If we want young people to start families, the government must make houses affordable

The birth rate is worryingly low but, given the bleak economic outlook, it’s no wonder the next generation are in no rush to have babies

It’s been a while since I took much notice of what Pope Francis was up to. Being Catholic, of course I feel terribly guilty about that. But I hope (and it really does spring eternal) to redeem myself by agreeing wholeheartedly with his latest salvo against the increasingly puerile nature of Western culture which elevates pets above people.
Namely, there is no such thing as “fur babies”, it is biologically impossible to be a “dog mama” and if your hulking great Maine Coon could write, it would most certainly not send you a “Best Cat Dad Ever” card from Etsy.
If that’s triggering, chances are you need to grow up. Now, there’s nothing wrong with giving over house room to a tabby, or three, as I once did. I can’t imagine life without a faithful hound by my heel – who am I kidding? I mean sprawled across the sofa and, on chilly nights, under the duvet.
But never once have I confused providing creature comforts with parenthood. A clue: if it eats from a bowl on the floor, it’s a pet not a person. Ditto bottom-licking, slaughtering birds and the sundry other unspeakablenesses we affectionately overlook in animals but would (I sincerely trust) find monstrous in human companions.
The truth is that I had my first dog too early (at 25) and my first child too late (36). This was long before the vogue for hipster Frenchies and back then I was considered eccentric for taking on a little black rescue mutt called Betty when I should have been partying.
My then boyfriend (now spouse) and I didn’t consciously regard her as a child substitute. But it would be facile to insist the two life events are unconnected – not least because I have photographs of her wrapped in a pink feather boa. 
Here on middle-class civvy street, our mid-thirties might seem like a reasonable age to start a family – it being the purely theoretical point at which couples will be established in their careers and have their feet firmly on the housing ladder.
That’s what I did, and it’s possibly the reason why I needed IVF treatment to have my elder daughter. And there’s a six year age gap between my children that was not intentional. It took ever more elaborate interventions initially to conceive and then to carry my second child to term. As a result, I was 42 and tens of thousands of pounds poorer when my family was “complete”.
Would I wish that on my daughters? Absolutely not, if it can be avoided. But they aren’t simply going to take my word for it.
It’s a private decision, yes, but like it or not, state intervention is the only way to convince young couples to have babies (reframe the gurgling infants as future high-rate taxpayers if that helps).
Not only does female fertility and male sperm quality decline with age, many aspects of modern society have a detrimental impact on the ability to reproduce (noise pollution is the latest source of concern). A worry, but there are other, more obviously pressing and practical factors at play; the cost of housing, the cost of living, the cost of childcare.
Government policy is the only way to tackle the elephant in the room. It was depressingly inevitable that the new Labour regime would target inheritance tax, but my daughters will need somewhere to live long before my metaphorical grave is robbed.
Earlier this year, it was revealed that a quarter of people in England – around 14.1 million people – said insecure housing had led them to put their lives on hold. Among adults under 35, the figure rose to a staggering 40 per cent.
Is it any wonder? In the 12 months to April, the cost of private rents in the UK increased by 8.9 per cent, way above consumer price inflation at 2.3 per cent. Where I live in London, demand far outstrips supply.
My 22 year old, who has (reluctantly) returned home after graduating from university, occasionally scrolls through accommodation to let online. £1,000 seems to be the going rate for a horrible room in a grotty house-share – bills not included. Gulp.
An Ipsos poll in June reported that seven in 10 people in England support introducing rent caps for the private sector to ensure that rents do not rise by more than the national inflation rate. Two thirds backed the expansion of social housing to include those in work and on low incomes. Rent controls are not part of official government policy, but will the government seize the nettle and take some sort of action?
Frankly, it better, and soon. Otherwise, we will look back at the current flagging birth rate of 1.49 per woman – the lowest since records began in 1939 and well below the 2.1 needed to maintain the population – with the roseate nostalgia of a golden age.
Rent controls are a much-disputed area and have not had a great innings here in Britain – post-war, landlords sought to claw back profits by neglecting running repairs and allowing properties to deteriorate, to the detriment of tenants.
The very real fear is that such could happen again; draconian rent controls would reduce investors’ appetite and viability, discourage investment and lead to a decline in the overall quality of housing.
But things cannot go on as they are. There must be a way to house our children so they can rear our grandchildren.
Pope Francis has previously castigated as “selfish” those couples in the West who prefer puppy love to having babies.
But is it an active choice? As births plunge from Italy to Japan (for both countries the rate is 1.2) the admonitions of a celibate religious leader or, indeed, “do as I say not as I did” mothers like me are never going to tip the balance.
Unless we somehow curb the high cost of housing for individuals, it is society as a whole that will pay the ultimate price.