1971 — Page 197

242

Page 197 of 242

374

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

MRS. ELLIOTT:-Would the Commissioner deny that on four or five occasions recently his department has sent a letter to me saying that the appeal would not be heard because the matter has been referred to the Commissioner as the competent authority; that he had made a decision and therefore there was no need for the matter to go before the Committee thus dispensing with the services of Law and Standing Orders?

COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT:-Mr. Chairman, if Mrs. ELLIOTT is referring to matters which are outside the jurisdiction of this Council, matters which are within my statutory competence, then the answer is "yes".

MRS. ELLIOTT:-Mr. Chairman, I would not refer a matter for appeal if it were not within the jurisdiction of the Council.

MR. BERNACCHI:-Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps Mrs. ELLIOTT is wrong when she says "is the competent authority"

CHAIRMAN: -Are you asking a supplementary?

MR. BERNACCHI:-Yes, I am. Is the Commissioner for Resettle- ment aware I also have had letters from persons under his command saying that in effect that this case has been thoroughly gone through by your department, and they see nothing appealable in it and therefore they would not put the papers forward for appeal? I have had one or two such letters.

COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT:—Mr. Chairman, once again I think the position surely is that I am competent authority.

MR. BERNACCHI:-Forget about that.

COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT:-I cannot forget this, Mr. Chairman. This is the nub of the matter. If I am the competent authority I will discharge that responsibility, but it is not a matter referrable as such to the Council in that situation.

(Mr. Peter C. K. CHAN arrived at this point).

MR. BERNACCHI:-Mr. Chairman, I was not speaking of those sections of the Ordinance to which the Commissioner is the competent authority. I am speaking of those Sections of the Ordinance for which the Council is the competent authority.

CHAIRMAN:--Perhaps you would be good enough to let the Com- missioner of Resettlement know about these Mr. Bernacchi.

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

375

(4) MRS. E. ELLIOTT asked the following question: -----

Is it correct that the last survey of squatter huts took place in about 1963-4, and everything built since then is con- sidered illegal? If so, what action has been taken to ensure that all such illegal squatters are informed, and offered resites in licensed area, to prevent hardship at some future demolition? Why are some illegal squatters permitted to remain for as long as eight years only to find that they still have to accept a resite in a licensed area on clearance?

THE COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT, replied as follows: - The answer to the first part of this question is yes.

As to the second part, the answer is that whenever illegal squatters are discovered, that is people who have put up structures since the October 1964 survey, a demolition notice is served upon them, making their position quite clear. If they do not remove the structure themselves within the stated period, then the Squatter Control staff arrange for demolition. Such illegal squatters know very well what the position is but consider it worthwhile to go on putting up their structures time and time again after frequent demolition.

As to the third part of the question, no squatter who has put up his structure since the 1964 survey has been allowed to remain untouched and, as I have just said, it is a constant battle of wills between them and our Squatter Control staff; most of these offending structures are of course put up for commercial purposes and the profits clearly make it worthwhile for the owners to go on rebuilding after demolition. If Mrs. ELLIOTT knows of any structures which were put up after the 1964 survey and have remained totally untouched since then, I would appreciate it if she would inform my department. Any such illegal squatter who is found to be genuinely home- less as a result of a demolition action is free to apply for a hut site in a licensed area.

MRS. ELLIOTT:-Mr. Chairman, on a point of clarification, may I tell the Commissioner that I have appealed to his Department that people have built their huts, and they haven't been demolished, and then they are told it is illegal. When the tenant denies that there has been any demolition by the Department, the Squatter Control says that they have done a demolition. Does it cause a conflict? What means has a tenant to appeal against what he considers an untrue report on the part of the officer?