Dr. Conor O'Toole:

I will address Deputy Barry's comments. On trying to define how many households would have housing affordability challenges, there has been a move internationally towards using a specific figure such as 30% of income. What we found when we looked at other international models, specifically the Australian case which uses both an income limit and housing cost definition, was that these are much more accurate in defining those households' views. We also see other metrics of economic strain, such as being in mortgage arrears, finding it difficult to make ends meet, or other characteristics of distress such as poverty.

Our point in this research is to say that, while the housing cost, which is used more broadly in general, needs to be taken into account, so must the income. For many households, even lowering the housing cost-to-income ratio to very low levels leaves them with insufficient incomes to buy what we would count as a normal basket of goods and services. For them, there needs to be a dovetailing of housing policy and social welfare policy, as they need income supports as opposed to direct housing interventions. That dovetailing is important. We cannot approach this problem with separate housing and income support policies. They need to be integrated.

One of the nuances we have found in our research is that, if a particular target is set, for example, 30% of income or an income limit of €35,000, it will cause difficulties because people will fall on either side of the threshold in question. They will have similar challenges, but there will be discontinuities just because they fall on one side of the threshold. When trying to define housing affordability challenges, we may need a graduated model that allows the housing cost and income metrics to vary across the income scale. It is a complex problem that has many moving parts, but legislators need to take all these issues into account.

The question on the European comparison was a good one. We have not been able to do a comparison. One reason for that is that the Irish Survey on Income and Living Conditions, SILC, is the only one of its kind in Europe that asks what housing costs. While surveys are available in other European countries, that particular indicator is not. We would have liked to have benchmarked Ireland against our European peers, but we have been unable to. Such an exercise would be useful.

As to the proportion of households that pay 50% plus on rents, I do not have the specific numbers. With the data we have, it is possible to examine that issue. In this paper, we are saying that the fact that we would classify 70% of low-income households, particularly the bottom 25% in terms of income distribution, as having high housing costs using the international metrics suggests that the average masks a considerable amount of challenge for pockets of society. If the average is two fifths, one can be sure that a large proportion of those households are well above it. There are pockets of vulnerability in particular groups.

Regarding Senator O'Sullivan's points on accessibility, we have purely considered the housing cost issue. This does not take into account the ancillary services or other utility costs that come with running a household, for example, transport to work or place of business and home insurance. In terms of the estimate of how much it costs a household to maintain a home, these are in a sense lower bands and are based purely on how much households spend on their mortgage or rental payments.