Mr. Alan Dukes:

The problem was, as I've said, and it ... this is an understandable kind of problem, the Government decided that it would take a certain course of action with the bank. They nationalised it, which I think was a rational thing to do. And we had a relationship framework that was drawn up and it set out the concern of separation of the bank, which was a risky operation, from the State, which wanted to avoid risk to the extent that it could. And having done that, the Government decided they didn't trust the people that they had entrusted with this job of doing it. And that then was compounded by the fact that two key proposals were made to the bank at different times, one about the head of banking in the Department of Finance being on the board who would, in my view, have been seriously conflicted, and it did not seem to me that that was in any way a runner ... that was badly ... the rejection of that was badly received.

And then the other point ... at a later stage, where it was suggested, on the basis of a report which was not shared with the bank ... we never saw that McKinsey report but one recommendation from it was to recombine the functions of chief financial officer and chief risk officer in a very risky bank where we were very concerned about protecting the State from the consequences of a default on the part of the bank or a cessation of business where it was absolutely the wrong thing to do - to mix the risk function with the finance function.