Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for being here today. We appreciate their taking the time to do so.

I was struck earlier by Mr. Daly's statement that running a commercial entity involves making commercial decisions. That is all fine and well if it is the local sale of work but in this instance we are speaking about NAMA. I find it very difficult to listen to what Mr. Daly and Mr. McDonagh are saying today, with respect, vis-a-visthe report from the Comptroller and Auditor General. It strikes me that there are a lot of "Nos" in the report.From my reading of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, there are no records of any discussions around the sale of Project Eagle, which to my mind would be a basic administrative secretarial duty; there are no formal valuations of the property collateral and so there are no clear valuation methods. As we know, the sine qua nonof conveyancing is a proper valuation, which is clearly absent in this regard. Formal expert advice was only received retrospectively. There was no contact with Mr. Cushnahan re his fee arrangement and no considered approach of the sales scheme. It appears to me that haste was put before any due diligence or prudence. There was a lack of openness in relation to the bidding process. I do not accept what the witnesses had to say regarding the sensitivities in Northern Ireland. I think that is convenient. There are no conflict of interest evaluations, no adherence to standard NAMA sales and, even worse, there is no admission of wrongdoing today. The witnesses did state there could be some tweaking but they do not overall accept the premise of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report.

Even taking into account a divergence in relation to valuations, for the taxpayer there is a huge dichotomy in relation to the £190 million. Whether the amount is £150 million or £160 million, it is still a huge amount of money. Taxpayers want an answer as to the reason what the witnesses are saying here today is so completely at odds with the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. In that regard, I put it to Mr. Daly and Mr. McDonagh, that NAMA's handling of Project Eagle was at best sloppy and unprofessional and at worst rushed and opportune. Again, this is just my reading of it.

Obviously, the witnesses accept there are fundamental differences between what they are saying here today and what is contained in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report but do they accept the Comptroller and Auditor General was professional in the manner in which he conducted his report and in that regard do they accept his professional experience and that of his team in compiling this report?

That would also encompass his bona fides in respect of this report and the conclusions he has made therein. Mr. Daly said, in respect of the £190 million, that the Comptroller and Auditor General had a misplaced attachment to an accounting value rather than a real world value. I find that to difficult to reconcile when no proper valuations were procured at all. Mr. Daly also says, in the context of the open process not leading to advantage, that there were eight out of ten rejected bidders post-2014. Why were these not deemed credible? What criteria were used?

Mr. Daly went on to mention reputational damage caused by media leaks, which are unfortunate. Nevertheless, more damage has been done by the fact that the sale went through and we now find ourselves discussing the matter at this public forum. I do not accept what Mr. Daly says regarding reputational damage. Perhaps he can enlighten us in this regard.