1956 — Page 25

254

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

some $200,000 over the present stinking method of collection. A demonstration of the new conservancy vehicle was shown to members of the then Scavenging and Conservancy Select Com- mittee, and it was unanimously approved. That was over 3 years ago. Since then I have personally pressed for it on at least two occasions in this Council. If the pilot scheme is to be generally adopted it will take another 3 years before we see it in service for the whole of the Colony. From this, Mr. Chairman, may agree that the whole matter is most unsatisfactory. I hope from these comments that you may see your way in not pressing for a decision, but to let the Committee of the Whole have another meeting on this important matter at some future date when more information which we still seek is made available.

you

MR. AU:-1 have already made my position in this matter very clear right from the time of the original meeting of the Conservancy Select Committee. I am against isolated increases in this Council's fees and charges and I consider that the overall position of our services must be viewed as a whole. I appreciate that our insistence on maintaining the present conservancy fees in respect to schools has been recognized in this draft of the new by-laws and that it is not now proposed to increase school con- servancy charges. But we are not content with mere concessions. The increase which will produce a million dollars revenue will not go very far towards the Colony's total budget of $558,000,000.00 but it is the taxation that will hit a very great many poor people, and should not be introduced without very careful consideration as to the overall necessity. I protest that an attempt should be made to apportion that part of our total estimates that can be said to relate to conservancy and then solemnly told that conservancy is not paying for itself. The test is not the conservancy issue alone but the whole question of financing our Urban Services. I shall vote against the adoption of these by-laws.

Over

MR. BERNACCHI:-The effect of the legislation you propose in this Motion will be that all those persons now paying con- servancy charges will have their charges considerably increased. The number of persons involved is considerable. Many of them are forced to pay conservancy charges because they live in areas where Government main sewerage is not provided. Others pay conservancy charges because their landlords have not seen fit to install the necessary sewerage systems. His Excellency the

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

255

I am not

Governor in his legislative Council speech the other day said specifically that it was not proposed to introduce any new taxation. In our opinion the proposals which you are now putting forward amount to new taxation, not only do they amount to new taxation but they are a taxation on a strata of the community least able to bear increased expenses. Then it is said that the conservancy service is running at a loss and should pay for itself. concerned with any historical background why this Council provides a conservancy service, what I am concerned with is the question whether or not the Council's services as such are being run at a loss or a profit. Until very recently scavenging and con- servancy were both administered by the same Select Committee of this Council. It is true that the Select Committee has now been divided into two but it is equally true that they are both part and parcel of the Urban Services and 1 venture to think that in the lower grades particularly of Urban Services employees they are very much interchangeable, for instance, a man who is a scavenging coolie this week, may well find himself to be on con- servancy work next week. It is a recognized form of accounting throughout the British Commonwealth that Urban Services and public health are paid for by a particular form of taxation namely, the rates, and let us never forget that. In Hong Kong rates are charged, there is no question of only one general property tax. Whereas the landlord pays property tax, the form of agreement between landlord and tenant is usually of a nature that places the burden of the rates on the tenant, that is to say the same person as it is now proposed should pay an increased conservancy charge. The revenue to which this Council is entitled is therefore the rates, subject to what I shall say hereafter, licencing fees and mis- cellaneous charges. If we were to take the whole of the rates in addition to the other fees it would be seen that our Urban Services are running at a very considerable profit. However, we have in Hong Kong a Police Force which unlike many municipalities is entirely separated from the local Government and through its Commissioner of Police is responsible only to the Executive Council. It follows therefore that a proportion of the rates must in all fairness be deducted as being the proportion expendable on the Police Force. Even if we were to take only 50% of the rates I think that our Urban Services would be shown still to be running at a profit. It is therefore our opinion that before any attempt is made to increase the conservancy charges there should be a full survey of the services rendered to the public by this council, the

Page 25Page 26

01 357