Page 138 of 606
160
PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
(5) MS. ADA Wong YING-KAY moved:—
'In order to help ease the difficulties faced by businesses in Hong Kong, RESOLVED that the Council reduce every type of licence fees by 30%, with a view to relieving the public of their burden during these difficult times.'
She said (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, at the meeting of the Standing Committee on 7 July, we endorsed that the rental of the Council's market stalls be reduced by 30%. The motion I move today is to sustain our efforts in this direction by urging Members to support the reduction of various licence fees by 30% so as to relieve the public of their burden during these difficult times.
As a licensing authority, the Council issues more than 25,000 licences and permits every year. There are 18 different types of hawkers' licences under the Markets and Street Traders Select Committee held by small traders running cooked food stalls, snack stalls, fixed stalls, newspaper stands, etc. Under the Public Health Select Committee, there are restaurant licences, food and drinks licences and licences covering other trades and public places. Most of them are small and medium-sized businesses. In the prevailing economic slump, these small businesses face the greatest difficulties.
The Council receives about $179m every year from these 25,000-plus licences, 90% of which comes from hawkers' licences, restaurant licences and food and drinks licences. In the past three years, there were substantial increases in the fees of these licences, including the 18% in respect of the general licence fee for 1995/96 and the 10% last year (excluding that for hawkers' licences).
The financial implication of my motion (if the 30% reduction was endorsed) would be an annual loss of some $53m. I believe that each and every one of you have received a letter from the Deputy Director of Urban Services. I don't understand why, although the letter is addressed to me, every one of you have a copy without my consent. Members are aware of the stance of the Department, which lobbied and asked Members whether such a move should be made in face of our present financial difficulties. I wish to respond to the letter of the Deputy Director in three points. I also hope that Members will not be misled by the letter.
Firstly, it is correct that income would be reduced this time, but I do not agree with the Deputy Director's argument that the loss in income would result in less financial provision available for the delivery of and improvement to the municipal services for the public. Neither do I agree that a reduction in the licence fees would result in a heavy financial burden to the Council. Just a couple of weeks ago, the Department recommended the provision of some $40m to support the CE's 'Healthy Living into the 21st Century' campaign, which includes activities which are not a must, such as increasing the frequency of cleaning. If our financial situation was so tight, how come the Department could afford a lump sum provision of some $40m? And, since they could
Page 138 of 606
50 UI 606
160