1971 — Page 39

242

58

Page 39 of 242

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Department. What method of action is left when a Department whose work is under Urban Council jurisdic- tion ignores a case brought to its attention?

THE CHAIRMAN, URBAN COUNCIL, replied as follows:

The answer to this question is relatively simple but before I give it I would like to take the opportunity to set the record straight.

The San Po Kong clearance involved "about 1,000 people" (to quote from one of Mrs. ELLIOTT's own letters on the subject headed "Squatters of San Po Kong"). Among these, a number were operating fairly large-scale un- licensed businesses, mainly food factories and restaurants. These persons were basically not hawkers and this was pointed out by Mr. CHEONG-LEEN when he answered a question by Mrs. ELLIOTT in August 1970.

The actual clearance took place in late July 1970, not in April as stated in the question, although, of course, the people concerned were aware that they were to be cleared as far back as April when in fact Mrs. ELLIOTT started her correspondence with the Department and the Resettle- ment Department about this matter. And at the time of the clearance, 26 persons signified an interest in obtaining cooked food stall licences for off-street sites, the Division dealing with hawkers having gone out of its way to help After solve the problem of these "displaced" persons. considerable enquiries and investigations, including a number of interviews with the persons concerned, ap- proval was given for cooked food licences to be issued to 18 of these 26, and despite serious difficulties over obtaining off-street sites for them, these 18 have now been provided with licences and sites.

There was some doubt about the bona fides of the remaining eight persons, and it is to these that the present question relates.

Mrs. ELLIOTT states that since 5th March, 1971 "the ward" has sent seven letters to the Department without response. Unfortunately, the Department has been able to trace only three of these letters (of which we have, of course, not been given the date, reference number or name of addressee). Of these three letters, the first was dated 5th March, 1971, and addressed to an officer in the Depart- ment's Head Office. A reply dated 11th March, informed Mrs. ELLIOTT that the matter had been referred to the

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

59

Delegated Member who had directed that, before he could give further consideration to their claims, the eight persons concerned should be asked to produce further acceptable evidence of their bona fides, about which there was some doubt.

Investigations into this matter continued departmentally and while these were proceeding, a further letter, dated 31st March, with a different reference and addressed to the Senior Hawker Liaison Officer in Kowloon, was received from Mrs. ELLIOTT. In this she stated that she did not seem to have had any reply as yet on this case. She also stated that she was "tired of asking the officer concerned to do his job" (although, in fact, this was not the officer whom she had previously addressed). And far from not doing his job, this officer was in fact busy attempting to produce detailed reports on the eight persons in question for the Delegated Member. Before a reply could be sent to this letter, Mrs. ELLIOTT put down her question for this afternoon's meeting and the file was recalled so that a reply could be prepared for the Council.

Mrs. ELLIOTT's third letter dated 21st March, and again addressed to the Senior Hawker Liaison Officer, Kowloon, was delivered by hand to him by the eight persons concerned on 22nd April. In this letter (dated as I have said 21st March).

(a) reference was made to two letters dated 17th and 31st March: no file or departmental references were given;

(b) Mrs. ELLIOTT suggested that the Senior Hawker Liaison Officer could finalize the matter and that there was no need to refer the case to the Select Committee.

We have, unfortunately, been unable to trace the letter of 17th March and not having its reference has not helped. There was, of course, no intention of referring the case to the Select Committee but, as stated previously, the question of the bona fides of the individual claims had to be settled to the satisfaction of the Delegated Member. Despite the many interruptions, the Senior Liaison Officer managed to send the details of the eight cases on 27th April to the Delegated Member, who is now examining them.

It appears to me that this particular case was the subject of an article by Mrs. ELLIOTT in the China Mail on 22nd