Page 195 of 237
366
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Department is now having to consider other measures. Perhaps requests to magistrates to impose daily fines might be the answer, and the Department will look into this possibility. Certainly I agree with Mr. Lo that the answer lies in monetary penalties sufficient to be effectively deterrent.
Going on to another of Mr. Lo's suggestions, that cooked food bazaars be set up in localities where there is a genuine need for such facilities, the idea is, I consider, a very good one. Apart from the fact that cheap meals would be made available to factory workers and others of our lower income groups, the preparation and cooking of the food could be carried out in hygienic conditions and under the supervision of the health staff. His further suggestion that hawkers, other than licensed cooked food stallholders, be allowed to sell food which has been precooked and packed in disposable containers is also worthy of careful consideration provided that the food is prepared by food factories or restaurants licensed by Council and that the containers are hygienic. These suggestions will be referred to the appropriate Select Committees, and will, I am sure, be given careful consideration.
Mr. Henry Hu raised the subject of air pollution. The Government has not overlooked this problem and its potential threat to the health of our citizens. The matter is being given close attention at all times and ways and means have been, and are being, devised to deal more effectively with nuisances caused by smoke, dust and fumes. Broadly speaking, the problem stems from the large and increasing number of factories and industrial undertakings in the Colony. The situation may be termed "mild" compared with that existing in some towns in highly industrialized countries like England, Japan and Western Germany where heavy industries abound.
Members will be aware that a Smoke Abatement Adviser was appointed to the staff of the Labour Department in May, 1968, on the recommendation of the Committee on Air Pollution, of which the Director of Urban Services is a member. Since then the Adviser has been investigating the problems involved in bringing all aspects of air pollution under one authority and of establishing an Air Pollution Control Unit in the Labour Department. Although there are legal and administrative difficulties it is possible to go a long way towards achieving these objects. I am glad to report that considerable progress has been made by the Committee on Air Pollution and many recommendations made by it are being studied closely by Government. For instance, approval in principle has been given for the recruitment of staff for the Air Pollution Control Unit in the Labour Department and for the purchase of the necessary monitoring equipment.
In order to clarify any doubt there may be as to the division of responsibilities between this Council and the Labour Department, I
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
367
take this opportunity to state that inter-departmental discussions have been held and an administrative agreement reached. This was approved by the Environmental Hygiene Select Committee in March, 1969.
Concerning Mr. Henry Hu's remarks about air pollution from an aluminium factory in Hung Hom, as soon as the complaint was received it was forwarded to the Commissioner of Labour for investigation in accordance with the agreed procedure, as the premises under complaint, situated at No. 42, Baker Street, ground floor, are a registered factory. The matter was fully investigated and the Commissioner of Labour confirmed that the complaint was justified and that his Department would require the proprietor of the factory to adopt measures to abate the nuisance. I understand that Mr. Hu has received an interim reply from the Secretary of this Council, which was sent out on 8th September, 1969, and which briefly outlines the action taken.
I have now made further enquiries from the Labour Department and have been informed that the factory has taken measures to abate the nuisance, and that considerable improvement has been noted. However, officers of the Labour Department are still keeping this factory under close observation, and should the nuisance recur, legal proceedings are likely to be instituted by the Commissioner of Labour.
Both Mr. Lo and Mr. Hu touched on the bad habit of litter-throwing and of the necessity to hold publicity campaigns about it. The anti-litter drive in Singapore was also mentioned. In fact the Urban Services Department sent a senior cleansing officer to Singapore to study the methods used there: his report is being considered along with information obtained from other parts of the world. I do not wish to labour Members with all of the particulars of the Singapore Campaign, but it appears that one of their means to achieve success is to enforce laws which hold occupiers responsible for the litter deposited in the near neighbourhood of their houses. It is doubtful if such a law could be enforced in Hong Kong.
For some time now, there has been a proposal in the Department to hold a Colony-wide Anti-Litter Campaign, and the advice of the Director of Information Services is being sought. One school of thought is that rather than having "flash-in-the-pan" campaigns which are forgotten after a couple of weeks, it would be better to make a practical study of habits on an individual basis and of public attitudes. Based on the information obtained, the campaign could first be tested in selected situations e.g. a multi-storey block of flats. Another school is of the view that in order to change public attitudes and habits, publicity campaigns will have to be intensive, sustained and very costly. If the purpose is to remove the litter, then we could spend
Page 195
Page 196