Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I take the point made by Deputy Sean Ó Fearghaíl about the difference between amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18 and the point about people being offered accommodation through the housing associations. This results in a dramatic change in respect of their opportunity to purchase in the future. I have heard that point several times. I refer to the point made by the Minister of State in respect of social renting. A third option is needed. I do not dispute some of the points made by the NESC report, which are valid and represent a good contribution. The local authority will continue and should continue to have a function and it should be a function where there is a large-scale option.

I do not agree with the notion that all Irish people want to own their homes. Most people want to have security of tenure and, if they are renting, they want to rent a home, particularly if there are children involved, where there is stability and where they can set down roots. Most people, particularly when children are involved, do not want to rent someone else's property when the latter has almost all of the control in respect of security of tenure. We must have a different debate about a third option.

It is probably good there will be a mixture of people renting within that kind of environment. However, where people have been allocated a house within a housing or voluntary association, the expectation had been there that if they wanted to, they could purchase that house at some point in the future. They did not have to take up that option, but it was available. If it is necessary to go back and talk to the larger housing associations to provide for this, which it appears it is, that should be done.

See this speech in context