Today marks the fifth anniversary of the repeal victory, a categoric and historic victory of a campaign that was run and led in particular by young women but by men and women throughout this country, the length and breadth, and east to west. That campaign really forced the politicians to sit up, wake up and smell the coffee. What people said at that time was, mostly: give women a choice and do not force them to travel aboard.

Five years on, we have the review from Ms Marie O’Shea. Marie O’Shea's review is categoric and clear in the recommendations that it makes. Tonight, we will bring a Bill before the Dáil to reform Ireland's abortion laws and, coincidentally, our Bill is mostly in line with the recommendations of Marie O’Shea. They include the following points: women whose health has been harmed by continuing with a pregnancy are being forced to travel abroad; two out of every five women who need abortion care because of foetal anomaly are being forced to travel abroad; teenagers who are less likely to access abortion within the rigid 12-week limit because they are less likely to realise they are pregnant due to erratic period times, and so on, are being forced to travel abroad; migrants are being left behind, particularly those who are undocumented asylum seekers, who face major barriers, including language barriers and difficulties; and women living with domestic abuse and disabled persons are being left behind.

We know from Marie O’Shea's report that around 200 women and girls every year since repeal have been forced to travel. Our response to that Bill is for the Government to try to put an amendment in the Bill to say “Park it for 12 months and we will look at it in 12 months time." During that 12 months, it is likely that at least another 200 women and girls will be forced to travel abroad. What baffles me is that it is the Government that commissioned the review. It was quite sensibly put into the legislation that a review must happen. The Minister, Deputy Simon Harris, at the time argued that we need to see in real time how this legislation actually plays out, is it fit for purpose and does it do what repeal has asked this country to do. It does not, and that is clear from the review, yet the Government is willing to park it for another 12 months. It is quite clear and very transparent that this is veiled cover for the people on the other side of the House not to touch this issue until we are facing into another election, and that this Dáil does not have the courage to face up to the results of its own commissioned review. It does not make sense why the Government would commission a review and then not look at it, take it seriously and deal with the recommendations within it. Our Bill attempts to do that but the Government is attempting to kick for touch and give cover to those in the Cabinet and those in the parties across the House who do not want to touch this issue, who never wanted to touch it, but were dragged kicking and screaming by a mass movement from below.

I would like the Tánaiste to address the issue of that amendment which will kick for touch and how disgraceful we believe it is that the Government thinks it is okay for hundreds more women and girls to have to travel over the next year.

First, I would not agree with the Deputy’s assessment of the Government's position. I would argue that the Irish people did take a fundamental decision on the repeal of the eighth in a referendum, but that followed a significant level of constructive engagement, informed engagement, and a listening exercise within the then Oireachtas Committee on Health – it may have been the Committee on Health and Children at the time. Many people made presentations to that Oireachtas committee, which was considering the then Citizens Assembly's recommendations, and proposals emerged from that Oireachtas committee which were then put to the people. I would argue that that process, which I thought was respectful of people's positions, and was a substantive process and an informed process, led to a very significant majority, ultimately, in the context of a referendum to repeal the eighth amendment.

As part of that, we put legislation before the people saying to the people what we intended to implement if the referendum was passed. We have been true to that in that we commissioned the review and the review has now been published. We are doing exactly the same as we did prior to the referendum and we are referring it to the Oireachtas health committee. We not putting it on the long finger but it does need examination as to the legislative aspects. There are significant operational recommendations in the review which are now being progressed by the Health Service Executive because they relate to operational issues, but the issues with the report itself deserve significant, substantive and informed consideration by the Oireachtas before legislative proposals are contemplated. I think that is fair. I think it is in line with how we handled this issue prior to it going to the referendum.

In my view, the immediate priority must be to expand the availability of termination services in hospitals and then the uneven geographic spread of GPs providing the service. I understand the HSE is saying to us that it will significantly increase the number of hospitals that are obliged under legislation to provide the services and that, to me, would be a more immediate priority, along with ensuring that we have greater, more geographical coverage of the provision of such services within the country itself.

I understand that you do not turn a ship around overnight but, seriously, it took us decades to get to the point where we had a referendum to repeal the eighth. The review was commissioned, it was delayed in being published, and it is categorically clear in its recommendations. For example, the criminalisation of abortion in the law is the only aspect of medicine that is criminalised - the only aspect. That is something that could be dealt with. The three-day wait, which I have read out as forming a barrier to the most marginalised and the most vulnerable women and girls, could be dealt with overnight. The health committee is having two sessions before the recess with Marie O’Shea and other witnesses, and then they will come back to the Oireachtas. Why does the Government need a whole year to consider what is clearly a review that was published at the behest of the Government?

Marie O’Shea and the researchers are much better equipped than any single one of us to deal with these issues. Let us remember that how they constructed their research was by looking at the lived experience of people who tried to access the service and the lived experience of those who tried to deliver it, including doctors who operate under the chill effect of being criminalised with a sentence of up to 14 years. They are things that could be dealt with immediately. The Government is definitely kicking to touch on this. There are sensitivities in the Government, like the Taoiseach saying “I am uncomfortable with this”. It is not about his discomfort or anybody else's discomfort; it is about health and the delivery of proper healthcare in this country for women and girls who need it.

I genuinely believe that the approach we took in the referendum was the correct approach. This is a sensitive issue and people have different views on this issue, and those views go deep with people. The idea that you have an Oireachtas committee to look at this in a detailed way should not be a surprise or should not be attacked, and you are attacking that. Through the Chair, I am not looking for confrontation-----

I am not attacking it. My colleague is on the committee.

Please, Deputy. The Tánaiste, without interruption.

Through the Chair, I am not looking for confrontation. I am not attacking anybody's motivations or bona fides in respect of this.

However, I respect the fact that this is a legislative assembly, with people who will potentially be asked in due course to vote on or have a view on legislation relating to this area and the very least that should happen is that the report should be examined by the Oireachtas. I find it extraordinary that Deputy Smith is saying that those who are working on the legislation should do no examination at all, should do no consideration or discussion of it and just simply sign off on whatever is produced in the report. There is a lot of merit in going through the Oireachtas committee, as we did previously, to develop a constructive, consensual approach to these issues.