Page 130 of 259
236
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
imposition as Mr. BERNACCHI's remarks might have led people to believe. Not only that, Sir, but for 125 months, something over ten years, the people who pay rent in advance have the rent for their rooms reduced.
MRS. ELLIOTT:- Mr. Chairman, may I clarify a point? I was not just referring to the $400 rent, I was also referring to fire and flood victims who are not given immediate resettlement.
DR. BELL:— Mr. Chairman, can I take up Mr. Hu's query about the question of this motion being "in future". It depends on what he means by "future". I very much hope there will be no need for this in future, because I very much hope there will be no further civil disturbances. But if he means that it will be several years before this is going to be implemented, then the answer is no, because I understand, I think correctly, from the Commissioner, that this can be implemented right away. What did Mr. Hu mean by future?
MR. HU: No, the word "future" is within the meaning of Dr. Woo's motion, whether you, Mr. Chairman, should report back to this committee within three months.
CHAIRMAN:- Our proceedings on this motion do not derive from the motion which was moved by Dr. Woo to-day and carried. They derive, if I can give you a little homework, Sir, from Standing Order 13, as it affects Mr. Woo Po-shing's motion.
DR. BELL:- Now I understand what he meant by "future", but I think I have clarified two points in connexion with this motion in the meantime. That it can be implemented immediately, and I very much hope that there will be no need for it in future. Mrs. ELLIOTT's points have, I think, been met very largely by Mr. BERNACCHI and Mr. BARTY. There is, of course, a very large group of compassionate resettlement cases, something like 700 families are resettled on compassionate grounds every year, and of course, this does include quite a proportion of those who require or are in need of resettlement as a result of natural disasters. Mrs. ELLIOTT must well be aware of this because she is a member of the Policy Committee, and I think it is a pity that she does not agree to support this motion to-day. It was very thoroughly discussed in the Policy Committee.
One point I would like to make very clear is that the words "if needed" are included in the motion. I was asked a question by members of the Press this morning— "how many numbers are involved in this particular motion?" At the present time, the numbers are very small if the wording of the motion "if needed" is followed. That is not to say that a lot of people have not been injured in the disturbances, but those who have been injured do not necessarily need to be resettled. As Mr. Lo quite rightly pointed out, some of the injuries
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
237
have not been of a serious nature nor would the victims be needing resettlement. Again, as I pointed out to the members of the Press who rang me up, I very much hope that there will not be any larger number in need than the small number at present involved. I hope that all Members are going to support this motion, because I do not agree with Mrs. ELLIOTT at all that we can be accused of leaning one way or the other politically. We are saying if it is "needed", and we are also saying if people are going about their lawful business, and I think these two things make it perfectly clear that we are not doing this for propaganda. We are simply doing it for any member of the public who may be seriously injured, and we hope that such cases will be very few and far between.
MR. HU:- Mr. Chairman, by way of clarification. After having read Standing Order 13, I am a little confused, because what I said was whether Dr. BELL'S motion is within the meaning of Dr. Woo's motion. That is to say, whether you, Mr. Chairman, should report publicly to this committee after certain matters have been done, in pursuance of Dr. BELL's motion, because these two motions are passed on the same day. If Dr. BELL's motion were to be passed to-morrow, for example, of course, it would be within the meaning of Dr. Woo's motion because it was passed next day, but these motions are passed on the same day. Whether Dr. BELL's motion is within the meaning of Dr. P. F. Woo's motion, this is my point. Mr. Chairman, would you clarify that?
CHAIRMAN:- Dr. BELL's motion this afternoon was down on the Order Paper which was issued several days before Dr. Woo's motion was passed to-day. Therefore, in my judgment, Dr. Woo's motion which was successfully passed to-day, does not apply to Dr. BELL'S motion of to-day, which is a renewal of Mr. Woo's motion last month. To take the matter further as regards Standing Order 13— as it is worded, it is perhaps not an easy thing to see how it applies to what we have been doing this afternoon, but in simple language, the Order says that if a motion has been debated, a motion similarly worded, or the same motion, cannot be debated again within an interval of six months, unless it is a case that the original motion was referred to a committee and the committee then made a recommendation. In such a case, the motion as originally worded or as amended in committee can be debated without waiting for six months.
MR. HU: Mr. Chairman, with great respect to you, I shall not agree with you. I think that Dr. BELL's motion will be passed at least half an hour later than Dr. Woo's motion. I think it should be included within the meaning of Dr. Woo's motion. Of course, I will not enter into an argument with you. (Laughter).
DR. BELL: Mr. Chairman, could I clarify a point which might perhaps satisfy Mr. Hu. As Chairman of the Policy Select Committee
Page 130
Page 131 of 259
238
Page 131
of 259
Page 130-
Page 130 of 259
236
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
imposition as Mr. BERNACCHI's remarks might have led people to believe. Not only that, Sir, but for 125 months, something over ten years, the people who pay rent in advance have the rent for their rooms reduced.
MRS. ELLIOTT:-Mr. Chairman, may I clarify a point? I was not just referring to the $400 rent, I was also referring to fire and flood victims who are not given immediate resettlement.
DR. BELL:—Mr. Chairman, can I take up Mr. Hu's query about the question of this motion being "in future". It depends on what he means by "future". I very much hope there will be no need for this in future, because I very much hope there will be no further civil dis- turbances. But if he means that it will be several years before this is going to be implemented, then the answer is no, because I understand I think correctly, from the Commissioner, that this can be implemented right away. What did Mr. Hu mean by future?
MR. HU: No, the word "future" is within the meaning of Dr. Woo's motion, whether you, Mr. Chairman, should report back to this committee within three months.
CHAIRMAN:-Our proceedings on this motion do not derive from the motion which was moved by Dr. Woo to-day and carried. They derive, if I can give you a little homework, Sir, from Standing Order 13, as it affects Mr. Woo Po-shing's motion.
DR. BELL:-Now I understand what he meant by "future", but I think I have clarified two points in connexion with this motion in the meantime. That it can be implemented immediately, and I very much hope that there will be no need for it in future. Mrs. ELLIOTT's points have, I think, been met very largely by Mr. BERNACCHI and Mr. BARTY. There is, of course, a very large group of compassionate resettlement cases, something like 700 families are resettled on com- passionate grounds every year, and of course this does include quite a proportion of those who require or are in need of resettlement as a result of natural disasters. Mrs. ELLIOTT must well be aware of this because she is a member of the Policy Committee, and I think it is a pity that she does not agree to support this motion to-day. It was very thoroughly discussed in the Policy Committee.
One point I would like to make very clear is that the words "if needed" are included in the motion. I was asked a question by members of the Press this morning-"how many numbers are involved in this particular motion?" At the present time the numbers are very small if the wording of the motion "if needed" is followed. That is not to say that a lot of people have not been injured in the disturb- ances, but those who have been injured do not necessarily need to be resettled. As Mr. Lo quite rightly pointed out, some of the injuries
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
237
have not been of a serious nature nor would the victims be needing resettlement. Again, as I pointed out to the members of the Press who rang me up, I very much hope that there will not be any larger number in need than the small number at present involved. I hope that all Members are going to support this motion, because I do not agree with Mrs. ELLIOTT at all that we can be accused of leaning one way or the other politically. We are saying if it is "needed", and we are also saying if people are going about their lawful business, and I think these two things make it perfectly clear that we are not doing this for propaganda. We are simply doing it for any member of the public who may be seriously injured, and we hope that such cases will be very few and far between.
MR. HU:-Mr. Chairman, by way of clarification. After having read Standing Order 13 I am a little confused, because what I said was whether Dr. BELL'S motion is within the meaning of Dr. Woo's motion. That is to say, whether you, Mr. Chairman, should report publicly to this committee after certain matters have been done, in pursuance of Dr. BELL's motion, because these two motions are passed on the same day. If Dr. BELL's motion were to be passed to-morrow, for example, of course it would be within the meaning of Dr. Woo's motion because it was passed next day, but these motions are passed on the same day. Whether Dr. BELL's motion is within the meaning of Dr. P. F. Woo's motion, this is my point. Mr. Chairman, would you clarify that?
CHAIRMAN:-Dr. BELL's motion this afternoon was down on the Order Paper which was issued several days before Dr. Woo's motion was passed to-day. Therefore, in my judgment, Dr. Woo's motion which was successfully passed to-day, does not apply to Dr. BELL'S motion of to-day, which is a renewal of Mr. Woo's motion last month. To take the matter further as regards Standing Order 13-as it is worded it is perhaps not an easy thing to see how it applies to what we have been doing this afternoon, but in simple language the Order says that if a motion has been debated, a motion similarly worded, or the same motion, cannot be debated again within an interval of six months, unless it is a case that the original motion was referred to a committee and the committee then made a recommendation. In such case the motion as originally worded or as amended in committee can be debated without waiting for six months.
MR. HU: Mr. Chairman, with great respect to you, I shall not agree with you. I think that Dr. BELL's motion will be passed at least half an hour later than Dr. Woo's motion. I think it should be in- cluded within the meaning of Dr. Woo's motion. Of course, I will not enter into an argument with you. (Laughter).
DR. BELL: Mr. Chairman, could I clarify a point which might perhaps satisfy Mr. Hu. As Chairman of the Policy Select Committee
Page 130Page 131
of 259
Page 131 of 259,
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.