3
-
Governor's question-and-answer session in LegCo
Following is the transcript of the question-and-answer session by the Governor, the Rt Hon Christopher Patten, in the Legislative Council today (Wednesday):
Mr Henry Tang (in Chinese): Thank you Mr President. Mr Governor, in Hong Kong the business sector and also the restaurant business are for environmental protection and for polluter pays principle, and so we are for the paying of sewage charges to improve water quality. And yet, in relation to restaurants, they pay 40% of the total and as for trade effluent surcharge, they pay 75%. Commissioner for Administrative Complaints has said that the way it's calculated is wrong.
So my question is, when do you propose the principle polluter pays and yet you fail to come up with statistics to show that the trade is responsible for 75% of pollution. So is this actually against the polluter pays principle?
Governor: I must be careful how I reply because as the honourable gentleman may be aware, some of my best friends are restaurants!
I'm delighted that the Honourable gentleman has asserted once again his belief in the polluter pays principle and this Council has done the same on numerous occasions. In my experience, and I speak as a former Secretary of State for the Environment in Britain, it's not only in Hong Kong where people are happy to sign up to the polluter pays principle, in principle, but are sometimes a little less enthusiastic about it in practice. We all think that it's the next person who is the polluter and that our own habit is wonderfully benign.
But, of course, the honourable member raises an issue which is of concern to the business sector and I daresay to those who visit restaurants, particularly those who visit restaurants frequently and inevitably see the charges which restaurants have to pay whether for electricity or telephones or sewage reflected in their bills at the end of the meals they consume. Because there has been an argument about TES, about the total bill which is paid by restaurants, about their share of the cost of dealing with pollution and about the extent to which they were consulted when the TES was brought in, we've agreed to get on with our review of the TES, an independent survey whose conclusions we will want to share with the Council and with the community so that we can modify the TES if that is required. We have no interest whatsoever in sticking to a form of charge which may be scientifically flawed or unfair. We have to get things right and as soon as the survey is completed and properly and thoroughly done, we will want to share our conclusions with this Council and with the industry.