The Exchequer returns for the first half of the year were published at the beginning of the month and the Deputy has just touched on them. VAT receipts amounted to €11.6 billion, which is an increase of €600 million and is just under 6% higher than in the first half of last year. The growth in VAT is consistent with the increase in consumer spending. On an annual basis, nominal spending was up by 4.7% in the first quarter of the year, the latest for which data is available. High-frequency indicators such as card payment data suggest that positive momentum has continued into the second quarter, which is also consistent with the VAT data I shared with the Deputy.
Sentiment score: 0.33
On overall tax receipts for the year, particularly when it comes to VAT, the advice I have received is that we expect to collect the VAT we indicated we would collect for the year. Currently, we are in line to deliver that target. I am aware of the role VAT can play in helping with the cost pressures businesses are facing. The programme for Government contains a clear commitment in relation to VAT for the food sector and gas and electricity. The decision in relation to VAT for gas and electricity has now been made to extend that up to budget day.
Sentiment score: 0.23
I cannot comment on decisions that will be announced on budget day. Deputy Brennan raised the particular issue of the 5% rate for the apartment sector. I have been advised by my officials in this area that if any attempt were to be made to move apartments down to 5%, other goods that are sold at the middle VAT rate would need to be moved down to 5% as well. That would have a particular effect on decisions we make with regard to food, accommodation and hospitality. I am advised that we cannot make a decision on a 5% rate for an apartment dwelling in isolation of the fact that we would need to move other parts of our economy down to the same rate with an extremely significant cost behind that. As I said, any such decisions will be considered carefully and announced in early October.
Sentiment score: 0.05
The approval of a prospectus document is a matter for the Central Bank of Ireland as the designated competent authority under the EU prospectus regulation. It is an operational matter for the Central Bank as the State’s financial regulator to ensure that a disclosure document for any offer of securities for sale to the public contains all the necessary information required by the EU prospectus regulation. Under that regulation, a prospectus must be drawn up, approved and published when securities are to be offered to the public and-or admitted to trading on a regulated market in the EU. It is important to be absolutely clear that the Israeli bonds themselves are not sold by the Central Bank, nor are they listed for sale on the Irish Stock Exchange. As such, the Department of Finance does not have a role in approving any prospectus documents for issuers of bonds. With regard to issues that have arisen on this topic such as parliamentary questions, Dáil debates, Private Members' Bills or motions, my officials to date have had regular engagement with officials from the Central Bank of Ireland and liaised with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, as that Department is the lead Department of government on overseas matters and any proposed restrictive measures against another State. As I referenced during the Second Stage debate on the recent Private Members' Bill, the Restrictive Financial Measures (State of Israel) Bill 2025, my officials have engaged with the Attorney General’s office. In addition, the Attorney General wrote to me providing preliminary advice on the proposed Bill. My officials would also have liaised with officials from the Central Bank of Ireland in preparing for the debate in the House on the recent Private Members' Bill and motion brought by Opposition parties, on the prospectus approval process. Finally, on 11 July, the Minister of State, Deputy Troy, met with the Palestinian ambassador to Ireland.
Sentiment score: 0.41
In relation to the different questions, I was aware of the shareholding that ISIF had, indirectly in the Israeli bonds as part of the preparation for the publication of its annual report. I was not aware up to that point. The bonds have now been sold. I have outlined on other occasions, just a few moments ago, the engagement between my own officials and the Central Bank. In terms of the role that we play from a prospectus point of view, the Central Bank plays a very narrow and specific role in relation to the prospectuses and to their evaluation. It has to act in a way that is consistent with its legal obligations, and it does. I and the Governor of the Central Bank are well aware of all the debate around this matter. However, it is acting in a way that is consistent with the obligations it has on a very narrow and specific function.
Sentiment score: 0.18
Of course, I am happy to give the exact dates to the Deputy. I will ascertain them and come back to him on it. This decision was made by ISIF. The government bonds are no longer held by it. I am happy to come back to the Deputies with the dates they are looking for as to when the decision was made and regarding what Deputy Ó Murchú has said there. Of course I am fully aware of the debate that is there in relation to the role of the Central Bank and the role it plays on the prospectus evaluation, particularly given the debates we have had in this House on the issue. I emphasise again that it has a very narrow set of legal responsibilities to which is has to adhere. It is. It is aware, as am I, of all of the debates around the issue. It has a very small specific role. That is all it discharges.
Sentiment score: 0.11
The long-standing policy of this Government is to return the remaining banks to private ownership while achieving value for the taxpayer. It continues to be the Government's belief that banking in the main is an activity that should be provided by the private sector and that taxpayer funds which were used to rescue the banks should be recovered and used for more productive purposes. The distribution of capital is the responsibility of the board and management of the bank. To assess this hypothetical scenario, I would need to speculate on both the level of dividends and indeed the mix of capital distribution via cash dividends or buybacks that the bank might have declared in a scenario where the State did not reduce its shareholding between 2022 and 2024. The factual position is that AIB paid ordinary dividends of €166 million, then €696 million and then €861 million in respect of the fiscal years 2022 to 2024. The total yield to the State from those dividends was €463 million. In conjunction with the payment of ordinary dividends, AIB completed directed share buyback programmes from the State. The total yield to the State from these directed buybacks was €2.9 billion. Regarding the 2024 figure, a €500 million directed buyback was completed during the following half-year results and a further €1.2 billion following the full-year results. To reiterate, I cannot speculate on what the board of AIB would have done as regards capital distributions over the period to which the Deputy refers, as the State's shareholding would have remained unchanged.
Sentiment score: 0.16
Well, look, the Deputy referred to simple maths. I would refer to a simple understanding of stock markets. I know Deputy Doherty is a little hazy and unclear on the issue of how companies are owned. In regard to AIB, if we were in a position where the financial markets were expecting that the State was not going to reduce its shareholding in AIB over time, of course that would materially affect the value of the shares. The Deputy cannot simply say - he knows this - that if we were still the majority shareholder in AIB, we would be able to sell the shares at a different price. The fact that we were willing to sell the shares in the first place influenced what the price would have been when they were sold. I fundamentally do not accept the argument Deputy Doherty is making. He knows the money we have gained back from the share transactions that have been made. I am at a loss as to why we would want to retain a deep ownership between ourselves and our banking system, given all the difficulties that caused in the past.
Sentiment score: 0.15
The Deputy is completely wrong. He said he would have been happy for us to keep shares in our banks when he is aware of the long-term risk of the relationship between the financial health of the State and our banking system becoming too close. He understands that as well as I do. Why would we want the financial health of our country to be some way influenced all over again by the movement upwards and downwards of a share price within our banking system? We got good value for the taxpayer in relation to all of this.
Sentiment score: 0.27
The total transaction-----
Sentiment score: 0.00
There we go.
Sentiment score: 0.00
There we go. When did I make reference to Anglo Irish Bank?
Sentiment score: 0.00
This has become a very familiar tactic of Deputy Doherty's over many years. He asked me a question about AIB and Bank of Ireland-----
Sentiment score: 0.00
-----and I answered the question about AIB and Bank of Ireland. The Deputy then plucked the huge loss of taxpayers' money in relation to Anglo Irish Bank, which this question is not about.
Sentiment score: 0.00
What the Deputy is doing-----
Sentiment score: 0.00
-----is putting forward an argument that does not make sense.
Sentiment score: -0.36
The Deputy tends to be quite hazy on the issue-----
Sentiment score: 0.00
-----of how companies are owned.
Sentiment score: 0.00
I know that and he knows that. I have answered the question.
Sentiment score: 0.00
As I said, I do not play a role in determining the investment decisions that ISIF makes. They are made independent of me and this decision was made by ISIF in the way I have just explained to the Deputy.
Sentiment score: -0.13
I have responsibility for setting the general direction that is given to ISIF. However, I do not play a role in determining the individual bonds and shares that ISIF holds. All the Deputies know that. I do not play a role. I do not direct or communicate to ISIF and tell it what individual investment decisions to make. What I do is communicate with ISIF and set a general direction for it.
Sentiment score: -0.04
That is the word. What the Deputy is trying to do is to create the impression that I am involved in giving a direction to ISIF-----
Sentiment score: 0.33
-----regarding individual investment decisions it makes. That does not happen. The word the Deputy used is correct. "Strategic" direction-----
Sentiment score: 0.00
Strategic direction-----
Sentiment score: 0.00
If the Deputy really was interested in an answer from me, I would hope he would give me the time to give the answer that this issue deserves.
Sentiment score: 0.71
I will reiterate, a Cheann Comhairle, that I do not play a role in issuing a direction to ISIF regarding the purchase of individual Government bonds-----
Sentiment score: -0.26
-----in Israel or elsewhere-----
Sentiment score: 0.00
-----and ISIF itself has decided-----
Sentiment score: 0.00
-----and it has implemented this-----
Sentiment score: 0.00
-----to no longer hold those shares.
Sentiment score: 0.00
The rent tax credit was introduced by the Finance Act 2022 and may be claimed in respect of qualifying rent paid in 2022 and subsequent years to the end of 2025. The value of the credit was €500 for a single person and €1,000 for a jointly assessed couple. For 2024 and 2025, the value of the credit increased to €1,000 for a single person and €2,000 for a jointly assessed couple. The rent tax credit has played a valuable role in providing financial support to renters right across the country. I am informed by Revenue that 313,980 taxpayers, both PAYE and self-assessed taxpayers, claimed the rent tax credit for 2022. Of these, 273,160 taxpayer units benefited from the rent tax credit in that year. The extent to which a claimant benefits from a tax credit, through a reduced liability or receipt of a refund for overpayment of a tax liability, is determined by their gross tax liability and use of other tax credits and reliefs. Taxpayers who claim the rent tax credit may not benefit from this credit as a result of other reliefs, deductions and tax credits already reducing their net tax liability to nil. To 1 July of this year, the number of claims made by taxpayer units in respect of the rent tax credit are as follows: 307,270 for 2023, 289,700 for 2024 and 73,600 for 2025.
Sentiment score: 0.63
I am very much aware of the value and role that this rent tax credit plays in helping with the cost of living. That is why over a number of budgets I, along with the Minister, Deputy Chambers, and the former Minister, Michael McGrath, have made changes to the value of it. The decisions that will be made on budget day are being carefully considered at the moment. As I said to the Deputy earlier in response to his earlier question, it would not be appropriate for me to indicate now what we plan to do. We have to be very careful because we are making these decisions against the backdrop of an economic environment that is very uncertain. We have to ensure that any decisions we make are ones we will be able to afford in the years to come. I am not suggesting that any one measure on its own might be something we might not be able to sustain into the future, but all of them put together is where the risk arises.
Sentiment score: 0.17
The figures I shared with the Deputy earlier show overall that this rent tax credit is being reasonably broadly used. I remember when the tax credit was brought in that in the early period in which it was being made available, I was concerned that the drawdown and use of it was not as broad as I would have hoped. Towards the end of the tax year, however, we saw more taxpayers who were eligible for it register. As regards the communication and drawing attention to it, the advertising the State does directly and then the advice that individual taxpayers can receive are where it becomes so valuable. This is a rent tax credit that can play a valuable role in helping taxpayers deal with the high cost of rent. As I said, we will consider that and other tax credits as part of the preparation for budget 2026.
Sentiment score: 0.51
The Ireland Strategic Investment Fund is a €16.6 billion fund comprising a discretionary portfolio of €8.9 billion and a directed portfolio of €7.7 billion based on its annual report. It has complete independence in implementing its investment strategy under the NTMA Acts under an investment committee reporting to the NTMA's board. At the end of 2024, ISIF held, both directly and indirectly, €7.76 million in six companies listed on the UN database, which is 0.16% of its global portfolio. Direct investments by the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund in companies on the UN database were approximately €5.6 million in four companies, and indirect investments were €2.16 million and included five companies. ISIF divested from six companies in 2024, with a total value of approximately €2.95 million across that year. The six companies were Bank Hapoalim, Bank Leumi Le-Israel BM, Israel Discount Bank Limited, Mizrahi-Tefahot Bank Limited, First International Bank of Israel Limited and Rami Levi Chain Stores Limited. At that time, ISIF determined that the risk of these investments was no longer appropriate. Given the scale of the portfolio ISIF manages and how much of our money it is responsible for, it is important to recognise the independence of the NTMA board and the decisions it makes. Divestments have already taken place, and ISIF will determine the correct investments in a way that is consistent with its independence and mandate.
Sentiment score: -0.01
I have shared this information with the Dáil on a number of occasions since I was reappointed as Minister for Finance. I am absolutely aware of all the awful humanitarian catastrophe that is unfolding on the people of Gaza and the House is aware of the very strong diplomatic action that this State is taking with regard to it. On this particular issue, as I said, ISIF has divested from a number of companies that are active in that area. It is independent of me. I do not play a role in directing it with regard to individual transactions it makes. I know that the board of ISIF and the NTMA will be well aware of all the issues that are associated with some of these investments, which is why they have exited from a number of them.
Sentiment score: 0.06
Again, I condemn what is happening to the people of Gaza and the awful violence and trauma that is being inflicted on them. However, the Deputy referred to the importance of international law. I also have to adhere to domestic law and under domestic law, ISIF is independent of me. I can give it guidance, and strong guidance, in relation to its overall strategy, for which I have a statutory role, but I do not play a role in individual decisions it makes with regard to shares or bonds.
Sentiment score: -0.05
It is important that I do not play a role. This is an organisation that is responsible for €16.6 billion of our money. In order for that money to be looked after and managed in a way that is safe, it is very important that a Government does not play a role in directing it on individual transactions it makes.
Sentiment score: 0.24
I want to emphasise again my condemnation of all that is happening to the people of Gaza.
Sentiment score: -0.54
I provided some information on this in my answer to Deputy Nash earlier, so I will just reiterate some of the key points. It will take some time to understand the consequences of this understanding that has been reached between a number of countries and America. The key issue I am concerned about is how this is consistent with the operation of the OECD agreement and the particular issues within that broad framework for me are, first, what this means for the competitiveness of countries and companies that are still inside pillar 2; second, how this side-by-side arrangement will actually happen; and third, how it will be implemented. Engagements in the OECD with regard to this are ongoing. A G20 meeting taking place at the moment may begin to allow us and other countries to understand these issues better.
Sentiment score: 0.28
I do not expect pillar 1 to conclude soon given all the difficulties with regard to pillar 2 at the moment. On whether this would automatically lead to a change in the EU directive, I do not believe it will. As I said in response to Deputy Nash earlier, we are considering what this will mean for the implementation of the EU directive and what that means for Ireland’s competitiveness and for Europe’s competitiveness if Ireland and Europe stay inside the second pillar of the OECD agreement while America is co-existing with it but is not in it. I am considering all of this at the moment with my officials. If it requires any change to the finance Bill, we will certainly do that, but at this stage I cannot give the Deputy a definitive answer.
Sentiment score: 0.03
I believe they are still inside the OECD agreement and pillar 2 and those countries are participating in the OECD reaction to all this and making clear they are committed to the OECD process. Therefore, the answer to the Deputy’s question is that, yes, I believe they are still in it. I have not spoken to EU finance ministers on this particular tax issue in the last number of weeks but it was discussed at the Economic and Financial Affairs Council, ECOFIN breakfast that took place a week ago. At that meeting, most of the finance ministers whose countries were affected by this decision did contribute and in those contributions they made clear they were committed to the OECD framework. However, a lot of issues have now been raised by this for Ireland and Europe. I will spend some time considering them and will answer the Deputy’s questions on that in the time ahead.
Sentiment score: 0.28