I renew a call to the Leader for a debate in the autumn on the need to change our culture and procedures to ensure that our Parliament is more friendly towards diversity, particularly towards gender diversity. Many of us have worked very hard for many years to try to encourage more women to enter politics. I am very pleased there will be gender quotas in place for the next general election. However, the use of sexist language in this Chamber is not helpful or conducive to encouraging more women or more young people to get involved in politics. It is most unfortunate when we hear sexist language in this Chamber or there is sexist conduct in the other House. The behaviour and language used in the past few days has been unhelpful. I hope we will have a respectful debate on all legislation before the House-----

I was told there would not be a debate on this issue, but if the Senator wants a debate, I will take her on.

I am not making-----

I ruled on that matter yesterday.

I will certainly take on Senator Bacik about sexist language.

I have ruled today that I am not allowing a debate on the issue.

I deny that I ever used it.

The Senator gave his explanation to the House.

I was told there would not be a debate on this issue.

And there will not be.

In fairness, I have made a call for this debate in a general sense-----

The matter is closed. Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?

This happened the minute I left the room, but I came back in to hear the Senator's rubbish.

That is my question for the Leader. I have asked the Leader about this on other occasions and have placed on the agenda of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges a proposal that we look at the procedures of the House to ensure it is more gender-neutral and that we encourage more women to enter politics. The National Women's Council has done a great deal of work also on this matter and will be producing a report very shortly on how to generate and provide for a more women-friendly Parliament.

I call for a debate on the Magdalen institutions redress scheme in light of the very disturbing news today that the four religious orders involved in running Magdalen institutions apparently will not be contributing to the cost of the redress scheme set out by Judge John Quirke, which is estimated to cost in the region of €58 million. This is a most disappointing and regrettable stance being taken by the religious orders, who profited for many years from the unpaid labour - slave labour - of the many women and girls incarcerated in those institutions. We know the State was also complicit - there is no doubt - and it bears a heavy share of responsibility. However, the religious orders should be bearing some of the cost.