Mr. Frank Daly:

I had not forgotten. The Chairman asked me if a number of people would be banned from transactions with NAMA in future. We cannot say that because these parties received information they are culpable in any way or that there was malicious intent. It does not seem that any of them actually used the information. We do not have a ban list as such. Every time we go to the market, even for consultancy or business services, the process is done through public procurement. Parties would come in and make their pitch. I would not say we would ban the parties but we are very conscious of what has happened.

With regard to communications with debtors, two or three debtors have quite understandably been in touch to seek assurances. We have written to them and the matter is on a holding basis. The Data Protection Commissioner in particular is taking a keen interest in whether any personal data has emerged from this and we need to progress that engagement. It would certainly be our intention to communicate with all of them, and I would be confident of assuring them that what has happened does not prejudice matters. This only applies to affected debtors.

There is a wide range of expertise on the board of NAMA, including people with experience in insolvency, asset management agencies and the property sector. I do not regard the board as the sole repository of expertise; there are 226 staff members in NAMA and many of those have expertise in the type of areas mentioned by the Deputy. I made the point a while ago that we are working consensually with two thirds of our debtors. I have said before that not all 850 debtors in NAMA set out to ruin the country or themselves, although they made mistakes. That we are working consensually with a number means we believe they have a contribution to make and they have the type of expertise mentioned by the Deputy. In such consensual work, NAMA has access to an expert view at any time if we want it, and there is a good level of capacity in that respect.