The word feature in this case is that the Architect, Mr. Em Hageland - who was an Engineer in the P.W.D. and retired in 1900 to take up private work in Hong Kong (vide 16703/00) - does come within the definition of "works" sec. 7 (12).
5. W. J. 26-13 of course comes within the definition of "works" sic. 7 (12). See also 11749 and 31 (x) — 4669-3000-8-01.
The addition of a fourth story to a 3-storied building is not "new building" within sec 3 of ordn 15 of 1889, nor does it come within the definition of "building" (sec 7.11). I think the D.W.P is right in saying that no certificate under sec 5 of the ordn was required in respect of this addition as a "new building."
But under sec 72 it was undoubtedly subject, secondly, to the provisions of the order. The plans were submitted to the P.W.D under sec & were approved after being in conformity with the order after the usual examination, which appears to have been a casual one.
I think there was negligence (1) in approving the plans after insufficient examination (2) in not exercising the power of entry and inspection under sec. 75.
I do not understand the amounts of the fine. Presumably they were inflicted under sections 69 & 77 of ordn 15 of 1889 and bre 4 of order 7 of 1895, the owner & contractor each being convicted of several offences, and fined for each of them.
It is most unsatisfactory that this neglect to exercise their powers under sec. 724 & 75 of the Building Ordinance was not discovered earlier. I think that the Government should be told that this neglect was most unsatisfactory and that it led to the loss of 43 lives and 24 injured persons. It appears that only 3 of the mentioned in 32500 or, recovered 1500/01.
We should ask for a full report as to what steps are proposed to be taken to prevent such disasters in future and for an expression of the Attorney General's views as to whether the law requires strengthening so as to increase the penalties; and whether this is not a case in which proceedings for mandamus could have been brought against anybody.
Draft for consideration as at 27/3. If there are any alterations in the above minutes, please enclose Mr. Weir's question & the answer when given or ask whether compensation was given CPL. 29 at once.