1963 — Page 161

of 194

Page 161 of 194

304

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

been enforced with a fair measure of success, has been to tolerate those erected before the given dates and to demolish any new ones found subsequently. That policy, so far as rooftop squatters are concerned, goes back to the survey in November 1956 and was the subject of a Government press release at that time. It was re-endorsed by the Resettlement & Clearance Policy Select Committee at a meeting on 17th April, 1957. Meanwhile, as my predecessor said on a similar occasion last May, some progress is made incidental to the demolition and redevelopment of old buildings, when rooftop squatters are offered sites elsewhere. I do not think anyone would regard these decisions as anything but a choice of evils, least of all those who had to make them. With regard to the history behind our attitude towards illegal structures on streets and pavements I have found this rather more difficult to trace, although there was a decision of the Resettlement & Clearance Policy Select Committee on 28th September, 1962 to offer street sleepers resites, only in special circumstances. One thing is clear: illegal structures on streets and pavements first appeared in large numbers after a series of disastrous squatter fires in the winter of 1953/54. Many have long since been cleared, but there are still a number of streets where their presence may be a fire or health hazard as well as an obstruction to pedestrians and vehicles. Their occupants must be among the poorest and least fortunate of the community. Save for isolated groups, we have been able to do little about them in the last few years. With all these categories of structures, it has been a question of priorities for clearance, but we may hope that one outcome of the reappraisal of policy which is now going on will be to bring forward the day when the dangers these structures present, and the hardships which their occupants endure, can finally be removed.

Dr. Raymond LEE raised the question of rents in Resettlement Estates, and has indicated his opposition to any increase for the old Mark I and II blocks. The first of the new Mark III blocks will soon be ready for occupation. Proposals about rents for these have been before the appropriate Select Committees before submission to the Governor in Council for amendment of the Second Schedule to the Resettlement Regulations. In view of the higher standard of accom- modation and finish provided in these blocks, and the rising cost of construction and maintenance, it seems inevitable that the rents will be higher than those for the existing Mark I and II blocks. Govern- ment does not propose to alter the rents for the latter at the same time. It may, however, be necessary to reappraise them before very long, but I can assure Members that the Council will be consulted before any decision is made.

Mr. WATSON spoke with some acerbity of "a growing belief in the Resettlement Department that it is concerned only with clearing land required for development." I don't know about "growing", but the

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

305

"belief" is certainly there, and is founded on Government's declared policy which Members of this Council had a considerable hand in formulating. It is pertinent that much of the land so cleared is for resettlement and for low cost housing. All that, of course, is now in the melting pot, but in fairness to my predecessors and the department I must stress that they have merely been carrying out faithfully the task imposed upon them.

Mr. WATSON was not alone in pressing for an acceleration of the resettlement building programme. I believe that the Director of Public Works will be speaking about this later this afternoon and I am happy to leave the subject in his capable hands. I will only say that we in the Resettlement Department have nothing but admiration for what his architects and engineers have done and are doing for us.

Mrs. ELLIOTT suggested that this Council has latterly lacked guidance on policy from my department. It was on the 1st June, 1963 that His Excellency appointed a Working Party on which this Council was strongly represented, with wide terms of reference to have a new look at and advise on the policy and practice relating to resettlement. Until the Working Party's report had been received and their recom- mendations approved or modified, there has necessarily been a moratorium on policy changes. Meanwhile, the work of the department has to go on, on the basis of existing policy.

Both Mr. Li Yiu-bor and Mrs. ELLIOTT mentioned the need for good relations between the squatter control staff and those with whom they have to deal. This is a matter which always has been, and still is a matter of special concern within the department, where we can have no quarrel with Mr. Lr's requirements for patience, tact and understanding as well as firmness. Any instance of a failure to show these qualities means that our job has not been done as well as it should. I would however ask our critics to remember that the task of squatter control is not an easy nor always a congenial one. It is at times carried out in a glare of publicity which may be critical and misinformed, and to which traditionally the staff may not reply. With nearly 600,000 tenants and a like number of potential tenants, it would be surprising if officers of the department did not sometimes make mistakes, and there are inherent risks, which Mr. Wilson WANG recognized, in allowing junior officers too much discretion in making exceptions to established rules. I would be gravely concerned for the integrity of the department if there were no appeals from those affected by decisions made in its name. The problem is to get the inexperienced officer to recognize not so much the exceptional as the marginal case, and to bring it to the notice of those who can decide on whether excep- tional treatment is appropriate. I must not give the impression that informed criticism and advice are unwelcome: the very reverse is true. That is why we welcome the practice of appointing visiting members