Yes. It may be considered that to allow only 25 per cent. as the proper saving by reason of the separation of the Northern Ireland Courts is too little, but the fact is rather the contrary. In 1921 there was a special examination made by the British Treasury of the position in regard to the staffing of the Courts, and that expert opinion contemplated a saving of rather less than 20 per cent. by reason of the separation of the Northern Courts, the fact being that when offices, whether Court offices or other offices, are partitioned, the total cost of the separate posts amounts normally to more than the former total cost, owing to the necessary duplication of supervisory posts. It is, I think, clear that considerable economy has been effected in the High Court staff, but, I should add, that that economy was over-due.
I have no intention of defending, or endeavouring to defend, the present Estimate for these services on its merits. I would wish to be taken rather as defending it on its demerits, recognising that there is a very considerable scope for economy with regard to the staffing of the Supreme Court and the High Court, and recognising that the position there is very far from ideal, but that it is a position which can be rectified only by legislation, and by a Bill supplementary to the Courts of Justice Act, which Bill I should say will be due in the autumn of this year. The Courts of Justice Act did not deal at all with the staff, and the question of the courts staffs will have to be taken up in fresh legislation. That legislation can only be introduced when the new Rules of Court are in operation, and when we will have a better conception of what the actual requirements will be. It is not overstating the case to say that of all the departments in the country under the British regime there were few which would compare with the old Supreme Court, on the staff side, as regards over-staffing, extravagance, poor output of work, and wholesale patronage. On the other hand, since the open competition system was applied to the less valuable posts, the courts have been staffed through that medium with material as good as any in the country —as good material as any available in the country for State service—and some of the best of these men are being transferred to other Departments of the Government where they have taken up very responsible work.
So that from one aspect we have benefited from the fact that the courts were overstaffed when we inherited them. Despite the considerable saving made, the position is unsatisfactory, and I have no wish to be taken as defending it on its merits. It will remain unsatisfactory until we obtain legislative sanction for the necessary changes. It might be thought that is an opinion hastily formed by a new Government, which might be supposed to harbour some feeling of antagonism towards the old institutions which existed prior to the establishment of the State. As against that view I have here extracts from the inquiry of the British Treasury, held in 1920. One of their last acts was an inquiry into this very question, and the result was a report which can only be described as sensational in its thoroughness of condemnation. The main allegations in that report were that too many posts were reserved for patronage appointments; that men continued to draw full pay after they were incapacitated by age for any real work, and sometimes after their duties had almost ceased to exist; that fancy salaries were paid to the holders of certain posts, the duties of which in the ordinary Civil Service would be performed either by quite a junior official or (if being responsible duties) by a high official as a mere item of his day's work; that there was unnecessary duplication of work, and too many water-tight compartments; and that the working hours were too short. That report was signed not only by the representative of the British Treasury, but also by the present Establishment Officer of the Four Courts staff, and it was not tendered until 1921. The British Treasury never acted upon that report. In fact it had not time to act upon it except in small details, and the new Government inherited the system which was so thoroughly condemned in that report. It may be suggested that in the few years which have passed, something might have been done before now towards ending that unsatisfactory state of affairs. That could not be done without legislation, and up to recently it was impracticable to introduce that legislation, and it cannot be satisfactorily introduced until the Rules of the new courts system are in operation. The substantial saving which I have pointed out as having been effected was effected simply by not filling any vacancy which occurred —casual vacancies occurring owing to death or retirement—unless it was absolutely imperative that it should be filled.
The fault in this Vote as it stands is not so much that the total cost is excessive as that too great a proportion of the cost is absorbed by a comparatively small number of highly-paid officers. On page 119 of the Estimates, Deputies will note three officers who are paid over £1,000 per annum basic, and twelve officers who are paid £1,000 per annum basic; that is fifteen officers receiving not less than £1,000 per annum each, plus bonus. Then follow seven officials whose salaries come to £700 each or higher, plus bonus. Some of those posts are not too highly paid for the work performed, but others amongst them, and I think the majority, are too highly paid. Our aim in dealing with the impending re-organisation of the courts staff will be to give more to the officers in the middle part of the offices, where most of the work is actually done, at the cost of the higher and more ornamental posts. That cannot be done until the Rules of Court have been agreed upon and until legislation has been passed modifying the very numerous existing statutes under which only certain officials may do certain work. The key of the difficulty is that the organisation of the court staff, unlike the staffs of other Government Departments, is very largely stereotyped by Acts of Parliament, some fifty and some a hundred years old, and until these dead Acts have been amended or repealed by Statute nothing very effective can be done.
I would hope that when this Vote comes before the Dáil next year the necessary legislation will have been enacted and the very necessary reforms made. It might be well in that connection to add just one word of caution. If an existing officer is a capable man, if he is willing to continue to do his work at his existing salary, but not otherwise, then even if that salary is a rather higher one than we consider it should be in the abstract, it would be false economy to insist on an immediate reduction of the salary. The result would probably be that the pension of the retiring officer, plus the salary of his successor, would be considerably more than the original salary. Deputies will understand that and remember that in this connection. It is one of the difficulties inherent in our position owing to Article X. of the Treaty.
There is just a question with regard to the Court Lunacy Office. It does not figure in this Vote and some Deputies might be searching for it. That office maintains itself out of a fund which is fed by fees in the nature of percentages on the estates of lunatics. It is an important office and the present Registrar receives a salary of £1,000 per annum. It is under consideration as part of the general re-organisation whether this fund system ought not to be abolished and the Lunacy Office maintained in the ordinary way under the control of the Oireachtas and under the supervision of my Department.
