Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 23: To ask the Minister for Justice and Equality if he will provide an update on his proposals to fast-track personal bankruptcy reform particularly in relation to introducing a flexible discharge period for those termed as honest bankrupts; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16721/11]

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In line with a commitment in the Programme for Government a Personal Insolvency Bill is in the course of being developed in my Department to provide for a new framework for settlement and enforcement of debt and for personal insolvency. The commitment under the EU/IMF Programme of Financial Support for Ireland is to publish the Bill in Quarter 1 of 2012. It is my objective to publish the measure ahead of the EU/IMF deadline, if possible.

In developing the Bill, account is being taken of the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission in its recent Report on Personal Debt Management and Debt Enforcement. That report provided an in-depth review of the personal debt regime. The economic and financial effects of certain of the new arrangements that are in contemplation are being carefully assessed to ensure that all relevant issues are addressed and their impact is fully anticipated and understood.

I am glad to be able to inform the Deputy that earlier this week the Government approved my proposals for some interim reforms in the law of bankruptcy. The details will be announced by way of the publication of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2011.

That Bill will provide for a significant reduction in the application period to the court for discharge from bankruptcy subject to existing conditions. These conditions relate to the bankrupt having discharged the expenses, fees and costs of the bankruptcy and any preferential payments involved. The court will require to be satisfied that the estate of the bankrupt has been fully realised, all after acquired property has been disclosed and that it is reasonable and proper to grant the application. The honesty of the person applying for discharge, would I imagine, be an important factor in the courts consideration.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 24: To ask the Minister for Justice and Equality his response to the views expressed on the cost of the referendum on judicial pay versus the anticipated savings of the proposed reductions in judicial pay. [16784/11]

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On foot of a commitment in the Programme for Government, the Government last week accepted my proposal to hold a referendum on judicial pay. The referendum will coincide with the upcoming Presidential election. The Attorney General's office is now drafting the necessary legislation.

As the Deputy is aware, salaries across the public service were reduced under the provisions of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2009 and the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Act 2009. The salaries of judges were not affected on the ground that Article 35.5 of the Constitution does not permit reductions in judicial pay. Although the judiciary is exempt from the reductions, a majority of the judges have made voluntary contributions equivalent to the initial pension levy reduction.

The referendum to amend Article 35.5 will, if passed by the people, allow reductions in judicial salary levels but only to the same extent as reductions in similar salary levels in the public service. It will also provide for reductions in the pay of judges in line with any future reductions in pay in the public service that are made in the public interest.

It is essential to judicial independence - and to public confidence in the judiciary - that judges share - and be seen to share - the burdens caused by the economic and financial difficulties facing our State. I stress, however, that the amendment will not allow the Government to single out the judiciary for any pay reduction that is unrelated to a reduction in pay in the public service generally. The proposed constitutional amendment does not, therefore, endanger the independence of the judiciary.

The issue of fair burden-sharing by all citizens during our economic emergency is far more important than any issue about the cost of the referendum. The deputy will appreciate, however, that by holding the proposed referendum to coincide with the Presidential election the costs will be substantially lower than might otherwise be the case.