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

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Autumn Statement 2015: George Osborne abandons his target

How will George Osborne close the deficit after his U-Turns? Answer: he won't, of course. 

“Good governments U-Turn, and U-Turn frequently.” That’s Andrew Adonis’ maxim, and George Osborne borrowed heavily from him today, delivering two big U-Turns, on tax credits and on police funding. There will be no cuts to tax credits or to the police.

The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that, in total, the government gave away £6.2 billion next year, more than half of which is the reverse to tax credits.

Osborne claims that he will still deliver his planned £12bn reduction in welfare. But, as I’ve written before, without cutting tax credits, it’s difficult to see how you can get £12bn out of the welfare bill. Here’s the OBR’s chart of welfare spending:

The government has already promised to protect child benefit and pension spending – in fact, it actually increased pensioner spending today. So all that’s left is tax credits. If the government is not going to cut them, where’s the £12bn come from?

A bit of clever accounting today got Osborne out of his hole. The Universal Credit, once it comes in in full, will replace tax credits anyway, allowing him to describe his U-Turn as a delay, not a full retreat. But the reality – as the Treasury has admitted privately for some time – is that the Universal Credit will never be wholly implemented. The pilot schemes – one of which, in Hammersmith, I have visited myself – are little more than Potemkin set-ups. Iain Duncan Smith’s Universal Credit will never be rolled out in full. The savings from switching from tax credits to Universal Credit will never materialise.

The £12bn is smaller, too, than it was this time last week. Instead of cutting £12bn from the welfare budget by 2017-8, the government will instead cut £12bn by the end of the parliament – a much smaller task.

That’s not to say that the cuts to departmental spending and welfare will be painless – far from it. Employment Support Allowance – what used to be called incapacity benefit and severe disablement benefit – will be cut down to the level of Jobseekers’ Allowance, while the government will erect further hurdles to claimants. Cuts to departmental spending will mean a further reduction in the numbers of public sector workers.  But it will be some way short of the reductions in welfare spending required to hit Osborne’s deficit reduction timetable.

So, where’s the money coming from? The answer is nowhere. What we'll instead get is five more years of the same: increasing household debt, austerity largely concentrated on the poorest, and yet more borrowing. As the last five years proved, the Conservatives don’t need to close the deficit to be re-elected. In fact, it may be that having the need to “finish the job” as a stick to beat Labour with actually helped the Tories in May. They have neither an economic imperative nor a political one to close the deficit. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.