Page 118 of 485
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
95
MR. FRANCIS TANG (in Cantonese):-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My constituency is made up wholly of public housing estates. As regards Mr. CHEUNG'S point about urging and co-ordinating with the Housing Department, I have done a lot for a long time. But I still witness heaps and piles of rubbish around and the situation has not improved. Some of the rubbish is even generated by the Housing Department. Empty litter boxes have been discarded there for more than a year and the Housing Department simply turned a deaf ear to our request. Under the circumstances, I support the strict enforcement of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance. So, I support the original motion.
Mr. Joseph Chan (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, I am not a lawyer but I have done some homework. I have sought advice from people who are familiar with administrative work and the legal profession. The original motion by Mr. LAI is a good one. The error perhaps was laying charge against the Housing Department. It really should lay charge against the Housing Authority. A Government department will not prosecute another department. So it is difficult for USD to prosecute another government department like the Housing Department. We can of course prosecute the Housing Authority and the Hong Kong Housing Society as they are statutory bodies. However, to prosecute the Housing Authority simply because of insanitation of some areas in public housing estates would appear to be making a mountain out of a molehill. At present, we have the legislation to back us up. If the public housing estate is not clean, we can sue the cleansing contractor. If they do not handle the refuse collection points properly, we can prosecute the cleansing contractor or companies and we can suggest to the Housing Department to terminate the contracts of such companies.
If Mr. LAI were to change the wording from 'Housing Department' to 'Housing Authority', then I would support the motion. But if Housing Department is involved, I think we are stuck. Under these circumstances I would have to support Mr. CHEUNG's amended motion. Similar to the noise issue of the Hong Kong Stadium, the Environmental Protection Department has instituted prosecutions against the Urban Council rather than the Urban Services Department. Wembley is a managing company employed by the Council. As far as ICAC is concerned, I think it is an independent body, appointed by the Governor. It is not a government department. Besides, individual officers are sued rather than the Department. So if some housing estates are not clean, it is inappropriate and unreasonable to sue the whole Housing Department. I support Mr. Ambrose Cheung's amended motion.
THE HON. SZE-To Wah (in Cantonese):--Mr. Chairman, some Members consider that if we pass the original motion, we will be pitting the USD against the Housing Department. In fact it is not confrontational. If we do not deal with the problem, then we are just trying to defend another government department. We must not do that. If we try to defend another department, then we can have no right or responsibility to intervene in the cleanliness of public housing estates.
Page 118 of 485