Date:
Time:
Reporter:
26.11.86.
8.30
PMO
A
12.15
:e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ned?
11
to take months of correspondence and discussion to see additional staff
for the microfilming project which finally was abortive ?
RG: I am afraid, sir, that paragraph 111 doesn't actually give the full picture so far as the Moneylenders' Registry was
concerned. In fact, when the Registrar General became aware in June
1980 that he was to be the Registrar of Moneylenders under the new Ordinance, he immediately on the 18th of June put in a request for the additional staff of twenty one which he felt was necessary to
establish the new registry and deal with this new undertaking. The
correspondence went on between the Branch and the Department between June and September and some of the correspondence was, in fact, quite robust, I should say. But the end of it was that even with
the strong support from the Economic Services Branch, that the ceiling
would not be waived and the Registrar General would have to find
the additional twenty one posts from somewhere within his ceiling.
In the end, the Finance Branch were able to relent and were able to
18 give us an additional eight.
12
Or
13
14
aff
15
16
17
ch
19
20
21
22
23
2 2 2 2
23 2
CHAIRMAN: Eight out of twenty one ?
RG:
Yes. So the remaining thirteen had to be found
from somewhere within the ceiling and ironically enough, sir, they 24 came from what might have been allocated to the microfilming, had they been available. I think the analagy the Moneylenders' Unit is not an appropriate one because
25
26
27
28
1's
29
30
at
31
32
33
34
35
u
36
CHAIRMAN: Is that because there is legislation ?
RG: There is legislation.
CHAIRMAN: So you had to have
RG:
You had to have it. The legislature had enacted the
Moneylenders' Ordinance in June 1980 and there was a provision in it that it would be brought into operation on a date to be nominated
123
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.