Page 131 of 312
238
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. CHEONG-LEEN:-Would you care, Sir, to draw this to the attention of Government and point out that the principal reason why these vacancies continue to exist is because of the low salaries which are paid to members of the Hawker Control Force?
CHAIRMAN:-Yes, Sir.
MR. CHEONG-LEEN:-Thank you.
MR. BERNACCHI:-As a supplementary, would you, Sir, care to refer the matter to the Chairman of the Estimates Select Committee of this Council for appropriate recommendations in next year's estimates?
CHAIRMAN:-Yes, Sir.
MR. FUNG:-Mr. Chairman, on a point of clarification, I would like to report that this question was brought up for discussion at the last meeting of the Environmental Hygiene Select Committee and I was asked to put up this question at the next Legislative Council meeting. Now in view of the question by our friend Mr. Hilton CHEONG-LEEN and your answer, I would like to have your directive as to whether I should continue to pursue this matter.
CHAIRMAN:-Sir, I see no reason why you should not, since the Select Committee requested you to do so.
MR. CHEONG-LEEN:-Mr. Chairman, in view of the importance of the point raised by Mr. FUNG, could this be discussed in Standing Committee of the Whole immediately after this meeting?
CHAIRMAN:-I would have no objection to raising it under "Any Other Business".
MR. CHEONG-LEEN:-Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MRS. ELLIOTT:-Mr. Chairman, would you mind reminding Government too that it is owing to the taxpayers that the streets should be kept clean?
(11) DR. R. H. S. LEE asked the following question:-
In view of the increasing volume of work required to be conducted in the Urban Council Chamber and the future increased membership of the Council, will the Chairman verify from Government when the "municipal building", which was promised by a former Governor in confidence to the Urban Council, will be built in the Central Reclamation? Will he also find out the type of Council Chamber contemplated as the acoustics of the present one are very poor and whether a permanent Museum with much more floor space than the present one provided in the tall block of the City Hall and more public lecture and meeting rooms being included to meet the growing public demand as well as adequate office space for the Council's staff and the Urban Services Department can be incorporated?
THE CHAIRMAN replied as follows:-
This matter was first raised in 1954 when only you, Sir, and Mr. BERNACCHI, of those present today, were Members of this Council. I think that the matter arose from the cramped conditions in the General Post Office Building in which the Department and the Council Chamber were then accommodated. It was proposed at that time that alternative accommodation should be provided for the Chairman, Urban Council, the Vice-Chairman and the Council section staff in the new City Hall but this did not materialize because the then Chairman, Urban Council, was of the opinion that it was not practicable to isolate himself from his departmental staff. In 1957 Government agreed that the Department and the Council Chamber should be accommodated in the building in which we now are.
I understand that the provision of this larger and better accommodation led to the dropping of the original proposal of accommodating the Department and the Council Chamber in a new building on the reclamation. I also understand that Government has no immediate intention of removing the Department and Council Chamber from their present situation. The question therefore of re-accommodating or extending the facilities at present provided for the City Hall is a matter which requires separate consideration.
MR. BERNACCHI:-As a supplementary, Mr. Chairman, and before I come to the supplementary, I must, as a necessary part of it, make a statement which in some way differs from your answer. Mr. RICHARDS, the then Chairman of the Urban Council, in 1954 said indeed that the City Hall accommodation was inadequate. That the Urban Council was to be accommodated in the City Hall was passed at a meeting by a majority vote. I was one of the people who voted against it because we, the Urban Council, had been informed in 1952 or 1953 that Government intended to build a municipal building on the then proposed reclamation. So my first question is: Was not the Council informed in 1952 or 1953 that it was Government's intention to build a municipal building on the then proposed reclamation?
239
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 132 of 312