I thank Deputy O'Callaghan for the question. In replying I want to restate the Government's clear opposition, which is also the clear opposition of this House, to illegal Israeli settlements, which are contrary to international law and damaging to the pursuit of peace in the Middle East. Ireland has not been found wanting in its support of the Palestinian people and has taken practical steps at national, EU and international levels. We have been a clear and leading voice on this. Ireland’s financial support to the people in Palestine since January 2023 will amount to €144 million by the end of this year, following a recent announcement of additional funding made by the Minister for foreign affairs, Deputy McEntee. The Deputy refers to the ISIF and to the UN Human Rights Council database, which identifies businesses involved in specific activities in the occupied Palestinian territories. This UN database was first issued in 2020, updated in June 2023 and most recently updated in September 2025. It is important to say from the outset that ISIF has complete independence in implementing its investment strategy under the law of the land, namely, the National Treasury Management Agency Acts, through an investment committee that reports to the NTMA's board. However, in 2024 ISIF took an investment decision to divest from six companies, all of which remain on the updated UN database, with a total value at the time of the divestment decision of approximately €2.95 million. The six companies are known and I am happy to provide them to the Deputy but in the interests of time, I will not name them now. The NTMA also divested from directly held sovereign bond holdings within the global portfolio across Egypt, Israel, and Jordan in July 2025. It is important to state the companies in question operate all over the world and ISIF's investment in them represents a very small proportion of its overall investments. This is, truthfully, some of the challenge. These are companies that are global and that operate right throughout the world. Unfortunately it is also true to say that divestment from these companies does not mean that they would stop maintaining their presence in the occupied Palestinian territories. As I have outlined already, ISIF has, to date, completed several divestment programmes and has also excluded investments from the fund. Exclusion is used on a limited basis, reflecting exclusions mandated by legislation including the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act 2018 and the Cluster Munitions and Anti-Personnel Mines Act 2008, among others.

Sentiment score: 0.17

I have a specific legal role and responsibility. The NTMA, and the ISIF in particular, has complete independence in implementing its investment strategy under the NTMA Act and I am respectful of that. However, I did recently meet with officials from the NTMA and I was assured that ISIF will continue to monitor its holdings. It does not comment on individual investments but I have outlined the views that I know are shared in this House. I will make two points to the Deputy on this. The first is that it is my understanding that ISIF exposure to companies involved in specified activities in the occupied Palestinian territories, as listed on the UN database, account for about 0.16% of its global portfolio. The fund has taken a number of decisions already to divest. The second point, and this is just a statement of the obvious, is that we are operating in a world where these are such large, global companies that have vast presences across the world. They may have a very small presence in a territory that we believe is absolutely illegally occupied but they are massive, global companies and that is a complicating factor. The independence of the NTMA and the ISIF has to be respected. I met with them recently and conveyed my views in relation to this. It represents only 0.16% of its global portfolio.

Sentiment score: 0.16

I do not in any way doubt the Deputy's bona fides and I fully respect his sincerity. I do not believe that I can go further than I have. I have made it clear that the ISIF has already taken a number of decisions to divest from companies and directly from sovereign bond holdings. It continues to monitor this. The fund's level of exposure in this area is 0.16% and has been declining. The fund continues to keep this under review. I want to see a situation where we do not have occupied Palestinian territories but where we have a two-state solution. That is the position of the Irish Government.

Sentiment score: 0.14

I thank Deputy Byrne for raising this issue. I acknowledge that it is not the first time he has raised it with me, despite my short time in this current role. I acknowledge the presence of this issue in the programme for Government. This question provides me with an opportunity to outline the significant investment that the Government has made in this area. The Government has now invested well over €1 billion in sports infrastructure and development in Ireland since 2018. It is worth putting that figure on the record. The return on that investment in community participation, inclusion, integration, and physical and mental well-being is enormous and it is probably not even possible to fully quantify all of those benefits. The allocation for the sports programme in the budget of 2026 is over €290 million, meaning an increase of just under €60 million, or 26%. This clearly exceeds the national sports policy commitment to double Government funding in sport by 2027 compared to 2018 levels. Our sincerity, bona fides and credibility in terms of investment in sport and physical and mental exercise and well-being are there for all to see. The programme for Government says that we will consider measures in conjunction with my Department to encourage gym membership and active participation in sport and exercise. The tax code already provides for a number of fitness-based measures, including the cycle to work scheme and the accelerated capital allowance scheme for child care facilities, but also for fitness centres, which encourages employers to develop fitness centres on site for their employees. Furthermore, the private gym sector already receives tax-based public support through the reduced rate of 9% VAT on its membership fees. It is estimated that this reduced rate saves private gym operators and gym members around €32 million per year. An exemption from income tax and corporation tax also applies for the income of certain bodies established for the purposes of the promotion of athletic or amateur games or sports where it can be shown to the satisfaction of Revenue that such income is applied solely for these for these purposes. Any income received and availing of the relief by the sports body must be used for the purpose of promoting the game or the sport. The Finance Act 2024 provided new measures in relation to sports bodies and their donors in terms of being able to elect for tax relief. Officials in my Department considered potential tax measures to support gym membership as part of the annual tax strategy group process last year in chapter 10 of the paper, "Income Tax: Tax Strategy Group - 25/01", which is available on the Department's website. This will be kept under review in the context of future budgets.

Sentiment score: 0.37

I instinctively agree. I do not mean to be pedantic but the programme for Government says we will consider measures. I take very seriously the programme for Government and we should continue to consider these measures as well. We had it looked at last year in the tax strategy group paper, which is published. The paper said it was not possible to estimate the exact cost of an income tax relief. It said that, conservatively, the measure would have an additional Exchequer cost of the order of €65 million, or if applied to all sports club memberships, about €147 million. There were some concerns about the dead weight in tax, which is there for all to read. I will not waste the time of the House with it now. However, we will keep this under review, and I take the Deputy's point about osteoporosis and the specific health benefits of resistance training. We have some income tax supports already. I have outlined the VAT and benefit-in-kind measures. There are also a number of other tax and direct expenditure measures. To make long story short, though, I will give consideration to this when the tax strategy papers are compiled again this year. I am happy to engage with the Deputy in advance of the next budget.

Sentiment score: 0.15

That hurt.

Sentiment score: -0.53

I had to be very disciplined in this role in relation to tax and tax commitments in the advance of the last budget and in advance of the next budget, given that it is the month of February. We will consider all of these matters and the compelling cases that are made. The tax strategy group paper is worth reading in relation to this. After reading and considering it, I wonder whether there could be a further tweaking, development or evolution of the policy points that Deputy Byrne is trying to advance. Regarding Deputy Callaghan's point, we have to get young people off their phones, off social media and back out exercising, socialising, engaging and making eye contact with one another again. I hope that the House can unite around measures to get people off their phones and back moving again. I take that point about the extra cost faced by families. I would point out as regards gym membership that we already have the reduced VAT rate of 9%, which is worth around €32 million per annum, be that to the gym operators or being passed on in membership fees. Of course, how we support families with the costs of trying to live healthily is the point that is uniting both Deputies and certainly something that we will keep under review.

Sentiment score: 0.25

I am aware of the group that is doing very good advocacy work on this issue. I look forward to meeting and engaging with it shortly. Capital acquisitions tax, CAT, applies to both gifts and inheritances and is charged at a rate of 33%. For CAT purposes, the relationship between the person giving a gift or inheritance and the person who receives it determines the maximum amount, known as the group threshold, below which CAT does not arise. The group thresholds were most recently increased in budget 2025. The group A threshold, which in general applies where the beneficiary is a child of the disponer, increased to €400,000 from €335,000. The group B threshold increased to €40,000 from €32,500. This threshold applies where the beneficiary is a brother, sister, niece, nephew or lineal ancestor or lineal descendant of the disponer. The group C threshold increased to €20,000 from €16,250, with this threshold applying in all other cases. These increases amounted to an increase of 19.4% for group A, while the groups B and C thresholds increased by 23%. My officials examined CAT as part of last year's annual tax strategy group exercise. The resultant papers outlined the tax policy considerations for the Government and the options available to it in forming last year's budget. Published in advance of the budget, they are the best means of considering issues such as inheritance tax in an analytical and transparent way. The tax strategy group is not a decision-making body - that is a matter for the Government and this House - and the papers produced by my Department are simply a list of options and issues to be considered in the budgetary process. What the group did very well was examine a number of cost modelling exercises, including proposals to amend the group B threshold parameters, as the Deputy and many others have raised in the House. There is a significant cost associated with further changes to the group thresholds. That is not necessarily a reason to make or not make them but it is something we must factor into our considerations. I recognise the burden of capital taxation and will continue to review these matters alongside my officials. We will consider any further changes in the context of the next budget.

Sentiment score: 0.24

I am, as Deputy Callaghan will know, very aware of the burden that capital taxation places on people, and it is our party's position as well. Whether it is families or farmers, the burden of capital taxation is real. That is why in budget 2025 we as a Government took a decision to increase the thresholds. We increased threshold A, B and C. I certainly do not rule out over the lifetime of this Government further moves in this area. In fact, I commit to keeping these issues under review. That is the first point I would make. Second, I take the Deputy's point very much about the changing face of Ireland, diversity and composition of families. That is all absolutely true. I will be truthful that any significant changes in what we call threshold B does come at a significant cost. It is again not a reason why we do or do not do these things; it is just something we all need to consider in the context of the budget. Third, we should continue to look at what other countries are doing in this area and international comparisons because I am sure other countries are grappling with this issue. Finally, I take the point that there can sometimes be relatives who also have a caring role, perhaps a nephew or a niece who has been caring. That is something I hear a lot. I do not mean that they are just a nephew or a niece because that is a very important familial relationship but in addition to that they may have been in a long-term caring role too. There are a number of issues to unpack here. That is why I want to meet the advocacy groups and ask the tax strategy group to continue to consider all of these issues in advance of the budget.

Sentiment score: 0.22

Gabhaim buíochas le Deputies Butterly, Brennan and Callaghan. It is really good that we tease through and discuss this issue. We have various views on this and different parties have different commitments in their manifestos in relation to this. We have a programme for Government now. We need to work our way through all of this. I have to be honest with the House. Every year over the next four budgets there will be a pot and resource, subject to the economy continuing to be run well, that will be available for tax decisions, and there will be competing demands and views as to what best to do. There is personal income tax, capital tax and a whole variety of different issues. We will tease our way through that. However, over the course of those four budgets, we can achieve quite a lot together too. That is why I am committing to keeping capital taxation and the burden of capital taxation under review. To help the conversation perhaps, I will put some figures on the record. If we were to increase, for example, the group A thresholds to €500,000 from the existing €400,000, the cost of that is €86.6 million. If we were to bring everyone on threshold B into threshold A, in other words, up to €400,000, the cost of that is around €305 million. These are all budget ready reckoners as opposed to my views. Of course, there are costs associated with all of these but I take that point about families changing, care changing and the empowerment of individuals, and I will give further consideration to this in the time ahead.

Sentiment score: 0.19

I propose to take Questions Nos. 168 and 175 together. I thank Deputies Ó Muirí and Neville for their questions. The starting point for this conversation has to be that we live in a country where we have a high level of savings on deposits and we need to support people who are seeking greater returns on their hard-earned savings. Work is continuing on the development of a roadmap for the taxation of retail investment. We announced in budget 2026 that this work was under way. I expect to receive proposals shortly and I hope to be in a position then to bring this roadmap to Government. It will set out an approach to simplify and adapt the tax framework to further support retail investment while obtaining the necessary and important anti-avoidance protections in a proportionate manner. The Government and I are very clear: retail investment needs to be encouraged. It is set out in the programme for Government. It is consistent with our work at an EU level on the savings and investment union, in which I expect us to take a leadership role during our Presidency of the EU Council as well. There is a complexity to all of this in how we tax ETFs, the rate of exit tax and the application of deemed disposal, and we need to work our way through this. An ETF is an investment fund that is traded in a regulated stock exchange. There is no separate taxation regime specifically for ETFs. ETFs, being collective investment funds, generally come within the regimes set out in the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 for such funds. I look forward to and want to engage with Deputies Ó Muirí and Neville on this. While it is complex from a taxation point of view, we need to get it right. Detailed consideration will be given to ensure any changes in this area achieve an appropriate balance between supporting retail investment and maintaining appropriate anti-avoidance protections. If we get it right, it can be a democratisation of wealth in many ways, where the squeezed middle can start participating in a savings and investment account structure that gives them a much greater return than what they are saving in a deposit account.

Sentiment score: 0.23