James Bannon (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for affording me time to address this important matter, namely the views of the Minister for Finance on the desirability of all sections of the public service, including the Judiciary, developing policies and plans for cost-saving measures in the current economic climate. The need to bring this matter before the House is driven by the series of knee-jerk reactions by the Government in response to the financial downturn, which totally lack cohesion, and by public concern at the perceived inequity.

The remedial actions currently taken by the Government lack equity as they bypass the upper levels, including the President and the Judiciary, and leave the lower and middle income sectors to bear the brunt of the Government's pension levy. I have already raised under Standing Order 32 the issue of the exemption of judges from the payment of the pension levy. Although this exemption appears to be justified under Article 35 of Bunreacht na hÉireann, it is open to debate. Such a levy could be said to be a form of taxation and the imposition of same may not in fact contravene the constitutional safeguard of remuneration, as judges do pay tax. The pension levy has created a social divide which will not be bridged easily. Judges are entitled to quote Article 35 of Bunreacht na hÉireann with regard to their remuneration. However, the Constitution was never meant to be a veil for the Judiciary or anyone else. It must be guarded and nobody should hide behind it. The Judiciary and the Government would be well advised to focus on the preamble of the Constitution which places the power firmly in the hands of the people.

As members of the Judiciary well know, no one is above the law. Likewise, in these extraordinary times no one should be above making sacrifices for the well-being of their country. If nothing else, noblesse oblige should impel our judges to make a voluntary contribution. It is a question of perspective. Why should those who are struggling to make ends meet see the Judiciary, who are at the top of the public service payscale, escaping the payment of this levy?

The Minister chose to ignore calls from the Opposition not to include an exemption for the Judiciary in the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act which introduced the pension levy, thus enshrining it in law. I am puzzled as to why this had to be and why he chose to copper-fasten the exemption. Article 36 of Bunreacht na hÉireann allows the regulation of matters pertaining to judges, including remuneration and pensions, in accordance with the law, which is where a fresh look at this issue of the pension levy legislation could have made a difference.

The term "remuneration", in general as well as in the context of employment law, covers more than salary and includes any benefits which are conferred on an employee in the course of his or her employment. Nonetheless, it is still within the Minister's gift to turn his attention to cost cutting measures in the Judiciary under section 8(3) of the Court Services Act 1998, which states that "the Service shall, if so requested by the Minister, furnish to the Minister such information as the Minister may request relating to a number of matters." This subsection envisages the provision of information other than, or in addition to, that contained in the annual report. In this context, the Minister may request information in respect of any or all of the categories listed in the subsection.

I am calling on the Minister to seek parity for low and middle income earners by requesting the Judiciary to furnish details of cost-cutting measures in line with those of other public sector workers.

See this speech in context