Mr. Michael Walsh:

I mean, if I could separate the thing into, kind of, two components. You know, as I say, you know, the first time, you know, I got involved in doing a report for the society when I wasn't involved with it at all, you know, the proposed acquirer was effectively, you know, kind of the GE Woodchester-type grouping. And, indeed, you know, when ultimately, you know, the society became available for sale in 2007, you know, they became, you know, one of the potential buyers, you know, second time around.

You know, obviously there were approaches over the years but the practical reality is that nothing could be done because of, you know, the legislation of the structure in the absence of the Central Bank or the regulator deciding to exercise its discretion. You know, I mean, my view was that ... pretty clear and it is on the record, you know, my view was that the legislation should have been implemented in 2001 or 2002; it wasn't. My view post that was, you know, look, if the legislation is not going to be passed for whatever reason then you - the Central Bank - have discretion here, we should move on and actually do it. And, I mean, I remember the discussions at the time. It was, kind of, "Look, we don't believe there is, you know, any particular problem with the society. We don't think there is any question of stability. We do not think there is any question. We would only use that if we felt there was a problem and, therefore, we want you to await for normal legislation."

To answer your other question, which is, why didn't you just go the, let us call it the Irish Permanent route, the reality is, and I think you'd have heard from Mr. McCarthy, you know, First Active went what I would describe as the Irish Permanent route and, you know, discovered that it really wasn't a viable model for all sorts of different reasons. In the context of the society, the society was even smaller than First Active, I mean, substantially smaller than First Active. My view is that if the society had gone out, it would not have really captured any sort of shareholder demand or shareholder interest and it would have been potentially destabilising so I would have thought it was an absolute mistake to actually go out as a small institution into the markets. I think the right thing ... sorry, I mean, if you did that, okay, you know, you'd be there, you're quoted in five years' time but, you know, the uncertainty that you are creating for that five-year vacuum, you know, doesn't make any sense at all from, you know, a direction point of view or otherwise.