The human rights of women and girls are violated on a daily basis because of a constitution that treats them like child-bearing vessels. In the past week these words have been spoken about Ireland by the secretary general of Amnesty International. They were not about a Third World country or a member state of the European Union but about a state which, ironically, had just the first popular vote ever on same-sex marriage and had one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the world.

It is with regret that, despite many pressing issues, I have to use Leaders' Questions to bring this matter to the floor of the Dáil. We have fewer women here than in the Afghan Parliament, for example, and also fewer women among those who will bring these issues to the Tánaiste's attention. What will she do about the ongoing denial of women's human rights? A total of 7 million people are intervening in this country for the first time ever in an Amnesty International campaign, following a detailed booklet and report produced by it on this country. What is the Tánaiste's response to the report and doctors such as Peter Boylan who told Amnesty International, "We must wait until women become sick enough before we can intervene. How close to death do you have to be? There is no answer to that." What is the Tánaiste's response to women such as Lupe who was carrying a foetus with no heartbeat for 14 weeks and who had to travel to her home country of Spain to receive proper medical treatment? More generally, what is the Tánaiste's response to the many women forced to raise money to travel abroad and to those having abortions in their bedrooms with the abortion pill? The Amnesty International report is made much worse when another UN committee dresses down the country for a second time in two years and calls Ireland a developing country because of the unique relationship between church and State.

The Deputy should ask a question, please.

Despite the best efforts of some to muddy the waters, the United Nations clearly stated Savita Halappanavar would now be alive if there was abortion in this country for health reasons. My question is whether the Tánaiste will now admit that the Government and the Labour Party, in particular, made an error of judgment following that tragedy in 2013. Instead of the conservative option that the Government took, of restricting and criminalising women, it could have allowed a referendum to repeal the eight amendment on the grounds of being necessary to protect women’s health. In the light of the fantastic vote on marriage equality, the overwhelming desire is for social progress in this country. Will the Tánaiste do what she can in this regard? She cannot guarantee being in a future Government, but the Government could hold a referendum on this issue in the autumn.

On Amnesty International's report, I had an opportunity to meet at length in my office its secretary general, Mr. Salil Shetty, together with its officials, including the head of Amnesty International in this country, Mr. Colm O’Gorman. They presented the report to me, which I understand they also presented to a number of other members of the Government, including the Minister for Health. The report is extensive and the Deputy will be aware that it contains a number of recommendations. However, she must bear in mind that it seeks to address an issue everyone would like to see addressed, namely, fatal foetal abnormalities, in order that women who are carrying a much loved baby but who have been advised that the baby will not survive pregnancy would have an option of dealing with the issue. Many women who find themselves in this situation may wish to carry the baby to full term, while others will not. It is important that women have choices in that regard. That formed a significant part of the report.

Amnesty International also presented the report to the Dáil. There is less understanding internationally and the fact must be respected that the Irish people in a free vote, as was the case in all recent referenda, chose in their wisdom, whether the Deputy agrees with it, to insert the eight amendment into the Constitution. Therefore, the legal advice to the Government is that when the people express their view in a referendum, as they chose to do, the majority position prevails. I believe the Deputy disagrees with the legal advice, from what she said previously. She should remember that in the previous referendum on gay marriage 62% voted in favour, but there were also many people who expressed their disagreement with the proposition, as was their right. That is called democracy. If there is to be any change in the matters which fall within the remit of the eight amendment, it must be done by way of a further constitutional referendum to be put to the people. In that event, we must clearly set out, in a way that takes into account the best interests of women and babies, the framework with which we wish to replace it. Unlike the marriage equality referendum, this is not about inserting extra words into the Constitution but about removing from it a particular framework which was included by the people in their wisdom 30 years ago and replacing it with an alternative framework.

It is going to take a great deal of detailed work in the Labour Party. Speaking as leader of the Labour Party, we have had extensive discussions within the party and an extensive motion at conference dealing with the issue, but in terms of the medical and legal experts with whom we have spoken, including Dr. Boylan and other eminent doctors, we have a lot more work to do. However, it is an issue we are committed to addressing, as per our conference motion. The Government has addressed the issues we agreed to address in the programme for Government, namely, the X case and the A, B and C case. We will shortly receive some reports, as set out in the legislation, from the Minister for Health on current practices.

I thank the Tánaiste. She is over time.

The Government did not know about the cases that have come up since it came to power. The programme for Government can change. The Labour Party had no problem in changing its policy on many other issues such as water charges and cuts to child benefit. The Tánaiste met Mr. Salil Shetty, but fatal foetal abnormality is not the only issue that needs to be addressed. A very small section of women are affected by the position. We need full-scale change. I do not know what the dilemma is for the Tánaiste. The matter is simple. We should delete a wording that should never have been inserted in the Constitution in the first place. The Tánaiste referred to the decision of the people in a free vote. The Government reran the referenda on the Lisbon and the Nice treaties; therefore, the notion that something cannot be put to the population for a second time is ludicrous.

Will the Deputy, please, put her supplementary question?

Some 32 years later, one would have to be 51 years old to have voted in that referendum in 1983 and thus not even of child bearing age. If one were to distil all of the poll findings, they would show a majority in favour of holding a referendum. In fact, Labour Party supporters are most supportive, in that 80% of them are in favour.

This is Question Time.

Does the Tánaiste agree that young people have also changed their opinion and that they are the ones most impacted on? I cannot believe the Tánaiste is citing what happened in a referendum 32 years ago. It is ironic that she has singled out lone parents for attack since she came to power, given that the Government prohibits abortion. I will happily present her with a petition against the attacks on lone parents. Will she consider the position in which she is putting women because the single biggest group living in poverty includes lone parents?

It is rather unfair of the Deputy to single out lone parents in the context of abortion.

The Tánaiste singled them out.

I note that young people from primary and secondary schools are in the Visitors Gallery. The Constitution provides the legal basis on which the Dáil rests. It is appropriate that every Member of the Dáil should have respect for the Constitution which dates back to the 1930s. I doubt if there are that many people alive or serving in this House who voted on the Constitution. The vote took place in the early 1930s in a plebiscite.

With the help of the church.

The Deputy needs to indicate that the Socialist Party has some respect for the rights of the people of Ireland, whether or not she agrees with what the people of Ireland decide, if she is a democrat.

I do not agree with what was decided.

It is the right of the people, and whether or not she agrees with what the people decide on the eighth amendment, she should show some respect for their decision.

Minority rights matter.

I met Amnesty-----

Sorry, we are over time.

Archbishop McQuaid.

Would you please allow the Tánaiste to complete a sentence?

I met Amnesty at great length and we are having the Amnesty recommendations and report examined. Some of the proposals in the document do not reflect a complete understanding of the Irish Constitution and of its primacy and primary role in the future in changing issues in this area. The Labour Party has already had a very open and democratic debate and discussion on it. We voted against the eighth amendment to the Constitution and argued and recommended that people should not have agreed to the eighth amendment. However, we accept the verdict of the people until we have a situation in which we can put an alternative to them. The Socialist Party is very careful not to say what its alternative would be. If Deputy Coppinger wants a debate, she should set out what her alternatives might be.

To repeal it, to delete it.

She needs to set out her alternatives.

I have done so many times.

She has not set out any alternatives.

If the Tánaiste thinks she is gaining any votes she is wrong. She is alienating women.

This is a debating Chamber, not a shouting Chamber. Deputies have to speak through the Chair.

It would be nice if the Tánaiste answered a question occasionally.