Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Socialist Party) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Bill in that it will bring changes to section 37 of the Employment Equality Act, which have been sought by many groups, including trade unions, teachers unions, in particular, and LGBT groups. However, the provisions in the Bill are still very inadequate. The Anti-Austerity Alliance introduced a Bill some months ago in Private Members' time to repeal section 37 and it contained different provisions from those outlined in the Bill before the House.

My first question is why the State is differentiating between people employed by a religious institution or a medical institution in the public or private sectors. We do not allow discrimination by private sector employers and do not exempt them from other employment laws. For example, we do not exempt Dunnes Stores from recognising trade unions. I still do not understand why the Government is saying that only publicly-funded education or medical institutions can discriminate on religious grounds where the treatment does not constitute discrimination on any of the other discriminatory grounds. What it means is that there can still be discrimination in private organisations against lesbian and gay people and the State will not do anything about it because it is a private religious group. We made it clear in the Anti-Austerity Alliance’s Bill that the provisions would apply to public and private organisations but we recognise that there is a religious requirement in certain occupations, for example, to be a chaplain, but that the requirement should not apply to other occupations.

Is it still okay to discriminate against atheists and people who do not profess a religion because that is exactly what the Bill will still allow? It seems that there is pussy-footing going on about schools that are still under religious patronage, which is the majority of schools in this country. I have a genuine question that must be answered because it will be asked. I know many primary schoolteachers who are atheists, who do not believe in any religion, but they are forced by their occupation to instruct Catholic teaching and assist with ceremonies such as first communion, or they try to avoid that class. Does the Minister of State, Deputy Ó Ríordáin, think that is acceptable? We must tackle religious control over schools that makes teachers fit in with religious instruction. That is wrong. It is a human right not to have a religion and not to be forced to believe in a certain religion or to have to pretend to believe in one. The Bill will continue to allow such teachers to be discriminated against and not to be promoted or not to be employed in the first place. We must say that is not okay.

We are dealing with the chilling effect of legislation on LGBT teachers, nurses and other professions, although it mainly applies to teaching. It is not the case that teachers are sacked. We know teachers have not been sacked according to that criterion.

It is more the case of a chat with the principal on a Monday morning, a discussion about toning it down, checking oneself in order that one does not appear to be gay and not giving any student the impression one is gay.

A huge number of issues remain for teachers. Is it possible that people will be discriminated against through the back door? There have been many cases in the United States of Catholic-run schools, which obviously are private schools, in which teachers were sacked because they were gay. While people knew they were gay for a number of years, when they got married they had publicly made their position clear - by marrying someone of the same sex - and those teachers were then sacked. However, it could also be found that somebody is not carrying out the ethos of the school because he or she is gay. Consequently, Members must challenge the entire education system in Ireland that allows schools to implement a particular religious ethos and to force employees to go along with that.

The Employment Equality (Amendment) Bill 2015 pertaining to section 37 was introduced by the Anti-Austerity Alliance and it extended the Employment Equality Act to all workers in services operated by religious institutions or under their direction. The only discrimination allowed would be in the religious organisation itself, where the position was a religious one, such as a priest, a preacher or whatever and these also are the only grounds that should obtain in this Bill. I ask the Minister of State to bring forward the Anti-Austerity Alliance Bill to Committee Stage as well, to enable the committee discuss both Bills because I believe ours is better. This is not a point-scoring issue but at the time, Anti-Austerity Alliance Members raised the point that such issues should not arise.

As for other issues that should be brought forward, I was very surprised the Minister of State did not use the opportunity provided by a miscellaneous Bill to deal with the issue about which parents were protesting outside the gates of Leinster House yesterday, namely, that schools can require a child to prove he or she is of a certain religion to secure a place in that school, that is, the baptismal certificate scenario. A simple repeal of section 7(3)(c) of the Equal Status Act could have been included in this Bill and that would then have addressed a huge issue. It is a major issue in my constituency, which has a multiethnic and a multi-religious population, as well as school shortages. This is when the baptismal certificate issue tends to be invoked but even were that not the case, parents should have choice about where they send their children to school and should not be obliged to sign up to admissions policies in schools. I have seen admissions policies for some schools in my constituency that would oblige me to lie to get my daughter into them, with requirements like believing in the Holy Spirit and so on. Some of them still are living in the Dark Ages and given that parents are required to go along with this when the population is much changed, why did the Minister of State not use this opportunity? I saw Labour Party Members outside the gates yesterday meeting those parents and giving a commitment they would address this issue but this Bill is the perfect place in which to so do. It would be quite simple, in that one would repeal that section of the Equal Status Act that allows schools to use religion as grounds for admission.

The other issue I wished to raise is the provision on rent supplement. I am delighted that discrimination in respect of rent supplement is being outlawed but the horse has bolted in this regard. While it is great that people will be unable to discriminate in the advertisements onDaft.ieor wherever people are looking, I refer to the scenario in which 20 people are in a queue for accommodation. I am told that getting rental accommodation is now like an audition for "The X Factor". One is placed before a panel of people and is quizzed about where one works, how much one earns, etc. Consequently, a simple process will be able to make null and void this change in the law whereby landlords will not advertise it but will simply exercise it. The reason they will be able to exercise such discretion is because there is such a shortage of rental accommodation. This must be remedied immediately by providing affordable and social housing, by bringing in rent controls and taking other serious measures to deal with the housing crisis, on which Members debated at length in the House over the past two nights. Unfortunately, however, many Government Members were not present for that debate. Nevertheless these are the only ways in which to outlaw such discrimination on rent allowance in reality.

Finally, I ask the Minister of State to reconsider this matter. I do not see why one should discriminate between public and private organisations, as the law should apply no matter for whom one works. The only reason I would maintain any right to discriminate would be in respect of a role that requires religion. If it does not require religion, one should have no right to discriminate. This would be a lot simpler and would protect people in many occupations. I again ask why discrimination is still being allowed against people who do not profess any religion and why teachers are being required to jump through hoops. One can still envisage people not being promoted or being discriminated against unless these changes are carried through.

See this speech in context