations under Prospectus Regulation 2017/1129 and ensure that all securities licensed by the Central Bank of Ireland are not used for the financing of war efforts in Israel or any other country in the world and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16514/25]
The Taoiseach was very exercised on Tuesday by the suggestion that the Irish State was complicit in genocide. One of the ways we are complicit in genocide is by the authorisation by the Central Bank of Ireland of Israeli war bonds for sale in the EU. Despite all the evidence that these are used to fund the genocide, the Governor of the Central Bank has refused to act. If this continues, will the Government instead act to make it so that the Central Bank will not sell bonds for countries that are facing the charge of genocide?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 60 and 197 together.
Regarding the number and value of bonds sold in Ireland, the Central Bank of Ireland does not regulate the bonds as products and does not collect specific data on the number of bonds sold. The regulatory function of the Central Bank is limited to ensuring that the disclosure document for the offer contains all the necessary information required by the EU prospectus regulation. The bonds themselves are not listed for sale on the Irish Stock Exchange.
The legislative framework governing the approval by the Central Bank of a prospectus is provided by the EU prospectus regulation. This regulation, which takes direct effect across all EU member states, is not a minimum harmonisation document but a legal framework for all member states to fulfil the requirements as set out. As such, ensuring consistency of application of the rules across the Union is an important aspect of the regulation. Currently, the Central Bank, as the competent authority under the prospectus regulation, is required to assess prospectus documentation on the grounds of completeness, consistency and comprehensibility.
The Central Bank does not endorse the issuer or the securities by way of prospectus approval. It can only refuse the approval of a prospectus where it has a legal basis to do so. Where documentation meets the standards of the regulation, the Central Bank is required to approve a prospectus.
It is the position of the Central Bank, as set out by the Governor, that an advisory opinion of the ICJ or, indeed, the processes of the International Criminal Court do not constitute grounds for the Central Bank to refuse the prospectus of the Israeli bond programme. I do not intend introducing legislation that forbids the Central Bank of Ireland to fulfil its regulatory duties.
Shameful. The Minister says he is not complicit and yet he is saying he will do nothing about it. The Central Bank of Ireland allows Israeli war bonds that are used to commit this genocide to be sold in the EU. The Minister repeats the excuses of the Governor of the Central Bank that its only framework is to check whether the prospectus meets the standards of completeness, comprehensibility and consistency but it does not do that. The bond prospectus withholds ethical and risk-related information. It does not mention the genocide charge at the ICJ and Israel's profiting from weaponry that is field tested in Gaza. It is not comprehensive, complete or consistent.
After backing up the Central Bank's excuse for doing nothing about it, the Minister says he will not do anything about it. Legally, he can do something about it. Does he really think it is okay for the Central Bank to facilitate the sale of these bonds? Approximately €3 billion or so have been sold since 7 October 2023. These are used to buy white phosphorous and bombs and have been used to kill 45,000 plus people, of whom 20,000 were children, in Gaza.
The devastation that is happening in Gaza - the attacks on civilians and hospitals we are all appalled by - are being partially funded by the sale of these Israeli bonds. The head of Israel Bonds told investors that purchasing bonds was the best way to help Israel's war campaign. Ireland is a signatory to the Genocide Convention and under that convention, we are obliged to ensure that our State's institutions do not facilitate genocide. The Central Bank of Ireland is a State institution and by authorising the sale of these bonds, it is clearly facilitating genocide. Will Deputy Donohoe, as a Minister with obligations under the Genocide Convention, act?
I absolutely refute the allegations and language used by the Deputies. This Government could not be clearer in our condemnation of the behaviour and loss of life that is taking place in Gaza and the untold suffering those people have endured. We have made that case very prominently within the EU and at a global level.
As Minister for Finance, I am obliged to tell the truth about the work that the Central Bank of Ireland does and the legal framework within which it must operate. It must operate in that legal framework because that legal framework and how the bank discharges its duties is fundamental to the work it does and, in turn, to how our economy operates and how it regulates activity here within Ireland and in Europe. I have outlined the legal mandate that the Central Bank should fulfil. The Deputies are already aware of it, and the view of the Central Bank governor in relation to it. I am not going to say to Dáil Éireann here today that I can do anything that I do not believe is legal and I am not going to say that I can do something that would imperil or undermine the independence of the Central Bank.
We are clear in our condemnation of what has happened in Gaza. We are clear in laying out what we believe should stop and the support we have made available to those who are suffering in Gaza and in the Middle East. I do not accept the language that the Deputy has used in respect of the Central Bank. I have laid out its role very clearly.
It is not a question of language. The Minister might find it offensive for it to be said that he is complicit in genocide but it is the truth. He says he condemns what is happening in Israel. That is good but then the Central Bank is allowing this to happen. It is helping it to be financed. That is a fact. We can see the way these bonds are advertised online as facilitating its "war" in Gaza but then the Minister is saying it is fine. Even if what he is saying is correct in terms of the legal framework of the Central Bank, he can change that legal framework. He has not made the case that he legally cannot.
The OPLA advice concludes:
A PMB can provide for restricted access to its financial services on the basis of public policy grounds that are rooted in the Ireland’s fundamental interest in pursuing its international law obligations. As noted by the ICJ in its Namibia judgment: "The qualification of a situation as illegal does not by itself put an end to it. It can only be the first, necessary step in an endeavour to bring the illegal situation to an end."
The Minister has a legal obligation to do everything he can to stop the genocide and he is not currently doing it.
According to the head of Israeli bonds, these bonds are being used to fund their war campaign, which is genocide. That is a fact. The second fact is that Ireland is signed up to the genocide convention and we have obligations under that to ensure that none of our State institutions are operating in a way to facilitate genocide. We have those legal obligations so why will the Minister not act in line with those legal obligations under the convention to act to ensure our State institutions are not facilitating genocide?
Let me return in a moment to deal with the substantive issue raised by Deputy O’Callaghan but before I do so, I will reply to Deputy Murphy. At a time when we seek to look at how politics can unite people and bring people together, I am reminded again and again that for somebody who claims to be on the left and someone who claims to be part of a movement that is about tolerance and inclusivity, there are few figures who serve that agenda less than the Deputy. His language is consistently poisonous.
I am not about tolerance of genocide or civility towards genocide.
His language consistently looks to demonise those who are acting in good faith. He, in turn, in his own way is a contributor to the decay of standards and how we can engage with each other and debate issues in a way that is respectful. Every time he contributes on such a matter, he does it in a way that seeks to demonise an opponent or deny good faith.
Answer the question, Minister.
That is the Deputy's contribution. I am responding back to charges he laid against me that I am compelled to respond back to.
Answer with facts then.
On the substantive issue that is being raised here today, I reiterate the clear view of the Government on what has happened in Gaza and the Middle East. However, there are a particular number of responsibilities that the Central Bank is obliged to discharge that are rooted not just in national and EU law and it discharges those responsibilities. The Governor of the Central Bank has outlined that the other extremely important issues that are being raised here are not ones that in his view allow him to effect the discharge of those duties. That is a matter of law as laid out and how the Central Bank discharges its duties is so important to our economy and to the financial markets it regulates in turn for the benefit and stability of our economy.
Then why will the Minister not change the law? If he does not want to be complicit in genocide, then why does he not change the law?
We will move on please.
The Minister never answered the question.
8. Deputy Catherine Callaghan asked the Minister for Finance his views on how taxation measures could help arrest the decline in the uptake of electric vehicles; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16104/25]
Will the Minister give his views on how taxation measures could help arrest the decline in the update of electric vehicles?
The existing vehicle tax structures in the State have a strong environmental rationale, with the more pollutant, fossil-fuelled cars paying higher rates of tax, between motor tax, benefit in kind, BIK, vehicle registration tax, VRT, and the nitrogen oxide, NOx, charge. In contrast, low-emission cars and electric vehicles, EVs, are subject to lower rates of tax. I know the Deputy will be aware of it but it I want to emphasise the point that our tax code already recognises the differing contributions that those vehicles make to carbon emissions in our economy and society. The current policy approach aims to incentivise the uptake of zero- to low-emission vehicles, which will help to reduce Ireland’s transport emissions.
A number of tax measures are in place to support the uptake of EVs, including preferential rates of BIK; BIK tapering relief of €35,000 in 2025 to €10,000 in 2027; a BIK exemption where an employer provides a facility for the charging of an EV; VRT relief of up to €5,000; and the introduction of an emissions-based VRT system for light commercial vehicles that will apply from 1 July 2025 in the Finance Act 2024. Other measures are in place such that EVs also benefit from low rates of annual motor tax. New proposals are considered and current vehicle tax policies are kept under review as part of the tax strategy group which is the transparent process we have in place to advise myself and the Government on the taxation options that are available to the Government in advance of the budget, the policy merits and demerits and what the costs of those options would be.
I thank the Minister for his response. I have been an EV driver since 2015, a so-called early adopter, and I am on my third EV. When I purchased my first EV, there were a number of incentives such as the SEAI grant that covered the entire cost of the charger. That has been greatly reduced in the intervening years. There was also free public charging and low road tax, as the Minister mentioned, as well. I realise that free public charging was not sustainable in the long run but combined with the grant that covered the full cost of the home charger, it made the transition to the EV much easier for me and my family. While I appreciate the measures the Minister mentioned, which go a long way to supporting the transition to EV driving, will he share his thoughts on increasing the home charger grant and reducing the current rate of road tax at €120 annually, which is the same as it was when I started driving an EV more than ten years ago?
I appreciate the case the Deputy is making for the further support of EVs. It is interesting to see the growth that has taken place and I hope it will continue in the coming years as EV technology improves and as we do a better job of rolling out the charging network needed to facilitate those who use EVs. We have made reasonable progress but it is very obvious that we need to do even more, particularly in some cities, as Deputy Gogarty raised with me last week. I have outlined the different measures in place.
I will of course consider whether any further steps are needed, and I thank the Deputy for raising this. I have to remind the Dáil again that this is all subject to budget decisions. All of these options will have costs and we have look in the round at all the decisions we make in budget 2026. I thank the Deputy for acknowledging the measures that are in place, particularly with regard to motor tax. I know the Deputy wants this to go lower but all these things will be considered in October.
I thank the Minister and acknowledge the measures that have been implemented. A lot is often made of the insufficiency of the public charging network. I do not share that criticism myself because I have a home charger and rely solely on that. The Government decision to reduce VAT to 0% on solar installations in 2023 was hugely beneficial to my family and others like mine. It allowed us to invest in solar PV panels, which marries very well with EV driving. I am a strong advocate for EV driving and would like to encourage more people to make the switch. In light of the high input costs of a new EV, does the Minister see any possibility in the current upper limit for VRT reduction being increased? I recently purchased a second-hand EV for the first time. What is his view on introducing some tax measures specifically for second-hand EVs, allowing first-time buyers of second-hand EVs to also receive a grant towards the purchase and installation of a home charger among other things?
I will certainly take on board what the Deputy said and make sure officials in the Department consider it. I am not doubting for a single moment the impact of the various measures she has suggested or what they could do to enhance the further take-up of EVs. We will certainly consider all of that in the coming weeks and months. I do, however, need to relate it back to the broader environment we are in, which she very well understands. We are at a point at which we are seeing a very big change take place in the economy of the world, which will have effects here in Ireland. We need to ensure that any changes we make in the tax code are affordable and, in particular, support jobs and enterprise in Ireland. I will offer that as the general point. In truth, a lot of the individual measures the Deputy has raised would not be huge budgetary items. However, in the round, pulling all of these things together sometimes has a big cost. I assure her that I will certainly consider the issues she has raised and see what more could be done to support the roll-out of EVs in Ireland.
9. Deputy Aindrias Moynihan asked the Minister for Finance the engagement he has had to date with the EU Commission and other EU member states on the evolving situation of tariff increases by the US; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16161/25]
The imposition of Trump's tariffs of 20% last night is a deeply serious concern for Irish jobs and costs for so many people. The EU response is being co-ordinated and could add further pressure for people. What engagements has the Minister planned with his EU counterparts and with the Commission as regards this response?
I thank the Deputy for raising this. Just to add to his point, the greatest challenge of all to the livelihoods of those he is raising today is if the changes that happened last night become bigger and permanent and if they fundamentally change how our global economy works. In order to see if we can avoid that happening, we need to have negotiation and engagement with the US, as the Deputy has acknowledged along with many other Deputies today. It is difficult to see how we get to that happening unless the European Union, including us, indicates that we are willing to respond and take action. With regard to the cause of any long-term harm that we could face or the economy of Europe could face, the first instigator of that has been what has happened in the US, not measures that we may have to very regretfully consider here in Ireland and Europe. In the absence of those measures that have been announced by President Trump, as the Deputy well knows and as he inferred in the point he put to me, we would not even be considering actions that the EU needs to take with regard to trade.
To answer the question he put to me regarding my engagement, on Friday of next week there will be a meeting of all finance Ministers of the European Union in Warsaw. In advance of that meeting, beginning, I hope, tomorrow, I will be talking to my colleagues about the issues the Deputy raised. On Monday, the Tánaiste will be meeting trade Ministers of the EU. I know the Taoiseach has engaged with the Commission on this and will be doing so with other Heads of Government. That is all under way. It has begun and will only intensify in the days and weeks that await all of us.
While Trump's tariffs are only a few hours old, the Minister's officials have been examining various scenarios and preparing reports, some of which have been published. We recognise that the technology, pharmaceutical, and food and beverage sectors are a serious concern. In my own area in Cork, pharmaceuticals and food and beverages are a major concern. Will the Minister be making the case to his counterparts on different sectors when he meets with them? What particular priorities does he plan to set out to his counterparts at those meetings?
To reconfirm to the Deputy, we have already raised the different sectors within the economy. The food and beverage sectors he raised are a really important part of the communities he represents and contribute to his local economy. Those issues have been raised. The Tánaiste formally communicated with the Commission, I believe on Monday, on this, making the case on the food and beverages sector and aligning ourselves with other economies that have been affected in a similar way. To be candid with the Deputy, however, that has really been moved on by the decision the United States have made to apply in effect universal tariffs to all that is coming out of the European Union. We have indeed modelled that and published the modelling a week ago. As we become clearer on what the EU will do, we will publish a revised economic update, probably indicating additional scenarios. We will do that in the next few weeks as part of the budget process we normally instigate. We will publish what is called an annual progress report, which will outline scenarios, giving our best answer to the question the Deputy is pointing to.
I thank the Minister. With 10% tariffs on the UK and the higher 20% tariff on the EU, there is a particular concern about the all-island economy and how people in the Republic will be impacted by the tariffs versus those in the Six Counties. Is there space within the Windsor Framework to deal with this? Will the Minister put the all-island economy as a priority to his EU counterparts when he is meeting them?
I wish to express my condolences on the passing of Mick O'Dwyer, a legend of the GAA who gave us great days in Kildare. I thank the Minister for all his information on the tariffs last night. Coming from Leixlip, we have Intel and the Kerry Group in our area in north Kildare. I saw a lot of the fears of my peers last night, the people I worked with in the business sector. What level of engagement has the Minister had with the Minister for trade in the past number of weeks? How does he see that continuing in the coming days?
First and foremost, on the tariffs, we all understand there is no win here. Deputy Moynihan spoke about the discrepancy between North and South now and obviously there will be ongoing issues in relation to partition. However, be it 10% or 20%, neither is beneficial.
There has been a lot of conversation on future engagement. First and foremost, it has to be about negotiation. I expect a significant amount of our conversation with the European Commission and other stakeholders throughout Europe will be about supporting our own business and ensuring we do not cut off our nose to spite our face. I also accept Europe will have a plan for circumstances where we do not have successful negotiations. It is about protecting and engaging, and this will suit nobody, including those in America and particularly those at the lower end that Donald Trump constantly says he is out there to support.
Obviously, this is bad news for Ireland - there is no doubt about that. While the pharma sector seems to have been given a reprieve for the moment, which is a blessing, the secondary effect of tariffs internationally will be a dampening effect on the world economy. We are a small, open economy and will be very sensitive to that. That will have a significant effect on our tax take - both on corporate taxes and, potentially, a shrinking job market here in the future. The best thing for the European Union to do at the moment is to de-escalate the situation because an escalating tariff war does not suit Ireland.
What real efforts is the Government making to negotiate directly with the US on this? I understand it is a European competency in many ways but we have a leverage in the US that many European countries do not have. What specific efforts are we involved in to try to put pressure on the United States to ensure pharma does not become part of the landing zone?
I thank the Deputies for the questions they have raised. The very important companies the Deputy Neville mentioned, Kerry Group and Intel, form an excellent example of making the case for trade because they are also present in the United States of America. They sell there and have a large presence there.
I will, on behalf of the communities the Deputies represent and that other colleagues have raised, engage heavily within the EU. I outlined to the House earlier that a meeting of finance ministers of the European Union would take place on Friday. Deputy Moynihan asked what I would do in advance of that. I will engage with colleagues from tomorrow on this. Responding via the EU is the best way for the Irish people and Government to influence what is happening at a global level.
On the point Deputy Tóibín made, we of course want a negotiation or de-escalation but I make the point I have made a number of times this morning: it is difficult to see how such a negotiation could take place unless the European Union is willing to outline that we would, regrettably, have to respond to the tariffs put in place and respond in a proportionate way to what the administration of President Trump has done. We will engage with the US and within the EU to make the case for the medicine and life science sector.
10. Deputy Séamus McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the percentage number of households that opted to defer payment of the local property tax in the years 2023, 2024 and 2025; and if he will consider reducing further the interest rate penalty on the amount accrued-deferred. [16042/25]
I ask the Minister to outline the percentage of households that opted to defer payment of the local property tax in the years 2023, 2034 and 2025 and if he will consider a further reduction in the penalty on the amount that has been deferred.
Property owners who are experiencing financial difficulty may avail of a wide range of flexible payment options in respect of current local property tax, LPT, liabilities and for any previous years. To answer the Deputy's question on those accessing it, the number is quite low: 0.6% of all taxpayers are accessing it across the years 2023, 2024 and 2025. Ahead of the revaluation in 2021, I reduced the interest that applied to deferred LPT from 4% to 3%.
Given I reduced the rate last time, I do not propose do so again. What I have done is increased the income thresholds at which deferrals can be accessed. We have seen income growth in our economy, despite the cost-of-living pressures many have faced, and I want to ensure the ability of hard-pressed homeowners to access those deferral options is maintained. The evidence is the vast majority of people look to pay their LPT bill on time. I know it is a big bill but those who find it difficult to pay upfront can spread the payment across the year. The number is low but we are looking to deal with the issue the Deputy raised by increasing the income thresholds instead.
I thank the Minister for that information. I accept 0.6% is a low figure. That suggests the cost to the State would not be significant if there were to be a further reduction in the interest penalty. I acknowledge there was a change in 2021 from 4% to 3%.
One of the flaws with the LPT is it is not based on a household's income; it is based purely on evaluation of the property. We know there will be properties in certain locations with high value but very often those households have a low income. It may be a household reliant on the State pension. It is unfair to charge a penalty of 3% to those households if they opt to defer the property tax based on income threshold grounds or hardship grounds. We should consider a reduction. I note in the changes announced that local authorities will have the option of increasing the property tax by up to 25%. That will allow scope for these households to be exposed to even greater liability. I ask the Minister to consider, in time, looking at the penalty again.
To bring to life the figures and move them beyond percentages, the overall number of properties that accessed the deferral option was between 11,800 and 12,500, so it is indeed a low number.
The Deputy made a point about the ability for LPT to be varied upward by 25%. One of the things I have learned from watching how this tax operates is this. I believe 25 out of 30 local authorities have increased their LPT beyond the base rate, but the average level of increase is 9%, which is a fair bit below the 15%. Many local authorities, many of which are governed by coalitions between our two parties, have been successful in persuading voters that paying a bit more can lead to better services and amenities within their community. I know the Deputy appreciates that. That is why we put in place the change of going up by 25%. I will take on board the point he made and I hope the change in the income thresholds will be of some help to those who find this difficult.
I appreciate that the Minister will keep this under review. I acknowledge the change in income thresholds, which is welcome.
I will speak on the tariffs for a moment. As a Deputy representing Cork South-Central, we have a large concentration of US companies. I live only a couple of miles from Ringaskiddy, a large industrial base. I welcome the Minister's comment earlier that our first and foremost priority is negotiation and finding ways forward but it is critical we have a strong strategy for our multinational and FDI sectors to show them the Government will take a step-by-step approach with them in addressing the economic challenges we face. It is vital we show that support to them and show that we will be shoulder to shoulder with them so that we can navigate these difficult times. They are unprecedented times. I know the EU will respond as a collective but Ireland is particularly exposed. Within Ireland, the region I represent is particularly exposed. I urge the Minister to ensure every effort is made to find solutions and negotiate our way out of this. Obviously, the EU will respond in due course in terms of potential reciprocal tariffs.
I referenced earlier the large number of significant employers clustered in particular parts of our country.
This is, for want of a better phrase, because of the ecosystem and their ability to upskill people working in communities who then leave to go to employers in similar sectors located in similar parts of our country. There are some very large employers, and one in particular that Deputy McGrath is referring to. I absolutely understand that. The Government and I have engaged with individual employers on this. We are proud to have them in Ireland. They have contributed to the growth of our country but we also believe we have played a role in contributing to their success here and back home in the US also. Of course we will continue to engage with these very important employers at what is also an unprecedented time for them. All Deputies have emphasised this to me today.
11. Deputy James Geoghegan asked the Minister for Finance if he can detail the key impact of the ESRI working paper, The Impact of Deglobalisation and Protectionism on a Small Open Economy - The Case of Ireland, on policy in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15839/25]
15. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Minister for Finance further to Parliamentary Question No. 2 of 13 February 2025, the analysis to establish the impact that US tariffs will have on the economy; the preparations being made to deal with this issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15673/25]
My question relates to the policy response to tariffs that were hypothetical when I tabled it and that are now real. I am concerned about a creeping narrative emerging from certain quarters within the Opposition, and Sinn Féin in particular, which seeks to pitch Ireland against Europe in the response. Does the Minister agree that in our response to this we need more, and not less, Europe? The Single Market now stands as a shining light for free trade and the rule of law. What we need in response is Europe working together.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 11 and 15 together.
The Single Market is the best answer we have to this. We are speaking about the need to grow trade to take the place of trade that may be lost. The best place to do this is on our own doorstep. We have on our doorstop this incredible creation, which Irish politicians and diplomats have spent decades trying to craft, which is the Single Market. We need to plough on with realising the potential it still offers.
We also need to continue to remind and make the case to the people of Ireland that the cause and catalyst of the difficulty we are now confronting are the decisions that have been taken by President Trump. We acknowledge that there are issues relating to the flow of trade and the impact these can have on communities. We are all aware of them and we all need to engage. The measures that have now been instigated will have a significant effect on the world and on Ireland in line with the forecast the Department of Finance published two weeks ago. The only reason the European Union wants to consider measures to respond is in order that we can approach the negotiating table in a strong position. We do so because of the Single Market. We must also be willing to outline the steps we are willing to take. The cause of this is not action taken by the European Union.
I thank the Minister. There is no sugar-coating the tariff announcements made yesterday evening. We are only beginning to understand their effects. It is now the reality that the United States, which started globalisation, is seeking to bring an end to it. We in the European Union need to be proud of what we have done in developing the largest single market in the world. We need to ensure we do more in Europe to better enhance in particular our banking market and the impact this can have. The history of Europe has always been forged in crisis. The response to these crises has always made Europe better and led to more prosperity and more peace. We need to ensure that Ireland remains at the heart of this. We need to take measures at domestic level. Most of this will be in the form of investment in infrastructure. As a result of the decisions we have made in the past, we have the money available to make that investment.
I do not think I can agree with Deputy Geoghegan on Europe being a shining light of the application of the rule of law but that is not for now. I understand there is uncertainty. I have read the ESRI report on how it will affect our exports and jobs. It is all being debated here this morning. I have listened to the debate and I have heard what the Minister has said. Long term we absolutely need to diversify. Obviously we need diplomatic efforts now, and we need various steps, but in the medium to long term we need to diversify our economy. We have been warned for a very long time about the urgent need to do this. Coming from Galway city I am acutely aware of the value of the big pharmaceutical and medical devices companies based there, with almost 12,000 people working in them. They have significant implications for the city in terms of spending power. We need to diversify. We need to put a big emphasis on indigenous industries.
Deputy Geoghegan has laid out a compelling case, with which I agree, regarding Europe's place in the world and what we have built up in the Single Market and by means of the rule of law. The argument we need to make is that if people invest in Ireland and Europe, if they employ people in Europe and if they want to create new ideas and be entrepreneurs in Europe, they will do so in a very stable environment in which they can be clear about the rules of regulation, trade and taxation. We need to make the case for this and we will do so in the time to come.
With regard to Deputy Connolly's point on diversification, we need to continue to diversify our economy. This is not something we will be starting, however, because it is already under way. For many decades we have we have been supporting our indigenous employers through Enterprise Ireland. We have also diversified the number of international employers we have but we need to continue this work.
