Ms Éilish Finan:

I wish to add a little flavour by taking the discussion away from the ultimate price, which came from a transaction in which I did not participate. There have been discussions about the borrowers and the failure of those borrowers. There was also a sense of ill-liquidity in the Northern Ireland market. NAMA was trying to sell a composite portfolio piecemeal. Mr. Mulcahy is right. Selling piecemeal over time was still a relatively short period. Sale by 2020 was the strategic ambition of NAMA and the State in the best interests of the State.

There were, therefore, colours of strategic influence here. One was the borrowers - absolutely - and the other was the illiquidity in the Northern Irish market. The record and the transaction which had successfully been done in the Northern Ireland portfolio up until autumn 2013 gleaned about €100 million of sales. If one looks at the records, predominately the borrowers were put to enforcement. So if one stress tests that decision strategically - if one holds the assets, and bear in mind we only had the luxury really until 2020 or early thereafter - one is looking at probably enforcement of a majority of Northern Ireland, which actually is financially draining. The strategic element here, on behalf of the Irish taxpayer, was that there was a lot of uncertainty around holding those assets for what effectively was a relatively short window. There was a known potential to deleverage the Irish NAMA balance sheet at €1.322 billion. I did not participate in the absolute decision of €1.322 billion but the initial consideration and reference here - the change in strategy - was absolutely cognisant of the intricacies and complications about the Northern Ireland market, borrowers, politics and all that goes with that. That was the strategic driver - the best for the Irish taxpayer.