250
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
premises. The great majority of premises concerned are domestic ones, and the charges quoted are per floor, irrespective of the number of pans on each floor. Where a family enjoys a whole floor to itself, the new charges represent an increase of about $1.67 per month in the family budget; but where—and this I am afraid is the more usual position—a floor is shared by 3 to 4 families, the extra charge amounts to as little as 50 cents a month per family. I do not think it can be maintained that this is a sum that even the poorer families in the community will be unable to afford.
I should also mention two other points: it is thought that schools should not be asked to pay these extra charges, if we are to avoid any increase, however small, in the cost of school fees. Secondly, opportunity has been taken, for the sake of simplicity, to abolish the differential charges for hill districts. Special charges would be equally justified for outlying areas, and services in such areas are nowadays virtually confined to temporary services supplied to building contractors. Any slight decrease in revenue resulting from this change will be offset by proposed increases in the charges for temporary services.
The proposals now embodied in these by-laws have been carefully considered in the Committee stage, and Council is therefore now invited to enact these by-laws.
DR. TENG seconded.
MR. P. C. Woo:-The Reform Club elected members oppose your Motion for the increase of conservancy charges.
Several of us will be speaking and giving various reasons for such opposition. If the By-laws that you now propose are adopted the effect will be that a large number of people living in the cities of Hong Kong and Kowloon will have to pay very considerable increases in their rates for conservancy; and may I say straightaway that at a time of economic depression in the Colony when there is considerable unemployment any increase—even a slight increase—is a great burden and hardship. The proposals of Government to permit increases in the standard rents of pre-war premises and decontrol of certain business premises met with the strongest possible public opposition and arguments were repudiated which were based upon such calculations as that the increases would only involve something like 50¢ per head per month. So strong was the opposition that the proposals were eventually dropped. Similarly in our view these proposed increases in conservancy charges hit many people who are already in considerable difficulties with respect to balancing their family budgets and are liable to affect and disturb the whole economic equilibrium of the Colony. For this reason alone we would oppose the proposed increases. There are however, other reasons. I would complain of the haste with which these proposals have been put up to us. I agree that we have now had two meetings of the Conservancy Select Committee and two Meetings of the Committee of the Whole, but the fact remains that no member of this Council heard mention of proposals to increase the conservancy charges until shortly before the Chinese New Year and we are to-day being asked to pass those proposals into law. On other occasions where much less is involved in terms of money we have been given far longer time to go into the various aspects of the case and we have been given a far stronger case for our consideration. In our view the proposals to increase conservancy charges should have been given publicity at a Meeting of Council and then the matter adjourned over to see whether there was any serious public reaction, and indeed we should either through the Conservancy Select Committee or some other Select Committee have received public representations on the matter. We are told that the reason for this haste is because it is necessary to have it brought into law before the beginning of the financial year. If that is so, then these proposals should have been put up to Members of this Council sometime last year and not a mere month or so ago.
Even on the merits of the case I would point out that conservancy charges have already been increased fourfold since the pre-war rates and that to my knowledge when I was sitting on the combined Scavenging and Conservancy Select Committee, we and the Government have been aware that these services were running at a loss for many years. We are not satisfied that the reasons given by the Department for such increases, based as they are upon a complaint that the conservancy charges are not enough to pay the conservancy services, is an adequate one, because we feel that the Council's services must be considered as a whole. I therefore strongly urge members to reject this Motion and to leave the conservancy charges as they are for the time being. In our view it is essential that public opinion be consulted in a matter of this nature.
251
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
250
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
premises. The great majority of premises concerned are domestic ones, and the charges quoted are per floor, irrespective of the number of pans on each floor. Where a family enjoys a whole floor to itself, the new charges represent an increase of about $1.67 per month in the family budget; but where and this I am afraid is the more usual position-a floor is shared by 3 to 4 families, the extra charge amounts to as little as 50 cents a month per family. I do not think it can be maintained that this is a sum that even the poorer families in the community will be unable to afford.
I should also mention two other points: it is thought that schools should not be asked to pay these extra charges, if we are to avoid any increase, however small, in the cost of school fees. Secondly, opportunity has been taken, for the sake of simplicity, to abolish the differential charges for hill districts. Special charges would be equally justified for outlying areas, and services in such areas are nowadays virtually confined to temporary services supplied to building contractors. Any slight decrease in revenue resulting from this change will be offset by proposed increases in the charges for temporary services.
The proposals now embodied in these by-laws have been carefully considered in the Committee stage, and Council is there- fore now invited to enact these by-laws.
DR. TENG seconded.
MR. P. C. Woo:-The Reform Club elected members oppose your Motion for the increase of conservancy charges.
Several of us will be speaking and giving various reasons for such opposition. If the By-laws that you now propose are adopted the effect will be that a large number of people living in the cities of Hong Kong and Kowloon will have to pay very considerable increases in their rates for conservancy; and may I say straightaway that at a time of economic depression in the Colony when there is considerable unemployment any increase— even a slight increase-is a great burden and hardship. The proposals of Government to permit increases in the standard rents of pre-war premises and decontrol of certain business premises met with the strongest possible public opposition and arguments were repudiated which were based upon such calculations as that
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
251
the increases would only involve something like .50¢ per head per month. So strong was the opposition that the proposals were eventually dropped. Similarly in our view these proposed in- creases in conservancy charges hit many people who are already in considerable difficulties with respect to balancing their family budgets and are liable to affect and disturb the whole economic equilibrium of the Colony. For this reason alone we would oppose the proposed increases. There are however, other reasons I would complain of the haste with which these proposals have been put up to us. I agree that we have now had two meetings of the Conservancy Select Committee and two Meetings of the Committee of the Whole, but the fact remains that no member of this Council heard mention of proposals to increase the con- servancy charges until shortly before the Chinese New Year and we are to-day being asked to pass those proposals into law. On other occasions where much less is involved in terms of money we have been given far longer time to go into the various aspects of the case and we have been given a far stronger case for our consideration. In our view the proposals to increase conservancy charges should have been given publicity at a Meeting of Council and then the matter adjourned over to see whether there was any serious public reaction, and indeed we should either through the Conservancy Select Committee or some other Select Committee We are told have received public representations on the matter. that the reason for this haste is because it is necessary to have it brought into law before the beginning of the financial year. If that is so, then these proposals should have been put up to Members of this Council sometime last year and not a mere month or so ago.
Even on the merits of the case I would point out that conservancy charges have already been increased fourfold since the pre-war rates and that to my knowledge when I was sitting on the combined Scavenging and Conservancy Select Committee, we and the Government have been aware that these services were
running at a loss for many years. We are not satisfied that the reasons given by the Department for such increases, based as they are upon a complaint that the conservancy charges are not enough to pay the conservancy services, is an adequate one, because we feel that the Council's services must be considered as a whole. I therefore strongly urge members to reject this Motion and to leave the conservancy charges as they are for the time being. In our view it is essential that public opinion be consulted in a matter of this nature.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.