Mr. John Collison:

I am not aware of anything that members may not have seen. Certainly our analysis at the time was based on the evidence that is in the actual December board paper. Again, at the risk of repeating ourselves and what my colleague here has said, our view on the £1.3 billion was pretty strong at the time and was based on the fact this portfolio required further impairment. That was actually borne out by reference to the impairment coverage which we would have had on, say, our entire participating institution managed portfolio. The coverage at the end of 2013 was approximately 23% and that increased to 35% by June 2014. A lot of the Project Eagle portfolio was in that participating institution managed portfolio as well. That certainly bore out the fact that we felt this portfolio needed further impairment but also the actual discount rate. I know this is a professional disagreement and I know the Comptroller and Auditor General's stand on this, but we were very sure at the time that a minimum of 10% was required for this particular portfolio.