Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister to the House once again. It is almost becoming a second home for him. He would have been interested in the debate this afternoon on the Private Members' Bill in the name of Senator Crown, the Reporting of Lobbying in Criminal Legal Cases Bill 2011. One of the central arguments running through that legislation concerned the need to be absolute in our protection of the separation of powers and the rights of the Judiciary to act independently of the Legislature and others. We must keep this to the fore in our thoughts when we debate the Minister's legislation and the proposed referendum wording. Many speakers said we have been served very well by our Judiciary since the foundation of the State. We must ensure this level of service continues.

It is important that the always Judiciary be respected. It is not important that it be popular with the citizens but it is in everybody's interest that the people have full confidence therein and respect therefor. Unfortunately, over the course of the past 18 months, the debate on judges' pay and the pension levy caused some disquiet among the public, as far as I could learn. The Minister referred to it as unfortunate. Perhaps the status of our Judiciary has fallen to some degree as a consequence of that debate. The referendum, if passed, will bring into law a provision that will, once again, show clearly that the Judiciary is treated no differently from anybody else. That will help to address any difficulties that may have arisen unintentionally.

In the Minister's speech, he highlighted the fact that he had originally published the Bill at the beginning of August, thus giving people an opportunity to reflect on the legislation. I commend him in that regard. He would, I am sure, be the first to concede that August is a pretty silent month where politics and political debate are concerned. The timescale could have been different. It is obviously very opportune, appropriate and correct that the referendum, or referenda, take place on the date of the presidential election. The latter is required to be held before the end of October and, therefore, the referendum will occur on the same day. It would have been preferable had there been more time and had the Minister been in a position to wait another month or two, but it is not practical on this occasion. It would make no sense whatsoever to have a presidential election in October and ask the people to go to the polls again in November or December to vote in one or more referenda. I accept that the timescale has been forced upon the Minister. The little opportunity to reflect in August and September was useful.

The Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality is currently holding hearings on the national vetting bureau Bill. The Minister's approach of sending legislation to the committee in advance is good and I hope we will all benefit from it.

Let us consider the provision to allow for the referendum. I support what the Minister is doing and what he said. It was a suggestion he made when he was in opposition and it was not accepted by the Government at the time. Judges' pay cannot be treated in any sense as being different from the pay of any other public servant. We have a profound, deep and unprecedented economic crisis in the country and huge difficulties with the public pay bill. Nobody has highlighted this more often or more stridently in the House than the previous speaker, Senator Walsh. The problem is being addressed through levies and pay cuts, but it will take some time before it is resolved. It would not be appropriate for one group of people to remain beyond pay reductions or the imposition of levies.

The wording of the proposed amendment mentions proportionate reductions and this is the appropriate language to use. It will send a clear message that this is not an attack on the Judiciary; it is simply putting in place legislation to allow for the Judiciary to be treated no differently - no better or no worse - from any public servant.

I read the submissions we received from the Oireachtas Library and Research Service and I commend it on its work. I also saw the interesting comment from the broadcaster, Vincent Browne, who challenged us to take the simple response of the Oireachtas passing an Act to provide for a reduction in the pay of judges under precisely the same terms as enactments on the reduction of pay of other public servants and only change the Constitution if this is challenged in the High Court or the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court decides judges are immune from pay cuts to which other public servants are subject. This is one argument, but the constitutional amendment will put to bed the issue once and for all and is the more careful way to resolve the problem.

My party supports what the Minister is doing and we look forward to the Bill being passed and the referendum taking place. It would be ideal if the referendum campaign was engaging and constructive and grabbed the attention of the public. Another referendum will take place on the same day, as will the presidential election. Unfortunately, we will not have a major national debate on this issue but the referendum commission will be obliged, and no doubt will fully comply with the regulations, to ensure both sides of the argument are put before the public by way of documentation and information, and the referendum will be carried out in a fair fashion. I expect it will be carried and, once carried, we will have one law for all in the country, be they judges or other members of the public service.

The Minister also addressed the issue of future salaries and this is also worthy of reflection. The Minister outlined the current pay and the prospective pay of the Judiciary after this change is made. It must be stated that judges are not badly paid. It is important that we recognise the quality of the work required of judges. We need our very best legal minds seeking positions in our courts and even with this proposed reduction, the salaries, incomes and pensions remain very strong and positive. I support the Minister's proposals.