See evidence of Architects
185 (16) ·
127. If, as we suggest, the whole of the Sanitary work be concentrated in the one Department, there does not appear to be any reason why a week at the most should not suffice in which to pass correct plans. Should they not be correct, these plans should be returned at the end of that period with a detailed list of the alterations or corrections required.
128. As it is, many months sometimes elapse before plans are returned with already the remark that they are not in accordance with the law. Instances have been enumerated. cited where in some cases over six months have been lost during which time no reply or acknowledgment has been received from the Department concerning the application for plans to be passed.
Mr Osborne's evidence. l'age 2238. Mr. Ram's evidence.
Page 2246.
See Chak
Hok King's evidence. Page 1108.
Delay in passing drains.
See Chung
cvidence.
129. In the same way, much valuable time is often wasted, and consequently pecuniary loss sustained, through the delay in passing work which has been correctly carried out. In some instances a certificate of occupation has not been granted until a month or more after the work has been reported as completed. This is no doubt also due to a division of authority, but also in part to want of system,
130. We would here point out that in England no certificate of occupation. is required.
131. The Commissioners are forced to the conclusion that this delay is in certain instances due to the fact that the Inspecting Officer has not been personally "approached", or that the work has been carried out by some contractor who is unknown to the Inspector and not being one of the regular clique has not given the usual bribe expected.
132. To quote an instance, an outside contractor having been employed the Inspector repeatedly refused to pass his work. The contractor then appealed to another Inspector to whom he was personally known. The second Inspector took him to the first with the significant introduction "This man is a friend of mine" and the work was passed at once,
133. Special evidence has been given with regard to the passing of drains, but this is a question which will be dealt with under that heading.
134. The suggestions as to how the delay referred to can be obviated have been dealt with in our recommendation as to the division of the work of the Department.
135. In continuation of the preceding paragraph, we would point out that similar complaints have been made with regard to the passing of drains.
136. The position of a Sanitary Surveyor in charge of such work is, we consider, most unsatisfactory; this post should be abolished and the work carried out under the supervision of the Executive Engineer, as suggested in a later part of our Report, when dealing with the question of the re-organisation of the staff.
137.
At the moment, a Sanitary Surveyor holds the responsible position for passing this most necessary work, over whom there is practically no control, as neither the Principal Civil Medical Officer, nor the Medical Officer of Health are in. a position to check or supervise his work, and must be guided entirely by his advice. He is practically uncontrolled in the conduct of his duties, as the Building Authority has no authority over this Official.
138. We consider such wide powers, particularly in reference to such an important part of building work as house drains, should not be left entirely to an officer of the rank and training of the present Sanitary Surveyor.
139. Witnesses have appeared before us who state that money has to be paid Shun Koo's before drainage work is passed, and that unless the work is carried out by SAM IU l'age 771, &c. or one or two other favoured contractors, the drains and traps are deliberately
broken by the Inspectors and the work has to be done again.
140. One witness stated he was thus forced to employ SAM IU who charged him four times the amount it would have cost, could he have employed his own
contractor.