Mr. Pat Farrell:

Okay. There's a number of parts to that question so maybe I might just provide a bit of context first of all. The Asset Covered Securities Act was introduced in 2001, well before my time as CEO of IBF. It enabled the sector here to provide covered bonds as a method of funding, principally for the mortgage market. This is a system that had been in place in Germany for over ... a couple hundred years, same in Denmark, same in France, so what we were doing was merely coming into line with what was a very accepted funding instrument internationally. The Act of 2007 was an amendment to the original Act of 2001; it was an amendment. The reason for the amendment of the Act was triggered by the pending introduction of the capital requirements directive, otherwise known as Basel II. That was the EU's method of giving effect to Basel II. And, because this concerned capital, it cut across almost all elements of the Asset Covered Securities Act and these instruments. So, in order for the covered bonds legislation and the instruments to remain compliant, and to remain relevant and to be able to continue to be transacted, there had to be amendments made to the Act in order to align it with the capital requirements directive. So, that was the principal purpose of the amendments. It says in the note, and I have it in front of me, that it says we drafted the legislation. I would feel, and I, you know ... the note is what it is. We did not draft legislation. What we would have done was said, in order for the Act to align with the capital requirements directive, these are the areas we believe will require amendment. At the end of the day - and you will know this as legislators - parliamentary draftsmen, ultimately, frame legislation, Attorney General's office will have significant input and eventual sign-off, and, ultimately, it will go before a committee, and, ultimately, it will be placed before the House. So, that was the context and that was the actual background to it. Could I just say, as well, that, you know, it was fairly complex legislation and that may well again explain the rationale for having a third party, because I know, myself, the Department of Finance itself retains external legal advisers from time to time to advise them and support in looking at legislative issues and drafting of legislation.