Mr. Michael Walsh:

I would have said, "Very little." Sorry, I mean, clearly there was correspondence during 2008, and to a degree, I suppose, I always wondered whether it was an element of, you know, shall we say, kind of moving the deck chairs. You know, there was a problem that was actually systemic across the country. I mean, it should have been obvious for over a year, but it was a systemic problem. It wasn't a problem with one institution or some small number of institutions. I mean, those 2006 stress tests were saying 88%. So, by definition, all the pillar banks had to be gone at that point in time. It should have been an extraordinarily worrying situation for any regulator or central bank. Now, very clearly, you know, liquidity was an issue that they were focusing on. I mean, I think we've actually heard that the domestic standing group, you know, was putting in place contingency plans from the beginning of, I think, 2008.

But I kind of can't actually reconcile, you know ... I mean, I went back to the regulator, as you know, in May. There was other correspondence in between but primarily in May. And I said, "Look, you've got to take a leadership role." You know, you had AIB there and with due respects to AIB, they were actually sort of saying, "We can't stop lending because, you know, we'd lose market share." The society was taking a decision, "Look, it may mean we lose market share but this is the right thing to actually do." Now, from the regulator's point of view, they should've seen that if it was the right thing for us to do, it should've been right across the system and yet, you know, you find, I think, there was €3 billion in property and construction lending by AIB during 2008. It just ... I mean, I don't ... and, sorry, I need to be very clear: I do not believe that all of the damage or anything close to all of the damage could've been stopped at that stage. We were-----