6.
- 2 -
The presentations and discussions will continue. In particular, the financing arrangements for the airport and the railway will be discussed by the LegCo Ad Hoc Group and the Airport Consultative Committee over the next few weeks. We will respond constructively to specific and reasonable requests for information and consultation. It is difficult however to know how to respond to vague allegations of a lack of transparency or demands that we should fill a bottomless pit labelled "more information". Forests of trees have already been felled in an attempt to satisfy the demands made on us over the period since the new airport was announced. It may be worth recalling for example that the material on the Airport Master Plan alone was three inches thick. And that there are now over 300 reports, studies etc. relevant to the ACP available to the public in the Airport and Port Project Resource Centre. I wonder how many people have read them? Thus we must draw a line somewhere. I am particularly anxious that we should not publicly reveal commercially sensitive information that could, for example, upset financial plans or undermine competitive tendering.
7.
Implicit in some of what has been said in the debate is the idea that all this could be done at less expense if we proceeded more slowly. Calculating economic disbenefits is a science that causes a lot of controversy and I shall not try it here: I would rather appeal to Members' common sense. What would be made cheaper by spending more time? By extending the project cashflows, we would just increase the out-turn costs. By extending the repayment period for borrowing by the MTRC and the Airport Authority and putting off the time when our investments start to generate revenues, we shall incur more interest costs and delay payment of dividends back to the public. I am afraid that it just does not make sense.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.