Page 59 of 120
84
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
CHAIRMAN (in English):-I was referring to the last part of Mr. CHOW's answer.
MRS. HO (in English):-It still doesn't, I am afraid.
CHAIRMAN (in English):-Mr. CHOW, would you like to clarify the position?
MR. CHOW (in English):-Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I have to find out the answer for Mrs. Ho.
CHAIRMAN (in English):-You would like to have notice of the question? Mrs. Ho, are you agreeable that notice should be given to Mr. CHOW?
MRS. HO (in English):-Fair enough, Mr. Chairman, but as this is on the distinction, I must make sure that this distinction was applied across the board. Thank you.
MRS. E. ELLIOTT (in English):-Mr. Chairman, would you like me to answer the question? Because it is written on the box 'reconstituted milk', it is fair enough.
CHAIRMAN (in English):-Mrs. HO, please re-state your question because there is general misunderstanding on the floor apparently.
MRS. HO (in English):-I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, that I led to such great confusion. I thought my question was quite clear, that if fresh milk is imported to Hong Kong whether it has the same distinguishing marks on caps of bottles or containers as milk produced here, whether it is fresh or reconstituted, the same, I think, should be applied.
CHAIRMAN (in English):-I compliment you on the clarity of your question. I understood it as you intended but it is the Chairman of the Food Hygiene Select Committee who requires notice of the question. Am I right, Mr. CHOW?
MR. CHOW (in English):-Yes, Mr. Chairman.
DR. HU (in English):-May I ask the Chairman of the Food Hygiene Select Committee in his reply to the second part of my question is it of the same nutrition value of the fresh milk and reconstituted milk, are they of the same nutrition value or different?
CHAIRMAN (in English):-That goes beyond the original question, but if you feel sufficiently expert on this subject, Mr. CHOW, perhaps you might give us a categorical answer.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
85
MR. CHOW (in English):-Mr. Chairman, I am not in this field but if Dr. Hu will want to go more into this question, I will certainly ask the department to give Dr. Hu a better answer to this question.
CHAIRMAN (in English):-I suggest, the next time, you bring the department along when questions on food hygiene are put to this Council. (Laughter). Would you like to do that, Mr. Edmund CHOW? Any other supplementary questions?
MOTIONS
1. THE CHAIRMAN, URBAN COUNCIL, moved the following motion:
'THAT the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for 1981/82 and the list of works which the Council proposes to undertake during the next financial year be approved for transmission to the Governor in accordance with Section 39 of the Urban Council Ordinance.'
He said (in English): This Council is now living off its savings. There will be little or none left to get by next year. It needs more money to do its vital work. It still hopes to get it from the Government and not directly from the people. Some fair and definite proposals to solve the problem without raising the rate percentage have been put to the powers that be but to no avail so far.
It now seems only right for the Government to pay straight over to the Council half of what they get from the 74% General Rate they collect in the urban areas. This should tide the Council over until they carry out the promised re-assessment of rateable values.
For some years now the prospect of the Council being financially in the red has been consistently made known to the public in all honesty and with no regard for political popularity. So the real situation now developing should not come as a surprise. The Council has put off the day of reckoning for so long simply by businesslike financial management across the board. Indeed, it is a surprise that it has been able to do so and also given so much more benefit to the community meanwhile. But inflation has taken its heavy toll at last. It is not of the Council's own making of course. On the contrary, the payroll is even leaving the rate revenue well behind. In 1981/82, it will amount to $532.6 M. against rates of $436 M. Thus, there will be nothing left to do the work after paying the staff. Yet, the number of staff has gone up by an annual average of only 2.2% over the last seven years, or less than half of the Government's own record. Still, the actual increase to be paid by the Council in 1981/82 over the current year will add up to no less than $126.6 M. This is 30% more in a single year and without a compensatory rise in rate income. No business enterprise could remain solvent in such conditions.
Page 59 of 120