Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Chairman, I hope my presence here does not ensure that we are back in the Dáil next week because I am looking forward to spending a week in Galway. In any event, I had better ask a good question.

I wish to follow on from Deputy McDonald's questions on this matter. Obviously the witnesses can accuse us of having the benefit of hindsight. I cannot tell the witnesses how many times I have looked at the Comptroller and Auditor General's report to try to be fair to all parties.

Mr. Collison has said I did not outline questions that he had not answered. Is that right? To be fair to him, he said that I had not done so. I can pick at random from three major chapters. I shall pick page 95, which has conclusions. The Comptroller and Auditor General set out six conclusions. I have not seen Mr. Collison or any of his colleagues deal with those conclusions. I ask him to look at conclusion No. 1. I do not have the time to read out the six conclusions but I shall outline the gist of each one. Conclusion No. 1 reads:

Mr Cushnahan's declared involvement with NAMA debtors whose loans represented at least half the value of the Northern Ireland loan book meant that a potential conflict of interest arose that would not be managed sufficiently by the withholding of debtor-specific information.

The Comptroller and Auditor General concluded: "NAMA should have formally considered whether Mr Cushnahan's engagement in discussion of its Northern Ireland strategy" and so on. Can Mr. Collison see that? In each paragraph, the Comptroller and Audit General set out a conclusion. I expected the witnesses to come back, with all of this time, and say either we agree or disagree with his finding.