Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Tuesday, 3 November 2020

Joint Oireachtas Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government

Referendum on Right to Housing: Discussion

Photo of John CumminsJohn Cummins (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for coming before the committee to discuss this important topic. I respect their bona fides. As a politician of 11 years and a former member of Waterford City and County Council who has dealt with many housing projects, I share their goal that everybody should have secure and adequate housing. However, as a committee it is our job to interrogate that and to ask the hard questions. I preface my questions with those remarks.

I would like to know a little more about the potential impact of such a move and a referendum, assuming it is passed. For example, I would like to know what the witnesses consider to be secure and adequate accommodation. Is it accommodation leased for one year, two years, five years, ten years or on a lifelong basis? Is it a small, cramped apartment or a house that is suitable for a person's current or future needs? If I am an 18-year old who cannot afford to purchase a house, which any young person I know would not be able to do, can I potentially take a case against the State for breaching my constitutional rights in terms of it not being able to provide me with a home, presuming that this referendum is passed?

I have read the opening statements and I note the reference therein to "within available resources" being stated in the proposed amendment. Would the witnesses agree that is very subjective? One could argue, if taking a case against the State on these grounds, that there were plenty of resources available to the State or the Government of the day but, perhaps, they chose not to apply them in the area of housing. Government must make these very difficult decisions at budget time and all of the time, and it may choose to put additional resources into health over housing or into community over another area. As somebody taking a case against the State, I could argue that the resources were plenty but the State chose not to use them in that manner. Are we opening up the State to potential significant legal costs into the future? I would welcome the witnesses' opinions on those matters.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.