Katherine Zappone (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I wish to make some introductory remarks before I get to my first amendment. I am heartened to see that the Government has agreed to bring the Bill sponsored by Senator Bacik et alto Committee Stage. Time continues to pass and yet there is still a part of our employment equality legislation, namely, section 37 of the Act, which can be used in an unjust way to discriminate against people in light of their identity. It is good that we are in the House to debate the matter now.
On two previous occasions, the debate on Senator Power's Bill and Second Stage of this Bill, I argued that section 37(1)(b) of the Employment Equality Act should be deleted and that only in this way can we, as law-makers, offer absolute assurance to Irish employees working within religious institutions - most of which deliver public services, which is the critical point and the point several of my amendments are trying to address - that their private life is not relevant to their employment.
As we are all aware, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, introduced a Bill in the Dáil yesterday evening to provide for the merger of the Equality Authority and the Irish Human Rights Commission. This is a good example of where a human rights issue, that is, the right to privacy, provides us with an appropriate framework to consider equality concerns, in this case, equal treatment in light of people's identity. This bodes well for the kind of things that the new commission could help us with.
I have argued that the section should be deleted on the basis that an institution's right to protect its religious ethos is already protected in law. My question was: while the Supreme Court may have found section 37(1)(b) to be compatible with the Constitution, does the Constitution require an exemption to our equality laws of this nature? Does the Constitution require the additional protections of religious ethos found in section 37(1)(b)? The Bill is attempting to add additional restrictions to that exemption, but does it require it? While the Bill might allow for it, does it require it? I am keen to have these questions answered.
It is helpful that we are at a point where the Bill provides additional restrictions, especially out of concern for lesbian, gay bisexual or transgender, LGBT, teachers, nurses and administrators. Again, no one, because of a characteristic of his or her identity, including religion or belief, ought to be discriminated against in the context of employment, unless it has to do with a genuine occupational requirement of the job. This principle is behind many of my amendments and what the EU framework directive requires of us. It relates to the power of an enforceable human right to a private life.
My first amendment proposes to amend the Employment Equality Act and I see it as opportunity to bring this measure into the Bill. It will bring the definition of "religion" and the religion ground into full compliance with the framework directive by redefining it to include "religion or belief". This is a term employed in the directive. Although the directive does not define the term, use of the disjunctive "religion or belief" suggests that protection should be extended to belief systems that do not stem from a religious doctrine.

Since both the preamble to the directive and the EU charter express respect for principles of the European Convention on Human Rights, the term "religion or belief" should be read consistently with Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. As it stands, the term used under the religion ground in the Employment Equality Act is "religious belief", which is too narrow and does not comply with the directive as it may not cover philosophical beliefs such as humanism or atheism. Atheist Ireland raised similar points in its briefing document which notes there are general principles of European law which give equal recognition to religious and non-confessional philosophical beliefs.
Amendment No. 3 is necessary to redefine the "religion" ground to mean "religion or belief". Acceptance by the Minister of amendment No. 1 would require a change in the language used in section 2(1)(a) and (b) to make the ground more inclusive, as defined by European law. It is noteworthy that the drafters of the Bill included the term "religion or belief" in section 2(1)(b) and, as such, extended the religion ground to include "belief". On the basis that the word "belief" is used in the paragraph to which I referred, it should also be used elsewhere in the Bill. The amendment provides an opportunity to change the definition of this ground in the Employment Equality Act.