Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I understand the Minister of State's point and I agree with much of what he said. I disagree fundamentally with this section but I must accept the democratic decision of the people. If a teacher in a school of particular religion tries to inculcate the students with a different set of religious values, that is utterly unacceptable and should be a sackable offence, a view I have always held because it is on the religious ground.

I will use the Minister of State's example. If a teacher in a school with an anti-alcohol ethos was discovered to have had a glass of wine at Christmas in the comfort of his own home, without trying to undermine any ethos, and some fundamentalist felt he should not have done that and sacked him, it would be completely wrong. Extrapolating from that, there could be other reasons. If section 37 is used, it should be only on grounds of religion. At present, the Bill does not prevent a person from sacking an employee for other, non-religious grounds if they are protecting the ethos of the school.

The Minister of State mentioned behaviour. I accept it can be vague and people can interpret it differently, but it is also the case that in this legislation, the Equal Status Act and the Education Act there is no definition of "ethos". I made the case at the time that if there were 4,000 Catholic educational institutions in this State, effectively, we could have some 4,000 of the equivalent of the plural of ethos — my Greek is weak. This would be defined simply by the boards of management of the schools. I always felt that was wrong but that was another argument I lost here. I have to accept that but I am simply referring to it. If behaviour and ethos are vaguely defined, we need to tighten up the Bill to some extent. I accept the religion argument, to which I never objected. Parents have an entitlement to decide what type of school their children attend, whether it is denominational, non-denominational, multi-denominational or inter-denominational or whatever. That has to be respected by employees and it would be unacceptable for any employee, be he or she a teacher or any other employee, to undermine it.

This proposal does not take from what the Minister of State is trying to achieve. I will be pleased if he will examine it if he is unsure about it. I do not want to insert any provision in the Bill about which he is unsure. I know what it is like to be on the other side of the interpretation of legislation when defending people or boards. We should get the Bill right. The inclusion of this amendment will mean that if employers act under the terms of section 37 of the 1998 Act, it should be on the religion ground. That does not stop them from acting on other grounds for various other reasons. There is a raft of legislation dealing with industrial relations, employer and employee relations and dismissals of all sorts. Such legislation exists and this proposal would not impact in any way on it. Some people will pick the easiest way to do something and that is wrong; they should be confined to acting in what is the correct way under the law.