HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.
606
99
"The Hon. the Director of Public Works was kind enough to supply me with certain figures in respect of the period 1920 to 1935. The figures show expenditure for maintaining Water- works on the one hand (which comprises Public Works Recurrent and Salaries attributable to the Waterworks), and, on the other hand, the net revenue derived for Water (which comprises water excess charges and the "water rates" (2 out of the 17 per cent. assessment).
From 1920 to 1935 the total expenditure for the whole period amounted to just over $7,000,000, and the total revenue came to just over $22,800,000, showing a net profit obtained by Government from Water of about $15,800,000.
??
Admittedly the whole of the past capital expenditure has been paid for out of General Revenue, and I have attempted to show-I hope successfully that it has in fact been paid out of Water Revenue. This being so, why the consumer should now be made to pay anything in respect of this past capital expenditure defeats my comprehension !
Much has been said about Military Contribution. I hope that some equitable solution of this thorny question will be possible. In the meantime I would like to observe that military contribution at 20% has already been paid on the so-called past capital expenditure of just over $15,500,000, and that payment by way of an annual interest on this sum at 2% will of course involve an annual further payment of military contribution at 20%.
In the modifications of the Financial Secretary's proposals mentioned earlier in my remarks, it was stated--
"In order to meet objections to the repayment from water revenue of past capital expenditure out of General Revenue, it is proposed that the sum of 2% of that capital, intended to be devoted to such repayment, should instead be used to build up a Renewals Fund which will be available to meet large renewals of capital equipment and will thus in future save further borrowing or expenditure from General Revenue Account."
It must be plain to any fair-minded person that the above quotation does not pretend to answer the criticisms against this particular charge which had been placed before Government. Our objection is not directed to the question as to how this annual sum of over $300,000 should be used; it is directed to the retention of this sum as an item on the expenditure side when, on the figures of revenue and expenditure supplied by Government, such retention is not necessary in order that the actual expenditure may be paid for by actual revenue.
It is interesting to observe that the "modification" had in fact been considered and rejected by the Financial Secretary in his original memorandum, as the following quotation clearly shows:--
15