Mr. Paul Lemass:

Mr. McCaffrey might answer the standardised design question. I will pick up the other two, although he might want to come in on them.

On change of use and summer use, it is entirely open to a student to rent the accommodation for the full 51 weeks. The feedback we have received is that students did not want to stay for 51 weeks. In fact, they asked for legislation to be passed, which we did, to reduce the 51 weeks to 41 weeks. Heretofore, there was an expectation by some providers that a student would sign up for 51 weeks. That has now all changed and the student can only be asked to sign up for 41 weeks. Even with that, there is a notice period of 28 days. If a student wants to leave after a month, he or she can leave with a 28-day notice period. Having said that, if students approach a provider and say that, although they are there for 41 weeks, they would like to stay for 51 weeks, my understanding from the sector is that it would be far preferable for the sector if the students would stay. It is definitely not a problem. The summer use is an important part of the business model because it brings in additional revenue. If an operator was faced with the prospect of having students who wanted to stay for 51 weeks of the year and the operator did not have to go advertising or have vacant or void periods during the summer, I do not think it would object. That is the position on that one.

On the State-sponsored question, our objective is that 30% of the units where we support the short-term activation programme would be available at rents roughly 30% below market prices. That is currently being worked out with the relevant universities. Mr. McCaffrey might be able to say more on it. In the longer term strategy, we will be looking at affordability as well and we will be looking at other ways to approach affordability but for the short-term programme, that is the approach being taken.