Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)

I welcome the Bill, about which there has been much discussion, especially with regard to its effect on the independence of the Judiciary. It would be prudent from the outset to state that it is the belief of me and my party - I am sure this is shared by everybody in the House - that judicial independence is essential to any democracy. It exists to protect members of the public, who are entitled to have their cases heard and adjudicated upon by judges who are impartial and free from any sort of influence, including political or financial pressure.

Article 35 (5) of the Constitution deals with judges' pay and prohibits any reduction in pay during a judge's term in office. The rationale behind the protection was to ensure the separation of powers and prevent any potential attempt by this or other Governments to punish or discriminate against members of the Judiciary because of any adverse decisions or findings from the Government's perspective. It is an understandable and necessary protection.

When the issue was first raised by the Minister, a memo was collectively issued and posted on the website of the Courts Service. It stated that this was not a case of whether judges' pay should be reduced but rather how that reduction should be achieved. The memo indicated that it was not to oppose the amendment of the Constitution, which would see judges shoulder their fair share in these tough economic times, but rather to reinforce the need to safeguard judicial independence. It mooted the idea of the independent adjudication which Deputy Calleary has referenced. I am also interested in the considerations and thoughts of the Minister on that option. Why did he decide not to go down that road?

The issue has divided opinion in both political and media circles. Some have suggested that the Minister's treatment of the Judiciary was becoming increasingly arrogant and posed a real threat to judicial independence. I do not share that view but it has been made. Others have suggested that the Oireachtas should have just passed an Act in preference to a referendum on judges' pay, which is precisely what happened in the reduction of pay for other public servants. A challenge could then be taken if people felt it was required.

Members of the public are considering the debate and are probably puzzled by its elements, asking what is the big deal and why a referendum must take place. As the Minister noted in his opening remarks, the country is in a difficult financial position, with jobs being lost daily and families struggling to keep their heads above water. These people see a certain section of society kicking up a fuss about having pay reduced or, as has been argued, the manner in which it is to be reduced. Most people are not interested in the argument around the separation of power, regardless of its importance, and some do not understand the complexity of the issue. They want the matter sorted out, which is why this Bill is welcome. The speed with which the Government has addressed the issue must be welcomed.

Members of the Judiciary are among the highest paid, if not the highest paid, in Europe, which is of concern. The salaries range from €295,000 to €147,000, so nobody could argue that judges are not well paid. Their salary is supplemented by a very generous system of allowances and expenses available to judges. Just as nobody could argue that judges are not well paid, nobody could argue that this amendment is an attempt to make paupers of judges; we are merely putting in place a mechanism that will allow those with the means to pay to shoulder their fair share of burden in these tough economic times.

We have received additional information concerning savings that the Minister did not touch upon. They will not solve our problems but it does send a message that everybody is paying their way. For this reason we will give the Bill our full support. To be fair to judges and to give a balanced view, it is right to indicate that some members of the Judiciary engaged with a voluntary pension levy scheme, which should be recognised. Asking members of the Judiciary to pay taxes and levies on income, similar to those paid by everybody else, will not impinge on its independence. The Minister alluded to the ruling of the O'Byrne case in this regard, and the only way the Judiciary's independence could be compromised would be through the application of the taxes and levies to discriminate against judges. The amendment on Committee Stage deals with this matter.

Since my election I have argued that public confidence in the justice system is not what it should be. Some people are dismayed by the rulings which come from our courts and question the consistency of sentences. There is a growing perception that some judges are not living in the real world. Steps must be taken to ensure people's confidence is restored in our justice system. I have raised the matter at Question Time with the Minister and I hope this Bill can be the first of many steps to try to restore people's confidence in our justice system. This is not an elite group so they should be treated the same as the rest of the public.

In these tough economic times, this will send a clear message that even members of the Judiciary have a responsibility to pull their weight and ensure everybody plays a part in turning around this economy. For too long the perception and reality has been that those who cannot afford to pay are being asked to contribute more while those who can afford it get off scot free. For such reasons I welcome the Bill and my party will facilitate its passage through the House.

See this speech in context