Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)

I will pick up on a couple points related to time and value for money, and how they intersect. When we examined this issue in the previous finance committee, there was much discussion. One of the key issues was we were waiting for the publication of the report of the commission of investigation. One area that surprised me when Mr. Des Carville was speaking to us was that there seemed to be an emphasis within NAMA on the requirement for expeditiousness. That has been mentioned consistently in respect of many of the sales and many of the decisions in relation to how assets were disposed of and properties that changed hands. There are numerous examples of individual cases where people point to what does not seem to be the greatest value for money. The expeditiousness was mentioned consistently whereas the elements of section 10(1)(c) of the NAMA legislation, which refers to “protecting or otherwise enhancing the value of those assets, in the interests of the State” and achieving the best achievable financial return to the State, were somewhat less emphasised in our previous hearing. As we are coming towards the end of NAMA, does Mr. McDonagh feel there has been the right balance in this expeditiousness, in moving through the set of 12,000 loans and so forth, versus that question of what is actually going to protect and enhance the value of those assets for the State, "in the interests of the State", which is an interesting piece phrase, and in terms of the best achievable financial return? Are there things that should have been done differently, or maybe would have been done, to achieve a better financial return to the State or the best wider value in the interests of the State whereby some of the sales were made early and perhaps without greater return? Where has the balance come between those two imperatives?