Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The amendment seeks to do what the very eminent Deputy O'Dowd proposed, and what Deputy Cian O'Callaghan and I are seeking to do, which is to introduce a six-month ban on evictions.

I want to briefly address the issue of the Constitution and the advice of the Attorney General. As you will know as a legal professional, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, there is not a unified school of thought on the interpretation and the use of the Constitution. There is one eminent school of thought, and the current and previous Attorneys General are part of that school, which takes a very restrictive and conservative interpretation of the Constitution but, increasingly, legal professionals and legal scholars, including some of the most eminent young scholars writing about the Constitution and property rights, take a much more permissive and progressive view. Their view, which they base on the recent Supreme Court rulings on property rights, in particular on Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000, up to the present, is that the Constitution provides for a much wider interpretation and therefore could allow the Oireachtas much greater scope in limiting property rights where there is a good reason to do so, in particular in terms of how the Constitution prescribes such limitations according to principles of social justice and in the common good. I can think of nothing more socially just than preventing homelessness during a pandemic, and I can think of nothing more in the common good than protecting those families most at risk of homelessness.

I have to say, and this is not a criticism of the current Attorney General in his professional capacity, that one can tell a lot about a Government by the Attorney General it appoints. The question is whether it appoints a more conservative, restrictive Attorney General in terms of constitutional practice or those who are more permissive. Contrary to what Deputy McAuliffe said, it is not that politicians argue for one thing in opposition and then realise it cannot be done in government, it is that when progressive parties get into government, they ensure the legal advice they get is in line with their objectives. Ultimately, the Supreme Court decides. Nobody in this House and no holder of the Attorney General's office arbitrates on the Constitution. As that is something ultimately that is done by the Supreme Court, I do not accept the argument that it would be unconstitutional to have such a ban. I respect the fact that the Attorney General has a different view. There are many eminent legal professionals and scholars with the same, if not more, experience as he has who would support my argument and on that basis, I am pressing the amendment.

See this speech in context