Irish manufacturing sees robust output growth in July, PMI shows
The AIB Ireland Manufacturing Purchasing Managers' Index (PMI) fell slightly to 53.2 from June's near three-year high of 53.7 but was still above the 50.0 threshold that indicates growth, where the index has remained throughout 2025.
New orders rose, albeit at the slowest pace since February. Export sales expanded for the first time since March, though only marginally, as global economic uncertainties continued to pose challenges.
Employment growth remained robust, with job creation matching June's three-year high.
Input cost inflation accelerated in July, attributed to higher transportation bills and increased raw material prices. However, the appreciation of the euro against the U.S. dollar helped mitigate some of these pressures.
Despite ongoing tariff uncertainties, manufacturers remain optimistic about future growth, with 35% anticipating increased production volumes over the next year, compared to 8% forecasting a decline. Optimism is linked to potential pent-up demand if global trade frictions ease.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BreakingNews.ie
27 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Presidential candidates can now be reimbursed up to €250k for election expenses
An order increasing the maximum amount of election expenses that can be reimbursed to a candidate at a presidential election from €200,000 to €250,000 has been signed by Minister for Housing and Local Government James Browne. Election expenses are reimbursed to a candidate at a presidential election who is elected or, if not elected, the total of their votes exceeds one quarter of the quota. Advertisement Section 21A of the Electoral Act 1997 provides that the maximum amount of election expenses that can be reimbursed to a candidate at a presidential election is €200,000. However, under the Act, the minister may vary the amounts having regard to changes in the Consumer Price Index. A review of the amounts typically takes place in advance of each election. Applying the CPI increase since the amount was last revised resulted in a potential increase to €252,700 which has been rounded down to €250,000. Section 53 (as amended) of the Electoral Act 1997 provides that spending by a candidate at a presidential election shall not exceed €750,000. It is not proposed to increase the spending limit, so it will remain at €750,000.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Armani fined €3.5m by regulator over workers' rights
Italy's consumer regulator has issued a €3.5 million fine to the luxury fashion house Armani over misleading ethical claims. The label, which has been worn by Angelina Jolie, Sharon Stone and Kevin Spacey at recent high-profile events, has long claimed to protect workers' rights. However, the antitrust regulator published findings on Friday claiming Armani had outsourced most of its handbag and leather accessory production to third-party manufacturers, many of which subcontracted to companies that failed to meet health and safety standards. There was evidence at some of the subcontractors' plants that safety devices had been removed to increase production. Sanitary and hygiene conditions were deemed 'inadequate' and workers were 'frequently employed either wholly or partially off the books'. 'In this context, it is evident that the protection of workers' rights and health did not align with the content of the ethical and social responsibility statements disseminated,' the watchdog said. It did not say where the workers were based. Armani said it was 'embittered and shocked' and would appeal against the ruling. It insisted it had 'always operated with the utmost fairness and transparency towards consumers, the market and stakeholders'. Giorgio Armani appeared at Milan Fashion Week in 2024 but did not attend this year GABRIEL BOUYS/AFP/GETTY IMAGES In a 2022 report, the company listed 'respect for human and workers' rights' as one of its greatest concerns and said in statement last year it had 'always had control and prevention measures in place to minimise abuses in the supply chain'. An investigation into Dior, which is owned by LVMH, the French multinational, was closed after the brand made a series of commitments relating to its supply chain monitoring. The Milan-registered Loro Piana and Valentino were put under judicial administration over alleged worker abuses in supply chains earlier this year. Codacons, a consumer rights group, said: 'Consumers who buy products from the fashion giant spend considerable sums [that] should represent excellent quality and workmanship.' Giorgio Armani, 91, remains the sole shareholder and chief executive of the label he founded 50 years ago. In a sign of his advancing years, he opted out of his usual appearance at Armani's runway shows at Milan Fashion Week in June, when the company said he was 'recovering at home'. The brand has a significant presence in the UK, with flagship stores on London's Bond Street and Regent Street, and made €2.3 billion global revenue last year.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Supreme Court puts brakes on car finance payouts but it's not end of road
All it took was a statement from the Financial Conduct Authority in January last year announcing it would 'undertake work' on car loans to set off more than 18 months of turmoil in one of Britain's biggest consumer finance markets. Now, with a landmark ruling on Friday from the country's highest court, consumers, motor finance lenders and car dealers finally have some clarity on the potential scale of any consumer compensation the industry might have to pay. It is good news for the lenders who are on the hook for any redress. This is because the Supreme Court overturned the main arguments put forward by the consumers who brought the cases that might have resulted in a compensation crisis for motor finance providers akin to the £50 billion payment protection insurance (PPI) redress saga. • Consumers denied car finance payouts by Supreme Court While lenders may still end up paying billions in compensation, the worst-case scenario for the industry, which one City analyst had pegged at £44 billion, appears to have been avoided. It is the latest twist in a scandal that had caused consternation at the very top of the government over fears of the size of the hit lenders may face. While motor finance has been around since early in the 20th century, it has exploded in popularity in the UK in recent decades. Between 80 per cent and 90 per cent of new cars are bought using finance. The market is huge, with £18.4 billion in finance provided for 646,080 new cars and £21.3 billion for 1.4 million used vehicles in the 12 months to May, according to the Finance & Leasing Association, which represents the industry. The issue at the heart of the furore is the commissions that lenders pay to car dealers acting as brokers in the sale of motor finance. • Discretionary car finance commission was a disaster waiting to happen They have been in the crosshairs of the FCA, the City regulator, for almost a decade. In 2017, the authority announced a review of the car loans industry over concerns 'there may be a lack of transparency, potential conflicts of interest and irresponsible lending'. This culminated in the FCA's decision to ban so-called discretionary commissions. Under this payment model, the commission paid to the dealer was linked to the interest rate paid by the borrower, which the dealer was allowed to set. This created an obvious conflict because dealers earned more commission if they charged higher interest rates. The authority's ban came into force in January 2021. The regulator estimated that it would save consumers £165 million a year. Yet controversy over commission did not go away. Customer complaints to motor finance firms about pre-ban deals surged. Borrowers argued that commissions had not been disclosed, car dealers had failed to give impartial advice and that they therefore had not received the best deal. There was also a rise in county court claims. Most grievances were rejected by firms and went up to the Financial Ombudsman Service, an independent body that adjudicates on unresolved complaints. It published its first two decisions on representative cases in January last year. One of the disputes related to Black Horse, the car loans division of Lloyds Banking Group that is the UK's biggest motor finance provider, and the other related to a unit of Barclays. In both instances the ombudsman found against the lenders, deciding that they had acted unfairly because the discretionary commissions had not been disclosed to the borrowers, and that they should pay compensation. This immediately prompted the FCA to begin another review of the market, examining discretionary commissions as far back as April 2007, blindsiding the industry with its wide-ranging, retrospective nature. This fuelled City speculation that car loan providers, which include the lending arms of car manufacturers as well as banks, would ultimately be forced to pay consumer compensation totalling billions of pounds and, inevitably, a whole industry of claims management companies and law firms seeking to cash in on redress claims quickly sprang up. • 23m people expecting compensation for car finance scandal Industry data compiled by the authority covering most of the car loans market suggests there were about 25.9 million motor finance deals arranged between 2007 and the end of 2020. Some 14.6 million of these included discretionary commissions of about £8.1 billion. It was just weeks after the authority started its review that the fallout on lenders began to materialise. The first casualty was Close Brothers, a London-listed merchant bank that has large exposure to motor finance relative to the size of its wider loan book. Its shares had slumped following the regulator's announcement after investors identified the 147-year-old lender as being at risk from the inquiry. Their fears were confirmed in February last year when Close revealed it was scrapping its dividend to bolster its balance sheet to prepare for possible compensation payouts. It has since taken a series of emergency actions to boost its capital position by more than £400 million. A week after Close Brothers axed its dividend, Lloyds announced it was setting aside £450 million to cover its potential customer redress bill. This was increased by Lloyds to £1.15 billion this February following a seismic ruling last autumn by the Court of Appeal, which found against lenders MotoNovo and Close in three cases brought by consumers. It was this judgment, which stunned the industry because of its far-reaching implications, that was referred to the Supreme Court after the lenders involved appealed. While the FCA's continuing review relates to discretionary commissions, the Court of Appeal ruled that any commission was unlawful if it was not properly disclosed to, and consented to, by consumers, and that dealers, in their capacity as brokers, had to act in the best interests of their customers because they owed them a fiduciary duty. It also ruled that lenders were liable to compensate consumers for the commissions. By going much further than what had been required under regulation, it immediately caused chaos in the motor finance market, as lenders halted operations to check that they complied with the ruling, and prompted several banks to follow Lloyds by making compensation provisions. They included Santander UK, which set aside £295 million, Close, which has earmarked £165 million, and a £90 million provision by Barclays. The UK motor finance arm of BMW set aside more than £70 million, although this provision pre-dated the Court of Appeal ruling. All of this significantly increased estimates for the overall bill faced by the industry. Some lawyers warned the ruling could have implications for commissions in other areas involving brokers, such as asset finance and energy. • Car finance revival as memories of the mis-selling scandal fade The prospect of another PPI-style scandal unnerved the Treasury, not least because Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, has placed fostering the financial services at the heart of her efforts to boost Britain's faltering economy. This risked being undermined, not just by a big compensation crisis for lenders, but also by the frenzy of activity by claim-chasing companies and law firms that have been seeking to feast on the scandal. Yet the Treasury can breathe a sigh of relief. The Supreme Court on Friday rejected the idea that dealers owed a fiduciary duty to their customers and also dismissed the argument, which had been upheld by the Court of Appeal, that the commissions amounted to a bribe. The industry is not completely out of the woods, however. While the Supreme Court upheld two of the appeals made by the lenders, it backed consumers in the third case. • Common sense has triumphed over compensation culture The FCA also still has to make a decision about discretionary commissions. It previously signalled that it was likely to impose a redress scheme on the industry over these arrangements. It said on Friday night that it would confirm whether it will consult on a compensation scheme before markets open on Monday. Even so, the Finance & Leasing Association hailed the judgment as 'an excellent outcome'. The Treasury, which had been considering bringing in legislation to supersede the court ruling if it threatened a huge compensation blow to lenders, signalled that it would not intervene, with a spokesman saying it respected the judgment. Kate Scott, a partner at the law firm Clifford Chance, called it 'an eminently sensible, commercial decision from the Supreme Court. As any man on the street will confirm: car dealers act in their own interest'.
