Page 72 of 485
50
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
problem, I do not know if Members are aware of the number of projects which are underway and how much money we are spending. I know that every year we have hundreds of millions of dollars spent on projects. Some projects under planning will be costing a billion dollars. These projects might be affected for similar reasons. If the Government finds some official justifications in recovering or resuming the land already granted to the Council, the planning design and the works already underway will become abortive. Apart from these work projects, my third reason for moving this motion is the manner in which lands are allocated to the Council. The Council does not enjoy any land title. The Lands are only allocated to USD for Council's use. This land allocation system is a common practice amongst Government departments. Members may be aware that lands are allocated to some charity organizations and schools by way of their paying a nominal premium. Although the Government might at times negotiate with them to revoke or resume the lands for Government use, the Government would have to pay them reasonable compensations. As regards non-profit making organizations, I know that the Urban Council owns land on a non-profit making basis and in UK, the Government would also need to pay a compensation to the land owners and reprovision the facility, if land allocated are resumed by the Government. They are protected by law. In other words, if land allocated to the Council is made by way of an agreement, the Council should be protected under the law. If we want to change the practice today, it would become very different from that adopted in the past by the Council. So to facilitate consideration by Government, the USD and Members, I just want to move a general motion instead of a very specific one to change the land allocation system. In view of the above-mentioned three reasons, the Yau Tsim Mong District parks development, other works projects underway, and the basic land allocation system, I would like to urge all Members of this Council to express their regret on this incident because it has led to a waste of resources and public money already spent on the design and work on this project and we also urge the Central Government to consult the Council and provide adequate information on all aspects of construction work affecting the Council as soon as possible. Thank you.
MR. KAM Nai-wai (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, the issue of the Lai Chi Kok Park has been fully discussed at the last Standing Committee of the Whole Council meeting. According to the paper, the Transport Branch is responsible for formulating transport policy on railway. The Lands Department is responsible for land allocation. Then what is the role played by the USD with regard to the Lai Chi Kok Park. According to the paper of the Standing Committee, several dates were mentioned. In August 1993, the USD wrote to the Highways Department expressing concern on the Western Corridor Railway. In October 1993 the Highways Department gave a reply to the USD that it was impracticable to divert the Western Corridor Highway away from the Lai Chi Kok Park. In August 1994 the Highways Department confirmed that Lai Chi Kok Park would be affected by the alignment of the railway. Only recently has the Urban Council been informed of the critical situation.
Page 72 of 485