Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for being here at short notice and for the opening statement. Part of the reason a number of committee members wanted to do this session is that, while we accepted there was a need for Part 2 to be introduced before the break for Christmas, some of us were surprised at the cost-rental elements coming in. It is not that we are against them in principle but some of these are important areas that probably need more scrutiny than waiving pre-legislative scrutiny would allow. This allows us to almost do a bit of pre-legislative scrutiny but without calling it that. It also helps us to decide whether we want to table amendments in the Seanad. I will come back to that.

I have a couple of questions on the legislation and a couple of broader questions. I will start with Dr. McManus with regard to Part 2. The original legislation obviously required a formula of words to be put in the constitution. The sector had years to do that and could not or did not do that. I am not so interested in why that happened. That does not really bother me. What is the actual material consequence for approved housing bodies for not having that wording in their constitutions? Does it make any difference? I presume, if the wording was very prescriptive, that whoever drafted it thought it was important that it should be in the constitution. In the view of Dr. McManus or members of the Irish Council for Social Housing, does it make any difference at all or is there a reason or consequence for which the verbatim wording is not now required?