Will the Minister provide an update on the cost of business forum, in particular why so many grants have not been drawn down by small and medium businesses at a time where they are struggling with costs in terms of VAT, rates - including water rates - energy costs, rent and refuse collection costs? The Minister's favourite word is "evidence". There is evidence that at the close of applications for his Department's power up grant in November last year, €12 million was left unclaimed by hospitality and retail businesses. Can he explain why that was the case?

My Department’s report on the assessment of the cumulative impact of proposed measures to improve working conditions in Ireland published last year highlighted that many of the recent cost increases for business were related to Government imposed regulatory changes. Business groups have also recently highlighted the impact of the overall regulatory burden and the administrative burden on business.

The programme for Government calls for the establishment of a cost of business advisory forum that will focus, in particular, on the regulatory burden as well as other costs highlighted by business. The recent memorandum for Government on the action plan on competitiveness and productivity also stated that in order to address costs, and so as not to duplicate existing structures, the forum should be established as a sub-group of the enterprise forum.

It is proposed that the cost of business advisory forum will comprise officials from key regulatory agencies, as well as representatives from the enterprise sector and social partners. The aim would be to convene its first meeting before the end of May. It is envisaged that the forum should be output-orientated and not be just a discussion group. This approach would see a finite number of meetings, possibly no more than eight meetings, focusing on individual key themes of concern to the business community. It is proposed that the outcome of the forum will be a report for consideration by the full enterprise forum, written by its chair, outlining a set of policy and administrative changes to improve the cost burden for businesses, particularly small enterprises in Ireland.

I thank the Minister of State. When he speaks of simplicity and reducing regulation, I want him to look inside Government at the bureaucracy that is stopping businesses which desperately need support from accessing the supports that have been advertised. The increased cost of business, ICOB, and power up grants have been plagued with anomalies in their terms and conditions making it impossible for businesses to access the schemes. Will the cost of business forum, cited in the programme for Government, engage with business representatives to provide accessible schemes which would be of use to businesses?

Rather than an over-concentration in terms of the remuneration of workers' rights, the Government should look in the other direction in terms of why businesses cannot access what has been announced for them. Across our cities, towns and villages, many in our constituency of Mayo, businesses have pulled down the shutters. Businesses are really struggling right now and there is much the Government can do that it is not doing.

From having spoken to many businesses that have applied for ICOB grants 1 and 2 and the power up grant, I am aware they were essential grants and have been hugely beneficial across all sectors. The Department approved an overall budget of €257 million as part of the ICOB scheme. Some €246 million of that was expended on the scheme in 2024. On ICOB, this week my colleague, the Minister, Deputy Burke, brought a memo to Cabinet on the appeals process. We understand there were challenges around the misclassification of certain sectors across retail, hospitality and beauty. We have engaged with the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform on how we can ensure that those businesses which were misclassified and found to be ineligible for the scheme can reapply. We will take a number of steps over the coming weeks in order to address that.

We need to learn lessons from the design of a lot of these schemes. I recently met the Alliance for Insurance Reform. Its members are extremely concerned by the recommendations of the Judicial Council that awards be increased by 17%. Could the Minister of State confirm whether the Minister for Justice will enable the Dáil to discuss this?

I also want to raise with the Minister of State the issue of Enterprise Ireland being precluded from working with businesses with fewer than ten employees. Many smaller businesses work on a contract basis and, therefore, work on a different model. Modern work practices mean that businesses often contract in services such as graphic design, photography or social media support. Such employees are not staff of businesses, nor do they want to be. They are freelance workers. Will the Minister of State examine their status with Enterprise Ireland in order that they can support a greater number of businesses? We need systems that support the models that are being used in businesses in the here and now in order to ensure the sustainability of businesses into the future. We have to have practical and pragmatic support and interventions for businesses.

I acknowledge some of the matters raised by the Deputy. The Government has made significant progress on the national enterprise hub, which has been established with a key focus on supporting business around training and grant applications.

More than 250 supports are available online and are readily accessible for many SMEs and businesses. The hub covers more than 29 Departments and agencies. It is a vital support for many of these businesses. I compliment the local enterprise offices and all the local authorities on the administration of the ICOB and power up schemes. They are the people on the ground who engage with the businesses and have the knowledge of how businesses are classified and in which sector. It was the first scheme of its kind to be deployed at the scale required to cover all 31 local authorities. We want to establish a future platform that the Department can administer. Our officials are working on that at the moment.

The last couple of weeks have seen the Minister abandon a series of promises to workers. He abandoned the promises to extend sick leave and introduce a living wage. Incredibly, he is refusing to scrap sub-minimum wages. People watching this performance might ask if the Minister is following the lead of the most anti-trade union boss in Ireland, Michael O'Leary, who launched the Minister's election campaign last November. Has the Minister had any more meetings with Mr. O'Leary since he took office? How has his relationship with the latter influenced the Minister's decisions?

I have had no meetings, interactions or correspondence with the business owner in question since my appointment as Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment last year in connection with any of my work, and nor has my Department.

At the Minister's campaign launch, Michael O'Leary stated:

We need a government that delivers for enterprise ... it’s vital that we elect a government that gets shit done ... I can think of nobody here, certainly in the current government, who demonstrates more action, more energy ... than Peter Burke.

That is more action and more energy for enterprise. Is that why the Minister is doing what he is doing? Is he following the lead of Michael O'Leary, an anti-trade union and anti-worker boss, in reneging on previous commitments to extend sick leave, introduce a living wage and honour the vote of the previous Dáil to abolish sub-minimum wage rates and the legalised discrimination against and super-exploitation of young workers which allows them to be paid even less than the minimum wage? The Minister talks about employment rights and says he is in favour of them. His actions demonstrate the opposite. The fact that he had the most famously anti-worker, anti-union boss in the country launch his election campaign suggests that opposite is the case.

My actions demonstrate that we have supported employment and workers throughout our economy. We are committed to achieving a living wage. We are about 3.5% away from it under one metric, which is the survey data for the labour force. Second, we are on it in the CSO data relating to the structure of earnings. I pointed out clearly the number of improvements we have made. We are committed to auto-enrolment, which will come in on 1 January, to protect the futures of workers.

Delayed.

We have banned zero-hour contracts. We have worked to bring in tips and gratuities legislation to protect the most vulnerable workers. We have introduced a sick pay scheme that is ever-present. We were clear in our manifesto before we went into government that, at this point in time, we did not feel we could extend it any further. We have commissioned a review of employment legislation. We have committed to an action plan for collective bargaining in respect of which public consultation is now underway. In all those areas, as well as in the context of additional rights such as that to request remote working, supporting workers and significant increases in the minimum wage over the past number of years, no Government has done more for workers' rights than this Administration and those that preceded it. That is a fact.

Saying that is a fact does not make it a fact. The Government has been in power for three or four months. It has not progressed workers' rights at all. It has taken a series of negative steps and reneged on the commitments to extend sick leave and establish a living wage and on the vote of the previous Dáil to abolish sub-minimum wages. I will focus on the latter. The Dáil voted two years ago to abolish sub-minimum wages. There was then a delay of a year because the Low Pay Commission was charged with looking at the matter. The commission looked at and unanimously recommended the abolition of sub-minimum wages. The Government then wanted to kick the can down the road again and said that an economic impact assessment was needed. I got a reply from the Minister two days ago to a parliamentary question in which I asked how this was progressing. He indicated that it is due to be finalised in June or July, but he has already made the decision. In advance of the economic impact assessment, he is also going to suspend the decision on that. I presume that is for three years. I am referring here to a legalised situation whereby young people are paid less than the minimum wage. That is scandalous, and the Minister has the cheek to say that it is a fact that he is working for workers' rights.

It is a fact that the Government committed to an action plan on collective bargaining in its first three months in office. It is a fact that we are commencing auto-enrolment on 1 January.

That is a delay.

It is a fact that we have commenced a review of all employment legislation. It is a fact that the Government has worked to protect the most vulnerable workers.

No, it is not.

It is a fact that we have significantly increased the minimum wage in the years since the establishment of the Low Pay Commission.

It is not-----

It absolutely is. I have quoted the figure of an increase of 29% since 2022. That is a fact. Of people who are 15 to 19 who are entitled and legally able to work, only a quarter are earning sub-minimum rates. It is a very small number of people. Critically, we have to look at barriers of entry to education, which is very important. The evidence I have behind that has not been available to allow that decision to be taken. The Low Pay Commission was clear that this is a complex issue. It said that in its report. I am going to examine the matter further. In connection with the work, the Cabinet has decided to make a decision in 2029, which is final.

In 2029.

What steps does the Department intend to take regarding participation of SMEs in EU important projects of common European interest, IPCEI? Ireland has some fantastic, world-leading companies, but we also have a vibrant SME sector that often does not have the participation it should have, both in the context of domestic public tendering process and also, in this instance, in projects of common interest. I would appreciate if the Minister would update the House on the matter.

I thank Deputy McAuliffe for this important question. It is a matter that will pave the way for a significant future in Ireland for semiconductors and other areas. Important projects of common European interest are becoming increasingly important as a means to enhance the competitiveness of the EU and its member states. The new programme for Government contains a commitment to "Boost participation in Important Projects of Common European Interest (IPCEI) to increase competitiveness and productivity for Irish companies and create more jobs". Ireland needs to significantly step up its involvement in the important projects of common European interest, subject to available funding, and I see SMEs and start-ups as being central to this. We have a great opportunity for our SMEs through the funding of breakthrough research and development, and first industrial deployment projects, to enable scaling up. In other words, we have an opportunity to help to make our most important technologies ready for mass production and we want SMEs rightly involved at the heart of it.

I fully support the integration of SMEs into future investments in important projects of common European interest. Officials in my Department are working with their counterparts in enterprise agencies to identify Ireland's priorities for the future. This ensures that the priorities from across industry, including our SMEs, are identified and proposed for consideration at the EU level in the selection of these new important projects of common European interest technologies. My Department is also fully engaged with the joint European forum for important projects of common European interest, JEF-IPCEI, and is a member of working groups on national best practices and facilitation of SME participation.

My Department will implement recommendations from these groups and will aim to make more important projects of common European interest accessible for SMEs and support SMEs through the process. In addition to these working groups, my Department is also participating in the JEF working groups, which are tasked with designing new important projects of common European interest in the strategic sectors of advanced semiconductor technologies and Al. Ireland's representation on these groups includes both Enterprise Ireland and IDA Ireland to help promote the interests of Irish industry as part of the scope of this development.

Some of what the Minister outlined is really important. I want to underscore the more micro-level interventions that need to be made. The Minister mentioned Enterprise Ireland. It is a fantastic organisation that is particularly focused on SMEs and Irish businesses which export abroad. These projects of common European interest are known. They are ready-made targets for our industries.

I hope, and would have every expectation, that Enterprise Ireland will be taking the information that is publicly available, identifying companies in Ireland likely to participate and providing both training and support for those organisations in order for them to be successful in bidding for contracts.

Ireland has fantastic companies but we have seen in the past that with additional support from organisations like Enterprise Ireland, they are able to access new markets. Given the scale of some of these projects - and they are vast - this is one area Enterprise Ireland in particular, really needs to focus on. The Minister might bring this back to the organisation concerned.

I thank Deputy McAuliffe and I absolutely agree with him. We are doing that through our new semiconductor strategy, which clearly calls out the role Enterprise Ireland will have in advice and financing access to these projects.

One thing I will say is one of the big projects we have had is from Analog Devices which has approximately a €630 million investment through the projects of common European interest. I was looking at one of these semiconductor companies quite recently, which had 814 SMEs on its books that it was working on. This was a large-scale company with services from Banagher to Longford. It was incredible to see so many SMEs linked in. That is why, as part of the review of the national development plan, it will be critical to get more support into our enterprise development agencies to enable companies to access these incredible projects. We know renewables and semiconductors are areas the European Union is focusing on and since the competitive compass that has come on foot of the Draghi report, we will see many areas of opportunity on behalf of the Irish Government. We are fighting very hard for additional funding in this area through the NDP envelope which will be negotiated in the coming weeks.

The Minister predicted where I was going with my reply. The sub-supply chain within Ireland is increasingly important. We saw when organisations like IBM, for example, opened first in west Dublin and the huge number of Irish small SMEs which then became sub-suppliers, not because of a lower quality of their product but because of the quality of the product, their proximity to the location and their ability to provide top-class services.

As well as SMEs participating at the level of common European projects as direct suppliers, there is also a whole chain of small SMEs that could supply those companies in return. There is a huge ecosystem here in Ireland, particularly on the engineering side, which I have some experience of with regard to materials, metals, plastics and so on. I really believe there is much potential there. There is a drive here to bring manufacturing back to the European Union which will benefit Irish companies if we equip them correctly.

I thank the Deputy who is quite right; it is an area of huge opportunity. As a country, in the past we have not done enough in this area and having only one project speaks volumes. That is why we are reframing the narrative in connection with this and working with Enterprise Ireland and the IDA to try to ensure companies have the capacity to access these very significant projects. We know renewables and semiconductors are going to be important for the future of Ireland. As I said in my earlier contribution, when you see chips turning up in fridges, phones, electric vehicles, Ireland has one of the best landscapes for this. More than 80 semiconductor companies are linked in with SMEs in our landscape, with more than 20,000 people, and KPMG has been clear we have the capacity to go to 40,000 in the next decade and beyond. When we see we are dwindling in Europe - we have only 8% of the chip market while Asia is manufacturing 80% - we have the building blocks here and products like this to drill down, as the Deputy quite rightly pointed out, other components in our SME supply chain. I would push this as part of the NDP review because this is how you sustain really good employment and enhance our SME sector right across the economy.

I wish to first acknowledge the huge supports the Government has put in place for businesses to deal with the increase the cost of doing business, energy and other factors.

I have been contacted by several businesses that have been miscategorised for these grants and, as such, have been denied grants they could have otherwise got. Is the Minister aware of this and if so, is there a proper appeals mechanism in place to allow them to appeal against any decision that has been wrongfully made?

I propose to take Questions Nos. 11, 16, 20 and 24 together.

I thank the Deputy for submitting his question. It is probably the most topical one on the Question Paper. The increased cost of business scheme was introduced back in March 2024 and the power up grant was introduced in October of the same year. Both schemes are now closed but, in total, more than €400 million in grant aid was successfully paid to SMEs right across the country in 2024 under these grants. The schemes were designed by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and administered by local authorities with the aim of helping businesses with the increased costs associated with running a business.

The power up grant was announced as part of budget 2025 and paid out €158 million in grants to over 39,000 businesses. The increased cost of business scheme made €242 million in grant payments to over 75,000 businesses, including a double payment for businesses in the retail, hospitality and beauty sectors. This is a significant direct support that has been specifically targeted at SMEs and has benefitted thousands of small and family-run businesses. I again thank local authorities all over the country for their hard work in administering both schemes and getting this vital support to businesses in a most effective and timely manner.

Following the launch of power up, the Department and local authorities around the country received a substantial amount of correspondence from businesses that could not avail of the power up grant. The most common issue raised was from businesses who believed they were in the hospitality, retail or beauty sectors, but incorrectly categorised themselves during the ICOB registration process, which was the basis for the power up grant. The number of applicants that were deemed ineligible due to misclassification is not yet clear. In order to get money to businesses before the end of 2024, the power up grant was aligned with the ICOB grant. Therefore, priority was to get power up funding to businesses that had been approved for the second ICOB grant. The extent of the issue of incorrect classifications only emerged after the power up grant was launched.

Businesses that had not classified themselves as operating in the hospitality, retail or beauty sectors were ineligible for the second ICOB and power up grants. This is because one of the main criteria for the power up grant was that a business must have received the second ICOB payment. While delivery of the power up grant was concluding, the Department began a review which involved detailed engagement with local authorities to assess the issue. The Department also engaged with the Department of public expenditure in order to set out the proposed solution. In order to address this, this week the Government approved an appeals process that will give those businesses in the retail, hospitality and beauty sectors that were not eligible for ICOB and the power up grant because of the misclassification issue, an opportunity to register for those grants. This is not a reopening of those grant schemes, rather it is designed to allow those who originally misclassified their business sector an opportunity to register for the grants.

The Department will now engage with the Department of public expenditure, infrastructure, public service reform and digitalisation and with the local authorities to agree on the details of the reclassification process. Subject to agreement with the local authorities, it is intended to open the appeals process as soon as possible and engage with local authorities to ensure eligible businesses have been informed with the necessary steps to reapply. Both businesses and local authorities will be given guidance to assist in this process. Once potentially eligible businesses have been notified and the reclassification process opens, I expect grant payments will be paid to businesses where their information is submitted and has been reviewed and verified.

I am very pleased to hear the Government has approved that appeal process. It is obviously very important. The kind of businesses denied these facilities are quite vulnerable. They are small businesses that need these supports, so I welcome that. I note it was promised some time ago, so when the Minister of State says it will be available soon, how soon might that be and could significant pressure be put on to make that happen?

Can the Minister of State also confirm that in circumstances where schemes are closed and businesses have been denied grants, if they are granted a successful appeal, that they will not be denied in any way the full grant they would have received had that mistake not been made? I also acknowledge, as the Minister of State has, the work of local authorities in this regard. Mistakes happen - I am not criticising that fact - but we must have fair procedures that mean when a mistake happens, a business is not left in a vulnerable position and that it is entitled to appeal and get the money it should have got in the first place.

Is the Department considering the reintroduction of the increased cost of business and power up grant schemes for small businesses and ratepayers, and will he make a statement on the matter?

Will the Minister of State outline the number of applicants for the power up grant who were disqualified because they did not indicate an eligible category of business, the number of applicants that appealed the disqualification decision in total, the number that appealed on the basis of mistakenly indicating the incorrect business category, whether the matter is still being reviewed and whether there will be an appeals mechanism?

Regarding the Deputies' supplementary questions, we can go back and forth. To answer Deputy Ward's questions on the steps that are now required, it was important that the Government this week approved the appeals process. We will now engage with the local authorities to map out the extent of those businesses that were eligible for ICOB 1 and, therefore, applied for ICOB 2 but were unsuccessful. ICOB 2 is the important one, as those who are eligible for ICOB 2 also get the power up grant. We obtained legal advice on those, not just on getting the power up grant, but also getting ICOB 2. It is important to emphasise that.

Regarding the number of those who were misclassified, the determination during the implementation of the original system was that the classification of sector, be it retail, hospitality or beauty, was insignificant when they applied initially. However, it became apparent that, when applying for ICOB 2, having the correct classification was critical in order to get both. When we implemented the power up grant in October 2024, it was on the basis that the applicant had previously been in receipt of ICOB 2. That is where the challenge is. We are scoping out the matter. While there is not a clear determination on the number, it is in the region of 6,000 businesses. We are engaging with the Department of public expenditure on the overall cost that will be involved, which is potentially in the region of €40 million. That still has to be determined.

On the timeline, we want to see this done as swiftly as possible, preferably before the end of the year. We will be directed in that engagement from local authorities with businesses that applied for ICOB 1.

I acknowledge what the Government has done. These supports are important. We are talking about small businesses that employ an enormous number of people throughout the country but are not massively profitable and, therefore, are vulnerable when these grants are not given to them. The grants are important to ensure their viability.

Will the Minister of State do two things in particular? I acknowledge what he said about the appeal process coming along and we have spoken about this before. I welcome that. It is timely, and the more timely it is, the better. I hear what the Minister of State has said about the timeline, but if we could speed that up and have it in place by the autumn for businesses, it would make a considerable difference to local economies around the country. These businesses are the lifeblood of our economy. They need our support. The Government wants to support them, but I would like to see them getting what they are entitled to sooner rather than later.

If there is a circumstance where a business got ICOB 1 and was denied ICOB 2 or did not get ICOB 1 and, therefore, was not entitled to ICOB 2, that needs to be rectified. We cannot leave any business in the lurch because of a simple clerical error that was made at local level. Let us try to fix this.

I thank the Minister of State for his response. I would also like to thank him and his departmental staff for the significant amount of work that has been put into the development and roll-out of the increased cost of business grant and the power up grant scheme. It is fair to say that these schemes were an enormous success and were greatly appreciated by eligible business owners. In fact, it is because of their success that I ask that a reintroduction be further explored.

I welcome the Minister's announcement this morning on the appeals mechanism that is being worked through. As outlined by the other Deputies, this will give hope to some businesses that for some reason were categorised incorrectly in their applications for the power up grant. To make a brief wider point, the alignment with the ICOB grant has presented difficulties for many businesses. This is going back to the 2023 rate payment. There are many businesses that entered into business since that time, so they have not received any support.

Another point is that, in the case of many businesses, their landlords pay the rates on their behalf and the businesses pay an amount to their landlords that includes rent and rates. Unfortunately, those businesses did not qualify for any grant, neither the ICOB nor the power up grant. The alignment with the ICOB grant has continued that problem for many businesses. I am not sure if there is scope in the appeals mechanism to look at the issue now, but can it be examined for future grants? Many businesses are doing their best creating employment but are not eligible on that basis.

We have a supplementary question from Deputy Conway-Walsh.

I am glad that the Department is seeing sense with this because it obviously needed to be addressed. We have been doing grants for long enough and should not be in a situation where these anomalies arise. It concerns me that the Minister of State says he is engaging with the Department of public expenditure, as that can take a long time. I heard it mentioned that we would have the appeals process by autumn but it needs to be much sooner than that. I would contrast this situation with that of businesses that are trying to deal with Revenue, in that there is an inflexibility, particularly where there has been an accumulation of what is owed to Revenue. There needs to be flexibility for businesses, particularly those caught in this trap. It is significant that businesses that are no longer in operation be considered as well.

This matter needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. I am glad there has been a rowing back on it. It should not have happened in the first place. We recognise that businesses are struggling as it is. The turnaround needs to be immediate.

I thank the Deputies for their contributions as regards the announcement this morning.

Regarding the scheme and Deputy McGrath's point, the scheme was not perfect. There is an acknowledgement that it was reflective of the 2023 rates. Many businesses had to engage with local authorities about up-to-date rates and a rates repayment plan to bring them up to speed. We want to enhance potential further schemes down the road and ensure that the learnings from this process are implemented in them. However, we know the importance of the cash injection that many businesses received to deal with labour costs and energy costs over the past 12 months, which have been significant for their viability.

On the process, the Minister, Deputy Peter Burke, and I are determined to ensure that we have an accelerated and ambitious programme in terms of trying to get this done. The local authorities will engage with many businesses that were ineligible for ICOB 2. More than 75,000 businesses were in receipt of the first payment. They need to be engaged with to see who did not qualify and what sectors specifically did not qualify for ICOB 2. We want this to come to a conclusion and to ensure that these learnings are implemented in any future schemes.

Before we move on, I will briefly welcome a group of fifth year students to the Public Gallery. They are peer mentors from Enfield Community College in Enfield, County Meath. They are doing incredible work. We can see them up there and we look forward to seeing some of them down here in the coming years. I congratulate them and thank their principal, Shane, and teacher, Gráinne, for doing that. You are all very welcome this morning.

I am asking for an update on the commitment in the programme for Government to examine ways to make it easier and more transparent for people on work permits to change jobs legally. Last week, I visited the Migrant Rights Centre. I had a great discussion with it and met many people who had come to this country with the intention to work. There is a matter of basic fairness and of upholding our international reputation as a country that respects the rights of workers.

I thank the Deputy. A well-functioning labour market and good working conditions are essential components of sustainable and inclusive growth. As part of the efforts to maintain this, the Government operates an employment permits system that is highly responsive to the labour market. I recognise the valuable role migrant workers play in Irish society, particularly in critical areas such as healthcare and ICT. The year 2024 saw significant progress in the implementation of changes to the employment permits system to address the commitments now set out in the programme for Government.

The Employment Permits Act 2024 introduced several improvements to the employment permits system, making it more flexible. This includes the provision of new change-of-employer processes, facilitating permit holders to move jobs more easily. Permit holders on the two main permit types can change to a new employer under their existing permit after a period of nine months has passed since commencing their first employment permit in the State. This has made it significantly easier for permit holders to seek more favourable working conditions and to ensure employers provide the required conditions.

I welcome the fact there is movement on this, but at the heart of the issue is a simple question of fairness. Workers who come to Ireland on employment permits are legally present in the country, paying taxes and contributing to our essential sectors, such as those mentioned by the Minister of State, but once they arrive, they find themselves tied to a single employer under rigid rules that limit their ability to change jobs. I spoke to one of these migrants who was a mushroom picker about the conditions the workers were working in and how they felt they were stuck with the job. It is not acceptable.

If we go back to where Ireland was, we are a proud nation and we emigrated and worked in these types of job. When we look at the people who left this country, we should be fighting for the people who are coming to this country to have the same rights.

We have heard countless stories, one of which I just mentioned. In some cases, migrants are left waiting for too long for decisions and feel as if they are trapped. In the worst cases, people are left vulnerable to abuse by employers because the employers know these people do not have another option.

I understand the issues about migrants the Deputy is raising. We have heard some of the stories and I have engaged also with the migrant refugee representative body to ensure their members are listened to and are front and centre in any enhancements we can make to the scheme. We have looked at how the granting of reactivation permits is in one sense supported. We want to work with the Department of Justice in that regard and ensure that we help to support non-EU workers who are in difficult circumstances while also highlighting these changes.

We have implemented a new online workers' employment permit system. That will have an additional benefit in terms of user interaction and real-time data on how permits are being processed. We will continue to engage with the Deputy and with any further suggestions he may have to support this.

I welcome the fact the Minister of State is engaging with these industries and he should continue to do that. I would also like his Department to examine the fee migrant workers are paying. Off the top of my head, it costs €200 yearly. It is an unfair fee and should be reduced because these people are struggling. They are coming here to work. Workers should not have to choose between leaving a bad situation and risking their legal status. We can and must do better and I welcome that the Minister of State's Department is doing that and I thank him.

The real question is, will we see legislative reform in this area in 2025? Will the Department commit to a clear set of reforms that put mobility, workers' rights and transparency at the centre of the work permit system?

I thank the Deputy for his input. We are open to any suggestions or proposals and will work through any enhancements needed within the system. I do not think it should be a rigid system. It should be agile and flexible to meet the needs of our current labour market. If the general work permits or critical skill work permits are required, we actively update the needs analysis regarding which sectors do or do not require an increased quota. We need to put workers front and centre in terms of any inappropriate conditions they may be subjected to.

The Deputy is right that mobility in the sector is important. We have made additions to the nine-month eligibility requirement to move. We also need to ensure migrants are not moving from one sector to the same sector and facing challenges around where that employment is. If they are based in Dublin, the west or the south, there might be barriers to mobility, for example, family, schools, etc. I will work with the Deputy and the migrant community on that.

In light of recent utility price volatility, global economic uncertainty, trade wars and the threat of tariffs, it was really good to see the business energy upgrade scheme launched in November. Now that it has been under way for five months, will the Minister of State give us an update on the uptake of the scheme, how it is working and whether public bodies are utilising it?

I thank the Deputy. As she will be aware, I, as the Minister of State at the Department for Enterprise, Trade and Employment with responsibility for small business and retail, have responsibility for ensuring that emissions in the commercial built environment are reduced in line with climate action targets. Achieving these targets will mean that many owners of commercial properties will have to carry out energy upgrade works to their buildings. Such works can include installing smart meters and replacing gas and oil heating with a heat pump system. Doing so will come at a cost, though, and it is for this reason that I welcomed the introduction of the business energy upgrades scheme, which is run by the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI. The scheme is designed to meet some of the upfront costs of these upgrade works and provide rapid grants and options for businesses at varying grant rates. They can get up to 30% support for a range of energy upgrade measures and up to 50% support to optimise existing systems and support retrofit design costs. I am pleased that there has been a strong uptake of the scheme since it opened for applications. There are over 200 draft applications in progress and 78 offers have been made to date, to an approximate value of €1.8 million.

The scheme is funded from the climate action fund and offers up to €120,000 for a range of common building upgrade measures, including pumps, solar thermal, automatic controls, heat pumps, ventilation and wall insulation. The applications received are for all the potential measures currently offered under the scheme.

I thank the Minister of State. As someone who has spent my recent years advising SMEs, it is important to remember that a lot of them do not have the capacity to be continually checking what grants are open for application and navigating difficult processes, so it is important that we have a streamlined, efficient process. Will the Minister of State tell me how long it is taking to finalise and confirm draft applications? In the Department's view, is the scheme working or is there anything we can do to improve it? What can we do to improve the uptake of the scheme? While it is great that there are 200 applications, there are a lot more than 200 SMEs in this country. Are we appropriately advertising the scheme to make sure we are encouraging uptake to help support these SMEs with their energy costs at a time when they are particularly suffering with them?

A key priority for the Government within our competitiveness plan is to engage with the Department of energy, climate and environment to ensure we can drive down the cost of energy, not just for residential consumers, but for businesses to ensure they remain viable.

It is probably one of the most important areas we can focus on and currently are focused on. We are providing grants to small businesses around emissions and ensuring that they have access to grants to support their transition to more carbon-efficient and green initiatives.

This is an important energy grant scheme. The 200 applications demonstrate there is a confidence and commitment from businesses to engage in this process. We have also previously seen many businesses invest in new refrigeration units, and I know that was supported through our Department. We will continue on that trajectory. A timeline regarding the applications is with the SEAI, which administers the scheme. I can get that to the Deputy.

I thank the Minister of State. As he said, it is important that we support our SMEs with their energy costs, and it is great that we have this scheme. It is important that we have a periodic review of the uptake of the scheme to make sure it was working. If the uptake is not increasing substantially, we need to look at how we are advertising that scheme and encouraging SMEs to take it up, as well as making sure that it is quick and efficient and that the timeline to approve the grant applications is actually appropriate.

The Minister, Deputy O'Brien, is working with the SEAI to try to streamline the grant applications, not just for businesses, but for homes under the warmer homes scheme. Where businesses or customers successfully make an application to get onto the scheme, the scheme takes into consideration the likelihood of trying to procure a contractor. That extends out the timeline so, in effect, the timeline could be 18 months before an actual contractor is available to do it. However, I think the SEAI should measure when the actual grant is processed and approved, and then it is up to the business itself to find out when the works commence. It is a vital support, and there is a commitment to enhance this scheme into the future, with approximately €1.8 million already committed. We want to go even further in future to support business.

We will have time to introduce the question and for one supplementary before the end of this session, if that is okay.

I thank the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach. I wish to ask the Minister about the primary operational difficulties that have arisen due to failures in the IT system in the Companies Registration Office, CRO, related to the strike-off process, and how these difficulties have impacted the CRO's management of its statutory obligations to monitor and enforce that strike-off process.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 14 and 25 together.

I thank the Deputy for his questions. Companies can be struck off the companies register on either a voluntary or involuntary basis. Voluntary strike-off is proceeding as normal, with companies meeting the criteria being struck off on an ongoing basis by the Companies Registration Office. Involuntary strike-off by the CRO arises when companies are not meeting the requirements of the Companies Act 2014 with respect to registered directors and the annual filing of returns.

Due to difficulties with the enforcement module of the CRO’s IT system, the CRO suspended its involuntary strike-off programme early in 2024. Involuntary strike-off has since recommenced on a curtailed basis, as the underlying IT issues have still not been fully resolved. The primary operational issues that have arisen as a result of the IT problem are that the involuntary strike-off process currently needs more manual checks put in place than with a fully automated process, and as a result, fewer companies have been struck off.

The CRO continues to monitor companies for compliance with their statutory filing obligations and to enforce filing obligations under the Companies Act 2014. All annual returns filed late are subject to a late filing fee of €100 for the first day and €3 per day thereafter. Where appropriate, a company filing a late annual return also automatically loses its audit exemption. The late filing fee regime is operating as normal and the CRO received a total of €9.7 million in late filing fees during 2024.

The current involuntary strike-off programme is focusing on companies that have no registered directors, which is a breach of the Companies Act. When the programme has been completed, the focus will move to companies that have failed to file annual returns and those that have failed to register beneficial ownership information with the registrar.

The CRO has spent a total of €313,567 to date in 2025 on support and maintenance for its IT system. The sum is in respect of the total cost of support and maintenance for the first quarter of the year for the CRO and also the offices of the Registry of Friendly Societies and the Central Register of Beneficial Ownership of Companies and Industrial and Provident Societies, and includes the cost of fixing bugs that arise.

I thank the Minister. I am asking about the operational breakdown at the Companies Registration Office and specifically how the failure in the CRO's IT system has undermined the functioning of the company strike-off. We know, and it was confirmed by reporting earlier this year, that the CRO has been forced, due to persistent failures in its IT systems, to resort to manually striking companies off. The Minister has confirmed that, while there is some non-manual processing taking place, manual processing is still taking place, which is not satisfactory. That regression to manual processing is not only inefficient; it is an admission that the system that was put in place at public expense is not delivering on its core function. This has reportedly created a backlog in enforcement actions but it is also eroding legal certainty for businesses trying to comply with their filing obligations.

The CRO currently has a statutory obligation to monitor compliance and initiate strike-offs where companies fail to meet their obligations but that power has to be exercised transparently, fairly and predictably.

I wish to clarify that legal obligations still remain on the part of companies. We received approximately 560,000 submissions last year, so any company that is not complying with the Companies Act will be prosecuted. I want to be very clear on that; their obligations still remain.

Regarding how it happened, as far as I understand, it was noted when the CRO was going through an involuntary strike-off methodology that two or three rounds of strike-offs did not appear in the CRO gazette, which they are obviously obliged to do. That was noticed by the CRO, and then it had to go through them manually, which caused a significant issue and a delay with strike-offs.

I agree with the Deputy. We need to be efficient in this area. I have asked to meet the Companies Registration Office to get more information on the issues at hand but I assure the Deputy we will get to the bottom of it.

Critically, the number of submissions we are receiving through the CRO is at record levels and all obligations and legislative requirements still remain on company directors and their companies, across all the offices of the CRO.