1964 — Page 250

312

476

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

variable factors, including of course the number of people that any individual restaurant can seat at one time. I think the important thing is that, for the first time, we are consciously attempting to plan these facilities in advance and on a reasoned basis for the new estates where we start with a clean sheet.

Rectifying the position in the old established estates, if indeed rectification is necessary, will be a slower and more laborious process owing to the difficulty of recovering ground floor premises. In their case, the number of restaurants was never planned, but resulted solely from the dictates of clearance requirements. But it is interesting to note that in only one of the older estates are there more than 5,000 residents to a restaurant and the average is 1 to about 3,000. In Wong Tai Sin the ratio is 1:1,800. These figures include unauthorized population but exclude cafés. The restaurants in the old estates give rise to certain problems which, I believe, stem more from the small size of the premises than from a deficiency in their number, and it was already my intention, before Mr. FUNG raised this issue, to consult the Resettlement Management Select Committee on these problems.

I do not subscribe to the view that the presence of unlicensed cooked food stalls and food pedlars in estates is necessarily caused by a shortage of restaurants. An equally compelling reason for the former's popularity may well be that, with their lower overheads, they can sell food more cheaply than the restaurants.

Mr. FUNG's remarks add further point to Mrs. Li's plea for better co-ordination at the planning stage in relation to the provision of schools, bus stops, market facilities and other services. In this con- nexion, I am happy to say that my friend the Director of Public Works and I welcome a suggestion from Mr. CHEONG-LEEN that the Resettle- ment Management Select Committee should be consulted on the planning of new estates within the urban areas, and I hope to put concrete proposals about the scope and methods of this consultation before the committee at an early date. One of the matters on which I shall be seeking further advice and guidance is the number and location of restaurants, and as I indicated in reply to a question earlier this after- noon, the committee will in future be in direct touch with the Advisory Committee on Public Transport.

Speaking of the functions of select committees, Dr. Woo suggested that the Resettlement Policy Select Committee should appoint a Com- plaints Sub-Committee with powers to hear and determine appeals and complaints without reference to its parent committee, or to the Standing Committee of the Whole Council. As this proposal is currently under consideration by the Resettlement Policy Select Committee, it would be inappropriate for me to make any comment or to anticipate their views at this stage.

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 250 of 312

477

Finally, Sir, I return to the Rent Advance Scheme and the $400 question. Members will recall that the Working Party on Squatters, Resettlement and Government Low Cost Housing recommended that former tenants of dangerous buildings made the subject of a closure order should be offered the choice of either making their own arrange- ments for alternative accommodation and in due course collecting such compensation, if any, as may be agreed, or of accepting immediate resettlement on condition that any subsequent compensation payable by the landlord would be paid to Government. While accepting the recommendations that these unfortunate people should have high priority for resettlement and that, in return, they could properly be expected to contribute towards the cost of their new accommodation from any compensation they might receive, Government foresaw real and serious practical difficulties in recovering the actual compensation or a fixed proportion of it. It was for this reason that Government proposed a different arrangement, called the "Rent Advance Scheme", which is outlined in paragraphs 18-22 of the White Paper on Squatter Control, Resettlement and Government Low-Cost Housing. The pro- posal is that each family from a dangerous building which opts for resettlement should make an advance payment of rent amounting to $400 per person or $200 for each child under ten years of age. In view of the misunderstandings which have arisen in some quarters although not, I think, in this Council, it is important to stress that this is not "key money"; it does not mean paying over to Government money which they will never see again. On the contrary, when they take up their accommodation in a resettlement estate, tenants who have made this advance payment will enjoy a reduced rent for a period of ten years, the reduction being sufficient to work off the advance payment over that period. In this respect, the scheme is more favourable to the tenant than the proposal of the Working Party in that the latter contemplated his forfeiting his compensation altogether. There are two further refinements which will assist tenants of dangerous buildings at a most difficult time: firstly, if resettlement accommodation is not immediately available when they make the advance payment of rent, they will earn interest at 3% while they are waiting in a Transit Centre: secondly, if they are unable or unwilling to make the payment im- mediately, they may do so within one year and meanwhile occupy a site in a Licensed Area.

Following the publication of the White Paper, there was some criticism of this proposal on the grounds that the advance payment might be too high for some dispossessed tenants of dangerous buildings. People pointed out the long delay which could occur between eviction and payment of compensation by the landlord, and that in some cases the eventual compensation would fall far short of the rent advance

Page 250Page 251