Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

I want to return to what has been said by other contributors. While I heard the Minister of State's contribution today I recall that in an earlier contribution he praised himself and the Government for the action they are taking in the context of this legislation. This has the level of credibility of a pyromaniac who sets fire to a building and then seeks praise for calling the fire brigade. In so far as praise is being sought, as has been said by other speakers, this issue we are now discussing arose at the time of the introduction of the pension levy and was not an unexpected issue in the context of the legislation before the House.

I find it extraordinary to hear the Minister of State representing the Government in this House now say he cannot pre-empt what the Government might decide on whether there should be a constitutional referendum on this issue. The Government has been aware of this problem. If it did not realise it before imposing the public sector pension levy, it has certainly been aware of it since then. On the basis of the Attorney General's advice, whether disputed or not, the Government excluded application of the pension levy to members of the Judiciary. I listened with interest to what other Deputies said and to the references to the former and distinguished member of the High Court and Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Barrington, who has spoken on this issue. I remind Members of the House that my understanding is that his speaking on this issue applies to the pension levy and not to what is a direct reduction in a judge's remuneration about which the Constitution is enormously clear. I do not believe that when Eamon de Valera presented the 1937 Constitution to the Parliament of this State and ultimately the people he anticipated that a future Government, in particular a future Fianna Fáil-led Government, would essentially completely and utterly destroy the Irish economy and create that which this legislation recognises is a financial emergency.

We are dealing with a Fianna Fáil created financial emergency and a constitutional provision drawn up by someone whom I presume in those days had some ideals in terms of what might be achieved by Governments in this State and did not anticipate the complete, total, utter and gross incompetence of the Taoiseach when Minister for Finance and his continuing incompetence. An indication of the level of continuing incompetence is that this constitutional issue has not been addressed by Government. I accept when the Minister of State says - I know colleagues on this side of the House are sceptical about this - that for good or ill there is a constitutional difficulty in applying this public sector wage decrease to the Judiciary. On occasion, we, as politicians, come under so much heat it is fun to shoot verbally at other people. While it is on occasion fun to shoot verbally at the Judiciary in this House, it does not add to public respect for the Judiciary or our court system.

The truth is a problem exists, of which the Government has been aware for some time. My colleagues, Deputies Brian Hayes and Charles Flanagan, asked why the Government has ignored this problem up to now. I appreciate, as the Minister of State said, that a constitutional problem arose and that the Government may be thinking about this. The Bill I introduced on behalf of the Fine Gael Party was first distributed just under four weeks ago. The Government has had just under four weeks to consider its content. Within that four week period it has had its internal budget debates, its external budget leaks, its announcement of the budget and this legislation, which was under preparation. No one acknowledged there was a problem and asked what was to be done in respect of the judicial exemption in times of a financial emergency. I agree with all speakers on this side of the House who said that non-application of this remuneration reduction to members of the Judiciary is utterly and grossly unfair but there exists a constitutional barrier to its application. As legislators, we have a duty to uphold the public esteem of the Judiciary and to protect its independence. As suggested by Members on this side of the House voluntary contributions to a pension levy are a charge imposed by way of contributing to the creation of one's pension fund which arguably may not be cut under Article 35.5. I, too, have argued that possibility although I understand the Government's difficulty with it. I understand from where Mr. Justice Barrington is coming on that issue. It may well be that there are significant numbers among the Judiciary who take the view that there was no constitutional barrier to having the levy imposed on them and that is why they are voluntarily contributing to it, but there may be a constitutional barrier to members of the Judiciary, under pressure from Government, this House and the general public, agreeing to hand back a portion of their salary because that, in effect, is bringing about a reduction in judicial remuneration by public pressure. This is an issue which, in fairness to the general public and to the Judiciary, should be addressed.

Deputy Mansergh is here as Minister of State representing the Government.

See this speech in context