Averil Power (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and welcome that Members today are taking another important step towards the achievement of real equality in Ireland. I join Senators Bacik and Moran in welcoming to the Visitors Gallery people from groups that have worked for a long time to achieve the end to the discrimination under discussion today. It is hard to believe that in 2013, a person still must fear that he or she could be discriminated against by an employer solely on the grounds of being lesbian, gay or bisexual or because he or she is an unmarried parent or is separated, divorced or cohabiting outside marriage. Unfortunately, however, this still is very much the case for teachers, doctors and other staff of religious-run schools and hospitals. As other Senators have observed, under current Irish law such bodies may discriminate against employees on the grounds that their sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or family status is a threat to the religious ethos of the institution. Thus, employees may be penalised not because of anything they have said or done in their workplace but simply because of who they are. It is utterly unacceptable to me and should be equally unacceptable to all Members that publicly-funded institutions can discriminate against employees or potential employees on such grounds.

As Members are aware, the current situation is a source of real fear and unhappiness for LGBT staff in particular. Many teachers have told me how the current legislation has made them feel they must hide their sexual orientation from their colleagues. They have told me that day in and day out, they go to school and pretend to be someone else. On Monday mornings, while other colleagues talk about how they spent their weekend and about their families, they just sit there quietly without engaging in the conversation. They even go to great lengths not to be seen socialising in their own time with their long-term partners in the town in which they work. It really angers me that people who are great at their jobs and respected by the students and parents are being made to feel so unhappy at work. They should be judged on the same basis as everyone else, namely, their effectiveness in the classroom and not on the basis of a prejudiced view of their sexual orientation. Given that more than 95% of schools are under Christian denominational patronage, it is not as though they can avoid this threat by seeking employment elsewhere. Freedom of religion is an important value that I respect fully. However, it should not be used to permit discrimination that would unacceptable and illegal in any other employment, especially by State-funded institutions.

The current position also has a profoundly negative impact on LGBT young people by robbing them of positive role models at a difficult time in their own lives. While matters have improved considerably over recent years, many gay teenagers still experience a deep sense of unhappiness, isolation and depression as they struggle to come to terms with their own sexual orientation. Moreover, despite the incredible work being done by BeLonGTo and other groups, LGBT young people are still four times more likely to commit suicide than their peers. Much valuable work is being done at present to tackle homophobic bullying and I welcome in particular the importance the Minister, Deputy Quinn, has attached to this issue over the past two years. However, what message does it send to LGBT young people and their friends that as a society, we still condone legalised discrimination against teachers solely on the grounds that they are gay?

Consequently, I greatly welcome the Bill before Members, as I believe it presents an opportunity for them to unite on a cross-party basis and end this discrimination for once and for all. However, I have a number of concerns about the current wording. I appreciate it has been drafted to strike a careful balance between the competing constitutional values of freedom of religion on the one hand and equality and the right to earn a livelihood on the other hand. I also understand that striking that balance is not easy because when drafting Fianna Fáil's Bill last year, we were obliged to do a lot of work to ensure it would be constitutionally sound.

We can understand, for example, the motivation behind exempting fully private institutions. It is not within our power to say that there should be female priests in the Catholic Church and therefore I understand the motivation behind that part of the legislation. However, I am worried about whether the protection for staff of publicly funded institutions in the current draft is strong enough.

This time last year I published a Fianna Fáil Bill to amend section 37 of the Employment Equality Act. The Bill unequivocally stated that nothing in section 37 could be relied on by an institution to justify or permit discrimination or to allow any action to be taken against any employee or prospective employee on the basis of that employee or potential employee's civil status or sexual orientation. The effect of the wording was that schools and hospitals would still be entitled to insist that staff members demonstrate respect towards their ethos in the workplace and not actively seek to undermine it but they would not be able to discriminate against conscientious employees just because they do not approve, for example, of their sexual orientation. The protection afforded by the wording was clear and unconditional.

In contrast, the wording before us today still permits discrimination in some circumstances. The Bill states that taking action against an employee should be deemed discrimination unless ?by reason of the ... employment concerned or the context in which it is carried out, the action taken is objectively justified by legitimate aim and the means of achieving the aim are appropriate and necessary?. I appreciate that the onus is on the employer to show that he or she can satisfy this provision but I am concerned about the fact that it is included. I accept that staff should be required to respect and not actively seek to undermine the ethos of the employer. However, I do not accept that there are any circumstances in which an employer should be able to take action against employees solely on the grounds of their sexual orientation. The Bill provides that there are such circumstances and I seek clarity on what they are and what prompted Members to include the provision in drafting the Bill.

The acid test for any proposed new legislation is simple: whether a teacher reading the new provisions is able to take comfort from them and decide he or she is safe. I am genuinely concerned that the wording before us does not give the unequivocal guarantee to which Senator Moran referred in her speech. We support the legislation on the basis that it is a step forward. We are only on Second Stage. I look forward to working with Members on all sides on Committee Stage to strengthen the wording and to ensure it gives people the protection they need and deserve.

I wish to ask one question before I conclude. When we discussed the legislation last year, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, made progress conditional on the new human rights body carrying out a public consultation process. I tabled an Adjournment debate two weeks ago to ask if that was still the position because the body has still not been established and I was told it is still the position and that the body would shortly be established. Is the progress of the Bill to the next Stage and the completion of its passage through this House conditional on that process? There has been a considerable delay in merging the authorities. We all would like to work together to enact the legislation as soon as possible and not be delayed by a consultation process. I seek clarity on the matter because it has not been mentioned in the debate.