Dr. Ronan Lyons:

I will be brief as I am conscious of time. One of the motivations behind the option the minority report chose was something in the majority report, namely that the Article 40 version was explicitly motivated as an individual right not a systemic solution. The report outlines the advantages of the systemic approach that we ended up choosing. This is a more desirable means, from one perspective, of addressing the question of housing in constitutional terms rather than as an individual justiciable right, owing to the complex policy and resource distribution questions the latter option could involve for the courts.

Instead, with an obligation to achieve long-term aims relating to housing, the courts could review whether the measures the State was taking to achieve those aims were a reasonable or proportionate means of doing so. The majority report said that this kind of approach can be equally criticised for shifting the focus away from individual need in terms of whether it is being adequately met by the State. When we wrote the minority report, it was our understanding that there was not necessarily a systemic element to the Article 40 proposal.

I am more than happy if our concerns are wrong, but I would rather that I understood that. We did not understand it the time. It seemed to be an individual approach rather than a systemic one. I am building on the previous contribution. I hope that might be helpful contribution to make.