Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

It is always good to see the Minister of State. I am grateful to have the opportunity to say a few words on this important Bill. I shall start by saying how pleasantly surprised I am to find out that Senator McDowell's nephew was one of the co-authors of a book that was recommended to me. I will certainly go out and buy it at lunchtime. It seems to be very timely in its concerns about US power and influence.

Unlike many other EU member states, Ireland does not have a regime for screening FDI in key infrastructure. The Bill seeks to change this and give significant powers to the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. The Bill, which aims to provide the Government with powers to protect security or public order from hostile actors using ownership of or influence over businesses and assets to harm the State, introduces an FDI screening process. This will allow the Minister to assess, investigate, authorise, condition or prohibit third-country investments in key Irish industries and sectors.

All investments in strategic assets and sectors should be screened, but it is important to note that the Bill will place a significant burden on the estate compared with our European neighbours. One key ask is that we are assured that ample resources will be set aside to make sure the screening time is as quick as it can possibly be. I am sure businesses would very much appreciate this certainty.

The Bill as drafted creates a mandatory notification obligation for parties of third-country transaction acquisitions, agreements or other activities with a value of €2 million or more in designated sectors or involving sensitive or strategic activities that result in a change of control of an asset or undertaking in the State. As we know, the Bill forms part of a broader effort by the European Union to encourage co-operation and information exchanges between member states and the European Commission on FDI from third countries. Given the work of IDA Ireland in attracting FDI to the State, the Bill creates a change but one that can be of benefit. Nevertheless, it will place additional burdens on the State, Departments and businesses. For instance, when requested by other EU member states and-or the Commission, Ireland is obliged under the EU FDI screening regulation to provide information on any relevant transaction involving FDI, including details of the targets, ownership structure, products, services and business operations. It is also obliged to declare to other EU member states where the target conducts relevant business operations.

At the core of the Bill, from a purely technical perspective is the protection of security and public order from hostile actors who would seek to use ownership of or influence over businesses and assets to harm the State. It will empower the Minister to respond to threats to Ireland's security or public order posed by particular types of foreign investments and prevent or mitigate such threats. While I understand the need for this, I ask for further clarification of the powers of the Minister to assess, investigate, authorise, condition or prohibit third-country investments based on a range of security and public order criteria.This is so that, when legislation is passed, there is certainty on the part of investors and the State and we do not leave ourselves open to accusations of bias or of being used as a pawn in geopolitics. I say this because we should not forget from where the EU regulation came. It came about following a European Parliament resolution and a joint letter sent by three member states – Italy, Germany and France – asking the European Commission to adopt a new regulation on the screening of FDI.

The EU regulation comes in the middle of the crisis of the globalisation dogma being threatened by the commercial wars between the global powers. Anyone who reads over the speeches about this regulation in the European Parliament will see that the extreme neoliberal approach that EU policies pursued and made the EU the most open economy in the world was rarely questioned and the real target of this EU legislation is most likely China.

Regarding the timeframes for screening decisions, the legislation states that the decision must be made by the Minister within 90 days from the date of notification and that this may be extended by a period of up to 135 days at the discretion of the Minister. Is the 90-day limit for extreme cases or is it the Minister of State’s expectation that all cases will take 90 days?

On allowing the Minister to use discretion in this instance but also to use national security as a reason not to give information for why an investment is rejected, I hope these powers are wielded with careful consideration. Security is important, but so are openness, transparency and trust.