( 135 )
267
1735
6
7
9
1740
1
3
Q---That would be a question of greater expense?
A--Yes.
Q-Then how do you think that, notwithstanding this extra expense, the work would be done as cheaply as it is at present by Government?
A-There would be no more expense involved in supervision than there is at the present moment by Government. There is no reason why it should be more costly if an architect or engineer be employed.
Q-And at the same time Government would have to retain its Public Works De- partment?
A—With a less staff, naturally. There would be less work to do.
Q-Then, your idea is that the Public Works Departinent should be reduced in numbers?
A-Oh, no. I mean that if the Public Works Department were getting others to carry out the work of Public Works Extraordinary, they must have more time for their other work. I have no hesitation in saying that they must get a very much larger staff. Take one job like the Kowloon Water Works; if that was not given to an out- side firm they would have to get men to do it, whereas if it is given to an outside firm, it saves men to the Public Works Departinent, and, what is more important, it saves a great deal of the time of the Director of Public Works.
Q-Then your idea is that the staff of the Public Works Department could not be reduced by giving work to private firms ?
A-I think, even for the current work going on, without the Extraordinary Works, that the staff is not big enough nor good enough.
Q-Do you think the present staff is not sufficient even to carry out the ordinary work, without even attempting the Extraordinary Public Works?
A-Yes.
Q--You, of course, are acquainted with the Extraordinary Public Works--enum- erated in the Estimates for 1902, estimated to cost about eight laklis, and you think the Department, as at present constituted, is not sufficient to undertake any of these works ?
A-No.
Q-With regard to the question of cost, it seems to be thought that Government work—at least we have it so in evidence-costs more than private work?
A-I think it does, taking it all together.
Q-Why is that?
፡፡
A-I think one reason is that private owners are more liberal in money—that is, in paying contractors. I think we, as private firms, nurse the contractors more. We help them more. They do not hesitate to come to us if they want to order timber, or anything of that sort-work which does not really belong to the architect or engineer. They make use of us, and we gladly do much to help them. Private firms, I think, are more liberal in payments.
Q-In what way do you mean more liberal in payments?
A-l'ayments in advance.
Q-Then do you think private firms are able to get work of the same quality done at a cheaper rate?
A-Yes, I fancy so.