Mr. Michael Walsh:

First of all, I think from the board's point of view it was a matter of extreme frustration that every single year there were issues that arose in terms of the reporting. And the board was clearly never happy with that. Equally well the board revisited that pretty much on an annual basis, particularly in relation to the LEx column - sorry, not the LEx column, the LEx report, sorry - because, you know, it was something that was obviously very important. And consequently there were new systems put in place, new control systems put in place. I would have to say that I would have thought round 2006 that we were getting the issue under control. But the reality is that a lot of them re-arose again in 2007, and again that from a board point of view was clearly unacceptable.

Now, having said all that, it was the society who actually identified each of the issues. And I suspect it was a mixture of the society and the regulator because there seemed to be - obviously it was an executive function, I wasn't close to it - but it seemed to be pretty much kind of continuous interaction between the society and the regulator in relation to that. But I think every year, I mean, what gave me comfort, as a board member, a member of the audit committee or the chairman, was the fact that every year KPMG confirmed to the board that the society had already identified the issues, had already reported them to the regulator.