Ms Derville Rowland:

A lot of various issues were raised. On Belfry and the document issue, it should have its documents. I am not going to stand apologetically for banks when they do not come up to scratch. That is a matter for them. We have rigorous expectations around this. This is a matter going back to before the consumer protection code was in place, arising from 2002 to 2006. That will be a matter for the institution in terms of documents arising from that period.

What I am clear about is that when we engaged with the banks we were perfectly clear that we expected them to produce the documentation and, where they did not, the customer gets the benefit of the doubt on that. We are clear that where there were issues about knowing a client or assessments were not there, the customer got the benefit of that. That is one of the areas that we focused on because unless banks could demonstrate the suitability of the sale and did not have the documents to demonstrate that, one of the approaches in the redress scheme was to say that where they could not demonstrate that, the way they should look at the categorisation for the client was to the benefit of the client.

I do not know about the information you received in private session from the person you are calling a whistleblower. I do not know what documentation the person brought to you, nor could I know. I am very happy, as I said, because the team engaged extensively on this. Even though it was outside of our powers and role, because we take our view of treating the customer and retail investors seriously we were demanding on this. I am very happy that if you have concerns around scope or anything else for you to provide that information to us. As part of our engagement, we can consider that.