53
and re-developing is less attractive, the difference between the position in July, 1948 and September, 1947, is not so great. Nevertheless, although the time available has not permitted a detailed re-examination it was apparent on a visit to the sites that con- siderable progress has been made. There remains the hard core of cases where nothing has been done in these areas where figures are specifically quoted.
Suggested Remedies.
7. It has been recommended by the Committee of the Hong Kong Property Owners' Association that after notice of some reasonable period to carry out clearance, Government should carry out the work for the owners' account, such charges to be settled by owners before any re-building were approved by Government or before any transfer of the site were registered.
In the recommendations which the Committee later wish to make, they wish to supplement these suggestions by two further factors—
8.
(a) The necessity of discouraging too great a tendency for owners to require the Public Works Department to carry out the work for them even on payment of the cost thereof; and
(b) The necessity of encouraging or enforcing re-development and there- fore in appropriate cases temporarily foregoing the payment of any charge while plans for rebuilding are approved and put into execution.
(1) Sir Man-kam Lo in his memorandum points out that on no logical grounds can the ultimate financial responsibility for site clearance fall upon Govern- ment. The point is made that if Government is to pay for removal of debris in any cases in the future, then consistently they must pay for removal effected by private enterprise in the past.
(2) He accordingly proposes that a liability for the cost of removal of debris should be imposed but not as a personal liability, and to be limited to the value of the land. He therefore suggests that after a certain date the D.P.W. may enter and remove debris, employing contractors if need be; no claim against Government shall lie for such entry or removal of material; the cost shall be a charge on the land; other machinery suggested includes provision for application if necessary to the Court for a sale of the property analogously with other statutory provisions for the recovery of Estate Duty, etc.
(3) It is further suggested that when the prospective Legislation is promul- gated, it shall be publicly stated that in three months sites will be entered and cleared and the cost of clearing charged.
(4) The Committee wish to emphasize that possibly this is all too easy for the owner.
It might well repay most owners to submit to Government organizing and supervising the clearance of their sites.
(5) There is no provision moreover for crediting the owner with the value (if any) of the materials removed. It was
no doubt of course intended that such details would be provided for, but the Committee is advised that such credit would in some cases be considerable and perhaps more than the cost of the clearance, and that in particular the quantity of such salvage would vary greatly in each case and therefore must be provided for in order to make equal treatment possible.
9. In consideration of this memorandum, objections were advanced that where an owner refused to meet a bill the Government would in each case have to apply to the Court, and moreover that the site would remain privately owned and no control apart from those relating to structural requirements would be possible over future building and that no machinery is envisaged for hastening development. The Attorney General, Mr. J. B. Griffin, who made these comments on the proposed remedies, went on to suggest that the remedy of re-entry for failure to perform covenants to keep in repair and maintain provided machinery which could be usefully employed. The Committee are satisfied from advice by the Chairman, supported by that of the Acting Land Officer, that such power of re-entry is applicable and there are no substantial exceptions to the standard form of lease which permits it. Further