Professor Colm O'Cinneide:

I always enjoy such interaction because when I was a law student and beginning my academic career, I used to be a sceptic about socioeconomic rights and consitutionalising them, so I am a convert, having thought and read a lot about it.

Consequently, I am always happy to share my journey with the committee. The major weaknesses of the negative arguments of not constitutionalising this come back to the fact that constitutions are important documents. They are supposed to steer the exercises of State power by all organs of the State. They are supposed to ensure that we the people provide a guidance framework for the organs of the State to exercise their powers. Therefore, what is in the Constitution is supposed to be important, because we have signed up to it and constitutionally endorsed it. If the Constitution contains a right to housing, it sends a significant signal. If the Constitution does not have such a reference, it is lacking that messaging. I know that may sound slightly intangible but this then becomes an important factor for courts and other bodies dealing with complicated issues about housing policy, questions of priorities and the scope of legal powers. If courts have to ask whether it is reasonable for the State to be taking this action to advance housing policy, their job becomes easier if the Constitution states something about the right to housing. The job of Departments becomes easier if a Minister can point to a right to housing in the Constitution. The jobs of committees, such as this, becomes easier if the Minister can be called in and asked what he is doing to implement a constitutional article on the right to housing. It becomes more crystalised and clearer. The absence of that, which is what the status quodoes not have, is a problem. The major concern with leaving things as they are, in not having a right to housing, is precisely the fact that it leaves a void in the Constitution.