Dr. Robert Kelly:

I might start on some of the elements and Dr. Cassidy might respond on some of the others. I thank the Deputy for his questions. There was a lot in them. I will start at the end and move backwards.

On the first home scheme and the shared-equity aspect, the way I would think about this would be by asking where if I were positioned as a policymaker in the State, we would get the best bang for our buck. This is a demand-side measure. Demand-side measures can work very effectively at moving different cohorts up and down if we want to give them access to housing, home ownership and things like that. The challenge is mainly one of supply. The current scheme works through creating additional funding for people to buy houses, which stimulates supply. I do not see how applying that to the second-hand housing market would achieve the result in question. The net effect would be additional demand, which would likely feed its way into house prices as opposed to creating a large amount of supply. I do not know the exact aim of the policy but if it is to stimulate supply, it is as I have outlined, having thought it through logically and given the position on house prices.

I might let Dr. Cassidy take the question on the 100% LTV, linked to the likes of the mortgage measures. On the co-investment vehicle, there has been some success. The State bank, for example, has been very successful in increasing its lending to small builders, but some of the challenges for small builders relate to accessing the finance. There is a range of products under ISIF and the NTMA whereby they have partnered with some international capital interests. They basically engage in a matching process with small builders. Their websites show they have had success across the country in providing the equity finance. A genuine challenge for the small builders concerns where to get, let us say, 30% to 40% of the equity needed to start a development.