David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman for that clarification and I welcome the witnesses. I first of all want to focus on the Comptroller and Auditor General's report and the 58 findings. I want to try to establish on what basis those findings were made and whether they were findings based on facts, documentary evidence and experience within NAMA; apologies, experience within the Comptroller and Auditor General's office which NAMA disputes. It is fair that we have to interrogate the findings of Mr. McCarthy's report, which I am sure he would agree with.

We have some very strong comments from NAMA with regard to the Comptroller and Auditor General's organisation, which Mr. McCarthy has somewhat clarified in his introductory remarks, but I believe they need to be teased out further. In his response to the report Mr. McDonagh has said:

Because of the C&AG report’s misplaced attachment to an accounting value rather than the real world market value which is ultimately what matters [that that was a mistake] ... ultimately, the fact that no external advisors were commissioned by C&AG to advise the examination meant that the report’s conclusions are based entirely on opinions ... [not on fact, or on documentation or on paper trails but opinions, and I am assuming he is talking about the 58 findings] ... formed by staff who, to our knowledge, have no market experience and no expertise in loan sales.

Similar arguments are also made by Mr. Daly where he talks about Mr. McCarthy and his team carrying out a desktop review and he then questions the Comptroller and Auditor General's experience in relation to what happens in the real world. In Mr. McCarthy's opening remarks he talked about the experience of his staff. Could he explain to the committee in more detail the relationship between the Comptroller and Auditor General's office and NAMA since its inception. Even prior to this report he would have had ongoing interaction with NAMA anyway. My first question is what was the level of ongoing interaction his office had and who in the office was part of that interaction? We know there were audits every three years. I will now turn to my second question. Mr. McCarthy talked about his staff having accounting and auditing experience. However, the charge being made is that they do not have experience with regard to the market and the sell side. That is the claim being made, and because of that, Mr. McCarthy relied too heavily on his own staff who have a limited view of the world which is about accounting and auditing but not about how the market operates and how portfolios are sold etc., as NAMA would see it, and he did not then seek external advice to back up some of his conclusions. Is there something in that, from NAMA's perspective?