7.13 Conclusions and Recommendations. The Committee are not satisfied that the air passenger departure tax is collected in the most cost-effective manner. The present arrangements whereby the Director of Civil Aviation involves himself in detailed calculations of each aircraft operator's, and the aircraft operators' contractor's, cost estimates are cumbersome and complicated. In this context, the Committee note that the cost of tax collection for the most expensive operator is approximately 24 times that of the least expensive. While there may be valid reasons for this differential, the Committee are of the view that the present system subsidizes the inefficient operator.
7.14 The Committee therefore recommend that the possibility of a flat rate fee be re-examined. Failing that the Committee recommend that alternative options for the collection of the air passenger departure tax, which do not involve the airline operators, should be examined.
7.15 The Committee also recommend that the Government clearly defines its policy on the payment of fees to commercial companies that are required by law to collect taxes from the public having regard to the need for such fees and the practicability of making detailed arrangements for assessing the fees based on individual costs.
}
ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
7.16 Paragraphs 196–200. Subsidence of the University Station platforms soon after completion resulting in extra costs estimated at $2 million. Initial site investigation not effective and non-compliance with prescribed departmental procedures. The Committee referred to paragraph 199 of the Director of Audit's report and asked the Director of Engineering Development why he considered that the initial site investigation had been adequate despite the later evidence as to its shortcomings and the fact that Government had to spend $7 million in remedial works. The Director of Engineering Development said that, in connection with the electrification of the Kowloon-Canton Railway, the Railway Division of the Engineering Development Department had to deal with ten stations and a total of 19 platforms had to be raised. The same degree of site investigation was carried out at each station at the cost of $31,000 per station. A full-scale site investigation would have cost an extra $190,000 for each station or an additional $1.9 million for all ten stations. As the platforms had been standing on safe and stable embankments for 70 years and the remodelling exercise was to raise them by less than one metre, and bearing in mind the need to save public money, it was not considered necessary to do a full-scale site investigation. It was unfortunate that the calculated risk taken in the case of the University Station had not paid off.
7.17 The Committe asked whether the safety factor had been taken into account when deciding on the extent of the initial site investigation. The Director of Engineering Development said that there had been no serious consequences of the subsidence at the University Station and no one had been hurt.
7.18 The Committee asked whether the subsidence of the platforms could have been foreseen had the required geotechnical checking been carried out before the tendering stage. The Director of Engineering Development said that the conclusion from the extensive site investigation was that the subsidence arose mainly because of the consolidation of marine deposits below the embankment. However he did not know whether this was the real cause of the settlement. The Director explained that the tests had suggested that there would be no more than 250 mm consolidation of the marine deposit within 10-15 months. In fact heavy rainfall during construction led to subsidence of 300 mm within a very short time. The Director thought that even if an extensive initial site investigation had been carried out in 1976--77, piled foundations for the platforms would not have been suggested since the additional loading resulting from the raising of the platforms was minimal. Such works would also have required the closure of one of the railway tracks, causing inconvenience to railway operations and additional expenditure of nearly $6 million. He added that if piled foundations had been done for the platforms of all ten stations, $50 million of public money might have been wasted.
7.19 On being asked why departmental procedures requiring a submission of design proposals for geotechnical checking were not followed, the Director of Engineering Development replied that his staff were under pressure not to delay the railway electrification programme. The Director also doubted whether the raising of the platforms by less than one metre really necessitated a submission to the Geotechnical Control Office. He added that while the departmental technical circular required a geotechnical submission for new civil engineering works involving slopes or retaining walls, in this case there were, strictly speaking, no slopes nor retaining walls. He therefore doubted whether the work came within the scope of the technical circular. However he admitted that had his staff had the time, they would have submitted the design for geotechnical checking.
7.20 The Committee asked whether the departmental procedures specified when a submission should be made to the Geotechnical Control Office. The Director of Engineering Development stated that designs had to be submitted for geotechnical checking when they were completed. The Director added that the procedures specified that designs should be vetted by the Geotechnical Control Office and returned to the relevant office within 28 days of their submission.
7.21 The Director said the extra costs involved in this case were absorbed entirely by the Government.
7.22 Conclusions and Recommendations. The Committee note the claim by the Director of Engineering Development that a more thorough initial site investigation at all ten stations would have resulted in substantial additional expenditure and might not have identified the risk of subsidence. However the Committee reiterate their concern, expressed at paragraph 7.2 of their Sixth Report, that inadequate site investigations have led to substantial extra costs without the benefit of the projects being completed by the target dates.
7.23 The Committee note that the existing technical circular requires geotechnical checking only in the case of new civil engineering works involving slopes or retaining walls and that the work on the platforms might have fallen outside
21
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.