HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. SALES: -Would it meet Mr. BERNACCHI's point, Sir, if we said we referred this to the Environmental Hygiene Select Committee for implementation if at all practicable, that is more than in principle?
MR. BERNACCHI: -Yes.
CHAIRMAN:-If I may say a few words, I cannot but express my astonishment at the omniscience and foresight and prescience of Dr. BELL in anticipating what she calls the "Official Line"-(Laughter). A motion very similar to the one now before Council was moved at a meeting here on 9th February, 1965. The present motion differs only in that it suggests that cost be recovered for the service.
The motion moved in 1965 was defeated, possibly because it was estimated at the time that the cost to carry out such a service would be in the region of $6 million a year for staff alone, and this was thought to be an undue charge on public funds, bearing in mind that the cost for such cleansing should fall on the owners and occupiers of private buildings. I dare say that some Members gave serious thought to the administrative problems involved when they voted against the motion in February, 1965.
The motion now before the Council would, if carried and agreed by Government, increase administrative problems far beyond any of those envisaged in the motion moved last year. To ensure payment for a cleansing service in multi-storeyed buildings it would, in my opinion, probably be necessary for the Council to go into contract with the owners and occupiers of such buildings, and this alone would be a mammoth task and one which I personally feel would be more correctly left to the individual owners and occupiers to conduct on their own accord.
Members of the Environmental Hygiene Select Committee were, as members have already been informed, recently told of a proposed scheme for voluntary management of sub-divided buildings, and proposals made by that Select Committee were forwarded to Government which is, at present, giving this matter very careful consideration. It would be inappropriate in my opinion to introduce legislation to provide for a Government cleansing service for private buildings at the very time that it is intended to encourage owner/occupiers of such buildings to put a scheme of voluntary management into operation. I do not think I need to expound at length upon the effects that such legislation, if enacted, would have in nullifying efforts to introduce a voluntary management scheme.
The staff of the Urban Services Department are very conscious of the hygienic conditions, or rather the lack of these conditions, in the many multi-storeyed buildings which have become part of our present day life in Hong Kong, and I can assure members that no one more than I would like to see this problem solved satisfactorily. But I such cannot agree that Government management is the answer.
Management would, in my opinion, take from the individual the right to tender for his exact requirements (and these can differ considerably depending on the building), at a reasonable or low price. It would inflict upon the owner/occupier an unwanted commitment, no matter how good or how cheap, and no matter what may be said in favour of such a commitment it can only, again in my opinion, breed dissatisfaction.
I regret therefore that I am opposed to this motion, and I must say that I intend to vote against it.
MR. BERNACCHI:-Mr. Chairman, having heard all the speeches this afternoon, I would myself, if Dr. BELL would second it, propose an amendment by the addition after the word "Council", "Full stop. And that this motion be placed before the Environmental Hygiene Select Committee with the rider that they should implement it if at all possible."
MR. SALES: If Dr. BELL withdraws her support from the Reform Club, may I second it? (Laughter).
DR. BELL:-Dr. BELL has already agreed with Mr. BERNACCHI that she is willing to second it, with the proviso that she can point out that it looks as if it was very doubtful whether Mr. SALES has in fact studied the paper that was issued on the voluntary scheme for the cleansing of multi-storeyed blocks, and I think had he studied that paper he would not have made the amendment he has to this motion.
MR. SALES: Mr. Chairman, a personal explanation. MR. SALES, following the example of the illustrious Chairman, of the Urban Council, reads and studies every single sheet of paper that is issued (Laughter) and for that reason, MR. SALES realizes how impracticable at this stage is the original motion, and MR. SALES also sees the implied reservation which the Chairman of the Environmental Hygiene had when he lent his support to the motion. Therefore he suggests this procedure in order to save the day.
CHAIRMAN:-Ladies and Gentlemen, we have an amendment to the motion moved, think, by Mr. BERNACCHI, seconded by Dr. BELL?
DR. BELL:-I said I had agreed to second.
CHAIRMAN: ---Very gracious of you Ma'am. (Laughter).
DR. BELL: On a point of clarification, I seconded it most ungraciously. (Laughter).
Page 375 of 382
Page 375
Page 376
of 382
of 382
728
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. SALES: -Would it meet Mr. BERNACCHI's point, Sir, if we said we referred this to the Environmental Hygiene Select Committee for implementation if at all practicable, that is more than in principle?
MR. BERNACCHI: -Yes.
CHAIRMAN:-If I may say a few words, I cannot but express my astonishment at the omniscience and foresight and prescience of Dr. BELL in anticipating what she calls the "Official Line"-(Laughter). A motion very similar to the one now before Council was moved at a meeting here on 9th February, 1965. The present motion differs only in that it suggests that cost be recovered for the service.
The motion moved in 1965 was defeated, possibly because it was estimated at the time that the cost to carry out such a service would be in the region of $6 million a year for staff alone, and this was thought to be an undue charge on public funds, bearing in mind that the cost for such cleansing should fall on the owners and occupiers of private buildings. I dare say that some Members gave serious thought to the administrative problems involved when they voted against the motion in February, 1965.
The motion now before the Council would, if carried and agreed by Government, increase administrative problems far beyond any of those envisaged in the motion moved last year. To ensure payment for a cleansing service in multi-storeyed buildings it would, in my opinion, probably be necessary for the Council to go into contract with the owners and occupiers of such buildings, and this alone would be a mammoth task and one which I personally feel would be more correctly left to the individual owners and occupiers to conduct on their own accord.
Members of the Environmental Hygiene Select Committee were, as members have already been informed, recently told of a proposed scheme for voluntary management of sub-divided buildings, and pro- posals made by that Select Committee were forwarded to Government which is, at present, giving this matter very careful consideration. It would be inappropriate in my opinion to introduce legislation to provide for a Government cleansing service for private buildings at the very time that it is intended to encourage owner/occupiers of such buildings to put a scheme of voluntary management into operation. I do not think I need to expound at length upon the effects that such legislation, if enacted, would have in nullifying efforts to introduce a voluntary management scheme.
The staff of the Urban Services Department are very conscious of the hygienic conditions, or rather the lack of these conditions, in the many multi-storeyed buildings which have become part of our present
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
729
day life in Hong Kong, and I can assure members that no one more than I would like to see this problem solved satisfactorily. But I Such cannot agree that Government management is the answer. management would, in my opinion, take from the individual the right to tender for his exact requirements (and these can differ considerably depending on the building), at a reasonable or low price. It would inflict upon the owner/occupier an unwanted commitment, no matter how good or how cheap, and no matter what may be said in favour of such a commitment it can only, again in my opinion, breed dissatis- faction.
I regret therefore that I am opposed to this motion, and I must say that I intend to vote against it.
MR. BERNACCHI:-Mr. Chairman, having heard all the speeches this afternoon, I would myself, if Dr. BELL would second it, propose an amendment by the addition after the word "Council", "Full stop. And that this motion be placed before the Environmental Hygiene Select Committee with the rider that they should implement it if at all possible."
MR. SALES: If Dr. BELL withdraws her support from the Reform Club, may I second it? (Laughter).
DR. BELL:-Dr. BELL has already agreed with Mr. BERNACCHI that she is willing to second it, with the proviso that she can point out that it looks as if it was very doubtful whether Mr. SALES has in fact studied the paper that was issued on the voluntary scheme for the cleansing of multi-storeyed blocks, and I think had he studied that paper he would not have made the amendment he has to this motion. MR. SALES: Mr. Chairman, a personal explanation. Mr. SALES, following the example of the illustrious Chairman, of the Urban Council, reads and studies every single sheet of paper that is issued (Laughter) and for that reason, Mr. SALES realizes how impracticable at this stage is the original motion, and Mr. SALES also sees the implied reservation which the Chairman of the Environmental Hygiene had when he lent his support to the motion. Therefore he suggests this procedure in order to save the day.
CHAIRMAN:-Ladies and Gentlemen, we have an amendment to the motion moved, think, by Mr. BERNACCHI, seconded by Dr. BELL?
DR. BELL:-I said I had agreed to second.
CHAIRMAN: ---Very gracious of you Ma'am. (Laughter).
DR. BELL: On a point of clarification, I seconded it most un- graciously. (Laughter).
Page 375 of 382|
Page 375Page 376
of 382
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.