We have seen a number of media reports – I am sure the Tánaiste has read them – about when the Government was approached with offers in relation to PTSB, and when that was communicated to the executive management of the bank. Will the Tánaiste provide clarity to the Dáil and clear this issue up? How many offers were made for PTSB prior to the launch of the formal sale process? Will the Tánaiste outline the engagement with the executive management of PTSB regarding those offers, as well as the timeline?

I thank Deputy Doherty for the question. The Department received a wide range of proposals in relation to the State’s banking investments over the years, as the Deputy will be aware. As part of their normal functions, officials explore and assess such proposals.

On 5 September 2025, the Department received a non-binding and indicative proposal in writing from Centerbridge Partners to acquire the Minister's stake in PTSB. The Department was of the view that the indicative proposal undervalued the Minister’s stake in PTSB and informed PTSB of its decision to reject the proposal. Following internal governance, the Department advised Centerbridge Partners that the proposal did not provide a basis for engagement. That was the offer. Indeed, it is the only one that I am aware of that took place in advance of the formal sale process.

Subsequently, the board of PTSB launched a formal sale process on 30 October 2025 which was, of course, public and open to all bona fide strategic and financial investors. It was conducted by PTSB in accordance with the Irish takeover rules. Centerbridge Partners was one of the parties in that formal sale process. The Department believes that the process was fair, transparent and offered the greatest opportunity to canvas broad interest from potential bidders. The formal sale process resulted in the board of PTSB recommending a cash offer from BAWAG to shareholders.

BAWAG has set out a long-term ownership approach, including maintaining a strong and resilient Irish banking franchise, investing in the business, retaining the headquarters in Dublin, a branch footprint and safeguarding existing employment rights and pension arrangements in line with applicable law. BAWAG has also indicated its intention to leverage its broader European expertise to strengthen the bank’s competitiveness, including in areas such as SME banking, energy efficiency financing and operational integration. These stated intentions formed part of the overall assessment of the bid.

The State's investment in PTSB was made during the financial crisis to safeguard the stability of the banking system and protect depositors. Since then, PTSB has returned to profitability, increased its balance sheet scale and strengthened its capital ratios. A sale of the State’s investment is consistent with the objectives of recovering taxpayer funds that were used to rescue the banks. Through a combination of fees, dividend income, the bank levy and disposal proceeds, the State has recovered around €4 billion from its investment in PTSB. On an overall basis, this means the State is around €1.3 billion above breakeven on its €29.4 billion investment in AIB, Bank of Ireland and PTSB from direct shareholding linked income and has recovered a further €1.8 billion from the banking sector since the introduction of the bank levy.

Maybe the Tánaiste will clarify that Centerbridge Partners only made one offer. I think he suggested it was on 5 September last year. The public and other shareholders of PTSB are looking at this sale and wondering why we are selling off a public asset on the cheap. When something looks like a bad deal, there is extra scrutiny on the process, and that scrutiny has led to journalists and shareholders looking back.

The CEO of PTSB, on an investor call last September, denied three times that there had been any approach, interest or conversations with potential buyers. He insisted three times that there had been no interest. It appears, however, that the Tánaiste has confirmed there has been interest in the case. How is it possible that the CEO could not have been aware that the private equity firm Centerbridge Partners made offers, and that those offers were communicated to the bank? At what level was this communication from the Government to the bank? Has the Government resolved the issue of how the CEO was not informed of that, or that he informed investors this did not happen?

With respect, it is more than just an issue for the CEO of PTSB. We are the majority shareholder of the bank and the Tánaiste is the person who holds the share on behalf of the Irish people. There is a genuine question here. Regardless of whether we believe that this has been sold on the cheap, it is a deal worth €1.6 billion. It is not a small amount of money. We have a situation where the State, as the largest shareholder, knew there had been an offer. The bank knew there had been an offer. There was an investor call in which investors asked whether there was interest or an offer. We are being told that the executive management of the bank knew about the offer but the CEO did not. That needs to be investigated.

As the largest shareholder, we also need to know whether staff of the Department of Finance listened in to that investor call in September or reviewed the transcripts when they were published. I have those transcripts in front of me. We need to know what action they took when they heard the CEO deny that there had been any interest. When he was asked whether there was any interest, communication or offer, the CEO, on three occasions, told investor after investor there was none. It appears that is not true. We need to get to the point of who knew what when. How could the CEO of a bank that is selling €1.6 billion of assets mislead, it appears, investors in that call? It appears the Government has not really done anything to follow up on it.

I truthfully do not know the answer as to whether officials in the Department of Finance were on that call or reviewed that transcript. I am happy to find that out for the Deputy. I truthfully do not know that. I also cannot account for why the CEO of the bank said that on an investor call. I genuinely believe that it made no material difference to the formal sale process and recovering taxpayers’ money that was invested in PTSB. A full, transparent and open process was undertaken, which ultimately led to a board recommendation from PTSB. However, in the interest of transparency, if there is information that my Department can make available to the Deputy on the questions he asked, I am happy to do that and correspond with him in that regard.