Mr. Brendan McDonagh:

No. I think all banks ... one of the things they do try to do is to take correct security if they issue a loan. That is one of the fundamental principals of banking, but I think that there was so much lending, at such a volume of lending at the time that up until 2010, until it was outlawed by the Law Society, banks probably relied on third party solicitors more to take security for them, and relied on that. There has been a number of cases where banks have sued solicitors where the form of security was defective. I just think there was such a volume and scale of activity that it was all about more and more lending as opposed to concentrating and doing the sort of nitty gritty, ensuring that you had correct security over it. I mean, if you think about it Deputy, we almost ... we knocked about €500 million off the price we paid the banks at acquisition in terms of insufficient security, and we knocked over €300 million subsequently, that's about €800 million. That's about 1% of the loans, just over 1% of the loans that actually ... that came to NAMA, €74 billion. I think it was expensive for them. It cost them €800 million in terms of lost money that they didn't need to lose but I certainly think that it is not on the scale that would indicate a systemic problem, it just indicated a bit of a ... it was probably a lot of it down to the volume of activity and not enough dotting the i's and crossing the t's.