Mr. Dargan Fitzgerald:

I would say they don't necessarily have a role in reviewing them in the same way and from the same perspective as the Financial Regulator does. The Financial Regulator may be more concerned with aspects of adherence to procedures and they may be more concerned with aspects of documentation of procedures, whereas the external auditor's role is, as I mentioned, to assess whether any of the items highlighted by the regulator do, and I must say it is in a background way ... whether they affect the risk assessment of the auditor in carrying out the auditor's tests.

So that is not to say that if there was something that alarmed the auditor, it should not be taken into account. If it had a pervasive effect on financial reporting, it absolutely would be taken into account. I think it's important, in relation to the items you've highlighted, to understand that as when we, as auditors, take samples of loan files, we do look for characteristics relating to both the administration and the credit approval of the loan and we carry out tests of the underlying data. Exceptions to policies may be relevant, although sometimes those exceptions just show that there's been a particular activity level in a particular sector. They may not indicate that anything is wrong with the financial reporting; they're more internally procedural. So, in summary, my answer, Deputy, is we take it into account or we may take it into account but we don't necessarily actually retest it or factor it directly into our work. I hope that's helpful.