 I'm not entirely sure everybody is familiar with the European Banking Federation, so I very briefly wanted to introduce the EBF as a Federation of National Banking Associations of all the EU and EFTA countries. The EBF members, and that would include here in Ireland the Irish Banking Federation, account for over 4,000 banks in 32 countries, and these banks extend 80 percent of total loans hold almost 70 percent of deposits and hold an estimate 48.8 trillion euros in assets. As a starting point to my response to Miguel's introduction on the BRRD, I wanted to make it clear that from the point of view of the EBF, we are highly supportive of the Banking Union, a banking union that includes a single supervisory mechanism, then a single resolution mechanism, and eventually, over time, possibly a common deposit guarantee scheme. And all of this needs to be underpinned by the single rulebook. We see the Banking Union as a solution towards effective cross-border supervision and overcoming resolution tensions within the single supervisory mechanism zone. The Banking Union framework is indispensable if we wish to progress away from the present fragmentation of financial markets and to help break the link between sovereigns and the banking sector. It should promote a level playing field as well as provide an efficient common crisis management framework for banks in the SSM zone. In addition, it should further alleviate contentious home host issues in the recovery and resolution process that Miguel was indicating to moments ago in the different participating member states. As it would overrule the single supervisory mechanism, it would overrule national interests in cross-border bank failures. It should also facilitate the speed of cross-border resolutions which in turn may minimise the systemic impact and the cost of bank failures as well as diminish the need for taxpayer support. As to bank recovery and resolution, which are currently on the table in Brussels, the EBF supports the framework with a strong emphasis, however, on the planning and prevention components. The framework should apply to all financial institutions in full respect of the principle of proportionality, as we have also seen that bank failures, that any bank failure, can have a systemic consequence, not just the large banks. And the framework should be introduced globally to ensure a level playing field, especially with regard to the application of the BELIN tool. Our key concerns are that recovery plans should be only required at a group level. That recovery and resolution plans should not be used for supervisory intervention in the business structure. That board directors during the recovery phase should remain in control of the institution. EBF members generally support BELIN as a resolution tool, but stress that it must be a last resort measure. As to BELIN, EBF agrees that the BELIN tool will give resolution authorities the power to write down the claims of unsecured creditors of a failing institution and to convert debt claims to equity. The tool can be used to recapitalize and restructure a failing institution, allowing authorities greater flexibility, for example, in relation to the failure of a large complex or cross-border financial institution. To be effective, BELIN should apply to any liability of the institution, except those backed by assets or collateral, guaranteed deposits, clients' assets, and short-term debt under one month or liabilities such as salaries or taxes. It should follow a clear, harmonized hierarchy of claims according to seniority. After equity, equity-like and convertible instruments, write-down should start with subordinated debt and only then apply to senior debt. All banks should hold sufficient capital and BELIN-able liabilities. To minimize impacts on their funding costs, banks can and supervisors may require them to issue specific subordinated instruments, which are written down after capital to fulfill the requirement. BELIN entry into force should be delayed until 2018 to allow banks, investors, and the authorities, time to adapt. With regard to the proposal for a single resolution mechanism, the EBF supports the creation of a single resolution board, whose aim is to prepare and execute resolution decisions for the SSM-supervised banks. The board, in our view, should be given as strong a legal basis as possible. We believe the governance of the single resolution mechanism needs to be solid from the start. It must be clear up front what the roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders in resolution and supervision are with the basic principle that duplication of responsibilities should be avoided. Members are coming round to the idea that the European Commission is to confirm the decisions arrived at by the single resolution board, which should be fully independent from supervisory interests and political influence. Almost all EBF members agree that the single resolution mechanism should be supported by resolution financing arrangements in the form of a single resolution fund, in complement to a credible BELIN regime. Whilst all EBF members agree that significant preconditions need to be fulfilled before the single resolution fund can start operating. The most important precondition is an assessment of the balance sheets of all the SSM banks and any legacy asset shortfalls should be dealt with on a national basis. The EBF firmly believes that the principle tool for absorbing losses and recapitalizing restructured banks is BELIN and not the single resolution fund. The level of outstanding senior unsecured long-term debt currently held by banks is 20 times the size proposed for the single resolution fund. We also believe that the target fund level could be lower as a consequence. Also national resolution funds should be phased out whilst previous and current contributions of banks to the national resolution funds should qualify and be transferred to the single resolution fund. We would also like to see more consideration given to expost financing possibilities to the fund. Mr. Chairman, I hope I have given a flavor of the kind of future that EBF banks see and look forward to. Many aspects are still in heated debate between the co-legislators in Brussels, and we are told to remain optimistic that a deal may be near on the bank resolution and recovery directive and that the single resolution mechanism may fall soon afterwards. I will be happy to seek to respond to any queries you or the audience may have.