TNAG-0620-FCO40-768-Annual-accounts-of-Hong-Kong-Government-for-year-ending-1976-1977 — Page 14

carried forward from 1973-74 the vote for the fitting out of premises was

already fully committed at the beginning of 1974-75. To have entered

into the commitment in this particular case would have exceeded delegated

powers. In May 1975, therefore, Finance Committee approved the creation

of a project estimate for the vote which included the commitment for the

fitting out of this leased accommodation, thus enabling future cases,

if they arise, to be approved under delegated powers to the extent of

the balance in the project estimate. The authority to proceed with the

work was given immediately after this decision of Finance Committee.

Paragraph 48: Head 72 - Public Works Non-recurrent: Engineering

23.

Subhead S04 Tai bor Ping and Pipers Hill interchanges

The Principal Government Land Agent has advised that there

was never any reasonable doubt that an exchange would result from the

negotiations, and that the financial consequences of delay in making

available the private land were not fully appreciated until too late.

Also, from his experience, the magnitude of the contractor's claim

was so unusual that it could not reasonably have been foreseen, bearing

in mind that the area involved was only a small proportion of that

necessary for the entire scheme. Generally, Government projects of

this nature require a considerable amount of private land which is

sometimes acquired compulsorily but mostly by negotiated exchange, as

in this case, and the main difficulty lies in deciding at what stage

to break off negotiations.

Faragraphs 49 54: Head 74 Public Works Non-recurrent: Waterworks

24.

-

Subhead 901 High Island water scheme

In essence, the Director of Audit raises four points in

paragraphs 49 53. First, the award of resettlement houses and cash

compensation to the Group A fishermen was unjustifiably generous in

some cases. Second, the basis for providing resettlement houses to

families classified in Group B, on payment of a premium of $6,000,

was questionable. Third, the decision to include 77 Group C families

/in....