Mr. Brian Cowen:

That was a discussion that took place between our ... between the ... those who were there at the meeting originally. It was an issue, I think, that would have been discussed when the banks were there and it was an issue that was decided upon ultimately by just ourselves - the State actors.

I was always, I was very clear in my mind that whilst I recognised the views of everybody, the decisions that would be taken would be taken by the appropriate people, not people who were involved in the industry itself. They were entitled to come and give their view, that's no problem, but at the end of the day we had to make our own mind up. So, the question ... it was either, the question was whether it would be a one-year or a two-year. And the one-year, the problem with the one-year thing was that you'd have, would it have the effect, because if you're saying within 12 months this guarantee is up, it mightn't gain traction in the markets at all. It would also have the possibility of a funding cliff arising within 12 months again. The two-year, how long would this go on for, it already on for 14 months so, the view was that two years seemed to be, in the judgment of those that were there, the best guesstimate they could have of having a credible but time-limited guarantee that would do what was needed to be done and at the same time not be there for ever.