Ms Derville Rowland:

On the Belfry investments, as I am sure the Cathaoirleach will be aware, various tranches of investments were sold and at the time, there were limited regulatory requirements in place. That is going back quite a number of years. There was also litigation in that case and an outcome where AIB was found liable to some of the customers. Of course, with this committee and others, a scheme was set up to deal with all of the customers, not just those involved in the litigation. We were engaged with AIB from a consumer or retail investor participation point of view. Straightforwardly, I will say that because of the passage of time, we did not have the power to compel AIB to set up a redress scheme. We used our view that consumer-centric approach should be put in place and we had detailed supervisory engagement in terms of the fact that the characteristics of an approach should be fair. We used some of the experience from the tracker mortgage examination in the characteristics of a redress scheme. In effect, three categories were determined by the bank, which seemed fair to us, for unsuitable sales, suitable sales with errors and suitable sales. We challenged the bank on the categorisation and some of its approaches. We had extensive engagement with AIB behind the scenes to try to make sure that the design and the execution was as fair as possible to the customers, but the decisions-----