Page 83 of 154
134
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
proposal to increase the fees, but as the economy of Hong Kong then was on the down trend, we thought it was very untimely then, so we postponed it until today. But right now, although the economy of Hong Kong is slowly showing an upturn, I still feel that if we could put off the date of increase to 1st July, 1976, then this will firstly lower the burden for the food trades and it will also be favourable for the whole economic situation. But of course, this would depend on the decision of this Council. I and my Committee will, of course, respect and follow this Council's decision.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I now beg to move.
DR. P. C. WONG (in English): I am pleased to second the motion.
MRS. E. ELLIOTT (in English): Mr. Chairman, I wish to express the same sentiments as I expressed on Motion 3. But I would like to emphasize that the licencees concerned who, as in Motion 3, according to Dr. HUANG, may not object or have no reason to object to it, I am sure that the higher charges will be passed on, perhaps even higher percentages to the consumers, thus adding to the general inflation. I am going to abstain again.
MR. B. A. BERNACCHI (in English): Mr. Chairman, as Chairman of the Finance Select Committee; I am going to vote in favour of this motion, but not necessarily for all the grounds forwarded by the proposer. I also share Mrs. ELLIOTT's views that the increases will eventually be passed on to the consumer.
DR. HUANG (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, because my name was mentioned previously, I would like to make an explanation. When we talk about fees and charges, we said that the highest rate is something more than seven dollars. I was not thinking of how the business owners would make out the sum as how to transfer the burden to the consumer because if the increase is around less than a dollar, how can he transfer it?
MR. CHOW (in Cantonese): Let us thank our various colleagues for their questions and comments. The most important point I gather is that, would the cost be transferred to the consumer and would it lead to an indirect cause of inflation. We have paid special attention to this problem and I, personally, in a private capacity, have done a survey with restaurant owners of various classes. At the beginning, they would say that, like what Mrs. ELLIOTT and Mr. BERNACCHI have said, they probably will transfer the burden to the consumer. But when I further proposed a question and that is, 25 years ago, dim sum were sold at 50¢ and now they are sold at $1.80 or $2 and the Urban Council has not mentioned any increase in fees, why did they still increase the price of dim sum? Secondly, we said if they really want to transfer the cost, then how would they subdivide this $7 over 2,000 or 3,000 customers or if the daily turnover is $20,000 or $30,000, how do they make out the sum?
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
135
If they increase the price of dim sum by 10¢ per dish, then the gains that they get will be much in excess of this $7. So they finally said that they would not use this as an excuse to get unreasonable profit and they would not think it is possible to transfer this increase in fees to the customers.
The question was put.
The motion was carried with nineteen votes for and one abstention.
(5) DR. HENRY H. L. HU, CHAIRMAN OF THE HAWKERS SELECT COMMITTEE, moved the following motion (in English):
"RESOLVED that the Hawker (Amendment) (No. 2) By-laws 1975 be made under Section 83A of the Public Health and Urban Services Ordinance, Cap. 132."
He said (in English): Mr. Chairman, I rise to move the motion standing in my name.
With the introduction of the Hawker By-laws 1972 a partial review of licence fees took place, but prior to this, fees had remained unchanged since 1960. As we are all aware costs have increased considerably and following the completion of a recent comprehensive costing exercise, it was considered that revision of hawker licence fees to bring in an extra $3.5 million a year would not be placing an unduly heavy burden on the licensed members of the hawking community and would go some way to meeting the future estimated expenditure on hawker management. I say some way because the estimated hawker management costs for 1976-77, the first full year of the proposed new fees, are $29.5 million whereas the estimated revenue from licence fees is only $7.3 million leaving a shortfall of $22.16 million. In these circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I submit that an upward revision of fees to the levels proposed would be justified.
MR. B. A. BERNACCHI (in English): Mr. Chairman, I second this motion not because I ever like imposing greater burden on people earning their living, particularly on the humble hawker, but because as Chairman of the Finance Select Committee I appreciate what a
Page 83 of 154