First, I wish our colleague, Senator Feargal Quinn, well. I understand today marks an important anniversary in that it is his 21st year in the Seanad. I know all of us will want to join in those good wishes to him.

I also support the call made by my colleague, Senator Averil Power, on Thursday for a debate in the wake of the reports of the RTE payout to the Iona Institute and other named individuals. I believe she was calling for a debate on free speech in light of that. I was delighted to attend, with Senator Power and Senator Norris, a protest on Sunday against censorship and homophobia, at which approximately 2,000 people attended. The Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, put out a very important and useful statement about this on Friday when he spoke of the need to ensure that recourse to defamation laws does not have a chilling effect on the conduct of public debate around LGBT rights, in particular in the context of the lead-up to the forthcoming referendum on marriage equality. It is important that any of those who hold themselves out as commentators on issues like this, including ourselves, would appreciate that debate in this arena can be robust and, on occasion, hostile in a democracy, and we must be able to take that. What we have seen over recent days and what has generated great public concern has been the emergence of a sort of chilling effect through threats of libel in the course of the debate.

In that context, I also very much welcome that the European Parliament has today voted for an EU roadmap against homophobia and discrimination and is calling for an action plan to combat homophobia along the lines of the strategies already in place for discrimination on the basis of disability, gender equality and Roma integration. I believe that recognises the very serious issue that homophobia remains for LGBT people throughout Europe, with people in many countries still experiencing unacceptable levels of harassment and discrimination. We need to remember that in the context of the debate we have been having here.

I second the call from Senator Bacik in regard to that kind of debate and I look forward, I am sure, to Senator Norris adding to that with his great eloquence. I very much support that.

I have a question for the Leader but I first want to welcome reports yesterday that the Minister, Deputy Burton, succeeded in resisting cuts of €440 million to welfare spending. I congratulate her on this.

The cuts were successfully resisted because her Department's research showed they would disproportionately affect those on lower incomes. This is a good way to do business. The Minister is pursuing a vision for reform. Although she has made some decisions I disagreed with and voted against, I acknowledge the tough job she faces.

I call for a debate on an issue which the Minister, Deputy Burton, was first to place on our agenda, namely, the idea of introducing a living wage in this country. She put forward this proposal based on the formerly experimental and now mainstream operation of that mechanism, on a voluntary basis, in the United Kingdom. It has been a very successful initiative, with 80% of employers expressing the view that it has enhanced the quality of their employees' work. In addition, absenteeism is down 25% and staff turnover has declined. A living wage is a benchmark based on clear and plausible evidence for an adequate living standard and is a response to income inequality. Unlike a national minimum wage, a living wage is an evidence-based rate of pay. I participated in a seminar last week led by the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice where economists and social policy experts got together to begin considering how a living wage for Ireland might be calculated. It is an idea that is very worthy of pursuit, especially as the economy begins to pick up. It could be an instrument for ensuring people on lower pay have an adequate standard of living when other boats start to rise. It might even function as a helpful redistributive mechanism which would operate within the context of business as well as in the public sphere. The time is right to invite the Minister to the House for a debate on the concept of a living wage and how we might contribute to its formulation as a practical possibility in this country.

I join colleagues in calling for a debate on homophobia in a context where an attempt is being made to close down that debate. It is disgraceful that RTE has shown such a Gadarene rush to pay up on this issue. I wonder about the legal advice the State broadcaster was given, because I very much doubt it was clearly in the line which RTE took. As a taxpayer and television licence payer, I would like to know why my money is being given to these people. I know they will not co-operate with the Standards in Public Office Commission, which is extraordinary. I know they are controlled by a company called Lolex Limited which was founded in 2006. I would like to know how they achieved their status in society.

Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?

I have already asked it and will continue asking it. They are self-appointed and are answerable to nobody. They have consistently misrepresented scientific papers and been rebuked by the authors of those papers. They did that at the Constitutional Convention, of which I am a member. It is amazing to me that they are allowed to bully people.

Is this relevant to the Order of Business?

It is very relevant. I have asked the question and I prefer not to be interrupted.

I take this issue extremely seriously. I sat in this Chamber and listened to colleagues on these benches tabling motions that were effectively apartheid in nature. Had I been a Roman Catholic, a black person or a Jew and anything remotely like that was attempted, the person would have been fired out of this House straight away. Would the Cathaoirleach and colleagues like to imagine how it felt for me to sit here and hear valued colleagues suggesting that I should not be allowed to purchase cake decorations, weddings invitations and so on, that I should be denied the service of a hairdresser, as if I needed it? People should take this issue seriously. This country is rampant with homophobia, including throughout the media. There are decent people in the media who are terrified to open their mouths. I hear all the time about the liberal D4 conspiracy, the Dublin media and so on. Where the hell are they? Where were they when I was being crucified? Where are they when Panti, a remarkable man, comes out and tells the truth?

We might have an opportunity now of turning the spotlight on the Iona Institute. I am asking the Leader the same question I asked of his deputy, on which occasion I did not get very far.

The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, just equivocated with the usual old blather from one side of his mouth and then the other. Will the Leader instigate some degree of research into the Iona Institute? From where is it getting its money? Why does it not co-operate with the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO? Who made it an institute? In Britain, it would be legally prohibited from using the word "institute" because it is self-appointed.

Senator, you are over the time.

Fine, I am over time but, as I said on Sunday, the homophobes have had 2,000 years on the stage and I believe we are entitled to a few words now and again.