Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

Tairgim leasú a 6a:

I gCuid 1, leathanach 7, líne 13, "comhréireacha" a chur isteach i ndiaidh "laghduithe"

agus

I gCuid 2, leathanach 7, líne 25, "proportionate" a chur isteach roimh "reductions".

I move amendment No. 6a:

In Part 1, page 6, line 13, after "laghduithe" to insert "comhréireacha"

and

In Part 2, page 6, line 25, after "make" to insert "proportionate".

Amendment No. 6a represents the only substantive change I propose to make to the Schedule. Section 5.3 is drafted to allow that when and only when reductions have been made or are in future made by law to public service pay on the basis of the public interest, these reductions can be applied by law to judges' remuneration. That is to say it can only be done by way of primary legislation passed by the Oireachtas. The provision clearly limits the reduction in judges' pay to cuts applying to others paid from the public purse. It also guards against any danger of successive reductions being made to judges' pay alone as reductions can only be effected where reductions are being made to public service pay. Indeed, I referred to this in my speech on Second Stage.

It has been suggested that the text of the proposed Article 35.5.3 be amended to address concerns that have been the subject of some comment. The Attorney General has recommended that the wording of that provision be changed to state that any reductions made by law to the remuneration of judges should be proportionate to the reductions made by law to other classes of persons paid out of public money. Such an amendment would remove any possible suggestion that the Judiciary could be discriminated or targeted as a group for pay reduction in circumstances where no such reductions would apply to any other group paid out of public moneys.

I made reference to this in my Second Stage speech, so Deputies will be aware of it. Again, for the record of the House, the effect of this amendment would mean that Article 35.5.3 would read as follows: "where before or after the enactment into law of this section, reductions have been or are made by law to the remuneration of persons belonging to classes of persons whose remuneration is paid out of public money and such law states that those reductions are in the public interest, provision may also be made by law to make proportionate reductions to the remuneration of judges". The word "proportionate" is inserted.

It is important to understand that the proposed amendment will allow for the application of the reductions already imposed on the public service and serving judges. What the amendment does is more explicitly state what was already implicit in the original proposal and I suppose it is what I would describe as the "to be sure, to be sure" amendment so that no one can suggest, with any credibility, that this proposal does anything other than what we state it is intended to do which is simply to apply to the Judiciary any reductions that occur in other commensurate sections of the public sector as opposed to any possibility of the Judiciary ever being targeted.

In the context of this issue, Deputy Calleary raised some concerns about the draft Bill we published, which I did not have the opportunity to address on Second Stage, and said that we might publish something different after the referendum or that some other Government might publish something different. Of course, the protection there is a constitutional one. No one can do anything different in the sense that one can only apply to the Judiciary the proportionate reductions that relate to persons paid out of the public purse in the public sector at the levels as detailed. I deliberately provided the detail to the House in a form that I hope made it readily understandable in the context of the different levels from the Supreme Court down to the District Court and also the heads of the different courts and how it would impact on the Chief Justice all the way down to the President of the District Court. I hope the House will support the amendment proposed.

See this speech in context