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

@stubbornstains

I understand that last year Labour proposed an amendment to the Consumer Rights Bill, banning letting agents from charging tenants, but it was voted down by the Government. Can I ask you how you voted, Brandon?

Also, I understand that Andrew George (Lib Dem) introduced a private member's bill attempting to abolish the bedroom tax- again, Brandon and Emma, how did you vote on that one?

I was sorry to see the Conservatives and Lib Dems both oppose our plans to ban letting agent fees charged to tenants. Our plans could make a real difference to renters, saving them hundreds of pounds a year.

On the Bedroom Tax, I want to see it scrapped. It is simply an unfair policy that doesn’t work and is hitting some of the poorest people the hardest. I voted for Andrew George’s Bill but we would go further and scrap it altogether.

@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?

Many thanks for getting in touch. I'm really sorry to hear about your situation and this worrying development. I need to look into the new legislation you talk about and get back to you. Do you mind emailing me on emma.reynolds.mp[at]parliament.uk?

@wonderstuff

Some great questions, I really think housing is the number one issue at the moment, private renting is so insecure.

My question is this, I have a friend renting an old, cold house, she qualifies for the excellent scheme to insulate her home for free, would dearly like to take advantage of it, but her landlord refuses to sign the relevant paperwork, he isn't paying the heating bill so has no interest in it. Can anything be done to compel landlords to adequately insulate properties?

Thanks for your question. Many people who rent are sadly in your friend’s position. Properties in the private rented sector are more likely to be of a poor standard, have damp and mould or have poor energy efficiency.

We want to drive up standards which is why we’ll introduce a new national register of landlords but you’re right that we must improve energy efficiency too. We will also set a new target for a higher energy efficiency in the private rented sector so that all properties are of a good standard and not damp or cold.

More generally, we’ve also said we will offer half a million free home energy reports a year, so families know where and how they can cut their bills.

For those on low incomes we will make 200,000 homes warm every year, using every penny of the Energy Company Obligation. And we will provide one million interest free loans in the next Parliament, so homeowners can heat their homes and save on bills.

@gotthearse

It's not an acceptable use of tax-payers money to make rich BTL landlords richer with HB subsidising extortionate rents. We are in this position because successive governments have had, to be frank, a complete dogs-breakfast of a housing policy. We need more houses, lots more to be built. What are you going to do better or differently to ensure this actually happens?

You are absolutely correct that we need to build more houses. We have not built enough for a long time now. The housing sector does cover a wide range of types of tenure, from outright purchase to rental to social housing and affordable housing, with shared equity and other options growing too. We need to ensure each of these has the framework to grow and deliver more homes, in the right places. One of the key issues with our planning reforms is to ensure we build in appropriate places again, not top down targets. That is paying benefits now with 240,000 planning approvals given in the last year.

We also need to ensure we have the correct framework to allow interest rates to stay low (that is why it is important we stick with our economic plan) as that not only allows people to afford mortgages but also builders to borrow at lower rates too, which affects price. We also need to develop more advanced construction to speed up build and work to lower the cost price of building. We are now also at the start of the fastest build rate for affordable homes in over 20 years, over the next three years, so that will help and of course today we announced details of Starter homes. These will be for first time buyers and avaialable at a 20% discount, allowing people to aspire to own their own home in a way we have not seen for some years.

Please excuse any typos i may leave but I will keep going and hope spell check etc rescue me :-) where needed

@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.

Many thanks for getting in touch. I'm really sorry to hear about your situation. I believe that it should not be beyond Government to ensure that working people earn enough to rent or buy a home they can afford.

We will boost the numbers of homes being built and in the long term that is the main way to make rents and house prices affordable. We also need to make work pay and bring down the cost of childcare. We've got one of the most expensive childcare systems in Western Europe. We will also legislate to give private renters a much fairer deal with three year tenancies, a ceiling on rent increases and a ban on letting agent fees.

@gotthearse

It's not an acceptable use of tax-payers money to make rich BTL landlords richer with HB subsidising extortionate rents. We are in this position because successive governments have had, to be frank, a complete dogs-breakfast of a housing policy. We need more houses, lots more to be built. What are you going to do better or differently to ensure this actually happens?

You're right that for over thirty years we simply have not built anywhere near the number of homes we need to keep up with demand. There is no single policy which will solve this problem. That's why we've put forward a comprehensive plan to make the housing market work and deliver the homes our country needs. Our plans include giving councils more power and flexibility to build and commission house-building, giving small builders access to land and finance and give councils the power to reserve a proportion of new homes for first-time buyers. Regrettably the Government's announcement today about building starter homes at 20% discount just doesn't add up because it's not clear how they will make developers sell new homes at a cut-down price.

@EmmaReynoldsMP

[quote 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.[/quote]

Currently the average tenancy is already at 3.5 years so not sure what Labour feel their option will achieve. For many the flexibility of rental is vital and we have to recognise that whilst also ensuring, as you rightly outline, that those who wish can have security for themselves and their family. We are working to help tenants who want a longer tenancy through the new model tenancy agreement, ensuring redress for tenants & supporting the building of thousands of affordable homes to rent. This will mean that we have a good strong supply of good quality homes for people to find a home that is right for them. That is why we have had 1bn of funding in our build to rent fund and working now with our new partners for the new £10bn guarantee scheme.

@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.

You're absolutely right that David Cameron's announcement today to make developers sell homes at a 20% discount just wouldn't work. Unfortunately we've seen home ownership levels fall to their lowest level in thirty years and we've also seen the lowest level of homes built for social renting for twenty years.

We need to build more homes for first-time buyers but also as you say build more council houses and make sure those who are renting from a private landlord get a much fairer deal. As I've mentioned in previous posts, that will include three year tenancies, with a ceiling on rent increases and a ban on letting agent fees on tenants.

EmmaReynolds ... Further to my earlier post, if Labour only averaged around 115,000 homes each year when they had £hundreds of billion of taxes from the financial bubble years, how can you guarantee 200,000 new homes every year with a £90 billion current government annual overspend (down from your 2010 £157 billion overspend) - and Labour always taxing and threatening businesses, will cause business investment to CONTRACT, not expand???

And how will Labour stop Private landlords selling up with Labour government controls making it less financially/regulatory attractive, when thanks to your earlier policies, they are now LARGER than the public sector rent provision - and you left 5 million needing social and other rented homes????

Shelter (2009); The housing crisis in numbers – and the need for spare bedrooms, never mind homes.
england.shelter.org.uk/campaigns/why_we_campaign/the_housing_crisis/what_is_the_housing_crisis.
• Over 1.7 million households (around 5 million individuals) are currently waiting for social housing
• 7.4 million homes in England fail to meet the Government's Decent Homes Standard
• 1.4 million children in England live in bad housing. [3]
• In 2008/09, 654,000 households in England were overcrowded. [4]
The number of new households is increasing faster than the number of house builds

[quote HugoBear]I'd like the two of them to tell us why they think MPs can be trusted to come up with a fair solution to Britain's housing crisis when a third of them are private landlords (a figure that includes Brandon Lewis himself):

www.lettingagenttoday.co.uk/732-new-housing-minister-is-a-private-landlord[/quote]

There are people from all sectors who are landlords, either accidental or professional and everything in between. (To be clear it is all properly declared and always has been :-)). What we want to see in the sector is more professional management emanating often from institutional investment. That will be key in terms of delivering the type of numbers we all would like to see for housing numbers. I want to see the PRS grow and with the guarantee schemes we have in place I am confident we will see the benefits of that. Already we are seeing some very good schemes from North to South being developed and delivered.

@BrandonLewisMP

[quote EmmaReynoldsMP] [quote 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.[/quote]

Currently the average tenancy is already at 3.5years so not sure what labour feel tehir option will achieve. For many the flexibility of rental is vital and we have to recognise that whilst also ensuring, as you rightly outline, that those who wish can have scurity for themselves and their family. We are working to help tenants who want a longer tenancy through the new model tenancy agreement, ensurign redress for tenants & supporting the building of thousands of affordable homes to rent. this will mena that we ahve a godo strong supply of good qualty homes for people to find a home that is right for them. that is why we have had ?1bn of funding in our build to rent fund and working now with our new partenrs for the new 310bn garuntee scheme.[/quote]

It is cold comfort for those who rent from a private landlord to learn what the average length of a tenancy is. When people start their tenancies they only have six or twelve months' security and this causes great anxiety especially for those who have children. I believe passionately that people should have the right to more stability and peace of mind. This works in many other European countries. There is no reason why private renters here need to suffer such insecurity and anxiety. That's why we are determined to give private renters a much better deal.

What are you doing / planning about bringing empty properties back into occupancy. It seems daft constantly building when there are existing houses standing empty.

@Isitmebut

EmmaReynolds ... Further to my earlier post, if Labour only averaged around 115,000 homes each year when they had £hundreds of billion of taxes from the financial bubble years, how can you guarantee 200,000 new homes every year with a £90 billion current government annual overspend (down from your 2010 £157 billion overspend) - and Labour always taxing and threatening businesses, will cause business investment to CONTRACT, not expand???

And how will Labour stop Private landlords selling up with Labour government controls making it less financially/regulatory attractive, when thanks to your earlier policies, they are now LARGER than the public sector rent provision - and you left 5 million needing social and other rented homes????

Shelter (2009); The housing crisis in numbers ? and the need for spare bedrooms, never mind homes.
england.shelter.org.uk/campaigns/why_we_campaign/the_housing_crisis/what_is_the_housing_crisis.
? Over 1.7 million households (around 5 million individuals) are currently waiting for social housing
? 7.4 million homes in England fail to meet the Government's Decent Homes Standard
? 1.4 million children in England live in bad housing. [3]
? In 2008/09, 654,000 households in England were overcrowded. [4]
The number of new households is increasing faster than the number of house builds

You're right that there is a huge shortage of council and housing association homes. As somebody who grew up in a council flat I am passionate about making sure that we boost the number of social homes. I am proud of the last Labour Government's Decent Homes Programme.

Should I become the Housing Minister after the General Election, I am determined to make sure that the market starts to deliver the number of homes we need as a country because as you say the number of new households is increasing faster than the number of homes being built.

@gotthearse

It's not an acceptable use of tax-payers money to make rich BTL landlords richer with HB subsidising extortionate rents. We are in this position because successive governments have had, to be frank, a complete dogs-breakfast of a housing policy. We need more houses, lots more to be built. What are you going to do better or differently to ensure this actually happens?

Universal Credit will meant that the responsibility will move to the tenant, only currently about 10% of landlords in PRS get HB directly.
In terms of the issue over building more, absolutely....we need to buld more homes over all tenures and PRS is the second largest tenure now so seeing more investment come into the market is good. it is why it is so important we stay away from the risks of what soudns attractive with rent control. in reality exprience elsewhere shows that it simoly opushes up proces and cuts supply, so does not work and puts off investors. We wnat to see supply grow alogn with professional management and larger supply.

@TwoLeftSocks

What are you doing / planning about bringing empty properties back into occupancy. It seems daft constantly building when there are existing houses standing empty.

You're right that we need to bring empty homes back into use. We want to give councils greater power to tax those homes which are left empty. However even if we brought every empty home back into use, we'd still need to build more homes. Some empty homes that I've seen in the North West are not fit for purpose and in some cases, regeneration of those areas is the most important thing.

When a minister declares an interest in private renting, does this have any effect on the way a minister can vote on related issues?

BrandonLewisMP: There are people from all sectors who are landlords, either accidental or professional and everythign in betweem.

Can I ask, to both parties, if they really believe there is such a thing as an 'accidental landlord'? This is a business that also deals with the very emotive matter of people's homes. Those two characteristics mean you can't simply put things down to accidental. You don't get accidental retailers, accidental construction companies, accidental restauranteurs... it is a business and it is someone's home. This language of 'accidental' often seeks to diminish the need for a landlord to be responsible and regulated.

@bedunkalilt

I've just realised I didn't actually ask a question, more like make statements So here it is:

What do both parties have as proposals, if any, to challenge the issue of properties being advertised as 'no DSS', thereby decreasing the available homes to Housing Benefit recipients, and also to improve the incredibly inefficient Housing Benefit assessment/reassessment system?

As an aside, perhaps some landlords/agents would stop worrying about benefits recipients if the system administrating it was better.

Also just dug up the David Lammy article and realised that it is from 2008 - so the 'no DSS' issue isn't exactly a new one and has just been allowed to continue.

it is 25% of the PRS tenants who receive HB to help with rental payments. UC will mean that inividuals will have the responsiblity to work with their landlords over ensruign they rental payments.

@AlphaBravoHenryFoxtons

Why do governments offer tax incentives to homeowners to encourage them to hoard housing wealth, when housing is in such short supply? Why not abolish principal residence relief so that gains made from housing are subject to CGT?

Abolishing principal residence relief would also stop all this nonsense flipping that goes on. I know the Tories have recently reduced the 36 month rule to 18 months so hats off to them for making some inroads into this nonsensical tax break. But why not abolish PPR altogether. It would help the young and those who've just got onto the housing ladder.

You need to do something to help young people and this would help!

Many thanks for your comments. I agree that we need to help young people and it is young people that are suffering most from the housing crisis. When it comes to property taxation, we will impose a Mansion Tax on those homeowners whose properties are worth more than £2m. I think those with extremely expensive homes should make a bigger contribution.

@bedunkalilt

BrandonLewisMP: There are people from all sectors who are landlords, either accidental or professional and everythign in betweem.

Can I ask, to both parties, if they really believe there is such a thing as an 'accidental landlord'? This is a business that also deals with the very emotive matter of people's homes. Those two characteristics mean you can't simply put things down to accidental. You don't get accidental retailers, accidental construction companies, accidental restauranteurs... it is a business and it is someone's home. This language of 'accidental' often seeks to diminish the need for a landlord to be responsible and regulated.

'Accidental landlords' is a term used in the industry that often is something like someone who could not sell their home (especially in the crash in the last years of Labour) and hence decided to rent it out instead.

Universal Credit will meant that the responsibility will move to the tenant, only currently about 10% of landlords in PRS get HB directly.

It doesn't matter whether it's paid directly to the LL or paid to the tenant and then to the LL - it's still tax-payers money being used to pay off LL's mortgages.

I understand why the term 'accidental landlord' is used. However I think the language diminishes the seriousness of the job of a landlord. The industry would be better seeking a different term.

I propose 'landlord'.

@EmmaReynoldsMP

You're right that we need to bring empty homes back into use. We want to give councils greater power to tax those homes which are left empty. However even if we brought every empty home back into use, we'd still need to build more homes. Some empty homes that I've seen in the North West are not fit for purpose and in some cases, regeneration of those areas is the most important thing.

The number of empty homes is now at its lowest level since records began. We have provided over £200m of direct funding and we have also distributed billions in New Homes Bonus which also goes to empty homes coming back into use, and we gave councils the power to charge 150% in council tax. All of this is helping and we are seeing some very innovative schemes including in the North where homes are being sold for £1 with new owners doing the renovation, with a very lost coast loan set up by the local authority, to do that work.

@bedunkalilt

BrandonLewisMP: There are people from all sectors who are landlords, either accidental or professional and everythign in betweem.

Can I ask, to both parties, if they really believe there is such a thing as an 'accidental landlord'? This is a business that also deals with the very emotive matter of people's homes. Those two characteristics mean you can't simply put things down to accidental. You don't get accidental retailers, accidental construction companies, accidental restauranteurs... it is a business and it is someone's home. This language of 'accidental' often seeks to diminish the need for a landlord to be responsible and regulated.

You're right that every landlord has to take their responsibilities seriously. They shouldn't treat their properties just as an investment and remember that it is also someone's home. However I do think that there are circumstances in which people have to move to another area or country for work or in some cases people's parents go into care. This is what is often known as an 'accidental landlord'. There are many good landlords out there but there are unfortunately also rogue landlords and those who don't take their responsibilities seriously. I want to make sure that we have a professional private rented sector which offers people decent standards and much more security of tenure.