Page 82 of 154
133
132
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
DR. HUANG (in Cantonese):- Mr. Chairman, I thank Mrs. ELLIOTT for her concern to the community, but I am glad to inform Mrs. ELLIOTT that during a T.V. discussion, the laundries, bathhouses and offensive trades under the control of our Committee have never been objected to by the community at large. I am sure that there is no objection in the trades.
The question was put.
The motion was carried with nineteen votes for and one abstention.
(4) MR. EDMUND W. H. CHOW, CHAIRMAN OF THE FOOD HYGIENE SELECT COMMITTEE, moved the following motion (in Cantonese):-
"RESOLVED that the Food Business (Amendment) By-laws 1975, the Frozen Confections (Amendment) By-laws 1975 and the Milk (Amendment) By-laws 1975 be made under Section 56 of the Public Health and Urban Services Ordinance, Cap. 132.”
He said (in Cantonese): - Mr. Chairman, as Chairman of the Food Hygiene Select Committee, I rise on the motion standing in my name.
If adopted, these amendments will mean that restaurants, food factories, siu mei and lo mei shops, milk factory licences, etc. will have their fees increased. I would like to take this opportunity to point out that the Committee has made a very careful and detailed study of this proposal to increase the rates and we have also had approval of the Standing Committee of the Whole Council before we move this motion today. Before then, the Food Hygiene Select Committee has over and over again raised this point as to the effects of various trades should their fees be increased. We have talked over the following points, namely:-
(a) Whether there should be an increase?
(b) Whether the rate of increase is reasonable?
(c) Whether it affects the consuming public?
(d) Whether it would constitute an indirect cause of inflation?
(e) Whether it imposes a heavy financial burden on the "little men"? and
(f) Whether the increase is timely?
I would like to answer and explain all these points now and take this opportunity to make everything clear to the general public.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
For the first item, we decided that an increase is necessary because fees for restaurants, food factories, etc. have not been increased for the past quarter century. Secondly, twenty-five years ago, the fees for administration and maintenance were much lower than now and there is a great difference. Thirdly, the income of the Urban Council might have a surplus, but since we have taken it from the society, we should use it on the society itself and not send it back to England as part of our reserves. Fourthly, we should not use the rate-payers' money to subsidize any trade, for instance, the food trade, because if we do this, we might be reprimanded for not carrying out our responsibilities and we cannot face these rate-payers or the society.
As for the rate of increase, this is proportionate to the areas used. If the trading area is small, we will count it as a small business and the rate of increase is very low. The daily increase is around 25¢ per day. If the trading area is large, we will think of it as a huge enterprise and the rate of increase is higher, but the maximum is around $7 per day. So we think that this rate of increase is very reasonable indeed.
Thirdly, as to whether this would affect the consumer. We have made an assumption, taking the large restaurant as an example, that is restaurants which need to have an increase of $7 per day on the fees. Assuming that the daily turnover is $20,000 or $30,000 and the number of customers patronizing the shops would be 2,000 to 3,000 per day. This would mean that besides those people in the trade themselves, these people will have to pay an extra $7 per day and even if they want to make their customers carry the burden, they cannot do it because they cannot devise a way of putting the cost on to the customers unless they use it as an excuse to get profits.
As to the fourth point, whether this would lead to inflation. As I pointed out that the daily increase is very very low, it is impossible to transfer the burden to the consumer, so I think it is not possible that this will be an indirect cause of inflation.
As to the fifth point, the Committee has paid special attention to the "little men" of the small business and to the problem of burdening financial responsibilities. If this causes a heavy burden on them, of course, we will not accept this proposal of increasing the fees. But as it is, the daily increase is now only around 25¢ per day, or at the most, a dollar a day according to the area, we think that they are able to pay the fees.
Lastly, about the point of whether such an increase is timely. At the beginning of this year, this Committee had already received the
Page 82 of 154
133
132
Page 82 of 154
133
132
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
DR. HUANG (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, I thank Mrs. ELLIOTT for her concern to the community, but I am glad to inform Mrs. ELLIOTT that during a T.V. discussion, the laundries, bathhouses and offensive trades under the control of our Committee have never been objected by the community at large. I am sure that there is no objection in the trades.
The question was put.
The motion was carried with nineteen votes for and one abstention.
(4) MR. EDMUND W. H. CHOW, CHAIRMAN OF THE FOOD HYGIENE SELECT COMMITTEE, moved the following motion (in Cantonese):-
"RESOLVED that the Food Business (Amendment) By-laws 1975, the Frozen Confections (Amendment) By-laws 1975 and the Milk (Amendment) By-laws 1975 be made under Section 56 of the Public Health and Urban Services Ordinance, Cap. 132.”
He said (in Cantonese): -Mr. Chairman, as Chairman of the Food Hygiene Select Committee, I rise on the motion standing in my name.
If adopted, these amendments will mean that restaurants, food factories, siu mei and lo mei shops, milk factory licences, etc. will have their fees increased. I would like to take this opportunity to point out that the Committee has made a very careful and detailed study of this proposal to increase the rates and we have also had approval of the Standing Committee of the Whole Council before we move this motion today. Before then, the Food Hygiene Select Committee has over and over again raised this point as to the effects of various trades should their fees be increased. We have talked over the following points, namely:-
(a) Whether there should be an increase?
(b) Whether the rate of increase is reasonable?
(c) Whether it affects the consuming public?
(d) Whether it would constitute an indirect cause of inflation? (e) Whether it imposes a heavy financial burden to the "little
men"? and
(f) Whether the increase is timely?
I would like to answer and explain all these points now and take this opportunity to make everything clear to the general public.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
For the first item, we decided that an increase is necessary and because fees for restaurants, food factories etc. have not been increased for the past quarter century. Secondly, twenty-five years ago, the fees for administration and maintenance were much lower than now and there is a great difference. Thirdly, the income of the Urban Council might have a surplus, but since we have taken it from the society, we should use it on the society itself and not send it back to England as part of our reserves. Fourthly, we should not use the rate-payers' money to subsidize any trade, for instance, the food trade, because if we do this, we might be reprimanded for not carrying our responsibilities and we cannot face these rate-payers or the society.
As for the rate of increase, this is proportionate to the areas used. If the trading area is small, we will count it as a small business and the rate of increase is very low. The daily increase is around 25¢ per day. If the trading area is large, we will think of it as a huge enterprise and the rate of increase is higher, but the maximum is around $7 per day. So we think that this rate of increase is very reasonable indeed.
Thirdly, as to whether this would affect the consumer. We have made an assumption, taking the large restaurant as an example, that is restaurants which need to have an increase of $7 per day on the fees. Assuming that the daily turnover is $20,000 or $30,000 and the number of customers patronizing the shops would be 2,000 to 3,000 per day. This would mean that besides those people in the trade themselves, these people will have to pay an extra $7 per day and even if they want to make their customers carry the burden, they cannot do it because they cannot devise a way of putting the cost on to the customers unless they use it as an excuse to get profits.
As to the fourth point, whether this would lead to inflation. As I pointed out that the daily increase is very very low, it is impossible to transfer the burden to the consumer, so I think it is not possible that this will be an indirect cause of inflation.
As to the fifth point, the Committee has paid special attention to the "little men" of the small business and to the problem of burdening financial responsibilities. If this causes a heavy burden on them, of course, we will not accept this proposal of increasing the fees. But as it is, the daily increase is now only around 25¢ per day, or at the most, a dollar a day according to the area, we think that they are able to pay the fees.
Lastly, about the point of whether such an increase is timely. At the beginning of this year, this Committee had already received the
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.