The European Parliament’s HOUS Committee has taken an important step in strengthening Europe’s response to the housing crisis. The non-legislative non-binding report supports greater investment in public, social, cooperative and limited-profit housing, calls for stronger EU financial tools and recognises housing as a structural economic issue. At the same time, key safeguards on fiscal rules, funding conditionality and financial practices remain unresolved. As the final plenary vote approaches in March, the details will determine whether Europe’s housing ambition translates into long-lasting affordability now and for the generations ahead.
MEPs have strengthened calls for investment in public, cooperative, social and non-profit housing, and have openly recognised the scale of the social emergency. They also accept that parts of EU legislation are contributing to rising construction costs and should be reviewed. In doing so, the Parliament’s position broadly aligns with the Commission’s emerging Affordable Housing Plan.
On financing, the Committee supports reinforcing InvestEU and expanding EU-backed guarantees for housing in the next budget cycle. It also encourages Member States to redirect unused Recovery and Resilience Facility funds into housing investment, a move that could accelerate construction and renovation. At the same time, it calls on the European Investment Bank to improve transparency around its instruments and eligibility rules, addressing concerns that smaller public and cooperative providers struggle to access EU-backed capital.
Across these funding tools, there is visible and tangible progress.
However, the devil is in the details and several structural issues remain open.
Fiscal rules require more refinement
“The report states that public housing investment must remain consistent with EU fiscal rules. While this does not formally block investment, highly indebted Member States will face significant difficulty creating fiscal space for large-scale housing programmes,” Sorcha Edwards, Secretary-General of Housing Europe highlighted. Housing investment delivers measurable long-term economic and social returns, including greater labour mobility, lower welfare costs and stronger productivity. Public debt and deficit rules should better reflect these long-term benefits.
Member States face increasing pressure to raise defence spending towards 5 per cent of GDP and public budgets are tightening. Housing supports economic stability, reduces downstream social costs and underpins productivity. How fiscal frameworks treat housing investment will shape Europe’s capacity to respond to the crisis.
Public money, public outcomes
Another concern is the absence of a clear statement that public funding — including EU and EIB instruments — should be accompanied by strong conditionalities to ensure that public funds deliver public value and do not feed speculation. When grants or guarantees reduce financial risk, commitments to long-term affordability and reinvestment should be explicit. Without such safeguards, EU resources may lower risk without ensuring durable affordability.
Financial tools with social consequences
The report also refers to the role of listed real estate companies in unlocking capital and delivering large-scale housing. Greater clarity is needed on how such involvement would protect long-term affordability. Listed companies operate under shareholder obligations, and profit maximisation is central to their governance structures. Experience across European cities shows that tensions can arise around rent levels, maintenance standards and tenant security when financial returns dominate housing provision. Public, cooperative and limited-profit providers operate under different mandates that simply prioritise reinvestment and cost stability.
The encouragement of securitisation as a financing tool also requires careful design. Expanding capital flows can support supply, but financial instruments linked to primary residences require transparency and strong consumer protections.
The HOUS must go on
Continuity of parliamentary oversight is equally important. “The HOUS Committee has built up relationships, expertise and working methods that are essential at this stage,” Housing Europe President Marco Corradi insisted. “Bringing its mandate to an end now would disperse valuable institutional knowledge precisely when the implementation of the European Housing Plan requires coordination and political stability.”
With the Commission establishing a dedicated task force to ensure continuity in delivering the Plan, extending the mandate of the Special Committee would provide Parliament with a stable forum for oversight and structured dialogue during the implementation phase.
To be or not to be a New Housing Paradigm
The HOUS Committee has described its approach as pragmatic. Pragmatism requires clear incentives and accountability. Where public funds support supply, long-term affordability must be secured. Where developers benefit from subsidies or guarantees, reinvestment and affordability commitments should follow.
The test is simple. Will this report tilt the balance towards homes as a social infrastructure, or leave the field tilted towards housing as a financial asset?
Pragmatism demands that we choose the former.