This is a serious issue. What the Minister of State has said in the context of the representation she has received from the Bar Council discloses the reality of the situation. This is not about the consumer or the presentation of cases in court. I have appeared jointly with senior counsel in some cases. We have not had a difficulty about who makes submissions on what or who cross-examines which witness. I say that as a solicitor but this is something that needs to be addressed.
The Minister of State was not present at our last meeting when I spoke of the oddity of the correspondence I, as a solicitor, have conducted with two chairmen of the Bar Council. If it were to be published it would be of substantial public interest. This is a public interest issue, it is not about the vested interests of the solicitors' profession or the Bar.
Since 1971, this Parliament has given solicitors the right of advocacy in the superior courts. If clients decide to instruct a barrister with expertise in an area and a solicitor with expertise in another area to jointly present a case as advocates in courts they should be able to do so, not just in legal theory but in practice. The Bar should accept it as a reasonable occurrence in the context of lawyers who have such expertise.
The Minister, and now the Minister of State, have said this is not a problem because since 1971, solicitors have rights of advocacy in the courts. However, in view of the representations the Minster of State has received it appears to be a problem from the perspective of the Bar Council. Deputy Howlin pointed out that we accepted amendment No. 45, which is concerned with the removal of doubt about an issue of much less importance. In view of that, I urge that this amendment be accepted. I am not prepared to defer it to a curtailed Report Stage, which, given that we are coming to the end of the life of the Government, may be guillotined. I am prepared to debate this issue all morning if necessary.
The Minister gave me assurances that he would deal with this in a constructive way. I understood he would be present for this meeting and I regret he is not. I do not mean that as an insult to the Minister of State. I mention it because the Minister was present during the exchanges on the previous occasion. We arranged this meeting to facilitate him so as to allow us to complete this business before the Order of Business. Both Deputy Howlin and I have commitments on the Order of Business and if we cannot complete this issue we will have to return to it on another occasion.
I am not satisfied with what the Minister of State has said and I am alarmed by the nature of it. I did not discuss my amendment with the Law Society. I tabled it not as a solicitor with a vested interested but as one who has had experience of the manner in which the courts operate and has taken a public interest view of it. However, since the amendment was tabled I have been advised by the Law Society that it supports it.
In view of the legal position since 1971, this amendment should not be a problem because the practical legal reality is that there is nothing to stop one or two solicitors with one or two counsel, or one counsel and one solicitor where appropriate, jointly appearing and acting as advocates. There is no legal rule to prevent that but there is a practice and a difficulty.
In this context I represent members of the Bar when I say that some junior counsel will not say in public but will say in private that they fear being black-balled if they act jointly with a solicitor as advocate. If they act with a senior solicitor of 20 years' practise, who perhaps might in the context of presenting a case, play the lead role with the junior counsel playing the same junior role which he or she would play to a senior counsel, the junior counsel will not so deal with cases for fear of the way their elders will perceive them and deal with them. This is an issue which must be addressed in the public interest and it is a serious issue. I am not prepared to simply nod it away today on the basis the Minister will think about it.
This amendment was tabled perhaps two and a half months ago. Most of the amendments tabled by me and Deputy Howlin were tabled well before Christmas, I think some time in November. The Minister has had a long time to look at this and if we are not to get a satisfactory response today, I am not prepared to deal with the issue simply on the basis that we will come back on a guillotined Report Stage, which will be devised in a manner which will ensure this amendment will not be reached.