XN000022-1994-11-03 — Page 14

13

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1994

GOVERNOR:

•

PROGRAMME WHICH TAKES US UP TO 2001 AND I CUESS THAT THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THOSE WHO ARE AT PRESENT ON THE LIST SHOULD BE ABLE TO LOOK TO BEING REHOUSED WITHIN THE TIMESCALE OF AN EXISTING PROGRAMME. THE DIFFICULTY THAT THE HONOURABLE MEMBER AND I, I AM SURE, BOTH RECOGNISE IS THIS: FIRST OF ALL, THE HOUSING AUTHORITY THEMSELVES ARE LOOKING, AS THE ADMINISTRATION IS LOOKING, AT THE REAL SCALE OF DEMAND, AND I WOULD HOPE THAT WE COULD COME TO SOME AGREEMENT ABOUT THAT. BUT THE 80,000, IF 80,000 IT IS, ISN'T A STATIC NUMBER BECAUSE SECONDLY, THERE ARE GOING TO BE NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC HOUSING, NOT LEAST AND THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION OR EXTRA WORKERS COMING IN NOT LEAST BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THERE WILL BE MORE PEOPLE COMING IN TO HONG KONG FOR EXAMPLE, AFTER 1997. SO I DON'T THINK IT IS EASY TO GIVE A PRECISE PLEDGE I WILL CERTAINLY LOOK AT THAT AND SEE HOW MUCH MORE PRECISE WE CAN BECOME.

-

-

BUT

IF I MAY ADD ONE RATHER CONTROVERSIAL POINT.

I

WE WERE NEWLY

-

THINK I AM RIGHT IN SAYING THAT AT THE MOMENT ABOUT 10 PER CENT OF THOSE LIVING IN HOUSING AUTHORITY ACCOMMODATION HAVE HOUSEHOLD INCOMES WHICH ARE MORE THAN TWICE THE LEVEL WHICH WE WOULD APPLY IF LOOKING AT THEM NEWLY APPLYING THE INCOME LEVEL THAT IS APPLYING FOR HOUSING AUTHORITY ACCOMMODATION. I THINK THAT THAT IS UNDOUBTEDLY A REASON WHY WE ARE NOT ABLE TO DEAL WITH HOUSING NEED FLEXIBLY AS MIGHT OTHERWISE BE THE CASE. IT IS IN THE HONOURABLE MEMBER'S EXPERIENCE, AS IT IS MINE, THAT THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE LIVING IN HOUSING AUTHORITY ACCOMMODATION WHO OWN PROPERTY OUTSIDE.

AS

MR JAMES TO:

THE OR

MR PRESIDENT, JUST NOW THE GOVERNOR MENTIONED COURT OF FINAL APPEAL, HE TALKED ABOUT CONCEPTS OF THE BEST OPTION THE GOOD OPTION ETC., SO HIS CONCLUSION WAS THAT IF LEGCO AMENDS THE BILL OR MAKES A DECISION, THE LEGCO MEMBERS HAVE TO BE ACCOUNTABLE THE

TO

NOW OUR

COMMUNITY. BUT HE WILL LOOK THE ISSUE FROM ANOTHER ANGLE. THE JOINT DECLARATION HAS STIPULATIONS ABOUT THE TRANSITION, AND LIFESTYLE WILL BE KEPT UNCHANGED. NOW WE ARE GOING TO DISRUPT THIS JOINT DECLARATION NOW SO THAT THE PUBLIC LOSE CONFIDENCE IN THE FOUNDATION, SO THAT THEY DON'T HAVE ANY SAFEGUARDS, OR ARE WE SAYING THAT WE ONLY DISRUPT IT ONCE HERE, AND THERE WON'T BE ANY FURTHER DISRUPTIONS SO THAT IT WILL STILL BE SAFEGUARDED. SO CONCERNING THESE TWO CONCEPTS, MR GOVERNOR, WHICH KIND OF DAMAGE IN TERMS OF CONFIDENCE AND SMOOTH TRANSITION IS MORE SERIOUS? HAS THE GOVERNOR THOUGHT OF THIS?

IF WE SET UP CFA ACCORDING TO THE JD, WITH FLEXIBILITY THEN BY '97 IF CHINA GIVING EFFECT TO THE SOVEREIGNTY WANTS TO DAMAGE OUR SYSTEM LIKE THE CFA, SHOULDN'T CHINA AT THAT TIME BE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE WORLD? IS THAT HONG KONG WILL STILL BE PROSPEROUS AND STABLE? SO IT WON'T BE FOR LEGCO, OR FOR THE PRESENT SOVEREIGN POWER OF HONG KONG TO DAMAGE THE JOINT DECLARATION NOW, TO DISRUPT HONG KONG PEOPLE'S CONFIDENCE NOW.

GOVERNOR:

HONORABLE MEMBER'S QUESTION ASSUMES THAT THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL THAT WE PROPOSE TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL WILL BE A CFA WHICH IS NOT IN LINE WITH THE JOINT DECLARATION, AND I DON'T ACCEPT FOR ONE MOMENT THAT ASSUMPTION. I DO ACCEPT THAT WE MAY PUT FORWARD PROPOSALS WHICH THE HONORABLE MEMBER AND SOME OF HIS HONORABLE FRIENDS DON'T REGARD AS IDEAL, BUT THAT IS A DIFFERENT POINT, AND ONE WHICH IN DUE COURSE WE'LL HAVE TO DEBATE. BUT I DON'T ACCEPT THAT WE WILL PUT FORWARD PROPOSALS THAT ARE OUT OF LINE WITH THE JOINT DECLARATION.

/MRS ELSIE