Page 10 of 185
12
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
In general, the standard of cleanliness in our public toilets is satisfactory notwithstanding that the Department does encounter difficulties in maintaining a good standard at times not only because of the heavy usage in some of the toilets but also because of the bad habits of a minority of vandals and less civic-minded users.
If improvements are needed across the board, the Department can be asked to step up the frequency of inspection by its supervisory staff and impress on both the USD labour force and the contractor the need for higher standards. Of course, a more intensive and more frequent form of inspection system can only be introduced at either the expense of other supervisory work or by the addition of more staff.
As regards improvement to the maintenance of the fabric and the equipment within public toilet buildings, the Council will continue to rely on the service of the Architectural Services Department. However, the Urban Services Department is now exploring the feasibility of employing an in-house repair team with a view to expediting the repair of minor defects.
If Mr. CHAN has received any complaint concerning the unsatisfactory cleansing standard or state of repair in any particular public toilet, may I suggest that he passes the information to the local District Hygiene Superintendent so that the matter may be promptly rectified.
MR. JOSEPH Y. S. CHAN (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, my first supplementary question is: Dr. LEUNG said that the purpose of levying a charge is to deter the use of those toilets by the general public. Are these measures effective? Many friends of mine have experienced the situation on several occasions that when they go to UC cultural venues, they cannot make use of the toilet facilities because they have not got a 50¢ coin although they are in urgent need of using the toilet facilities. Locking up the toilets or cubicles might not serve the genuine users better. How do we really distinguish between genuine users of cultural venues and members of the public? Can we find some methods to stop members of the public from entering the toilets at these cultural venues even if they have got the coins?
DR. RONALD D. B. LEUNG (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, Mr. CHAN asks whether the measures are effective? The answer is yes. The toilets are kept pretty clean. As regards the second part of the supplementary question that the users of these venues cannot utilize these toilet facilities because they have no 50¢ coins, I am afraid I have no solution for the time being. An expensive way to solve the problem is to have some sort of coin-changing machines similar to those installed at MTR stations. However, that would certainly be a matter for careful consideration by the Select Committee.
MR. WALTER M. SULKE (in English): Of course, it would be a simple solution, just make it a dollar, everybody has a dollar. But really my question is about the smell. Councillors have been complaining for years about the smell emanating from our toilet, which is the disinfectant being used. Would the Chairman of the Environmental Hygiene Select Committee please try and change the disinfectant used so that you don't smell the Beaconsfield House's toilet all the way to the Hilton.
DR. RONALD D. B. LEUNG (in English):—Mr. Chairman, this is a request and not a question.
MR. WALTER M. SULKE (in English):—I ask whether you would have changed?
DR. RONALD D. B. LEUNG (in English):—Yes, change for a better always.
MR. STEPHEN M. L. LAU (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, may I ask whether there are any public toilets free of charge nearby apart from the coin-operated toilet cubicles at these cultural venues? I understand there are free toilets near the City Hall. I don't know whether the same is true in Ngau Chi Wan Civic Centre and Space Museum?
DR. RONALD D. B. LEUNG (in Cantonese):—We have been discussing inside some cultural venues such as the City Hall. It is quite coincidental that we have public toilets nearby. In Ngau Chi Wan Civic Centre, the toilets concerned are inside. On the matter of charging, I am sure Members do not believe that it will cause genuine inconvenience to the public because of the toilet being charged. It is only because people do not have the coins.
MR. JOSEPH Y. S. CHAN (in Cantonese):—Can we let the genuine users of these cultural venues have the use of toilets free of charge? They have already paid for the presentations. Why do they have to pay for the use of the toilet as well? It seems to be a double charging. Since the venues are not used all the time when there are no programmes in place, can we let members of the public use the toilets free of charge? Besides, I am not in favour of levying charges on toilets. Can we have that reviewed?
CHAIRMAN (in English):—I may suggest this should be referred to the Culture Select Committee. It is not an environmental matter. It is a matter of policy on charging.
MR. LO KING-MAN (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, the question raised by Mr. Joseph CHAN has perhaps taken in a very narrow scope. Looking at a rather broad issue, charging or not charging is only one of the factors attributing to cause inconvenience. The issue is a broad one, and it is not just concerned with charging. It is also not a matter of separating uses of toilets between the genuine members of the audience from the general public. The purpose of charging is to prevent people who are from, say the Mandarin Hotel, to use the toilet facilities in City Hall. I agree with Mr. CHAN that the matter of charging should be reviewed. But it is perhaps not justified in logic to say that charging will cause inconvenience to the general public.
Page 10
Page 11 of 185
13