Last week, I raised the issue of RTÉ's continuing bias on a range of social issues, particularly abortion. RTÉ has failed to represent the views of the one third of voters who opposed the repeal of the eighth amendment, many of whom regard the consequences of repeal as having been catastrophic for human rights, unborn babies and, indeed, good-quality healthcare in this country. Last Sunday, RTÉ was at it again with a guttingly one-sided celebration of the matter on the "Sunday with Miriam" show, with no attention paid to the voices of those who believe that human lives are tragically and unjustly being lost here. I listened to a webinar a couple of weeks ago and heard the voices of women who regret having abortions and who report systemic denialism whereby, at best, they are ignored by the media and, at worst, they experience hostility. I raise this matter on behalf of people who feel indignant about all of this from the public service broadcaster. Those who are going to refuse to pay the television licence fee in the future really cannot be blamed as long as this goes on. We are going to have to keep talking about this until somebody addresses the problem.

I want to raise the issue of what are called patient private property, PPP, accounts. Essentially, these are accounts that are administered by the HSE on behalf of vulnerable people who are in long-term residential care facilities run by or on behalf of the HSE. The people in question are older individuals, those with mental health issues or intellectual disabilities and wards of court. Property is held by these PPP accounts and can be administered and used by representatives of the HSE directly or through a third party or agent for the benefit and care of the person involved. The HSE operates more than 15,000 of these accounts at present. Guidelines are in place to ensure that the accounts are operated ethically and in a transparent fashion, and always in the best interests of the vulnerable.

This system is administered under section 2 of Health (Repayment Scheme) Act 2006. There is a problem with how these accounts operate or, more to the point, with the fact that they apply only to people who are being cared for within the public system. Section 2 refers to "a person ... being cared for by, or on behalf of, the Executive". People who are being cared for in private nursing homes, no matter how vulnerable they are, do not get the benefit or protection of the scheme. I have received representations on this matter from those who are familiar with the sector and who work in the area of the rights of elderly and vulnerable people. They inform me that they believe that what is being done here puts patients in private homes at a disadvantage. They feel that the accounts and property of those persons should also be capable of being administered and used on their behalf, for their welfare and with appropriate safeguards. This problem could be remedied by a couple of very small changes to the 2006 Act to make it that people in private care could also have their property administered in this way and that there would be safeguards in place to make sure that everything operates ethically.

I ask for a debate on this issue. Perhaps that could take place in the context of a more general debate on nursing homes in the wake of the Covid pandemic. I am very interested to know whether the Government has considered this matter and whether it plans to address the lacuna that exists in law and our policy relating to the protection of persons in nursing home care.

I am delighted to have been selected last night as the Labour Party candidate in the Dublin Bay South by-election. I thank all those who supported me. I look forward to the campaign, although I am conscious that we will be very mindful of public health guidelines as we come through this awful pandemic, which has caused so much heartbreak for so many. I know that issues relating to healthcare, decent public services and housing will be to the fore in the by-election campaign, and I look forward to that.

I ask the Leader to arrange a debate on care, particularly that relating to older persons in our communities. I have called for a new fair deal scheme to enable supports to be provided for people who wish to remain in their own homes rather than prioritising State funding for institutional and nursing home care. I want people to be given an option as they age and I would like to have that debate here.

I thank the Leader for organising last night's debate on Gaza with the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I was proud to speak on the matter. I reiterate the calls that I and others made for the Minister to ensure that Ireland takes a strong stance at the UN Security Council in the context of seeking an end to the awful slaughter of civilians and children.

I ask the Leader for a debate on the processing of visa applications. I am conscious that the Department of Justice has put a hold on the processing of new visas due to the pandemic. The Immigrant Council and Doras Buí have both eloquently called for a change in policy and pointed out the impact on separated families. There is also a serious impact on businesses. One business in my area in Dublin Bay South, the Chimac restaurant, which is owned by Garrett Fitzgerald, is a case in point. The restaurant has a commis chef, Joaquin, who has been stranded indefinitely in Chile. I confirm that I have permission to name those involved. Indeed, Rob O'Hanrahan of Virgin Media News has highlighted this case. The restaurant is now down 40% in terms of staff and is not alone in that regard. So many businesses, as we reopen, are going to face difficulties and strain without the availability of staff so, therefore, we need to ensure a return to the swift processing of visas. I ask the Leader to invite the Minister to come to the House to discuss the strain on families and businesses.

Senator Mullen spoke about bias on the part of our national broadcaster, RTÉ. I remind him that three years ago next Tuesday the people voted by 66% to repeal the eighth amendment. Perhaps it needs to be stressed again that we have repealed the eighth amendment.

What about the other third of voters?

I did not interrupt the Senator.

Senator Bacik, without interruption please.

I made a simple request.

The Oireachtas has voted and passed legislation. Terminations of pregnancy are legally available in Ireland and women need those reproductive health services. I am proud to be one of the people who campaigned for the repeal of the eighth amendment. We all stand in solidarity in the context of the result of the referendum.

One should not be left out of the debate when one is in the minority.

It is bit rich of the Senator to complain, three years on, about the result of the referendum.

This is intolerance by the pro-abortion side.

I am not pro-abortion. I am pro-choice.

The Senator is entitled to an extra minute, if she so wishes, because she was interrupted.

I thank the Cathaoirleach. This is an issue on which language is important.

What about the babies?

We must remember the thousands of women in Ireland who have had abortions, their families, women who face crisis pregnancies and the awful catastrophic diagnosis that so many women and their families have faced in the context of fatal foetal abnormality. We need to be sensitive in our language. Talking about people as being pro-abortion, as Senator Mullen consistently does, is insensitive and does not reflect the reality. Those of us who campaigned for repeal are pro-choice. We want to see women having choice. Women in Ireland now do have that choice thanks to the campaigners and the people who voted in support of repeal three years ago.

Senator Bacik, without interruption. I ask Senators to have respect for the rules of the House. When a Senator is on his or her feet during the Order of Business, it is that Senator's time and everybody gets his or her time.

On a point of order, I agree that I interrupted Senator Bacik but the Senator has a different technique. On numerous occasions I have heard her raise points of order that are not points of order at all simply in order to make her political point. Sauce for the goose has to be sauce for the gander, even if the goose and gander are operating in slightly different ways.

I did not interrupt the Senator.

I have never known the Cathaoirleach to give me an extra minute when Senator Bacik jumps up with a bogus point of order to interrupt me.

In the first instance, Senator, your point of order is not a point of order.

I sat and listened to Senator Mullen. I sat and listened to his insensitive language and I responded, as is my right. I used my time on the Order of Business to do so.