John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

NAMA had roughly 55 debtors in Northern Ireland. It was a very small business community - I am sure that a lot of information is shared and a lot of information would be known. NAMA had someone on the Northern Ireland advisory committee, which was well known and well placed within that jurisdiction. They also had two firms - Tughans, the local firm, and Brown and Rudnick. In January 2014, there was a suggestion in terms of the memorandum of understanding. I know that no one acted on it, that it was not from NAMA, that it was just a piece of paper that went to NAMA. Bearing in mind the size of the economy and the 55 debtors, I would imagine there was a lot known about everyone within that community and their indebtedness and so on. The Northern Ireland Executive, or someone from it, suggested this MOU and, without a shadow of a doubt, it protects the debtors and it is the best offer I have seen for debtors in which, for nil payment, they were released. That is being suggested on one side and we cannot ignore it because there is something going on up here that is unusual and it is certainly unusual that someone of that standing within Northern Ireland would suggest it. Then there is the involvement of the two firms. Now, in the correspondence that NAMA has given us this morning, the Brown and Rudnick correspondence of 24 June 2013, the letter from Brown and Rudnick to Mr. Wilson, which is marked "highly confidential", it states: "Two of our clients have each confirmed that they would, independently, be committed to a process of potential outright purchase of the NAMA Northern Irish Borrower Connections Loan Book."

At that stage, in June 2013, Brown Rudnick was indicating clearly there were two clients. They had two clients, but thereafter, when PIMCO withdrew in March 2014, it appears the information on the £15 million became clear to you.

To go back to the point made by Deputy Ross, it seems to me it is quite possible a company was used as a stalking horse and that then the final bidder was there to come in to make the final bid and close the deal. It seems the information was certainly being shared all around the place with connections in Northern Ireland and that not only was this deal compromised, but there was even an extension of the deal that would accommodate debtors. I must agree that bearing all of this in mind, the intelligence from the front up there would surely have told you there was something odd, to say the least, about the deal and that something should have been done by NAMA to restructure the process and its approach to that deal. Perhaps the decision made on that restructuring would have been not to sell in a single property portfolio but to break it down to attract a wider range of bidders. NAMA should at least have reported to someone the information that was in the public domain from 2013.

It appears to me that somebody was setting up the purchase. That is what comes across in the correspondence and in the confidential MOU and it is what seems to come across in the context of the use of Brown Rudnick and Tughans and the involvement of the individual you have just mentioned. What does NAMA have to say to that, even in the context of the perception. Can you deal with it that way?