PART II THE STAR FERRY FARE ISSUE
Mrs. Elliott's Petition
13
56. In her evidence before us Mrs. ELLIOTT explained that she had decided to organize a public petition as a result of seeing, through the medium of Govern- ment's daily Chinese Press Summaries, the fears expressed in the Chinese press of fare increases causing a spiral of price increases. She also told us how she had been assisted in obtaining signatures by the press publicity given to her campaign and by various organization whose support she had requested.
57. The petition submitted on 23rd November stated four reasons for opposing the Star Ferry Company's application which can be summarized as follows:
(a) the Company's past profits had been excessive for a public utility (the
figures were quoted);
(b) the proposed fare increase would increase the Company's revenue by a figure far in excess of the amount required to maintain the present standard of service;
(c) if Government accepted the Star Ferry Company's application, it would be a signal for other companies to apply and such applications would be difficult, if not impossible, to refuse; and
(d) the burden of extra fares would fall on those least able to pay and the general economic situation was most unsuited to a general fare increase, even if this was justified by profits having fallen to an unacceptably low level.
58. The petition drew attention to the need to: (a) establish a yardstick to determine adequacy of service and suggested that the current Passenger Transport Survey would deal with this by the end of 1966; (b) stipulate a reasonable level of profit for public transport companies as had been done by Government in the case of the Hong Kong Telephone Company; and (c) consider reducing royalty before raising fares.
59. Finally, the petition requested: (a) that all applications for fare increases submitted during the following 12 months be closely studied but none approved during the period; (b) that the full report of the Passenger Transport Survey and the study of the finances both past and present of the public transport companies be made public as soon as practical; and (c) that no steps be taken behind closed doors to raise fares or initiate other measures to the detriment of the public.
60. Taken by themselves these were cogent and attractive arguments but they ignored a vital factor: the terms of the Company's franchise.
61. A reply to this petition was sent on 8th December and released to the press. The reply noted the views expressed and stated that it is the intention of