Rebecca Moynihan (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentation today and their background work on this. I have a couple of questions on how the wording was arrived at and what is included in it. Did the group consider including "security of tenure" in the wording? "Security" and "adequacy" can be two separate things. Did the group give consideration to that? If so, what were the reasons it was decided to go with the more general wording? Did the group consider things such as proportionality to income? One can have adequate housing that is not proportionate to income and one can then be left with income inadequacy in other areas.

Of the 83 constitutions that protect the right to housing, could Ms Keatinge provide a couple of examples of court-directed interventions? What has been the effect of those constitutional protections? There is a good mini-series that came out last year called "Show Me a Hero". There was a federal court-directed construction of public housing in that. This happened in Yonkers, New York in the 1980s. I would be interested in that type of example. In terms of protection of housing in a constitution, what has the outcome of that been? Have there been court directions to build public housing or just to facilitate an environment in which housing is built? Is there an over-reliance on the private sector in that, as sometimes happens in Ireland?

In more general terms, what actions do the witnesses think could have been taken in this country over the last number of years that have not been taken because of what the witnesses consider overly restrictive interpretation of the legal advice? I am particularly interested in the area of a more general eviction ban, not in the context of a pandemic, and also in the area of rent caps and rent freezes. Many people will argue that Blake v. Attorney General was not about rent freezes and that it was a particular judgment which does not mean there is a blanket ban on rent increases.

I am also interested in the area of legislation to back up the amendment because that has worked successfully in other referendums we have had in terms of killing the more vexatious arguments that can come out. We have even heard such arguments in this room today relating to an 18-year-old demanding a house to buy for themselves. I have concerns that some arguments could be made that this could become a developer's charter. A developer could take the State to court saying he or she should be able to build 30 storeys because this will provide housing. We have heard developers use the housing crisis in their arguments to create developers' charters. They said strategic housing development, SHD, would give us many housing units and we have not seen that happen.

Like Deputy O'Callaghan, I would like to hear about the next steps. What would the witnesses like to happen following this meeting? As Deputy Ó Broin said, previous committees have discussed this issue. How do the witnesses think we should proceed?