My understanding is that priority questions cannot be grouped.
Sentiment score: 0.00
I have never seen that in the history of the Dáil. Priority questions are-----.
Sentiment score: 0.00
I ask that they not be grouped, with the indulgence of the Chair. It is not fair for them to be grouped. Question No. 1 relates to a major issue.
Sentiment score: -0.13
I propose that we not group them
Sentiment score: 0.00
I thank the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach for that.
Sentiment score: 0.36
1. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance to outline the potential impact on employment and tax revenues from possible US tariffs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16502/25]
Sentiment score: 0.01
This question relates to the potential impact on unemployment and tax revenues as a result of the announcement of US tariffs. We heard what Donald Trump had to say last night, with 20% tariffs being imposed on this State. Pharmaceuticals will not be the subject of a tariff, although we hold our breath in relation to that. We have the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, and Department of Finance modelling on 25% tariffs and a reciprocal tariff from the EU and their impact in the context of job losses and potential income from taxation. Has any early work been done on what these tariffs will look like when it comes to jobs? In all circumstances, the analysis shows that employment will continue to grow, even on the basis of the 25% tariff scenario. The modelling to which I refer estimates that the impact on the public finances would be approximately €500 million. Given what was announced yesterday, it appears that the impact will be somewhat less. Will the Minister elaborate on this matter?
Sentiment score: -0.06
Given that the ESRI and the Department of Finance have worked out these models, I put it to the Minister that we should very quickly have information on the 20% scenario outlined by the Trump Administration last night. The analysis done by the ESRI and the Department of Finance examined the potential impact of a US Administration tariff and gave us the numbers for it. They also looked at the impact of countermeasures from Europe. These are still unknown, but different scenarios were assumed. In all circumstances, in the context of jobs, public finances, tax, the economy and businesses, it was shown that countermeasures from the European Union would have a significant impact on Ireland. On modified domestic demand, the analysis carried out was based on a 25% tariff. The Minister referred to it decreasing by 1% to 2% from the baseline. Am I right in saying that we would still see growth right throughout the four-year period that has been assessed? In other words, modified domestic demand and GDP will continue to grow in all scenarios. Indeed, employment would also continue to grow, despite it being a reduction from what would be the case in a non-tariff scenario.
Sentiment score: 0.03
The key here is negotiation and de-escalation. We need to get to a point where sensible and cool heads prevail. What happened yesterday was an act of economic sabotage by the US Administration in respect of its own economy. What was done will push up prices for American consumers. Obviously, the analysis was based on a 25% tariff, which was more severe than what we have seen, particularly as a tariff of 20% on pharma has been excluded at this point. This would probably allow for GDP growth of approximately 2% to 2.5% in the next number of years, which would be positive. Would that be correct? In the context of EU countermeasures, I am deeply concerned that we could have a scenario where, as the ESRI and the Department have indicated, countermeasures will impact on jobs, economic growth and the public finances and will obviously push up prices for consumers. What is the Minister's concern in this regard and in the context of the fact that EU countermeasures could give rise to a proper trade war? The US Administration has adopted a unilateral position. We need to get into dialogue with the US Administration in order to try to de-escalate matters and get it to reverse its decision. We have to be careful that we do not step into a trade war.
Sentiment score: -0.02
Not true.
Sentiment score: -0.33
She was on a trade mission there the week before.
Sentiment score: 0.00
It is interesting that the Minister would not answer my question on support for tariffs that will lead to prices for Irish consumers increasing. For his information, Michelle O'Neill was on a trade mission to the US in the week before St. Patrick's Day. We will continue to use our influence. If Deputy Donohoe, as Minister for Finance, wants to score political points on this serious issue, that is disappointing, particularly in light of what we are facing.
Sentiment score: 0.03
3. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance the steps he is taking to protect mortgage prisoners from extortionately high mortgage interest rates; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16503/25]
Sentiment score: 0.11
The scandal of selling off mortgages to vulture funds has never been addressed. Just this week, the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman, FSPO, legislation passing through the Seanad is finally giving people access to the financial ombudsman. That was only one of the many promises that mortgage holders would be treated the same that was broken. What steps is the Minister going to take to protect mortgage prisoners from extortionately high mortgage interest rates? We know they are being fleeced by the vulture funds. The Minister promised, along with others, that there would be no difference if their loans were sold on to mortgage funds. What an empty promise when we now see so many people paying extortionate interest rates in the hands of these vulture funds.
Sentiment score: -0.06
That is all cold comfort to people who are mortgage prisoners. The Minister was one of the cheerleaders who cheered this on and told them all there would be no difference and that it would be no problem whatsoever and they would have the same protections. However, he failed to deal with the main issue we are addressing. There are 7,000 mortgages holders that are now being charged over 8.5% with the vulture funds. There are 100,000 mortgage holders who saw their interest rate go up over 6% last year. To give a bit of context, if somebody has a mortgage of €300,000 and is paying 6%, he or she is paying €1,800 per month, which is over €6,000 more than somebody with a high street lender fixing at just over 3%. That is €6,000 more out of people's pockets. If someone is one of the 7,000 who is being charged 8.5%, he or she is paying €12,000 more because his or her loan was sold to a vulture fund. We know that during that time, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil sold the Irish people a fairy tale, telling them that they would be no worse off. The reality is that these mortgage prisoners are worse off, and they need a way back to normal banks. They cannot switch because some of them are in arrears or have been in arrears in the past. Has the Minister anything to say with regard to providing a pathway back for these people so that we have normal lending rates as opposed to what is now happening with rates of 8.5% and 6% and with over 100,000 mortgages in that position?
Sentiment score: -0.24
That was not the case.
Sentiment score: 0.00
First of all, that is not true. It was not the case. On vulture funds, until last week those people were not able to even go to the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman, a legal provision that everybody else had until I pointed it out to the Minister and forced that to be changed. The Minister said he would not mind if his mortgage was sold to the vulture funds. He made that statement to try to guarantee or give comfort to people that everything would be okay. I put it to him that there are 7,000 homeowners who are being charged an interest rate of over 8.5%. There are 100,000 homeowners who are being charged an interest rate of over 6%. They are all with the vulture funds. Why did this happen? Because the Minister, and Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, allowed this to happen. They blocked legislation that would stop this happening. They told people they would not be better off. The Minister should talk to the family that has now been paying €12,000 more per year on their mortgage because that loan was sold off to a vulture fund. That is the change. That is the difficulty. To tell them they have the same rights and entitlements is not the issue here. The are being screwed royally by these vulture funds, and the question is: what is the Government going to do? Is it going to continue to sit back and allow tens of thousands of Irish consumers to be fleeced in this way?
Sentiment score: -0.15
5. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance to outline any engagement he has had with the Central Bank on tax incentives and other demand-side measures for housing; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16504/25]
Sentiment score: 0.22
What engagement has the Minister had with the Central Bank regarding tax incentives and other demand-side measures for housing and will he make a statement on the matter, particularly in light of what appears to be the Governor of the Central Bank pouring cold water on the latest apparently back-of-the-envelope policy on housing from the Minister for housing? It is reported that the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, will meet the banks regarding that proposal. What discussions has he had with the Central Bank on this and what is his view regarding banks lending and reducing the level of equity builders would need to have when lending for housing?
Sentiment score: 0.22
We discovered during the election period that many of the Minister's colleagues, maybe himself included, went out and argued that there were going to be 40,000 houses delivered last year, which we know was a big lie because the Department of Finance had provided an assessment to the then Minister before the election that that was not possible. Indeed, there was a risk of fewer being built than in the previous year, which is what actually transpired. The Central Bank is pouring cold water on and disputing the Government's housing projections for the next three years. It believes that the Government will deliver 13,000 fewer homes than projected over the next three years. The Government is trying to justify measures whereby banks should lend to developers where developers have less skin in the game themselves. The Central Bank has come out and poured cold water on that. Surely the Minister, as Minister for Finance, is engaging with the Central Bank on this matter or is his Cabinet colleague doing a solo run? Double-digit price inflation is back for the first time in eight years. It was 11.6% last year. There is a role for the Central Bank in controlling inflation. It is reported that the Minister is to meet the banks concerning this idea about less equity from builders and more lending by banks. Is that actually on the cards?
Sentiment score: -0.03
Will the Dáil be given some clarity as to the Minister for Finance's position? Does he agree with his Cabinet colleague that banks should lend more to developers on the basis that the developers would have less equity? That is the proposal that has been made. It seems a bit hare-brained and Celtic tiger era, but it is not the first time we have seen something like it. We deserve to know what the Department of Finance and the Minister for Finance's position is. The Governor of the Central Bank has clearly poured cold water over the idea. I could not believe that the Minister for housing would make a statement like that without even discussing it with the Minister for Finance or the banks, but then, it is Fianna Fáil we are talking about, so I will leave it at that. What is the Minister for Finance's position? What is the position of the Department of Finance? Does the Minister for Finance agree with the Minister for housing's assessment that banks should lend more to developers with less equity provided by those developers? Will the Minister answer that question clearly because I would like to know, in his engagement with the banks, whether that is something that is going to be under consideration?
Sentiment score: 0.26
Does the Minister support the proposal or not?
Sentiment score: 0.40
It is still not clear. Does the Minister support the proposal?
Sentiment score: 0.05