Mr. Adam Boyle:

To come back to Deputy Buckley, we fundamentally believe in the need to build proper policy and legislation. The Housing Commission's larger report on this is very important and says the same. I direct the Deputy to the top of page 16. It is stated that where the right has been most successfully realised in other jurisdictions where such a right has been inserted into their constitutions, and among the jurisdictions examined in the report, the right to housing has been underpinned by broad political support, manifested in terms of legislative and budgetary commitments.

This is not an either-or situation. We fundamentally need policy, budgetary commitments, a plan and to clarify the constitutional point that has been discussed, namely the claims that there is no issue with private property rights, but that is being relied on consistently. An Oireachtas paper from when I was a year old determined that there is broad scope, which is noted in the commission's report, under Article 43 for the State to be able to make certain policies without necessarily interfering with the right to private property, yet a few years later that is still being used as a defence. That is one aspect . Let us not suggest that the majority report stating that the only thing we are doing is clarifying that point. Clarifying that point is important, in particular if we have had 30 years of not clarifying it.

We need to have this as part of the omnibus of approaches. It needs to be included as part of policy, which is pointed out on page 16 of the report. As Professor O'Cinneide pointed out, this is a possibility for a catalyst of change wherein we say that our values as a people are this and we need to create a floor below which people will not fall and a powerful policies that are going to fix this problem. As we have done with the right to education, where those policies and plans so fundamentally fail people there needs to be some way in which the State is told by the Judiciary that it has been insufficient with plans or an individual has been failed in a case. If we do not amend the Constitution, we do not get that ability and impetus. If we amend under Article 45, as suggested by the minority report, it is somewhat unclear how justiciable rights would work under that article. As Dr. Casey stated, theoretically it may be that it may work in a similar way.

While that may be a justiciable right, it is also being placed into an area wherein the Constitution has set out directive principles of social policy. They have never had an impact before, therefore we do not see how the impetus is created. Let us be clear. It is not an either-or situation; it is about an ability to do this as an impetus and a tool with which we can review the State where it fundamentally fails in its plans and policies.

The Deputy raises a really important point. The Housing Commission has a huge omnibus of information. We do not need more external experts coming in to redesign the wheel. There is plenty of information; we need to get the impetus to get this done.