Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

I thank all Members who supported the legislation, in particular my Fine Gael and Labour colleagues. I welcome that there is agreement on all sides of the House that this change is necessary.

I will try to explain some matters. Deputies will forgive me if, given the time available, I do not respond to all questions raised. It is important to be clear on where matters currently stand. We know that a significant number of the Judiciary have volunteered to pay the pension levy. I am not aware of any member of the Judiciary who has volunteered to opt into the salary reduction which has affected everyone else across the public service. The major portion of the moneys that will be saved in the €5.5 million will derive from the fact that if this referendum is successful, we will be applying to the Judiciary the same salary reductions as apply across the public service to others.

The draft Bill to which Deputy Calleary referred sets out the percentage reductions, replicating exactly the provisions of the 2009 Acts, which will be applied to serving judges. The draft Bill to which I am referring is the implementation Bill which we also published some weeks ago. For the convenience of the House, I included in my script the table setting out the effects of the reductions on judges' pay. It is clear, if the referendum is successful, exactly where matters may stand with regard to judges' pay. That is the reason there is no need to appoint a committee to look at or consider the issue. One or two speakers suggested that a committee should consider how much judges should be paid. That then is doing what we should not be doing, namely, we should not be singling out judges for different treatment to others in the context of effecting salary reductions.

I am conscious of the need to continue to protect judicial independence and so I constantly reiterate that what this legislation is about is applying in a fair way to members of the Judiciary the same pension levy and salary reductions as have been already applied across the public service to others on similar pay scales. That is the crucial issue in terms of what we are doing. I agree with Deputy Buttimer that it was noteworthy that having been an ordinary judge of the Supreme Court for some time, Chief Justice Denham did not, when appointed to that position, accept the authorised level of pay of a Chief Justice, which is €295,916, but continued to work for the salary she received as an ordinary member of the Supreme Court. The changes to be effected, which are detailed in the script that was distributed, are proportionate changes that will apply to different members of the Judiciary.

I shall deal quickly with some of the questions asked. Why is the wording of this Bill different from that of the Bill I published on behalf of the Fine Gael Party in 2009? There is a very simple answer to that. One can achieve the same result in a variety of different ways. There is no unique form of wording. The form of wording before the House is the form of wording recommended by the Attorneys General and the Parliamentary Draftsman. Any good lawyer could address this particular issue in a variety of different forms of wording.

I listened with interest to some Members, the Independent Members in particular, who seem to think that it was not necessary to have a referendum, that we should just enact the legislation. That is poppycock. There is an express provision in the Constitution in regard to not reducing the remuneration of sitting judges. This House cannot simply enact legislation that is blatantly unconstitutional. There is a constitutional obligation on this House to ensure, as best we can, the legislation we enact is constitutional.

The only way to achieve the desired objective here is by way of holding a referendum. We are not entitled in this House to remove from the people their entitlement to decide what should be contained in the Constitution. That is not an option. Also it would be to treat the people who vote in referendums as being irrelevant. We must give due respect to those who make decisions about our Constitution. We cannot simply drive a horse and cart through it.

See this speech in context