Dr. Tom McDonnell:

That is a very important question. It also deals with the points about investment and abeyance made earlier by Deputy Timmins. In many cases, these companies may be waiting to see what the next potential administration will take as a stance. Will it be similar to President Trump's perspective on tariffs? If it is, we could be looking at up to 11 years of this, if not longer. It would effectively be permanent from an investment perspective. If it was a different candidate looking to win, we could be looking at a more benign outcome. I would not necessarily say we are being too optimistic and we are certainly not being cavalier about it, but it does take a long time to build a pharmaceutical plant. You have to build up a large group of highly skilled workers to do this. These are often very specific products.

They are there because production costs are lowest or because there are other tax or skill advantages. It is a cost to them to open another plant in the United States. It is easier just to transport it back.

The point about pharmaceuticals and the security problem is well made. It is one of the four arguments used by the Trump Administration to justify tariffs. However, it is notable that it was very slow to do anything on pharmaceuticals. There are steel jobs in the USA and plants and factories can be ramped up but, when it comes to pharmaceuticals, Trump was particularly concerned because the USA cannot do this itself in the short term and the costs would simply be passed on to US consumers. That is my expectation as to what would happen. I genuinely feel that job losses in the food and drink sectors are more likely than they are in the pharmaceutical sector in the short term. However, that is not to say that the next plant will not be built in the USA rather than in Cork. That would obviously be of significant concern to the local area. Leaving all that aside, I do not anticipate significant job losses in pharmaceuticals over 2025.