CO129-572-16 Proposals to prevent wastage of water 30-3-1938 - 15-9-1938 — Page 12

96

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

In recommending to Government that the existing 2% rate- which has always been regarded by Government, as well as by the community, as a payment for a supply of water at the rate of 40 cents per thousand gallons up to a prescribed limit of supply-should be retained, but that the equivalent free supply should be withheld, he advanced various reasons, which I must deal with seriatum.

Firstly, the Financial Secretary says that the retention of the 2% rate may be regarded as a general charge to cover the cost of water supplied for communal purposes, hydrants, street cleaning, sewers, public buildings, free supplies to hospitals, etc. The answer is this: If the rates were reduced to 15%, the landlords would still be contributing nearly one-sixth of the total revenue of the Colony, and there can be no valid reason why the landlords, as such, should be made to pay for this "communal supply".

Secondly, the Financial Secretary says that provision has to be made in the water account for Military Contribution. He does not explain why landlords, as such, should bear the burden of Military Contribution in respect of the water revenue.

Thirdly, the Financial Secretary says that the rates at 17% are decidedly low. Here I do not know on what grounds this opinion is based. Over one-sixth of the total revenue of the Colony is derived from the 17% rates, and I submit that one-sixth cannot be regarded as a negligible contribution to revenue. As against the Financial Secretary's observation I may quote from the Economic Commission's Report:-

"Rates. Some years ago the rates on property were raised from 13% to 17% on the ground that the low exchange necessitated an increased revenue to cope with the large portion of the Colony's expenditure which is based on sterling. Since then exchange has risen again to its former level and property owners, who have suffered very heavily in the depression, are looking to Government to effect a reduction in rates to the former level of 13%. While it may not be possible to restore the old rate of taxation, we consider that in view of the severe depression in property it should be Government's aim to bring about some reduction at the earliest possible moment."

Fourthly, the Financial Secretary says that if the 2% rates were taken off, the standard rate for water must be increased. I venture to think that this point, even if sound, has no relevancy on the question of whether the revenue represented by the 2% rates should, or should not, be a burden of the landlords.

And, lastly, the Financial Secretary says that the fixed charge of 2% rates will help to stabilise the finances of the Water Department. Again this has nothing to do with the point whether retention of the charge is justified, since nothing is given in return.

12