Professor Gerard Whyte:

In relation to primary education, the wording used in the Constitution is that "The State shall provide for free primary education". We do not use that exact formula. We talk about the State recognising and vindicating this right to access adequate housing. What that means is that the State cannot be passive in relation to a housing crisis. It cannot sit on its hands and just decide that it will abdicate its responsibility to the markets. The State has to take some action to ensure everyone has access to adequate housing.

The State can do that, under our wording, in one or both of two ways. Clearly, the State could get involved directly in providing housing. The State did this historically in the past and continues to do it to some level, but the State could ramp up its efforts in that regard in directly providing. Equally, and here one has the analogy with the education clause, the State could support others, perhaps financially, in addressing the need for adequate housing. The obligation, though, is imposed only on the State, at least, directly. This referendum would not impose any direct constitutional obligations, in my opinion anyway, on third parties such as banks. As to whether the State would wish to see fit to legislate for such obligations, if the State saw fit to legislate for such obligations, this clause would protect that legislation but that would be a step beyond the referendum itself or beyond this constitutional clause.