TNAG-1723-FCO40-2436-Minutes-and-Hansards-of-the-Legislative-Council-of-Hong-Kong-1988 — Page 58

634

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL - 13 January 1988

For many years, the paltry allocation given to the Lotteries Fund has result in inadequate capital grants for the many social welfare projects which of suffered low service standards. Sir, I wish to reiterate my proposal put forth in the Budget debates of the last two years-that 10 per cent of the total proceeds of the lotteries be allocated for the Lotteries Fund, with 5 per cent earmarked for capital grants and 5 per cent for improvement of services. The latter portion could be put aside as a revolving fund designated for upgrading the quality of welfare services for which there is no other available funding source. In closing, Sir, I would urge Government to consider seriously in the near future whether or not the 10 per cent allocation is a legitimate, reasonable claim on the Mark Six lotteries held in the name of the Lotteries Fund.

Sir, with these reservations, I support the motion.

CHIEF SECRETARY: Sir, I have listened with interest to Mr. Hui Yin-fat's plea that the allocation of lotteries proceeds to the Lotteries Fund should be increased. I must say I was somewhat surprised to hear his introductory remark that he believed that the popularity of the Mark Six lottery was due to the fact that many people wished to contribute to charity. I would have thought that at least the prospect of winning a prize contributed somewhat to people's motivation.

In addition, he has somewhat understated the fund's contribution to the social welfare sector. Over the past three years, the Lotteries Fund has spent or committed for expenditure the following amounts for capital projects in this sector. In the fiscal year 1986–87, some $69 million was spent and $123 million committed to expenditure. The corresponding figures for 1987-88 are $90 million for expenditure and $142 million on commitments and for 1988–89, $105 million for expenditure and $170 million on commitments.

Sir, these figures clearly show an impressive increase in the contribution by the fund to the development of the social welfare sector. Furthermore, Sir, I understand from the Secretary for Health and Welfare, that no projects have been delayed through the lack of capital funding. In addition, this sector has benefitted by over $10 million from the Jockey Club's shopping lists over the period 1986-87.

The level of betting duty is a matter which might more appropriately be dealt with by my friend the hon. Financial Secretary in the context of a Budget debate. Mr. Hur's suggestion for the fund to finance more recurrent costs has been made during the past two Budget debates and has been dealt with by the Secretary for Health and Welfare. In the 1987 debate, he pointed out that the present arrangements, whereby grants are mainly restricted to capital projects, had indeed been approved by this Council. He confirmed that consideration had been given to financing from the fund more recurrent costs but this was felt to be inappropriate since additional recurrent expenditure almost invariably involved a permanent commitment.