Mr. Adam Boyle:

I will come back on a couple of things. I direct Deputy Creed to pages 31 and 32 of the report. There are five key considerations as to what this right looks like in practice that have been detailed. Not all of them, in fact very few of them, are about going to court. It is about the impetus being put on the House. It is about a statement of values. It is also about the behaviour, for example, of local authorities when they know there is the potential backstop and where they have been shown there is a value system at play there.

The second thing I really need to say is it needs to be clarified that, as Dr. Casey said, this constant talk of compensation is a red herring. We are talking about declaratory relief wherein a person has been fundamentally failed. It could be a local authority that has failed to comply with its allocation scheme or a Government policy that is fundamentally failing to comply with the right of adequacy of housing. That is what we are talking about. It is declaratory relief. This is where we can compare, as Dr. Casey said, with the right to education, which is the clearest comparator to this recommended piece.

As to the word “adequate”, I direct the committee to the Housing Commission report and proposed wording for an amendment, page 41, which examines the definition of “adequacy” under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. There are seven pieces within that. This is not binding. It is international law. It would not be the first step for the courts to look at, but it has informed the definition of adequacy of housing in jurisdictions both within, and external to, Europe. The other thing is that if we accept Article 40A.1° then adequacy, as a legal term, will be informed by whether the policy and the type of housing being provided is such that it is facilitating the development of family, social and community relationships promoting the common good. The thing to note again is this is about the people making a statement in their document about the values they hold and putting the responsibility onto the House, which represents the people, to enunciate those values into policy. As for the focus on the idea of litigation, that should only take place, with this here, if the people’s representatives have so fundamentally failed individuals or families that they are forced to go to the courts. What the courts will do in that style is make a declaratory order that says the State has not complied sufficiently in this case, with this policy, in this local authority and a variety of different ways and send it back. That is what is happening here. It needs to be clarified and it is quite unfortunate there keeps being this talk about people going to seek compensation. It is a red herring.