ao link
Twitter
Facebook
Linked In
Twitter
Facebook
Linked In

You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles

Defending the deal

Our Right to Buy deal was far from fishy and about protecting the sector’s independence, says David Orr

Linked InTwitterFacebookeCard

David Orr is responding to our regular contributor Colin Wiles’ blog A fishy deal? published on Monday.

New home

I read Colin Wiles’s entertaining conspiracy theory blog with interest.

Colin is, in his own words, “puzzled by the alacrity with which the National Housing Federation made its Right toBuy offer”. 

Well I’m proud of the speed with which we moved to avert a real danger and protect our members.  Let me be clear, as a trade body, our first and most important responsibility is to listen to our members and do what we think is in their best interests, not to spend our time explaining our thinking to outside commentators, no matter how ‘expert’ Colin and his fellow bloggers may be. 

Let’s go to the end of Colin’s blog.  He says “I should make it absolutely clear that I have no firm evidence at all for the thesis I have set out above”.  Indeed.  That is because there is no such evidence.  Colin has done a great job of taking two plus two and making mischief.

I think for the record I need to respond to some of the opinions Colin advances. 

First, he makes a pernicious, outrageous claim that the federation has ‘second tier’ members.  This is just rubbish.  Our strategic direction is determined by our board, based on detailed intelligence from all of our members across the country, most often as the result of one to one conversations and visits. 

If you just read social media and the blogosphere, you may be left with the impression that the offer we had proposed to government was deeply divisive and universally unpopular. In reality our members, large and small, properly and thoughtfully considered the offer and the majority, large and small, decided, quietly, to support it.

There is a fantasy abroad that we dance to the G15 tune.  Feel free to ask any of the G15 members whether they think this is true. 

As far as I can tell, many larger members are just as likely to believe we are dominated by our medium-sized members.  In fact, away from the knee-jerk comments, I think most of our members genuinely believe we try to get it right for all of them. 

We may not always succeed but very few think we are anything other than honest and truthful in our attempt to protect and advance their interests.

At the centre of Colin’s blog is a big question about the independence of housing associations and the sector collectively.  He suggests we took no advice before issuing warnings about the danger of public body classification. 

Well, Colin, we did not do so publicly. 

It is, however, pretty insulting for him to suggest that we hadn’t done the basic homework.  

Perhaps I can let him into a little secret.  It’s pretty difficult to make real, practical progress when every discussion and negotiation is done in public. 

“Our offer to the government really is about protecting independence.” 

So the fact that Colin and other commentators haven’t seen what we did does not mean we didn’t do it. And if he or anyone else is interested in reading really useful analysis of the independence issue, I’d suggest taking a look through this blog by my colleague Kathleen Kelly.

Colin quotes me extensively saying that I was against Right to Buy. I was, and remain, completely opposed to a statutory Right to Buy. 

I still believe it is wrong for the state to require private social enterprises to sell assets that belong to them, not the state.  So I’ll spell it out in nice easy words. 

That is why we set out to ensure that this didn’t happen.  In the final analysis, the agreement we have made leaves the decision on whether or not to sell to the housing association and its board.  Independence is crucial.  A statutory Right to Buy would have removed that independence.  

I’ll pick one other quote.  Colin correctly cites me saying “(this is a) genuinely stupid idea….Of all the daft ideas I’ve heard in a career in housing, this is the daftest”.  And so it was. 

The idea that housing associations would be required to give homes to any tenant who had been in employment for a year really is the stupidest idea I’ve heard in my career.  (As an aside, I hear that some people around government still think this is a good idea.  Unbelievable).

Our offer to the government really is about protecting independence. 

Our agreement is very different to 1980s style statutory Right to Buy, not least in ensuring that the selling housing association receives full open market value, thereby allowing us to deliver the holy grail of 1 for 1 replacement. 

It also offers a chance to some tenants to own their own home. 

Does Colin think that this is a bad idea in principle?  It is striking that housing associations, the ones who actually have to manage the risk, are overwhelmingly supportive. 

It is, in the main, those (including but not limited to bloggers and commentators) not directly affected who wanted us to fight.  Well, we did the analysis and concluded that it was a fight we were unlikely to win and the risk was too great, whatever the estimable Isabel Hardman might think.

So we have an agreement which is far from perfect, based on an agenda we didn’t select. 

It is an agreement which helps protect our independence, will in many cases release assets that can be used to build new homes (a real prize), offers the potential of portability of the discount which can support aspiration while freeing up a social rent letting, and gives many housing associations the opportunity to build desperately needed new homes. 

The most important thing now is that we turn our minds to the implementation of the agreement so it works for tenants and housing associations.

David Orr, chief executive, National Housing Federation

Linked InTwitterFacebookeCard
Add New Comment
You must be logged in to comment.