Amendment No. 278 is an alternative to amendment No. 277 and they may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 42.
I move amendment No. 277:
In page 31, line 13, to delete paragraph (b).
I was taken aback that the Bill proposed the deletion of section 3 of the Irish Universities Act, 1908. That section was finely worded and dealt with the avoidance and prevention of religious discrimination. It states:
(1) No test whatever of religious belief shall be imposed on any person as a condition of his becoming or continuing to be a professor, lecturer, fellow, scholar, exhibitioner, graduate or student of, or of his holding any office or emolument or exercising any privilege in, either of the two new universities, or any constituent college; nor in connection with either of those universities or any such constituent college shall any preference be given to or advantage be withheld from any person on the grounds of religious belief.
(2) Every professor upon entering into office shall sign a declaration in the form approved by the Commissioners jointly under this Act, securing the respectful treatment of the religious opinions of any of his class.
(3) Nothing in this section shall apply to any professor of or lecturer in theology or divinity; provided that no test of religious belief shall be imposed by the governing body of either of the two new universities or any constituent college on any such professor or lecturer as a condition of his appointment or recognition by the governing body as such professor or lecturer.
The Minister's amendment No. 278 seeks to delete section 3 (2) and (3). In terms of her amendment, the Minister wants to retain section 3 (1), but is deleting subsections (2) and (3). It is a pity she could not have amended sections 2 and 3 of the 1908 Act and included them in this Bill in the context of all universities covered by the legislation. I do not see why we should not retain what has been in the system since 1908 stating that "every professor or lecturer should secure the respectful treatment of the religious opinions of any of his class". I do not see why section 3 could not have been amended in terms of the modern application and why it, too, could not have been retained. This fine principle has stood the test of time since 1908. It has been cherished by the universities which were taken aback by its deletion. With a bit of imagination and goodwill section 3, as it appears in the 1908 Act, should be retained. We often complain that legislation is old, but on reading this section it contains a fine piece of wording that is in no way obsolete.
What is happening here will satisfy the Deputy. Concern was expressed that the removal of some of the provisions of the Irish Universities Act, 1908, may remove safeguards against religious discrimination in the constituent colleges in respect of employment of staff. I want to put on the record that the provisions in the Employment Equality Bill, at present being considered by the House, provides comprehensive anti-discrimination provisions which will apply in full to all universities.
However, concern was expressed and I propose through amendment No. 278 not to delete 3(1) of the Irish Universities Act, 1908, so that the safeguards against religious discrimination in the constituent universities in respect of employment of staff will remain in place. They will be strengthened by the Employment Equality Bill. That point is relevant to the Deputy's concerns.
In amendment No. 277 Deputies Martin and Coughlan propose that section 42(BbB) be deleted in its entirety. This would result in sections 3(2) and (3) of the Irish Universities Act, 1908, not being deleted. While I share the Deputies' concerns about the need for legislative provision to ensure there is no religious discrimination, this amendment is not necessary and would be opposing the specific request of the NUI. I cannot support the amendment, but it does not affect the religious discrimination aspect.
Was this a specific request?
It is a specific request by the National University of Ireland that they be deleted.
Why? Did they advance any reasons?
The Deputy wants to be sure that there is a need for legislative provision to ensure that no religious discrimination will occur. Putting it in the way suggested it is not necessary. The NUI recognises that and is satisfied with the way we have dealt with it. Section 3 (2) deals with professors and others entering office under the 1908 Act. Under this Bill universities will be free to decide their own staffing structures. The NUI will not have a role in appointing new professors so the subsection is not necessary. Section 3(3) is no longer necessary because it deals with lecturers in theology and divinity. We have got the measure of it. I take the Deputy's point about admiring the wording of the 1908 Act and I hope that, at some stage, somebody will admire the wording of this Bill.
The amendments are acceptable. To what precise section of the Employment Equality Bill are we referring?
The general provisions of the Bill about religious discrimination. It is something that has never been tackled before.
Would teachers of religious theology be excluded?
No. We ended up in an interesting debate concerning people who teach religion and theology. The Deputy raised questions about section 3(2), which is not easy to implement in modern times. In addition, section 3(3) would interfere with the teaching of theology. The Deputy began by expressing concerns, but how would we meet them if those subsections were deleted? Given the concern that has been expressed, I propose amendment No. 278 not to delete 3(1) so that safeguards against religious discrimination in the constituent universities would remain in place. Not only will they remain in place, but they will be strengthened by the provisions of the Employment Equality Bill.
The Minister said that section 3(2) is not implementable in modern terms.
It would be considered difficult to implement it.
Why? What is wrong with saying that those who provide instruction in our universities today shall sign a declaration, which can be approved by An tÚdarás, which would secure the respectful treatment of the religious opinions of any of his or her classes?
The Deputy is looking at a provision in the 1908 Act which states that: "Every professor entering into office shall sign a declaration in a form approved by the commissioners jointly under this Act securing the respectful treatment of the religious opinions of any of his class". The provisions of the Employment Equality Bill will affect all those employed.
It is not referring to students there? As a matter of interest are we talking about the Equal Status Bill?
It states: "Every professor, upon entering into office [these are people who are employed by the institutions] shall sign a declaration in a form approved by the commissioners jointly under this Act, securing the respectful treatment of the religious opinions of any of his class". It is a tolerance provision. I suggest that the provision safeguarding against religious discrimination in respect of employment of staff will not be affected, but will be strengthened by the Employment Equality Bill.
The Employment Equality Bill refers to employment. The Equal Status Bill will refer to anything outside employment. Subsection (2) refers to the actual students.
It is two dimensional.
Am I reading it wrongly? It is so finely worded.
The Minister said section 3 (3) would interfere with the teaching of theology.
Section 3 (3) deals with lecturers in theology or divinity. It is not necessary for it to feature in this Bill.
If section 3 (1) is retained it would not apply to teachers of theology.
Nothing in this section shall apply to any professor or lecturer in theology or divinity provided that no test of religious belief shall be imposed by the governing body of either of the two new universities or any constituent college on any such professor or lecturer as a condition of his appointment or recognition by the governing body.
Why is that not being retained?
I can only give the Deputy reassurances as I do not have a copy of the Employment Equality Bill, 1996.
It would not matter. We want to ensure universities——
——cannot impose religious discrimination. There are two Bills going through the House which deal with this area. The Employment Equality Bill affects employment and universities will not be exempt from its provisions.
What about section 37 of that Bill, the religious ethos section? That was discussed on Committee Stage in the Dáil and the Bill is now in the Seanad.
It does not apply to universities; but it is relevant to the preservation of the ethos of primary and second level schools.
It does not affect any universities?
No, because the ethos of universities is non-denominational by nature. Schools are allowed under this section of the Employment Equality Bill to have bodies of a denominational nature. That provision does not affect universities.
Would the Minister return to this on Report Stage? I am neither satisfied with nor convinced by her replies. The Bill should be comprehensive.
I propose the amendment nonetheless because I am confident it deals with this issue. Were I to return to the matter on Report Stage, it would suggest I was not confident the issue was dealt with, whereas I am.
We disagree.
The Employment Equality Bill is in the Seanad and has not yet been passed. The Equal Status Bill has not yet been introduced. The existing protections should be thoroughly examined to ensure they adequately cover the points raised.
Section 37 (1) of the Employment Equality Bill deals with the maintenance of the denominational nature of education institutions. It does not apply to universities.
I do not see why section 3(3) cannot be left intact.
I have explained what I propose to do in this issue.
Amendment put.
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 9; Níl, 12.
|
Tá |
|
|
Brennan, Matt. |
Moffatt, Tom. |
|
Coughlan, Mary. |
O'Hanlon, Rory. |
|
Flood, Chris. |
Walsh, Joe. |
|
Keogh, Helen. |
Woods, Michael. |
|
Martin, Micheál. |
|
Níl |
|
|
Ahearn, Theresa. |
Flanagan, Charles. |
|
Bhreathnach, Niamh. |
Hogan, Philip. |
|
Bradford, Paul. |
Kemmy, Jim. |
|
Bree, Declan. |
Kenny, Seán. |
|
Connaughton, Paul. |
Lynch, Kathleen. |
|
Flaherty, Mary. |
Pattison, Séamus. |
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 278:
In page 31, paragraph (b), line 13, to delete "section 3" and substitute "section 3 (2) and (3)".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 42, as amended, agreed to.