Mr. David Doyle:

Yes, steps should have been taken to curb the credit growth. The regulator should have stepped in and said to each, individual bank, "You're lending too much. It needs to be cut back." They should have gone to the Central Bank and looked at the whole big picture and said, "We're building up too much credit" and there should have been an intervention. Now, the Central Bank had force majeureauthority in relation to the regulator to issue directions which they had to observe. That should have been done, directing the regulator to make sure that credit would only grow by whatever rate was appropriate to the economy. It wouldn't have just been ... the whole picture is not just credit, but it's largely credit, as I said in my opening statement. The pro-cyclicality of expenditure and taxation added somewhat to the issue, but it wasn't the major component. The major component was the excessive lending. If ... if ... if the banks weren't complying with directions from the regulator to curb credit, well then it would have ... should have been a matter for the Central Bank to step in and bring in the chairman and chief executives, lay it on the line, and if they didn't accept that credit was going to be curbed, then you'd make a public policy intervention. If the Central Bank felt that, for some reason, they had inadequate authority or powers, they could have presented suggestions to the Minister for Finance to get additional powers. I don't believe they were necessary. To touch on the question that you were ... on the latter part of your question in relation to the ... to my arrival on the board of the bank in 2006, I think Governor Honohan, when he was here, said that the problem in the banking system was created in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 and that if you came up with a bright idea in 2006 to address the problem, it was too late.