On Thursday the United Nations Human Rights Committee issued a serious condemnation of this State. This is the first opportunity we have had to hear from the Taoiseach directly about how he intends to respond. The human rights committee found Ireland's laws subjected Amanda Mellet to severe emotional and mental pain and suffering by denying her access to abortion services in Ireland. It found that ban violated her right to freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. It is now instructing this State to amend its law on voluntary termination of pregnancy, including if necessary the Constitution, to provide effective timely and accessible procedures for pregnancy termination in Ireland.

It also wants an assurance that health care providers currently operating can supply full information on safe abortion services, something Irish people thought they had voted for in referendums, but which the Taoiseach's previous Government undermined in the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act with criminal sanctions. That information includes the abortion pill, which is currently being denied to women by doctors because they are fearful of the consequences.

Will the Taoiseach apologise to Amanda Mellet and commend her on her bravery in going public and exposing her personal situation? She does not simply want an apology. She did this for a reason: to bring about legislative change in Ireland not only for her situation but for all women. She did it to end the hideous practice of sending women out of the country for a health service that they need right here.

Every time this topic comes up the Taoiseach and his chorus of Ministers wring their hands and utter the refrain that it is highly complex and sensitive, etc.

Every other EU member state deals with this issue. Most states around the world deal with it. People in many of them do not have the luxury of a Ryanair aeroplane out of the country to deal with it. The states that seem to have the most difficulty in dealing with the issue of abortion tend to be dominated by the Catholic Church, states such as Ireland and Brazil, which is gearing up to punish women even more. In the case of Ireland, it is simple; we need a referendum to repeal the eighth amendment. If the Government does not move very quickly, the Anti-Austerity Alliance and People before Profit will introduce a Bill to do so in the autumn, giving organisations and individuals time to lobby Deputies intensely to campaign for the passage of the Bill.

For years the Taoiseach has not listened to women telling him about this human rights abuse. Will he listen to this international human rights court? Having been told to move on this issue, is he still seriously suggesting he will continue with the charade of a citizens' assembly, which is a three-way process to kick it down the road? I wonder how certain members of the Government are feeling, not the ones of long-standing who have continually voted for this abuse of women but the newer members who have gone very quiet. Some, we were told, went into the Government to seek the repeal of the eighth amendment, but we have not heard a peep out of them in the past five days.

This is another distressing case, one of many that have come to light during the years. I would like the Deputy to understand that I listened to the women involved very carefully in the case of the Magdalen laundries, an issue which had gone on for over 60 years and nobody had done anything about it. I listened to women as part of the LGBT group who expressed the fear, loathing and frustration they felt because of the lack of courage shown by all previous Governments in dealing with the marriage issue. Together with our colleagues in government, I allowed for the people to make their decision in a referendum.

In this case I have read the report and this morning informed the Cabinet that I would bring a memo to the Government next week to initiate the citizens' assembly which I committed in the programme for Government to set up within six months of the Government being formed. I intend to bring the memo to the Cabinet next week and the first item to be reflected on by the citizens' assembly will be the eighth amendment. It would be pointless to rush into a constitutional referendum unless there was a realistic consensus on whatever change might be recommended. It is prudent and proper for ordinary people from around the country, based on geography, gender, age and so on, to be involved in giving their reflections on the issue that has arisen in the Mellet case and many others. The Deputy is aware that where a woman travels abroad to procure an abortion, the HSE provides post-abortion medical and counselling services and the crisis pregnancy programme also has an input. I committed in the programme for Government to having a citizens' assembly up and running within six months and we will bring the memo to the Government next week. Whatever emerges from it will be brought to this House and an Oireachtas committee with access to appropriate expertise. From this will come recommendations on whether to change. If there is consensus and people have to vote, they will have the right to vote according to their conscience. That is a process I do not want to see delayed into the far future, as some people allege. These are serious and sensitive matters that need to be reflected on. I will set up the assembly. Its first point of reflection will be the eighth amendment.

It is unbelievable that having received such a stern rebuke, the Taoiseach is going to continue with the delaying tactic of a citizens' assembly. He has spoken about listening to women in the case of the Magdalens - we could argue that one - and in the case of marriage equality but he did not listen to women when Savita Halappanavar died. At that time, rather than saying it was absolutely necessary to repeal the eighth amendment to protect the health of women, he proceeded to bring in a draconian law of which the likes of Donald Trump would be proud. He could only dream of imposing a 14-year jail sentence on a woman having an abortion or trying to help another woman have an abortion. The Taoiseach has said that it would be pointless to rush in but this has been debated and discussed for many years.

Nobody is suggesting that a referendum should take place tomorrow, as it is obvious that there should be a period of debate, but there is already a consensus. The consensus has always been that the eighth amendment should be removed from the Constitution on the basis that it should never have been included in the first place. It was sought by one group only. There has always been a consensus that the citizens' assembly here - the one to which we were all elected in recent months - should legislate following the removal of the eighth amendment. The only people who are striking a note of discord are the likes of the Taoiseach's Ministers, who are talking about putting something into the Constitution to replace the eighth amendment that would be equally problematic for many years into the future.

I do not think Deputy Coppinger or anybody else is entitled to judge the electorate that voted for the Constitution or that voted to amend the Constitution. My view is that if we were to decide to have a referendum to repeal the eighth amendment in October, it would not be passed. I will explain why. There needs to be a real discussion here. If we are going to attempt to remove this from the Constitution, people will want to know what we intend to replace it with. I have had problems with this genuine question. With respect, I do not accept from the Deputy that we should make a rush to judgment in this instance. The UN committee's verdict in this sensitive and distressing case is non-binding. It is not like the European court. It speaks for the distress caused to this good woman. As the Deputy knows, another case is being processed.

It is right and proper for us to follow the route of having a properly selected citizens' assembly that is able to do its business of reflecting on the eighth amendment and what it might mean. The assembly will consider what changes, if any, should be made to the eighth amendment and how they might be made. If we are to ask people to vote on this issue, at least we should be able to tell them what will replace the eighth amendment if they vote for its removal. People need to know the options and the consequences. I genuinely believe people have a right to be able to discuss these things. This matter divided Irish society for over 30 years. I ask the Deputy to believe me when I say it is not a question of a lack of courage. It is a question of understanding that the entire population has a responsibility and a role in this regard. It is not as simple as saying that a referendum should be held to take out the eighth amendment without saying what it will be replaced with.

That concludes Leaders' Questions. This is the first time we have used the clock for Leaders' Questions, in accordance with the new Standing Orders and procedures of the House. I have shown a degree of flexibility today but I would be anxious for Deputies to abide by the agreed time limits from tomorrow on. Three minutes are three minutes and one minute is one minute.