162
-
12.30
PUBLIC HEARING OF THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE
Date:
28.11.86
Time:
8.30
Reporter:
PMS
1
2
3
[8.31 am]
4
5
6
7
8
9
-
CHAIRMAN:
Good morning. This is the first session
of our hearing this morning. The first item on the agenda is item
56 60 of the Director of Audit's Report which is provision of
Government Institution and Community facilities in private develop-
ment projects. May I call on the Secretary for Lands and Works to appear before the Committee. (Pause) Good morning, Mr Barnes.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
SLW:
CHAIRMAN:
Good morning.
We are dealing with Director of Audit's
Report paragraph 56 to paragraph 60. Mr Ho.
MR HO:
Mr Secretary, there is a policy in Government that private developers are asked to provide GIC facilities for private development. Now there is one case that this policy has been not followed which is the Hung Hom dockyard redevelopment case in May 1984. May I ask you the first question is the justification for departing from the policy in the Hung Hom dockyard redevelopment case, why the policy hasn't been followed in that particular redevelopment.
SLW:
Looking over the, through the Report which
30
31
I consider to be a very good one, I think that the answer to be found
in 59 in the middle in which it said: "The Secretary commented that
even if his view was not correct, the policy needed to be reviewed for both financial and legal reasons but, as the review was likely to take time, it was desirable in the circumstances that the redevelopment scheme should not be held up." There is no doubt about it that the redevelopment scheme was important, both in the nature of its size and in the nature of the very considerable amount of revenue which 35 would accrue from the modification fee, at a time when revenue from 36 land was very short. At that time. My researches into this, into
32
33
34