Dr. Conor Casey:

As my colleague Mr. Boyle said, I put most of my focus on the Housing Commission wording but I find the minority wording interesting. Reasonable minds may differ but having regard to both, it is actually difficult to say that we could put a cigarette paper in between them. The way I understand it, and I think the minority disagrees with this reading of Article 40A, the focus on the right of access is about putting systems in place. It is not about individual, specific guarantees that mean people can sue and get a house. It is about putting in place policies, laws and so forth that are reasonably and cogently fitted to providing avenues and circumstances in which citizens can secure adequate housing. That looks a lot like putting in place a housing policy that meets the needs of citizens, that functionally seems just like adequate housing that is able too meet the needs of citizens and, in furtherance of that obligation, to take legislative and other steps to achieve its implementation, subject to judicial review. There are considerable similarities. As I said, I have focused on the commission's wording because it is valuable but I cannot see much difference between it and the minority report. That is because, unlike the minority, I see Article 40A as dealing with systems, policies and reasonable frameworks that are fitted to securing access to housing that meets citizens' needs. As I believe the focus is on systems, I do not see much of a difference between the two.