54265/2/47
Х
Dear MacDougall,
Colonial office,
Church House,
Great Smith Street,
S.W.1.
7th November, 1947.
Amid (3) on '48 file
We have been studying Hong Kong's Staff despatch No.107 of the 3rd September which asks for approval for an immediate increase from 35 to 48 in the authorised establishment of administrative officers in the Colony.
·
2. It seems to us that this is not a very happy moment to approach the Treasury for concurrence in such a proposal. In the first place, in connection with the increases in emoluments proposed by the Salaries Commission and elsewhere, it has been indicated by the Commission and by yourselves that there is need for a survey of the public services with a view to reorganisation and probable reduction of numbers; it would be difficult to justify an increase in permanent establishment before such an examination was carried out the point is in fact precisely made in the Memorandum on the Estimates for 1947-48, where it is written - "it is most desirable to avoid any further increases in establishment except for entirely new services until the position has been examined in detail by the Efficiency Expert", In the second place, to put forward such a proposal now might even prejudice favourable consideration of the Commission's recommendations in that the Treasury might take it as showing a lack of realism on our part in failing to appreciate that so long as Hong Kong is unable to stand entirely on her own financial feet without any kind of assistance from H.M.G., she must cut her coat according to her cloth.
3. We fully appreciate your staffing difficulties and in particular the serious shortage you will be up against next year when an abnormal proportion of officers will be on leave at the same time. But this abnormal proportion of officers on leave will be largely the result of the abnormal events of the war years and is to that extent not an argument for an increase in permanent establishment.
4. The two main arguments for an increase in permanent establishment which we should have to put to the Treasury are, as we see it, in ascending order of importance, inadequacy of the present leave reserve because of changed service conditions (an argument which the despatch advances) and an increase in the work to be done by administrative officers. As regards the former argu ment it applies of course in a number of Colonies. It is not however a very weighty factor. I am told, for instance, that while time on training courses properly comes into an assessmont of leave reserve, time for language study in the Colony and local leave do not. As regards the latter argument a comparative statement of posts manned, permanently or in leave vacancies, by administrative officers pre-war and now would be desirable, with an explanatory note against each post not appearing on the pre-war list. (It is for instance by no means clear why the leave replacements for all of the posts in Schedule II to enclosure No.2 to the despatch have to be found from the administrative service.
5. In the circumstances it would seem best to put the proposal for an increase in the permanent establishment into cold storage until we have been able to get the recommendations of the Salaries Commission through and until the efficiency Expert has carried out his survey of the services.
6.
It is Lowever necessary to consider whether an increase in the permanent establishment is required to cover new officers
who-
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.