CO129-572-16 Proposals to prevent wastage of water 30-3-1938 - 15-9-1938 — Page 11

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

575

95

that 32% of the metered properties did not exceed their valuation allowance, and I should like to know whether this percentage still holds good and, if so, whether the properties affected are wholly situated within the Peak and Upper Level districts.

This, as I have said, is only a minor point. The substantial question is whether the public has to pay under the new scheme more than under the existing system. If the former, the present scheme is not an alleviation but a burden.

It is suggested that the poor in the Colony will pay less since, although free allowance has been abolished, they will pay at the rate of 25 cents per thousand gallons from the first gallon, instead of 422 cents for excess water. But it seems clear to me that unless the consumption in relation to any particular assessed premises is very greatly in excess of the free allowance, the old rates are much more favourable. The free allowance is based on 40 cents per thousand gallons: it is obvious that in order to make the difference of 15 cents per thousand gallons count in favour of the consumer, the amount of gallons consumed in excess of the free allowance allowed must be very considerable. The inescapable fact remains that out of the 68% consumers who do exceed the free allowance, all whose excess consumption is at a rate insufficient to neutralise the effect of free allowance must pay more under the new scheme.

I therefore submit that, on the whole, it is more than likely that the consumer will pay more under the new scheme than he has been paying under the old.

I am aware that from the answers given to my questions in this Council on the 1st September, 1938, it would appear that, on the basis of the figures for the first seven months of 1938, the Government obtained a higher revenue in respect of water under the old scheme than it would have done on the basis of the new charges.

It was, however, pointed out in the official answers that the revenue based on the new charges could only be approximate since "exact figures would take over a month to work out, as the recorded consumption through every meter would have to be taken”.

But this question, though important on the merits of the scheme, is not really fundamental; because once we accept, as I do, the principle that the consumer should pay for all current water charges, the question must assume a new form, not whether the new charges are higher than the old, but whether the new charges need be so high on the figures presented, and on the assumption that the consumer has to foot the bill. I propose to deal with this question, but before doing so I wish to dispose of one point, as to which I find myself in acute disagreement with the views of my Honourable friend the Financial Secretary.

11