 Let's talk to Rachel Oliver, who is head of campaigns at Positive Money, which works to reform the money and banking systems, and he's very doubtful about help to buy. And Miles Shipside, director and housing market analyst at RightMove, will come to you, Miles, in a second. Rachel, you go first. Do you think this scheme has been what, bad? Well, it's been great for property developers and big banks, but it's been terrible for most ordinary people in our society over the long term. Today's results are the final nail in the coffin on what is a very failed and flawed scheme. It doesn't fix the problem of high house prices, and it's actually boosting profits for developers. So if you're an ordinary person on an average salary, this policy is clearly not for you. And in fact, we should be calling for it to be scrapped. Simon's point there was that the National Audit Office has had a good look, and it can't see that it put an extra premium on the house prices helped to buy, but you think that's wrong, do you? Well, Shelter, who are the housing charity, they showed an estimated in 2015 that help to buy has made the average house £8,000 more expensive. And as you said in the introduction there, it's clear that this policy is actually benefiting people who are already wealthy and who are already able to access affordable homes, affordable inheritance. So over 8,000 of those who used help to buy had household incomes of over £100,000. How many, what percent was that? Over 8,000 people. 8,000, okay. So that's, well that's only, is that like half a percent or something? No, it's nearly five percent actually. And another set on there is over 20,000 people had incomes of over £80,000. So again, we have to really ask who is this scheme for? Is it for the vast majority of people or is it for property developers and existently wealthy people? Stay with us, Miles. Shipside listening to that. She's right, isn't she, Miles? I think it's useful to look back to the origins of help to buy. And the years after the credit crunch, getting a mortgage for a first-time buyer was pretty impossible. So you needed a long-term scheme to give builders the surety and security to actually build homes because the builders were on their knees and about to go bust and we rely on them for our housing supply in the UK because there's very little social housing. So I think it's worth looking at the bigger picture and why this was brought in. Rachel, good point. I think it's absolutely right to look at the bigger picture. A house to buy is like putting a sticking plaster on a broken leg. The wider system is completely broken here. Yeah, so of course it is. Well, we know that there aren't enough houses and for all kinds of reasons, but this, the point that this being made by Miles is that actually at least this was an attempt it seems to have helped some people, hasn't helped everyone. So what it has done is has helped some people who are already relatively wealthy to buy properties that are really pretty expensive. So it's not actually bringing house prices down, which is what we need over the long term to get most people accessing affordable secure homes in the long term. It's an attempt to actually keep house prices high. If the government really wanted to tackle the affordability crisis that we have in the housing market, then they actually would be better spending that £20 billion that they've actually subsidised the help to buy scheme here with on projects which put money in everybody's pockets and actually boost jobs and incomes. Okay, Miles, how would you improve it? How would you stop it being exploited by people on £100,000 a year for a start? Well, you could actually bring in more criteria, but I think if you ask the vast majority that now have a home that they want, they're probably quite happy with help to buy. It's helped them not only get on the housing ladder, but crucially probably buy a slightly better home that suits them for the long term as well. It's not just about them though. It's about the average taxpayer who thinks, wait, the government is now helping certain people to buy and is now finding out that quite a lot of them earn more than £80,000 a year. But us taxpayers or my generation, your generation perhaps, Jeremy, have benefited from rising house prices and being able to buy properties when they were more affordable and cheaper. So one could say that this is you and me, the taxpayer giving something back to help first-time buyers buy a home that they want, that otherwise they might not be able to afford. Understood. Thank you so much. Both of you. Miles, ship side of right move. Rachel Oliver of Positive Money.