Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


£24m funding package to help first-time buyers get on to the property ladder

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 21 January 2008
By Lucy Christie
SCOTLAND'S communities minister is to announce a £24 million funding package to help hundreds of first-time buyers get a foot on the property ladder.
Those on low incomes are to benefit from the rolling out of a shared-equity scheme trialled in Edinburgh and the Lothians, according to the Scottish Government. Six other property hotspot areas are to be included in the initiative.

The Open Marke
t Shared Equity Pilot was created to assist those wanting to buy a home on the open market with the help of a housing association. Mr Maxwell said: "Through the low-cost initiative for first-time buyers, we are expanding assistance through a mix of government grants, shared-equity schemes and mortgage-related products and services.

"I am particularly keen to work with private lenders and investors to help achieve more shared-equity homes for first-time buyers, by taking forward our manifesto commitment to create a Scottish housing support fund."

The minister is to attend the Building Homes for Scotland conference in Edinburgh today, where he will tell delegates Scotland is about to embark upon a new era for housing.

He will stress the need to create a housing system that meets the needs of communities for good-quality, energy-efficient houses that are affordable.

Mr Maxwell said: "Housing supply is failing to match demand and first-time buyers are being priced out of the market, adding to the pressures on an already stretched social rented sector.

"When Nicola Sturgeon launched our ambitious set of proposals for the future of Scotland's housing at the end of October she made clear that action was needed in response to a failing housing system."



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 20 January 2008 9:50 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Duncan in Edinburgh,

21/01/2008 08:26:37
Another policy from those dreadful old Labour Unionists which has now been embraced by the forward thinking SNP liberators. Why is it that such an occurrence generates so little comment - surely it isn't that those people who respond to every policy which differs from the previous government do so with a blanket condemnation of everything Labour ever did? And that they therefore paint themselves into a partisan corner leaving them unable to judge any other policy rationally? Could be.

How comforting it must be to live in a world of good and evil, right and wrong. Most children grow out of it, of course.
2

Miss H,

21/01/2008 10:10:38
What are you talking about Duncan? It is an SNP manifesto commitment - surely you are happy to see it being progressed. You Labourites would certainly be screaming another SNP broken promise if it wasn't!

Incidentally I seem to recall that you had some very strong words to say about the SNP Government reversing Labour decisions on cutting A&Es in Monklands and Ayr. Putting lives at risk, totally irresponsible etc etc. Would you care to revise your opinions in light of further developments? Perhaps even admit that the SNP got it right on this one?
3

Why can't I use my usual name?,

21/01/2008 10:18:45
"Housing supply is failing to match demand". Indeed, and this will stoke demand further, helping supply not one jot.
4

Simon M,

Edinburgh 21/01/2008 11:04:13
Well said number 1. They are now adopting Labour's policies on first time buyers.

Just a pity that the journalist hasn't mentioned that this represents the final ditching of the SNP's promise of £2000 for every first time buyer, but has chosen to recycle an SNP press release instead.
5

Duncan in Edinburgh,

21/01/2008 11:18:10
#2 It is a policy introduced in 2005 by the Labour Executive! That was my point - these boards are bunged up with folk denouncing all of Labour's past policies, right up until the SNP maintains them, and then miraculously Labour wasn't a disaster after all. It is rank hypocrisy.

As to A&E closures, I made my comments on the latest "review" here:

http://news.scotsman.com/healthofthenhs/Closure-of-AE-units-39would.3667972.jp

Specifically:

"I recommend you read Lanarkshire Health Board's submissions to this most recent review. It covers in great detail how they are responding to the challenges of static funding and serious shortfalls in the requirement for provision of primary and community care given their patient demographic; explains why this means there is no additional money to be spent on acute services; sets out the major challenges in Lanarkshire with recruitment and retention of acute staff (43 consultant posts are unfilled, the total shortfall of doctors is 178); notes the substantially lower quality of care possible with single-consultant A&E departments; details opportunities for solving many of the above problems via centralising appropriate elements of acute care; and lays out estimates of the likely impacts on patient outcomes.

It is risible that this government has, with this "review", forced the Board to work out options for retaining the status quo in its A&E provision, when the status quo is effectively dysfunctional. This has only ever been about winning votes. The fact that now, with the political victory won, people will have to pay with their lives is a sad indictment of the populist idiocy of the SNP."
6

frank mcbride,

luaitania 21/01/2008 12:35:14
#5, Duncan.

Perhaps, rather than bleat on about "the populist idiocy" of the SNP, perhaps you would care to explain the outcomes of the NuLab/LibDem administration with regards to the NHS.

Perhaps you could explain why, with the extra millions? allocated to the NHS, it was necessary to employ PFI/PPP and, why this HP system is a bargain.

Perhaps you can explain why, with all the extra money there is still such a shortage of frontline staff.

Why the provision of A&E in Lanarkshire was skewed towards the PFI/PPP Hospitals when Monklands is in the best location for the area.

To be fair, I am delighted that you support the SNP position on shared equity. As you can see from this, the SNP keeps its Manifesto commitments. A little more support from the members of the Unionist Alliance, on projects that they support, may improve the lot of the people of Scotland. Unfortunately, as far as NuLab is concerned, I think we will be waiting a long time.
7

G,

dndy 21/01/2008 13:12:52
Shock headline

SNP keep manifesto commitment!
Same policy as nasty unionists
However this is just a paper promise to maybe spend £ 24M if a range of considerations are met......
8

Duncan in Edinburgh,

21/01/2008 13:18:57
#6 Perhaps, rather than ask hopelessly judgement-laden questions, you should look into the reality of NHS costs yourself. No, really, look at the raw data, and look at the reports from health boards. You'll find a highly complex economic, social and philosophical issue. You'll find that one of the key drivers of increasing costs is the availability of new and expensive treatments for illnesses which simply couldn't be treated before. You'll also find that no matter what the increase, the NHS could spend it. And you'll find that staff retention in a well-funded NHS is actually, ironically more difficult at some higher grades than in a less well funded system.

Getting back to the point of the article, let us be very clear: the SNP shares Labour's position on shared equity. They are putting in place Labour's policies. They are extending Labour's schemes. A little acknowledgement of the fact that Labour did good in this country may improve the lot of the people of Scotland. Unfortunately, as far as the SNP are concerned, I think we will be waiting a long time.
9

Neil,

Glasgow 21/01/2008 13:41:47
The only way to end the housing shortage is to let builders build more houses. Anything else is merely robbing Peter to pay Paul & driving up prices.
10

Miss H,

21/01/2008 15:12:30
Duncan if you are seriously arguing that the Labour/Lib Dem Executive invented the concept of shared equity in 2005 you are quite deluded.

And possibly you are. Either that or you work for one of the health boards in question. It's pretty clear to most people that on the issue of centralisation of services the SNP read the evidence better than Labour did.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1978392.0.experts_cast_doubt_on_study_backing_ae_cuts.php

But never mind – there is still the ‘sacking’ of Dougie Donnelly to complain about!




11

Duncan in Edinburgh,

21/01/2008 15:35:26
#10 You appear to be using a scattergun approach to arguing in this thread - you're unable to stick to the point. Is it because you have been proved wrong in your initial assertion - this is not the SNP's LIFT policy but in fact a continuation of Labour's shared equity policy? You know it is. Why not just accept that fact?

And no, I'm not an employee nor member of a health board. And I am rather tired of SNP supporters pointing at that Herald article (or in the case of Hen Broon, copying and pasting the whole story) as if it proved something. Read the way the review was framed; read the response to the first submission from the health board; read the conclusions; and then read what the board actually said in its very frank and full submission. And then tell me that this review was reasonable. You simply can't. This was a review set up with the explicit remit to come up with a justification for the SNP's political choice. That it has done so is neither a surprise nor a reflection of reality.
12

Miss H,

21/01/2008 16:42:13
I don't think we are talking about the same herald story Duncan.

There was the independent review of the decisions on Monklands and Ayr.

This is the story about Professor Neil Douglas, president of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh and chairman of the Academy of Royal Colleges and Faculties in Scotland querying the whole thrust of the centralisation policy you support.

Incidentally both Professor Douglas and Professor Brian Williams, president of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow, backed the independent scrutiny panel which published damning reports on the case for downgrading Monklands Hospital in Lanarkshire and Ayr Hospital in Ayrshire this week.

Not a surprise, no, just a reflection of the reality that the SNP read the evidence better than labour did and took the correct decision.






13

Duncan in Edinburgh,

21/01/2008 16:53:23
#12 I'm rather surprised, Miss H. You are usually one of the more level-headed SNP supporters. How can you possibly say that Prof Douglas queries "the whole thrust of the centralisation policy" when in fact he explicitly made the point that the issue of experience improving outcomes is far from the whole story when it comes to centralisation, and that in fact there remain significant arguments in favour of centralisation! Did you read the article yourself? Good grief.

And that's a lovely piece of wording by the Herald too - the two presidents of the Royal Colleges "backed the independent scrutiny panel". They did NOT express support for its conclusions. They said it was worth looking at the issue again, that is all.

Honestly the spin on this story from the SNP is astonishing. And to think spin was always the accusation levelled at Labour.

I say again - go to the source. Read the all the reports, all the submissions. A review set up explicitly to find a way to keep the two A&Es open has done precisely that. No surprise there, and no proof of anything other than the government gets what it pays for. Shame about the taxpayer.
14

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta, CA..captured from Mexico 1845 21/01/2008 17:41:12
£24m funding package to help first-time buyers get on to the property ladder
--------------------------------------------------

Sounds like a micro version of Bush's proposed $ hand out here in the US to cousin deadbeats..

Why do people who when they were young, did not make to effort to educate themselves, And later find they are in low paying jobs and cannot afford to buy a home.

Why should they be given Financial help (hand-outs) using tax payers money . And from tax payers who stayed at school.

hey dudes if you cannot afford it you cannot buy it.
get real .

GC
15

scotinbc,

BC CANADA 21/01/2008 17:57:39
#14 YOU ARE RIGHT ON THE MONEY. I CAME TO CANADA WITHOUT ANY HELP, BOUGHT AND PAID FOR MY HOME WITHOUT ANY HELP. WHY SHOUD TAXPAYERS SUBSIDISE PEOPLE(EDUCATED OR NOT)? SEEMS JUST LIKE THE WORLD CRISIS AND THE SUB-PRIME MARKET.
16

Miss H,

21/01/2008 18:23:12
15 According to the 'Living in Canada' website One of the major attractions of moving to Canada is the low cost of housing compared with other western countries.
That will explain why you bought your home without any help.

Have a nice day, we'll all be moving in with you very soon!








17

Miss H,

21/01/2008 18:43:21
Ah Duncan so the Herald has twisted the story have they? Funnily enough so has the broadcast media:

Here's STV:
Two of Scotland's leading medical professors have stepped into the debate on centralising Accident and Emergency units. They claim that health boards could be using outdated research to progress their scheme, to downgrade services at Monklands and Ayr hospitals. There's now more pressure than ever on health chiefs to rethink their plans. The argument for centralising hospital services at the expense of places like Monklands appears to be going out of fashion by the day. Health bosses used to say that bigger hospitals meant better prepared consultants and therefore safer patients. Well, not any more. Just this week an independent panel wrote off health board plans to downgrade A&E services at Monklands and also at Ayr. Doctors are backing the findings. They claim that far from putting patient safety first, centralisation could actually be putting lives at risk.
Dr Neil Douglas, the president of Edinburgh's Royal College of Physicians, has come forward with his Glasgow counterpart to express concern about the quality of research used to promote centralisation. It's news that will please the SNP government, which has gone to great lengths to protect A&E services at Monklands and Ayr so far.
18

scotinbc,

bccanada 21/01/2008 18:55:08
#16 Didn't know that when I moved here in 1971. I had a suitcase and worked smart. The world yardstick for buying things seems to be the price of a "big mac". I am in Scotland almost every year. Housing is certainly more costly in Scotland. However taxation is muich higher in Canada.If you want to move in... please send picture first.
19

Duncan in Edinburgh,

21/01/2008 20:15:12
#17 Honestly, don't be so silly. Neither the Herald nor STV have spun the story - the government has spun the story. And both of these outlets have happily caught it.

Read the detail for yourself. You could easily have written it thus:

Dr Neil Douglas, the president of Edinburgh's Royal College of Physicians, has come forward with his Glasgow counterpart to support the research used to promote centralisation of services. Although he expressed some concern about an element of the argument, he confirmed that surgeons' skills are best maintained by doing a high volume of the same type of work, that support departments associated with centralised services are essential for good quality patient care, and that larger units enable round-the-clock availability of even senior staff. In contrast, smaller units such as the one the previous executive proposed closing, have severe difficulties retaining medics, and often run on a skeleton staff. They lack services such as anaesthesia for intensive care, and patients therefore have to travel to other hospitals as a matter of routine.

Nothing there is untrue. It's all in the spin.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.