Averil Power (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 9 relates to freedom of expression and is designed to address a concern that I mentioned on Committee Stage last week and that teachers have raised with me, namely, attending a pride parade. Clearly, this is a form of conduct, as the Bill does not restrict questions of conduct to the workplace. Could the mere fact of attending a pride parade or being photographed in local newspapers at a pride parade provide sufficient justification for discrimination? The Minister of State may argue that it is implicit in the legislation that this is not the case, but others would argue differently. It is important that we make it clear that it is not an issue. There should be no question of being penalised for exercising the lawful right to freedom of expression or association.

Dr. Ryan has drafted my amendments in such a way as for each to start with the term, "Without prejudice to the generality", as regards earlier provisions. This term is frequently used in Government legislation and makes it clear that, although we are inserting specific requirements in terms of the issues that I mentioned, these are not the only situations in which discrimination is prohibited under the Bill and are merely examples. The language has been carefully drafted to make that explicit.

My amendment No. 10 is on the employee's privacy. It addresses the concern that, while the Bill refers to conduct, it does not restrict its provisions to conduct in the workplace. Where the line between someone's personal and private lives lies is arguable. I have tabled this amendment to clarify that someone's personal and consensual relationships, be they of a sexual nature or otherwise, with other adults outside the workplace is not the business of the employer. The employee has a constitutional right to privacy and nothing that he or she does in exercising that right within the parameters set out in my amendments should amount to conduct justifying discrimination under the legislation.

Each of these amendments is designed to give people as much clarity as possible. I would have preferred to delete this provision. As Senator Zappone argued, it would be easier to get rid of it than to qualify it in so many ways. Given the fact that it is staying, however, the least we can do is restrict it as much as possible and give people clarity around the typical scenarios that have been raised by the INTO's LGBT group, the ASTI and others where teachers are seeking to know whether particular forms of conduct are covered and that they have nothing to worry about. No one wants to wait for this question to be determined by a court. The point of introducing this legislation is to remove section 37(1). It has never been relied on and an employer has never won a case based upon it. Whether something justifies discrimination has always been arguable, but the mere uncertainty and fear about whether people are covered in that regard has kept them living lives of anxiety and self-censorship. Let us give people as much certainty as we can. The Minister of State should accept these amendments so that it is clear that merely being out, married or in a relationship or exercising one's freedom of expression by getting involved in a pride parade or being photographed in the Áras with one's colleagues from the INTO's LGBT group does not constitute grounds for discrimination.