Dr. Conor Casey:

To the first point as to what the remedy would be, someone would not be able to go into court and say they are entitled to priority over someone else on a housing list or entitled to a specific form of housing because that is not what the wording would provide for. The wording deliberately mentions access to adequate housing. The question would be whether there are proper policies, laws and regulations in place facilitating access. If the court believes that reasonable steps are being taken, notwithstanding delays, trade-offs and queues, then it is no dice and there will be no declaration. Even if someone does get a court to decide that the steps being taken are not reasonable and are not robust enough to vindicate the right of access to adequate accommodation, the remedy will be the declaration. It is a limited remedy. No one is saying this is a silver bullet.

The report is refreshingly candid, and correctly so, in stating that a constitutional amendment like this can only do so much. As with any issue, in order to see true progress, it will depend very much on this House and political will.

Where does the value come in? The value comes in because the court can act as a backstop. It can prompt political action when there has been unreasonable inaction. The courts have played this role in respect of at least three other constitutional rights and they have played a valuable role. In the 1990s there was a total lack of provision for primary education for children with special needs and disabilities. Litigation helped prompt serious political responses that put in what many people would say was imperfect but was the first attempt to make reasonable provision. The fact the court was there as a backstop was very important. It was similar with children who were at risk and in danger and the State had a duty to care for them. The courts coming in and saying the State had that duty and had to take steps was very important and helped kick-start policy responses. It was also similar with legal aid. The courts saying the system of legal aid was not such as to guarantee the right to a fair trial and the Government had to respond. In all these cases the court never dictated the outcome; it just said the steps the State had taken were not reasonable to vindicate this right and that it must try again and try a bit harder. That usually led to a valuable response. It is about keeping your expectations in line. If people think this is going to be a silver bullet that is not what it is going to do and they will always be disappointed. If they think it can make a modest, but valuable, contribution to an overall suite of responses, primarily coming from the political branches, that is where it can have value.