106
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.
do not think that is quite what I said. I think in paragraph 12 of my original memorandum, I suggested it might be desirable to charge much higher rates for supplies over and above the minimum, but I do not think I contemplated a nominal charge for a minimum supply. I think I had in mind the present charge for the minimum supply and something much higher for further supplies.
It has also been suggested that we ought to charge a flat rate and then to allow all water free. I think the answer to that is, simply, that we have not got the water and that we cannot afford to take the risk of the increase in consumption, which would probably result from the complete removal of any monetary deterrent to wastage of water. Here a picture has been painted of poor people being obliged to resort to hydrants. I am afraid I find that impossible to understand. At present, the poor tenant of a Chinese tenement house, if he pays for water at all, pays for it at 422 cents per 1,000 gallons. In future he is paying 25 cents per 1,000 gallons. I simply cannot understand why he should be more reluctant to use water from a tap when he gets it 17/2 cents cheaper. I think the whole criticism is based on a misconception; so far as the poor people are concerned, the free allowance means nothing to them, and the excess they have to pay for already.
Finally, the Hon. Dr. Li suggested that Government should make no profit. I cannot see where that profit has arisen. The only item of expenditure, which is not actual expenditure, is this contribution to renewals, but that is not profit sable by the Government for general purposes: it is allotted purely and simply to renew future water under- takings, and it is the property of the water undertaking. It is also contemplated that if there should be a small surplus of income over expenditure at the close of the year, that surplus will remain the property of the water undertaking and will not be available for the general purposes of the Government. There could be no profit item.
As regards the Fanling Golf Club, I understand there is a specific agreement with the Club whereby it is entitled to this particular allowance.
was no
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS.-The reason for this
free allowance to so-called
the Golf Club is due to the fact that when the Golf Club started in 1910 there Government supply at Fanling and the Club had to construct their own water supply. About 1920 or 1924, I think it was, quite a number of houses were built at Fanling and the Golf Club was approached to supply water, the Government being unable to do so, and the Club having, However, it was in fact, supplied water to one or two bungalows. found that the development was getting rather large and Government got into touch with the Golf Club and it was arranged that a valuation should be made of the Club's waterworks and instead of paying the Club for the waterworks we should give them free water allowance on the value of their works.
22
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.