Dr. Conor Casey:

I do not have much to add to that. On my reading of Article 40A, the concern is with a right of access. The commission report makes clear that it is concerned about putting proper plans, policies and frameworks in place to create avenues and circumstances conducive to access adequate housing. The proposal that would go into Article 45 in the minority report is also concerned about taking a systemic approach to it but it is the means by which housing that meets the needs of citizens can be promoted.

Looking at both of the proposals, the advantage of Article 40A is that one of the things that comes to mind is that there is continuity with the existing text and structure of the Constitution. The language in Article 40A(2) is of a piece with some of the most well-litigated provisions of the Constitution, such as Article 40.3, where it is guaranteeing "a right as far as practicable" and protecting and vindicating rights. Courts are familiar with that kind of language. It also refers to "pledge", which mirrors language in Article 40.1 on the protection of the married family. Courts have scrutinised these types of terms before and it would fit less awkwardly into our constitutional order than the language in Article 45, which is sort of alien - "progressive implementation" and things like that. That is not to say that it would be unworkable. It is just to say that if I was to give one reason I would prefer one over the other, it is that I would prefer continuity and congruity with the existing text and structure of the Constitution. There is merit in the Article 45 proposal, to be sure. It is that I just do not see what advantage it has over Article 40A. That is my position.