Kay A
14243
Mr Stewart
Stewar
TURNER STUDY:
FINANCES
RESTRICTED
Reference..
P.A
Jelés......
tees
1. I have examined, in conjunction with ODM, the various claims made by Professor Turner.
68
2. When he saw Mr Hurst and myself on 20 January he listed amounts which he said were due to him and put in a supported claim for HK$10,032.10 in respect of the survey carried out by Dr Fosh. In respect of this survey the British Trade Commission had already paid him HK$7,472.55 and I therefore authorised ODM to pay the balance of HK$2,559.55 which they have now promised to do. In addition, I have agreed that Dr Fosh should be paid an honorarium for the extra 11 days she spent in Hong Kong plus subsistence and sundries for this period and various miscellaneous expenses bringing the total to £762.92. I am pretty sure that Dr Fosh will be satisfied.by this. I am not so sure, however, that Professor Turner will be satisfied. He lists 20 items which he says were costs incurred above payments already made to him and I attach this list together with his covering letter.
3.
Items 1 and 2 will be paid but the HK$2,559/1'have already authorised will be counted against these two items. Item 3 will not be paid because he has already been paid this by the BTC. I can only assume this is some charge for his wife or child who accompanied him. Item 4 makes a claim for subsistence. I have agreed that subsistence should be paid up to the end of December which was the date when he concluded his report. As a general principle, I cannot authorise payment of any expenditure in Hong Kong after 31 December 1976.
4. Items 5 to 15 covered sundries. Professor Turner has already been paid £125 for sundries which is meant to include taxes etc, and many of these items, as he indicates, are not precise, since certain of them relate to work he is doing for Sydney University or to his personal affairs. Item 5 is therefore not allowable; item 6: I think we should pay half; item 7 relates to work done in January after the interim report was written; item 8 relates to a telephone call made on 21 January (Lord knows where to); item 9 relates to work (on his own account?) on February 22; item 10 relates to air charges for documents sent to Sydney but we handled several packages of documents through the Bag from Dr Fosh to Professor Turner and vice-versa and I can only asume that these documents relate to work he is doing in Sydney; item 11 is allowable; item 12: this is unsupported and reports for Dr Fosh were sent through the Bag; item 13 relates to postal charges in February; item 14 is unsupported but I think may be allowable; item 15 is unsupported and I know that earlier last year we paid for one tea party for the Asian Cities' Centre staff and therefore this item should not be allowed; item 16 mlates to payments to Australian scholars who are working on behalf of Professor Turner but if their work is connected with the second stage of the report these items can only be charged aginst the second stage. Certainly we did not authorise Professor Turner to take on these two students who are already working on
/labour
RECC RES.
IN
*1
RESTRICTED
21 MAR 1977
CODE 18 - 77
HKK 212/348/1