Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for attending the committee today. First, I wish to state my clear commitment to the right to housing and I am appreciative that it is included in the programme for Government. I am a little disappointed that we have had arguments perhaps being rehearsed here that were made by the previous Government about why this would not happen. This is a Government commitment and I believe all parties to the Government should be committed to championing it, and I hope that we can continue to do that in this committee.

My fear is this will pass but make no practical difference, so let us ensure that when it passes, it will have teeth.

I looked back at the document published by Mercy Law Resource Centre and the Trinity free legal advice centre in 2014, which is a really good synopsis for any members who wish to read about international examples. One of the biggest issues seems to be that of judicial activism. There is a fear that even if this referendum passed and a case was brought to court, and if the State pointed to the homeless assistance payment, HAP, homelessness hubs and emergency accommodation, the case would be lost and there would be no additional obligation. That would be a greatly missed opportunity. Given the State's failure to interpret the terms "public good" or "social justice" in the Constitution in an ambitious way, I am sceptical that it would do differently in this case. That is something we need to think about.

In the environmental area, we talked about moving away from individual change to systems change. Again, the proposed wording leans too heavily on individual change rather than systems change. Local authority members have said the real reason for many difficulties is private property rights. There cannot be a complete ban on evictions or rent increases because of property rights. None of the proposed wording would necessarily allow the Government to do that. We would put the obligation on the Government to provide housing but not give it the tools to balance that against private property rights. I am very concerned about the phrase "within its resources". I would like to remove that and to see how it could be teased out. Why was consideration not given to defining the common good in the context of a right to housing? Even if there is a balance and we still have to pay full market value to developers or property owners, which does not provide any affordability or enable us to deliver housing, that will not achieve what we want either.

We are leaning too strongly towards individual change. I think we should focus a little more on the interpretation of the common good in the context of providing housing, although I greatly appreciate our guests' work.