-the progress in implementing the new forms for leave applications and for recording leave earnings and recommended that the Secretary for the Civil Service should investigate the feasibility of making the new forms computer readable; and
the outcome of the review by the Standing Commission on Civil Service Salaries and Conditions of Service on the rationalization and simplification of the leave schemes and the progress made in implementing any recom- mendations made which might arise out of it.
54. I have recently been informed that the Secretary for the Civil Service is studying in detail the possibility of computerizing the leave record system in consultation with the Data Processing Manager but that further progress, including the service-wide introduction of revised leave application forms and leave records, depends on the results of the consideration by the Government of the proposals for rationalizing and simplifying the leave and passage schemes which were submitted to the Government in December 1985 and February 1986 by the Standing Commission on Civil Service Salaries and Conditions of Service. I understand that the Secretary for the Civil Service has conducted meetings with the staff side representatives of the Senior Civil Service Council, the Police Force Council and the Model Scale 1 Council to discuss the implications of the Commission's proposals, but the results are not yet known.
55. Meanwhile although the issue of the aide-mémoire to departments has had positive results in standardizing the calculation of leave earnings, quality control checks carried out since November 1985 in five departments by the Secretary for the Civil Service revealed the need for two departments to carry out full-scale checks on leave records. The quality control checks also highlighted the need for the issue of departmental guidelines to leave clerks, the training of leave clerks in their duties and the introduction within departments of independent systems of check of the leave records. The Secretary for the Civil Service has stated that there is no substitute for thorough training of leave clerks and regular checking of leave records, and the Civil Service Branch is embarked on this.
56. Provision of Government, Institution and Community Facilities in private development projects.
57. The dockyard re-development in Hung Hom. In May 1980 the Government made a policy requiring a developer to bear the costs of providing Government, Institution and Community (GIC) facilities if he wished to develop a site zoned for GIC/open space or industrial uses by converting it to residential/commercial uses. The rationale for the policy was that the permission to convert the land use gave the developer an additional choice in re-development and it would not be right for the Government to incur expenditure on a low priority project at the expense of other more urgent projects. In the implementation of the policy the statutory function of the Town Planning Board to approve a change in the permitted land use under Section 16 of the Town Planning Ordinance would be separate from the administrative responsibility of the land authorities. The reason for this distinction was that although the Town Planning Board was empowered under the Town Planning Ordinance to impose conditions when granting a Section 16 permission to the developer, a modification of the lease conditions was the most appropriate way to formalize the necessary arrangements and to ensure that the conditions laid down by the Town Planning Board were complied with.
58. An audit review of projects involving the provision of GIC facilities revealed that the policy had not been followed in a private re-development project resulting in extra expenditure amounting to $8 million being incurred by the Government. The project concerned a re-development of the dockyard area in Hung Hom by converting the industrial use specified in the statutory outline zoning plan to enable the site to be developed into a residential/commercial estate. The developer's proposals were approved by the land authorities in May 1981 and an application under Section 16 of the Town Planning Ordinance was approved by the Town Planning Board in December 1983, subject to the provision of GIC and other facilities. Basic terms for the modification of the lease were negotiated between the Government and the developer and the premium was agreed at $390 million which did not take into account the cost of the GIC facilities.
59. In January 1984, before seeking funds to pay the developer for the provision of the GIC facilities, the Director, Councils and Administration Branch asked the Secretary for Lands and Works whether the existing policy was to be maintained or whether any amendment to the policy should be sought as it would be inappropriate to seek financial authority to pay the developer for the GIC facilities at the Hung Hom dockyard when the policy required them to be provided at the developer's expense. The Secretary for Lands and Works was of the view that the project in question should be regarded as a major re-development proposal and was not the sort of case covered by the policy. The Secretary commented that even if his view was not correct the policy needed to be reviewed for both financial and legal reasons but, as the review was likely to take time, it was desirable in the circumstances that the re-development scheme should not be held up. The Secretary also commented that the project would give a much needed boost in confidence for Hong Kong. These views were shared by the Finance Branch of the Government Secretariat. However, notwithstanding that the legal advice obtained in March 1984 confirmed the legality of the policy, a submission to the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council in May 1984, seeking the necessary funds for the provision of the GIC facilities, made no reference to the policy.
60. I have invited the attention of both the Secretary for Lands and Works and the Deputy Financial Secretary to the Hung Hom dockyard re-development case in which the policy was not followed. I have expressed the view that a detailed justification should have been submitted to the Finance Committee to explain why the project should be regarded as an exceptional case and that if the policy branches considered that there were problems in the implementation of the policy, then the Executive Council should have been informed so that the policy could either be reaffirmed or revised. I have also expressed the view that there has been an inconsistency in the application of the policy
15
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.