Page 139 of 312
254
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
CHAIRMAN: -As I have explained, another case against him is pending and I would not like to comment further on the matter. But I agree that it seems to be cheap at the price.
DR. LEE: To take an example of what we did at Tai Kok Tsui, we employed contractors to remove the rubbish.
(19) MRS. E. ELLIOTT asked the following question:
(a) Are you aware, Sir, that our resettlement policy grants no compensation to a person who has made his living on the land for less than ten years. Consequently, a man who has worked the land for nine years becomes destitute, while another who opens a shop of correct dimensions for less than a year in an area due for clearance is granted a shop-site to earn his living. Are you aware that some persons in this way own multiple stores in Resettlement Areas? Can some explanation be offered?
(b) Are you aware that persons who have always earned their living by rearing pigs, farming, keeping bees, growing flowers, and doing certain trades, are now being ordered to give up their means of livelihood on clearance, and change to industry, or business in which they have no experience? Why is the welfare of these people neglected?
THE COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT replied as follows:
It is not correct to suggest that anyone who has made his living on the land for less than ten years receives no compensation if he is dispossessed. If such a person has occupied the land on lease from the Crown, he is entitled to compensation under the Crown Lands Resumption Ordinance when the land is resumed for a public purpose. Compensation may be paid in cash or in the form of a grant of land in exchange. Cultivators of such private land, who may or may not also be the lessee, will also be compensated for the crops growing at the time of resumption.
On the other hand, if a farmer has occupied land on a temporary permit, or has been in illegal occupation, he is not entitled to compensation when the land is cleared for development. If, however, he has been cultivating the land since before October 1954, he will then be paid ex gratia compensation at rates fixed by the Governor in Council, and will in addition receive compensation for his growing crops. Where the land was opened up for cultivation after October 1954, no ex gratia or crop compensation is payable. In addition, under existing resettlement policy, persons who started cultivating over 3,000 sq. ft. of land before October 1954, become eligible for a shop in a resettlement estate when that land has to be cleared for development. Unfortunately, there have in recent years been too few shops for it to be possible to allocate them to everyone who is eligible. In consequence, there is a long waiting list of cultivators and pigbreeders which will be discussed at the next meeting of the Resettlement Policy Select Committee.
The owner of a shop in a tolerated structure which was surveyed and numbered in 1959 is eligible for a resettlement shop if the business is in operation at the time of screening. To qualify for a resettlement shop, the business need not have been in the same ownership since 1959. It would not be practicable to enforce such a condition as, although the original survey included details of the user of all structures, it did not record the ownership. I am not aware of any person owning multiple stores in resettlement estates, but if Mrs. ELLIOTT will pass on her information to me I will gladly look into it. Nobody is ordered to give up his means of livelihood as suggested in the question. But Members will doubtless agree that farming, the rearing of pigs, bee-keeping and horticulture are not suitable occupations in resettlement estates.
MRS. ELLIOTT:-Mr. Chairman, the Commissioner mentions the date 1959. I understand that the shops can be transferred. Am I to understand that any shop built or converted from a house after the date 1959 would be eligible for a shop in a resettlement estate?
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT:-No, that should not be understood from my answer to the main question. What I meant was that if a structure was recorded in the 1959 survey as being used as a shop, then whoever happened to be operating that shop when the time came for the structure to be cleared, would be entitled to a shop in a resettlement estate; but if during the survey in 1959 the structure was being used for domestic purposes, then nobody would be entitled to a shop when the structure came to be cleared.
MRS. ELLIOTT:-Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Commissioner again would it be true then to say that any shop converted from a house
255
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 139 of 312
1312
254
Page 140 of 312
1312
Page 139 of 312
254
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
CHAIRMAN: -As I have explained, another case against him is pending and I would not like to comment further on the matter. But I agree that it seems to be cheap at the price.
DR. LEE: To take an example of what we did at Tai Kok Tsui, we employed contractors to remove the rubbish.
(19) MRS. E. ELLIOTT asked the following question:·
(a) Are you aware, Sir, that our resettlement policy grants no compensation to a person who has made his living on the land for less than ten years. Consequently, a man who has worked the land for nine years becomes destitute, while another who opens a shop of correct dimensions for less than a year in an area due for clearance is granted a shop-site to earn his living. Are you aware that some persons in this way own multiple stores in Resettlement Areas? Can some explanation be offered?
(b) Are you aware that persons who have always earned their living by rearing pigs, farming, keeping bees, grow- ing flowers, and doing certain trades, are now being order- ed to give up their means of livelihood on clearance, and change to industry, or business in which they have no experience? Why is the welfare of these people neglected?
THE COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT replied as follows:-
It is not correct to suggest that anyone who has made his living on the land for less than ten years receives no compensation if he is dispossessed. If such a person has occupied the land on lease from the Crown, he is entitled to compensation under the Crown Lands Resumption Ordinance when the land is resumed for a public purpose. Compensation may be paid in cash or in the form of a grant of land in exchange. Cultivators of such private land, who may or may not also be the lessee, will also be compensated for the crops growing at the time of resumption.
On the other hand, if a farmer has occupied land on a tem- porary permit, or has been in illegal occupation, he is not entitled to compensation when the land is cleared for development. If, however, he has been cultivating the land since before October 1954, he will then be paid ex gratia compensation at rates fixed by the Governor in
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
255
Council, and will in addition receive compensation for his growing crops. Where the land was opened up for cultivation after October 1954, no ex gratia or crop com- pensation is payable. In addition, under existing resettle- ment policy, persons who started cultivating over 3,000 sq. ft. of land before October 1954, become eligible for a shop in a resettlement estate when that land has to be cleared for development. Unfortunately, there have in recent years been too few shops for it to be possible to allocate them to everyone who is eligible. In consequence, there is a long waiting list of cultivators and pigbreeders which will be discussed at the next meeting of the Resettlement Policy Select Committee.
The owner of a shop in a tolerated structure which was surveyed and numbered in 1959 is eligible for a resettle- ment shop if the business is in operation at the time of screening. To qualify for a resettlement shop, the business need not have been in the same ownership since 1959. It would not be practicable to enforce such a condition as, although the original survey included details of the user of all structures, it did not record the owner- ship. I am not aware of any person owning multiple stores in resettlement estates, but if Mrs. ELLIOTT will pass on her information to me I will gladly look into it. Nobody is ordered to give up his means of livelihood as suggested in the question. But Members will doubtless agree that farming, the rearing of pigs, bee-keeping and horticulture are not suitable occupations in resettlement
estates.
MRS. ELLIOTT:-Mr. Chairman, the Commissioner mentions the date 1959. I understand that the shops can be transferred. Am I to understand that any shop built or converted from a house after the date 1959 would be eligible for a shop in a resettlement estate?
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT:-No, that should not be understood from my answer to the main question. What I meant was that if a structure was recorded in the 1959 survey as being used as a shop, then whoever happened to be operating that shop when the time came for the structure to be cleared, would be entitled to a shop in a resettlement estate; but if during the survey in 1959 the structure was being used for domestic purposes, then nobody would be entitled to a shop when the structure came to be cleared.
MRS. ELLIOTT:-Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Commissioner again would it be true then to say that any shop converted from a house
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.