Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)

This is an important issue in that people look up to or ought to look up to the judges as being fair and independent in the way they deal with every case. It is regrettable that judges now find themselves in a category where rules that are being applied to everyone else are not being applied to them. I do not believe that was ever the intention of those who wrote our Constitution, an issue that has been dealt with by others, including by a very eminent lawyer in a recent contribution to The Irish Times. The intention was that no Government would seek to victimise judges in a selective way. I do not believe either the pension levy or the present deduction would victimise judges. The Judiciary stands a much greater risk by being seen to stand apart from the rest of the community than by being a part of it. It would be regrettable for judges to come into public disrepute because of their standing apart from rules that apply generally. Judges have been dealt with particularly generously in respect of pension eligibility. They establish pension eligibility after a very short service and also have very generous buy-back and other opportunities to build up their pensions. That is an acknowledgement that they are taking on a very important duty and in some cases are taking pay reductions from their practices elsewhere.

We must avoid judges ending up being seen to be above the laws applied to anyone else. Unhappily the judges are being seen to be above this law and the one that preceded it. On behalf of Fine Gael, Deputy Shatter has drafted an amendment to the Constitution that would remove the pretext the Government has had to use to exempt judges from these pieces of legislation. The Minister should accept our amendment and put the issue to the courts so that judges, if they wish, could test it to ascertain the interpretation of the existing restriction and whether it is, as many people feel, that judges cannot be singled out for unfair treatment. The courts would then rule whether what would be done by our amendment is fair or, on the contrary, the courts could support the Government's view. One way or the other the Minister should either accept our amendment and let this go to the courts to be tested or alternatively accept Deputy Shatter's Private Members' legislation and let it be decided by the people. We should not drift along with judges being treated as if they are outside the law that applies to every other citizen.

See this speech in context