HHP, Stock Transfer and the Council
What an unholy mess we find ourselves in with the apparent near collapse of the funding package for HHP.
Having been party to the discussion of the Stock Transfer inside the Council - and following SNP policy, having opposed it as being anti-democratic and unnecessary - I know a fair amount about how the deal was structured and how it was likely to progress.
My take on the news that the Council has had to 'bail out' HHP to the tune of £1,000,000 is that the real issues are being missed in much of the criticism.
That the terms of the deal are being kept secret (presumably due to 'commercial confidentiality') is a complete and utter disgrace, when such large sums of public money are being dished out to other public bodies. I don't care that they are a registered Industrial & Provident Society; they are still a body controlled by the public and the only ones who can build houses in the Western Isles. If they take the money, then they have to be prepared to let the public see where it has gone and what it is being used for, and the Council need to justify why such a sum is being given to the organisation instead of into Care Homes or pavement repairs.
The same principle should apply to all other public bodies who receive soft funding from the Comhairle, and if anyone can pass me the papers, I will make sure they are put in the public domain.
But back to how it happened....
My understanding is that HHP made applications to Scottish Homes (or whatever they are called this week) for the permission to undertake certain developments.
Permission was granted and the business plan was worked up on the basis of the then current grant levels that would be expected.
Housing association grants were slashed resulting in a shortfall in funding.
Now, at the last minute, the Council have agreed to bridge the gap after a crunch meeting with the Minister, who in turn has allowed 'more flexibility' over the use of the funds.
So what does all that actually mean, when you cut through the rubbish and verbiage?
Well, the feared clawback of the bulk of the Housing Grant won't happen, because the Government will give HHP more time to get the funding for the new houses sorted; but, only because the Council is finding £1m to cover the shortfall in funding caused by the Government.
Result? Not quite, we a £1m worse off - on top of the other cuts the Council will have to make - and the Government walks away from the blame for precipitating the problem in the first place.
It is undoubtedly a better outcome that all the other options, but that like praising the the chiropodist who was treat an ingrowing toenail for only amputating your lower leg by mistake.
The matter was raised by the Council as long ago as January, and on many occasions since we have heard muttered concerns about the house building programme.
There is still an unanswered question about how HHP reacted to the change in the Housing Association grant levels. But if they put forward proposals which were approved by the Government on the assumption of a certain level of grant support, then I believe that there is a moral obligation of the Government to stick to the level of assistance, not to try and back out and lumber the taxpayers of the Western Isles with the costs of their policy change.
Having been party to the discussion of the Stock Transfer inside the Council - and following SNP policy, having opposed it as being anti-democratic and unnecessary - I know a fair amount about how the deal was structured and how it was likely to progress.
My take on the news that the Council has had to 'bail out' HHP to the tune of £1,000,000 is that the real issues are being missed in much of the criticism.
That the terms of the deal are being kept secret (presumably due to 'commercial confidentiality') is a complete and utter disgrace, when such large sums of public money are being dished out to other public bodies. I don't care that they are a registered Industrial & Provident Society; they are still a body controlled by the public and the only ones who can build houses in the Western Isles. If they take the money, then they have to be prepared to let the public see where it has gone and what it is being used for, and the Council need to justify why such a sum is being given to the organisation instead of into Care Homes or pavement repairs.
The same principle should apply to all other public bodies who receive soft funding from the Comhairle, and if anyone can pass me the papers, I will make sure they are put in the public domain.
But back to how it happened....
My understanding is that HHP made applications to Scottish Homes (or whatever they are called this week) for the permission to undertake certain developments.
Permission was granted and the business plan was worked up on the basis of the then current grant levels that would be expected.
Housing association grants were slashed resulting in a shortfall in funding.
Now, at the last minute, the Council have agreed to bridge the gap after a crunch meeting with the Minister, who in turn has allowed 'more flexibility' over the use of the funds.
So what does all that actually mean, when you cut through the rubbish and verbiage?
Well, the feared clawback of the bulk of the Housing Grant won't happen, because the Government will give HHP more time to get the funding for the new houses sorted; but, only because the Council is finding £1m to cover the shortfall in funding caused by the Government.
Result? Not quite, we a £1m worse off - on top of the other cuts the Council will have to make - and the Government walks away from the blame for precipitating the problem in the first place.
It is undoubtedly a better outcome that all the other options, but that like praising the the chiropodist who was treat an ingrowing toenail for only amputating your lower leg by mistake.
The matter was raised by the Council as long ago as January, and on many occasions since we have heard muttered concerns about the house building programme.
There is still an unanswered question about how HHP reacted to the change in the Housing Association grant levels. But if they put forward proposals which were approved by the Government on the assumption of a certain level of grant support, then I believe that there is a moral obligation of the Government to stick to the level of assistance, not to try and back out and lumber the taxpayers of the Western Isles with the costs of their policy change.
20 comments:
It may be a bit of a side issue, but how real is the need to keep building houses through the HHP type of organisation.
Down here in Lochboisdale there have been a fair few flats built in the recent years and they are now mainly occupied by the long term unemployed and the'homeless' from the mainland.
Both categories will continue to artificially inflate the need for new housing stock as long as the benefit system keeps subsidising their lifestyle.
This at a time when the island is littered with semi derelict houses, empty crofts, and a declining population.
Perhaps the answer is to employ yet another consultant, and then have endless reports and meetings. At least then we can be confident that the net result of going round in ever decreasing circles will be to have a head on view of the ar$e of a problem that has been created.
Yes - HHP's priority IS to house the 'homeless' that arrive here from the mainland.
There are a few answers needed here, but the answer to the last post is that legally there's nothing the Council or HHP can do to stem housing demand.
And neither should it - we are part of the UK and the last time I looked, there was freedom of movement between every local authority area. And for every mainland sink-estate dweller who moves here, there's also a family returning home to their roots and a new arrival coming here to set up a business.
The excellent point about semi-derelict houses is something that can only be tackled when the VAT regime is changed to make house renovations VAT exempt in the same way as new builds are. And it needs changing.
In the meantime, can anyone tell me what the point was in setting up an expensive, top-heavy organisation like HHP (aside from the balance-sheet jiggery-pokery to the benefit of the Council, that is)?
HHP will surely go bust in the same way that WeeW will go bust: too many staff, too many overheads, too small a population to support it.
Angus - have you seen the witterrings on Heb News - where the Beach Buoy is claiming credit for fixing a difficulty at HHP. Unbelievable. HHP's troubles were and are caused by the Scot Nat Government. Beach Buoy compliant in this - but now with the help a "News" website able to conflate loads of sh*te and come up with local Nats to the rescue. The problem is with Edinburgh and their funding formula. HHP and CNES have been far too indulgent and allow those shitesters off with too much. they should get the truth out there
Having read some of the posts on here over the last couple of weeks, I find it really sad the way some people are predicting and wishing WeeW goes under.
This is typical of my fellow Islanders never wanting to see anyone locals get on and succeed in life. Well I for one would like to congratulate the people who invested their own money in WeeW and any other businesses in the Islands.
These people unlike your Lighthouse Caledonia and others have tried to succeed without huge HIE grants and if they do go down it will not be after creaming of the taxpayers money
Everybody involved knows the Council and HHP used the wrong (too low) rental income figures in their business plan and they were the only local authority in Scotland to get it wrong - like in so many other areas of its activities.
The 'homeless' issue and associated demand for housing is akin to an unfolding Greek tragedy.
Yes, there are certainly times when there is a need for this provision within the island community; whether it is through marital breakdown, house fires, etc.
However, when it then becomes an exercise in empire building through the importation of refugees from the mainland sink estates, the prison system, or castaways that have fallen through support networks, I think that many islanders feel that a line has been crossed between supporting those that are in need of assistance to get back on their feet, and completely taking the piss.
The generosity and tolerance of islanders is a very deep pool from which to draw, but is also one that is not without limits.
The merry-go-round of council homeless officers, social workers, and police time, in dealing with this new phenomenon is a massive drain on limited local resources, the cost of which is ultimately met by the taxpayer.
What is even more galling is that while we are busy importing this problem we are also having to import eastern European workers to carry out work in the fishing, hotel, building, and fishfarming industry. In effect, we are paying twice for a failed policy which has been driven by the need to tick boxes.
I somehow think that the demand for HHP houses would evaporate if the tenants actually had to pay the going rate for their rentals, council tax, etc. Perish the thought, they might even have to go out and find work.
Notwithstanding the above rant, there are hardworking tenants who pay their way and contribute to the community; but given current policy and attitudes they are being actively discouraged to remain within the active workforce.
Down here in Uist we have a council employee in charge of the 'homeless' issue who - surprise surprise - arranged for a council house to be made available to her son when he came back from a sojurn on the mainland. No hanging around on waitng lists and other such dreary nonsense which applies to the common five eighths.
Lazy chicken take note; this can be verified.
Oh come on you racist lot. At least the Polish and Eastern European population come here with the intention to graft.
The Western Isles locals are at the top of the list of expecting a "free" house as a god given right.
I despair at the number of teenage mothers walking into town with the latest £400+ pram minus husband, means and job and they are all local girls.
The work ethic just never seems to have reached the female youth up here. This is why the decent, hard-working and intelligent kids leave the island and we are left with the dross. And dross attracts more dross.
We have a reputation of take, take, take without the ability or want to give anything back.
10.38 You have a very twisted view. Young women are the very people who leave, precisely because they have no prospects here. This is due to the naturally restricted opportunities that the island can offer career wise, sexism the like of which was last seen on the mainland in about 1950, and the oppressive side of living in the "close-knit" community.
Teenage single mothers left behind are probably average for a rural area of this type. And happening to know some, I cannot fault their mothering skills, their ambition for themselves and their children, and their contempt for the fathers of their children who are completely irresponsible and, often, still be treated like spoilt boys by their parents.
I note that you do not refer to the significant number of young useless and drunk men. Nor do you refer to the number of older adults who are drunk, defrauding invalidity benefit, or any other number of fiddles which are ongoing.
In fact we come back to the simple question, of why we have unemployed people when our industries are full of migrants, who actually know how to do a hard days graft. So ultimately we agree in principle on the begging nature of the islands, but back-off the single mums and women in general, you are just coming over as a typical island misogynist.
"Teenage single mothers left behind are probably average for a rural area of this type."
Where do you get your information from? Are you saying that because we live in a rural area, the only thing that teenage kids have to do is shag and get pregnant because we don't have a multiplex cinema and bowling alley?
"And happening to know some, I cannot fault their mothering skills, their ambition for themselves and their children,"
Is that why so many children up here are morbidly obese and wouldn't know a vegetable (chips excluded) if it were put on a plate in front of them. And what ambitions do these single, teenage mothers have? To have as many children as possible so that they can claim as much benefit as possible and ensure that they never have to work for a living.
"and their contempt for the fathers of their children who are completely irresponsible and, often, still be treated like spoilt boys by their parents."
It takes two to tango. They should have taken responsiblity for birth control if their "boyfriends" weren't committed to them or their future.
"I note that you do not refer to the significant number of young useless and drunk men. Nor do you refer to the number of older adults who are drunk, defrauding invalidity benefit, or any other number of fiddles which are ongoing."
You are starting to agree with my point of view as most of these are also locals. My original point being that at least the East Europeans WORK rather than expect the government to pay for their lifestyles.
Take a chill pill 10.59
"Where do you get your information from? Are you saying that because we live in a rural area, the only thing that teenage kids have to do is shag and get pregnant because we don't have a multiplex cinema and bowling alley?"
Uhh... I thought you were the one implying that. I was saying that we are probably pretty average for our demographics and socio-economic profile, not 'plagued' as you seem to find Stornoway. Maybe I am wrong and we have an infestation of adolescent pram pushers, that I hadn't noticed.
"Is that why so many children up here are morbidly obese and wouldn't know a vegetable (chips excluded) if it were put on a plate in front of them."
And can you prove that there are more fat kids from single parent families than so-called 'nuclear' (or No Nuclear!) families? I know some pretty fat kids with both parents and some grandparents present and correct!
"And what ambitions do these single, teenage mothers have? To have as many children as possible so that they can claim as much benefit as possible and ensure that they never have to work for a living."
Try getting your head out of The Sun, and maybe talk to a few single mums about their kids and what they want for them. However I'm sure just like there are some really crap 2 parent families, there are crap 1 parent families. May I also hazard that a woman alone with a child will probably provide a much better environment for a child to grow up in than one where a drunken bullying patriarch rolls in every night terrorising everyone.
"It takes two to tango. They should have taken responsiblity for birth control if their "boyfriends" weren't committed to them or their future."
I'm not seeing anywhere where any responsibility is apportioned to the father in your ranting?
Anyway, as it is clear that you seem to hate everyone, but young mothers in particular, I'm not going to continue this anymore.
Oh, but maybe a last word then, which is to reflect on the low ratio of patients to health service staff that we have which seriously threatens the sustainability of our hospital services. Accordingly every soul on this island should be considered precious, even the illegitimate spawn of fallen women, who are keeping the maternity services afloat.
This is not a place to go off on an anti English rant, and that misses the point because many 'homeless incomers' are from central Scotland as well, but the fact is that people make a logical decision, they can live on the dole or incapacity benefit in a neglected urban estate or on in a nicer environment here. As many are not working it doesn't matter as benefits are exactly the same throughout the UK.
There is a similar and much larger situation in the seaside resorts of southern England, a phenomenon known as 'costa del dole'. People would rather live somewhere reasonably nice on the state's expense than an urban sink estate.The difference is the local authorities are bigger and can do more.
What would be neccesary is a form of regional autonomy, so that our own decisions, bylaws, etc can be made. As someone said, being part of UK grants it's citizens freedom of movement and a Leodsach can live in a sink estate in Birmingham or Cumbernauld if he so wishes (ha ha).
But, the problem is, some places are more attractive, and act as honeypots, and it is not fair on the local community. True, this island population is declining, but do we want skilled specialists and technicians (provided with skilled employment, hopefully) or drug and alcohol addicts, and worst of all, many evangelical Christians who are clearly mentally ill.
If people insist on coming here then showing up at the council declaring themselves homeless then we should pay for their ferry ticket back to Ullapool and we no longer have a problem.
This is not an act motivated out of anger and revenge, but cold hard logic, we cannot have the support infrastructure for so many people, housing officers, drugs and alcohol counselors etc.
How many times in the gazette do you see ads for 'substance misuse officers' or alcohol addiction coordinators. You could argue that this provides jobs for locals but the disadvantages of community, identity and stability being lost far outweighs the advantages of a few people in such employment.
This is something which is happening on a UK national level, where we have to refuse many people wanting to come here (but obviously not for EU citizens). This is not racism, just logic. On the other hand we do let non EU people in for low skilled jobs, think of the hard working Fillipino fishermen in SY.
And are we not the place with the highest level of incapacity benefit in Scotland, or even in the UK?
"Oh, but maybe a last word then, which is to reflect on the low ratio of patients to health service staff that we have which seriously threatens the sustainability of our hospital services. Accordingly every soul on this island should be considered precious, even the illegitimate spawn of fallen women, who are keeping the maternity services afloat"
This is yet another debate. We don't really justify many of the health services that we have up here. The Western Isles Hospital is like BUPA at its best.
For the record, I don't begrudge anyone having children and also know many excellent single parents both male and female. What I do begrudge is the endemic reliance on social housing, social security and handouts which us the tax paying public have to pay for.
A major reason for the number of single parent, teenage mothers is that Western Isles schools don't educate our children properly with regards to birth control and sex education generally.
The religious elite are so far up themselves that they cannot see the damage their restrained and uptight views are having on our children.
Yes, and how many of these incapacitated do you see walking around tescos with their walking stick in their trolleys?
And many of these are locals, screwing the system. Maybe there is an unknown website that is only accessible to benefit cheats about the best and easiest places to get benefits and free houses.
They certainly don't come here for the weather...
Did you know that Glasgow gets 80 million per annum for housing ON TOP OF what it needs for housing.
This is because of the Nu Lab / Lib executive ring fencing money for Glasgows housing stock transfer about 6 years ago.
Now - when Glasgow gets 80million surplus to its needs it is very unfair. Its total per annum currently stands at 160million per annum for housing - some 4 times more than what Edinburgh gets....
The civil service are apparantly trying to undo this but it will take parliamentary legislation I am told....
7.05 Uhh a walking stick is to help you balance and take some weight, you find that the shopping trolley performs this function excellently, hence no need for the stick.
7:05&12:24
i take it you know of no other reasons for incapacity benefit than physical?!
12.24 says I think you need to read my post again. If you have a walking stick in your possession it is more than likely that you have some sort of physical challenge to deal with. But many find that the trolley more than adequately replaces a walking stick. Hence it is not the case that people resting their sticks on the trolley are dodgers. I for one would have considerable difficulty steering a full trolley with one hand while holding a stick in the other, nor would I be inclined to do so just to placate bigots.
The comment was about managing shopping trolleys not eligibility for incapacity benefit.
Post a Comment