Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)

I would like to return the debate to the subject of the Bill. I assume that the purpose of this Bill is to bring in the action the constitutional amendment which we passed recently. I was somewhat staggered to find out that judges were not subject to any kind of Government curtailment and that they had never been so. I had always presumed this and I was absolutely staggered by the fact that this was not the case and that they were exempt from normal public service pay. Therefore, I welcome the fact that the referendum was passed, and while I do not like parts of it as usual, I welcome the Bill in principle.

It beggars belief that there should be any exemption for judges. It reflects that constitutionally, and in general in society, judges are put on a pedestal in Ireland. They carry some sort of mystique which I do not believe is deserved. They are ordinary people with a certain expertise in law who are appointed for various reasons; sometimes for reasons of having expertise, and sometimes not. Whatever the reasons for their appointment, they are nothing particularly special or elevated, and they certainly should not be put on the pedestal in society as they are, which is why I also welcome the abolition of the tipstaffs and criers in the Bill. That gives them a kind of superior loftiness, looking down on ordinary people, which they do not otherwise merit.

In cutting judges down to size, this is a good Bill. It begs the question of why a large number of judges believed they should be exempt from normal public service pay rules, especially in the case of curtailment and reductions. It seems this reflects their own particularly lofty ideas of themselves. They gave rather obscure reasons for this and they suggested it would be inappropriate for their salary to be reduced by the Government or for them to be subject to public service norms because it would put pressure on them to make decisions that might be political. They might be right but this begs the question of how they were appointed. Should we not have tackled the matter of appointments when we were preparing this Bill? One thing concerning judges which politicians, especially those in government, are loth to acknowledge is that judges are naked political appointees.

In the case of this Government, and many previous Governments, there is a veneer or cover given to these appointments whereby the Government will go through the process of having seven names put to it and will then make appointments from the seven names but, ultimately, the Minister and the Government appoint people to the Judiciary and there is no doubt that people with political affiliations are constantly being appointed to the Judiciary by Governments with similar political affiliations. This damages the reputation of the Judiciary. Anyone here who discusses the matter with people in the Bar Library informally will hear them refer to such a person as being a Fine Gael person, to another as being a Labour Party person and that it is so and so's turn this time and so on and that this is the way it works. However, it does not mean these people always make bad judges and I do not suggest as much. But it means their appointments are sullied by the fact they are made by Governments with definite political preferences.

There should be more in this Bill. The Government had the opportunity to cut the umbilical cord which has existed between successive Governments and the Judiciary and which goes all the way to the Supreme Court. Judges are coy about this and about their political affiliations when they are appointed. It is never stated in the press announcements that they may have been Deputies nor is it ever revealed that they may have had affiliations to a given party and the same is the case with any semi-State body. I suggest a means of examining those appointed to the Judiciary in front of an Oireachtas committee should have been included in this Bill so questions could be asked of them.

See this speech in context