Vol. 506 No. 2
35 Mr. Higgins (Mayo) asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the plans, if any, he has to seek the approval of Dáil Éireann for the payment of pensions to the recently resigned Supreme Court and High Court judges and former Dublin County Registrar; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15305/99]
The Deputy will be aware, on the basis of information given to the House on 20 April 1999, that the Government has concluded that pensions of a certain amount should be payable in respect of each of the persons referred to in his question, and that these amounts are £40,000 per annum in the case of the former Supreme Court judge, £30,000 per annum in the case of the former High Court judge and £15,000 per annum in the case of the former Dublin county registrar.
These pensions are to be adjusted in the normal manner in line with those of other retired judges and county registrars. An additional element is that no gratuities will be paid in this instance. Following a decision of the Government, at its meeting this morning, I can inform the House that a Bill dealing with the pension arrangements is in the process of being presented to the House for circulation to Deputies. Subject to the agreement of the Whips, I look forward to a very early debate on the details of the Bill.
On a point of order, is Question No. 57 being taken in conjunction with Question No. 35?
No. We are dealing strictly with Priority Questions.
That question will be taken separately.
(Mayo): Is the Minister aware that the former judge, Mr. O'Flaherty, who without invitation to come before the joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Equality and Women's Rights to make a full statement and answer questions and who saw no constitutional or other impediment, has now declined to come before the committee? If it is proposed to make payment on these very generous terms of £40,000 in the case of the former Supreme Court judge and £30,000 in the case of the former High Court judge, it should be conditional upon the judges co-operating with the committee or the Chief Justice, or with whatever mode of inquiry is put in place to inquire further into the unsolved matters arising from this saga.
I have already indicated the advice available to me is that it would be unconstitutional to include in legislation providing for pensions or payments to judges or former judges any provision that payment would be dependent upon the individual judges complying with any requirement that they provide some explanation or self-justification, or make themselves available to give evidence before an Oireachtas committee.
(Mayo): Is the Minister aware of the gravity of the offences of which both judges stand accused? The former Supreme Court judge was deemed to have compromised the administration of justice. The former High Court judge was deemed not to have conducted the case in a manner befitting a judge and to have compromised the administration of justice. In such a situation where there are many unanswered questions, surely it should be obligatory for the judges to co-operate. It should be obligatory for the House to ensure that every possible method is used to ensure they co-operate with whatever investigation is under way to establish why they and others did what they did, which led to the unprecedented constitutional crisis just six weeks ago.
The Government took the view that on the information available the errors of judgment by the individuals involved were very serious. However, in examining their pension arrangements the Government took into account the fact that all three individuals had taken the honourable course of resigning. They collectively helped to avert what was a very difficult, if not unprecedented, situation from a constitutional point of view. The position is as I have already outlined it and I cannot expand further on the matter. The advice available to me is that if a provision of the sort Deputy Higgins is requesting were to be inserted in legislation it would be unconstitutional. There is little I can do about that. The facts speak for themselves and I must take the advice I have been given.
(Mayo): Is the Minister prepared to make available to the House the legal advice he received? Does the Minister not accept that in any other situation where public servants quite obviously abused their positions and where public money was involved, these people would unceremoniously be given the red card and no pensions would be involved. No pensions should be involved if they do not co-operate with what is in the public interest – the establishment of the facts behind this saga.
I am not dealing with a different situation, I am dealing with this one as best I can. The position is as I have outlined it and I cannot put it any clearer for the Deputy.
(Mayo): Will the Minister make the legal advice available?
I sincerely hope that Deputy Higgins is not suggesting for one moment that I would come into the House and say that advice which I received had not been received.
(Mayo): I am asking for the legal advice.
That is the advice which is available to me and there is no precedent for making advice available to the House. I assure the Deputy that I have nothing to hide in relation to the advice. I am telling the truth.
