David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Go raibh maith agat. I know it has been a long day, but it is important for us to try to tease out as much of this as possible. I will pick up where I left off earlier with Mr. Daly and Mr. McDonagh. Some of this has been teased out. I want to come back to it again because I think it is important. Mr. Daly said earlier that people have moved away from the pricing issue. I focused on the conflicts of interest and the success fees because this aspect of the matter is at the heart of the question of whether process was followed appropriately. A big part of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report relates to the failings he has detected in this regard. The witnesses from NAMA might not agree with these findings. We had a lengthy discussion about the minutes of the board meeting of 11 March, at which the conference call of the previous day was discussed. Mr. Daly's view on that issue contradicts the synopsis of the Comptroller and Auditor General, as set out in Appendix E in the report. Mr. Daly's interpretation or narrative is that the board decided that the message which had to be conveyed, and which was conveyed, was that PIMCO was out. Let us imagine for a second that this is the case. I do not accept that it is, but let us take it at face value. If this is the case, Mr. Daly is saying he was alarmed by the success fees that, according to him, involved Mr. Cushnahan.

If the witnesses want to turn to page 17 of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, they will see that he makes it clear in finding 55 that his problem with the success fee does not relate solely to the payment to Mr. Cushnahan. He argues that "all of the payment – not just the payment to Mr Cushnahan – should have raised concerns for NAMA". That is what he says. The concerns that I, like other people, think should have been raised were obviously not raised. It stretches people's imagination to unbelievable levels. NAMA wants us to believe that the board was so concerned about the success fees that it forced PIMCO out, but the process continued regardless after it became aware that Brown Rudnick and Tughans were also involved with Cerberus. A decision was made to carry on. NAMA is relying on an e-mail, correspondence or letter of comfort from Cerberus. We need to see that e-mail. We also need to see the correspondence where NAMA wrote to Cerberus. The witnesses are saying that NAMA told them everything was okay because nobody from NAMA and nobody who had been associated with NAMA was involved in any success fee. Questions are being asked about why NAMA did not go further - we have been told that alarm bells went off - by going beyond Cerberus and finding out from Brown Rudnick or Tughans whether Mr. Cushnahan was involved at that point. Given that NAMA knew they shared an office with Cushnahan and Tughans, it is extraordinary to ask us to believe it was not reasonable for us to suggest that NAMA should have acted in a more appropriate way.