Mr. Alan Merriman:

And we had an explicit discussion with the regulator. We would have written to them. They would have written back to us confirming their acceptance of the appropriateness at that time of my taking on that responsibility. Now, I just want to be very clear because, you know, there's this observation by others that EBS didn't have a chief risk officer and it didn't have a chief risk officer on a stand-alone basis reporting to the board or the chief executive. And in somehow or some way, that has contributed, in a meaningful way, to what transpired. Now, again, let me deal with the facts. Yes, it didn't have a stand-alone chief risk officer, but it had a head of risk, and you'll be meeting them later today. And that head of risk reported to me but they also had visibility at board level and they had their arms completely around risk but in an EBS context. So what I'm trying to say is that the question of there being a layer between the head of risk and the chief executive or a layer between the head of risk and the board, in my view, was unhelpful in terms of a post mortem, because, clearly, it would have been better to have a single individual at board level solely responsible for risk, but I actually don't think it made a meaningful difference. And, again, just to give that some objective analysis, two things I'd say - look at all the other banks who did happen to have a stand-alone chief risk officer reporting to the board, and I don't think they ended up in a different position. And, ultimately, I'd say - and I think again it's a corporate governance matter - ultimately, the chief risk officer of any organisation is not the head of risk, is not the head of finance; it's the chief executive and the board collectively.