Mr. David Joyce:

I will deal with two of the questions before my colleague, Ms Kerin, responds to some of the other points. I will deal with the last question first. I believe there is clear discrimination given the definitions used in the housing legislation. Across the various housing supports currently offered by housing providers, namely, local authorities, those in receipt of supports are treated in different ways. Housing authorities come under the definition of a service provider for European equality legislation and even under the Constitution. There is an expectation of equality before the law. Distinctions are clearly being made between various recipients of housing supports who qualify. The clearest discrimination exists between HAP recipients and local authority tenants.

I noted that legal action had been taken on equality grounds and non-discrimination grounds in other jurisdictions. I mentioned a case from Canada and I see similarities in that case and what is occurring in our system. Certain demographics will rely on one type of housing support. If memory serves, in the Canadian case it was primarily single parents and women who were reliant on one particular type of private support as opposed to other supports offered by housing authorities. In that case, it was successfully argued that there was an indirect discrimination against the recipient and the demographic in question. I see the same discrimination here and it is an issue we have examined within our capacities. It needs to be equality proofed under our domestic equality legislation and on the basis of constitutional rights and the right to equality before the law. There are issues in this regard and we will examine them. Lawyers in the equality area and generally should also examine them.

One of the first questions was on whether we need a change in the Constitution and if rights should be written into legislation. This comes down to a fundamental approach as to who we believe should provide housing and social housing. If we believe the State has this responsibility through local authorities, as housing providers, we do not necessarily need a constitutional change. However, we have made an ideological decision in recent years that the private sector will also be contracted into social housing provision. Having done this through the housing assistance payment and various amendments, we need a change in the Constitution to balance the rights of property owners with housing as a constitutional right. If we go down the road of excessive reliance on the private sector and private landlords, we will need a constitutional right to housing and a balance of the property rights of individuals with social housing recipients.

If the State returns to a more direct role in housing provision, the most appropriate approach would be to strengthen legislation and create a clear right in law. It is an ideological decision as to how we will provide social housing and housing to people who are qualified. A basic right that sets a bare minimum or floor, as someone described earlier, could be written into the Constitution. However, from a lawyer's perspective and from our perspective, the issue is who will be contracted to provide accommodation. If the State takes a more direct hand in this area through local authorities and housing bodies, it will not be necessary to make a change to the Constitution and strong legislation would be sufficient. If, however, we continue on the road we are on and maintain the provisions of the 2014 and 2009 Acts, under which social housing provision has been effectively subcontracted to the private sector, we will need to provide balancing rights in the Constitution. We are haunted by the ghost of Blake v.Attorney General and interference with housing and private property. We need a balance in favour of social housing and a person's right to shelter and a roof.