Mr. Frank Daly:

The general point is that it is back to the question about how we interpret our mandate under the Act, the responsibilities we have and what we can do under the Act. I have already spoken about these in response to Deputy Ó Broin's questions. Short of repeating myself, we have to act in accordance with the mandate and the responsibilities in the NAMA Act. We cannot go outside that. We have to get the best financial return we can for the taxpayer and to do that as expeditiously as possible - that is in the Act as well.

That is a primary driver for us.

I know the Deputy will probably not agree with me but our view is that the repayment of the debt is a priority for all sorts of other reasons. Only when we are sure we can do that can we invest money in other things, like social housing, ghost estates and the funding of 20,000 units. Whether the Deputy thinks that is adequate is not the point. For NAMA, we cannot do any of that until we are sure we are generating the cash to repay our debt and have enough cash to fund that. The housing programme we are going to fund will cost approximately €5 billion. The Docklands development we are going to fund will cost approximately €2 billion. We will do all of that. We will repay the debt and we will return a surplus to the State.

To respond to the Deputy’s central point, we cannot really do that unless we operate commercially and unless we deal with the investors who are prepared to buy our assets. The Deputy labels them vulture funds, but other people would call them investment companies. There will be others; there are private individuals and Irish investors. We put everything on the market and we take the best price we can, generally speaking. Unless we do that, we are not acting commercially; we are departing from our brief and are open to challenge by our debtors and receivers and will not get the wherewithal to do what we propose to do in housing, in the Docklands or anything else. That is the responsibility the NAMA Act places on us. I know the Deputy has a different view but that is a policy view, which is beyond our remit here today.

There were a lot of questions about individual sites and I will leave those to Mr. McDonagh. Deputy Coppinger said NAMA has been hoarding land. She is quite right that we have 2,800 hectares of residential development land but 1,500 of those are earmarked to deliver the 20,000 houses. That leaves approximately 1,300 hectares. Not all of that will ever be built on because it is not suitable. It is not zoned and is not in the right area. We are not hoarding it. We continually look through it. If there are local authorities interested in some of that land for residential development, or whatever, we are quite happy to talk to them about it. They know what we have and I am not sure that in that 1,300 acres, which we do not think is viable, there is the potential that the Deputy says is there. Maybe it will become viable in the future.

The amount of cash we have on hand varies from time to time. Whatever cash we have is earmarked to repay the debt and we have to repay more this year, for the housing development, the Docklands and other things we do and to pay our own way because we do not borrow. The question about the apartment blocks in Clontarf is so specific that I am not sure we can answer it today. Maybe Mr. McDonagh has some information.