Conflicting views on judges’ pay vote

CALLS for a referendum to reduce judges’ pay have been dismissed by legal experts who believe such a vote would open up wider debate on the independence of the judiciary.

Fine Gael will introduce a private members’ bill in the Dáil which it hopes will see the country go to the polls next year to change article 35.5 of the Constitution, which states: “The remuneration of a judge shall not be reduced during his continuance in office.”

The article is designed to ensure the Government of the day does not interfere with rulings made by the judiciary by punishing them with a pay cut.

It was the reason given by the Government for exempting judges from the pension levy imposed on all other public servants in the April emergency budget. Less than half of the country’s 144 judges have since volunteered for the pay cut but Fine Gael’s Alan Shatter said it has “pulled the judiciary into a level of political controversy which is damaging”.

He said: “That undermines public confidence in the judiciary. I think we need a straight forward constitutional provision.”

With salaries paid to Irish judges the second highest in the world, Mr Shatter said: “The country is confronted by an economic emergency and despite that, no matter what circumstances, judicial salaries can’t be interfered with.”

Mr Shatter said his party’s proposed constitutional amendment preserves the independence of the judiciary and ensures generally that judicial salaries can’t be interfered with. “But where there is a serious threat to the state’s economy and a compelling need to stabilise the state’s finances, judicial salaries may be reduced where there is a general reduction in public service pay or a reduction in a class of pay.”

However, Professor of Law in UCC David Gwynn Morgan said a referendum would not be required to reduce judges’ pay in the budget or to subject judges to the pension levy. “The provision means there is to be no discriminatory attack on the judiciary which would put their independence at risk and that would not apply if something was done which was being done to 300,000 others who work for the state,” he said.

A referendum is something that should not be taken lightly, Prof Morgan added. “If there were an amendment of this type it would attract discussion on, for example, the way in which judges are appointed and their removal,” he said.

Mr Shatter said a considered public debate is needed.