Mr. Derek Rafferty:

I thank the Deputy. We have had extensive regular discussions with the BPFI since it first put forward its proposal in July last year. On looking back on some of the records, I note we have met them at least every month if not every few weeks during that time, right up until very recently. The proposal itself was effectively for a sovereign-backed loan. We initially had to consult with our colleagues in the Department of Finance on that. That took time and in their initial statements, my colleagues outlined some of the issues that came up as a result.

We further engaged again with BPFI on this and upon digging into the detail of its proposal, it was not quite as straightforward as the bank simply providing the loan upfront. The BPFI wanted the local authorities to administer the scheme and it wanted a bespoke IT system set up. There was a lot of detail and it wanted a lot of contractual stuff that it felt needed to be done to be done in the background. That is what was raised with it during the long period of discussion.

When we did set up our implementation group in January, it became clear at the first meeting of the group that homeowners were telling us, specifically at that January meeting, that what they needed this money for was professional fees first and foremost, not for paying contractors. That is what they told us in January. We went away and, looking at the complexities and challenges with the BPFI proposal, asked ourselves whether there was some other way we could do it. Even at that point, the BPFI was of the opinion that it would be preferable, as the Deputy said, to go down the legislative route. We felt the legislative route for primary legislation was always going to be difficult, purely because of timing and getting space on the Government agenda.

We looked for an administrative way within the current framework of legislation and regulations to ensure earlier funding could get to homeowners to meet the specific need they said they had, which was to meet professional fees. We have a proposal on that. Maybe two weeks ago, we mentioned the broad principles of where we would go with that. That is something we will be able to implement very quickly, whereas the proposal from the BPFI, apart from the challenges of local authority involvement, IT systems and so on, would require, as my colleague said, primary legislation. That would be time-consuming and involves a number of other issues, I understand, that would need to be bottomed out. We felt this was a more responsive and quicker way. In general, it was reasonably well received at our meeting in April, up to a point. There was a request for additional money but, on the point of professional fees and other expenses, we feel we will be able to do that. All we need to do is issue revised guidance to the local authority sector to facilitate this. That will allow homeowners to get the money they need for professional fees to get their jobs started. That would negate the need for the BPFI proposal.