Mr. Brian Patterson:

The answer to your question, Chairman, is no, and let me explain. What I referred to in my statement is that the authority didn't have legal powers to approve or disapprove products per se, but that doesn't mean it didn't have other powers. And as I think I've said, the regulator had powers to try and curb and could have curbed the issue of 100% mortgages. Now why did it not do so? It didn't do so because number one ... I think there are a couple of reasons, number one, because the approach at the time was not to... what's the word I'm looking for... to become involved in products but the two things that the authority could do would be to police through consumer protection how they were sold. Were they being sold inappropriately to the wrong people? Because for some people, 100% mortgages would be okay. Not a majority but for some people they would be okay. To police how they were sold and also if the authority felt that the loan book was becoming risky, more so than it should be, then to impose additional capital requirements, which ultimately was done. So that was the approach and that seemed to be again in line with the famous principles-based regulation.