Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

This area has a whole host of consequences and implications on both sides of the argument. On one hand, we need to increase the thresholds because of the implications of the cost-of-living crisis but I have given examples in the House on multiple occasions of where I believe the Government has contributed to cost of living increases, which we have seen throughout the course of 2022. Naturally, any increase in the cost of living will have the largest impact on those who are least well off in society. Those on lower incomes spend a higher percentage of their incomes on essential items such as food, transport and heating. When those things rise, those on the lowest incomes have to sacrifice something else to help to pay for their essentials. These essentials have all seen large increases in recent months, although thankfully the cost of petrol and diesel is easing at the moment, though no one knows how long it will last. Nonetheless, those on lower incomes will still find it a struggle to make ends meet.

This particular proposal to increase the income thresholds will have the most obvious impact on those who are currently just above the threshold to qualify for social housing. Over the past year or so, this cohort of people will have had their ability to save for their own house severely diminished. The added costs of house-building, through material and labour cost increases, also has an impact on the ability of people to buy or build their own home. We as a society and the Government need to examine why this has come to pass. Why are we in a situation where the person in what would traditionally have been described as a good job can no longer afford to buy what would traditionally have been described as an ordinary family home? There are major questions which cannot be addressed by piecemeal legislation or by tinkering around the edges. There are fundamental questions about the state of our country and the social contract which has developed over the decades since independence and is now broken.

People above the income threshold are being squeezed in every direction. They cannot apply for a social house and rents in many places are hoovering up any potential for discretionary spending or savings that a person might have. People just below the threshold are turning down certain jobs, as we have heard from many colleagues already, for fear that they may no longer be able to qualify for a social house. The Taoiseach previously told my colleague, Deputy Naughten, that the idea of people not being able to progress in work or get an increase in salary because they would be marginally over the social housing thresholds needed to be relaxed. The income limits for social housing have not increased in line with property prices, which have doubled over the last decade, forcing people to turn down work or face the prospect of homelessness. This has to be turned on its head. Our tax and welfare system must actively support people to return to the workforce in any capacity. Work must always be a better option than welfare in the first place. We should start there with a radical overhaul of the working family payment, both with regard to the exclusions and the rates of support, to always make it financially better for families to access employment regardless of their make-up.

On the other side of the coin, will an increase in income thresholds actually help anyone? It goes back to the analogy I used a few weeks ago with regard to the game of musical chairs. There are only so many chairs or, in this case, houses available. If we keep adding participants to the game, they might feel as though they have a chance of success, but the overall picture will simply show that there are still only the same number of participants who end up with a chair or, in this case, a house when the music stops. An increase in the income thresholds would place greater demand on social housing and will ultimately achieve little at the moment other than to increase the length of the waiting lists.

Regardless of what the thresholds are, the fundamental issue is that not enough houses are being built, either by the public or private sector. Plans to increase the number of available houses are wonderful but the physical reality is that house-building is not progressing quickly enough to satisfy the demand which has built up. Satisfying the demand involves the State building social homes but also the Government ensuring that the conditions of the market encourage private builders to survive and operate. This includes large developers but small builders are too often forgotten. They have been crucial to our house-building in recent decades but, unfortunately, many were driven out of business by the financial crash and have not exactly been incentivised or encouraged to get back into the industry. In fact, many of the Government's policies have had the opposite effect and have discouraged the small builder.

Overall, in light of the current circumstances, I agree that income thresholds should be increased, while recognising that the main issue is the lack of supply and the slowness with which that housing supply is being increased. While there is no shortage of schemes, most are only available if there are houses. Too many current schemes inadvertently increase the cost of building any housing unit. The planning policy dictated by the zealots in the Minister's Department means that the high-density developments are just not viable and will remain on paper rather than ever being built unless serious changes are undertaken.

See this speech in context