the Committee that the Director of Audit is quite in order to consider the most economical means of achieving the objective, bearing in mind that the Government's resources as a whole are limited and that there may be other competing worthwhile projects. The scheme should be administered in the most economical and efficient manner to achieve the objective.
7.101 The Committee wish to express their concern at the level of overpayments of grants and loans in the academic years 1982-83 to 1983-84. The Committee note that the Secretary, UPGC has conducted a pilot scheme on improved vetting procedures on claims and that, following the success of the scheme, it is to be introduced generally in 1986-87. The Committee wish to be informed of the progress and of the results achieved.
7.102 The Committee recommend that the Secretary for Education and Manpower should now review the student finance scheme and that the review should include an assessment of the balance between grants and loans as a means of achieving its policy objective. The Committee also recommend that the matter of charging interest on loans should be considered in the review. The Committee wish to be informed of the progress in this matter.
WATER SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT AND NEW TERRITORIES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
7.103 Paragraphs 205-217. Tsing Yi development. Re-laying of newly laid watermains within a year of their being first laid, resulting in additional expenditure estimated at $9.5 million. The Committee held two hearings on this subject. At the first hearing on 25 November 1985 the witnesses were the Director of New Territories Development and the Director of Water Supplies. At the second hearing on 5 December 1985 the witness was the Managing Director of the mainlaying consultants.
7.104 First hearing. The Committee asked whether during the design and planning stages of the mainlaying contract there had been sufficient liaison and co-ordination between the Water Supplies Department and the New Territories Development Department. The Director of Water Supplies said that in the context of the situation at that time the extent of liaison and co-operation was as good as could be expected and that the co-ordination between the road authority and his department was adequate. The Director added that the watermains had to be laid in advance of the roadworks and the detailed design of the road had not been completed when the watermains were designed. 7.105 When asked why, in the handing-over notes to the consultants, the elevation of the watermains or the need to ascertain the elevation of the watermains were not mentioned, the Director of Water Supplies replied that in 1980 his department had suffered from a shortage of engineering staff. The only means of completing the work had been to package it and hand it over to a consultant. While the instructions and liaison between internal divisions of his department had been adequate and use was made of common files and drawings, the instructions given when handing over the work to the consultants had not been adequate. What had appeared to the author of the notes to be sufficient information for the watermains to be laid correctly had transpired to be inadequate from the point of view of the consultants who undertook the work. However further information had been available to the consultants. Had they not been certain of what was required of them the consultants should have sought this information. It had been intended that the vertical level of the watermains, which was a basic parameter in mainlaying, should be determined with reference to a specific datum and confirmed with the road authority. According to the information obtained from the New Territories Development Department, his staff had understood clearly that the watermains should be laid with reference to the level of the existing carriageway which was parallel to the area formed for the new carriageway. His staff had referred to this level as the final surface level.
7.106 On the question of whether the contract specification stipulating that the watermains were to be laid with a cover to final surface of one metre, without defining the 'final surface', had been a serious defect in the contract specification, the Director of Water Supplies stated that at the time the contract specification had been drawn up the detailed final road construction drawings had not been available. However the Water Supplies Department did have drawings relating to drainage in the future road which made reference to manhole cover levels which could have been interpreted as road levels. When passing the works to the Construction Division the Design Division had given instructions that the Construction Division should determine the final road detail on executing the works. As the respective divisions of his department had been fully aware that there would be a future carriageway there was not a problem. However he accepted that there had been an omission in the handing-over notes to the consultants. If a professional engineer had been aware that he was in a carriageway, there was only one meaning to final surface level. The problem was, in the absence of precise instructions, whether the engineer carrying out the work had been aware that he was in a future carriageway.
7.107 The Director of Water Supplies agreed with the Committee's view that when responsibility for the supervision of the mainlaying contract was transferred to the mainlaying consultants, the consultants should have read the specification and should have known that the one metre below final surface had not been determined. If the specification had not been clear as to what this one metre referred, they should have found out before authorizing any work. 7.108 The Director of New Territories Development informed the Committee that the mainlaying consultants had asked the roadworks consultants for particulars of the future roadworks. In October 1980 the mainlaying consultants had been given drawings showing the future carriageway and the proposed levels of the manhole covers in the road which were in fact the proposed road levels. The Committee noted that based on this information it could not be said that the mainlaying consultants had not been aware of the future carriageway.
7.109 The Director of Water Supplies told the Committee that his department had not been aware of this exchange of correspondence between the two consultants until the Director of Audit had made his enquiries. Subsequently the
30