1961

Page 39:

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

He said: These By-laws are designed to provide for the proper cleaning of wells, water storage tanks and cisterns. They re-enact a provision in the repealed Public Health (Sanitation) Ordinance, 1935, which limited the use of well water to cooling and flushing systems, except with the permission of the Building Authority and this Council.

I beg to move.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN seconded.

The question was put.

The motion was carried.

Resumption of the following motion moved by the Chairman,

Urban Council, at a meeting held on 11th April, 1961:-

“RESOLVED-

CHAIRMAN:

That this Council accept the Statement of Progress and Policy tabled today and in particular endorse the summary of the Council’s main aims for the year 1961/62 as set out in paragraph 88 of the Statement.”

The debate on the Statement of Progress and Policy, which was adjourned from the April meeting, will now resume and I have much pleasure in calling on the Commissioner for Resettlement to reply to the points which were raised by Members in their speeches.

COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT:—Mr. Chairman, I was very happy to note the interest shown by many Members of this Council in questions of resettlement and low cost housing and I should like to comment on some of the views expressed.

Mr. BERNACCHI and Mr. WATSON pointed out that we are failing to keep pace with the squatter problem in that the admitted number of squatters is greater than ever before. This fact is both true and misleading in that previous figures were unquestionably underestimates.

This was due to the fact that prior to October 1959 there had never been a proper count of heads as is now arranged annually in October. Our present estimate of rather over half a million for most of the urban area includes rooftop squatters but does not include any squatters in the New Territories who are widely dispersed and some of whom may have their occupation temporarily authorized by permit. I am prepared to accept a round figure of 600,000 for the urban area and the probability that this will be augmented by natural increase of births over deaths to the extent of about 18,000 per annum based on the ratio to the overall Colony increase.

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

63

Our figures are also liable to adjustment because there is little that we can do to prevent individuals from moving into occupied huts, provided that the huts had been tolerated. I do not believe, however, that we are fighting a losing battle. As squatters are cleared so their huts are removed and any newcomers must find room in a dwindling number of structures in which the accommodation is not elastic.

I would dearly love to wipe off this backlog by a crash programme of 300,000 per annum over the next 2 or 3 years but this would, I am afraid, be an impossibility. Clearance of squatters sets off a chain of requirements with particular reference to land and there just isn’t the spare land to play around with. I consider that the Public Works Department have earned the highest respect of this Council for their awareness of the problem and their resource in tackling it. My friend the Director of Public Works will shortly point out just what has been achieved and what is planned for the future.

Further, there is the question of expense. A programme of this size, if sufficient land and planning staff were available, which is not the case, would cost in the region of 200 million dollars per annum on capital account alone. This would be a heavy burden on the tax payer and would prejudice other vital activities of Government. I do not therefore think that a larger programme than 100,000—that is the figure mentioned by Dr. Raymond LEE would be feasible annually and would remind you that even this may necessitate the construction of Estates somewhat distant from the centre of the urban area. Many members have drawn attention to the shortcomings of Public Transport and they will definitely have a bearing on the new estates.

I agree with Mr. CHEONG-LEEN that a long term programme is desirable but would be content with 7 years rather than with the 10 to 15 years which he mentioned. At the end of this period few squatters, who directly affect development schemes, should remain unless there is some major catastrophe and an unanticipated increase.

As regards rooftop squatters I am the first to admit the seriousness of the hygienic problem but, as long as the primary function of the Resettlement Department is to clear land for development, they will just have to take their place in the queue and I am afraid that they will be rather far back.

After listening to Dr. LEE’s plea for action on offensive trades, I do not consider that the responsibility should fall to the Resettlement Department. Offensive trades are licensed by the Urban Council and would be just as unacceptable in Resettlement Estates as in Kennedy Town.

Mr. FUNG Hon-chu made some comments on one-bay restaurants, but I would point out that those that exist have been properly licensed by the Urban Council in accordance with the rules appertaining to

Page 40: