Dáil debates

Tuesday, 29 November 2011

Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Amendment) Bill 2011: Second Stage (Resumed)

 

9:00 pm

Photo of Dara CallearyDara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

That is welcome. It would make non-binding recommendations on the request. Decisions would not be binding because it is important that checks and balances are kept and the Judiciary cannot and should not get involved in a discussion with the Executive on its remuneration. If the Government chooses to ignore those recommendations it must set out the reasons why to a parliamentary committee here in the Chamber.

I am not interested in protecting individuals. There has been a lot of talk this evening about semi-State CEOs. It is important that we point out the majority of serving members of the Judiciary took a voluntary pay cut and only 14 or 15 did not. It was slightly strange that the new judicial appointments announced subsequent to the referendum are not subject, I understand, to the Bill and the people concerned will have to take a voluntary cut. Surely there was some way of delaying their appointment for a few weeks until the legislation was introduced or getting them to sign up to something.

I have no doubt the individuals involved will accept a cut voluntarily but it sends the wrong message. There was an 80% "Yes" vote on the day of the referendum, yet the following Wednesday three new members of the Judiciary were appointed on the same terms and conditions as had applied.

The phrase "financial emergency measures in the so-called public interest" is wonderful. I do not know how many times we have heard it over the past number of years. We are doing a lot of things with a lot of haste and have done so for the past number of years. I have no doubt the make-up of this or future Oireachtais will protect that but we do not know how these measures will be used by an Oireachtas which may be made up of entirely different sets of politicians than those currently here.

I again emphasise that we are not interested in protecting individuals. Nobody should be above what the country has had to do in terms of salaries and so on. We need to protect a tradition of judicial independence which has served this State very well and will be required in the months and years ahead.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.