Five questions answered on the rise in first time buyers

How big is it and what does it mean?

There has been a big boost in the number of mortgages taken out by first time buyers, according to the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML). We answer five questions on the rise.

How many more first time buyers are there?

According to the CML, the number of mortgages taken out by first time buyers has risen by 42per cent in a year.

What has caused this surge in first time buying? 

Mortgage brokers say it is proof that banks are lending again to first time buyers following government attempts to support the housing market.

Government schemes such as Funding for Lending, which offered £80 billion to banks to boost mortgage and business lending, have increased high loan-to-value lending.

The Help to Buy scheme launched in the March Budget, which is designed to help borrowers with small budgets, has also bolstered loans.

How many first time mortgages were actually approved this year compared to last?

In May, 25,100 first time buyer loans were approved, a rise of 29 per cent from April, and 42 per cent higher than May last year.

At its lowest figure just 8,500 loans were issued to first time buyers in January 2009.

A separate survey released today by e.surv reveals that June showed a total of 7,046 loans were approved to borrowers with deposits of 15 per cent or less – up from 4,790 loans at this level in June.

Total lending to home-buyers was up 23 per cent year-on-year, e.surv found. 

What are people saying?

Richard Sexton, director of e.surv, told The Telegraph: “Last year the lending market was thorny for first-time buyers. But over the last year, lenders have softened the process for them to get a house purchase loan.

“Buoyed by Funding for Lending [the Government scheme], and having had enough time to adjust to regulatory requirements and balance sheet restructurings, banks are more prepared to lend at these levels.”

What next – will the figure continue to rise?

Possibly. The Bank of England’s Credit Condition Survey suggests lenders are planning to increase their lending levels to buyers with a 10 per cent deposit in the third quarter of the year.

Messrs Cameron and Clegg accompany a first time buyer around her new neighbourhood. Photograph: Getty Images.

Heidi Vella is a features writer for Nridigital.com

GETTY
Show Hide image

Brexit will hike energy prices - progressive campaigners should seize the opportunity

Winter is Coming. 

Friday 24th June 2016 was a beautiful day. Blue sky and highs of 22 degrees greeted Londoners as they awoke to the news that Britain had voted to leave the EU.  

Yet the sunny weather was at odds with the mood of the capital, which was largely in favour of Remain. And even more so with the prospect of an expensive, uncertain and potentially dirty energy future. 

For not only are prominent members of the Leave leadership well known climate sceptics - with Boris Johnson playing down human impact upon the weather, Nigel Farage admitting he doesn’t “have a clue” about global warming, and Owen Paterson advocating scrapping the Climate Change Act altogether - but Brexit looks set to harm more than just our plans to reduce emissions.

Far from delivering the Leave campaign’s promise of a cheaper and more secure energy supply, it is likely that the referendum’s outcome will cause bills to rise and investment in new infrastructure to delay -  regardless of whether or not we opt to stay within Europe’s internal energy market.

Here’s why: 

1. Rising cost of imports

With the UK importing around 50% of our gas supply, any fall in the value of sterling are likely to push up the wholesale price of fuel and drive up charges - offsetting Boris Johnson’s promise to remove VAT on energy bills.

2. Less funding for energy development

Pulling out of the EU will also require us to give up valuable funding. According to a Chatham House report, not only was the UK set to receive €1.9bn for climate change adaptation and risk prevention, but €1.6bn had also been earmarked to support the transition to a low carbon economy.

3.  Investment uncertainty & capital flight

EU countries currently account for over half of all foreign direct investment in UK energy infrastructure. And while the chairman of EDF energy, the French state giant that is building the planned nuclear plant at Hinkley Point, has said Brexit would have “no impact” on the project’s future, Angus Brendan MacNeil, chair of the energy and climate select committee, believes last week’s vote undermines all such certainty; “anything could happen”, he says.

4. Compromised security

According to a report by the Institute for European Environmental Policy (the IEEP), an independent UK stands less chance of securing favourable bilateral deals with non-EU countries. A situation that carries particular weight with regard to Russia, from whom the UK receives 16% of its energy imports.

5. A divided energy supply

Brexiteers have argued that leaving the EU will strengthen our indigenous energy sources. And is a belief supported by some industry officials: “leaving the EU could ultimately signal a more prosperous future for the UK North Sea”, said Peter Searle of Airswift, the global energy workforce provider, last Friday.

However, not only is North Sea oil and gas already a mature energy arena, but the renewed prospect of Scottish independence could yet throw the above optimism into free fall, with Scotland expected to secure the lion’s share of UK offshore reserves. On top of this, the prospect for protecting the UK’s nascent renewable industry is also looking rocky. “Dreadful” was the word Natalie Bennett used to describe the Conservative’s current record on green policy, while a special government audit committee agreed that UK environment policy was likely to be better off within the EU than without.

The Brexiteer’s promise to deliver, in Andrea Leadsom’s words, the “freedom to keep bills down”, thus looks likely to inflict financial pain on those least able to pay. And consumers could start to feel the effects by the Autumn, when the cold weather closes in and the Conservatives, perhaps appropriately, plan to begin Brexit negotiations in earnest.

Those pressing for full withdrawal from EU ties and trade, may write off price hikes as short term pain for long term gain. While those wishing to protect our place within EU markets may seize on them, as they did during referendum campaign, as an argument to maintain the status quo. Conservative secretary of state for energy and climate change, Amber Rudd, has already warned that leaving the internal energy market could cause energy costs “to rocket by at least half a billion pounds a year”.

But progressive forces might be able to use arguments on energy to do even more than this - to set out the case for an approach to energy policy in which economics is not automatically set against ideals.

Technological innovation could help. HSBC has predicted that plans for additional interconnectors to the continent and Ireland could lower the wholesale market price for baseload electricity by as much as 7% - a physical example of just how linked our international interests are. 

Closer to home, projects that prioritise reducing emission through tackling energy poverty -  from energy efficiency schemes to campaigns for publicly owned energy companies - may provide a means of helping heal the some of the deeper divides that the referendum campaign has exposed.

If the failure of Remain shows anything, it’s that economic arguments alone will not always win the day and that a sense of justice – or injustice – is still equally powerful. Luckily, if played right, the debate over energy and the environment might yet be able to win on both.

 

India Bourke is the New Statesman's editorial assistant.