Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is very clear, to be honest, that in regard to capacity to produce and production, effectively one is supporting production in that context. This is a legally questionable interpretation and I think it is one that should perhaps be revisited in that context. As the witness said, the Commission is supporting these companies in their capacity to manufacture weapons. It is not like procurement where weapons are purchased and, therefore, there is control. The Commission is supporting these companies without specifying that they will produce certain weapons or what kinds of weapons they will produce or not produce and, as I understand it, without having any specifications in terms of who they will sell to or how they will sell these weapons. Is that correct? There is a simply a support for production capacity of different kinds of weapons but that it does not come with specifications around how those companies will operate.

In terms of the idea that these companies are struggling to produce, it is very notable that at least five of the companies which will benefit from the scheme are German companies. As I understand it, Germany has increased its export of arms from just over €30 million to Israel in 2022 to over €300 million in arms exports to Israel last year. We know they are certainly able to ramp up production and sales in that context. Are these five German companies also engaged in those exports? There is also the economic question of why on earth they would possibly need our taxpayers' money, but more importantly there is the moral question. Is it the case that we do not have any guarantee as to what the companies may do in terms of their production and who they may sell to?