This question is in relation to the sale of the State's shares in the banking sector. Will the Minister outline to the House the rationale he had for selling the shares? I acknowledge that parties are entitled to different ideological positions. Permanent TSB was never a strategic bank. I would rather have held the ownership of AIB within the State, but Permanent TSB has the potential to be a third force in banking in the State. Will the Minister outline the rationale and also the safeguards that are in place to protect jobs in branches? Will he also expand on the new ownership of the bank? How long is it involved in retail banking with branches?

It is Question No. 164.

I thank the Deputy.

I did not think we would reach it.

I did not either.

I apologise, but I am glad that we have.

I appreciate that.

I thank Deputy Doherty. The State's investment in Permanent TSB, PTSB, was made during the financial crisis to safeguard the stability of the banking system and protect depositors. The State has been and continues to be very supportive of PTSB. The Government believes that it is in the long-term interests of PTSB and citizens in general that the bank be returned to full private ownership. I accept that we have differing political views on that. This transaction would mark a successful conclusion after a period of stabilisation. A sale reflects the Department’s confidence in PTSB’s strength and ability to succeed without State support. A sale of the State’s investment would be consistent with the objectives of recovering taxpayer funds that were used to rescue the Irish banks and deploying these to more productive purposes.

The board of PTSB announced a formal sale process on 30 October 2025. This process was conducted under the Irish takeover rules and resulted in the board unanimously recommending a cash offer from a subsidiary of BAWAG Group AG. BAWAG has set out a long-term ownership approach, including maintaining a strong and resilient PTSB, investing in the business, retaining the headquarters in Dublin, keeping a meaningful branch footprint and safeguarding existing employment rights and pension arrangements in line with applicable law. BAWAG noted that in its view, the PTSB branch network is a real asset. I met BAWAG and its representatives reiterated that point to me as well. It genuinely sees the branch network as an asset. It does not intend to make any material changes with respect to the fixed asset bases. Instead, it notes that branches could shift from being transactions-based based to advisory-based, as it adds new products to the bank’s offering. This is probably something that we would see PTSB and others doing anyway, in terms of the role of a bank branch changing rather than the branch not being there. 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, which would be very welcome, energy-efficiency finance and operational integration. These stated intentions formed part of the overall assessment to support BAWAG’s recommended cash offer.

The Minister mentioned the policy objective to return the banks to private ownership. I mentioned earlier that the State should have retained its position as a majority shareholder in AIB. It is not unique, as I am sure the Minister knows, for countries across Europe to be the majority shareholder or a significant shareholder in significant banks. It happens right across Europe, including in France and Germany. Many western European countries have that model, so the idea of the State having a share or a majority share in a bank is not something alien in terms of other European countries and in some cases competitors. The issue in this country is that we have a very small retail banking sector. I have always believed that despite some of the activities of AIB, the fact that the State was a shareholder forced it to be first movers in a lot of issues where it brought Bank of Ireland along with it. Will the Minister expand on whether he has received any guarantees from BAWAG during this sale process in relation to staffing and the branch network?

I accept that we have legitimate points of difference in relation to bank ownership and there is a legitimate debate to be had there. The position that we have always taken and the position that the programme for Government takes is to move the State out of the ownership of the banks and to restore them to private ownership.

I want to make the point that the circumstances in which Ireland ended up being in the position of bank ownership certainly was not strategic. We did not sit down to plan it out. It was an emergency rescue response to the financial crash.

The Deputy's point in relation to the lack of competition in retail banking is an important one. We have seen some potentially positive moves lately with Monzo getting a banking licence, along with Avant Money and others. I look forward to the banking competitiveness report at an EU level that will be published during our European Presidency because competitiveness in the banking sector is important.

In relation to BAWAG, in the interest of accuracy, I will come back to the Deputy with a note on this. I am very happy to write to the Deputy on this, but I did meet BAWAG and it made it clear that it is committed to the branch network. It made it clear on quite a number of occasions that it sees PTSB's branch network as a real asset and that it does not intend to make any material changes with respect to the fixed asset base. It has also met with the trade unions and others and has talked about safeguarding existing employment rights and pension arrangements in line with the applicable law. It is also a company that does not particularly like outsourcing, so there may be insourcing opportunities too. I am happy to correspond with the Deputy on the engagements I have had with BAWAG and any commitments it has given.

The Minister is aware that a number of taxation and levy measures flowed from the fact that the State rescued these banks at a time when they were literally bankrupt and bankrupted the State with their activities. The Government has already overturned some of those, for example, the salary caps within banks. There is a prohibition on bonuses or at least there is an excess charge that applies in terms of a 45% additional USC charge on any bonuses that are paid out above a certain limit. There are other restrictions as well, including the levy. Where does the Minister now stand in relation to those issues with the State divesting its shareholdings in these three banks that were bailed out?

That is a fair question. The Government makes a decision annually on the banking levy, as the Deputy knows, as part of the budgetary process. We will do that again because we find it desirable to do it as part of the annual budgetary process, but I do not see a case for not having a bank levy.

In relation to the super charge on what are referred to as bankers' bonuses, while every bank in Ireland and anybody doing business in Ireland might have a view, I do not see a case for changing the policy position in relation to that either.