Mr. Matthew Elderfield:

The track record is weaker, certainly, than in the United States. The United Kingdom has had some banning and some big fines for individuals who were involved with failed banks. That has not happened here. There has not been, as far as I am aware, the criminal prosecutions there have been in the United States. I think it is relatively weaker. Obviously, we still have the big court case on Anglo Irish Bank to come - I want to be careful as I do not want to say anything prejudicial to that - but you could really have somebody do a stock take about how well are we prepared as a system and also how good the law is. There are issues such as whether there should be a strict test establishing individual responsibility when there is an enforcement case against a firm. It is quite a tough test that the enforcement lawyers have to do, which makes it hard for us to do that. The United Kingdom is looking at whether there should be presumptive liability or presumptive sanctions for directors of failed banks. That might be in the banking standards report on Friday when it comes out. Should there be a reckless trading offence for financial services? Exactly how the constitutional protection of ability to earn a living interacts with the fitness and probity regime was a complicated matter in the drafting of the law, which affects the ability to take action against individuals. There could be a stock take, a report by the Law Reform Commission, a wise person's report or something like that to draw this together. I would say we have done a good job of enforcement against firms, but I wish we had done more on individuals, and the system could do better on them.