Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)

I will ask my other questions in the second round.

If I may, I will ask about due diligence. Did the witnesses feel that responsibility and due diligence were or are a factor in relation to the transfer of approval of this process to the relevant authority in Luxembourg? Were the considerations of due diligence the bank would have to a fellow body in that? In addition, did the bank give information or communicate - I know the witnesses will tell me it cannot for this - in relation to the authority in Luxembourg the concerns that had been raised, including the concerns in relation to risks associated with international law? Was that conveyed to the authority in Luxembourg, and did the bank consider that it had a due diligence duty in that transfer?

Lastly, tying back to that same point, I refer to the EU legal principle of consistent interpretation, whereby legal provisions must, as far as possible, be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with international law. Will the witnesses confirm to me whether there was a due diligence consideration? I have been speaking to the finance committee in Luxembourg, by the way, and it is not happy about having been placed in this position or about its authority having been placed in this position. Was there a consideration of due diligence in transferring in that regard, in placing the committee in that position, and was there a consideration of the EU legal principle of consistent interpretation?

I will finish with those questions-----