Mr. Cormac McCarthy:

I think the second point is, again, the ... and we did ... we did discuss this with the regulator at the time, the methodology that the regulator chose to use was to come and do the review, not discuss the matters that they had found on the review with management, in other words, can you explain this, can you show me this, go away, and then write the letter in. That was a matter of some frustration over time, and so we replied to this letter and many ... I don't ... in the time available to me I haven't been able to find a copy of it, but from the board minutes that I've been .... managed to get a hold of in Ulster Bank and First Active subsequently, again, I am satisfied that we answered the regulator's concerns. The regulator asked us to raise things at board, we did that; it asked us to bring policies to board, we did that; it asked us to report exceptions to board, we did that. On the individual file by file cases, we would have gone back to the regulator on each one of those, and, in many cases, as subsequent reviews have shown, we were in a position to be able to answer, and, in some case, correct the regulator's misapprehension about files, because when you look at mortgage files or loan files, they can be quite thick and lengthy. They're not one page on a computer document or an A4 sheet, so there can be quite a degree of paperwork involved, and sometimes you need someone to guide you through it. So we took these letters very seriously. Every year the regulator would do thematic reviews. We always brought them to the board, we always replied, we took action where it was appropriate, and the evidence of that is in the regulator's either lack of follow-up or follow-up subsequently, but these particular letters, again, were thematic industry letters, and the points that were made regarding Ulster Bank were addressed and followed up with the regulator.