Professor Patrick Honohan:

On the last point, the borrowings that have been made most recently were cheaper than the average cost of borrowing through the programme. That is the way the programme is supposed to work. The programme is supposed to generate a positive momentum where everything is coming back and the markets regain confidence. In many cases in other countries, the countries can cancel the programme stating, "We do not need you anymore and we are back in the market fully." The fact that this has been very slow has been due to two matters: first, the ongoing euro area crisis which has hampered the whole matter; and, second, in my view, the lack of a risk-sharing mechanism to do with banking. The latter was never in the programme and we are still talking about it in terms of the ESM coming forward and making it possible. That is not part of our current programme. On what if it had been included, as we discussed at the time, nobody had a mechanism or an agreement to do that. That is why this programme has been really quite slow. We are pleased now the troika looks more likely to get out than it did six months ago. All going well, and on our current trajectory, it would be cheaper to go out of it. We will not want the public funding to be expensive.

I will duck the mis-sold products question. I do not know much about the issue of the impact of the Statute of Limitations on this. In general, my gut instinct is that the Statute of Limitations exists, it has nothing really to do with the financial sector as such, and it is up to legislators to decide whether they want to change the Statute of Limitations and whether there is a specific reason for doing so in a particular case.