Mr. Des Carville:

There was quite a bit in that. Stepping back, just by way of context, many of these assets were taken onto the State balance sheet, either through the recapitalisation of the banking system or otherwise. Just looking at that part of the equation, it was really important that the banks cleansed their balance sheets, and a necessary part of that was the sale of loans. Another part of it was for the banks to go through loans individually and try to reach resolutions with the underlying borrowers. A combination of those effectively cleaned up the banking system. Continuing on that thread for a second, that means that the banks are now able to support the economy. They do not have legacy loan issues. The non-performing loan ratio for the banks is well below 3%. AIB might have been at 26% or 29% at one stage, which would be clearly unsustainable in terms of supporting the economy. That is where the banks are.

What NAMA did, as a bank, effectively, was avail of its right to deal with its debtors, provide financing to its customers, effectively, and support them where they were co-operating with NAMA. That made an awful lot of sense. There was a finite period during which that could continue under state aid rules because otherwise there would be a distorted market. DG Competition was quite strict about that. We managed to get the period extended a bit, but NAMA has to come to an end. As a result, its ability to continue to support the economy after 2025 has effectively been extinguished. What one hopes is that the banking system, which has been cleansed, plus international capital will provide support, whether it is for construction activity, SMEs or individual borrowers.