CO129-572-16 Proposals to prevent wastage of water 30-3-1938 - 15-9-1938 — Page 13

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

97

I come now to the figures as set out in the Financial Secretary's Memorandum.

Dealing first with Revenue, the Financial Secretary estimates that revenue for water for 1937, on the basis of the new charges, amounts to net $2,172,927, which includes a sum of $1,498,200 for charges for consumption, the balance being made up by the 2% rates and by meter rents, etc., less military contribution at 20%.

From the official answers to my questions mentioned above, it would appear that the total revenue from the water service is $1,617,633.34, made up of $930,900 calculated on the basis of the new charges for the period 1st January to 31st July, 1938; an actual receipt of $243,841.02 for meter and fire service rentals; and $442,892.32 being the 2% rates. Although it was pointed out that meter and fire service rentals being payable in advance, the total figure for the whole year would not greatly exceed the figure for the seven months ($243,841.02), I cannot but feel that this is too conservative an estimate, for I should imagine that the number of people who commence new businesses, or take new meters for domestic supplies for a period of five months, cannot be negligible. Apart from this it would seem that, based on the seven months' figures as above stated, the revenue for the whole year will be $1,595,828.57 for water charges, $243,841.02 for meter and fire service rentals, and $759,243,97 being 2% rates, making a total of $2,598,913.56. It will thus be seen that this total exceeds the Financial Secretary's estimate of $2,172,927 by $425,986.56.

I am aware that the future revenue for water will be adversely affected by the water restrictions now in force. But the Financial Secretary obviously did not base his estimate of water revenue on the possibility of drastic water restriction, and I am content to show that, apart from water shortage which could not have been foreseen, his estimate is on the conservative side by over $400,000.

for

Coming now to Expenditure, I submit that actual detailed figures by way of proper balance sheets, etc., alone can prove whether the estimates of $330,627 for staff charges, and $591,834 maintenance charges, are, or are not, excessive. But the proposed charge of 2% (for 50 years) on $15,578,000 on "expenditure from Revenue estimated up to the end of 1937" amounting to $311,560 cannot, in my submission, possibly be justified. If $311,560 is struck off from the expenditure side, it is obvious that the water revenue can be reduced by this amount.

No figures have been produced to show how the alleged past capital expenditure out of Revenue of $15,500,000 is made up, and I, for one, am curious to see those figures. The Economic Commission's Report states that the Commission was informed that the capital outlay, prior to loans, was $10,000,000. If $10,000,000 does really represent the whole of the capital outlay on waterworks from the beginning of