TNAG-0534-FCO40-629-UK-aid-to-Hong-Kong-Polytechnic-and-technical-institutions-1975 — Page 235

1/24

XCC(74)36

10 -

But it will be necessary to extend the capital programme for the Polytechnic over a longer period. It is proposed to give the UPGC certain limits within which capital expenditure for the Polytechnic including staff housing and equipment should be contained. These limits compare with expenditure on the recommendations of the UPGC for Phases I and II over the Government financial years as follows:

UPGC recommendations (excluding housing and equipment)

Proposed limits

1974/75

1975/76

1976/77 1977/78

Total

77 m.

GO m.

10.22 m.

147.22

(including Housing &

equipment and remainder of existing programme)

16.8 m.

26.2 m.

30 m.

68 m.

141.0

24

The re-phasing of capital expenditure for the Polytechnic to remain within the overall financial limits means that the Polytechnic targets endorsed by the UPGC in their formal submissions to the Government at Annexes B and C will have to be rephased over a longer period than originally intended. The UPGC envisages that re-phasing would make possible a target of 6, 000 full time equivalent students for September 1978 and that the target of 8,000 they originally recommended as the basis of Annexes B and C would not be attained until September 1980. The UPGC has represented that the re-phasing of the Polytechnic capital programme now proposed will in fact mean that the first phase of the Polytechnic new buildings at Hung Hom cannot be completed before 1978 instead of the original target of September 1975 or the physically still feasible target of September 1976. This delay would mean that Polytechnic student expansion would either have to be held after September 1975, or considerable additional temporary accommodation would have to be found, in itself a costly expedient. Either course would require the

Polytechnic Board in conjunction with the UPGC to rephase recurrent and capital expenditure against that originally envisaged.

25

Honourable Members will be asked to advise whether the recommendations of the University and Polytechnic Grants Committee as set out in Annexes B and C should be accepted in principle as recommended by the Committee, but subject to the amendments discussed in paragraphs 23 and 24 in order to contain UPGC recommendations within the overall financial ceiling for the UPGC and subject to the provisions of the necessary funds by the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council.

CONFIDENTIAL

機

!

}