I move amendment No. 105:
In page 50, lines 35 to 37, to delete all words from and including "together" in line 35, down to and including "health" in line 37.
This amendment seeks to delete the society's requirement for evidence about the state of a person's physical or mental health. I do not know how much of an effort it is to produce a super race such as the Germans wanted years ago.
Pure Aryans.
Nowadays we talk about helping people with physical disabilities. Does this provision mean that the Law Society does not want a person who does not have perfect mental and physical health, to be a member of the profession? I am not sure that anyone who qualifies must have reasonable mental health, unless one is talking about psychiatric health. This gives the impression that the Law Society does not care for people who are not perfect and that is not right.
This is a new provision. Lest there be any abuse by the society in the cause given to it under subsection (27) (1), an appeals provision has been included in paragraph (4). Where the society refuses to issue its consent to a person becoming bound by indentures of apprenticeship, that person may appeal the society's decision to the High Court. Under the existing subsection (27) — the subsection this is replacing — there is no appeals procedure if the society refuses to issue its consent. In relation to the Deputy's amendment, the change was introduced at the society's request. It states that a person who wishes to become bound by indentures of apprenticeship must provide the society with evidence as to the state of their physical or mental health. This does not seem too unreasonable, provided there is an appeals mechanism.
There seems to be a distinction between physical and mental health. I have great regard for the mentally handicapped and the Government has given them a lot of money in the last two years. However, we can think of situations where a person is too mentally handicapped to do the examinations. On the other hand, people who might not be as mentally sound as we would like, could be geniuses at doing examinations. They could then get apprenticeships and become involved in practices. The solicitors' profession is pressurised at present. Perhaps the Law Society thought there was a danger that these people might be mentally unable to sustain such excessive pressure.
I cannot see any reason for excluding physically handicapped people. I believe I can commit myself now to bringing in an amendment on Report Stage to ensure that the Law Society does not look for evidence of a physical handicap. I do not see any reason it should because it is bad enough to be physically disabled without being refused an apprenticeship for that reason. There is no logical ground for refusing an apprenticeship to someone physically disabled.
I am more worried about mental handicaps because of the pressures of business. In a highly pressurised practice, a client's money and resources could depend on the efficiency of his solicitor, his ability to make tough decisions and to bear up under pressure. I will consider it again from the point of view of physical handicaps. However, I am more worried about mental handicaps, although that is not a reflection on people who, unfortunately, are mentally handicapped.
I am glad Deputy Browne raised this point because I had not thought about possible discrimination before a person becomes bound by indentures of apprenticeship. In England the Law Society has introduced a strong anti-discrimination code to deal with matters related to race because it has a multi-cultural society, unlike ours. I read the anti-discrimination document which the Law Society published, which focused on people with disabilities. On Report Stage we should include a guarantee that disabilities will not be used as grounds for refusing to accept a person bound by indentures of apprenticeship.
What will happen if someone has AIDS or another disease which may appear to the Law Society to be socially undesirable? The same applies to someone who is mentally handicapped or who suffers from his nerves, which would have a direct impact, in terms of pressure, on his capacity to perform as a solicitor. The Minister should consider this area of exclusion on the grounds of physical or mental health before Report Stage because someone with a degenerative disease could be excluded from indentures. It would be terrible to do this if a person was smitten with such a disease.
Will people not be interviewed? For any job, one must sit down before three wise men or women. One's performance will determine whether one is suitable. Is that not what happens in this case? Why does this need to be written here? Is the Law Society so used to legal terminology that it wants everything in black and white? Why can the Law Society not interview people and pick the most suitable? Why should people have to give proof of mental health?
I do not accept that a person should have the right of appeal to the High Court. That is an awful imposition on anyone. Only a solicitor would say something like that and regard it as being a casual way out of a situation. It is an extremely frightening and expensive procedure for an ordinary Joe Soap.
