Mr. Brian Patterson:

The fitness and probity regime: the regulator set out with great intent to introduce this new ... this new regime, and it ran straightaway into a brick wall, as I recall it, because the industry obviously pushed back. They used all kinds of arguments about setting the Irish banks with competitive disadvantage, "Here we go again", etc. And having taken legal advice, my recollection is that the legal advice was that we would be unable to examine and potentially to disqualify existing directors; and this goes something, if I remember it, it was something to do with the constitutional protection to a right to earn a living, something like that. And that, therefore, people already in ... in ... office, which is 99% of them, could not be brought into this new regime, and with that realisation, I think the regulator had to think again. I do believe that later on a new regime was put in place. Initially, it could only examine new appointees, but with the 2010 Act, as I understand it, they were able to go back and ... and question and reassess existing office holders. That's the fitness and probity one.

The directors' compliance statements: again the regulator set out to use the powers under one of the Central Bank Acts to require directors of financial institutions to sign these compliance statements. And the industry, and it wasn't just the industry, I think IBEC and other organisations were up in arms about this.

And the barrage of resistance that we got to those was very substantial and I was aware there was a lot of lobbying going on at Government level and ultimately, the Department of Finance, as I said in my statement, they wrote to the regulator and said we weren't to go ahead with the consultation because we were required to do consultation on all of these things. We weren't to go ahead with the consultation without seeking their permission, if you like, first. Now, what happened in that event was, that there was coming down the track, from left field, a consolidation of financial services legislation because there had been layers and layers and layers of legislation and it got very complicated and the Department had planned to consolidate all this into a couple of updated Acts and the decision was taken to try and address it again through that process. Yes.