consider it appropriate to take action under civil service disciplinary procedures in respect of such cases. The Secretary also reached the view that it would not be appropriate to seek recovery of money from officers in respect of depancies between the dental work charged for by the dentist and the dental work actually carried out by him asrified by subsequent clinical examination.
160. The Secretary for the Civil Service stated that a small number of dentists (less than ten) appeared to have failed to take care to ensure that treatment forms were completed accurately, and to advise officers that particular types of treatment required prior approval from the Government Consultant Dental Surgeon, a fact which had been drawn clearly to dentists' attention at the outset of the scheme. The Administration is considering what action, if any, should be taken in respect of such dentists. Reference to the Dental Council may be appropriate where there is definite evidence of unethical practice or treatment prejudicial to the dental health of patients.
161. The Secretary for the Civil Service concluded that to the extent that the private dental treatment scheme enabled many civil servants and their dependants to obtain necessary dental treatment, the scheme could be counted a success because the Government Dental Service could not have provided all this treatment within the life span of the scheme. However, the scheme did give rise to considerable administrative problems, and certain irregularities emerged as a result but the Secretary commented that the great majority of civil servants who utilized the scheme did so honestly and properly and that the investigation of doubtful cases had discovered no real evidence of fraud on the part of civil servants; most of the irregularities arose through non-compliance with, or the misunderstanding of, the rules of the scheme on the part of some civil servants and a few dentists.
162. Apart from a few orthodontic claims, for which the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council gave special permission for treatment to continue beyond the closing date of the scheme (31 May 1983), all claims have now been dealt with. Altogether 114 954 claims were received of which 114 423 were reimbursed and 531 were rejected. Reimbursements under the scheme up to 31 March 1985 totalled $161 million.
163. Head 176 – Subventions: Miscellaneous. Subhead 444 – Hong Kong Trade Development Council. The Hong Kong Trade Development Council was established in 1966 by the enactment of the Trade Development Council Ordinance after the Government had considered the 1965 Report of the Working Committee on Export Promotion Organization. The objectives of the Trade Development Council are to promote, assist and develop Hong Kong's overseas trade, with particular reference to exports. The Ordinance provides that the Council shall receive such moneys that the Governor may approve out of funds provided by the Legislative Council and for the Trade Development Council to submit its annual estimates of income and expenditure for the approval of the Governor. In 1984-85, the subvention to the Council amounted to $161 million.
164. In 1965, when considering what financial resources the Trade Development Council would require to carry out its functions, the Working Committee examined the practice of other exporting countries and found that funds were generally allocated to their export promotion organizations based firstly on a pragmatic assessment, industry by industry, of the amount needed to supplement promotional activities by the private sector (surveys being carried out in conjunction with trade and industrial associations) and secondly, on a decision by the Government on the importance to the territory of export promotion relative to the provision of other public sector services such as education, medical and health, which entailed consideration of the territory's economic position, and expenditure on promotion by its trading competitors. The Working Committee concluded that an accurate assessment of promotional activities by the private sector was not possible in Hong Kong because of the lack of detailed information on local industries' productive capacity and export potential and on international competition. After justifying the need for expansion of trade promotion activities, the Working Committee recommended as a working hypothesis that Hong Kong should make funds available annually to the Trade Development Council on a formula of 0.25% of the value of Hong Kong's domestic exports, which for 1964–65 amounted to $11 million.
165. In order to meet this increased level of expenditure, the Working Committee suggested that the Government should collect an ad valorem charge on Hong Kong's import and export trade declarations at the rate of 50¢ for every $1,000. This charge would provide the difference between what was then being spent by the Government on export promotion and the $11 million derived from the recommended formula. The Working Committee's recommendations were accepted by the Government and regulations were then made under the Importation and Exportation Ordinance empowering the Government to collect an ad valorem charge on trade declarations. However, as it was considered inappropriate to tie the Government, and in particular the Legislative Council, to making any particular sums available indefinitely for any purpose, it was decided that the basis on which the Government would make funds available, subject to the consent of the Legislative Council and the overriding financial situation of Hong Kong, should be set out in a Letter of Understanding. The Letter of Understanding forwarded to the Chairman of the Trade Development Council in November 1966 provided that, subject to the provision of funds by the Legislative Council, the Trade Development Council would receive the yield from the ad valorem charge (less charge for each trade declaration towards the cost of statistical services). The Letter of Understanding contained the proviso that these arrangements were subject to the Government's basic right to vary them should the financial situation of Hong Kong make this necessary, emphasizing that it was not possible irrevocably to devote particular sums of money to particular purposes with priority over all other objects of public expenditure. Since then, the annual appropriation by the Legislative Council from the general revenue to the Trade Development Council and the Council's annual estimates of income and expenditure have been based in practice on the yield from the ad valorem charge collected by the Government in the preceding financial year
30