Mr. Charlie McCreevy:

Now you see ... you're very good. You raise a good point. You've mentioned about Ansbacher and those three things, and the one ... from another angle, that did impinge upon the thinking leading up to the financial ... the single regulator and the structure. Because there was ... if I ... we had National Irish Bank and the overcharging scandal there; we had the Ansbacher issue regarding tax issues; we had the Allfirst thing somewhat later with the ... that was outside of the State so it's probably unfair to mention that in the same area; and there were some other ones as well. And all of that, the criticism the whole time, both in the Dáil and in the commentary was that the Central Bank, as constituted, was not up to the mark. And also there was an all-party committee sat back in those days as well and they, more or less, said the same thing. And out of that, the idea came then, we'll have a single regulatory authority and out of that then came this great debate that went on as to where it should be located. And from that also the whole debate was about consumer protection ... in fact, if you read the commentary at the time and including the McDowell report, there was nothing but praise for the prudential regulatory section of the Central Bank. All of the discourse was on the consumer angle which all of those things are. And they are very important. And I think ... I haven't been able to find it before I came to this committee, but you'll find, I think, at the committee, where I said, when I was being harangued by certain Deputies who are still in the House, about not doing anything about this ... I think I did make the comment, saying, "Well, I think actually Mary Jones would be actually more worried about her deposit in the bank and keeping the bank from going under than the extra €3 that she might have been charged incorrectly."