Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)

I do not oppose this straightforward proposal. I am not against reducing judges' pay but I am deeply unhappy with the way today's and tomorrow's proposals to amend our Constitution have been brought forward. One the major flaws with our first Constitution was that the Houses of the Oireachtas could amend it at will and we ended up with a Constitution which was like a wedge of Swiss cheese. Before I and many in this House were born, the citizens adopted this Constitution. The parts of the Constitution which have stood the test of time are those based on broad principles.

It is very important that we properly scrutinise measures which look benign. The Joint Committee on the Constitution's fourth report deals with electoral reform. It is much more difficult to remove things than it is to put them in. That is why full scrutiny is required when we decide to tinker with the Constitution.

I agree with some of the points made in regard to who would have challenged a Bill if it had been brought forward. When the Minister proposed this change in 2009, he said it should be tagged to the referendum on children's rights, which I wanted advanced quickly. I am disappointed we are not at that stage.

We are trying to visualise what could happen at a time of political instability when one needs that separation of powers. That is a good principle. The pay aspect is dubious but the separation of powers is incredibly important and a cornerstone of our democracy.

When I read this Bill, which is quite short, I was concerned by the section which stated that the remuneration of judges is subject to the imposition of tax, levies and other charges that are imposed by law on persons generally or persons belong to a particular class. I do not know how to interpret that and I would welcome the Minister's comments. Can it be interpreted as people other than judges? That is the only aspect about which I have concerns.

See this speech in context