Seanad debates

Wednesday, 9 April 2014

Employment Equality (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2013: Committee Stage

 

11:40 am

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Many people have said that over the years. I always welcome prayers, from those of any religion or none. It might be worth reviewing the employment equality legislation in order that we might discover how we might better define the grounds involved. I do not believe that such a review should delay the progress of the Bill.
I remind everyone that all the Bill seeks to do is amend section 37(1) of the Employment Equality Act 1998. Section 37(1) currently provides religious, educational or medical institutions under the direction or control of bodies established for religious purposes blanket permission to discriminate. There is no qualification in respect of section 37(1). The Bill before the House will insert entirely new paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) into section 37(1). These will for the first time create a presumption that where a body or institution of the sort to which I refer is publicly funded, either favourable treatment on the religion ground or action to prevent undermining religious ethos will be deemed to be discrimination. The presumption will, therefore, be utterly reversed. We may have downplayed the significance of this on Second Stage but it is important to highlight it now. The paragraphs to which I refer are entirely new and they presume discrimination. Paragraph (d) makes clear that the respondent must prove the contrary, in other words, that it is not discrimination in cases where they exercise more favourable treatment on religion grounds or where they seek to prevent an existing or prospective employee from undermining religious ethos.
Much of the language used in the paragraphs is already contained in section 37(2) of the original Act as a result of amendments made under the Equality Act 2004. Section 37(2) already allows for a general exception to discrimination, on all but the gender ground, where a characteristic is a genuine and determining occupational requirement, where the objective is legitimate and the requirement proportionate. This means that a general proviso is already in place in respect of all employments. We have replicated some of the language used in section 37(2). I will speak to the specific points relating to Article 4 of the directive when we deal with the relevant amendments.
Let us not lose sight of the key purpose of the Bill which is that it will provide for significant protections for employees who are currently experiencing discrimination or potential discrimination in the workplace. It will also have huge significance in the context of reversing a presumption and in presuming discrimination has occurred in situations covered by section 37(1), which currently allows for blanket freedom to discriminate.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.