Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)

Like Deputy Flanagan, I regret we have reached such a pitch that we must discuss the Judiciary in this manner in this House. I suppose it is a pointer to where the Government, with Fianna Fáil as the dominant partner, has brought us that we are back here for the second time this year cutting the pay of public servants. This is happening against a background where the Minister for Finance has, on a few occasions here, spoken about the incomprehension on the Continent that he managed to cut the pay of public servants by almost 8% last April and we did not end up with people protesting on the streets. Madame Lagarde, apparently, is aghast at the effectiveness of the Minister for Finance here. The Minister, apparently not satisfied with that, has now come back for a second bite. One is left with the impression that it is inconvenient of us even to detain the Government for a short number of hours to discuss the issue.

I understand that approximately half of the members of the Judiciary have, on a voluntary basis, contributed the same or similar concession. We should record our appreciation of the manner in which separation of the Legislature and the Judiciary has operated in this country and of the manner of discharge of their functions by members of the Judiciary. However, we are thrust into a debate where one cannot avoid focusing on the issue of fairness. Just before I came into the House today, I opened a letter I received from a teacher who stated his income was down by approximately €6,000 because of the decisions of the Government in the budget, by €6,500 as a result of the pension levy, €1,800 due to the increase in the health levy, by €2,100 from the income levy and by €1,000 due to the increase in PRSI, but as a class D PRSI contributor this additional tax was of no personal benefit to him. It is almost beyond belief that we are here in this House of Parliament discussing for a second time such cuts in the pay of the people who work for the State and that last week we finished a Bill through which the Government was proud to advance a measure that, effectively, kicked away the stick from the blind man and from people with disabilities. The Government is back for more this week and we are expected to bend the knee in its favour. People on €30,000 or less are expected to accept an increased pay cut of 5% again.

We must consider the Judiciary in this context. Members of the Judiciary are well paid. If one does a comparison of the relative progression over recent years of members at the base grades of the public and Civil Service with those at the very top, the gap has widened significantly. In those circumstances, it is fair and reasonable to expect that highly paid public servants, in whatever office, would make the contribution. One wonders why we need discuss this at all. I have great respect for the Office of the Attorney General and for the current holder of the office, but there is a contrary view. The contrary view has been enunciated by a number of legal experts. The contrary view has also been expressed by former Supreme Court judge, Mr. Donal Barrington, to the effect that there is no constitutional impediment in the way of this deduction being applied.

If one looked at the preface to the Bill, one would think we were either facing a war situation or a famine, there are so many "whereases" in the preface of the Bill about the national emergency. The Bill is entitled "Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest". That is a hell of a way to list pay cuts, but there we are. If this is a financial emergency affecting the State - and I concede it is - we are being led to the edge of ruin by the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, and his colleagues. If it is a financial emergency, it is fair and reasonable to expect all highly paid members of the public service to be asked to pay their fair share.

Many people in the media are feeling hurt themselves at present. Many media corporations have been cutting back and are imposing cuts on their staffs, who are not overly well paid. Some obviously believe it sells papers to chase around for the next victim of pay cuts. Semi-state companies are the ones in the media eye this week. I suppose it will be the bishops next week in so far as it can be said we are funding them. It should be worth devoting a front page to the matter to see if they will accept a reduction. I do not really have much time for this approach, yet it must be remembered we are dealing with a Bill that proposes to reduce the pay, for a second time, of people on very modest incomes. If people on superior incomes are seen not to accept their fair share of the burden, there is no fairness in this measure.

I hope that in the very limited time available, we will be allowed to discuss why the lowest paid will be subject to a 5% cut. I believed there would be a floor or threshold, just as there was a threshold, albeit miserable, in the case of the income levy. People on the bottom are e-mailing Deputies on both sides of the House about how difficult it will be for them to survive in 2010. In this context, it is fair for us to expect higher-paid public servants to make a fair and proportionate contribution.

See this speech in context