I move amendment No. 126:
In page 70, before section 65, but in Part VII, to insert the following new section:
"65.7—(1)The Society shall issue guidelines requiring of its members that—
(a) no Partnership Deed shall contain any clause which discriminates as between partners on the grounds of sex, and
(b) a maternity clause be included in such Partnership Deed.
(2) The Society shall adopt a code of practice for all its members ensuring equality of opportunity.".
I raised this matter with the Minister on Second Stage. I am concerned about various matters relating to equal opportunities in the legal profession as it relates to women. I tried to get some statistics as to how well women are doing in the profession. As we all know, among the younger generations of women, especially at entry level into the profession, there are more women qualifying and doing well. Unfortunately, the Law Society did not have any details and this is part of the problem because nobody is keeping on eye on the matter. It had no statistics as to how many female solicitors are reaching partnership level or how many are going on to become proprietary equity partners.
This issue has been addressed in the Law Society's British counterpart which has introduced a range of equal opportunity measures. We must recognise that there is a problem here in relation to the mobility of women in the profession and this is particularly related to the "problem" of child bearing as it affects women in the profession. At present, thanks to excellent maternity legislation in this jurisdiction, women employed by a firm are covered; their maternity rights and conditions are secured. However, when one moves into the upper echelons of the profession in terms of being an equity partner, one moves outside the realm of the protection of the maternity legislation. There are not many women proprietary partners in Ireland, but I could not even get details of that because, unfortunately, the Law Society does not keep such statistics. We need to have a statistical profile of the profession based on gender and other matters.
When it comes to that stage, female partners seem to be negotiating with their predominantly male peers from a vulnerable position because in many cases they are embarrassed at being a hindrance because they had a baby. The duration of their maternity leave and what proportion of the proprietary and profit share they will continue to get have to be negotiated. Women often do not know how other women in similar circumstances have fared. The Law Society must start to address this issue. It is not in the public interest to force women to take two weeks maternity leave and then return to their desks, because it would displease their male partners otherwise or that they would be prejudiced in this regard by losing out in their share of the profits. This area cannot be regulated by law, but there should be an onus on the Law Society to recognise the problem for women solicitors. It will not go away but will get worse because solicitors are to the fore at the entry point to the profession.
The purpose of my amendment is to address the problem of maternity leave in the context of equity partners. Partnership deeds should not contain anything that would discriminate against a woman on the grounds of her need for maternity leave. We should follow the lead of the British Law Society which drafted guidelines and distributed them to their 70,000 members to the effect that a maternity clause should be included in all partnership deeds and has even drafted a precedent for it.
Equal opportunity, especially maternity benefits and rights for female partners in solicitor firms, needs to be addressed. I am afraid of a blockage on mobility at certain levels for women. They might progress to a certain stage and then be passed over for promotion to more lucrative areas of their profession because they have a baby. I am sure many female solicitors are loath to address such matters. They entered the profession and have been trained as equals with total access and equality of opportunity, but there is a hidden ceiling in the profession for women. They are less likely to vocalise it because they do not want to politicise the matter. However, this is an issue of public policy and it has been recognised by the British law society. I would like this Legislature to recognise it and ask the Law Society to examine it.
There are other equality matters which could be addressed; the British law society has addressed them. One issue is practising certificates fees. The practising solicitors fee of £600 per year was referred to earlier. In Britain, a reduced rate practising certificate has been introduced for women who leave the profession for child rearing purposes. It encourages them to return to the profession by providing returner courses. This area is very advanced in Britain. I do not want to shame the Law Society, but it should be made aware that women who have not been working are in danger of being lost because the society does not actively encourage them back into the profession or provide returner or refresher courses. There is nothing in place in the Law Society to take account of that, nor is there any mechanism to deal with complaints about sexual discrimination. Is it, for example, a disciplinary offence which would constitute misconduct? Could it merit going to the disciplinary tribunal?
Flexibility, part-time work and career breaks in this area have been addressed in Britain because they saw the need to address them. Questions which should not be asked are put to women at job interviews. Guidelines need to be issued by the Law Society to protect a large portion of their members. I am interested in hearing the Minister's response.
