Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Mac Lochlainn for affording me an opportunity to contribute to this debate. It is unfortunate that we are discussing these issues at this late hour. I welcome that we are reviewing section 37 of the 1998 Act. When I saw the Minister of State, Deputy Ó Ríordáin, and his Labour Party back bench colleagues queuing up fresh faced to speak during the opening slot, I did not know whether to laugh or cry. If they think waving the flag of gay rights will save them from the carnage they are about to experience, they are wrong. Section 37 has been already addressed during the course of this Administration by Senator Averil Power, Deputy Jonathan O'Brien and by way of the Socialist Party's Bill which has already passed Second Stage and which is superior to what is before us tonight in relation to this issue. Let us be clear, this is not a revolutionary change. This legislation seeks only to undo a discriminatory provision which should never have been put in place. To be honest, it has taken too long to remove it.

It is important to put this legislation into perspective. In my view, it reflects a cherry picking in terms of equality. Deputy Mac Lochlainn is correct that the rights of disabled citizens are not being given the same attention. The rights of older citizens are also not being given the same attention. It is coincidental that we are discussing this issue on the same day as the Bill presented by the Minister of State's colleague, Deputy Anne Ferris, on the abolition of the mandatory and compulsory retirement age received a public hearing, which is a better proposition than what is before us. This is a miscellaneous provisions Bill which provides us with an opportunity to be all encompassing and include provisions in terms of equality if we were really serious about addressing it.

I would like to speak to the section 37 issue in the context of our schools. One would think this provision was a relic of a bygone age. It is shocking that it dates from less than 20 years ago in relation to, as has been said, the shocking judgment in the Eileen Flynn case, in which a school teacher was dismissed for having a child outside of marriage, following which it was enshrined in law that there was a lawful basis to discriminate against a person or his or her employer if a school's ethos was not being upheld, which meant gay people, lone parents, divorced people, atheist teachers and so on were subject to a chilling affect. It is ridiculous that it has taken us this long to tackle this issue, but we are not tackling it in the right way.

The root of this problem lies in the fact that 94% of primary schools in Ireland are Catholic run, more than half of which are in areas where there is no alternative model. It is shocking that situation prevails. It is a consequence of the Irish State farming out year ago responsibility for health, education and social care to the Catholic church. It is now farming out this responsibility to private companies, which is a little ironic. This is all about not looking at a rights based approach. We need to change how we look at this issue. When a similar debate took place in Britain in 2007, a country in which there is a lot of religious diversity, the scope of the exemption was scrutinised. It found that exemptions on ethos-based grounds could be used not only by organised religions but by all employers who have an ethos and, therefore, were contrary to existing law against discrimination. For example, when the Catholic adoption agencies in Britain attempted to use exemptions to lawfully refuse to place children with homosexual couples, it was ruled out of order on the basis that any employer attempting to use that exemption would lose access to State funding. This was enough to eliminate the discrimination in that regard.

Regardless of religion, children should have access to State-funded schools. In a poll conducted by The Irish Timeslast week, 85% of people who were asked the question, "Should religion play a part in school admissions?", answered "No". Children should be taught the school curriculum, including in relation to religions and religious beliefs but in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner, as per the European Convention on Human Rights. Faith formation or religious beliefs should be taught in the privacy of the child's family or outside his or her school day by the religious organisation with which that family is involved.

Obviously teachers need to be treated in an equal manner. The current provision in the 1998 Act is reprehensible and needs to be changed. However, we are again looking at it the wrong way around. The exemptions are unnecessary in institutions as they give powers to discrimination that is not in line with a modern nation that aspires to pluralism. We need to consider different ways of doing things. For example, in terms of the nature of the exemptions in Britain and the different approach taken there, wide powers are not given to the NHS or State schools to protect any religious ethos. Generally, they are put forward in a spirit of accommodating religious liberty. For example, a Sikh might be exempted from wearing a safety hat on a construction site or Jews and Muslims would be exempt from rules in relation to animal slaughter practises. Britain's exemptions are provided from that stand-point, which I believe is better.

Everybody needs access to schools and hospitals and they should not be the prerogative of a religious ethos. It is wrong that would happen. Religious belief should never interfere with a citizen's right to health care or education and we need to stand that on its head.

See this speech in context