Mr. John Gormley:

Well, the ... I ... as far as I know, the only difference ... I think David McWilliams was saying that the bond holders should not be included in the guarantee. That's the one change. The day following, he ... I don't think he was too concerned about that particular issue because again I got another e-mail from him. So that was the only difference as far as I can see.

Other than that, we had gone through it ... by the way, you know, we did have a Cabinet meeting the next day and it was actually open to any member of the Cabinet to say to Mr. Lenihan, "I don't want an incorporeal meeting, I want a full Cabinet meeting on this." That option was also open to myself. I didn't feel it was necessary, nor did I feel, having discussed it at Cabinet the next day, that it was necessary.

But you have to remember this and bear this in mind at all stages, we were told that this was a liquidity problem. We were not told that it was a solvency problem. We couldn't have known that, nor could Minister Lenihan, and, therefore, we were working on that basis. And we were, effectively, misled by the banks on that issue and that's why we progressed and that's why we made that decision. But, likewise, I would put it to you as well, Deputy, that the Opposition parties were briefed as well. We had to vote on this issue. This wasn't a decision that was made in the middle of the night really, because the legislation had to be voted on in Dáil Éireann. And the Opposition parties were briefed. They were given the same information that we were given. I don't think the Department for Finance hid anything from the Opposition parties. And, again, you were probably given misleading information because, again, you were told that this was a liquidity problem. We now know it was a solvency problem but that's what we were going on at the time.