Page 100 of 194
168
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
cleanliness of our harbour. His intention, no doubt, is good, but the Urban DR. CHAM (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, Mr. SULKE is concerned about the Council must examine the contents of his motion with extreme care. Two points are included in his motion. Firstly, that the U.S.D. takes over the work of cleaning the harbour and secondly, the bill to be sent to and paid for by the Central Government. On the first point of taking over the job. I am not sure if that lies outside the jurisdiction of the Urban Council, as H.K. waters may include the N.T. Let us set aside the discussion of this point but ask ourselves whether we have the necessary resources, be it human or equipment, whether we can take over the work and immediately achieve better results. Apart from that in operations of enforcing anti-litter legislation at sea, like catching litter bugs. can we do a better job than the Marine Department which has vessels to patrol the harbour every day? If we cannot achieve a better degree of cleanliness, I afraid that the good intentions of Mr. SULKE's motion will be defeated.
On his second point concerning send the bill to the Central Government for payment, I am afraid I cannot agree with Mr. SULKE. For if the job is within our jurisdiction, it is only correct that the U.C. should foot the bill. If it doesn't fall within our jurisdiction, then we must negotiate with the Central Government first to co-ordinate the task of cleaning the harbour. If we just take over the work on our own, I am afraid that it is contrary to the principle of co-operation and co-ordination. In accordance with Standing Order 15(c), I move that Mr. SULKE'S motion should be referred to the Standing Committee and the relevant select committees for discussions before we consider the matter in detail.
MRS. Ho seconded (in English):-Mr. Chairman, I second the motion because I agree entirely with what Dr. Cham had said and although we are all very interested in keeping Hong Kong clean, the matter is of great complexity, and we should really study it carefully before we accept the motion, and I support the counter resolution that Dr. CHAM had proposed.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 100 of 194
169
also facing the same difficulty. I think it would be very difficult for us to get agreement today before we discuss this matter in detail with the Central Government, so I hope Mr. SULKE will accept the proposal made by Dr. CHAM, ie. we should let the relevant select committee discuss this matter in detail.
MR. FORSGATE (in English): Mr. Chairman, we all know that refuse is a land-based man-made problem. The sea by itself did not create refuse. Most of the refuse in the harbour comes down from the nullahs. The Kai Tak nullah is notorious for its contribution to the problem.
Consideration should be given to controlling the problem by the more extensive use of screens at the nullah exits halting the refuse before it enters the harbour.
Furthermore, lest the outside world in the press gives a wrong impression, the Marine Department is a very experienced and reasonably effective instrument in the cleansing of the harbour, and I am glad that Mr. SULKE while damning it with faint praise, did at least give them the benefit of the doubt, and I believe our efforts should be directed to obtaining more resources for that Department to improve its present service and not attempt a take-over bid for one of the least attractive of its responsibilities for which in any case, we do not have any funds. As a member of the Environmental Protection Advisory Committee, perhaps Mr. SULKE is aware that the professional technocrats in the Environmental Protection Agency, at the request of Government a year ago, is carrying out an investigation into floating refuse, where it comes from? How it gets out? And presumably will come out with recommendations what to do with it, and I understand its report will be ready in February next year. So why the hurry?
While this debate is highlighting the problem and perhaps contributing to a more amusing and lively public session which Councillors said in the Standing Committee they would like to see. I personally would not wish to see the motion passed today in its present form as much more investigation into its implications is required. The forthcoming E.P.A. report could and should be a vital tool in this respect.
As Chairman of the Finance Select Committee of this Council, I am opposed to any new finance commitment at this stage.
MR. LAU (in Cantonese): -Mr. Chairman, before the meeting, I looked out of the window together with Mr. SULKE and he said that the water is not that dirty today. I think it was lucky because the wind was not blowing in the right direction that is why the water did not seem very dirty. The Marine Department is taking care of the cleaning of harbours and it also helped us during the Clear Hong Kong campaign. As far as I know, the Hong Kong Government is now drafting regulations or laws concerning the cleaning of harbours and we know that in the coming several years, the Government can use money up to hundreds of millions. For the first phase, more than $14 million will be used to link up the nullahs in Kowloon Bay. For the second phase, $35 million will be used to clean the Kai Tak nullah. For the third phase, more facilities will be injected! Mr. SULKE, Mr. FORSGATE and I myself are members of the Environmental Protection Advisory Committee. We know how important the issue is, but we know it is very difficult to solve the problem immediately when the Central Government is facing financial difficulties, and the Urban Council itself is also facing the same difficulty.
I would not wish to see the responsibility for harbour cleansing passed to the U.S.D. to be paid for out of our present resources which could not stand the extra costs.
I would support Dr. CHAM that the substantive motion be referred to the Standing Committee for further consideration.
MR. PETER CHAN (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, on joining the Urban Council, Mr. SULKE was acting in the position of an environmental protection expert. The first proposal was that no Councillors should be allowed to smoke.
Page 101 of 194
Page 100 of 19
Page 100
Page 101