Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for giving of their time. I have heard a good deal of evidence today. Unfortunately, I was detained at the Select Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform and the Taoiseach for part of the meeting and hope I am not repeating anything.

Obviously, the discount rate is one issue about which we have had a significant argument. In terms of the process, the way board meetings were dealt with, how decisions were recorded and the backup given, the discount rate NAMA was recommending to the board as late as June 2013 was lower than 5.5% at 2.5%, in other words, a greater discount rate essentially involved an increased risk to the taxpayer. I note the narrow focus of Lazard in advising on strategy at the time in the first major sale. If one looks at Project Arrow and other projects, it has been noted that various asset packages were looked at rather than lump everything together. How does the Department deal with these issues? Does it look at them in its section 227 report? How does the Minister deal with them if he sees sufficient evidence? In each step along the way it looks as if there were inadequate board minutes. Even NAMA has accepted that there are aspects it would change in terms of backup if it had to engage in this process again. That is our problem. Looking at a lot of the audit evidence, I am sure the Comptroller and Auditor General would say - I am not speaking for him - it was deficient in many areas and that it was difficult to understand. When the committee has representatives of NAMA here, we rely a lot on retrospective conversations. They come out fighting and use examples which have not been recorded. If the Department has a major concern about an agency, how does it deal with it or what redress does it have?