HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
It is my responsibility as Director of Urban Services to transmit the staff requests in respect of the Department to Government, to present them fully and accurately, to argue them if necessary, and in due course to explain to the Council, if required, the reasons for any changes made.
The Government is fully conscious and very appreciative of the valuable part played by the Urban Council Select Committees in overseeing the functions of the Urban Services Department. But it must reserve the right to query requests for additional staff or funds where it believes that opportunities may be taken to achieve possible economies or improvements or where it appears that requests are out of line with approved policies. The consideration of staff requests in the Secretariat is co-ordinated by the Establishment Branch, which is responsible for submitting Government's proposals to the Establishment Sub-Committee of Finance Committee. The concurrence of that body is required before any staff requests can be submitted for approval of the provision of any necessary funds by the Legislature. Officers of the Establishment Branch are responsible to the Colonial Secretary; they are not responsible to me or to this Council.
I am assured by the Colonial Secretary that in principle he greatly favours discussion between Urban Council Select Committees and the Secretariat on matters of mutual interest, but in the circumstances of this particular case, recommendations having already been made to and decisions taken by the Establishment Sub-Committee of Finance Committee, the Colonial Secretary could not agree that it would have been appropriate for Secretariat representatives to be required to appear in front of the Select Committee of this Council to discuss these recommendations and decisions.
The proposals for additional posts for the Urban Services Department in the 1965/66 Estimates were approved by the Estimates Select Committee of the Urban Council on 28th September, 1964, endorsed thereafter by all Members of the Urban Council, and forwarded to the Colonial Secretariat on 5th October. It was not clear to members of the Urban Services Department concerned with the Estimates that it was the intention of the Establishment Branch to refer the Estimates to the Establishment Sub-Committee of Finance Committee before notifying the Department of any proposed cuts. I understand that the Establishment Sub-Committee considered the Department's Estimates on 19th December, 1964. Its decisions thereon were conveyed to the Urban Services Department in a memorandum dated 30th December, which was received in the Department on 3rd January, 1965. I first saw these decisions about 20th January and as it is customary to table the approved Estimates at the February meeting of this Council, I immediately gave instructions that they should be made known to the Members of the Estimates Select Committee as soon as possible. A memorandum dated 26th January was sent to Members and the Estimates Select Committee met on 30th January. Mr. WATSON has said that he did not receive any proper explanation for the cuts made in the Estimates. Let me remind him, with respect, that all the senior officers of the Department were present at that meeting on 30th January, ready and willing to explain any matters concerning the Estimates, but Mr. WATSON, in his capacity as Chairman, suggested that the Committee should hear a representative of the Colonial Secretariat instead. I must emphasize that reasons for the cuts were given to the Department by the Colonial Secretariat and were available to the Select Committee. I am sure that I mentioned to Members at the meeting of the Standing Committee of the Whole Council on 9th February the Colonial Secretariat's proposal that a review of the cleansing services should be undertaken.
Mr. WATSON has also mentioned that the Department was asked to carry out and carried out a review of the cleansing services last summer. In fact, it was asked, in March 1964, to prepare a policy paper on beat sweeping for consideration before the next Estimates. This is the paper which was prepared and sent to the Colonial Secretariat early in August.
I must also point out to Mr. WATSON that he appears to be under some slight misapprehension regarding the functions of the Establishment Branch in the matter of Estimates. The Establishment Branch does not refuse the inclusion of staff in the Estimates; it makes recommendations to the Establishment Sub-Committee of Finance Committee, whose decisions in this particular case were conveyed to the Department. I also would like to correct a further statement by Mr. WATSON, insofar as he suggests that the Department was told that it should struggle along without the extra cleansing staff - that is not quite true. It was said that the staff would not be provided until a review of the cleansing services and the beat system in particular had been undertaken. As far as I am aware, this review is still contemplated. I should also perhaps emphasize that these are Estimates. I think that it may be true that Members of this Council expect that when the Estimates are forwarded, no cuts should ever be made. I am afraid that this happy optimism is not shared by the Department. We always expect a number of cuts and we know also that if these cuts are made and during the course of the ensuing financial year difficulties are experienced, Government will agree to consider again the inclusion of posts which were originally eliminated from the Estimates.
As regards the actual cuts made in the cleansing services on this occasion, I would point out that 610 posts were approved out of 825 requested. Of the 215 posts not approved, 96 are in fact still under consideration. The remaining 119 posts were for leave reserves which, I think it is probably true to say, are not likely to be required during
Page 305 of 312
584
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
585
Page 305
Page 306
of 312
12
Page 305 of 312
584
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
It is my responsibility as Director of Urban Services to transmit the staff requests in respect of the Department to Government, to present them fully and accurately, to argue them if necessary, and in due course to explain to the Council, if required, the reasons for any changes made.
The Government is fully conscious and very appreciative of the valuable part played by the Urban Council Select Committees in over- seeing the functions of the Urban Services Department. But it must reserve the right to query requests for additional staff or funds where it believes that opportunities may be taken to achieve possible economies or improvements or where it appears that requests are out of line with approved policies. The consideration of staff requests in the Secretariat is co-ordinated by the Establishment Branch, which is respon- sible for submitting Government's proposals to the Establishment Sub- Committee of Finance Committee. The concurrence of that body is required before any staff requests can be submitted for approval of the provision of any necessary funds by the Legislature. Officers of the Establishment Branch are responsible to the Colonial Secretary; they are not responsible to me or to this Council.
I am assured by the Colonial Secretary that in principle he greatly favours discussion between Urban Council Select Committees and the Secretariat on matters of mutual interest, but in the circumstances of this particular case, recommendations having already been made to and decisions taken by the Establishment Sub-Committee of Finance Com- mittee, the Colonial Secretary could not agree that it would have been appropriate for Secretariat representatives to be required to appear in front of the Select Committee of this Council to discuss these recom- mendations and decisions.
The proposals for additional posts for the Urban Services Depart- ment in the 1965/66 Estimates were approved by the Estimates Select Committee of the Urban Council on 28th September, 1964, endorsed thereafter by all Members of the Urban Council, and forwarded to the Colonial Secretariat on 5th October. It was not clear to members of the Urban Services Department concerned with the Estimates that it was the intention of the Establishment Branch to refer the Estimates to the Establishment Sub-Committee of Finance Committee before notifying the Department of any proposed cuts. I understand that the Establishment Sub-Committee considered the Department's Estimates on 19th December, 1964. Its decisions thereon were conveyed to the Urban Services Department in a memorandum dated 30th December, which was received in the Department on 3rd January, 1965. I first saw these decisions about 20th January and as it is customary to table the approved Estimates at the February meeting of this Council, I im- mediately gave instructions that they should be made known to the Members of the Estimates Select Committee as soon as possible. A
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
585
memorandum dated 26th January was sent to Members and the Estimates Select Committee met on 30th January. Mr. WATSON has said that he did not receive any proper explanation for the cuts made in the Estimates. Let me remind him, with respect, that all the senior officers of the Department were present at that meeting on 30th January, ready and willing to explain any matters concerning the Estimates, but Mr. WATSON, in his capacity as Chairman, suggested that the Committee should hear a representative of the Colonial Secretariat instead. I must emphasize that reasons for the cuts were given to the Department by the Colonial Secretariat and were available to the Select Committee. I am sure that I mentioned to Members at the meeting of the Standing Committee of the Whole Council on 9th February the Colonial Secretariat's proposal that a review of the cleansing services should be undertaken.
Mr. WATSON has also mentioned that the Department was asked to carry out and carried out a review of the cleansing services last summer. In fact, it was asked, in March 1964, to prepare a policy paper on beat sweeping for consideration before the next Estimates. This is the paper which was prepared and sent to the Colonial Secretariat early in August.
It was
I must also point out to Mr. WATSON that he appears to be under some slight misapprehension regarding the functions of the Establish- ment Branch in the matter of Estimates. The Establishment Branch does not refuse the inclusion of staff in the Estimates; it makes recom- mendations to the Establishment Sub-Committee of Finance Committee, whose decisions in this particular case were conveyed to the Department. I also would like to correct a further statement by Mr. WATSON, insofar as he suggests that the Department was told that it should struggle along without the extra cleansing staff that is not quite true. said that the staff would not be provided until a review of the cleansing services and the beat system in particular had been undertaken. As far as I am aware, this review is still contemplated. I should also perhaps emphasize that these are Estimates. I think that it may be true that Members of this Council expect that when the Estimates are forwarded, no cuts should ever be made. I am afraid that this happy optimism is not shared by the Department. We always expect a number of cuts and we know also that if these cuts are made and during the course of the ensuing financial year difficulties are experienc- ed, Government will agree to consider again the inclusion of posts which were originally eliminated from the Estimates.
As regards the actual cuts made in the cleansing services on this occasion, I would point out that 610 posts were approved out of 825 requested. Of the 215 posts not approved, 96 are in fact still under consideration. The remaining 119 posts were for leave reserves which, I think it is probably true to say, are not likely to be required during
Page 305Page 306
of 312
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.