Amendments Nos. 27, 28, 29 and 30 are cognate and all may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Employment Equality Bill, 1996: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Sections 24 to 26, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 27.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 26, subsection (1)(a)(ii), line 2, to delete "violent".
I am moving the amendment on behalf of Senator Lee. Does the Minister consider it is necessary to include the qualification "violent" in the exemptions given to the Garda Síochána under the section. Section 27(1)(a)(ii) states:
With regard to employment in the Garda Síochána or the prison service, nothing in this Act applies to the assignment of a man or, as the case may require, a woman to a particular post where this is essential in order to guard, escort or control violent individuals or quell riots or violent disturbances.
The amendments seek to delete the word "violent".
Section 27 provides a limited exclusion for the Garda Síochána from the scope of the legislation as far as the gender ground is concerned. The purpose of the exclusions in subsection (1)(a)(ii) and (iii), which are the subject of Senator Lee's amendments, is to allow the Department of Justice to discriminate on the basis of sex where a preponderance of gardaí or prison officers of one sex, usually men, would be more obvious in quelling or preventing certain violent situations.
The effect of the amendments would be to broaden the scope of the exclusions thereby allowing discrimination to apply far more widely than would be necessary to deal with violent individuals or situations. In those circumstances a wide range of duties and assignments in both the prison service and the Garda Síochána would fall outside the scope of the anti-discrimination provisions of the legislation. Such a position would be most disadvantageous from the point of view of employees of both sexes in these services.
For example, women prison officers would have no redress under the Bill if they were continually rostered for desk duties and excluded from the main work of a prison officer, which is to guard and escort prisoners. Despite the likelihood that a similar case to my example would not arise in practice, it would be most undesirable and probably contrary to EU law to allow for it by way of exclusion in the Bill. I hope Senator O'Toole will agree with me and withdraw the amendment.
I find the Minister utterly convincing——
Would Senator Lee?
——on this issue. I hope the Minister will be amenable to me on other issues.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 28 to 30, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 26, subsection (2)(b), line 20, to delete "with the consent of the Minister,".
I am also moving this amendment on behalf of Senator Lee. This issue arises where the Minister for Justice considers there are insufficient numbers of either men or women serving in the Garda Síochána or the prison service. Section 27(2)(b) provides that the Minister for Justice, with the consent of the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, can, by order, state that the Act shall not apply to competitions for recruitment to the Garda Síochána or the prison service. Should this not be within the ambit of the Minister for Justice alone? Is it necessary to have the consent of a second member of the Cabinet?
I have more than a passing interest in this aspect because it applies to other places of employment. For example, the issue of the imbalance in the male and female intake to colleges of education repeatedly arises for educationalists and the Minister for Education in trying to create an adequate balance of role models in specific areas. The amendment seeks to delete the reference to the Minister for Equality and Law Reform in the section to allow the Minister for Justice to act alone. In the context of delivering better Government and making people responsible for their areas in terms of how decisions are made, is it necessary to involve a second Minister in this decision making process which is obviously a functional matter?
I am sure Senator O'Toole will find me equally convincing on this amendment. Section 27(2) allows the Minister for Justice to recruit on a single sex basis to the Garda Síochána and the prison service. The scope of the provision is confined to cases where there are not enough members of one sex to meet privacy and decency requirements of prisoners or suspects or to deal with violent situations. The services in question come within the remit of the Minister for Justice but the exclusions which may be required come within the scope of the Bill. In law it would have been open to either Minister to make the order, given that both have different responsibilities relevant to it.
My primary responsibility is to ensure the integrity of equality legislation while the primary responsibility of the Minister for Justice is to ensure the effective running of the services. The consensus approach, which we consciously adopted in the provision, will facilitate the development between us of a well conceived proposal for an order in this area should it prove necessary in the future. I hope the Senator will review the amendment and withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 27 agreed to.
Sections 28 to 31, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 32.
Amendment No. 32 not moved.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment No. 33 was already discussed with amendment No. 16. Is the amendment being pressed?
On the basis that the Minister will consider an alternative before Report Stage, the amendment is not being pressed.
Amendment No. 33 not moved.
Section 32 agreed to.
Sections 33 and 34 agreed to.
SECTION 35.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 32, subsection (1), line 28, after "special" to insert "enhanced".
When I read section 35 I interpreted it as meaning that it is not unlawful for an employer to pay to an employee with a disability a special rate of remuneration for particular work. In other words, a person with a disability could receive more remuneration than that to which they were entitled for the work they had produced. In this regard I will return to my earlier example about parachute making. An able bodied employee might turn out 100 parachutes while an employee with a disability might produce 60. I had presumed that the section meant that the person producing less work would receive the same rate of pay as the able bodied person. It was only when I reconsidered the section that I discovered it means the opposite.
I am aware that the rationale behind the section is to increase the employment potential of disabled persons. I am also aware that the rate of employment among such people is extremely low. Therefore, if a person can only turn out six as opposed to ten pieces of work they will be paid for what they produce and remain in employment. However, although this increases employment opportunities, it is discriminatory because, while these people may not be capable of producing the same end product, they may work 40 hours per week. If it were possible to use the term "enhanced" a person producing ten pieces of work could not claim they were receiving less pay for the same output. I do not know whether my argument makes sense but that is the object of the amendment.
I examined Senator McGennis' amendment to section 35(1) closely and I understand there may be some sensitivity to the term "special rate of remuneration" used here. However, I am concerned about the possible implications of replacing the term "special" with the term "enhanced". As it stands, this provision would cover a situation where an enhanced rate of remuneration is provided but there could be some confusion about the interpretation of "enhanced".
This subsection is intended to facilitate the employment of persons with a disability whose capacity to do the same amount of work as other employees is restricted. It must be accepted that in some cases there will be persons with a disability who, even with reasonable accommodation, will not be in a position to satisfy the principle of equal pay for equal work. The NRB already recognises such circumstances and in its efforts to promote the employment of such persons it makes arrangements to subsidise the costs of such employees. However, where the NRB is not involved I would not wish to preclude the possibility of an employer making a genuine effort to increase the participation of persons with a disability in employment, particularly such persons whose capacity to perform is seriously restricted.
I will examine this amendment further to see if perhaps there may be a more appropriate wording to achieve this objective and facilitate greater participation of persons with a disability. However, I do not intend to adapt this provision in any way which would exclude the principle of equal pay for equal work from workers with a disability who are fully capable of doing like work with other employees, with or without reasonable accommodation.
I thank the Minister for his reply. This is a delicate area in which it is difficult to achieve a balance. In order to bring disabled people into the workforce one must ensure that they are attractive to employers. If the Minister can facilitate my proposals on Report Stage, I would be quite happy to take on board his recommendations.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 35 agreed to.
Section 36 agreed to.
SECTION 37.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 35 to 39, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 34, subsection (1)(a), line 28, to delete "reasonable" and substitute "necessary".
I move this amendment on behalf of Senator Norris, who is indisposed and will return to the House shortly.
Section 37 is the crucial part of the Bill. During this afternoon's debate we argued about minor aspects of this extraordinarily intricate legislation. I did not have an opportunity to state it earlier, but I must place on record my appreciation of the work invested in this complicated legislation by the draftspeople. However, the Bill is fatally flawed in respect of section 37. I believe I have convinced the Minister of my argument but I have failed to convince him to act on the basis of it. I appeal to him to give it further consideration.
We are dealing here with the area of ethos and what is required under the Constitution in various ways. This section deals with churches, hospitals and the people who work in them. An example of what worries me was reported in British and Irish newspapers last week under the headline "Teacher forced to resign". The article states:
In what is thought to the first case of its kind in England, a Catholic teacher has been forced to quit her job because she married a divorced man.
The decision by the deputy head teacher, Ms Bernadette Nott (36), to marry twice-divorced Mr. Malcolm Hornby made her position "untenable" in the eyes of the governors of St. Augustine's Primary School, in Stamford, Lincolnshire, where she had worked for seven years.
Ms Nott said "My only sin was falling in love and marrying. That seems to be a sin that cannot be forgiven."
I am concerned because the Minister and I received representations at the highest level from the Catholic Church authorities. They assured and convinced the Minister, but not me, that such a situation would not arise in one of their schools.
The people referred to in the article did not have the protection afforded by the legislation which the Minister proposes the House should pass. If that can happen without the force of legislation or a Constitution which provides such an out clause, I dread to think of the nightmare scenario which could develop for teachers and nurses working in Catholic institutions throughout Ireland. I am aware that the Minister was informed, in writing and verbally, on many occasions that the Churches would not be interested in taking this kind of action. I pointed out to him that the Churches would not take action but individual boards of management would use legislation to take this kind of precipitate action.
I raised this matter on Second Stage and, in the interim, a case has arisen in a Church school in England. Will the Minister explain why teachers should not be concerned about this matter? I am particularly worried about the position of primary school teachers. While operative or surgical interventions may occur in hospitals in high profile events such as those we discussed during the past number of weeks in a different context, this will not become a major issue in universities or post-primary schools. However, it will become an important issue at primary school level where huge demands will be made on teachers.
At this stage I will refer to amendment No. 38, in my name, until Senator Norris returns to the House. Amendment No. 38 seeks to protect the ethos of schools. We also want to ensure parental choice and reasonable protection for the employment possibilities and promotion prospects of primary teachers. The Churches are adopting a grossly unfair and unnecessarily aggressive approach to this legislation. Over the years teachers, Churches and parents have found a delicate balance between each other's private expectations, arrangements and beliefs. It would be unwise and imprudent of the Churches to upset this balance as they are about to do. However, they will not find a way to do this because teachers are in favour of a choice in education.
Teachers have recommended for years that parents should have the option of sending their children to nondenominational schools. We have also said that denominational schools run by Churches should also be an option because variety is important and nobody wants dull uniformity anywhere, particularly in the education sector. Are we saying it is beyond the power of human ingenuity to draft legislation that protects the private lives of teachers but which also allows them to have honest and fair prospects of promotion and access to employment, while at the same time protecting the ethos of schools and allowing parents to have a choice in education?
There is a way of doing this in the context of our Constitution. No person, legislator or Minister, could argue other than that it would be wrong to allow an employee or a teacher to actively undermine the ethos of a school. In other words, if a teacher ridiculed the religion being taught to the children or undermined it in any way, it would be unacceptable and offensive to parents and to everyone involved in education in the context of what is required in our Constitution. Should Churches be given the authority to deal with such situations?
I do not have a difficulty with many aspects of section 37. However, I have a problem with section 37(1), which states:
A religious, educational or medical institution which is under the direction or control of a body established for religious purposes or whose objectives include the provision of services in an environment which promotes certain religious values shall not be taken to discriminate against a person for the purposes of this Part or Part II if—
(b) it takes action which is reasonably necessary to prevent an employee or a prospective employee from undermining the religious ethos of the institution.
If we could ensure that this legislation would be confined to dealing with religious matters, we would not have a difficulty with it. However, there will be problems because we have now legislated for divorce. It is only a matter of time before two divorced teachers, one of whom is taking the Confirmation class and the other the First Communion class in a Catholic school in a village in rural Ireland, develop a relationship and someone says that their living arrangements are unacceptable to the Church which is running the school and are undermining its religious ethos. That will be argued reasonably and forcefully and it will be difficult to resist. These two teachers could find themselves in the same situation as the woman in Lincolnshire. As sure as it happened in England, it will happen here.
At least the people in England will be able to fight it through the courts on the basis that it was an unfair or unjust dismissal. If, before this legislation was introduced, a Church here moved against the teachers in the situation I described, it would have to prove the reasonableness of its position either through a judicial review case or an unjust dismissal's case if it was not covered by unfair dismissals legislation. Now it will only have to prove that these steps had to be taken because it was "reasonably necessary to prevent an employee or a prospective employee from undermining the religious ethos of the institution".
People will not be able to survive in that milieu. What we are doing is wrong but there is a way to deal with it. If the Minister and I agree that we can live with this if it is confined to religion, then let us do it in one of two ways. We could restrict it to the religion ground but that is not possible because religion ground, as defined in the Bill, is narrow in that it only applies to where two people are of differing religion. A number of other grounds are listed in the amendment, such as "gender ground, the age ground, the marital ground, the family status ground, the sexual orientation ground, the race ground or the travelling community ground". I hope we will add the trade union ground.
The Senator should not forget the disability ground.
We must ensure that action is not taken in a way that would be offensive or that it is not used as a defence. By not allowing it to discriminate on the grounds I listed, including the disability ground, it restricts it to religious matters. It is not restricted to the religion ground as defined in the Bill. This is what the Minister is trying to achieve. The board of management of a school could use the private life of a teacher to say that the way they are living their life is anathema to and undermining the Catholic ethos of the school. Therefore, they were not going to consider them for the post of principal, promote them or take whatever action they may consider necessary to stop them. My legal advice is that this can happen. If I am wrong will the Minister say that it cannot happen? I do not want him to say that they would have to prove this on various different grounds. There is a legal loophole which allows the board of management of a school to use aspects of a teacher's private life to his or her disadvantage.
I concede that the religion ground is narrowly defined in the Bill. By excluding the other grounds specified it is down to religious matters. An easier way might have been to include a statement about private lives. However, having looked at this possibility I concede that it is not possible to do so. There are aspects of a teacher's private behaviour which could rightly be used as grounds for dismissal or disciplinary action. However, this should never include the relationship the teacher is in, their marital status, sexual orientation or the other grounds which have been specified by the Minister in the Bill.
There are 40,000 teachers and 30,000 nurses who are fearful of this legislation being used against them. Would the Minister accept an amendment which would give him what he is trying to achieve? At the same time this amendment would give the Churches the protection they need for the ethos of their schools. I accept that this issue must include disability.
I understand the difficulties the Minister has with this Bill. This State has given enormous powers to the various Christian traditions to run schools and hospitals. They now run almost all the schools and many of the hospitals. Consequently, this Bill will affect a large number of people.
Senator O'Toole has spoken of how this Bill will affect his members, particularly those within the Roman Catholic tradition. I have had representations from members of the minority Churches, particularly the Church of Ireland. It has been said to me that this section is intended to protect the ethos of the minority religions. I very much appreciate what the State is doing in this regard. However, I resent the quoting of Northern Ireland legislation, which has removed schools and hospitals from equality legislation. Northern Ireland is not the type of society we should follow.
The Minister has said that what matters is not what people are but what they do. I understand why he says that the ethos of certain schools should be preserved. That is the right of parents. However, like Senator O'Toole, I have many concerns about this section.
On 26 February, the Church of Ireland sent a fax to its national school teachers. The letter concerns the Employment Equality Bill and states:
The Church of Ireland board of education today released publicly a statement on the Employment Equality Bill currently progressing through Seanad Éireann. In it the board offered an assurance to teachers that the passing of the Bill would not alter the sympathetic and fruitful relationship between management and teachers which has traditionally existed in Church of Ireland schools. The following is the full text of the statement.
The board of education regrets the attempts which were made to remove entirely section 37 (1) of the Employment Equality Bill, 1996, as originally proposed by the Government. The board welcomes the efforts of the Government to protect the religious ethos of schools in the drafting of the amendment to section 37(1)(a) which was passed by the Dáil on Wednesday 5 February 1997. However, while the board acknowledges that the intention of subsection (b) was to prevent the undermining of religious schools and other institutions, it believes that, as presently stated, the subsection is unsatisfactory from the point of view of teachers and management.
The board assures teachers in Church of Ireland schools that the traditional ethos of these schools in which teachers and managements have had a sympathetic and fruitful relationship remains unchanged.
I have also had a communication from the Past Students Association of the Church of Ireland College of Education. They expressed concerns of which the Minister is aware. The association supported amendment No. 38 which proposes subsection (1)(c):
it provides that discrimination is on grounds other than the gender ground, the age ground, the marital ground, the family status ground, the sexual orientation ground, the race ground or the travelling community ground.
It is important to address this issue because the board of management has expressed concern that the traditional relationship between it and its staff should remain stable, and those in employment are concerned that this legislation may allow them to be the only people within this State to be discriminated against on these grounds.
The Minister has been rightly praised for the work he has done. Can he convince other members of the Government that this issue is causing grave concern to a large segment of the community, which includes members of minority religious traditions? It is important that this is publicly known. It is not the case that this section has been included to protect members of the minority traditions. They also have anxieties. Can some movement be made on this section so that people will only be dismissed if their professional conduct is in conflict with the ethos of the institution? People are entitled to this form of protection.
This is the nub of the Bill where real conflict emerges. I hope we will have the support of Fianna Fáil and that it will not be intimidated by the possibility of an election —
The Senator is going about it the wrong way.
I am saying that it would be a very good thing for Fianna Fáil to do.
There is the possibility of an election and it has often not done so in the past.
I have plenty of courage.
The Senator is finding a way out now.
I have not spoken yet Senator Norris presumes he knows my thoughts.
Senator Norris without interruption.
Turning this debate into a charade is an easy way out. This is very serious. The Bill is to remove discrimination in peripheral areas but permits it to continue in the principal areas where it functioned in the past. That is unwise. Discrimination existed in the past in national and secondary schools and in private hospitals, most of which were controlled by religious interests. It is astonishing and regrettable that those should be exempted from the principal clauses in this Bill.
These sections should be omitted but that is unlikely to happen. Accordingly, I have put down amendments to permit discrimination when it is absolutely necessary to preserve the ethos. Ethos is not defined except in a document entitled The Governance of Schools. There it is defined as being in accordance with the doctrines, moral teachings, traditions, practices and customs of the Church as defined by the Church from time to time. That is a very narrow and sectarian definition, so a very sectarian point of view is being protected.
There may be circumstances in which this could be justified, but that has to be carefully considered. To say there are "reasonable" grounds gives too much latitude; it is just tolerable that we accept that it should be "necessary" to preserve the ethos. I have had correspondence from the churches, including the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Ireland and only one letter expressed any fear about the position if this section were deleted but even that person would be reassured if he or she understood that the capacity to discriminate would be supported if it were "necessary"; that should be the wording.
My amendment No. 36 proposes:
In page 34, subsection (1) (b), line 30, to delete "reasonably necessary" and substitute "essential".
Amendment No. 37 proposes:
In page 34, subsection (1) (b), line 32, after "institution" to insert "during working hours".
The relevant section states that the institution shall be exempt if—
...it takes action which is reasonably necessary to prevent an employee or prospective employee from undermining the religious ethos of the institution.
There is case law to which Senator O'Toole referred on this matter. In England a woman was dismissed because she married a divorced man. In Scotland a school gardener went to a gay rights demonstration in Edinburgh. He appeared in a newspaper photograph of the crowd and was fired. There was no evidence that the parents were disconcerted by this, that he had tried to provoke the school or that his action in expressing a conscientious political decision had undermined the ethos of the school. The governors of the school had an apprehension, real or imagined, that the school's reputation might be damaged by the open and honest expression of his point of view in a legal and democratic manner. However, their decision was acceptable and legal and that decision was upheld on appeal. The same situation would occur with this legislation as it is framed.
I seek a small change in wording. "Reasonable" should be changed to "necessary". If one wants to preserve the ethos of a school, surely action should be taken only where it is necessary to do so. If one is permitted to take such action where it is necessary, logically the ethos can be preserved. However it will only be preserved in circumstances where it is necessary. Should one make it essential for an employee not to undermine the religious ethos of an institution during working hours, one has equally protected the ethos and cut away the grey area in which discrimination may operate against an employee.
This section conflicts with a number of international positions taken up by the State and also with the Constitution. The Campaign to Separate Church and State has written to the President and asked her to refer this Bill, with particular reference to this section, to the Supreme Court for a judgment on its constitutionality. That group has reasonable grounds for that position, although the Minister's advisers may disagree. The Constitution states:
1º Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.
This section does not do that. I agree with Senator O'Toole when he says that discrimination should be confined to the narrowest grounds possible. Why should a Church of Ireland school employ a Church of Ireland teacher of geometry? What is so different about Protestant Euclid and Catholic Euclid? It is acceptable where the religion or ethos of the school must be taught but to reserve the right to promote a particular form of mathematics or geography seems absurd, neurotic and insular.
Section 37 is also repugnant to Article 44.2.3º of the Constitution, which states:
3º The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the grounds of religious profession, belief or status.
This is precisely what the section appears to set out to do and seems to be in conflict with the Constitution.
There are a number of other international instruments that can be examined. I will not place them on the record of the House. However, I would like to refer to them. There is the 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. This was proclaimed at the General Assembly of the United Nations on 25 November 1981 and it was so urgently pleaded by the Irish delegation that it became known internationally as the "Irish Declaration". Article 2 states:
No one shall be subject to discrimination by any State, institution, group of persons or person on the grounds of religion or belief.
Yet, it seems we are doing precisely that in this Bill. Article 3 states:
Discrimination between human beings on the grounds of religion or belief constitutes an affront to human dignity and it disavows the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and shall be condemned as a violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and enunciated in detail in the International Covenants on Human Rights and as an obstacle to friendly and peaceful relations between nations.
Article 4 states:
All states shall take effective measures to prevent and eliminate discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief.
Article 4, section 2 states:
All states shall make all efforts to enact, or rescind legislation where necessary, to prevent such discrimination.
This Bill is removing discrimination in a number of areas but is allowing it to remain in the principle area in which it is likely to operate.
Religious ethos is clumsily and vaguely defined in the nebulous document exchanged between the Roman Catholic Church and the Minister. In terms of the ethos of the Roman Catholic Church, as I understand it, and as it has been publicly and shamelessly proclaimed by no less an authority than Cardinal Ratzinger, it is not only moral but also required of Catholics to discriminate in good faith against people on the basis of sexual orientation. That is repugnant to any notion of human rights and if we are going to kow tow to the Roman Catholic ethos and are going to grant to people the right to discriminate against anybody who appears to conflict with that ethos, we are handing an invitation to denominational schools to discriminate on one of the very bases on which we have outlawed discrimination in employment in a sweet shop.
In educational terms that is a very bad example to be setting our children. It is from the educational system — not merely the lessons but the demeanour, behaviour and the respect accorded to different people within the school system — that children will learn about values. If the Bill continues, unamended in this form, I firmly believe it will become an incitement to discrimination, not an inhibition. For that reason it is urgent that we attempt to amend this Bill. I hope the Minister will find it possible to agree with us, particularly in the light of the White Paper on Education's proposals. Under the heading of the outline of legislative provisions it states on page 221 that the provisions relating to the teaching profession generally could include provisions relating to the position of teachers in schools, their duties and rights, particularly their rights in respect of discrimination and their right to earn a livelihood. These are the very rights that are being clipped back by this legislation. They are certainly not being enhanced. Nobody, irrespective of what verbal or imaginative skills they had, could possibly maintain these rights are being enhanced. They also run counter to the State's obligations and commitments under the United Nations Human Rights Covenant.
In 1993 we had to account for our human rights record under the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights before the United Nations Human Rights Committee in Geneva. The Government's delegation was led by the then Attorney General, Mr. Harry Whelehan, who told the United Nations Human Rights Commission that "priority was being accorded... to the non-discriminatory treatment of minorities... in regard to education, employment" and that "the question of religious discrimination in education was to be addressed in the current review of equality legislation". Mr. Whelehan is a very fine lawyer but I would not have considered him to be the most radical of figures to emerge in this State. Yet, here he was telling the United Nations Human Rights Commission that Ireland intended to address, as a matter of priority, the question of existing discrimination in education on the grounds of religion. In the Bill this is exempted. I find that extraordinary. Is this the will of the Irish people?
If we look at our knowledge of what the will of the Irish people is, it tells us that this is not so. For example, in Prejudice and Tolerance in Ireland, published in 1973 by Fr. Micheál Mac Gréil, more than 1,000 Dubliners were sampled; 87.5 per cent disagreed with the statement that an applicant's religion should be considered when considering them for a responsible position. Almost 90 per cent thought religion should be irrelevant. In February-March 1992 Abacus Analysis carried out a survey in which 239 representative voters in the Wicklow and Kildare Dáil constituencies were surveyed in a multiple choice question. Some 95 per cent said they would prefer Catholic teachers as long as they were good people. However, the religious beliefs of teachers ought not to be taken into account when selecting, promoting or dismissing teachers in national schools where teachers' salaries were paid by the Department of Education. The remaining 5 per cent expressed a preference that all teachers must be practising Roman Catholics in order to be eligible for selection or promotion. Teachers who did not conform to Roman Catholic doctrines should be dismissed for not doing so. We have a 95:5 per cent opposition to discrimination on the grounds of religious belief. I think the 95 per cent are representative of the decent, tolerant majority of people in this society.
I believe it is very important that we recognise that there seems to be very little public demand for these kinds of stringent measures. It should be possible to water this legislation down. I acknowledge there has been pressure on the Minister, pressure that has come not just from the Roman Catholic Church. It would be most unfair to target them exclusively. Pressure has also come from the Church of Ireland which is nervous about a dilution of belief among its members. Can I point to the fact that in the school which services the Minister's own religious minority, the very fine school of Stratford, all the present teaching staff are non-Jewish. In the Islamic schools — Islamic religion tends to be very severe on these matters — all of the staff are not required to be Muslim. They are prepared to accept a kind of pluralism which the two major Christian denominations feel less comfortable with.
I urge the Minister to look as seriously and as carefully as he can at these amendments. I hope that my friends in the Fianna Fáil Party will find their usual moral stance to be vindicated on this occasion and that they will not be found in the most unusual position of being accused of lacking moral courage. Far be it from me to launch that particular missile at so worthy a group of colleagues.
Acting Chairman
You have done it anyway.
I think Senator Norris is losing allies by the minute. He may find he loses even more than he intended. I will immediately concede that this is a very difficult area. I accept that it is appropriate for a school of whatever denomination or no denomination at all to wish to preserve its ethos. That is the point Senator Henry made. On the question of choice, if parents want to send their children to a school of a particular denomination or a non-denominational one, that should be their prerogative. The State interferes with that choice at its peril and to the detriment of constitutional provisions. Can that choice be reconciled with ensuring that staff of schools or hospitals are protected? This is what amendment No. 38 seeks to achieve.
I concede that the Bill was improved in the Dáil and that it is closer to what we desire. However, it is not as close as we wish. It is extremely important that minorities in the State should preserve their ethos. I accept the difficulty of defining ethos but it is something we all recognise when we visit schools. It is extremely important that the minority ethos of whatever group — Jewish, Church of Ireland, Methodist or no religion — be protected. There is an obligation to protect that diversity for the good of society because of the dominance of my religion, Roman Catholicism. It is essential that that diversity survives and is protected because it is vulnerable and has been declining. There are many examples of schools closing while there are other examples of schools which have flourished. The issue is one of choice and of protecting teachers in the system. It should not be possible to discriminate against somebody because of colour or disability.
I am a member of a primary school board of management. I would never wish somebody to be discriminated against even on grounds of religion but I see the capacity for fundamentalist Ayatollahs to use the legislation as an excuse to prevent people whom they regard as undesirable from gaining employment.
The term "reliable information" used in section 16 (4), which we debated at length, is relevant here. It is open to busybodies to advise the board of management of allegations regarding the suitability of somebody for a job thus jeopardising their job or promotional prospects. It should not be possible to discriminate against somebody because we dislike their lifestyle. It is possible to reconcile the principle of protecting the ethos of the institution while also protecting teachers or other employees from discrimination. Amendment No. 38 achieves that reconciliation.
I do not agree with amendment No. 35 tabled by Senator Norris removing "reasonable" and substituting "necessary"; neither do I agree with his amendment No. 36 calling for the removal of "reasonably necessary" in favour of "essential". I am taking my courage in my hand when I say to Senator Norris that neither amendment is necessary. We are not allowed to refer to Senator Norris in his absence.
On a point of order, the Senator is allowed to refer to Senator Norris in his absence. However, he is not allowed refer to his absence.
In not referring to Senator Norris's absence——
Acting Chairman
Points of order should be addressed through the Chair.
He is entitled to raise a point of order and he will naturally address it through the Chair.
What we are arguing about are the grounds which can be used to prevent somebody being employed or promoted. Lifestyle is not sufficient grounds. Just because we dislike the lifestyle of somebody is not sufficient grounds. However, it is correct and appropriate for a school or hospital to employ people who will not undermine the ethos of those institutions. Allowing that happen is part of the diversity we seek in society.
Senator Norris mentioned a survey suggesting that 90 per cent of people in Dublin city thought nobody should be discriminated against on religious grounds when they seek a responsible position. This does not surprise me. I note Senator Norris is now in the House.
I listened to every word and watched the Senator on the monitor into which he fits adequately.
The Senator is losing more ground. I would expect that 95 per cent of the citizens of Dublin, being reasonable people, would say nobody should be discriminated against on religious grounds when applying for a job. However, I am certain that a large majority of them would say that a school could appoint somebody in line with its religious ethos. I am confident of that. There are many precedents for surveys showing different things. There are surveys showing that the State should not fund political parties while other surveys show that private individuals should not fund political parties. In other words, nobody should fund political parties. There are inconsistencies.
The "Irish Declaration" of the UN refers to the appointment of people to responsible positions without discrimination and ensuring that people in their ordinary activities are not discriminated against. However, it does not extend to the area suggested by Senator Norris.
Amendment No. 38 is a valuable one and the Bill can be improved. The Minister went a considerable distance in the Dáil in amending section 37 and I think we can go further. The spirit of amendment No. 38 should be taken on board.
This is the nub of the difficulty in the legislation. The problem is trying to find a formula of words protecting the ethos of the relevant institutions while at the same time protecting individual freedoms of employees and potential employees. I strongly support Senator O'Toole and others when they say that the lifestyle of the employee, or potential employee, should not be taken into account.
Senator O'Toole referred to a case in Britain. I would be extremely concerned if I thought such a case could be successful on behalf of an institution here because of this legislation. We all share the same desire about the wording of this Bill. I welcome the changes the Minister made in the Dáil. However, I do not know if the wording proposed by Senators O'Toole, Henry and Dardis would tighten the protection for teachers.
On a technical point, I thought they should have used "and" rather than "or".
On a point of order, it had to be "or" because of the way the Bill is drafted.
The "or" then allows the institution to use either (a), (b) or (c) as grounds, does it not?
Yes.
But, in effect, they can still use (a) or (b) if they are not using (c). Maybe I am wrong but I do not see that it increases the protection. What Senator Henry read out sounded more protective because she added the words "provided that" to (b). I do not know whether I am reading it wrongly and I would like the Minister's clarification but, along with all other Senators, I would like to see the protection of the private lives of teachers, nurses or anybody working for a religious, educational or medical institution. I do not know yet whether this amendment will improve the Bill as passed by the Dáil.
Far from lacking in courage, I was listening attentively, particularly to what Senator O'Toole said, and I must say I agree with Senator O'Sullivan. I am still at a loss to know how the wording proposed by Senator O'Toole's amendment achieves the objective as stated by Senator Dardis and I put it down to the fact that I must be punch drunk at this stage. Everybody agrees that there is a need to ensure that a person's private life is not used as an excuse to either debar them from employment or refuse them their right to advancement within a hospital or school. Even if grounds of disability had been included in this — and I have no doubt that Senator O'Toole would not propose that one group be excluded — I do not understand how this amendment achieves Senator O'Toole's objective. At this stage, it is time for the Minister to enlighten us. Maybe we will all become courageous and walk through the lobbies.
Senators will undoubtedly be aware of the considerable difficulty the Government had in achieving a text on this subsection which secured a balance of competing rights which warranted protection.
Senator Norris has put forward three thoughtful amendments which he is satisfied would improve this provision. Each of these would, in effect, upset the level of balance which the existing text delivers. The Senator believes that a very much more stringent exclusion should apply to any protection of religious ethos. He spoke eloquently on Second Stage about the prospect of Church hierarchies orchestrating a regime of widespread victimisation of teachers who fail to comply with strict religious requirements. He also conjured up images of the Inquisition to reinforce his warning of the potential abuse of this provision.
And I thought he was good tonight.
I would point out to Senators that it will be for the Director of Equality Investigations or the Labour Court to be convinced that a person's exclusion is justified in any particular case. Furthermore, it will be for the institution concerned to satisfy the director or the court on this matter. I assure this House that the Director of Equality Investigations and the Labour Court are a very far cry indeed from the Inquisition.
Senators O'Toole, Henry and Dardis have also put forward a substantive amendment to this provision. I understand the motive for this proposal. It is based on a belief that the exclusion at section 37(1)(b) is unduly broad. The reality is, however, that this paragraph has been strictly and narrowly drafted so that while a denominational interest may argue before a Director of Equality Investigations or the Labour Court that some discriminatory action was reasonably necessary to prevent the undermining of its religious ethos, the onus will be on the institution to show the need for the exclusion. This, in my view, will effectively provide considerable protection for the employee.
I have mentioned previously that there is a delicate balance in the present text of this provision which reflects both the genuine concerns of teachers and the legitimate rights of denominations. Senators O'Sullivan and McGennis referred to the effect of amendment No. 38. I think they are right, looking at it from a drafting point of view, because section 37(1) is saying that the institutions shall not be taken to discriminate against a person if (a) and (b). Amendment No. 38 interferes in no way with and does not qualify or limit (a) or (b) but adds a third ground of exclusion "or (c)", the meaning of which I have difficulty in following, so that the institution, instead of seeking to avail before the equality officer of either (a) or (b), may now avail of either (a) or (b) or (c). That point is well taken.
Senators Henry and Norris expressed concerns that section 37(1) may infringe our obligations under the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance Based on Religion and Belief. The Employment Equality Bill, 1996, and in particular section 37(1) is consonant both with the Constitution and our international obligations in this area. The instruments contain a general prohibition on discrimination on grounds of religion and allow exemptions from that general principle in certain cases.
The UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights sets down certain civil and political rights which signatory states undertake to respect without distinction as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political and other opinions, national or social origins, property, birth or other status. These include the right to life, liberty, fair trial, freedom of conscience, political opinion, movement and residence within the state, and prohibition on torture and slavery. The issue covered by this Bill — the right to equality in employment — is, by and large, beyond the scope of the Covenant. However, it is worth nothing that the parties to the Covenant are obliged to have respect for the liberty of parents or guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.
The Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance Based on Religion and Belief provides for the rights of freedom of thought, conscience and religion. These rights may, however, be subject to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public morals or the fundamental rights and freedom of others — Article 1. For example, Article 5 of the Declaration specifically provides a right of access for children to education and the matter of religion or believe in accordance with the wishes of their parents or guardians. Furthermore, the Declaration provides for freedom of religious groups to establish and maintain appropriate charitable or humanitarian institutions — Article 6.
Senator O'Toole referred to a case in Lincolnshire. He made the point that the UK does not have the protective legislation which we are now proposing. Under this Bill the institution concerned would have to show that action of the sort resorted to in the Lincolnshire case was reasonably necessary to prevent the employee from undermining the religious ethos of the institution. That is a very strict test and I put it to Senator O'Toole that section 37(1) would greatly enhance the protection of a person in the context of a circumstances such as that which occurred in the UK. He referred to other remedies which he suggested would no longer exist: judicial review, dismissal rights, etc.
I did not suggest that.
He seemed to suggest that. Whether or not he did, let me clarify the situation. A person who is aggrieved in such a context has certain remedies available to him or her under existing law. Judicial review, to which Senator O'Toole referred, is one such remedy, there is the Unfair Dismissal Act, 1977, and there may be others. This Bill in no way amends, restricts or interferes with any remedy available under existing law. No right that person has now will be taken away by this Bill. On the contrary a range of new protections, rights and remedies are given to a range of people who have no right or remedy at present.
Senator O'Toole said "The school may say that...". A school may say whatever it wants but the determination as to what happens is not on the say so of the school or institution. If is comes to the point the onus of proof is on the school to establish to the satisfaction of the equality officer — an independent adjudicating officer — that what was done undermines the ethos of their institution. That is a right and a remedy which is not available now.
The Bill allows them to consider private lives.
Senator O'Toole conceded that there may be aspects of teachers' private lives that could impact in some circumstances on the ethos of the school.
I stated it; there was nothing to concede.
I noted it down as he said it. It is always possible that in certain circumstances there could be an aspect of an employee's private life that would impact on the employment. How does the Bill limit this? We agree that institutions may have their religious ethos. On Report Stage in the Dáil on 5 February, Deputy Keogh said at column 715, referring to the amendment I introduced to section 37 (1), "I am not too unhappy with the Minister's amendment..." and went on to say "...it is reasonable for parents and students of a school which they understand to have a certain ethos to expect that to be maintained."
We are saying that they may take action to prevent a prospective employee or an employee from undermining the religious ethos of the institution. We must agree that it is all right for the institution to have a religious ethos. If one finds fault with saying that it may take action to prevent that ethos from being undermined by the person in question, the converse is to accept that it is all right for an employee to take action to undermine the religious ethos. That is untenable.
If the issue of whether a particular action, be it an aspect of a private life or other action, undermines the ethos of an institution was left to the word of the institution I could understand that would be problematic. However, that is not the case. We are providing an independent adjudication process and putting the onus of proof on the institution that makes the allegation. It will have to satisfy the independent adjudication officer that the person has undermined the ethos. It may find that difficult to do. I imagine equality officers will case a cold eye on such a suggestion. It would have to be an exceptional case before an equality officer, acting independently, would be satisfied that a person had undermined the ethos. I know that Senator O'Toole likes the term "undermined" and I agree that it is useful.
We accept that an institution is entitled to have its ethos. Are we then saying that it is all right for an employee to undermine it? The provision allows an institution to take action if the employee is undermining the ethos. The converse is that an employee may undermine it, which is untenable. This provision proposed is reasonable.
There are situations in which it might be objectively held that a teacher or an employee was undermining the ethos of the church. That might be a finding in fact. However, it might not be a bad thing. In terms of the Roman Catholic ethos, it is clear that on the interpretation given by the Vatican and the Curia the existence of a homosexual teacher who was not deeply and bitterly ashamed of his or her condition constitutes an undermining of that ethos. That has been maintained consistently in statements from the Vatican, principally under the present Pope and Cardinal Ratzinger. In establishing and confirming the known ethos of the church we are wittingly accepting this.
An objective analysis would come to the view that a well balanced, happy and secure gay person rather than a miserable, neurotic and penitent one, would by his or her very existence undermine the ethos of an institution. This case was made against me in the University of Dublin, not in any national school. I was considered to be undermining the university, not through any propaganda I was making on behalf of my sexual orientation but simply because I was a good and popular student and might be seen as a role model.
Will the Minister assure the House that teachers will be secure in their employment? Is it not good teaching practice to intelligently challenge the ethos of any Church? Are we to take it that an intellectual challenge raised by a teacher in terms of comparative religions, for example, undermines the ethos of the Church? Would it not be better for the students to have an intelligent challenge to their ethos or beliefs?
Can the Minister guarantee that under the legislation as framed the Eileen Flynn case could not recur? I do not believe her rights would be guaranteed and, based on her public statements, neither does Ms Flynn. I ask the Minister to reiterate clearly and explicitly that the case instanced by Senator O'Toole would not recur under this legislation. I also ask him to state that the Bill would cover the case I instanced, concerning a Scottish gardener who attended, in his own time, a political meeting at which he expressed views which some of the governors of a school felt might undermine its ethos. His subsequent dismissal was upheld on appeal under Scottish law. Although it was never shown that any damage had been done, it was held that the governors had reasonable apprehension that such damage might occur to their school. My belief is that those three cases would, regrettably, still be possible under the legislation as currently framed. If the Minister can convince me that is not the case I will be happy. In any event I do not intend to press any of my amendments. I will reconsider the thoughtful contributions of the Minister and some of my colleagues with a view to reframing the amendments and reserving the right to resubmit them on Report Stage.
In all honesty, some of the Minister's replies to me were somewhat specious. I will deal with them and may stand to be corrected. As to what is and is not available, the record will show I did not state that access to existing remedies would be reduced; however, by this legislation, the Minister will reduce their effectiveness. If a teacher were sacked tomorrow on an issue relating to religious ethos, he or she could follow various possibilities. He or she could use the Unfair Dismissals Act, could claim "unjust dismissal", meaning anything not dealt with under the Unfair Dismissals Act, or seek judicial review. Whichever route the teacher chose to take, management would have to prove the case against him or her. The Minister has now put a weapon in the hands of school managements, who can say their actions were now covered by this legislation, which gives them a base on which to set and contextualise their arguments for getting rid of teachers. Until now they would have had to prove the reasonableness of their case; they now have been given the additional force of legislation to argue the question of ethos. This was not available to them in this manner before. The Minister or his advisers will say they could have used certain provisions of the Constitution, but those balances and checks were there naturally. School managements now have a lesser burden of proof on them. It is not a matter of access to remedies but how the Bill can be used against teachers.
As to the amendments, I freely concede, as I did on Second Stage, that the Bill was vastly improved in the Dáil. Few teachers agree with me but I had many arguments with them to prove it has been. People thought using the word "reasonable" instead of "essential" represented a softening of the previous position. There are at least four elements in the provision. The Dáil has improved it because, as it is now written, the management of a school would have to prove, first, that what they were doing was reasonable; second, that it was necessary, third, that the employee was undermining or about to undermine the institution in the context of its religious ethos; and fourth, ethos was redefined as religious ethos. I do not know the difference between "ethos" and "religious ethos" and the Minister must explain it.
He has also not explained his remark that the issues could not be used as proof. He could not say what might or might not be said, but teachers are worried that their marital arrangements could be used against them. I believe they can be under the Bill as written and the Minister has not contradicted me. I am worried about that point.
Due to a typographical error the word "disability" has been omitted from my amendment and therefore I cannot and will not press it to a vote tonight; but I will return to it on Report Stage, having made that correction. The Minister and Senator O'Sullivan suggested that I should have used the word "and" instead of "or" in amendment No. 38. If my amendment was accepted, the provision would read:
A religious, educational or medical institution... shall not be taken to discriminate against a person ... if ... it proves that discrimination is on grounds other than the gender ground [etc.]
It is easy to re-write the beginning of the amendment to cover that point by omitting the word "or" before my proposed paragraph (c) and allowing it to run as part of the text. I will bring it back on Report Stage to deal with the points made by Senator O'Sullivan and Senator McGennis, having consulted with people who raised the matter and with the Minister's Department.
I thought it was not necessary to return to the next issue but since the Minister mentioned it again, I reiterate that I was unable to write a phrase to cover the private lives issue. I said the same to teachers who asked me that question. I had originally intended to cover it but an element of one's private life necessarily impinges on one's work. If a teacher arrives in drunk, or leaves in the middle of the working day to play golf four times a week, or refuses to wash himself, those aspects of his private life would be utterly unacceptable, although they might have nothing to do with the religious ethos of the school. My amendment states that action can be taken against a teacher or an employee as regards some aspects of private lives, religion, etc. However, the Bill should not allow the power to discriminate on certain grounds, as it does in section 37. The restricted areas in subsection (1)(a) and (b) could continue if accompanied by the proviso in my amendment that discrimination shall not be on the ground of gender, age, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, disability, race, membership of the travelling community or, if the provision is added, membership of a trade union. What else is left? Everything else is left, but those issues are not included.
Matters to do with religion are included, and these are far wider than the religion ground, as interpreted in the Bill. I did not frame the amendment to allow discrimination to occur on the religion ground only because that would be too narrow. It protects ethos carefully and correctly.
The nightmare scenario of how information on who is sleeping with whom makes its way from the bedroom to the board of management of the school defies the imagination. It goes beyond the valley of the squinting windows back to fundamentalism involving people passing information on each other and action being initiated on the basis of gossip. It involves the State interfering in private lives in a way with which the Minister disagrees. He feels as strongly on these matters as I do.
The Minister has argued his position cogently and there are elements of it with which I agree. However, he has not told me what is wrong with accepting my amendment. In what way does it restrict what he is trying to do? In what way does it take from clauses (a) and (b)? In what way does it lessen the protection of the ethos on the religion ground? We are entitled to have these questions addressed.
Legislation covering the employment of teachers in religious schools is in force in many parts of the world. Some of it — for example, in respect of some state laws in the US — is very restrictive and worrying. However, if teachers in Irish schools are dismissed on the basis of religious ethos they will effectively be denied the constitutional right to work because they will never be employed in any other school in the State except, perhaps, in the 2 to 4 per cent of schools that are multi-denominational or, following the enactment of the Education Bill, nondenominational. This is unlike the situation in England. At least the teacher in Lincolnshire can seek employment in the state schools system.
What we are doing here in protecting the ethos is important. However, let us do it in a way that recognises difference. There is nothing pluralist and inclusive about this legislation. People should be enriched by difference. If members of the Government speak of enrichment and learning from difference, surely this can only come about from the interaction of all people? Surely there is nothing better for a people in understanding their own ethos or culture than to be exposed to, involved in and perhaps taught by others?
We are creating a polarised system. Given the reduction in the numbers of those involved in the religious, education will be handed over to fundamentalists within the next ten years. I am terrified by this legislation. I will rewrite the amendment to include disability and to ensure that the first part is acceptable to Senator O'Sullivan and Senator McGennis. I will also discuss it with the Minister's Department. I will then ask him to tell me what is wrong with it.
I have not raised my difficulties with the legislation, rather I am speaking in favour of my amendment, which strengthens the requirement of the Bill, protects ethos and finds a balance between ethos, private lives and personal opportunities. I appeal to the Minister, for the sake of the future of education and the immediacy of these issues, to concede that it is a good amendment.
People should be allowed to send their children to schools the ethos of which they approve; protection of the ethos of schools is, therefore, very important. I agree with Senator Norris that philosophically it is good for children to encounter other beliefs and comparative religions. I sent my children to schools where this was taught and which contained wide selections of traditions and religions. I would have been dismayed if fundamentalists had started to teach them. I therefore understand those who hold the view that the destruction of the ethos of a school is contrary to what they want for their children.
I am less sure about hospitals because there are so few hospitals within the State that can offer specialist treatment in certain areas. I am concerned that religious beliefs may be enforced in some of the provisions which are made in the major hospitals, which are almost completely supported by State funds. However, these concerns are not strictly relevant to this Bill, which is concerned with the position of employees.
No matter what Senator Norris may say about the surveys he has read and about the great tolerance among Irish people for different views from the religious aspects of our various traditions, I am not sure that they are as accurate as we would wish. Otherwise, why have so many people written to me expressing concern that they may be discriminated against by this legislation? I can only take comfort from remarks made to me by the Minister, both privately and publicly, to the effect that it is not what people are but what they do that will be considered as undermining the ethos of schools.
I will not press the amendment. The Minister is sympathetic to our grave concerns and has made genuine efforts to address them. However, I am worried that so many people from various backgrounds consider that they may be discriminated against in their employment. They are not people who would normally be fearful of this kind of situation.
I endorse Senator O'Toole's remarks. I am terrified of fundamentalism being unleashed and allowed to control society and the schools. I am sure the Minister shares that fear; it is one held by every democrat. The essence of the pluralism to which we aspire is to maintain differences in religious ethos and to maintain the minority religions and the schools they operate. That is an essential element of our pluralism because of the dominance of one religion within the State and it is essential for the health of the nation.
The Minister made a point about how the legislation gives more protection to rights. There is no dispute about that; of course, the legislation enhances the protection of rights. What is at issue is whether it enhances the protection of rights to a sufficient degree.
I was struck by an aside which Senator O'Toole mentioned. If a teacher is an alcoholic does that undermine the religious ethos of the school? It does not undermine the religious ethos of the school, although it might undermine the school itself, which is a separate issue. However, I have a problem which relates to the definition of disability in the Bill which includes "a condition, illness or disease which affects a person's thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgment or which results in disturbed behaviour". Could that be construed as alcoholism? If alcoholism fell within that definition we would then be in serious trouble. That occurred to me as we were debating the matter.
The pure vindictiveness of what was done to a teacher in John McGahern's book The Dark was a horrific scenario. Obviously, neither the Minister nor any of us wants something like that to happen again. We are trying to ensure that nothing like that can happen again. That type of unacceptable fundamentalism, to which I am sure no Member could subscribe, must not be allowed free rein or to destroy people in the way a teacher was destroyed in that novel.
I appreciate Senator O'Toole's explanation of exactly what he means and the Minister should state why the wording is unsuitable. I do not think I could be considered as ultra conservative or right wing. However, am I the only Member of this House who questions the idea of fundamentalists being unleashed when the legislation is enacted? Surely these fundamentalists have had free rein for the last 70 years. Why then have they have not been running amok? Am I the only Member who feels this way?
I serve on a school board of management. Am I wrong in thinking it would take a decision of the board of management of that school to employ or dismiss somebody who it was felt was undermining the ethos of the school? I wish to point out the composition of the boards of management of schools to those who are concerned about fundamentalists running riot and creating misery for people of different sexual presuasions, religious ethos or marital situations. The board of a post primary school is composed of the principal, who might not be a member of a religious community and usually is not in post primary schools; two teachers; two parent representatives and two diocesan representatives. Perhaps the non religious composition of the——
We are not suggesting they are the fundamentalists — they will have to resist the fundamentalists.
Senator McGennis, without interruption.
——board of management is not in the majority as matters stand. However, there is a suggestion that because somebody on a Church of Ireland, Jewish or Catholic school board of management is the "religious" appointee they are crazy fundamentalists who want to bash to death people who are not of their persuasion and see them put out of a job. I do not accept that and I am not saying that as a cowardly conservative. My position on this is known.
I am prepared to listen to Senator O'Toole to see if there is a possible pitfall which would mean that cases such as that of Eileen Flynn could happen again. However, such cases have not happened. The Eileen Flynn case happened before this legislation. Why are matters now going to fall apart all of a sudden? I want some balance to be applied because it is unfair to those who are running school boards of management to suggest they are a bunch of loony fundamentalists who want to run anybody who is not of a pluralist viewpoint out of the education system. There is a need to have some balance in this in order to achieve Senator O'Toole's objective.
That is ridiculous.
It is not.
That suggestion must be rejected.
Good.
Nobody is suggesting the members of school boards of management are fundamentalists. We are attempting to stop the so-called busybodies and the people who will influence the boards of management and whom the boards will have to resist. I am the bishop's nominee on a board of management and I would not tolerate the type of interference which——
Those are the kind of safeguards which there are.
I want to make it absolutely clear that neither Senator O'Toole nor I suggested that the members of boards of management were fundamentalists. However, we are saying there are individuals within our society whose influence must be resisted.
This demeans the whole debate. I cannot believe what Senator McGennis has said and I do not know from where she got it. I deal with members of boards of management every day of the week. They are people who are trying to run schools with very few resources and they work very hard.
I will tell Senator McGennis a story from her constituency. A school was established in Santry three years ago by the Tridentine rite. It was operated under a system which was not, to a certain extent, completely clear to the parents. When they brought in rules such as the introduction of prayers at various parts of the school day and that girls had to wear skirts below their knees there was wide media interest in this fundamentalist school. Effectively, the State moved to close the school; but it could not do so because it did not have the authority under the current legislation. It is a scare story which has not gone away. The current Minister for Education was involved in dealing with it but could not find a way out, nor could I or anybody else. This opens the gates to more of that.
In future if a fundamentalist group sets up a school it will ensure that any of its teachers are also fundamentalists. Teachers reflect society and there are teachers who are campus crusaders and other fundamentalists. I am not speaking for those people. The Minister knows my views on this and I am speaking about the mainstream of teachers who are completely committed to their faith. This is not the liberal agenda. The people who are raising this issue with me have not put religion behind them but are secure people who practise and believe in their faith.
The last group which met the Minister were a group of Church of Ireland teachers who are involved with the Church of Ireland board of education, have a huge commitment to that area and felt that some of the points which I raised at an earlier stage of the debate did not fully reflect the need to protect their ethos. They were entitled to that view, which was reasonably put. However, we came to a position of understanding on how we might conclude this. It is their view that this amendment is an appropriate way to deal with the matter. I am putting the case that we need to look to the future and to include the present. This amendment must be acceptable to the Minister.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Acting Chairman
When is it proposed to sit again?
At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.