Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)

Two issues arise in respect of these amendments. The point Deputy Richard Bruton makes regarding the issues of consultation is important. It would be perfectly normal for the Attorney General or very senior officials in the Department of Finance or elsewhere to tick tack with either the President of the High Court or the Chief Justice concerning the general feeling among the Judiciary about this proposal. The Minister of State should put on record what, if any, consultation occurred between the Government and representatives of the Judiciary on this issue. It is now placed in a difficult position whereby if its members do not give up the voluntary cut, there will be endless speculation regarding which judges have taken it. That is not in the interests of the Judiciary nor does it serve the purpose of the separation of powers. The Minister of State should address this issue. What, if any, consultation has occurred between the Judiciary and the Government on this issue? There is a historical precedent for such consultation to occur.

I refer to the point raised by Deputies Pat Rabbitte and Alan Shatter concerning the views of Mr. Justice Barrington. He has made public remarks during the past 12 months on the imposition of the pension levy on the public service. He believed Article 35 of the Constitution does not apply directly to judges on the issue of a pension levy because people would contribute to a pension scheme from which they would ultimately draw. I can understand to a degree the difficulty last year and the problem presented in the muddle of the budget at that stage when the matter of how judges would be dealt with was overlooked. However, why was it not possible to include a pension levy proposal for judges in this legislation, even if there is legal uncertainty as to whether they can be included for a pension levy? As it happens, I agree with Deputy Shatter and others that simply cutting their pay is virtually impossible to impose. Such a move would be legally and constitutionally defective and the Government would not get away with it, even if it wished to do so. However, there has been doubt about the Government view of pension contributions and the pension levy, to which Mr. Justice Barrington and others have referred. Why not include that retrospective issue in the legislation before the House? I seek clarification on these two issues.

See this speech in context