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

Arising from the programme for Government, there are commitments to hold constitutional referendums on the following matters: extending the franchise of presidential elections to Irish citizens living in Northern Ireland and overseas; housing; and Article 41.2 of the Constitution, that is, the referendum on the role of women in the home and gender equality. Consideration is also being given to other possible referendums. In June 2022, the Government reaffirmed its commitment to participate in the unitary patent system and to hold the necessary constitutional referendum to enable Ireland to do so. We are considering holding that referendum concurrent with the local and European elections next year. Under the programme for Government, the issue of the environment, including water and its place in the Constitution, is to be referred to a relevant Oireachtas joint committee for consideration. An amendment to the Constitution to provide for non-religious declarations as an optional alternative may be considered in response to the UN Human Rights Committee recommendations. Other possible referendums for consideration include amendments to the permitted number of Cabinet Ministers under certain circumstances, such as maternity leave, and, in the longer term and in light of the rising population, reforming Article 16.2 to cap the number of Members of Dáil Éireann.

The programme for Government includes a commitment to hold a referendum on the extension of the franchise for presidential elections to Irish citizens living outside the State. This is something I have strongly supported and continue to do so. In light of that commitment, the Thirty-ninth Amendment of the Constitution (Presidential Elections) Bill 2019 was placed on the Dáil Order Paper by the Government in July 2020. The timing of the referendum is yet to be finalised. There is considerable complexity involved, both in registering people to vote in Northern Ireland and overseas and in organising elections in other jurisdictions. However, it is something we should do and we are minded to do it concurrent with the next presidential election in 2025.

Deputy O'Callaghan asked about funding of respite services. There has been a considerable increase in such funding in recent years, with new respite centres opened in almost all community healthcare areas. However, we are running into real difficulty in finding people to staff those centres, given we are now beyond full employment. I am not fully aware of the details of the specific service in north Dublin to which the Deputy referred. If he passes the details on to me, I will bring them to the attention of the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, and we will see what can be done. Generally, the real struggle in providing respite services in the past year or so has been in finding staff, not finding the money to pay them.

Regarding the referendum on housing, we are awaiting a proposed wording from the Housing Commission. I understand the commission is still deliberating on that. When we have the wording, the next step is to consider it. As is always the case with the Constitution, we have to be careful what we put into it. Once something is in the Constitution, it is the courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, that determine what it means, not those of us elected to serve in this House or in the Seanad. It is important to get the wording right. I agree with Deputy Boyd Barrett that it will not in itself solve the housing crisis, but it could help if it tips the balance in favour of building more homes. For my part, any amendment to the Constitution on housing that does not make it easier to build more homes would not really be one worth supporting. There is no point in giving people the right to take legal action to get compensation if we are not providing a legal right that makes them more likely to get a house. I would like to see wording that actually makes it easier to build more homes in this country. An amendment on those lines would be very helpful.

In the past, the whole idea of property rights being a constitutional barrier to our doing what we want to do has been overstated. First, properties do not have rights; people who own property have rights. However, those rights have always been limited by the common good and they did not prevent us from bringing in things like zoning laws, compulsory purchase orders, property taxes, derelict site levies and rent pressure zones. All of those things have been done and they have not been struck down on constitutional grounds. The idea that the important property rights that exist in the Constitution prevent us from doing things has been overstated in the past.

See this speech in context