Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)

It is my misfortune to have to comment on this Bill after Deputy Shatter, who has a detailed legal understanding of the constitutional issues involved. As a lay person, I find it is one of the most infuriating aspects of the endeavours to bring order to our public finances that a section of our society, whose members are well paid even by international standards, are exempt from the provisions of both the previous pension levy and this Bill. We are led to believe this is on the basis of advice received from the Attorney General, but that is a mask of convenience for the Government. While I appreciate that the advice will not be published, I feel it should be. It is advice that has been criticised and debated, with alternative views promulgated, in both the public arena and academia.

There are differing opinions on the matter. What is important is the purpose of the constitutional provision in question. It was obviously to ensure the independence of the Judiciary. However, in respect of both the pension levy and the pay reductions provided for in this Bill, it is not as though either the Executive or the Houses of the Oireachtas is seeking to single out the Judiciary for specific treatment to settle a score or whatever the case may be. It is rather the case that the exclusion of the Judiciary serves to bring it into disrepute. Its inclusion in the provision would put its members on the same basis as every other citizen in the country. While I accept that precedent will prevail and the Attorney General's advice will not be published, there is an alternative strongly held legal opinion that as long as the intention is not to single out the Judiciary or seek retribution through such measures for decisions made in court of which the Government did not approve, its inclusion within the scope of the Bill is permissible.

One of the ways this can be resolved is by passing the Bill published by Deputy Shatter. However, another equally meritorious way would be to pass the provisions of this amendment into law, which would leave it open to any member of the Judiciary or other citizen to take a court action and obtain a definitive interpretation of the constitutional provisions. I should be surprised, when we are asking everybody - the cleaner, the tipstaff, senior civil servants, chief executives - and when it is abundantly clear there is no intention of singling out the Judiciary, that it would be well nigh impossible for courts to find this was the intention of the legislation or of the Dáil.

I support the amendment. I believe it should be included as a speedier way to bring resolution to this issue.

See this speech in context