possibility that "The GIST" is to some extent duplicated by the monitoring and translation services operated by individual departments, in which it has been roughly estimated up to 40 officers may be engaged, and I under- standard that he is now reviewing those services to ascertain if any economies can be effected.
32. Head 50—Marine Department. Subhead 001. Personal Emoluments (253) Overtime allowances. An audit check of payments of overtime allowances to certain staff of the Marine Department indicated various weaknesses in control and discrepancies in the records which formed the basis for the calculation of those pay- ments. Amongst the irregularities noted were claims for overtime which were not supported by entries in the attendance records or which were supported by entries which did not provide adequate evidence of the presence of the officer concerned, alterations of the records which were not authenticated by a supervisory officer, a claim for overtime by an officer for a period during which he was on leave, and claims for which, contrary to Civil Service Regulations, prior written approval of the overtime had not been given. The Director of Marine has informed me that in the case of the officer paid overtime whilst he was on leave, the incorrect payment will be recovered, but that he is satisfied that in all other cases the claims were valid and the payments correct. Action has been taken to prevent the recurrence of similar irregularities.
33. Head 52-Miscellaneous Services. Subhead 119. Quartering: 002 Removal allowance. Under the provisions of Civil Service Regulations an officer who is directed by his Head of Department to move from one residence to another in the public interest, may in certain circumstances claim a removal allowance at varying rates depending on his salary and family circumstances. It was noted in audit that officers working for the Housing Authority and occupying Public Housing Estate Quarters had been incorrectly paid from Government funds, removal allowances which were a proper charge to the Authority. The Civil Service Branch has now requested an appropriate refund from the Housing Authority and arrangements have been made for future payments to be met from the funds of the Authority.
34. Head 52—Miscellaneous Services. Subhead 121. Refunds of revenue. The Securities Ordinance and Regulations made thereunder make provision for the payment of fees in respect of applications for registration and for renewal of registration as a dealer in securities or as an investment adviser. During a preliminary audit visit to the office of the Commissioner for Securities shortly after the legislation came into effect, I questioned the correctness of a proposal to refund fees paid by unsuccessful applicants and suggested that as such a course would not seem to be in accordance with the law, before it was adopted a legal opinion on its propriety should be sought. The opinion subsequently obtained by the Commissioner for Securities was interpreted by him as agreeing that it would be in order to refund the fees under the Securities legislation and refunds totalling $25,050 were made accordingly. Queries raised by the Director of Accounting Services and myself threw doubt on the validity of the interpretation adopted and the Deputy Crown Solicitor then opined that it would be unwise to continue to make refunds in the absence of express legislative provision or without recourse to the general power to authorize refunds vested in His Excellency the Governor under the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance. He further expressed the view that as the moneys which had been refunded had been paid under a mistake in law they were not recoverable and I have therefore suggested to the Commissioner for Securities that authority to write-off the amounts should be sought.
35. Head 53-New Territories Administration. A departmental quarter of the New Territories Administra- tion was redesignated in November, 1974, as a departmental reception centre for use by senior officers of the Administration and certain soft furnishings considered appropriate for such a centre were purchased. Only seven months later, in June, 1975, the use of the house as a reception centre was discontinued and it was again occupied by a District Officer as a departmental quarter. As such, the supply of the soft furnishings was in- appropriate but no action was taken to recover them and they were left in situ for use by the occupant. When the matter was raised in audit it was first stated that the house was still in use as a departmental reception centre and then, when the correctness of this assertion was questioned, that arrangements were being made to withdraw the items to store. In fact nothing further transpired until yet another audit enquiry was made when authority was given for the occupant to continue to use the furnishings for so long as he remained in the quarter. I have expressed my concern that the officer should have received benefits paid for from public funds, to which he was clearly not entitled.
36. Head 69-Public Works Recurrent. Architectural Office-Maintenance Works. In reports covering a period of several years I have repeatedly expressed misgivings at the inadequacy of remeasurement checks by staff of the Public Works Department on work carried out under Architectural Office maintenance contracts and at the possible existence of a substantial element of overpayment in expenditure incurred on such work. In March, 1974 a firm of management consultants, in recommending the computerization of the buildings main- tenance system as a matter of some urgency, forecast that amongst the benefits which would quickly accrue would be a financial saving from a significant reduction in the delays in processing completed accounts and the release of 35 technical officers to perform on-site measurements, thereby enabling a much greater degree of check than the 2% which then prevailed. In the following year another firm of consultants was engaged, at a
7