Page 189 of 242
358
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
you will agree Mr. Chairman, between Standing Orders and statutory responsibilities suggests considerable confusion of thought.
Again, one does not expect too much of a White Paper as regards style, and I do not mind such delightful bits of serio-comic officialese as Paragraph 32 of the Conclusions, which says "These proposals are not as radical as have been advocated by some, but go further than others feel desirable. These differences of view are not surprising in a matter as difficult and controversial as this".
One does expect, however, a reasonable standard of construction and presentation, and it is therefore most disappointing to find a patch-work document in which important matters are glossed over quickly and relatively insignificant matters set out in great detail.
For example, the vital question of financial arrangements is either skimmed over or disposed of with such equivocal statements as that in Paragraph 21: "The Council's rate will be calculated initially from estimates of net expenditure in the year preceding the introduction of the new arrangements". I am personally afraid that I cannot say with any confidence just what this means.
On the other hand, in Paragraphs 8, 18, and 29 we find minor matters dealt with in detail: the extension of disqualification from voting of individuals serving prison sentences for a longer period than the actual period of imprisonment (whatever that means), provision for Officials who are now members of the Housing Authority by virtue of Urban Council membership to continue to be members of the Housing Authority after their membership of the Urban Council has ceased, and an explanation that while the Urban Council is intended to get certain additional licensing functions, the Police will retain authority to approve temporary extension of licensing hours, and also "will retain authority for the licensing of dance halls, mahjong shops, and pawnbrokers since these require to be carefully supervised to prevent them from becoming subject to the control of criminal elements".
The White Paper speaks mellifluously of substantial financial autonomy, additional functions and new powers, so that the general impression is of the powers and scope of the Council being greatly enlarged. To what extent will this be true?
A closer look at the White Paper leaves the matter very much in doubt. As Paragraphs 21 and 22 make plain, what we do in the financial field is going to be "subject to the approval of Legislative Council". No doubt we shall have more financial responsibility than at present but how much more? Paragraph 5(f) says that under the present system we have little or no financial responsibility, but in fact we already have the system of block votes on various items. If it is asserted that this does not represent a measure of financial responsibility, because the total level of spending is controlled by the Central Government, one may well wonder in what way, other than that of degree, it will differ under the new system?
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
359
asserted that this does not represent a measure of financial responsibility, because the total level of spending is controlled by the Central Government, one may well wonder in what way, other than that of degree, it will differ under the new system?
Again, there is talk of additional functions. These turn out to be certain additional licensing functions in regard to cinemas, bowling rinks, skating rinks, and so on, and I do not think anyone would assert that the Council's role is going to be greatly enhanced thereby.
But what of the other side of the coin? Paragraph 28 implies that Government is thinking of "severing the Council's present connection with housing matters". Will the Council's scope really be enlarged, if on the one hand there is the minor addition of minor licensing functions in regard to billiard saloons and the like, and on the other the very major subtraction of the Council's interest in housing matters?
And what real effect will our "substantial financial autonomy" have as regards staff? The Council will be required to pay the full cost of staff, including salaries, pensions, medical services and passages, but, as Paragraph 20 states, the staff "will continue to be answerable to the Director of Urban Services". Will this not be a case of paying the piper but not being entitled to call the tune?
Moreover, an entirely new restriction is to be imposed on us. has been mentioned by other Members before me. We are no longer to be free to determine our own Standing Orders. The reason given for this is that it will be "considerably less appropriate" when the new system is introduced, but there is no further explanation and on this important matter, as on a number of others, the author is by accident or by design vague.
(Mr. B. A. BERNACCHI arrived at this point).
From the standpoint of serving as a chart to the development of the Council, however, the outstanding weakness of the White Paper is its failure to deal adequately with the financial considerations involved. I have already alluded to the equivocal nature of some of the statements on finances. I may add that a number of important matters, such as how Council funds are to be managed and how surpluses are to be applied, are not touched upon at all.
The White Paper is therefore grossly inadequate as a statement of Government's proposals for the future of the Urban Council. Perhaps it was meant to be. Perhaps it was intended only as a preliminary to a more serious examination of the subject. In any case, however, more adequate proposals based on the broad principles outlined in the White Paper must be put forward. I suggest that this be done by a joint
Page 242
...
358
359