Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)

I do not believe it would. The authority concerned would not be justified in sacking a teacher in those circumstances because section 37(1)(b) specifically states that the action which is protected must be reasonably necessary to prevent an employee from undermining the religious ethos of the institution. As the saying goes, "saying it don't make it so".

I understand what the Senator is getting at. He is trying to provide for a situation where people can only use such a defence in circumstances where the conduct legitimately undermines the religious ethos of the institution. In other words, he does not want people to be able to say that whatever about the religious ethos of the institution, we are Muslims, this guy is known to be a raving drunkard in his own private life and that is a good reason for getting rid of him. I understand what the Senator is trying to do; he is trying to tighten up the legislation.

With due respect to the wording of the amendment he put forward, if I insert in subsection (1)(b) what is proposed, namely, it takes action on the religion ground which is necessary to prevent an employee from undermining the religious ethos of the institution, I do not believe that wording would improve it. However, I take the point the Senator is making. We do not want the legislation drafted in such a way that would allow people to come up with facile excuses. I do not believe the legislation is so drafted. It has stood the test of time since 1998 — we are talking about legislation that has been in operation for six years. I will give some thought to what the Senator said. I will discuss it with my officials and if we are of the view that the section needs to be tightened up, we will be willing to consider doing so.