Mr. Cormac McCarthy:

Yes, it's a fair question Senator. The first thing to say is that the funds that were injected into RBS had no ... Ulster Bank was not part of that decision, so when the British Government injected its capital into RBS in the first half of 2008, Ulster Bank was not a factor in that decision. So the Ulster Bank losses that occurred subsequently were supported by the ongoing business of Royal Bank of Scotland. There is no doubt that it was a significant cheque. There is no doubt it was a significant amount, but it is not, so I don't understate that at all. But it is difficult to make comparators with the Irish banks, for example, simply because Ulster Bank had no international business, it had no share capital in terms of third-party shareholders. It did not participate in NAMA, so it's...it's only time will tell what the ultimate cheque from RBS will have been. As I said in my statement ... as I said earlier on, in terms of provisions, which is what drove the capital, Ulster Bank wrote back €1.5 billion of provisions in the year end-2014. And I expect more will be written back, so the ultimate cost to Royal Bank of Scotland of the Ulster Bank support will only be known in time. But it is not an insignificant sum, Senator.