Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their contributions. They were extremely informative and helpful. I welcome the fact that they all in their different ways confirm what everybody knows, that the private market is not capable of delivering affordable housing for great numbers of people.

Although the ESRI gave us a lot of useful information I do not know if it said how much of our housing needs to be social or affordable, given that unaffordability is persistent. It is not cyclical and it is not just the outcome of a crash. It is a consistent feature. To solve this problem how much of the housing output needs to be social and affordable? Does the ESRI think the proportion needs to increase? In my view unaffordability is getting worse, as well as being persistent. That seems to be an international pattern. In London, New York, Paris and most of Europe unaffordability is becoming more of a problem for more people. To put it in simple anecdotal terms, in the past people on average, or slightly above average, earnings, could entertain the prospect of getting a mortgage to buy a house on the private market but today there are many on the same level of income who can never hope to do that, not just now but never in the future. That has radical policy implications. I would like the ESRI witnesses to comment on that.

I may be asking the ESRI to stray into the political sphere and if the witnesses cannot do that, they cannot, but let us pretend it is not politicians who use a mantra that absolutely infuriates me that we just need supply and if we just get supply everything will be okay. That is a load of crap. What does the ESRI think? It is important to say what we think about that. I do not think that if the private market ratchets up supply at any point it will provide affordable housing for a very significant cohort of society. It did not do that when there was massive supply in the private sector prior to 2008 and I do not think it will in the future. The answer to that question has very important policy implications. At the point that the private sector might produce a supply that could actually lead to a drop in prices it would stop supplying. That is what I think, but what do the witnesses think?

On the question of how to deliver the social and affordable housing we need, the big frustration for ordinary people is that the analysis is great, the plans are great but where is it? I would like somebody to say what is the delay in our getting it. What timeframe does Ó Cualann have and how does that compare to what is happening everywhere else? How long does it take from the moment it gets a piece of land from the State to delivering social and affordable housing? The witnesses can probably answer that question but we cannot get an answer to it from significant State sectors. In my case, locally, Shanganah is one of the big sites, and we are pulling our hair out. We have been talking about it for five years and now the talk is of delivery in 2022. What is going on that it is taking so long? The witnesses from Ó Cualann may have thoughts on that but they can certainly say how long it takes them.

Deputy Barry has talked about affordability but to me part of the answer to the question about delay is that we are not answering the question about cost versus affordability. If affordability is the issue and the State wants to deliver affordable housing it can afford to finance things in the long term and eventually cover the cost but the private market cannot because it needs to make profit in a relatively short period of time. Does Ó Cualann think it is fair to say let us stop the messing around, agree that affordability is the issue, we need to deliver housing that is affordable and to decide what is affordable and just do it? I agree with the 15% to 25% and maybe 30% in the higher income bracket. That would simplify matters to get a move on. How the State finances it or assists others like Ó Cualann to finance it can be worked out afterwards?

I know that some people just want to buy their houses and we should make affordable housing available for those people but I begin to get a bit confused by the social versus cost-rental talk.

I am for anything that helps to solve the problem, but I also get a little annoyed and frustrated. Bringing it down to brass tacks, I am dealing with three people who have been knocked off the housing list because they do overtime. They have to do it to pay the rent. They do not want to do it or work Saturdays, but they have to. It is disgraceful that they are being knocked off the list. Why is there an income threshold for social housing? Do the delegates think there should be a threshold? Anybody who wants to rent social housing from the State should be able to put his or her name on the social housing list. That would actually achieve a social mix. Instead, one cohort is put into social housing which is really the bottom of the ladder, while another slightly above it will be in cost rental housing. It is creating a social differentiation which would not be created if everyone who wanted to do so could go on the social housing list with payments based on income. Beyond that, there may be a cohort who want to buy but cannot afford to do so in the private market. Therefore, we need an affordable scheme that is genuinely affordable. The State is going to have to do this because the private market will not do so.