1. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance the steps he will take to deliver on transparency and affordability in the insurance sector in the context of insurance premiums either remaining too high or increasing, and the pressure this places on households, community organisations and small businesses; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5417/25]
Sentiment score: -0.09
The question before us relates to the ever-increasing insurance costs that motorists, homeowners, small businesses and sports clubs have to pay. One would think all is good with insurance looking at the programme for Government. Does the Minister accept that there is a fundamental problem with insurance in the State? Does he also accept that premiums are too high and are increasing for many? What is he going to do to bring about a reduction in insurance premiums and ensure affordability? In this new Dáil term, will he stop blocking my Bill that would bring accountability and force insurance companies to show whether they are passing on savings that have been made as a result of reforms introduced in these Houses?
Sentiment score: 0.08
The Minister of State is new in the brief but I have heard nothing from him that is new. The one factor that is constant in all of this is that people are being ripped off. Motor insurance has increased by 12% since 2022. I am sure the Minister of State knows all about the increases from having to insure his house. A significant number of people are seeing their insurance premium go up, and not only by €300, €400 or €500. What is happening in the insurance industry is ridiculous. Insurance brokers argue that it is due to the cost of construction, but the latter has not increased to that level. The profits of this industry are at record highs. They are huge, yet the number of claims and the value of the awards that have been paid through the courts and other bodies are decreasing. What is happening here is the profits of the industry are increasing, the premiums are going up and it is punters - ordinary people - who are suffering. They are looking to the Government for action. I introduced legislation that would force insurance companies to do what happens in the North and in Britain, which is to give an account of whether they are passing on the savings being made. Why is the Government blocking that legislation? Perhaps as a new Minister of State, Deputy Troy will stop blocking that legislation and allow it to pass.
Sentiment score: 0.03
If we have the same objective, then the Government should allow the legislation that I have drafted to proceed. It passed Second Stage here about three years ago. The Government is stopping that legislation from being passed. All of the major insurance companies here are the same ones that operate in Britain, where they have to account for whether the reduced costs that the changes in the legislation there are supposed to have resulted in have been passed on. If the Minister of State is genuinely sincere in what he says, then let us work on this together. I would like to hear the Minister of State's view on the Government's position. He will be aware that the Judicial Council has submitted its proposal to the Minister for Justice on an almost 17% increase in the value of awards. That is something which would result in awards going up. What are the Government's views in that regard? There is no doubt that there have been many changes. I advocated for a large number of them, and we supported all of them. However, one thing we said previously is that we need to get agreement from the insurance industry about what this would mean for premiums. Industry representatives came before the finance committee and told us that if we did not see reductions of 20%, we would need to ask serious questions. There have been no reductions of 20%. Motor insurance has gone up by 12% and the cost of household insurance has gone through the roof. Public liability for sports clubs and businesses never decreased.
Sentiment score: 0.12
I am asking the serious questions. I am asking the Minister of State if he is asking serious questions, and if he will stop blocking my legislation.
Sentiment score: -0.35
3. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance if he will deliver on election campaign promises to reduce the VAT rate for the hospitality sector in advance of the budget in October 2026, in recognition of the difficulties faced by many small businesses in the hospitality sector; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5418/25]
Sentiment score: 0.04
This is about the reduction of the VAT rate for the hospitality sector. The Minister will be well aware that Sinn Féin was the only party to call for the 9% VAT rate for the hospitality sector in the general election. The Minister campaigned for a rate of 11%, and Fianna Fáil wished to keep the higher rate. There is a commitment in the programme for Government to reduce the rate. It has been reported that it will be 9% but the programme for Government is vague on the percentage. Can the Minister confirm the Government’s position? Will the rate be 9%? When will it come into effect? Will it be in effect before the summer, on budget day or 1 January?
Sentiment score: 0.09
Can the Minister offer clarification to the House and, more importantly, to the thousands of businesses across the State and the 130,000 people dependent on jobs in the hospitality sector? That sector is under pressure. We have seen 700 businesses close down since the Government increased the VAT rate to 13.5%. According to CSO employment figures released in June, the hospitality sector saw the largest drop of any sector, namely 0.9%. Is there a reason the Minister is not committing to a rate of 9%? Everybody believes that the rate will be 9%. Is he not doing that just because it is tradition to do it on budget day or is there a question mark over whether it could still be the 11% he advocated during the general election campaign? Is it still up for debate? That is the first question. The Minister made a commitment and recognised that there was a need to do this within the first 100 days of the Government being in office. Does he still believe that? We strongly believe that this should be done before the summer. If it does not happen then, when will it happen? Reference to the budget can mean something happening on budget night or on 1 January. What sectors will be included?
Sentiment score: 0.05
I am very concerned about what the Minister just said. I say that because I have been in premises and spoken with hoteliers and restaurateurs. They opened up their books to me in some cases. They are expecting a reduction to 9%. They are talking to their accountants and figuring whether they can hang on. They are also talking in some cases to their bank managers. The Government was saying it would be 9%. It is not clear now whether it will be 9%. Is there a reason the Minister is not saying what everybody else said after the programme for Government was agreed? The number is not in the programme for Government. That is why I am asking the Minister the question. Can he give any comfort to people expecting a 9% rate and engaging with their bank managers and accountants on that basis that this will be the rate? There are others, outside of the accommodation sector, such as the hospitality sector, the events industry, cinemas and so on, who were looking for this. Can the Minister clarify whether this will apply to them or is he of the view that it relates solely to hotels and catering? I ask the question for the third time: will this take effect on budget night or on 1 January? This is important information for businesses thinking of whether they can hang on.
Sentiment score: 0.05
5. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance to outline the implications for Ireland of the recent decision by the new US Administration to withdraw from the OECD Global Tax Deal, making specific reference to both pillars of the agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5419/25]
Sentiment score: 0.17
This question is on the OECD pillar 2. Obviously, for those of us who support the OECD process and the outcomes of that the decision by the American Administration to withdraw from it has caused serious questions about the implementation not only of pillar 1, which was stalled, but also the practicality of pillar 2. As this is transposed into domestic legislation it includes the provision of the undertaxed profits rule, UTPR, which could potentially see this State applying top-up tax to American companies. It was really never the intention for a major economic powerhouse to not be part of this, so I am asking where we need to go with this and what are the early considerations from the Department.
Sentiment score: 0.13
I thank the Minister. I am going to park pillar 1 because it never came into effect anyway and we have not transposed it into legislation. If we look at it from a financial point of view it was not in our interests and if we look at it from a global point of view it was good to have an agreement internationally. Pillar 2 is a serious problem for us because it is now in our domestic law and companies are preparing for the 15% minimum effective tax rate, which I completely and utterly support. Those companies are probably asking whether that tax rate is going to apply and can this deal go ahead without American involvement. I agree with the Minister’s point we need to try to bring America back into the fold and discuss this, but my question is whether he or the Department are looking at that legislation and how it would apply if America stays with its current position. Our legislation means this State will potentially have to collect taxes from American companies that never operated here and never employed anybody here just because they have a subsidiary here. That is a serious problem for this deal. The interest is to get the Americans back in to discuss and negotiate this but if that does not happen what preparations are we making and what is the timeframe we need to deal with?
Sentiment score: 0.17
I thank the Minister. I agree it is early days and we will have to see. President Trump has made statements that seem to be a negotiation stance, so we definitely need to have those engagements at a European level and a domestic level to see how this will play out. Obviously pillar 1 and pillar 2 had a net reduction in our corporation tax. The implementation of those reduced the corporation tax the State would bring in and therefore the non-application of it would have the reverse effect, but there could be other consequences. The United States Administration has also threatened to use section 891, which allows for the executive authority to deal with discriminatory extraterritorial taxes if it believes a jurisdiction is impacting on American multinationals moreso than anywhere else. Given the dependence on American multinationals here and the number of them that will be paying the 15% tax rate compared with others, is there any concern about this measure being used against Ireland? What engagement have we had with the US Administration up to now at a domestic level, as opposed to a European level, which is also important?
Sentiment score: 0.27