Mr. Frank Daly:

It goes back to Deputy Connolly asking us earlier why we were defending ourselves and explaining ourselves and getting out of the traps. All we can do is put our point of view. There is no doubt that the Comptroller and Auditor General's view is highly respected and rarely challenged. In the generality of our dealings with the Comptroller and Auditor General, we have absolutely no issues with oversight, conclusions or anything else. I cannot say that often enough. In relation to this, however, it is back again to this net point of £190 million. It is back to the net point of the discount rate in relation to that figure and the net point of the process. Could a different process have yielded a better or different result? That latter one is almost impossible to prove. How does one do that? How can something be looked at three or four years after the event and for it to be decided that had it been done a different way, only £100 million would have been lost, or may a gain might have been made or nothing at all lost? I do not know how that will be resolved, but I know that the common thread and need through this pricing and sales process was an informed, independent view by experts in the loan sales process and in the market and that is our disagreement with the Comptroller and Auditor General. If there is to be an inquiry, that should certainly be its focus. I am not saying there are not other issues which are raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General, but at the end of the day, if there had not been a headline of NAMA's probable loss of £190 million, would we be here? I do not know.