John Lyons (Dublin North West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I will be fairly brief because I know other speakers wish to contribute on the Bill. Most people sometimes wonder what we do in here. What is the purpose of the legislation that we bring into this House? Earlier this evening we voted to ensure that in future budgets people in the public service will receive some of the money that was taken away during very tough times. Tonight, my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, spoke about section 37 of the employment equality legislation and what is now called the Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2015. As he correctly said, a number of backbenchers, including me, decided that we had to do something about the chilling effect of the legislation on people working in the health or education sectors who might be LGBT, divorced, divorced and living with somebody else, God forbid, or those who are not married who have children. It is not and never was acceptable that a person could not go to work and go into the staff room, be it in a hospital or school, and not be able to talk about where they were at the weekend, who they spent their time with at the weekend or about the person they love so much. Whether we like it or not, the law that exists, which will be changed on foot of this Bill being passed, allowed for that situation to be created for people in society.

I know from meeting with people during the recent referendum campaign, as my colleague also outlined, and from my personal life, that there are many examples of people who, in spite of the passage of the referendum on same-sex marriage, would not feel completely comfortable walking into their staff room and speaking about their private circumstances. That is such a shame in a modern society that people still feel that way. We must do something about that. I agree that the marriage referendum in itself has gone a long way towards shining a light on the fact that we are all more the same than different. The Bill, albeit short and technical in many ways, will make a significant difference to a very small cohort of people who work on behalf of the State, teaching our children and fixing us when we go into hospital in order to make us better, who feel they cannot live their life fully.

I know some people who are in that category but I was not one of those. I always felt comfortable in pushing the boat out but I know that not everybody feels that way. I was very privileged to work in a staff-room that I did not mind going into for 13 years, in particular at a very early stage, and pushing the boat out and speaking about a relationship I might have been in at the time. Thankfully, like most like-minded and decent people in society my colleagues accepted that. However, where that does not prevail in a workplace it can be very hard for somebody to make that jump. The Bill legitimises such people when they go to work by allowing them to feel that the State is watching their back, that they are entitled to be there and to be the people they are, and that nobody can prevent that under the law. That must be welcomed.

What is important about the Bill is that it does not infringe upon religious institutions. This is not a battering of religious-run institutions; it is about recognising that such institutions have rights but the people who work in them have rights that must be respected too. The Minister of State used the phrase “an appropriate balance” in his speech. I will go one step further and say that the law is about creating a proportionate balance between the two, namely, respecting the rights of the individuals who run the institutions and also those who work in them. In a nutshell, what we are doing is making society just that little bit better for some people who do not feel it is right for them now. I hope when the Bill is passed into law soon that it will take away the shadow in which some people feel they have to live currently. I hope that over time it will encourage people who work in schools and hospitals to feel proud of going to work and speaking about the man or woman they love or their forthcoming marriage and not feel it will prevent them for getting a promotion in the future or if they do not have a contract of indefinite duration, CID, and they are only temporary in the school they are in, that it will not in any way affect the possibility of them being returned to the school the following September. When the Bill is enacted the legislation will watch their back and allow them to feel like full citizens, whereas at the moment they still feel there is a little blot on their homework, so to speak, that prevents them from being treated as full citizens.

I very much appreciate the provision relating to raising the bar. If a religious-run institution such as a school or hospital feels its ethos is being undermined it must prove the case. As a man who happens to be gay, through no fault of my own, in the 13 years I worked in a secondary school, I in no way tried to undermine the religious ethos of the school. If anything, I embraced the mission statement of the school and I worked with it during my time there to ensure it was achieved. My sexuality did not interfere with the mission statement of that religious-run institution and neither does the sexuality of any teacher, nurse or doctor who works in any other religious-run institution.

The harsh reality until now is that some people feared they might not be allowed to continue in their job. I had a personal experience many years ago which frustrated me. An anonymous letter was sent to the school principal highlighting that John Lyons was gay and asking if the principal knew that. There was a little bit more in the letter but that was the gist of it. I gave all to that school. I got up early to go to school, I was going to say, unless I had a - I was going to say a hangover but I have just said it – unless I was not feeling well in the morning or I was just having a bad day. I gave it socks, and I gave it more than I was paid for, which to be fair is what most teachers do. I knew how awful the principal felt when he told me about the letter. He felt so uncomfortable because he thought that should not be happening in society but he had to let me know about the letter that had arrived. The two of us sat down in the office and he said, "John, I do not want to tell you this, but I must show you this letter that arrived in". For a while afterwards, my support for that school, where I gave everything and more, was on the ground.

I wondered why I should give so much to this place that essentially was putting me in a position whereby were I ever to apply to become principal, it might have an effect on me. This is a real-life example of how the current law affects people and this chilling effect does exist.

I know of another person who is now divorced and who works in a school. She essentially was threatened by somebody in her community, who told this person she would remind the principal she now was living with another man. This is not acceptable and these are two real-life examples from people living in this society who consider that because of decisions they have made in their lives or through no fault of their own, they are being persecuted and may be at risk of not being able to continue in their current place of work.

As a member of the Labour Party, this is one of the reasons I joined that party, not to amend section 37 but for the type of things the Labour Party tries to achieve when it is in government. The Labour Party has not been in government very often but when it is, its members always put at the forefront of what they do laws that try to make people's lives in society much better in order that in some way, they can state they are proud to grow up and grow old in that society. As for the Labour Party's mark on this society over the past four and a half years, when it comes to social change we have done as much as we can and I am proud of the things the party has done. I am delighted that Members are finally getting to amend section 37 to ensure the lives of another cohort of people who live in this society will be a little bit better. This does not cost anything but will mean a lot for those people.

I strongly agree with another provision and I commend the Minister of State on its inclusion, namely, the issue of rent supplement. Since my election and earlier, I have seen the sickening scenario on a daily basis in which landlords have refused without giving a reason to accept tenants in receipt of rent supplement. These are good, decent people who have approached me, having been refused because they are in receipt of rent supplement. On all websites such asDaft.iethat advertise homes, I note that at this stage, pretty much every house and apartment has a line under the advertising details stating rent supplement is not acceptable. To me, these are good, decent people who are acceptable in society and who, through no fault of their own, had no place to which to go except to the private rented sector. In most cases, landlords are decent people but to be fair to those who have a right to have somewhere to live, I am glad the Minister of State is making a statement in this regard to make sure the day no longer can exist whereby somebody in need of a place to live and who only has the financial support of rent supplement to pay the rent can be barred from trying to find accommodation. I look forward to working with people in that position to ensure landlords take on such people because like anyone else, they are good, decent people who happen to find themselves, through no fault of their own, in rented accommodation. It is not acceptable for any landlords to refuse somebody because he or she is in receipt of rent supplement.

I commend this Bill, of which I am very supportive. Most importantly, however, I am delighted for those who may walk that tiny bit taller when the Bill is passed.

See this speech in context