Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire chun an Bhille tábhachtach seo, a dhéanann leasú ar Bhunreacht na hÉireann, a phlé. Aontaím le móran den mhéid atá ráite ag an Aire mar gheall ar an leasú seo.

Presumably, this Bill has arisen because of a failure by some judges. Some 126 of 147 judges accepted the voluntary scheme set up by the Judiciary and the Revenue Commissioners to meet the pension levy and the reduction in public service salaries. In principle, I concur with the constitutional amendment, which is necessary to ensure an across-the-board equalisation of these measures. No one, no matter how privileged his or her position, can avoid the imposition of a necessary Government policy, given the poor state of our public finances.

It should be recognised that the Judiciary has served us well since independence. It has acted with impartiality, which is essential under the Constitution. As the Constitution recognises the separation of powers, anything that might infringe upon this separation deserves careful and thorough consideration.

I have two complaints. The first concerns the speed with which these important issues are being pummelled through both Houses. Members on the Government benches were right, when on this side of the House, to be strong advocates of ensuring that all legislation received thorough and careful scrutiny by the House and that superior numbers are not used to sideline the input of others.

Second, this is an important issue and could be seen to impinge on the independence of the Judiciary. There should be a meeting of minds between the parties, yet it is my understanding that there was no consultation on the wording of the amendment between Government and Opposition parties. This is all too reminiscent of the partisan politics seen in particular in the Lower House. I am not pointing a finger at the current Government but this approach does nothing for democracy. We can attribute some of our economic difficulties to the failure of a more mature approach to politics, in particular where issues of national importance are concerned.

The impartiality and freedom from influence of the Judiciary is essential. In this context and returning to my reservation regarding the wording of the amendment, the protection of judges' pay is an essential part of the separation of powers and their independence. The Minister referred to the former Attorney General. I am familiar with his opinions on the necessity of the referendum. I have no legal qualifications but I probably share his opinion. The former Attorney General was of a certain view and advised the Government of the day that it could not unilaterally reduce the remuneration of judges without a constitutional amendment.

Reference has been made to a 1958 case in which the widow of a former Supreme Court judge took a case against the deduction of taxes from her pension. The Supreme Court found that the purpose of the Article was to safeguard the independence of judges and that to "require a judge to pay taxes on his income on the same basis as other citizens and thus to contribute to the expenses of government cannot be said to be an attack on his independence". This is an important point.

In 1996, the Supreme Court held that a judge's remuneration also included his or her pension entitlements. While we are correct to realign judges' remuneration with adjustments made in the public service, other areas of the judicial package should be examined, in particular the pension entitlements of judges. Many of those who assume judicial office are in their late middle ages and have already accumulated considerable personal wealth due to the failure to have an effective competitive system within the legal profession. In just 15 years, they can acquire attractive pension entitlements that do not apply to anyone else in the public service. This situation should be fairly and equitably examined. The Minister said that, under the Constitution, the Oireachtas shall regulate the number and pay of the Judiciary. This fails to take account of the fact that our system of democracy in these Houses has a very rigid Whip system. Any Government, not just the current one, with a majority that imposes the Whip imposes its own view on the Houses. This should be examined. Our Houses' system is very rigid by comparison with that in other countries. Our democratic decision-making process is affected as a consequence of the rigidity. A very small proportion of Members of the Houses, in the order of 7%, can effectively make the decisions of the Houses. This should be examined.

Let us consider the changes to salaries. I referred in this House on a number of occasions to the exorbitant salaries paid to members of the Judiciary. At present, the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court is paid €130,000 less than the Chief Justice in Ireland. Even after making our adjustments, our judges will be remunerated well in excess of those in the United States.

Some members of the Government to whom I have spoken are concerned that reducing salaries across the board at higher levels may lead to some difficulties in recruiting people to various positions. I do not know whether that will turn out to be the case. Salaries are so high because of the State's failure to control legal fees properly. The failure over many years of successive Governments to tackle the issue is almost unconscionable. It is interesting that the Competition Authority, of which I would have been critical for being so dilatory and slow in dealing with this area, did not produce its recommendations much earlier than December 2006. They have still not been implemented.

There are many issues that could be examined. I have been critical of the failure to set up a judicial council. The Minister is on record as saying this will happen. There has been some dragging of feet within the Judiciary in this regard. It is absolutely essential that it be set up. Consider the case of a High Court judge who had to resign. While most fair-minded people believed that he may have deserved some admonishment for his action, they did not believe it warranted resignation. In another case, a judge who was in the process of being impeached has lumbered the taxpayer with a bill of approximately €3 million for his legal expenses. This is absolutely atrocious in the current climate. In good times, it would have been bad; in bad times it is absolutely appalling. There are a number of issues such as this to be addressed.

On the wording of the referendum, the Minister was at pains to mention the proportionality of the reductions. While I have no difficulty with clauses one and two of the referendum wording to be put to the people, I must draw attention to the third, which states clearly:

Where, before or after the enactment into law of this section, reductions have been or are made by law to the remuneration of persons belonging to classes of persons [I presume this means public servants, although "classes" is not defined.] whose remuneration is paid out of public money and such law states that those reductions are in the public interest [There is nothing to say it is proportionate.], provision may also be made by law [It is discretionary rather than mandatory.] to make proportionate reductions to the remuneration of judges.

Will the Minister address that specific point? In so far as we will support this, it is essential that any changes made be proportionate and do not discriminate against judges. If they are not proportionate, it would certainly fly in the face of our Constitution.