Page 28 of 166
48
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
49
The final point (c) concerning the safety of projecting air-conditioners is not facilities. Secondly, since the UC receives rates from the general public so we within the jurisdiction of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance should provide recreational facilities free of charge. If we cannot provide free Cap. 132, therefore no monitoring or inspection system for this purpose is set facilities to everybody at least we should give special concession to the children up by the Department.
MOTIONS
1. MR. SAMUEL P. W. WONG, CHAIRMAN OF THE RECREATION SELECT COMMITTEE, moved the following motion:--
'RESOLVED that
He said (in English):--Mr. Chairman, as Chairman of the Recreation Select Committee, I rise on the motion standing in the name:
Resolved that the Public Swimming Pools (Urban Council) (Amendment) (No. 2) By-laws, 1989, be made under Section 42 of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance Cap. 132.'
The purpose of the amendment to the By-laws is to raise the admission fees of Urban Council public swimming pools to $10 for adults and to $5 for children and people aged 60 and over with effect from 1 July 1989. The fees were last revised on 1 June 1987. Hire charges for the Urban Council public present swimming pool facilities will remain unchanged this year.
so that they can enjoy cheap or free services. Up to the end of April 1989 the UC has a surplus of $347 million and the accumulated surplus is $1,319 million. Since we are having an enormous surplus, we should not increase the admission charges especially the fees for the children. Fourthly, at present the level of subsidy with regard to swimming pools is 67%. After the increase the subsidy is just reduced to 61% and the reduction is very small. In fact many services provided by the UC receive 100% subsidy. In fact we have been allocating a lot the Public Swimming Pools (Urban Council) (Amendment) (No. 2) By-laws 1989 be made under section 42 of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance, Cap. 132.’
At present the Government receives 2.5% of rates and the UC receives 3.5%. If we are afraid that by providing free services to the youngsters, thus affecting our financial position why don't we make the similar request as the Regional Council to the Government to apportion all the rates to the UC. Fifthly, after attendance from 4,769,100 people in 1987 to 3,864,146 people in 1988. The the increase in admission charges in 1988 there had been a noticeable drop of
reason for reduction of 1,400,000 people as given by the department which was due to the inclement weather is unacceptable. In fact, August is the summer vacation month and the majority of the swimmers were students who refrained from patronizing the swimming pools after the increase in admission charges. The increase in admission fees is the most reasonable explanation. Sixthly, the present level of increase is 25% which is on a rather high side. The seventh point: we should not run the services from a commercial point of view and should not charge a commercial rate or use the commercial rate as the yardstick. Eighthly, when we compare our charges with those swimming pools run by the private sector for some privately run swimming pools, we can find that they only charge $6 for the adults and $4 for children below 12 years old. Some swimming pools run by the private sector even provide free services to the residents in the estates. When compared the services provided by the UC, it seems that we are not able to provide better services especially to the youngsters. It is rather disappointing. The ninth point is that the Urban Council should look after the welfare of the children during the summer holiday who do not have to go to schools. It is the most inappropriate time to increase our hire charges effective from 1 July which the summer vacation commences. Are we adopting the tactic of some unscrupulous measures or do we want to deter the children from using the swimming pools? The tenth point relates to children below 14 when we give them a concession but for those above 14 they have to pay the adults rate. The legitimate adult age is 21 and it may be reduced to 18 years old. For those below 14, they should be admitted free of charge and for those between 14 to 18, they should pay only $4. If we adopt this line of subsidy, the subsidy will not be too high for the well-being of the youngsters. It is worthwhile to subsidise them. With regard to the present increase in admission charges, I think it will have a far-reaching effect on our youngsters. The increase of $4 to $5 is not a big sum for some people but for those who
Despite the 25 percent upward revision in the admission fees, the Council will still be subsidizing 58 percent of the operating costs. The deficit in the operation of Urban Council Swimming Pools in 1989/90 after the proposed fee revision is estimated at $51.5 million.
Sir, I beg to move.
MR. RONNIE M. C. WONG, VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE RECREATION SELECT COMMITTEE (in English):--I would like to second the motion.
MR. JOSEPH Y. S. CHAN (in Cantonese):--Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the increase of admission charges for adults from $8 to $10. I don't even object to the increase of admission charges for those above 60 years of age but I object to the increase in charges for children below 14 from $4 to $5. The reasons are as follows: first, it is a good thing for the UC to spend enormous amount of money to build recreational facilities and to organize activities for the physical and psychological well-being of the youngsters. The increase in admission charges of swimming pool would deter the youngsters from using these facilities. The UC should be held responsible for any misbehaviour of children causing trouble to society, who are deprived of using the swimming pools
Page 28 of 166