Mr. Fergus Murphy:

I think that, on balance, my view was that a five-year guarantee would give more line of sight for the banks and my own preference would have been for a five-year guarantee, which, ultimately, took place. The CIFS guarantee was for two years and then the ELG guarantee, which, obviously, succeeded it, was for five years.

The only reason I say that is that the majority of guarantees that were put in place across Europe - and, of course, there were many, as you know, it wasn't just Ireland that was having problems - typically, were three or five-year guarantees so they tended to be a longer guarantee than the original CIFS guarantee. I don't think, whether the CIFS guarantee was two year, three year, four year or five year had any fundamental effect on the developments thereafter. But I think, you know, what we put in second time round, a five-year guarantee, allowed more line of sight for the banks to issue in the financial markets because typically banks will issue a three or five year or longer period, rather than a two-year one. So that would be the only reason I would feel that, you know, a five-year guarantee was probably more effective in terms of its efficiency in the marketplace.