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

My four amendments in this grouping refer to the regional, spatial and economic strategy. One of them relates to targets for social and affordable housing with reference to the provision in the section regarding the location and provision of housing in any national or regional population growth targets. We propose to include reference to targets around social and affordable housing. This is critical. If we base our planning for housing purely on the number of houses we need and do not take into account the ability of people who live in that region to afford those houses, we will have a problem.

The State has always needed to subsidise the cost of housing for a significant section of our population. However, a school of thought based on neoliberalism took hold in the 1960s and 1970s that imagined we could just let the market rip and roll back on the provision of social and affordable housing that had been standard in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s in this country. Before this change, 30% to 40% of all housing built, and sometimes as much as half, was built by the State; that is, it was social housing. However, the proportion of social housing that was built at the height of the Thatcherite, neoliberal era reduced to single-figure percentages. That has been a total disaster. An awareness of this needs to be written into our regional, spatial and economic strategies.

If we look at average house prices now, approximately 70% of working people cannot afford them. Strategic plans must acknowledge that reality in terms of housing provision over the period of those plans. A plan must include an awareness that 60% to 70% of the people in the region in question will not be able to afford the average house price. If that is not part of the plan, it is not very good planning. The problem at the moment is that the 10% requirement for social and affordable housing is not enough. It is well short of what is needed in terms of subsidising the cost of housing.

I do not really agree with what Deputy Michael Healy-Rae has just said. However, it is true that if we want housing to be better insulated and retrofitted and less guilty of carbon emission and so on, that can increase the cost of the housing. There are ways of mitigating that. We will reduce energy usage, for example, by ensuring a house is well insulated. There are swings and roundabouts. However, such measures can increase the cost of housing. The fact remains that we still have to provide people with homes and it is better if those homes are well insulated in order to reduce energy bills and carbon emissions. As I said, the cost of housing is not affordable, in terms of what the market can provide, for 60% or 70% of people. If taking insulation and retrofitting measures increases the cost of housing, the planners need to acknowledge that. We must have housing for the people and they need to be able to afford it.

It is appropriate to have targets in that regard, whereby we look at the population and note the housing provision necessary to house that population and the proportion of that population who will never be able to afford those houses. Somehow, the State must ensure that the 60% or 70% of people currently being priced out of housing are accommodated. If that means State subsidies, then that is what must be provided. We are giving loads of subsidies to developers. There is corporate welfare for them. I see no problem whatsoever in subsidising ordinary people to put a roof over their heads. That is the logic behind that particular amendment.

We have also included amendments that strengthen the Government's provision in terms of climate and biodiversity obligations by providing that plans should be prepared consistent with our national and international climate obligations and pursuant to the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act. Our amendments are trying to be absolutely clear that plans should not just take cognisance of these matters but must be consistent with them in their preparation. Although there should be no conflict, if we do it right, there can, at times, be a conflict between meeting our obligations to protect biodiversity and reach our climate targets and providing the housing people need. We can do both but it requires planning, a real commitment and the resources and so on to get it right. We absolutely have to do it. If we do not protect nature and biodiversity and if we do not address the climate crisis, we will not be able to live on this planet at all. We will not be able to grow food and have the clean air and water we need to exist on this planet. It is possible to do those things but we must plan in order to do them right. We are proposing those amendments to ensure we are consistent with our obligations in a way that does not conflict with meeting our housing needs.

See this speech in context