Mr. Cormac Butler:

The banking inquiry was helpful in that bankers admitted that they concealed or delayed the recognition of losses. They said they were well aware of the problems with IAS 39 but went along with it. That part of the inquiry was very helpful as there was factual information and evidence, all of which was given under oath. The part of the inquiry I did not agree with were the witnesses who said that under law they were forced to delay the recognition of losses. It is now clear that if the IAS 39 standard is interpreted in that way, it is interpreted incorrectly. It was known all along by many people that one cannot fail to comply with company law if one thinks that an accounting standard says that one can go in another direction because the role of the accounting standard is to help people to comply with company law. One cannot rely on an accounting standard alone to justify the delayed recognition of losses. They have claimed that the law is there and that they are allowed to do so and that is incorrect. They say that we should not go back to the inquiry because everything has been done and conclusions drawn but it is very clear now that their conclusions on the delayed recognition of losses in terms of the law is incorrect.