I ask the Minister to square the circle. When he said he rejects the notion that Ireland was funding or complicit in the funding of the genocide, given that these were advertised as war bonds to support the war effort in what we all in this House call not a war but a genocide, does the Minister not acknowledge there was hard cash and profiteering done on the back of the genocide? The second issue is the Minister stated he was aware in the run-up to the production of the annual report. However, he has answered parliamentary questions as far back as February. At no time during that period did he ever ask whether there was still holding of investments in the name of the Irish State in Israel during this genocide. Please answer the question. I have asked whether the Minister has the answer. If he does not, he should provide it. When did they sell? Did he raise any concern with the NTMA or ISIF when he was told they were investing and profiteering off the genocide in the preparation for the annual report?
Sentiment score: -0.10
What analysis, if any, has been carried out by the Minister or his Department in relation to the dividends forgone as a result of the State selling its shares in the AIB since 2022? As the Minister knows, I argued against the sale of those shareholdings in which at one point in time we had 71% of the shares. What dividend are we losing as a result of the fact that we now do not hold shares that bank?
Sentiment score: -0.11
There is no doubt that we will not benefit from hundreds of millions of euro in dividends each year. The Minister can make the point of €273 million of a dividend last year on the basis of a 19% shareholding. Obviously, if we had the 71% that would be significantly increased in a year where the bank paid out close to a billion euro on dividends. This was one of the most financially reckless decisions that have been made in a long time. In 2022, when the public owned more than 70% of AIB, the share price was €2.32. That is when the State started selling at a more aggressive pace. The share price now is about €7. A bit of simple maths would show that, even if we held the shares today and sold them all today, which I would not agree with, but if the State sold them all today it would have made about €4.5 billion more. Through the aggressive selling of the shares of AIB, does the Minister not accept the fact that he probably lost the State more than €4 billion in the value of the shares?
Sentiment score: -0.04
It is not just the Minister who is at a loss. The taxpayer is at a loss because of his decision. The reality is, and I asked whether his Department did any analysis of this, one of the major issues in terms of share price is the profitability of a bank or of a company. We can see the profitability of AIB and Bank of Ireland. The bank was nationalised at a time when it was making losses and was sold privately at a time when it was making significant profits. The two banks between them made €4 billion in profit last year. We know all the reasons for that in terms of ECB interest rates and not passing that on to customers. There is, however, a simple point. It may be one that the Minister does not want to deal with. The reality is that the share price when the Government sold its holding was just over €2. It is now €7. Does the ownership structure of the entity have an impact? Of course it does. However, I ask him not to pretend that is the reason the share value has gone from €2 to €7. There is an issue here in respect of profitability. The point is that we are at a loss as a result of hundreds of millions of euro in dividends each year. There was always an ability for us to sell but it was sold at the wrong time.
Sentiment score: 0.11
We did not. Is the Minister joking me?
Sentiment score: 0.11
Anglo Irish Bank cost €33 billion.
Sentiment score: 0.00
Come on.
Sentiment score: 0.00
The Minister said we got good value out of all of this.
Sentiment score: 0.65
Tell us how we got good value then.
Sentiment score: 0.65
We also lost as a result of AIB.
Sentiment score: -0.32
Let me make the argument in respect of AIB.
Sentiment score: 0.15
The Minister likes to ignore the fact that we paid-----
Sentiment score: 0.08
The Minister likes to ignore the €700 million in interest every year that the Comptroller and Auditor General has talked about.
Sentiment score: 0.51
That is not good value.
Sentiment score: -0.53
The Ireland Strategic Investment Fund is a €16.6 billion fund comprising the discretionary portfolio of €8.9 billion and the directed portfolio of €7.7 billion based on the 2024 annual report. It has a double bottom line mandate to invest on a commercial basis in a manner designed to support economic activity and employment in Ireland. ISIF has complete independence in implementing its investment strategy. At year-end 2024, ISIF held €3.6 million in Israeli sovereign debt. ISIF monitors all of its holdings within its investment portfolio to ensure alignment with its risk profile and investment parameters. As regards the divestment, I would say, as I have previously, that geopolitical tensions have been rising across the Middle East, posing an increased risk to assets with economic exposure to the region. ISIF's view is that following the escalation of the Israel-Iran conflict in June 2025, the current situation carries materially greater risk. I am advised that given this, ISIF determined that a risk profile of a number of sovereign bond holdings in the region was no longer within its investment parameters. Following this determination, ISIF sold its holdings of sovereign debt issued by Jordan, Egypt and Israel.
Sentiment score: -0.05
May I come in?
Sentiment score: 0.00
The Minister's response is bull. That is the reality. His Pontious Pilate approach of washing his hands does not wash. He previously wrote to ISIF but on the issue of investing in a genocide, he sat on his hands. I will quote a Government press release, which stated: Minister Donohoe has recommended that the ISIF should move from a broad investment strategy that is focused on all sectors, to a focus on the priorities that will support Project Ireland 2040 and have a more direct and positive impact on the economy’s long-term growth potential. These priorities include key sustainable economic challenges, such as investments that support indigenous industry; regional development [and so on]. On this basis, the Government has decided to refocus ISIF funds along the following lines ... The press release goes on to state that ISIF has taken up the Minister's recommendation and has done so. The Minister has impact. The idea that ISIF is completely independent and that, as Minister, he can do nothing is nonsense. This is a genocide. People have been ripped apart by bullets and bombs, and this State funded it. We brought forward a motion in this House and the Minister sat there as if the State had no role, hand, act or part in it. What has happened is disgraceful. He does not get away with saying it is nothing to do with him.
Sentiment score: 0.13
The Minister reviews ISIF's investment strategy.
Sentiment score: 0.00
The Minister reviews ISIF's investment strategy.
Sentiment score: 0.00
It is a simple thing. Do not fund the genocide
Sentiment score: 0.00
The Minister reviews ISIF's investment strategy.
Sentiment score: 0.00
I am not letting him away with that.
Sentiment score: 0.00
I did not say that.
Sentiment score: 0.00
The Minister should refocus.
Sentiment score: 0.00
You should have refocused the fund-----
Sentiment score: 0.00
-----like you did before and said, "Do not fund the genocide."
Sentiment score: 0.00
Shame on you.
Sentiment score: -0.48
Maybe that call from the Israeli Minister was more important than you let on.
Sentiment score: 0.27
The Minister turns a blind eye, however, when he funds it. That is the reality, so it is not going to wash.
Sentiment score: -0.20
105. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance to provide an update on the OECD tax agreement and the implications for the Irish tax code and corporation tax rates; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39433/25]
Sentiment score: 0.17
Ireland signed up to a global tax deal some years ago, back in 2021. It provided for a framework of base erosion and profit shifting. There are now reports that an agreement was reached at the G7, with G7 countries agreeing to exclude US multinationals from certain aspects of the pillar 2 global minimum tax rules. That obviously includes France, Germany and Italy. What are the implications for our existing tax codes that we have legislated for now that it has come through an EU directive?
Sentiment score: 0.24
The G7 is far from democratic but the decisions that are made there can have a serious impact in Ireland. Pillar 2 was dealt with by way of an EU directive. Surely if there are carve-outs as a result, that will require a new EU directive in relation to how France, Germany and Italy will be able to implement this agreement. I have raised the issue with the undertaxed profit rule and how it was envisaged. It was envisaged with America as part of the overall agreement. Can the Minister cast any light on that? We will have to deal with that, or not, in the finance Bill, so that would have to be at an advanced stage at this point. Can the Minister give any indications as to where pillar 1 is? Is it dead or is it on life support?
Sentiment score: 0.16
The Minister is not only finance Minister but he also has an important position in Europe as chair of the Eurogroup. Is it his view that France, Germany and Italy are abiding by the OECD agreement? Whatever the G7 does is separate. A global agreement has been reached and Europe is part of it. Have those countries now stepped outside that as a result of the agreement they entered into in the G7 or not? What is the Minister’s view? Has he spoken, maybe in his capacity as chair, to any of those finance ministers to ascertain their views on it? It appears as though they have done their own solo runs in the G7 and left Europe to deal with this issue now, and us too.
Sentiment score: 0.23