Joint webchat with Conservative and Labour housing minister and shadow housing minister, MONDAY 2 MARCH 1pm

[RowanMumsnet]

We're pleased to announce something a bit different to shake up your Monday lunchtime: a joint simultaneous webchat with the Conservative Housing and Planning Minister Brandon Lewis, and the Labour Shadow Housing Minister Emma Reynolds. They’ll be joining us live for an hour on Monday March 2 at 1pm.

We know that lots of MNers are interested in housing issues, so here's your opportunity to quiz Brandon and Emma about house-building, the Green Belt, planning restrictions, new towns, private landlords, rent levels, sustainable building, social and affordable housing, and their long-term plans for making supply meet demand - and anything else that catches your eye. How do the Conservatives and the Labour party plan to build and fund housing for the next generation - and what do they want to do about short-term housing issues? Now's your chance to find out.

Brandon Lewis MP is Minister of State for Housing and Planning. He was elected as the Conservative MP for Great Yarmouth in May 2010.

Emma Reynolds MP was elected as the Labour MP for Wolverhampton North East in May 2010. She is the Shadow Housing Minister attending Shadow Cabinet.

Please join us on Monday at 1pm. As ever, if you can’t make it then, please do leave your questions on this thread in advance. And (also as ever) please remember our webchat guidelines.

Thanks
MNHQ

[YouCanDoTheCube]

Hello, thanks to both of you for coming on

Can you both explain please - because both of your parties have ruled it out, I think - why you won't allow local authorities to borrow money to build homes?

[andango]

Please don't bother with David Cameron's proposal. Waste of time even announcing it. Anyone with half a brain knows that giving FTBs a 'discount' of 20% just means the developer pushes the prices up 20%. So the buyer saves nothing but the developer gets a 20% extra profit courtesy of the taxpayer.

How dim do they think we are? It's sooo obvious. It's like Help to Sell Buy.

The last thing FTBs need are many more artificial boosts to house prices. The only useful things the Tories can do are
a. regulate renting and cap rents
b. build loads more council houses and
c. remove incentives for BTL landlords and foreign speculators.

In a genuinely free market, houses would cost less than half what they do now. Stop messing.

[HeeHiles]

Love the washing line in the Court Yard DanWilson

[DiamondsandRainbows]

According to DC ''Young people are getting a job, working for years, saving away but still unable to buy - stuck living with their parents, sometimes into their 30s.''

How are they saving though? With rents as high as they are?

I know how a lot of friends are currently getting their deposits, their baby-boomer parents are cashing their spare pensions in and giving them the money. The parents are left with their main pension and enough equity do downsize later and still be ok.

A lot of hard working people who are doing the right thing cannot afford to save!

[PlentyOfPubeGardens]

Hello, similar question as HeeHiles - what do you intend to do to stop the widescale social cleansing of London? I have watched in horror what has been happening over the past few years with the Heygate estate and now the Aylesbury (both in Southwark).

Huge amounts of perfectly good council housing are being demolished and replaced with private developments with rapidly diminishing proportions of 'affordable' housing and almost none at truly social rents. Are you aware that £200/week for a one bedroom property in the cheapest Southwark postcode is now considered 'affordable' (80% of market rent)? Add in the benefit cap and the effect is the widescale destruction of communities - very few of these thousands of displaced people will be able to afford to move back into the area. Do you see this as a desireable outcome?

[WhistlingPot]

Am loving the idea of relocating Parliament to Hull danwilsoncraw

[WorkhouseHereICome]

Where do your parties stand on legislating to encourage more housing cooperatives?

Cooperative members are landlord-tenants who take responsibility to maintain the housing and set their own rents.

It is a viable, affordable alternative to private renting or personal ownership.

[Isitmebut]

In the real world the price of homes and level of rents can not be government ‘controlled’ if for over a decade our population increased by a net 4 million and the average annual home builds was around 115,000 under the last government with record low council/social homes built; a classic supply vs demand problem the 2004 government was warned about via the Barker Report that they commissioned.
www.theguardian.com/money/2004/mar/17/business.housing

The Labour government 1997 raid on Private Pensions and lighter bank regulations that saw bank mortgage lending rise from £21 bil in 1997 to £115 billion a year by September 2007, both FUELLED the home price BOOM and met some of the DEMAND from the fast rising UK population – resulting in the Private Sector Landlords overtaking the Public Sector provision for homes for the first time since god knows when.

Thus leaving the “generation rent” Mr Miliband blames the coalition for, yet in the year to June 2010 labour only built 110,210 homes and left bank mortgage finance in a total log jam so people could not buy even with a healthy deposit.

Therefore as the ONLY way to ease the home price & rental demand problem is to build well over 200,000 new homes each year as the Barker Report in 2004 told them, as RENT CONTROLS making BTL less attractive, could force many private landlords (we now totally depend on) over the next 5-years to SELL their properties to new buy-to-live owners – if the banks saddled with any new government taxes/levies etc CAN loan to everyone that wants a mortgage.

My question to Labour’s Emma Reynolds is, if a previous Labour administration flushed with government money only built less than half the homes they were advised to pre EU migration, now we have a £90 billion annual budget deficit they WILL rely on the Private Sector to build those homes when Miliband neither understand how business or markets work - otherwise Labour wouldn’t keep threatening businesses and current private landlords who have the OPTION to continue investing in UK homes – SO HOW CAN LABOUR HONOUR ANY HOME BUILDING NUMBERS 5-YEAR PLEDGE?

Especially as builder and bank lending confidence had returned under the coalition, and a Labour run administration is clearly what they fear.

Jan 30 2015; ”UK housing starts indicator highest since 2007 – NHBC”
uk.reuters.com/article/2015/01/30/uk-britain-housingstarts-idUKKBN0L300720150130

"British construction firms last year registered to build the highest number of new homes since 2007, but growth is likely to slow in 2015 as May's parliamentary election weighs on confidence, an industry group said on Friday."

[xk140man]

I am a chartered town planner. The biggest issues when we hold public events on new housing schemes are:

• lack of school spaces
• lack of places in doctors surgeries
• how will the highways be improved to take new cars

David Cameron's ill conceived idea for 200,000 discount houses is being paid for by no affordable housing and no S106 payments. It is the latter which typically pays for the items above. How will the above be provided for new discounted developments?

[ellieh74]

Hi. I would like to know what you will do to ensure people in new housing have good access to green space (especially woodland) - as this is great for mental and physical health; not to mention improving air quality, helping to mitigate flood risk etc.

[WhistlingPot]

Ok, it appears that a third of our MPs are private landlords:

When we pay rent to our MPs, we have a problem

Names here: (Includes Brandon Lewis, interestingly) pastebin.com/1249K1N4

So if I may rephrase my question to: given that a third of MPs are private landlords, how can we, the electorate, feel confident that those voting on our behalf on housing strategy are not swayed by self interest?

[Takedeux]

I am a working single mother, living in a one bed ex-council flat in London. The rent is £1300 per month. The identical flat next door just rented for £1600 a month. There is no way I can afford that, and because I have saved for years for a deposit for a house, I do not qualify for housing benefit. Strangely enough I did not plan to be a single mother. My children and I just about squeeze in at the moment. But they are growing.

What do you both suggest for people in my position? Should I spend my only chance of home ownership so I can claim? Quit my career? Leave the area I have lived all my life? A mortgage repayment would probably be less than my current rent, but there is nothing even remotely appropriate for less than 10 times my salary.

[AlphaBravoHenryFoxtons]

stubbornstains - because the issue of the 14 day maximum stay concerns mooring charges. So narrowboat is escaping mooring charges but still availing himself/herself of fresh water, refuse collection and sewage services. And possibly avoiding council tax too. If your children go to school somewhere every day and you have a doctor at a fixed address then it's not unreasonable for you to be assumed part of the community. Everyone must contribute on a fair basis.

We're as tired as the likes of Narrowboat as we are of non-doms and companies that use transfer pricing to avoid taxes (Starbucks etc).

[NBTA00]

I live on a boat. What are you going to do about the impending mass evictions faced by up to 12,000 boat dwellers?

Last month Canal & River Trust announced an unlawful new policy for all boaters without a permanent mooring. From 1st May it will refuse to re-license all boats that “don’t move ... far enough or often enough” to meet its Guidance for Boaters without a Home Mooring unless they take a permanent mooring - without telling them how far they must travel to avoid having their licence taken away.

Canal & River Trust's latest move is yet another attack on the right to use and live on a boat without a permanent mooring; a right that Parliament enshrined in law in 1995 when it passed Section 17 3 c ii of the British Waterways Act 1995. Before 1995 British Waterways (which became Canal & River Trust in 2012) sought powers and criminal penalties to prevent people living on boats without a permanent mooring. Parliament refused British Waterways these powers. Canal & River Trust is trying to achieve this objective by the back door.

Canal & River Trust is effectively proposing to evict thousands of live-aboard boaters without permanent moorings from its waterways and seize their boats. Up to 12,000 single people, couples and families are at risk of homelessness.

It is not within Canal & River Trust's legal powers to enforce its new policy, because it sets requirements that go beyond the British Waterways Act 1995. Boat dwellers are happy to comply with the clearly stated, lawful requirement not to remain continuously in any one place for more than 14 days. But the 1995 Act does not contain any requirement to travel a minimum distance or to follow any specific travel pattern beyond the 14-day limit. Canal & River Trust itself has not stated what distance it considers “far enough”. Indeed, in December 2012 Canal & River Trust's own Towpath Mooring Q and A conceded that it would be acting beyond its powers to set a minimum distance.

The new policy goes against one of the most fundamental principles of English law: that the law should be "clear, accessible and predictable, so that the citizen can tell when his actions would be unlawful" (Lord Bingham).

How will you help us to keep our homes in the face of this unlawful policy?

[EmmaReynoldsMP]

test

[emmaMac28]

What will you do in the next Parliament to ensure the hundreds of thousands of disabled and older people who have to wash at the kitchen sink or can’t sleep in their own bedroom because there aren't enough disabled-friendly homes have somewhere suitable to live?

[EmmaReynoldsMP]

Hi everyone,

I'm delighted to be at the Mumsnet offices here in Kentish Town to answer your questions. We'll do our very best to answer as many as possible.

There have been loads of interesting questions on housing and I'm not surprised that so many of you have concerns about the lack of decent homes and the instability and insecurity of renting.

Many thanks,

Emma

[CFSKate]

I don't want to see the whole countryside concreted over. The OP says
"long-term plans for making supply meet demand".

Can nothing be done to make demand meet supply?

I do not understand how the population can just keep growing without this being a problem, at some point there must be a physical limit to how many people can live in a certain amount of space and still have a decent standard of living.

[BrandonLewisMP]

Good afternoon, thank you to Mumsnet for organsing this event and I look forward to answering questions over the next hour.

[KateSMumsnet]

Hi everyone,

As you can see, Emma is with us in the office - Brandon is just setting up and will be online and answering your questions in a few minutes.

[EmmaReynoldsMP]

@MrsTawdry

Thank you both for coming to Mumsnet. Can I ask what either of you think can be done to secure the future of the many families in insecure rentals today?

Long term tenancies are needed for families so they can stay in one community and have peace of mind...but landlords don't often want to be committed to them. Do you have any plans or thoughts about this?

Hi Mrs Tawdry, bedunkalilt, Amxx (one of your questions – will try to answer others!), GwenaelleLaGourmande, HelenaDova, andango, HugoBear, meddie

I agree with all of you that more needs to be done for the millions of people who rent. We know that eleven million people now rent including 1.5m families but too often renting can be insecure, of a poor standard and increasingly expensive.

As many of you said there are plenty of countries where renting is more stable and of a high standard and it can’t beyond us to improve the system here so it is better for tenants.

If we win the election we’ve set out our plans to give tenants a right to longer three year tenancies where they won’t have to worry about being kicked out because they’ve complained about poor standards or because of a sudden jump in rent. We’ll put a ceiling on rent rises over the course of those contracts so that you can be confident you’ll know what your rent will be from year to the next. We also want to set up a national register of landlords which will help local authorities enforce better standards.

Many of you have also mentioned rip off fees charged by letting agents. We don’t think it’s right that tenants are charged these fees and so we would ban letting agents from charging fees to tenants.

[EmmaReynoldsMP]

@FionaKennedyReid

My daughter is 8 months' pregnant and has just received an eviction notice. She and her husband are good tenants and they have never missed a rental payment: they are being evicted solely because the landlord wants to put the house on the market.

Receiving an eviction notice at this point is extremely distressing for obvious reasons. Furthermore, my daughter and her husband already have a toddler and they live in an area which enables them both to travel to their respective workplaces with relative ease. Being evicted with a new baby will cause high levels of anxiety, will disrupt the toddler's child-care arrangements and may mean that they need to move to an area which will make it impossible for them both to work.

No civilized society should allow a family to be treated like this. What will prospective housing ministers do to ensure security of tenure for tenants?

Moral platitudes about 'hard-working families' are irrelevant. Please outline definite policy commitments.

Dr Fiona Reid

I’m very sorry to hear about your daughter, I can only imagine the distress it must have caused.

I agree with you that more needs to be done for the millions of people and families who rent.

If we win the election we’ve set out our plans to give tenants a right to longer three year tenancies where they won’t have to worry about being kicked out because they’ve complained about poor standards or because of a sudden jump in rent. We’ll put a ceiling on rent rises over the course of those contracts so that you can be confident you’ll know what your rent will be from year to the next.

There will be some safeguards for landlords to be able to exit these contracts for example when they are selling the property but by making the whole sector more long term we want to see the market develop so that a home can be sold but a tenant can remain in the property.

[EmmaReynoldsMP]

@CFSKate

I don't want to see the whole countryside concreted over. The OP says
"long-term plans for making supply meet demand".

Can nothing be done to make demand meet supply?

I do not understand how the population can just keep growing without this being a problem, at some point there must be a physical limit to how many people can live in a certain amount of space and still have a decent standard of living.

England has some beautiful countryside and areas of outstanding natural beauty which we want to conserve for future generations. We have only built on less than ten per cent of our land and much of that includes green space including parks. There is enough land, including previously developed land, to meet our housing demand and for us to retain our green and pleasant land!

[BrandonLewisMP]

@CFSKate

I don't want to see the whole countryside concreted over. The OP says
"long-term plans for making supply meet demand".

Can nothing be done to make demand meet supply?

I do not understand how the population can just keep growing without this being a problem, at some point there must be a physical limit to how many people can live in a certain amount of space and still have a decent standard of living.

Good point and I agree with your comment about the countryside, that is why we have protected the greenbelt in our reforms and continue to. A guidance update last October reconfirmed that too. Greenbelt is important to development and our environment and local councils need to be consious of that when they look at their local plan work. I agree with CPRE that there are still a lot of brownfield sites to be developed out to meet demand and we aim to deal with 90% of that already identified land by 2020. I will continue to work with CPRE (have already had some roundtables with them) to identify more viable brownfield land too.

We also announced last summer some more funding for brownfield development and have recently announced a short list of housing zone sites, again aimed at brownfield.