Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

I will begin by going back to a question that was asked by the Chairman about what constitutes a value for money examination. This report is underpinned by such an examination. Value for money examinations are carried out under section 9 of the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993. Specific types of issues can be examined within that. I want to draw the committee's attention to the legislative provision that is most relevant here. Section 9(1)(b) empowers the Comptroller and Auditor General to carry out an examination as to whether disposals of resources by public bodies have "been effected upon the most favourable terms reasonably obtainable". I draw attention to that because NAMA's primary purpose, having acquired assets, is to dispose of those assets. We are not talking about NAMA investing in and holding property into the long term. All of NAMA's activity is aimed at disposing of the assets. It is a question of whether those disposals are "effected upon the most favourable terms reasonably obtainable".

NAMA had two options. It could choose to work out the property assets over time or to bundle the loans into portfolios for sale. Chapter 3 examines how NAMA evaluated that choice in the case of Project Eagle. Having decided to sell the loans in a portfolio, the entirely separate question of whether the sales process implemented by NAMA relating to that portfolio sale resulted in the achievement of the best price available in the market for a portfolio arose. That is what Chapter 4 deals with. They are two quite separate and distinct issues. Regarding the objectives of the examination, I want to reiterate, as I said in my original opening statement and in the report, that I draw no conclusion about the merits of the decision to sell or about the commercial or strategic objectives underpinning NAMA's decision. It is not for me to do that or to engage in speculation about it. That is just in relation to the examination.