——and of the new situation that will arise as a result of this Bill, but I was anxious to make it clear that the law as it now stands places completely upon the manager the responsibility for the fixation of wages and also gives him the power to create new offices. Over the years since the managerial system was extended to the country I have known of many cases where the manager, without consultation, recruited through the Local Appointments Commission, or otherwise, a number of new officers who had to be provided for from the rates. He did that in a perfectly legal fashion and, having done it, he was able to secure the approval of the council for the provision of the moneys necessary to pay those officers. I think that statement is unchallengeable. Where then is the use in saying that they have not the same authority and right to discharge their legal functions in regard to the fixation of wages?
When this matter was being considered by me, I introduced into this House a similar provision in the Bill I piloted here. One of my reasons—it was the main reason—for doing that was because, when the managerial system was extended to the country, the managers proceeded, in some cases at any rate, to regard themselves as little gods and they did not have the good sense to consult the local bodies, even though the matters with which they were concerned were matters in which they themselves were legally responsible.
After all, even though the managers were legally responsible for discharging certain functions, there was no reason why they should not consult experienced public men to find out what they thought. That would not in any way have changed the legal position or relieved the managers of their legal responsibility. But, as a result of the attitude adopted by the managers, it was felt necessary by the then Minister for Local Government to issue a circular to all members of local authorities and to all county managers suggesting strongly that there should be consultation even where the legal responsibility was clearly placed upon the manager. In some cases then the managers went to the other extreme. They proceeded to give effect to the suggestion in the circular and when matters, especially matters of remuneration, and questions that were unpopular and not easy to handle arose, they were then prepared, not to shed their legal responsibility because they could not do that, but to push it aside a little and consult the local body and, having got what should only be regarded by them as a recommendation, they proceeded to make their own proposal to the Department as to what they wanted done.
On the other hand, councillors were, of course, sensible solid men. They knew what the legal position was, even though they were not legal men. They knew that while they were being consulted they really had no responsibility for making a firm decision and they naturally said: "We are not going to make bad fellows of ourselves in matters like this because we know that the legal responsibility is not ours." It was because of that playing from one to the other that I thought it would be better to come straight here to the House and clamp down the responsibility for determining these matters on those who had to provide the money. It was not for the sake of quibbling; it was not for the sake of the kind of quibbling that is now going on here as to what is actually in the County Managerial Act at the moment, and before the Bill becomes law.
I realised that managers who said they could not secure the money to give effect to a particular decision would have some trouble in satisfying me as to how they were able to secure the approval of the council for the provision of the money to meet all the liabilities they incurred in recruiting officers to posts that were never known in the counties ten or 12 years ago.
