Lands Department, had already been agreed in October 1981 with the Director, Councils and Administration Branch. Therefo should have been a relatively simple operation to decide which quarters should be taken over by the Lands Department on 1 April 1982, particularly as no officer would be evicted from his quarter as a result of the exercise. However, as vacant possession would provide more flexibility and reduce administrative problems during the negotiations for the division of the quarters between the two authorities, the Secretary for District Administration decided in May 1982 to withhold the allocation of all vacant departmental quarters pending an agreement with the Lands Department on their division. This decision might not have mattered had the division of the quarters been done quickly but it took about eight months for an agreement to be reached and the allocation of quarters was not resumed until January 1983. Meanwhile 41 quarters had become vacant and withheld from re-allocation. The total cost, in actual and notional rental, of keeping these quarters vacant was over $600,000 and in drawing attention to this matter I advised the Secretary for District Administration that his allowing so many quarters to remain vacant for such a long time suggested either that the quarters were not needed or that the operational effectiveness of the district administration was reduced. Similar views were expressed by the Director, Councils and Administration Branch, who had overall responsibility for the administration of Government quarters. He had written to the Secretary for District Administration on several occasions in an attempt to expedite the division of the quarters and on the last occasion he complained of the unconscionable time taken to divide the stock of quarters between the two authorities. He considered that this delay and the decision to leave the quarters vacant while the wrangling went on showed a deplorable disregard for the proper management of Government accommodation.
74. The Secretary for District Administration explained that the Government's decision to set up the Lands Department was announced so suddenly that it did not allow adequate lead time and in this rather hectic situation, where top priority had to be given to important policy issues on land transactions and registration procedures in the New Territories as well as dealing with the division of office accommodation, staffing and financial matters, that were essential to ensure the provision of services to the public, he could give only low priority to the matter of the division of the departmental quarters. He does not accept that the division of the quarters was a relatively simple operation. He believes that it was a very complicated and sensitive administrative matter and that any hasty decision taken without careful consideration would have seriously affected staff morale and created staff conflicts between the Lands Department and the City and New Territories Administration bringing unbearable domestic hardship and inconvenience to those officers and their families who might have had to vacate their quarters after a short period of occupation.
75. Social welfare subventions to voluntary organizations and trusts for recurrent expenditure (financed from Head 172 - Social Welfare Subventions. Subhead 410. Rehabilitation services (grants) and Subhead 411. Social welfare services (grants)).
76. Standard cost subvention system. In paragraphs 91-93 of my report for the year ended 31 March 1983 I noted that the year 1982-83 saw the introduction on an interim basis of the standard cost subvention system for social welfare services. Under this system, subventions would be calculated according to a new formula, and whilst any savings which arose under the system would not be "clawed back", voluntary organizations would be expected to provide the services required at certain standards. My review of the outreaching social work service, one of the services subvented under the new system, indicated significant under-strength of the outreaching social work teams which had led to an accumulation of savings from subventions by the voluntary organizations concerned. The savings were estimated at $2.5 million for the year 1982–83, and I recommended that the appropriate amounts should be refunded to the Government because it was self-evident from the level of understaffing that the services required were not being provided at the standards envisaged. The Director of Social Welfare subsequently informed me that with effect from 1984-85 the outreaching social work service would be temporarily removed from the standard cost subvention system until the staffing improved to an acceptable level, that subventions for the service would be assessed on the basis of the individual requirements of the outreaching social work teams, and that surpluses accumulated during 1982-83 and 1983-84 would be used to offset the subvention required for 1984–85. I have recently conducted another review of the standard cost subvention system and it seems that the operation of the system is still beset by the problem of surpluses.
77. The standard cost subvention system was introduced in October 1981 when the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council approved a revision in the system for subventing certain voluntary organizations and trusts which provided social welfare services and facilities, replacing the previous system of discretionary grants. The general principles of the new system are:
-a categorization of the services for funding purposes;
the establishment of standard costs where possible;
-all income raised by the voluntary organizations through fund raising activities or from donations is to be
disregarded for the purpose of calculating the Government support; and
-voluntary organizations to provide the services required at the standards envisaged.
The objective of the revision, as reported to the Finance Committee, was to provide maximum flexibility and freedom of action for the voluntary sector in the use of the resources at their disposal, whilst ensuring that social welfare services were provided in accordance with approved standards and targets.
15