Page 71 of 115
126
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. SALES: Mr. Chairman, I wish to add a supplementary question to No. 3(b). The Press report as I read it, Sir, makes no distinction between clearance of typhoon debris and leaves and ordinary refuse. Could this Council be informed why there was a difference arising out of the clearance of debris between 3 days and 11 days?
CHAIRMAN: I think it is perfectly obvious that at the time the staff were not in a position to estimate how large was the quantity of dead leaves produced by the typhoon. I am not prepared to answer any more supplementary question on this matter. The purpose of questions is not meant to include entering into a debate.
MR. SALES: I rise to ask you, Sir, which Standing Order are you referring to in that reply?
MR. BERNACCHI: May I assist you, Sir, by suggesting that 8(9) is appropriate.
MR. SALES: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I was not aware that the Chair had recognized Mr. Bernacchi.
CHAIRMAN: It is 8(12). I consider the matter has now been fully answered.
MR. SALES: I rise to ask a further question. Do I take it that Mr. Bernacchi is out of order in speaking before you recognized him, Sir?
CHAIRMAN: I think he was trying to find the Standing Order, but I don't think he found the right one.
MR. SALES: Thank you very much, Sir.
MR. BERNACCHI: 8(9) is equally appropriate, Sir.
MR. A. de O. SALES asked the following question:
"What plans for the quick and effective removal of rubbish has the Department laid down for such an eventuality the next time?"
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
THE CHAIRMAN tabled the following written reply:
127
"I consider the removal of accumulated refuse after Typhoon Gloria, and after previous typhoons, to have been as quick and effective as circumstances permitted. Controlling factors are the length of time during which refuse barges are detained in the typhoon shelter, and the availability of relief transport, both sea and land, when operations are resumed. I propose however to investigate the possibility of disposing of inoffensive typhoon debris, such as leaves, by some quicker and more economical method than by refuse lorry and refuse barge."
DR. P. F. Woo asked the following question:
"In the re-siting of the 14 cooked food stalls in Parkes Street, would the Chairman indicate how many of these stalls are given 56 sq. ft. seating accommodation? If the answer is none, would the Chairman explain why
(a) These 14 stalls are not given 56 sq. ft. whereas in Maple Street the cooked-food stalls all have a seating accommodation of 56 sq. ft.;
(b) The recommendation that these stalls should have 56 sq. ft. seating accommodation was made by me in the form of a rider which was supported by both the Select Committee and the full Council, but neither the Council nor I had been informed of the reasons for not implementing the policy as decided?"
THE CHAIRMAN tabled the following written reply:
"None of the cooked food stalls from Parkes Street were given 56 sq. ft. of seating accommodation when new sites were allocated to them. The 56 sq. ft. allowed temporarily to similar stalls in Maple Street was by way of an experiment only, in order to determine how many people could reasonably be served by a cooked food stall when cooking, food preparation, and so forth, was strictly confined to the stall.
Page 71 of 115