Mr. Wayne Stanley:

We are hoping and anticipating that the Housing Commission report on the right to housing will come up with a proposed wording and something we can progress. That would strengthen the constitutional position and help us to bring forward some of the solutions that are required.

In response to the original question around the moratorium, there are two sides to the debate about extending it. One relates to the capacity of the State to communicate with landlords and reassure them. Landlords understand as well as everyone else that we are in the midst of a crisis. One of the egregious parts of lifting the moratorium because it was a safety net that was going to impact landlords, instead of extending it while we ramped up the safety net, was that it put the pressure on the shoulders of people who were in imminent risk of homelessness as opposed to putting it on back on the State to deliver on what it said it was going to deliver on. When we talked about it, we argued that rather than setting a timeframe, the Government should set delivery targets against which the moratorium would be lifted, and that the delivery should be rolled out as quickly as possible so that when the moratorium is lifted, it is lifted for good. In that way, at least the majority of the most vulnerable would be protected. That is the way the State should look at its duty.