Mr. John Collison:

The only thing I would say is that Lazard was appointed and completed a contract order for services. That contract order for services set out the scope of those services, which included identification of prospective bidders, which is what it did. I mean, that was one of the main objectives and tasks we set them. The actual letter to us at the end of the process is this letter of 25 June 2014. I think the committee has it albeit there may be a restriction on its publication. Lazard confirms that the process was structured in order to seek to achieve NAMA's objective and, specifically, Lazard, in consultation with NAMA, identified a select group of investors who were qualified in terms of financial resources, expertise, track record and so on to undertake a transaction of this nature. Lazard did that.

The Deputy asked me earlier about Lazard's pitch book. The only change I can recall relates to that sort of consultation around the selection of bidders. I recall specifically that there was one particular firm in - let us call it - the second tier, which I think was Oaktree, and it was elevated after that discussion between Lazard and NAMA to tier 1. It was in the first group of bidders that was approached. Cerberus I think was switched to tier 2. As it turned out, obviously, both of those bidders were approached, but the main rationale for that at the time was that we had had a lot more visibility and interaction with Oaktree in terms of it bidding on other NAMA portfolios than we would have had with Cerberus. In fact, at that point, we really did not have much engagement at all with Cerberus. That was really the rationale behind that.