Sect. File 1/3/926/46c.
Amash (2)
%%
No.
78.
(1)mm 247-400
(4) an
54422/48
(10). 54422/48
Sir,
RECEIVED
23 APR 1948
C. O. REGY
GOVERNMENT HOUSE,
HONG KONG
15 April, 1948.
I have the honour to forward for your consideration a petition addressed to the Right Honourable The Earl of Listowel by "The Association for Claiming Compensation for losses of People's Property at the Kai Tak Air Field". The petition was received very shortly before Lord Listowel left Hong Kong and he did not have the opportunity to study it, but asked me to transmit it to you as if it were a petition addressed to you.
2.
I have already informed you of the circumstances underlying this petition in my savingram No. 766 of the 8th December, 1947, and the subsequent correspondence. The Airfield (Kai Tak) Extension and Reversion Bill was introduced to Legislative Council, but the First Reading was postponed at the meeting of Council on the 28th January, 1948, following receipt of your telegram No. 125 of the 26th January. It was mainly for this reason that further action on the bill has been postponed, rather than for the reasons shown in paragraph 7 of the present petition.
3. At the same time, notice has been taken of the petition dated the 27th January, 1948, addressed to the Secretary for Chinese Affairs and referred to in paragraph 7 of the present petition, the purport of which was that compensation should take the form of land in exchange for the lots absorbed in the airfield. The feasibility of offering land in exchange as an alternative to monetary compensation was discussed in Executive Council on the 9th March, and it was decided that to proceed with the Bill in its present form might lead to an aggravation of the Kowloon City problem which was then claiming wide public attention, and that meanwhile the possibility of finding sufficient land to offer in exchange should be further explored. was realised that immediate action on the Bill was, in any case, not possible at the time as its terms were still the subject of correspond- ence with you.
40
>
It
The present position, therefore, is that I am awaiting a reply to my telegram No. 263 of the 6th March; and that meanwhile the District Officer, New Territories and other officers are working out the
Certain implications of the Executive Council decision of the 9th March. difficulties are already apparent, of which I mention only a few:-
(a) there is no guarantee that the petitioners are representative
of the owners of the 1,638 lots concerned:
(b) it will take months to sift the numerous claims for compensation;
(c) there is no indication whether former holders of agricultural land want agricultural land in exchange or whether they would now prefer building land;
(a) some of the areas lost are so small that the equivalent area
granted in exchange would not fit into any lay-out which could properly be approved. A large number of the lots are of 436
Harad
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE
ARTHUR CREECH JONES, MP.
Page
2.-