TNAG-1642-FCO40-2289-Public-finance-in-Hong-Kong-Supplementary-Appropriation-(198-1987 — Page 192

FCO40 Hong Kong Department Records 聯邦事務部香港部檔案 All

Date:

Time:

26.11.86.

8.30

PMO

S

12.15

Reporter:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

*8

a

9

CHAIRMAN:

10

11

12

13

14

RG:

15

the representative from the Economic Services Branch, this legislation was unlikely to be enacted until towards the end of 1981, if then. Although it was recognised that the staff would need some preliminary training, it was felt by Finance Branch and Civil Service Branch representatives that at least the majority of the clerical, typing and minor staff, would not be needed for some considerable time and consequently they supported the creation of only fourteen of the twenty nine posts applied for. If this recommendation is accepted by the Registrar General, fifteen posts will remain within his ceiling which could be used for microfilming."

I see. Do you have any further questions ?

Could I ask a question, paragraph 112, of the Registrar General.

It is an amazing story. Are the documents stored at Kowloon East

Government Offices now being destroyed ?

Yes, they have.

16

17

18

CHAIRMAN : I see.

a headache, because they had a fire ?

But the other one, you would not have

19

51

RG:

The decision was taken out of my hands.

Perhaps

20

1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

lly

30

21

31

32

33

36

there is a point, sir, that I should mention on that and perhaps

it was not made clear to the Director of Audit and that is, under

the Land Registration Regulations, the discretion of when and how

to destroy these public land records, which are public land records

of Hong Kong, is conferred by the legislature on the Land Officer.

That's me. If I destroy them too early, I have to take the responsibility for that.

It won't be the Director of Audit's fault,

it will be mine. So I think that is the exercise of a statutory

discretion by the statutory authority concerned. So I am not sure it is an appropriate subject for audit at all. Certainly, in the

legal sense. But of course the question can be asked, why didn't

the Land Officer destroy them earlier and save something like

$220,000 in rent, but that is a subjective decision which belongs

to the Land Officer and the decision that I took was to destroy most

of them, last month in fact, but in fact I have also decided to

retain about 170,000 Memorials which are the Memorials from 1844 up

I consider them to be useful and historical land records

to 1945.

ds]

34

35

127

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.