Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am finishing. The letter says the Comptroller and Auditor General adopted a completely uncommercial stance in looking at the 5.5%, which is not accurate. NAMA goes on to say that if that was the case, it could not possibly sell the property at a reasonable price to comply with what was endorsed by the Minister, which was to manage the process of accelerating disposals with the target of redeeming 80% of senior debt by the end of 2016. I will close my questioning by putting to the Minister that he was determined to sell off this project at all costs because he was under pressure, as he has clearly outlined, from the troika and the European Central Bank. He was going to sell this off. When it was brought to the Minister's attention that there were serious questions about a conflict of interest the appalling vista raised its head that, good Lord, could this be terrible or could it be rotten? The Minister could not conceive of this appalling vista. NAMA went ahead and said it had to be sold because it had had enough of Northern Ireland. The 3% value was not worth the trouble it was giving because of all the meetings with the Northern Ireland advisory committee and what has emerged with regard to meetings in Tughans' office and so on. The Minister oversaw that policy of getting out of Northern Ireland at all costs and of not questioning what came up because it would raise an appalling vista. He did not want to go there.