Mr. Pat Lardner:

There were three aspects to the question and I will try to answer them sequentially. The comment about the regulatory environment reflected the investment funds context, whether for broad distribution to retail and institutional investors - UCITS - and in the alternative investment funds area, and to respond to concerns about the movement of capital. We have already seen a 25 year track record, with good success, in a regulated investment funds framework in Europe encouraging savings, which is part of what CMU is about, and doing it in a way that has investor protection and utility from the investor point of view at its core.

The second point was about Ireland's role as a bridge. I keep going back to UCITS, which is the longest standing product construct in Europe, with 25 years reputation. I speak from an Irish point of view in terms of economic activity and employment. The services provided here allow us to connect managers, providers of investment strategies from some 50 different countries around the world, and to help to deliver the investment strategies and collect investment capital to investors in 70 countries around the world. A creation of Europe in UCITS allowed us to take on a greater role far beyond its original intention or inclination.

The only reason I highlight Asia is from a demographic perspective and a wealth perspective. In CMU, the European long-term investment fund, LTIF, proposal is one where we are trying to get an ageing population and ageing infrastructure in Europe to see more economic investment, which provides downstream activity. My overall hope is that it will provide benefit if we can, as we have successfully done funds in other parts of internationally traded financial services, position ourselves to bring together the providers of solutions and the providers of capital.

There are two parts to the final third question. My comments about quantitative easing were not a critique of quantitative easing. As a decision and a mechanism, it is absolutely appropriate in the circumstances in which the policymakers found themselves in. CMU must create liquid markets and if we leave the market to itself that is fine but quantitative easing creates an external influence on market by introducing liquidity. At some point the liquidity must be removed and at the point at which the liquidity is removed, the question is what impact it has if there are broader and more liquid markets.

My final comment ties in SMEs and broader concerns. The benefits to Ireland in CMU can be in two respects. I will describe one as direct and the other as indirect. In the direct point of view, it may provide financing from the SME point of view. Whether a larger number of SMEs get direct financing is a question none of us can answer. However, if the way CMU operates allows banks to securitise in a clear and a safe way and recycle capital on their balance sheet, it may create more lending capacity. That is one possible benefit. The broader benefit is one I describe as indirect. If Ireland as a location, as a country and as a provider of export services, can position itself, what does it do? It creates benefits in employment and in revenue for the State. From the SME perspective, if there is an announcement in Dublin, Cork, Galway, Limerick, Kilkenny and Drogheda, places where our industry is present, it not only creates direct employment in those enterprises but also creates the other key thing SMEs need, which is business. Financing a business is one thing for an SME but creating demand for it is another. There is a dual opportunity and we hope, as we develop, that we can create a broader employment footprint as we look at the opportunities in the direct and indirect sense provided by CMU.