Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

He makes no comment on the decisions by NAMA to sell. He makes no comment on its commercial judgment. He looks at the records and raises issues. What he says is that he is not reassured in relation to the 10% the witnesses say NAMA used. He is not reassured by NAMA's explanations. Sorry now, but throwing up of hands is not helpful because this is the report we are dealing with. We are not dealing with allegations. We are dealing with a report that raises serious concerns. Mr. Mulcahy is coming in here and telling us it was superb, wonderful and he would have sold for less actually. I asked him at the beginning if he had read it. If he goes back and reads it, he will see that he makes no decisions, but rather raises concerns repeatedly and draws conclusions from the records or the absence of records, in particular that there was no outlining of an alternative strategy, no grounding for a change of strategy in mid-term and many other reasons. That is why I asked if Mr. Mulcahy had met NAMA in the beginning and if he had come up. He said he did not. That is what I would like from witnesses here; to go through this and say "We agree" or "We disagree" on each one. I thank Mr. Mulcahy.