1964 — Page 288

Page 288 of 312

550

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

for the Urban Services Department's cleansing staff to enter the communal parts of new buildings and do the job themselves. After all, cleansing is one of the recognised services for which owners or tenants pay rates. The rateable value of new buildings in Hong Kong is considerable and I think the Government earns more revenue out of rates than it does out of the taxes, generally referred to as income tax, although, in fact, it is not income tax and it should be. The Legal Department of the Government, not I, are this Council's legal advisers. So I shall merely say that there is some doubt in my own mind as to this Council's powers to authorize members of the Urban Services Department to enter communal parts of buildings for the purposes of sweeping and cleaning them daily. Hence, the final part of my motion -- urging Government to pass any necessary legislation accordingly. If in the end the Attorney General advises this Council that we already have ample powers to put my motion into effect, then I, for one, will be most happy to accept his advice.

With these words, Mr. Chairman, I move that:

For the better discharge of this Council's statutory duty, officers of the Urban Services Department should enter the communal parts of buildings for the purposes of sweeping and maintaining them in a clean and healthy condition. And for that purpose this Council urges Government to pass any necessary legislation.

DR. R. H. S. LEE:- Mr. Chairman, one of the most undesirable features of post-war building development in Hong Kong is, without doubt, the lack of management. This is particularly the case in sub-divided buildings with a large number of flats owned by different individuals, where the common parts are the responsibility of no one in particular. Very frequently this type of building very readily deteriorates into slum conditions where the residents do not hesitate to dispose of refuse indiscriminately by throwing it out of windows and into light wells, without consideration for each other. It is not infrequent that refuse bins are left in the passageways in a neglected condition.

The Environmental Hygiene Select Committee is very much aware of these facts and has given continuous attention to the matter at several of its meetings. We have given consideration to the merit of licensing or registering private cleansing contractors. Unless every resident pays his due, the system breaks down through lack of co-operation. There are various facets to this question.

Mr. Chairman, Government has a report on the factoring system. If we want to improve the hygienic condition of these buildings, the only way is improved management. I can assure Members that Joint Residents' Associations in multi-storey buildings encouraged by the Secretary for Chinese Affairs, might well be the answer to this thorny question.

With these views, Mr. Chairman, I have much pleasure in seconding my friend's motion.

CHAIRMAN:- I must say at the outset that I think that it would be unsatisfactory, in principle, for the Urban Services Department to undertake the responsibility for keeping the communal parts of buildings clean, a responsibility which, in my opinion, should fall fairly and squarely on the private owners of these buildings.

In buildings under single ownership, the responsibility for the cleaning of communal parts can be readily placed on those to whom it belongs - the owner or manager. It is, however, in the multi-storey blocks which have been sub-divided, and in which the flats have passed into the hands of a number of individual owners, that the problem makes itself felt so acutely.

Apart from the aspect of responsibility, there is that of cost. To undertake such a commitment as that envisaged in the motion would require a very considerable increase in the staff of the department. In the Report of the Working Party on Sub-divided Buildings, it was estimated that on 31st December, 1961 there were 3,700 sub-divided buildings comprising approximately 55,000 individual and separate units of privately-owned accommodation. It would not, I think, be unreasonable to allow an increase of 10,000 units a year since that date, making a total of, say, 85,000 units now. It has been very roughly estimated in the department that one labourer would be required for every 50 flats and on this basis, something like 2,000 additional labourers and a supervisory staff of 100 would be needed for cleaning the communal parts of the 85,000 units. The cost of these 2,000 labourers would amount to some $6 million a year and this figure does not include the cost of supervisory staff, uniforms, brooms and brushes, and so on. I do not consider that it would be proper for this expenditure to be met from public funds, unless there was no alternative method of service. Members are well aware, I think, of our difficulties in obtaining sufficient labourers for our present cleansing commitments.

Referring to the Report of the Working Party on Sub-divided Buildings, Members will recall that at the previous Council meeting I said in reply to a supplementary question that I understood that Government had at the moment under active consideration the question of introducing legislation to cover voluntary factoring in multi-storey buildings. As far as I am aware, this still remains the official policy for solving the problem of keeping clean the communal parts of these buildings. Members have read the recent report by the Secretary for

551

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 288 of 312