THE DAILY PRESS, SATURDAY, JULY 9th, 1887.
The ACTING ATTORNEY-GENERAL—I beg, sir, to move the second reading of a Bill entitled "An Ordinance for amending the laws relating to Public Health in the Colony of Hongkong." In doing so I do not intend to allude at all to the provisions of the Bill, as in my motion on the first reading I think I fully explained the reasons the Government had for introducing the Bill and the necessity for it. I said then it was not intended at that moment to proceed with the Bill. That was on 6th May, 1887, and as we are now at 8th July, I think my promise as far as that goes has been fulfilled. It was never intended by the Government to push this Bill through, but it was intended full discussion should take place upon it, and that sittings should be held, if necessary, every fortnight. It was anticipated that the discussion of the Bill would extend over some considerable time, but the views and intentions of the Government appear to have been misunderstood and it has been thought there was a wish on the part of the Government to push the Bill through without an opportunity being given to parties interested to fully explain their case and fully debate the provisions of the Bill. Since we have become aware of this feeling on the part of the public the Bill has received the serious consideration of the Government and we have considered whether we could not possibly postpone and pass into the Building Ordinance some provisions of this Ordinance in order to make it shorter and that we should be engaged on sanitary work and sanitary legislation sooner than if we kept to the original intention of passing the entire Bill. With this view the Government has gone very carefully through this Bill. I shall allude first of all to the essential points and then I will make a few remarks as to some minor details in which we have been asked to modify the Bill.
First of all, Sections 61, 62, and 63 refer to "windows to communicate with external air;" "space under stairs and floors;" and "sizes of windows." These we thought would be more properly placed in a Building Ordinance and therefore if this Bill is allowed to go into Committee I should ask that these three sections be struck out. Sections 70 to 74 inclusive refer to privies. Those also we consider could be very well dealt with in a Building Ordinance and those therefore will be struck out. Sections 77, 78, and 79 are the sections which have promoted the greatest amount of opposition. I may state that these also will be considered in the Building Ordinance which is being prepared.
The SURVEYOR-GENERAL—It has been prepared.
The ACTING ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Which has been prepared. I may state that the Government is prepared to dispense with backyards altogether in the case of corner houses and houses bounded in the rear by open lanes. These are the principal matters which are to be transferred to the Building Ordinance. Other minor objections have been made. For instance, to Section 3 Sub-section 1, the last two lines, "or if such person cannot be found or ascertained the owner or occupier of the premises." That we are prepared to strike out, but we shall have to provide for this a little later on. The same Section, Sub-section 10, "anything which in the opinion of the board is injurious to health" and also Sub-section 20, the same words. Many very strong objections have been urged against these two sections, and on consideration we think it only just and in accordance with the English legislation that the question whether it is injurious to health should be left to the magistrates to decide.
A great deal has been said about the powers of the Board, and I think a very wrong impression has prevailed. Some people suppose the Board of Health will be able to inflict fines of large amount for very small offences. There is nothing whatever in the Bill which gives the Board of Health power to fine anyone for anything whatever. I have also heard a very exaggerated notion has got about and that someone has been going about the street saying "I could be imprisoned; they could imprison me." Now, there is no power in the Ordinance authorising them to imprison anyone whatever. I think when the powers of the Board are considered they will be found not so extensive as the powers in England, and really only such powers as must be placed in the hands of the Board if we are to have proper sanitation.
These powers, besides the powers of making by-laws, which will have to be approved by the Council, are contained in Sections 20, 21, 22, and 23, and I think they are not too large when the objects they seek to attain are borne in mind. Section 21 gives a person dissatisfied with the notice served on him by the Board, a right to appeal to the Board to review its decision. It was felt by the Government that that was not very satisfactory, for a person appeal from an order of the Board to the Board. But the Board may wish to be better informed of the state of matters, and therefore unless there is strong objection made to it, we will leave that appeal to the Board and give the Board an opportunity of reviewing its order, and then if the person should be still dissatisfied we give him the right of appeal to two magistrates. A suggestion was made that this appeal should be to a Magistrate and two Justices of the Peace or to two Justices of the Peace alone. After due consideration we thought the interests of all would be better maintained by giving the appeal to two Magistrates.
I think I have skipped one or two small matters in alluding to the powers of the Board. The next clause to which my attention was called was Clause 4, which speaks of the constitution of the Board. If our Chinese fellow-citizens are desirous of being represented on the Board we would submit to this Council an amendment as follows. Instead of "not more than five additional members, three of whom shall be appointed by the Governor," the Government is prepared to substitute the following: "Not more than six additional members, four of whom, two being Chinese, shall be appointed by the Governor." Objection has been made to Clause 15 that it does not provide that the by-laws must be published in Chinese. This will be attended to and the clause amended accordingly.
A small change has been made in Section 19, Sub-section 1; we have struck out the words "or so overcrowded" because there is another section which deals with overcrowding and states what overcrowding is. With regard to Section 22 I have been asked to make an important change which I cannot assent to. This section runs as follows: "Such notice may require the author of any nuisance to provide or employ sufficient means of cleansing, drainage, sub-soil drainage, sewage, lighting or ventilation," and then comes a very long list of what the Board may require. Instead of that I have been asked after the word "sufficient means" to strike out the whole of the other matters and put in the words "to abate and remove such nuisance." It has been represented to me that it would hamper very much indeed the working of the Board if these details were struck out. A similar request has been made with reference to Section 24.
I have been asked to strike out the whole of this and put merely to remove or abate such nuisance. In Section 32 I have no objection to add the words "or tenants" making it read "all householders or tenants." That will relieve the householder of various duties if the house is tenanted. With respect to Section 40, which is to be put in force in case of epidemic, I have been asked to make a change. I have been asked to insert the time in which the overcrowding must be abated, but seeing that this section will be put in force only in time of great crisis it will be better to leave the Ordinance as it is. I do not think the Sanitary Board will call upon any owner to do anything that is really impossible, and they would give him reasonable time.
If we cannot have confidence in the Sanitary Board and wish to tie them down in every detail it will be difficult to make an Ordinance at all suitable. We must deal with them not only as reasonable men, but men acting for the public good and for the best, and we must not think they would order a person to do anything which was utterly impossible.
I now come to Clause 52—"All works connected with the construction, disconnexion, trapping, and ventilating of house-drains shall be carried out at the cost and charges of the owner of the house, either by the Board or by persons approved of by the Board under the supervision of the latter." That section is strongly objected to because it gives the Board the power of doing these works, and the reason of the objection is that if done by the Board they would cost a great deal more than if done by private individuals. But it is most important—Mr. Chadwick has recognised it in several passages of his report—that the work of connecting houses with the public sewers should be done as efficiently as possible, the best work and material being put in, and therefore it cannot be left to private individuals because the Board has not at its disposal the proper means of supervision.
As to the cost, well, if it is done well, and very well, it will cost a little more perhaps than private individuals will go to the expense of, but I am quite certain the Surveyor-General will do his very best, not only by combining the work to be done at certain times, but by other measures, to see that this work shall be done as economically as possible.
Page 38