Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

The position of the Attorney General, as I have outlined, is clear. He is the adviser to the Government on the Constitution and legal matters generally. It is not open to the Government to act in a way that it is advised would not be in line with the Constitution. That is a basic procedure of government. The advice was based on the case law and the clear wording of the Constitution itself. I have explained that in my first reply. It applies to pension rights also.

Apart from that, it is incorrect to suggest there was an effort to put anybody in a difficult position. As the Chief Justice said in his statement, members of the Judiciary considered it a matter of duty to seek ways to meet the constitutional inhibition, which is not in any way contested. Both the Judiciary and the Attorney General are ad idem on their interpretation of the Constitution. Members of the Judiciary themselves, on their own judicial initiative, consider it a matter of duty to seek ways to address the constitutional inhibition while at the same time respecting the spirit of the Constitution. As a result, the Chief Justice was involved in detailed discussions with the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners with a view to ascertaining what arrangements could be put in place to enable judges to make an appropriate voluntary contribution. All that has happened in this respect has been on the initiative of the Judiciary. It has dealt with the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners and produced an eight-page document. The arrangements have been approved by the Revenue Commissioners and they have facilitated the making of a voluntary contribution equivalent to the sum that would have been paid in any given year if the levy applied.

The Chief Justice made the statement yesterday because of what he believed were misapprehensions that in turn have led to misleading statements concerning the operation of the scheme for voluntary payments by the Judiciary in respect of the pension levy. The purpose of the statement yesterday was to clarify and confirm the initiative that was taken by the Judiciary. The Judiciary does not contest the constitutional inhibition and it has made arrangements with the Revenue Commissioners for the payment of the voluntary contribution in line with what would otherwise be payable were the pension levy applicable to it.

See this speech in context