HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 25 May 1988
1483
ir he and the booming or otherwise of the construction industry. Obviously, if the development of the construction industry is unsatisfactory, the level of the fund's income will neither be gratifying. On the other hand, pneumoconiosis is an occupational disease with an incubational period. Its symptons may remain unnoticed or 10 or 20, or even 40 years. Thus, it may be too optimistic to set the trend of expenditure on the basis of the apparent number of cases and the trend of compensation payments. What I am worrying is that the emergence of the effects of the disease is a natural process, the timing of which cannot be adjusted to coincide with the year of a construction boom. Thus, a vast reserve in the fund should be the best hedge against rainy days in future. Perhaps, the Government would say that the rate of levy can be raised when necessary. Nevertheless, it is all too natural that a reduction in charges is easily acceptable while any increase is bound to be difficult to accept especially when it involves contributions from the employees. Care must therefore be taken in this aspect.
Secondly, the bulk of expenses of the fund goes to compensation payments. What puzzles me is that, according to the data provided in the annual report of the Labour Department, the cumulative figure of the incidence of pneumoco- niosis caused by inhaling silica alone (excluding those related to asbestos dust) is 1 583 between the years 1981 and 1986, yet the number of cases in which victims are compensated stands at 1 513 only. If compensation had been paid for the rest of the cases, the total expenditure of the fund would have been risen.
Thirdly, the Secretary for Education and Manpower remarked in his speech that 'Despite these sharp cuts in the path of levy and despite our decision in October in 1987 to extend the scope of the fund to include preventive works such as research, education and publicity, the accumulated surplus has con- tinued to increase'. Mr. Ho Sai-chu has pointed out and I reiterate here that what he said is indeed misleading. As far as I know, a research committee was set up by the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Fund Board early this year. Although the committee has started to invite academic institutions to parti- cipate in their research, it is still in its preparatory stage and has not carried out any educational and publicity work at all. I believe when the research, publicity and educational work are in full swing, the expenditure of the fund will substantially augment.
To conclude from the above three points, I do not think it necessary to reduce the rate of levy with haste. In fact, as indicated in the 1986 report of the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Fund Board, any rate of levy lower than 0.05 per cent will create administrative difficulties in taxation. I would like to throw a question to the authorities as to whether the proposed reduction in the rate of levy would equally create administrative difficulties. On the other hand, the expenditure of the fund will go up if improvements are made in the following aspects, and the worry of excessive surplus will be removed.
First, I have been told by many fellow workers that the level of compensation provided by the fund can hardly make their ends meet. It is learnt that the