Vol. 150 No. 12
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 5, line 53, to delete "and of the resolution".
This is merely a drafting amendment. It is not necessary to provide that the manager shall send a copy of the resolution as well as the notice to the members of the local authority, as it is already provided. Sub-section (2) (b) says that the notice shall contain a copy of the resolution.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
On the point of No. 2, I understand that the Ceann Comhairle has ruled that No. 2 is out of order, but I would like to inform the House that certain Deputies, including myself, have had a chat with the Minister and I think the Minister might make a little announcement which would satisfy us all on the matter.
With regard to the position to which the Deputy refers, namely, the town clerk, I am satisfied that the position——
We are not proceeding to discuss the matter of the amendment, as the amendment cannot be moved.
I think I can deal with the matter administratively, anyway, and there will be no necessity for the amendment.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
Not moved because it was ruled out of order.
I communicated with the Deputy and told him the amendment may not be moved because it is not an amendment proper to the Report Stage of the Bill.
I only want to put it on record that I am not moving it because I am not permitted to.
I move amendment No. 4 :—
In page 8, Section 6, to delete lines 36 to 44, inclusive, and substitute:—
(1) A proposal by a manager to create a new office or to create additional offices or to abolish an existing office or to amalgamate two or more offices or to alter by way of increase or reduction any salary of any officer or group of officers shall not be submitted to the appropriate Minister for consideration unless the proposal shall have been approved by the elected members of the local authority in question.
The Bill does provide certain limitations with regard to existing offices and there is a certain amount of safeguard, if you like, within it, but the manager could create a new office without consulting the council, could abolish an office or amalgamate offices, and I feel that the Minister will understand that my proposal is merely an extension of the principle of restoring powers to the elected representatives.
Practically everything in this amendment is already covered in the Bill. In fact, the only matter that is not so covered is the question of an increase or a reduction in the salary of the individual officer. It is a fundamental principle of the management system that the organisation of staff and the determination of the conditions of services of individual officers should be the responsibility, and the sole responsibility, of the county manager. Section 6 of the Bill as it stands does not contravene this principle, because the right of veto which it confers relates to increases in the remuneration of classes of officers as a class or an increase in the total number of permanent officers. It does not deal with the individual officer and the amendment would involve a radical departure from this position.
A council, for instance, would be given control not only over the remuneration of officers of a class, but also over matters relating to remuneration of individual officers, and further over such matters as the forfeiture of remuneration during suspension or reduction of salary during sick leave. There are many other examples as well. As a consequence, the elected members would deal in detail with the duties to be assigned to individual officers where special allowances for these duties are to be paid. This would be an undesirable position and I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment.
I merely wish to agree with the Minister. I have a certain amount of sympathy with Deputy Briscoe. I think I can see what he is getting at and I do not think it was his intention to go as far as the Minister has indicated the amendment would go. He is looking for what he thinks is a better form of words, but if he will look again at Section 6, he will appreciate that any power a local authority ought to have is safely in that section. If the Minister is right when he says that this amendment would mean that a local authority would deal with individuals, it would be a line that should not be followed, and it is much safer, from both the local authority and the officials' point of view, that Section 6 should be left in its present form.
My difficulty is that, while classes are referred to, there might be a single individual in a class by himself who would not be regarded as being in a class. What I am trying to emphasise is that a manager may want to increase the number in a class and the council may not be anxious to agree. The manager can create a new position or a new series of positions. The Minister talks about the control of the manager as compared with the control of the elected representatives and of a situation arising in which the elected representatives interfere in administrative matters, but that is not the point. The point is that, whatever the city manager thinks in regard to increasing staffs or bringing in a new class altogether, the elected representatives have to find the money afterwards to pay them and they have to take that into consideration when striking the rate.
As it happens, the officials are generally covered in their remuneration, emoluments and so on by statute and whenever the ordinary servants, the people who are paid weekly, seek an increase, they negotiate through their organised bodies. The county manager brings it to the local authority and the local authority approves it or has a further discussion on the agreement reached or about to be reached. The Minister does not quite appreciate what I want — the provision of a safeguard against the Minister going behind all that is in Section 6 and confronting the elected representatives with new appointees of a new class altogether. He can create a new position.
He could not do that.
I have examined Section 6 and have discussed it with colleagues, but if the Minister definitely says he cannot——
I am satisfied that he cannot.
If the Minister is satisfied, and in view of his attitude with regard to the position of town clerk, I am prepared to accept his word and to withdraw the amendment.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In page 8, line 55, to delete "shall" and substitute "may".
Amendments Nos. 5 to 10, inclusive, implement a promise I gave to the House on Committee Stage. Some Deputies expressed the view that it would be impossible to establish estimates committees to do the work which they envisaged such committees would do and I gave an undertaking that I would leave it optional to the local authority to establish an estimates committee or otherwise. It is for that purpose that this amendment and the following amendments have been introduced.
I move amendment No. 14:—
In page 17, to add the following paragraph at the end of sub-section (2) of Section 18:—
(c) On receipt from the Minister of an authorisation, revocation or approval under this sub-section, notice of the authorisation, revocation or approval shall be sent to every member of every local authority concerned.
This amendment also implements a promise I gave on Committee Stage. It provides that, on receipt from the Minister of an authorisation, revocation or approval of the appointment of a person as deputy manager, notice of such decision shall be sent to every member of every local authority for which the manager acts. I gave that undertaking to the House and it is being implemented by this amendment.
