Ms Rosemary Hennigan:

There is a benefit to having a slightly more general wording in that our understanding of these things develops over time. If a provision in the Constitution is very specific there is a risk that we are essentially stuck with that wording and an understanding of that wording which is very much rooted in a time and place. The Constitution, we hope, extends over the decades.

Consequently, there is much to be said for leaving some scope for developing that language, in particular through legislation where making changes is much easier. Along with what Professor Whyte mentioned, that is why we went with this general wording.

Regarding what actions could have been taken that have not been so far, I do not need to tell the housing committee about the chilling effect of Article 43 on many measures that might have been introduced, for example, rent freezes, rent caps and anti-eviction measures for families that would otherwise be homeless. A number of policy and legislative proposals over the past few years from Private Members and the Government have stalled, usually on Second Stage, over constitutional concerns. There are two problems with that. First, we do not always see that constitutional advice. Second, we never get into a discussion on the substantive policy itself and whether it would make a difference to the housing crisis and the people affected. Moving us past that point will have a significant benefit in terms of getting to grips with the issues and asking ourselves whether rent freezes would make a difference and do they constitute a substantive policy that we should pursue instead of stopping short at the initial point of it being unconstitutional due to Article 43.