Vol. 1084 No. 2
236. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance if he will push at an EU level for electricity, including a separate category for residential electricity, to be added to the list of items that a zero VAT rate can be applied to in order to give member states maximum flexibility in designing their response to the energy crisis; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26930/26]
298. Deputy Pa Daly asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance if he will discuss reducing the VAT rate for 0% for domestic electricity with his EU counterparts; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26730/26]
I raised the crisis in people's homes in terms of their electricity bills with the Minister on numerous occasions. If we were to visualise this, it is 300,000 families. How many times would we fill Croke Park and the Aviva Stadium over and over again with the families who cannot pay their electricity bills? It is absolutely scandalous that people have been left in this situation. Time and again we have put forward the arguments that it was wrong to withdraw energy credits at a time of a cost-of-living crisis. It was wrong to leave people without those supports. Will the Minister make the argument at a European level to allow for zero VAT rate to be applied to residential electricity to give us the options to provide additional support beyond just energy credits to these families?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 236 and 298 together.
I thank the Deputy very much. The EU VAT directive, which Irish VAT law must comply with, generally holds that all goods and services are liable for VAT at the standard rate which must be set at a minimum of 15%. If a good or service is listed under Annex III of the VAT directive, a reduced or zero VAT rate may be applied. It is important to note that Ireland applies more reduced and zero rates than every other member state. Some member states prefer not to introduce greater variability in VAT across the EU.
The last amendments to Annex III were agreed in 2022 after four years of negotiation. Unfortunately, electricity was not included in these amendments and, therefore, the lowest rate that may be applied to VAT in Ireland is the second reduced rate of 9%. The application of the 9% VAT rate on supply of gas and electricity was introduced from 1 May 2022. This measure was extended on a number of occasions. In the most recent budget, we decided to extend it out to 31 December 2030. The total estimated cost of the reduced VAT rate for gas and electricity from its introduction on 1 May 2022 to the end of this year will be over €1 billion.
We are actively engaging at an EU level. There is to be an informal European Council meeting this Thursday or Friday in Cyprus where the EU will bring forward proposals around energy affordability. My understanding specifically in relation to VAT is that there would be unanimity required for any changes to the VAT level. I do not see that as a likely outcome. I am just saying that to be honest. At present, there are no proposals at a EU level to reopen the VAT directive regarding zero rates for electricity. However, officials in my Department and across Government continue to engage with our European counterparts and with the European Commission in relation to energy affordability measures. The European Commission is working with member states on the EU-wide response to the crisis. That is why we have chosen to extend the maximum lowest rate of VAT we can currently apply to electricity and gas bills until the end of 2030. We are very eager to see if Europe wishes to go further on that. I am not detecting that there is any such unanimity at a European level in relation to reopening the VAT directive. However, I will ask. I will keep the Deputy and the House updated should that position change. Of course, the fact that VAT change requires unanimity as opposed to other measures Europe may decide to bring forward is a challenge.
I thank the Minister for his response. When he rises again, will he clarify for the House whether he has written to the Commission and asked it for this to be part of its tool? Has he asked the Commission to consider and agree a zero percent rate of VAT on domestic electricity? As he knows, the Commission has published its draft. It said it wanted to engage with member states. I am sure it engaged with the Minister in relation to this. Did the Minister ask the Commission and formally put that proposal to it in relation to the zero percent? In the absence of the Commission's agreement - the mechanisms in terms of member states having to agree - there are other measures that can be introduced. Energy credits is a way of supporting families and, indeed, the Minister brought it forward for many years himself. Does he not recognise that given the scale of the crisis, where people are at, that so many households cannot pay their electricity bills and that one in four households cannot pay their gas bills, there needs to be an intervention now? People simply cannot wait.
We have not formally made a request in relation to zero percent VAT. The reason we have not is that my genuine feedback from engagement with the European Commission is that it is unlikely to have unanimous support. I am not against formally seeking further discretion on VAT but we have tried to target our asks to areas that we hoped we could make progress on, including seeking a temporary derogation from the minimum rate of taxation applied to auto diesel because the Deputy has been asking me to go further on diesel. I do not mean just because of the Deputy but many people, including him, have been asking me to do that. We have gone beyond what the energy tax directive allows us to do. We sought a derogation in relation to that. The reason we have not formally asked is that it is not possible to seek as a member state just a derogation from the functioning of the VAT directive. We would have to have unanimity in relation to that. The feedback we have been getting from the Commission is that is unlikely to be the case. However, I am happy to further pursue that with the Commission in terms of seeing if there will be such unanimity but I do not want to create a false expectation. It is my genuine view that it is unlikely to be something forthcoming from Europe.
In relation to energy credits, I said yesterday and today that I do not think anything can be off the table. It would be foolish for us to rule in or out anything. The Deputy has heard me say this before but it is my genuine view that an energy crisis in the winter is very different from an energy crisis coming into the summer months. Therefore, we need to keep these things under review as we approach the autumn and winter in terms of budgetary plans and what is the best thing to do to assist people should the energy crisis persist.
We also have to have other options and, indeed, I have heard interesting suggestions here about how we can help people with their own measures in terms of their own homes, whether that is retrofitting or solar panels and whether there is more we can do in that space to make that easier and more generous. I would be interested in engaging on that. I will keep an open mind on further energy interventions in the time ahead.
Sometimes I am lost for words in here.
I try to be constructive.
I know. I hear what the Minister is saying but, seriously, I do not know what more we need to do here. These are families. There are 300,000 plus of them who cannot pay their electricity bills. The Minister saying that if the Commission allows us to have a zero rate, we would be happy with that but the Government has not even asked.
That is not fair.
It has not even bloody asked the Commission to put this on the table. Last week the Commission asked the Minister and his Department what else they think it should do in this toolbox. The Minister has not even asked. There are families today who cannot pay their electricity bill, and these are people who are working and two income households. The level of arrears they have has increased. We have record numbers in the history of the State who cannot pay electricity bills. The Minister has not even asked.
That is not true.
There is a serious problem here. I do not want to repeat it over and over again but the Government needs to get down from the ivory tower. It needs to understand where people are at. People expect more from a government. People expect the Government to have their back and fight their corner. The Government is not even asking.
People expect more from an opposition. At a time of a national crisis when a Minister stands up and is trying to constructively engage, the Deputy just wants to give me the lines to take back. I explained to the Deputy very clearly. I said we are happy to go back and further engage with Commission. Hang on for a second.
The decision was made in 48 hours.
Just for a second, Deputy. Our Taoiseach - yours and mine and the Taoiseach of this country - will engage with his European counterparts when he attends an informal meeting of the European Council. Up for discussion at that meeting will be what more measures can we take. Ireland will make its position clear. The priority of my Department has to be to ask for things that individual member states can seek. Individual member states can seek a derogation under the energy tax directive. Individual member states cannot seek a derogation under the VAT directive. Therefore, the only way the VAT directive can be change is by unanimity.
I agree.
It is not about asking the Commission. It is not a member state. When we have engagements at the likes of the European Council, which the Taoiseach will have, it is about establishing whether there is unanimity. I am giving the Deputy an honest view in this House that I do not believe that unanimity is there. Do not give me the palaver about ivory towers here. This is about truthful debate. The Deputy asked about energy credits. I did not rule them out. I gave other views in relation to solar panels, retrofitting and things we can do.
The Government withdrew them.
I talked about €750 million package. Just because I do not agree with every position the Deputy adopts or because I point out legal and technical difficulties around them does not mean the Deputy cares and I do not. It just means I am being honest.
I did not withdraw them.
237. Deputy Ged Nash asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance his plans for a new savings and investment scheme for retail investors; the estimated cost to the Exchequer in terms of tax foregone in the first five years of the new scheme under preparation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26421/26]
I ask the Minister to update the House on his plans for a new savings and investment scheme for retail investors and if he could enlighten the House as to what he anticipates the estimated cost to the Exchequer in terms of tax forgone in the first five years of the scheme might be, and if there is, in fact, an assessment already done on that basis.
I thank Deputy Nash very much. The starting point here, on which many of us agree, is that Ireland does not have a sufficiently diversified savings and investment culture. I am quite conscious that we are having this conversation against the backdrop of significant economic challenges for people right now. I fully get that. However, even against that backdrop, I am also quite conscious that there is a lot of money on deposit in Ireland today. Even this week people are putting relatively small amounts of money aside to try to build up their own buffers insofar as they can for the times ahead. A lot of them are in low-yield deposit accounts where inflation is eroding their value over time. That is just the truth. Deposit accounts are right for many people. I understand the role deposit accounts have to play, and for many will be their source for putting money by for a later date, but they should not be the only practical option. Investment in capital markets can offer households another path to long-term financial well-being. It can also support growth and competitiveness in the wider economy. I have announced the Government's intention to introduce a legislative framework for an investment account this year as part of the finance Bill. We want to make investment simpler, clearer and more accessible for ordinary people. We want to help to make some of their hard-earned money work harder for them over time. The aim is to legislate for the framework in 2026 to allow for accounts to be offered from 2027, but it will also be a key part of a broader rethink of the taxation of retail investment. I would welcome the views of Deputy Nash and others in relation to that.
In recognition of the importance of encouraging retail investment, budget 2026 did provide for a reduction in the rate of taxation on returns from Irish and equivalent investment funds and Irish and certain foreign life assurance policies from 41% to 38%. In addition, the budget also included a commitment to publish a roadmap in 2026, setting out the intended approach to simplify and adapt the tax framework to encourage retail investment in future finance Bills. The roadmap will be published in the coming months in advance of the budget. It will take into consideration developments at an EU level in respect of a savings and investments union, including the recommendation on savings and investment accounts. The actual cost of this in the initial years will depend on the specific parameters of the account. That work is still ongoing and costs will be prepared as part of the budget process.
I welcome the debate on this. I accept that we need reform in this area. I have no difficulty with that. There has been a lot of focus on the deemed disposal rule. There is no doubt that how it operates is an anachronism and reform is needed. That should not sideline us from the need to develop alternative routes to allow people to plan for their future. I am glad the Tánaiste referred to the context of what people are experiencing at the moment. Investment is very much a minority sport. Most people are concerned with surviving and not how they are going to invest relatively substantial amounts that they have on deposit on schemes and accounts that may deliver more for them. I accept that this does need to be part of the solution in terms of preparing people for the future.
Mention has been made by ourselves in the Labour Party, and by the other parties, of the need to develop some products that might enable Irish people to invest some of their hard-earned savings in, for example, housing development in Ireland and in assisting high-potential start-ups, and so on. Is that the kind of area that the Tánaiste expects people to be able to invest in at a reasonable rate?
I thank Deputy Nash for his comment on the deemed disposal rule. I agree that there is, rightly, a lot of debate in this House about the rate of it. He made the broader point about the purpose it serves - or does not serve - any more. We need to have a substantive examination of what the policy intent was and if it is still valid today. The truth is that I do not believe it is. How do we unwind that? Can we do it in one go - just take a number - and what is the roadmap? We need to come back and have a conversation around that.
I fully accept the point about the cost of living. I am very conscious of it. I am also conscious that we are among the best savers in Europe. We talk about building up our own financial resilience. The country has to be able to help ordinary workers, as they are often referred to in this House - everyday people - to build up their own financial resilience as well.
My intention, to be very honest, in the first instance is to set up as simple an account as possible to get this up and running. Many other European countries have done this. I have heard constructive ideas from Deputy Nash and others on whether this could be used to help to invest in start-ups or housing. That merits consideration. The question is whether we would do that in the first tranche or if we would just get an account up and running. I think we would just get it up and running in the first instance. I am also conscious that there are other savings bonds. The NTMA, for example, runs the prize bonds, etc. We can look at whether there is a way of overhauling that too. It is worthy of further exploration.
I understand that people are risk averse because people have been burnt before. There are always risks to investing. Any model or scheme that is developed has to be very clear on that. I understand why the Tánaiste might want to dip his toe in the water in a tentative fashion in the first instance, and then maybe move from there. The Tánaiste has been quoted as favouring the Swedish model. It is one that people will be familiar with. On the basis that he has an understanding of the Swedish model and his officials may be going in that direction, has any assessment been done at this point on the tax implications for the Exchequer on the tax expenditure side in terms of tax forgone? It would be relatively easy to come to some kind of a conclusion - at least on a desktop basis - as to what the implications would be if we were to introduce a very simple straightforward model like the Swedish one. The Tánaiste seems to be moving away from the UK ISA-type model. Could he put his thinking on that, and what is informing it, on the record? In the available time, could he also indicate what engagement he has had on this with the Central Bank and if it has been helpful in assisting the Department?
Yes, there has been very helpful engagement with the Central Bank. We held the savings and investment forum in the Central Bank. The Governor of the Central Bank opened the meeting, which was very useful. We want to take the feedback from that. The point about the tax forgone is something I am very conscious of. I do not have that information yet but once I have it, I will be very happy to share it at an early stage with Deputy Nash and with the House.
Deputy Nash and I were in government together. I remember in my earlier days in the Oireachtas trying to copy the Dutch healthcare system. What I quickly learned is that the Irish people are not Dutch. The Irish people are not Swedish either. The Swedish model has many advantages. It is generally seen as best in class, but there is no off-the-shelf model, we will have to take what is best practice and adapt it for our own national culture and environment. The Swedish model is one we are looking at. The UK model is to be commended too but it does have a very high cash level that I think has a significant drag. I am not sure we necessarily want to replicate that element of it as well. We had a good forum with several hundred people from a whole variety of backgrounds. They fed in their views. I will be back to them with the next iteration. I am very happy - indeed eager - to have Opposition engagement on how to get this right in the times ahead.
238. Deputy Aisling Dempsey asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance if he will commit to the removal of the so-called "deemed disposal" tax in relation to ETFs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26607/26]
245. Deputy Grace Boland asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance further to the commitment in the programme for Government to progress the recommendations of the Funds Sector 2030 review to support greater retail participation in capital markets, whether his Department has assessed the recommendation to remove the eight-year deemed disposal rule applicable to exchange-traded funds and other investment funds; the estimated cost to the Exchequer of abolishing this rule; whether the Government intends to remove the deemed disposal provision; the timeline for any such reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25770/26]
The Funds Sector 2030 review recognised that exchange-traded funds, ETFs, sit at the centre of Ireland's ambition to increase retail participation in capital markets - people who are planning for the future and parents who are planning for their children's college education. The current tax framework, in particular the eight-year deemed disposal rule, is a material barrier to that objective. Could the Tánaiste confirm if his Department has assessed abolishing the rule, what the estimated cost to the Exchequer would be, and when he might make a decision on it?
My question is very similar. It relates to the so-called "deemed disposal" tax on ETFs, which requires Irish investors to pay gains every eight years, even where no sale takes place. The programme for Government has committed to an implementation plan to address this anomaly. Like Deputy Boland, I wonder if we could get an update on the details of this and the current timeline.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 238 and 245 together.
I thank Deputies Boland and Brennan very much for raising this matter. Their questions relate to the rules governing the taxation of indirect investments such as investment funds and life assurance products. As referenced by Deputy Boland, chapter 7 of the funds review focuses on enabling and encouraging retail investment. It does make a number of recommendations including the removal of the deemed disposal rule. Deputy Brennan reminds us of our programme for Government commitments. These recommendations are being given careful consideration. We are looking at the existing regime and how it operates. The specific change raised by both Deputies is the removal of the deemed disposal rule. There is a specific reference to its application to exchange-traded funds. There is no separate taxation regime specifically for ETFs.
We need to remind ourselves why deemed disposal was introduced. It was introduced at that point in time as an anti-avoidance measure that applies to investments in Irish-domiciled investment funds and life assurance products, as well as equivalent offshore funds and certain foreign life assurance products, in order to prevent the indefinite roll-up of income and gains, and the associated loss of tax to the Exchequer. That is the history, if you like, to remind us all but the world has changed a lot since then and our policy and thinking need to change too. Under deemed disposal, taxes are levied eight years after an investment is made, and every subsequent eight years, regardless of whether a disposal has in fact occurred. The tax is levied on any gain in the value of the investment from the date of the acquisition to the date of the deemed disposal. On the ultimate disposal of the investment, any tax paid is allowed as a credit against the final tax liability.
The funds sector report noted that changes were needed. It did say that changes to deemed disposal would require guardrails to protect the Exchequer and ensure that appropriate taxation is paid. That is important. I think we all agree on that.
The most recent budget committed to publishing a roadmap for the taxation of retail investment, setting out an approach to simplify and adapt the tax framework to further support retail investment while retaining necessary and important anti-avoidance protections in a proportionate manner. The relevant recommendations of the funds review, including deemed disposal, are now being considered as part of the work under way in the Department of Finance on this roadmap. We will be publishing this in the coming months and in advance of the budget.
As I announced at the first annual savings and investment forum, on 31 March, a key aspect of the roadmap is the development of a new Irish investment account that aims to reduce the complexities related to retail investment taxation and allows Irish people to grow their savings more efficiently. That complexity is one of the real issues keeping middle Ireland out of investing in this country.
The cost estimate of changes to deemed disposal is the challenge. The information available to Revenue does not allow it to isolate the tax returns due to deemed disposal rules from other events that could give rise to a tax liability. We need to work our way through this. If it were assumed that all relevant retail investment exit taxes were as a result of deemed disposal, which of course they are not, removing deemed disposal could give rise to a potential cost of €284 million, based on tax paid over the past eight years.
As the Deputies know, we took some steps in this area in the most recent budget. An estimate was prepared of the Exchequer impact of deemed disposal not applying, assuming the deemed disposal was closer to 50% of the total tax paid. This assumption results in an estimated full-year cost to the Exchequer of €142 million for the removal of deemed disposal. However, I am being truthful in saying there is not an exact science because of the complicating factor.
I reiterate the point that we took steps in the last budget to reduce the rate to 38%. That was important. There is, however, the broader issue of whether the policy is fit for purpose. I am not convinced it is. It is somewhat outdated. We need to have a conversation about how it could be overhauled, with new, appropriate guardrails put in place. Alongside that, though separate and distinct, is the question of how we develop a new investment account that reduces complexity, has one point of tax and puts the responsibility for collecting that tax on the provider of the account, the institution, not the person making the investment.
I thank the Tánaiste. I very much welcome that update. It is good to hear that the roadmap will be published in advance of the budget, though it is disappointing to note that the Revenue Commissioners cannot actually track the amount of revenue to the Exchequer.
On the issue of removal, the reality is that under the current regime, a retail investor in an ETF faces a much higher tax rate and earlier taxation and cannot offset losses compared with someone investing directly in shares. Low-risk, diversified investing is taxed earlier and more heavily than speculative stock picking. Therefore, we really need to do something for parents who are looking to the future and those who weathered really bad times in the 1970s and 1980s and know how important it is to put money away for a rainy day but who are seeing the value of their savings eroded through inflation and very low deposit rates.
I too thank the Tánaiste for his clear answer. The core issue here is one of fairness within our own tax system. An investor in individual shares pays capital gains tax at 33% and then only when they eventually sell those shares. However, an investor who chooses a diversified ETF, which is arguably the more prudent investment choice for an ordinary saver, pays a higher rate on the gains they have not yet realised. As was mentioned, they also cannot offset their losses in these, and they face a tax settlement every eight years, regardless of their intentions regarding the underlying ETF. This creates a disparity that is very hard to justify. I appreciate that the Minister gave a detailed explanation as to how this came about by way of trying to justify it. I agree that there are complexities but does the Minister in turn agree there is a very strong case for removing the rule in the near term, not just because it is part of the programme for Government but also because it is the fair thing to do for Irish savers?
The short answer is "Yes" and the next word is "but". Yes, I see the policy challenge here. I do not like a situation where the world has evolved and policy has not caught up. Therefore, I would like to see an overhaul in this area. I am quite committed to that and to reforming retail investment. The only reason I say "but" is in relation to the near-term aspect. No matter what question anyone asks me on tax, I do not want to tie our hands, as a collective government or Oireachtas, in terms of decisions we may make in the time ahead. However, the Irish people can judge this Government, in its current form, on what it did in its first budget. It reduced the rate associated with the rule from 41% to 38%. That was a statement of intent by my predecessor, the then Minister Paschal Donohoe.
Second, we said we would publish a retail investment roadmap for overhauling this sector and roll into that the recommendation of the funds sector report, which deals very much with deemed disposal, among other areas.
Third, we have given a commitment that we are not just going to say we are going to champion the savings and investment union at a European level but are also going to make sure there are practical benefits for citizens in Ireland in terms of establishing an investment account.
I have no doubt we will be able to make progress on this together in the time ahead. I would hope we can make progress on this in the near term, but let us work through that. I am learning it is important when you are a finance Minister to say tax matters are a matter for budget day, and I am quite comfortable with that. That is the appropriate way to proceed.
Deputy Boland's point on parents and others is important. I have heard some ill-informed comments – Quelle surprise – on the investment account. First, you would swear we were the only ones doing this. We are certainly not the first. It is the right thing to do. It is a recommendation of the European Commission. We cannot just talk about financial resilience at a macro level; we have to bring it into people's households.
I have heard it asked whether this is just something for the wealthy. The wealthy are well able to look after themselves. They do not need our help. They are not the people being blocked out of investments. The people being blocked out of investment are parents, the garda married to the nurse, the teacher, the civil servant, the small business owner and the person trying not just to get by but also to get ahead. This is an opportunity, over the longer term, to help families, or middle Ireland, to build up resilience. I am extraordinarily committed to that.
I appreciate the Minister's comments. I look forward to seeing the roadmap and having discussions in the House on it. I thank the Minister.
There is another dimension to this. Ireland's position as a major ETF hub in Europe is something we should rightly be very proud of, but there is a contradiction at the heart of that success. Ireland is one of the best places in the world in which to manage and distribute ETFs but one of the most difficult places in Europe for an Irish resident to actually invest in them. Foreign investors in Irish-domiciled ETFs enjoy growth with no deemed disposal obligation, while Irish investors investing in the same products do not. Does the Minister acknowledge that this anomaly undermines or may erode our reputation as a well-functioning financial centre?
I would put it in a slightly different way, but I agree with the broader point. Given our country's huge success in financial services, the considerable revenue, jobs and prosperity this has resulted in and the fact that we have in many ways become a global hub for financial services, there is an irony in our being a major global financial services centre when, at the same time, we have locked so many of our citizens out of meaningful participation. "Ironic" is probably the diplomatic word. We have to challenge ourselves, and I have to challenge myself, to see how we can ensure the tax regime in this country is not getting in the way. It is the Government's job to help where it can, but it is also sometimes the Government's job to get out of the way. Our tax regime is in the way of people being able to invest and to access ETFs and their like.
Deputies Brennan and Boland quite rightly made a point on the differential between the exit tax and CGT. In fairness to former Minister Donohoe, there was a step made in the right direction with the decrease from 41% to 38%. However, CGT is at a different level.
We have made it clear as a Government that we are committed to making progress on this, ensuring Ireland has a much more diversified savings and investment offering, ensuring that is accessible to all our citizens and not just the wealthy, and ensuring the tax system is fair and that politics is not just a reductive debate about how to hand out public money but a more sophisticated and informed one about how to ensure hard-working families are able to get ahead, and not just get by in life, by making sure the tax system works in that direction.
239. Deputy Michael Murphy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance the work being carried out by his Department to ensure that citizens have access to robust and detailed financial analysis regarding the implications of a potential united Ireland, including disparities in taxation, public spending and fiscal transfers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24950/26]
I thank Deputy Murphy for this question. As somebody who would like to see a united Ireland in my lifetime and as somebody who is proud to lead a party that has "the United Ireland party" in its full title, I very much welcome the question. I want to engage constructively with Members across the House on this. The Government of Ireland is committed to the unity of the Irish people.
We are committed to that with a focus on reconciliation and developing the three sets of relationships recognised in the Good Friday Agreement to unlock the full potential of our island. Through the shared island initiative, the Government is prioritising the work of building co-operation and reconciliation with an ambitious agenda to deliver progress and to remain steadfast in fully implementing the Good Friday Agreement.
Obviously, the principle of consent and the possibility of change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland are fundamental elements of the Good Friday Agreement endorsed by the people North and South and accordingly the Government's approach with regard to Irish unity is guided by Article 3 of the Constitution. Thus, in the event of a future referendum within the consent provisions of the Good Friday Agreement, the Government will make all necessary preparations in accordance with the terms of the Constitution and the principles and procedures of the agreement.
To date, the Government has advanced the largest ever programme of all-island investment to build a more connected island through the shared island initiative, backed by a €2 billion shared island fund. Last April, the Government launched a new phase of a joint research programme with the ESRI, which is really the nub of the Deputy's question, focusing on strategic policy and co-operation considerations for the island. Much of what the shared island unit has been doing, which we all support, has involved investing in really meaningful projects. The ESRI strand is particularly interesting because it looks from a policy point of view at the compatability elements between how things are done in the North and here and where the differences are. Within days of coming into office, I was very pleased to launch a new annual ESRI series entitled "Assessing Economic Trends in Ireland and Northern Ireland". At the launch of this report, I highlighted how valuable the series is, especially its deeper data comparisons and economic indicators, which together offer important insights and food for thought and help inform us of the policy we need to develop. I will return to some of that in a moment.
For me, it is really about ensuring that citizens are properly informed. Any decision must be grounded in credible, transparent and accessible financial analysis. I know various independent academic studies are being carried out and some already exist but I do not think there is any single authoritative, State-led body of work. There are a number of areas where clarity is essential, including taxation; the difference between tax bases North and South around income tax, corporation tax and indirect taxes; public spending around health; social protection measures; public services; and the complex area of fiscal transfers, such as the extent of subvention currently provided by the UK. These are complex issues. Other jurisdictions facing future constitutional or structural change have invested in serious, evidence-based preparatory work and there is no reason we should not do the same so that citizens can make that informed decision at the appropriate time.
I agree completely with the Deputy on this question. It is really welcome that this has come down. I acknowledge the Tánaiste's comments on this. We all acknowledge the shared island unit and the work it is doing but the question we need to ask ourselves is whether we believe we are enablers of bringing about constitutional change in a system that operates under the Good Friday Agreement and with consent, and most if not all of the people in this House believe we are. Therefore, we have to do the preparatory work.
These are complex issues and it should not be left to academics, the ESRI or others to do this. We have to find a way and a space and we must recognise the space we will occupy in doing this but we must find a space to carry out some of this work. I think back to when Simon Coveney was competing for leadership of Fine Gael. He spoke about setting up a committee to look at this and talked about papers, and I thought it was a very good argument. We have lost time. This is coming down the tracks and we have to be prepared so I really welcome this debate.
I certainly welcome that question and would welcome answers even more. Deputy Currie will know what I am talking about when I talk about what was agreed at the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. That was cross-party. It involved perspectives on constitutional change concentrating on finance and economics. We have a number of agreed recommendations that really need to be implemented. We heard it was reckless not to prepare. It is reckless not to do this work, regardless of one's constitutional preference or how people will decide to vote at the end of the day. One of the recommendations was that an Oireachtas committee be mandated, adequately resourced and dedicated to preparation for a united Ireland - for doing the preparation. It is reckless not to prepare. The Tánaiste will probably be Taoiseach in a number of months' time. I ask him to please implement these recommendations.
I welcome this rare moment of unity. It is really good. We all have different political traditions that we can debate and that is fine, but Deputy Conway-Walsh would like to see a united Ireland in her lifetime and I would like to see a united Ireland in my lifetime. I agree that the shared island unit is doing good work - really good work. I notice that across the community, as I am sure Deputy Conway-Walsh does. Regarding Deputy Michael Murphy's question and the constructive contributions of Deputies Doherty, Conway-Walsh, Currie, Connolly, Shay Brennan and Cooney, the economics of this are important. I will send the remarks I made at the launch of the ESRI report to Deputy Conway-Walsh. Looking at this from a financial and economic point of view will ultimately be an important part of any debate whenever it arises and we have a responsibility to be prepared to engage on it. I often grapple in my own head with what the best way of creating that space is. Perhaps the Good Friday Agreement committee would be a good opportunity for us to engage on that report. I take the point that it is not all about the ESRI but there is ESRI-funded work with which all of us might want to familiarise ourselves. I am very happy to have an engagement with the appropriate committee on this matter.
It is important to acknowledge that a lot of analysis has already been done and is likely to be done but it is fragmented and very technical. It comes back to that overarching point I am making, which is that it is not easily understood by the general public. It is so important that information is collated in a way that is coherent and user-friendly and uses easy-to-understand language. Should we commission some kind of centralised, cross-departmental assessment that would publish regular updates and ensure that information is presented in a clear and non-specialist way? It is really about informing democratic discussion. It is not about prejudging any outcome. Without this, there is real risk that the public debate becomes shaped by partial information or competing claims.
I also welcome this debate. We have had great engagement on the Good Friday Agreement committee in our work examining the constitutional future of this island. Everybody has a voice. I welcome research and information from anywhere to contribute to this debate.
Two things that have not been referenced are the productivity gap that exists North and South and the difference in educational attainment. There are great opportunities on an all-island basis. I am thinking about mid-Ulster, where I am originally from, in the engineering and manufacturing sectors so there are learnings across the board. Engagement is key and there will be no regrets on an all-island basis in progressing a financial and economic strategy that benefits anyone but that ultimately, from my perspective, bring us to a united Ireland.
We clearly need to have a longer debate in this House and the Whips and others should work out a way to faciliate this discussion. We should not fear it because, as Deputy Michael Murphy said, it is about information, facts, getting as much information as possible and identifying where there are information gaps.
My Department published "Shared Island, Shared Economy" in 2024, which examined the macroeconomic performance, broad sectoral structures, fiscal structures and linkages between the two economies. It found that overall economic connections between Ireland and the North have continued to deepen, supported by increasing cross-Border trade, labour mobility and joint investment initiatives. The economy in this part of the island is significantly larger, with GNI* per capita around 25% higher than GDP per capita in Northern Ireland - a gap that has remained broadly stable. Productivity levels are higher on this part of the island, although that gap narrows considerably when multinational activity is stripped out, with Northern Ireland performing broadly in line with Ireland's Border and midlands region.
Sectoral structures differ greatly. Ireland has a greater concentration in this part of the island in knowledge-intensive services, while the North has higher public sector employment and greater reliance on social welfare spending. There is also other data. There was a 2025 study by DCU and Ulster University, looking at the initial net fiscal cost of reunification. There is a debate around that. The Institute of International and European Affairs also looked at it, and suggested a much larger cost. The point is that we should not fear discussion, we should not fear facts and we should not fear preparedness. There is a responsibility on all of us to see how best to take that forward.
240. Deputy Shay Brennan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance the latest update on his Department’s preparations for Ireland’s EU Presidency; the way in which he plans to oversee budgetary discussions on the next multi-annual financial framework post-2027 in a manner that will safeguard Ireland’s fiscal interests; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26559/26]
I am seeking an update on the Department's preparations for Ireland's EU Council Presidency and, in particular, how the Minister intends to approach the negotiations on the next multi-annual financial framework, which Ireland will chair. Can the Minister advise how he intends to safeguard Ireland's fiscal interest in these negotiations?
The Presidency is taking place in a few short months’ time, as the Deputy said, so I thank him for highlighting this. The Presidency of the Council of the EU is a critical focus for all of us in government, the Oireachtas and my Department this year. It represents an important opportunity for our country to shape European policy priorities, including the EU’s economic and financial agenda.
I am pleased to say that our preparations are well under way across both policy and operations. Our Presidency priorities are being prepared in line with the EU strategic agenda for 2024-2029. Of course, those priorities will depend on the progress of the Cyprus Presidency, which comes before ours. We will take stock of this and stakeholders' views before we publish our final Presidency programme in June. However, driving progress on the post-2027 multi-annual financial framework will be an important focus.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and I jointly lead the development of Ireland's positions on the MFF. This involves close co-operation with other Government colleagues. During our Presidency, Ireland will progress various elements of the wider MFF package, from overarching negotiations to sectoral files. The precise tasks for Ireland will depend on the state of play at the end of the Cyprus Presidency in June.
The overarching negotiations on the MFF are advanced through the General Affairs Council, GAC, where we are generally represented by the Minister of State, Deputy Thomas Byrne. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, in consultation with all relevant Departments, is preparing for these meetings. The Economic and Financial Affairs Council, ECOFIN, which I will chair during Ireland's Presidency, focuses on the revenue side of the EU budget - own resources - and the management of the annual EU budget process. The European Council, attended by the Taoiseach, provides strategic guidance throughout the negotiations and will ultimately reach political consensus among member states on the file.
Ireland, as Presidency, will ensure close and constructive co-operation with the President of the European Council. The European Parliament will also be required to give its consent to the regulation for the MFF after the European Council reaches a political consensus. Our intention, during our Presidency, is to act as an honest broker and to lead negotiations in a manner that protects the interests of the EU. Intensive preparatory work is under way.
During our Presidency, Ireland will chair and oversee the MFF negotiations, and will do this while simultaneously facing a reduction in our own allocations under the new framework due to our continued economic growth. I am not saying that is a bad thing. In one sense, we are in an advantageous position as we get to set the agenda and we are present at every negotiation. However, given the expectation that we act as impartial chair, does the Minister accept that this could work against us when it comes to pursuing our own fiscal interests? If so, how does he intend to manage that?
It is a key question, and one the Government has been considering. We took a decision earlier this year, during my time as Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, to outline Ireland's MFF budgetary priorities much earlier in the cycle for that very reason. The Deputy is right. When you take up the Presidency, there is an advantage to that, of course, and it is an influential and important position to have, but you are also expected to act as honest broker. Ireland took a decision, and the Government agreed, to formally agree our budget priorities for the MFF and communicate them to the Commission at an early stage. We have also had a number of Commissioners here, including the budget Commissioner, the agriculture Commissioner and others, to engage with me, the Taoiseach, the Minister for foreign affairs, the Minister for agriculture, the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs and others. We have used the period in early 2026 to set out our priorities to work with other member states that share a like-minded view.
The challenge with the European budget, not too dissimilar from this place on occasion, but maybe on a larger scale, is that everybody has ideas on what to spend money on but people are less enthusiastic about funding it. That is also the challenge. Europe has a long list of ideas it would like to spend money on but the real substance of the debate is how we manage to prioritise those ideas. We have all heard a whole variety of things. Ireland, as an experienced member state in its eighth Presidency, will play an important role. I assure the Deputy that protecting our own national interest has been a priority in the early part of this year.
There is an expectation that the agreement on the MFF will be reached before the end of 2026. Ireland effectively carries the responsibility for delivering one of the most complex and contested negotiations in recent EU history within that six-month term. These negotiations involve deeply-held national interests across 27 different member states. There are significant disagreements on spending priorities. Overall, there is a total budget of approximately €2 trillion. Does the Minister believe that agreement is genuinely achievable within that timeframe? What commitment can he give that Ireland will do everything in its power to deliver a deal, given the significant reputational dividend that success would bring for Ireland within the EU?
I think it is doable but it is extremely ambitious. For the Council of the European Union to reach an agreement at a relatively early stage, in other words, by the end of this year, provides a degree of certainty in a world that is craving certainty. There is a real premium on trying to reach agreement because there is so much uncertainty in the world right now. It is not inevitable that that will happen. The Deputy is right that the process is tedious in its various parts. It ultimately becomes a matter for the President of the European Council, President Costa, to seek that consensus or agreement among European member states. The Taoiseach, who is very experienced in his area, will represent our country at that, and I know it will be a priority for him as well. Ireland certainly will not be found wanting. Obviously, there are elections in different member states, and although I will not comment on them, they will have an effect. There has been a change of government in some member states, or there is due to be very shortly.
We have outlined our own priorities. As a significant net contributor to the EU budget, as the Deputy pointed out, but which is often forgotten by others, it is right and proper that our voice is heard. We have outlined the areas that we want to see a real focus on.
241. Deputy Tony McCormack asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance the fiscal measures currently in place to support enterprise development and investment in regional towns and rural communities; the further tax-based initiatives being examined to promote balanced economic growth; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25715/26]
I ask the Minister for an update on the fiscal measures currently in place to support enterprise development and investment in regional towns and rural communities; the further tax-based initiatives being examined to promote balanced economic growth; and if he will make a statement on the matter
As the Deputy knows, the Government is committed to balanced regional development and supporting rural communities, as outlined in the programme for Government. Regarding fiscal supports, a range of tax-based enterprise supports are available to businesses and enterprises across the country, in particular SMEs. These incentives complement more regionally specific direct expenditure measures and schemes overseen by the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment and its agencies. At a taxation level, the measures available are generally available nationwide but when they are coupled with the specific expenditure programmes available through the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment, Enterprise Ireland and others, we can see a compelling opportunity for investment in the regions.
Examples of incentives for SMEs include the employment incentive scheme, start-up relief for entrepreneurs and start-up capital incentives. These reliefs are key supports that help provide SMEs and start-ups with alternative funding sources by incentivising investment in SME start-ups. Another example is the revised entrepreneur relief, which provides a reduced 10% rate of capital gains tax on chargeable gains on the disposal of a qualifying business asset up to a lifetime limit of €1.5 million, a limit that was increased in the last budget. There has also been an increase in the rate of the research and development tax credit from 30% to 35%, and that is being used by many SMEs as well.
As part of budget 2026, we saw the living city initiative, a tax incentive that offers tax relief to regenerate and convert homes and vacant properties. We have expanded that to Athlone, Drogheda, Dundalk, Letterkenny and Sligo, and it is already in place in Galway, as the Deputy knows. The much talked about reduction in the VAT rate for the hospitality sector will disproportionately benefit many rural and regional communities by reducing the cost base for the hospitality sector, which is an important part of the tourism sector. From an IDA and Enterprise Ireland point of view, we continue to promote balanced regional development in every way we can.
The Tánaiste will be aware that the national planning framework proposes to distribute the future population growth of the country equally between the greater Dublin region, the regional cities and the metropolitan areas that surround them. To facilitate that, we need enhanced infrastructure development, and we need to increase housing options for people in those locations. We also need to look at enterprise and fiscal measures to promote the development of industries at home and attract greater foreign direct investment into those regional cities.
I do not think we should rule out targeted fiscal measures at those locations.
There is one other thing I would like to get the Tánaiste's opinion on. We have seen it recently with Dublin City Council. In fact, I think Galway City Council made the initial invitation to or request of the Department of Finance to introduce some type of tourism tax, where the regional or local authority could benefit from additional revenues generated by people coming to spend time in the cities.
Personally, I am very positively disposed to that once it is a matter for the local authority. As the Deputy rightly said, I am a big believer in empowering local democracy. If you run in your community and get elected by your community, you should have real powers. A revenue-raising power is one. If you happen to be a member of Galway or Dublin City Councils - they are two examples - and you say, "Hang on a second, we want to bring in a small tax on a hotel room or the like", that should be considered and people should be given an opportunity to ring fence it. That is very much a matter for local government and I think national government should, if at all, be an empowerment in relation to that.
Infrastructure delivery is key. I am delighted to see the Galway ring road, as I am sure the Deputy is. We have got to get better at delivering critical infrastructure more quickly, particularly in the regions. We now have a very ambitious capital plan but making sure we cut through bureaucracy and planning processes that take too long is going to be key to delivery.
However, unlike we often hear in this House, I think regional Ireland and regional cities are going well. Cities like Galway are doing well. We have got to just make sure we support them from an infrastructural point of view and continue to keep the focus of State agencies on them too.
I very much welcome the Tánaiste's support for the initiative. My understanding of it is that while the local authorities would be the gatherers of the tax, it does require Department of Finance legislative change to try to make sure it is possible and feasible for them to do so. There is a sincerity and a genuine need for it in those cities or regional towns where there are significant numbers of tourists. There is an increased need for services, such as street cleaning at festivals, and all the types of services that visitors expect to see when they come to enjoy these occasions. I am delighted to see the Tánaiste is open to the idea. I hope that we can progress it and allow the local authorities to include it as part of their budgetary framework in terms of revenue generation.
I am very much up to the idea. Generally, people come to this House and come up with ideas on how to spend money. It is refreshing to have people come into this House and come up with ideas on how to generate money. A tourism tax or levy at the very least merits consideration. I say "tax or levy" because they are obviously very different. A levy is something that may not necessarily involve my Department or the Revenue Commissioners; a tax would. There is a whole series of issues that needs to be worked through. The next natural point should be the completion of the review on the powers of local government and local democracy. That might be a useful point at which we can have further engagement. I am happy, in the context of Galway, Galway City Council and the issues the Deputy has raised, to have further engagement or meetings with him on this matter.
I thank the Tánaiste. We have run out of time and cannot take any further questions.
