1965 — Page 178

182

Page 178 of 382

334

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

CHAIRMAN:-I am not sure how they come into it, but I know that this department is not responsible for the cattle until they reach the slaughterhouse and are admitted into it. I imagine that it is at least partly the responsibility of the Director of Agriculture and Fisheries to see that the cattle are properly off-loaded.

MR. BERNACCHI:-So in fact, Mr. Chairman, the Director of Agri- culture and Fisheries is responsible for the cattle between the ship and the slaughterhouse, and the Urban Services Department is responsible for the cattle only when they enter the slaughterhouse or the slaughterhouse grounds?

CHAIRMAN:-I can only speak, Sir, with conviction on the subject of the Urban Services Department, but I would like to check the point regarding the Director of Agriculture and Fisheries and will let you know later.

MR. BERNACCHI:-And perhaps, Sir, it might be put up for the appropriate select committee's consideration of some better measure of liaison or one or other department being responsible for the whole thing?

CHAIRMAN: In answer to that, I understand that the Director of Agriculture and Fisheries has plans for emergency lairage accommoda- tion at Cheung Sha Wan Fish Market.

DR. BELL: Mr. Chairman, was the permit that was issued in the hands of the Urban Services Department's slaughterhouse personnel or was it in the hands of the Agriculture and Fisheries Department?

CHAIRMAN: It would not, as far as I know, be in the hands of a member of the Urban Services Department. As I said, they are only responsible after the animals reach the lairages and are admitted to the slaughterhouses.

(3) MRS. E. ELLIOTT asked the following question:

(a) How many victims of dangerous buildings have been un- able to accept resettlement because of their inability to pay the required rent in advance?

(b) What proportion is this of all the persons in this category? (c) Where are these people at the present time, and what likelihood is there of their being resettled in the future?

-

THE COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT replied as follows:-

Before answering the question, I should draw attention to the fact that, when the scheme was introduced at the beginning

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

335

of May this year, it did not apply only to persons who had to evacuate dangerous buildings thereafter, but was also extended to former tenants of dangerous buildings who were already in Resite Areas. The response to the scheme from these two groups was different, and I propose therefore to give the figures for each group separately.

2. The answer to the first part of the question is that 1,264 tenants of buildings declared dangerous since the introduc- tion of the scheme refused to take advantage of it and have been resited. In addition, 5 families totalling 15 people found permanent accommodation elsewhere. Ap- proximately 11,000 people in Resite Areas also refused the offer. These people cannot be required to give the reasons for their decision, and it is therefore not possible to say that inability to pay was necessarily the reason. As I shall explain later, it may well be that other con- siderations affect their decisions, particularly in the case of those persons who were already in Resite Areas in May.

3.

The answer to the second part of the question is that the 1,264 people who have had to leave dangerous buildings since the start of the scheme and have accepted resiting without paying rent advance, represent about 14.5% of such people. It is still open to them to opt for the scheme, but I cannot forecast how many, if any, are likely to do so. The 11,000 odd already in Resite Areas in May this year who did not opt for the scheme, represent about 44% of former tenants of dangerous buildings who were in Resite Areas at that time. In explanation of the latter figure, I must point out that these people had already incurred some expense in erecting their huts: they are also living in central resite areas from which they may well have expected to be resettled before very long.

4. The answer to the third part of the question is that those who have decided not to pay the rent advance are con- centrated in the more central Resite Areas, mainly at Kwun Tong recreation ground, the Rifle Range resites, Kowloon Bay, Chai Wan and Morrison Hill. Although I cannot give any firm assurance as to when they will be resettled, present indications are that they all will be be- tween January 1966 and some date in 1967. In future, tenants of buildings declared dangerous who do not opt for the rent advance scheme will be housed in Class II Areas (that is, the "Licensed Areas" of the White Paper) and are likely to have to wait upwards of two years for resettlement.