Averil Power (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State has made my point in reading out that article from the directive because the latter part makes it very clear that the exemption applies only “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”. That is the test in the EU directive and that is the test the Minister of State is failing to put into this legislation in respect of private institutions. He is applying that text in respect of people who work for public bodies but he is opting not to include it for those who work for private institutions. The directive does not permit that. It does not make any such distinction. The paragraph he has read out does not do that and neither does any other part of the directive permit it. It is important to point out that the exemption negotiated at the time provided that member states “may” make distinctions, it did not say “shall”, “should” or “will”. It provided for exemptions for public and private bodies where a test about genuine occupational requirement could be met but it makes no distinction between public and private bodies. That is not my view alone, it is also the view of the IHREC, which is tasked by the Government, and set up by these Houses to make recommendations on legislation such as this, to get appropriate legal advice and to advise Ministers on it. IHREC made clear in its report, requested by the former Minister, Deputy Shatter, prior to this legislation, that there is no legitimate reason to distinguish between public and private bodies.