The correspondence published in this newspaper yesterday between the leaders of the judiciary and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform reveals a worrying lack of communication between the two branches of Government and a surprising indifference towards the judges’ concerns.
The request from the Chief Justice – that the Courts Service be allowed redirect some of its own funds to pay for travel and subsistence for High Court judges from outside Dublin seems modest indeed. It attempted to address an anomaly whereby judges of the Circuit and District Courts do receive such expenses, as do members of the Oireachtas. Yet the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Brendan Howlin, declined the request.
This led the Chief Justice to express a wider concern – that successive reductions in judicial pay, combined with the absence of such allowances – was reducing the pool of suitable candidates for the judiciary. One example was cited of a highly qualified candidate withdrawing his name from consideration because he could not afford to take the cut in pay involved. There are likely to be others similarly affected.
In the eyes of most people judges are well paid. This has tended to obscure the fact that they have taken greater pay cuts than most others in the public service, with the take-home pay of a High Court judge appointed today only 50 per cent of what it was before the crisis, compared with a 35 per cent cut for Ministers. And new taxation rules for the pensions of higher public servants apply to the private pensions of judges who contributed to their own pensions before their appointment.
The problems between the Government and the judiciary go much deeper than financial concerns, however. There is a widespread belief within the judiciary that the executive no longer feels it is necessary to treat the judiciary with the respect they feel is due to the second organ of Government. The response of the Minister for Public Expenditure to a complaint from the Association of Judges of Ireland about the lack of consultation on further pay cuts – that consultation which might be appropriate “in more normal times cannot apply” – would do nothing to dispel that belief.
If the combination of pay cuts and a general sense of lack of respect does deter suitable candidates from seeking judicial office we will all be the losers. Major decisions are made by judges, which can involve matters of life and death or of the survival of businesses. We need judges with the intellectual ability and breadth of legal experience to be able to deal with them, possibly in an out-of-hours emergency application, where a decision may be irreversible. It is imperative that a relationship of mutual respect and open and cordial communication between the executive and judicial branches of government is re-established.