Page 28 of 35
260
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
I have mentioned before that the cost of conservancy rose in 1955/56 as a result of shorter working hours and extra staff. If Government fails to bring revenue into line with expenditure would it or, would it not resort to such measures as lengthening again the shortened working hours and dispensing with the services of some of the staff to reduce expenditure? Just imagine the hardship these people would have to face should these measures be resorted to.
The proposed increase, reckoned by the month, is actually insignificant, and I do not believe that those who are provided with this service have much cause for disapproval if they only take into consideration that the increase sought will mean that the proper standard of the service and, very important, the livelihood of those who are performing it will both be well maintained.
Mr. Chairman, for these reasons I support the proposals for increase.
CHAIRMAN:—Ladies and Gentlemen, in winding up this debate I would refer to certain arguments advanced by members who spoke in opposition to the proposed charges. One reason given for opposing the increased charges was to the general effect that it is wrong to review the financing of one function of the Urban Services Department, and not all the others. Whether one agrees with this or not the proposed revision of conservancy charges certainly does not preclude the Council from, nor does it commit it to, a review of charges for any other particular service. Considerations relevant to such a review would be, as they are here, the scope of the service, the extent to which it is proper for it to be met from general revenue, if at all, and the ability of the persons who benefit to pay for it. These are principles commonly taken into consideration in assessing the charges to be made for any special service. It is not a question at all of taxation.
But to say all this does not constitute any argument for deferring the very necessary increases with which we are concerned today. Conservancy has increasingly failed to pay for itself over the past few years and there is no justification for its continued failure to do so.
As to the broader question of the whole system by which the Department's functions are financed, suggestions have been made to the general effect that the whole range of the Urban Services Department's functions should be self-supporting; that total expenditure should be weighed against all departmental fees and charges and against a proportion of the rates, and that only then should a decision be taken as to whether specific fees and charges should be raised or lowered. If other departments of Government were to adopt this approach to their finances, I cannot imagine what the result would be. In any case, whatever justification there may be for such a review in the case of the Urban Council it does not make sense to say that for the moment necessary measures to tighten up revenue should be shelved; it could equally well be argued that measures to increase expenditure should not be contemplated, and Council does not need to be reminded that very substantial increases in next year's estimates of expenditure have been approved and have been included in the Colony's Budget.
I do not think that in this matter any useful purpose can be served by referring to the amount of rates to which this Council might theoretically be entitled. If other departments equally entitled were to take their share of those rates there would be no question of the Urban Services Department having sufficient to run at a profit.
MR. BERNACCHI:—I take it that that is your view, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN:—That is my view, yes. Dr. Lee and Dr. Woo referred to the new proposals for night soil collection by tanker lorries which it is hoped will be less offensive and slightly cheaper to operate than manual collection. Members are aware that a pilot project will be started soon in one district, and if it is successful it may be possible to operate the full scheme in three years' time. Calculations indicate that the new method may be cheaper by about 9 per cent and if this should prove to be the case, Members will naturally agree that the proposed increased charges would need to be re-examined at the end of this three-year period. In the meantime, there is no argument in my view for postponing them.
As to the question of whether these increased charges are too high, I cannot agree that they are so high as to upset the economic equilibrium of the family budget or to affect expenditure on food, and I cannot agree that any useful comparison can be made, as
261
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 29 of 35
0135
Page 28 of 35
260
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
I have mentioned before that the cost of conservancy rose in 1955/56 as a result of shorter working hours and extra staff. If Government fails to bring revenue into line with expenditure would it or, would it not resort to such measures as lengthening again the shortened working hours and dispensing with the services of some of the staff to reduce expenditure? Just imagine the hardship these people would have to face should these measures be resorted to.
The proposed increase, reckoned by the month, is actually insignificant, and I do not believe that those who are provided with this service have much cause for disapproval if they only take into consideration that the increase sought will mean that the proper standard of the service and, very important, the livelihood of those who are performing it will both be well maintained.
Mr. Chairman, for these reasons I support the proposals for increase.
CHAIRMAN :—Ladies and Gentlemen, in winding up this debate I would refer to certain arguments advanced by members who spoke in opposition to the proposed charges. One reason given for opposing the increased charges was to the general effect that it is wrong to review the financing of one function of the Urban Services Department, and not all the others. Whether one agrees with this or not the proposed revision of conservancy charges certainly does not preclude the Council from, nor does it commit it to, a review of charges for any other particular service. Considerations relevant to such a review would be, as they are here, the scope of the service, the extent to which it is proper for it to be met from general revenue, if at all, and the ability of the persons who benefit to pay for it. These are principles commonly taken into consideration in assessing the charges to be made for any special service. It is not a question at all of taxation.
But to say all this does not constitute any argument for deferring the very necessary increases with which we are concerned today. Conservancy has increasingly failed to pay for itself over the past few years and there is no justification for its continued failure to do so.
As to the broader question of the whole system by which the Department's functions are financed, suggestions have been made to the general effect that the whole range of the Urban Services
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
261
Department's functions should be self-supporting; that total ex- penditure should be weighed against all departmental fees and charges and against a proportion of the rates, and that only then should a decision be taken as to whether specific fees and charges should be raised or lowered. If other departments of Government were to adopt this approach to their finances, I cannot imagine what the result would be. In any case, whatever justi- fication there may be for such a review in the case of the Urban Council it does not make sense to say that for the moment necessary measures to tighten up revenue should be shelved; it could equally well be argued that measures to increase expenditure should not be contemplated, and Council does not need to be reminded that very substantial increases in next year's estimates of expenditure have been approved and have been included in the Colony's Budget.
I do not think that in this matter any useful purpose can be served by referring to the amount of rates to which this Council might theoretically be entitled. If other departments equally entitled were to take their share of those rates there would be no question of the Urban Services Department having sufficient to run at a profit.
man.
MR. BERNACCHI :— I take it that that is your view, Mr. Chair-
CHAIRMAN:- That is my view, yes. Dr. Lee and Dr. Woo referred to the new proposals for night soil collection by tanker lorries which it is hoped will be less offensive and slightly cheaper to operate than manual collection. Members are aware that a pilot project will be started soon in one district, and if it is success- ful it may be possible to operate the full scheme in three years' time. Calculations indicate that the new method may be cheaper by about 9 per cent and if this should prove to be the case, Members will naturally agree that the proposed increased charges would need to be re-examined at the end of this three year period. In the meantime there is no argument in my view for postponing them.
As to the question of whether these increased charges are too high, I cannot agree that they are so high as to upset the economic equilibrium of the family budget or to affect expenditure on food, and I cannot agree that any useful comparison can be made, as
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.