Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The priority list agreed by Government today creates indicative timelines for future referendums. The referendums very much flow from the Citizens' Assembly. The Citizens' Assembly did make a recommendation regarding economic, social and cultural rights, and I understand that this, as well as a proposal on housing, has been referred for further consideration to the Department of Finance. The proposal - at least, the indicative proposal - is to have a stand-alone referendum on the eighth amendment in May or June next year. That will very much follow on from the recommendations of the all-party committee that is considering the matter and which has a deadline to report by Christmas. Further referendums are to be held concurrent with the presidential election, whether or not the position is contested, in winter of 2018, dealing with women in the home, blasphemy and the possibility of plebiscites on directly elected mayors. Then, in summer 2019, concurrent with the local and European elections, referendums are to be held to extend the franchise to citizens abroad to vote in presidential elections and to liberalise the divorce laws on foot of Deputy Madigan's Bill.

I dislike the term "property rights". It implies that properties have rights. Properties do not have rights; individuals have rights. If one owns a farm, one has a certain right to deal with that farm, manage it and do what one likes with it. If one has a business, one has certain rights over that business.

If one has a home, one has a right to live in it. Of course, if one has an investment property and it is one's pension, one has certain rights to it too. When we talk about diluting or removing property rights, we should not make the mistake of thinking we are removing rights from properties; we are removing rights from people. I would like to understand better from those who advocate diluting those rights exactly which individual rights they want to take away from which individual people - specifically what and why.

Nonetheless, the protection of property rights in the Constitution can actually be over-egged. We have a vacant site levy. We brought that in notwithstanding property rights, and it is now in place. We have brought in the rent pressure zones, putting caps on rent increases. Again, some people said that was a violation of property rights but it turned out it was not. It is also the case that local authorities can use CPOs to CPO vacant properties and, in fact, Louth County Council has done that on dozens of occasions. People often hold up property rights as an excuse for things not being done but we have shown, on a number of occasions, that we can do those things without breaching property rights.

See this speech in context