The recent National Economic and Social Council (NESC) report, Housing in Ireland: Performance and Policy, calls for an increase in the size of the social housing stock to 200,000 by 2012. It is at last a recognition that this stock in Ireland is at too low a level for a modern economy, writes Donal McManus
It is the NESC's first examination of housing policy since 1989, and should provoke greater discussion on the instruments needed to create a more balanced housing system.
The NESC, consisting of representatives of the social partners and Government appointees, has produced a thorough analysis of housing, and concluded that Ireland has indeed developed a dynamic but unbalanced housing system.
Underpinning its recommendations is the need to have sustainable integrated housing developments, and it is clear from the report that land-use policy is now a central element of housing policy.
But, although the NESC makes recommendations on issues such as land management and tax and subsidy arrangements for housing policy, the recommendations on social housing are much more definitive.
The context must be clearly appreciated. The social housing stock in Ireland, comprising local authority, voluntary and co-operative housing sectors, stands at just over 127,000 homes for rent, one of the smallest in the EU.
Ireland can boast that it has one of the highest levels of private housing output in the EU, building in 2004 17 new homes per 1,000 people. Yet it has also one of the lowest EU outputs of social housing, at fewer than two new homes per 1,000.
The NESC recommendation to increase the size of the sector by 73,000 new homes from 2005-2012 is both achievable and realistic.
However, it is essential that in any expansion of social housing groups such as the disabled, homeless and elderly are adequately catered for. Indeed the provision of social housing is only one element for these vulnerable groups as they may often require appropriate social and care supports to help them lead independent lives.
Social housing is an element of housing policy that often requires responsibility from a number of Government Departments, but ad-hoc arrangements have often characterised ineffective planning and funding mechanisms.
Indeed, the expansion of social housing will be key to meeting other Government objectives such as the national homeless and disability strategies where access to housing and accommodation will underpin other objectives such as access to appropriate health services.
So why, when the last estimation of housing needs found 48,000 in need of social housing, has the sector been overlooked?
Significant capital resources have been invested by the State in social housing since the start of the National Development Plan in 2000. Yet some of this increased capital funding has been absorbed in higher tender prices and increased land costs, the downside of the buoyant construction industry.
Although there has been an increase in the output of social housing since 2000, it has not been in any way commensurate with the increase in private output, with social housing struggling to climb above 10 per cent of the total.
In addition, the need for social housing may have been unfortunately masked by the dramatic increase in the number of rental units which have been made available in the private rented sector in recent years.
With a shortage of social housing many more low-income households have availed of the demand-led rent allowance to find accommodation in the private rented sector. Unlike the construction of social housing, the use of the rent allowance to accommodate low-income households does not incur large upfront expenditure for the State.
Many EU countries face a similar policy dilemma - whether to focus on "bricks-and-mortar subsidies" to build more social housing, or to use personal rent subsidies for housing low-income households.
Usually the prescribed dose from housing experts is to have a "balanced mix" of subsidies, but it is apparent that bricks-and-mortar subsidies do increase housing supply whereas personal rent subsidies do not.
The NESC report comes down on the side of the increased need for bricks-and-mortar subsidies, specifically indicating that an extra €500 million would be required each year until 2012 based on current levels of capital expenditure.
An important NESC recommendation is on the need for active land management, including land for enhanced social and affordable housing programmes. Active management is essential as the first stage in the delivery of social housing.
While a significant amount of State land has been already identified for affordable housing as part of the commitment in the Government's national agreement, Sustaining Progress, to build 10,000 affordable homes, a similar initiative has yet to be developed for the social housing sector.
The NESC report does a service in elevating social housing to a much greater priority. One must remember that the ultimate success of any housing system should not be measured solely in the number of new houses provided in any one tenure but in having a suitable range of options for all the population.
We need a new plan for social housing incorporating the recommendations by NESC which would help to address the imbalance in the housing system. Increased capital resources, dedicated land for social housing, streamlined access to capital funding, and integrated policy across Government Departments could form the basis of such a plan.
Donal McManus is executive director of the Irish Council for Social Housing (ICSH) and president of Feantsa, the EU representative body of homeless organisations