David Norris (Independent)

It would be a hell of a lot easier if I was not interrupted.

The second group to which I refer are employees of the Central Bank. While I know they are not popular, these employees have a strong moral and legal case. I understand that in the first draft of the Bill they were featured in the list of groups excluded from the measure. Why are they no longer excluded?

According to the preamble, the purpose of the Bill is "to provide for the reduction in the amount payable, or rate of payment, out of money provided by the Oireachtas or the Central Fund or the growing produce of that Fund to certain persons for certain services". The employees of the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland are not paid from money provided by the Oireachtas or the Central Fund and do not provide, legally, public services on behalf of the State. When I raised this issue previously, I cited a legal precedent and warned the Government about the difficulties it faced. In 1997 the Supreme Court, in Central Bank of Ireland v. Martin Leo Gildea, held that Mr. Gildea was "not a civil servant of the Government" and was "employed by a body which has been created by statute, the powers of which, however essential they may be to the function of the State, can be removed from them at any stage by the Oireachtas". For this reason, Mr. Gildea was not in a different position from those employed in a vast range of what have come to be called semi-State bodies. I understand this group has briefed counsel and is engaged in preparing for a legal action against the State which may very well be costly.

Why does the Government not resolve these two important issues, both of which I have raised previously? They are obviously a source of doubt for the Government, as it would not otherwise have excluded one of them in the first draft of the Bill following my previous intervention.

By the way, I waited a long time to speak and, as noted by the Chair, others interposed themselves.