Professor P.J. Drudy:

Yes. Having the right built in would not guarantee anything. However, it would compel or influence the Government to take the matter seriously. It would change the philosophy, which is the fundamental issue. As Deputy Coppinger mentioned, the Constitution has two items at Article 42 or 43 - I keep forgetting which and the wording is escaping me - under which the State would be entitled in the interests of the common good to take particular actions. The Constitution is not bad as it stands. The other key point is that the State can intervene in the interests of social justice. I believe that the phrase used is "for the exigencies of the common good". I disagree with the former Minister, Deputy Kelly, that we need a new Constitution to be written. As members know, constitutional change is difficult to achieve. Once there is a referendum, my God, all sorts of cans of worms are taken out and thrown around. Legislative change is much easier because you people are in charge. One could introduce legislation tomorrow morning that enshrined the right to housing in legislation. Therefore, if someone is on the streets for a long time, the State would be compelled to take action of one kind or another either by providing local authority housing as Deputy Durkan mentioned or by ensuring that the person had a private rented situation at the right price, standard and security of tenure. The State would be compelled, cajoled, encouraged or whatever the word is to do the right thing.

The constitutional red herring has been thrown about since the early 1980s. I became embroiled in planning issues and so on in 1981 or 1982 and the constitutional protection of private property was thrown about constantly to the effect that "We must not interfere with private property." However, there are already two articles in the Constitution. In a 1982 Supreme Court case, a judge specifically referred to the need to take those two articles into account. Therefore, the courts would be sympathetic to the right to housing in legislation. I do not believe that there would even need to be a constitutional change. I hope I have answered the Chairman's question.