Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin North Central, Labour) | Oireachtas source

Senator Norris is holding the space over there.

The suggestion that Ireland did not transpose the employment directive properly in section 37(1) has been addressed by the Attorney General in advice to the Department, quoting the text which is relevant here, Article 4.2:

Member States may maintain national legislation in force at the date of adoption of this Directive or provide for future legislation incorporating national practices existing at the date of adoption of this Directive pursuant to which, in the case of occupational activities within churches and other public or private organisations the ethos of which is based on religion or belief, a difference of treatment based on a person's religion or belief shall not constitute discrimination where, by reason of the nature of these activities or of the context in which they are carried out, a person's religion or belief constitute a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement, having regard to the organisation's ethos. This difference of treatment shall be implemented taking account of Member States' constitutional provisions and principles, as well as the general principles of Community law, and should not justify discrimination on another ground.

I am not seeking to defend the text of section 37(1) but there is no point starting from a false premise. Short of referring to section 37(1) in the text I quoted, the meaning could not be clearer. Article 4.2 was negotiated specifically by the Irish delegation at the time to ensure that the law as set out in section 37(1) would not be altered by the directive and would continue on the basis of a specific protection for its terms.

The Commission, as guardian of the treaties, did subsequently institute infringement proceedings in relation to this specific issue and having considered the response from the Irish authorities closed the file on the matter.