Page 90 of 194
148
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
hawker control is mainly now directed at controlling the illegal hawkers and not controlling the legal hawkers who really need little or no control, at least lesser control, so that when you say that we are subsidizing hawkers, have you analysed what money is spent on controlling illegal hawkers as opposed to the money spent on controlling legal hawkers?
MR. SHUM (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, in the control of unlicensed hawkers, I think it is right for me to say that the Urban Council is trying to protect the interest of the licensed hawkers. Especially the G.D.T. members whose main responsibility is to protect and patrol the areas where we have licensed hawkers. Of course, we can try to resite the unlicensed hawkers to off-street areas. Actually in controlling the unlicensed hawkers is at the same time helping the licensed hawkers. Of course, that will help to maintain law and order.
Mr. Bernacchi (in English):—Is that in fact right, surely we are controlling the illegal hawkers for the benefit of the citizens of Hong Kong rather than for the benefit of the legal hawkers which is a secondary matter?
MR. SHUM (in Cantonese):--Mr. Chairman, for instance, if we don't have G.D.T. members to patrol the markets or the designated licensed hawker site then I am sure the place will be patronized or used up by the unlicensed hawkers, and in doing that, the licensed hawkers will be affected. We often heard people complaining about that. If we have designated certain areas for the licensed hawkers and at the same time we are tolerating the unlicensed hawkers trading there, then I am sure the licensed hawkers will be affected. So in doing that we are helping the licensed hawkers indirectly.
2. MR. WALTER M. SULKE asked the following question (in English):--Has the raises which were effected on the 1 April this year in the entrance fees to swimming pools, other sports facilities, bath houses, pleasure ground fees etc influenced attendance and is the income derived from these raises up to forecast?
MR. KENNETH T. C. Lo, CHAIRMAN OF THE RECREATION SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows (in English):-The question is in two parts. The first concerns whether the fee increases which came into effect on 1 April this year for bath houses and recreation facilities have influenced their attendance. The second asks whether the income derived from these increases is up to forecast.
As bath-houses are not my speciality and as the Council neither regards them as recreational facilities nor charges for their use, I shall disregard them in the context of this reply.
Perhaps I could take the second part first. Fees were revised for a number of recreational facilities in April this year with the main aim of ensuring that the Council subsidy towards their cost remained at approximately the same proportion as hitherto. The primary objective of the exercise is, therefore, to raise additional revenue. However, for costing purposes, the revenue forecast for this financial year in this regard assumed the same level of attendance as the previous year. Revenue figures now available which relate to the first seven months of 1983-84 show a different pattern of usage of these facilities. Where attendance rates are significantly different from previous years they will be explained in the latter part of this reply.
The relevant statistical information on attendance rates in respect of the full range of recreational facilities is represented graphically on a series of charts which are tabled. They show the usage of Indoor Games Halls, squash courts, tennis courts, lawn bowls, the putting green, obstacle golf-courses and swimming pools for the months of April to October 1983 this year and the corresponding period in 1982.
From the graphs for Indoor Games Halls, squash courts and tennis courts, Members will note that attendance rates have generally gone up, indicating general acceptance of the order of the fee increases.
As regards the graph for lawn bowls, Members may recall that the revision in charges from April was more a revision of system than an increase in fees. The effect of the new system is to replace the old 'player rate per hour' by a 'rink rate per hour. A straight comparison is, therefore, not valid in this case. Members will note that there is a healthy rate of increase of usage of the green since April.
As regards the Council's putting green and the two obstacle golf courses the pattern has, for several years, been one of reducing usage and the graphs reflect this continuing trend. I, frankly, doubt whether the present $2 per head charge has made any impact on usage of the putting green. In any event the Council has already taken a decision to convert the green for lawn bowls. The obstacle golf-courses (at Morse Park and Shek O) are essentially landscape features and not primarily intended to generate revenue.
As regards swimming pools, there has been a very significant overall decline in usage although figures for the first month following the increase in charges show attendance went up by some 65% suggesting that people were not deterred by them. By mid-May, rumours were rife that infectious disease could spread in public swimming pools and pool attendance dropped. These rumours were totally unfounded. Nevertheless, though attendance did pick up during the summer months it never reached last year's level. The same rumours also affected the beaches for which, of course, there are no charges. As a number of factors are brought into play including, of course, the awful weather at the beginning of the swimming season, it is difficult to be precise as to whether the fee increases played any significant role in this. We will be in a better position to judge at the end of the next swimming season.
To sum up, may I say that with the possible exception of swimming pools, the revision of fees for recreational facilities introduced in April, appears to have little overall adverse effect on attendance at the Urban Council's venues.
149
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 90
Page 91
Page 91 of 194
Page 90 of 194
148
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
hawker control is mainly now directed at controlling the illegal hawkers and not controlling the legal hawkers who really need little or no control, at least lesser control, so that when you say that we are subsidizing hawkers, have you analysed what money is spent on controlling illegal hawkers as opposed to the money spent
on controlling legal hawkers?
MR. SHUM (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, in the control of unlicensed hawkers, I think it is right for me to say that the Urban Council is trying to protect the interest of the licensed hawkers. Especially the G.D.T. members whose main responsibility is to protect and patrol the areas where we have licensed hawkers. Of course, we can try to resite the unlicensed hawkers to off- street areas. Actually in controlling the unlicensed hawkers is at the same f
helping the licensed hawkers. Of course, that will help to maintain law and
order.
Mr. Bernacchi (in English):—Is that in fact right, surely we are
controlling the illegal hawkers for the benefit of the citizens of Hong Kong rather than for th benefit of the legal hawkers which is a secondary matter?
an
MR. SHUM (in Cantonese):--Mr. Chairman, for instance, if we don't have: G.D.T. members to patrol the markets or the designated licensed hawker site then I am sure the place will be patronized or used up by the unlicense hawkers, and in doing that, the licensed hawkers will be affected. We ofter heard people complaining about that. If we have designated certain areas fe the licensed hawkers and at the same time we are tolerating the unlicensed hawkers trading there, then I am sure the licensed hawkers will be affected. Sc. in doing that we are helping the licensed hawkers indirectly.
2. MR. WALTER M. SULKE asked the following question (in English):--Ha:: the raises which were effected on the 1 April this year in the entrance fees : swimming pools, other sports facilities, bath houses, pleasure ground fees et influenced attendance and is the income derived from these raises up to forecast'
MR. KENNETH T. C. Lo, CHAIRMAN OF THE RECREATION SELECT COMMITTEE. replied as follows (in English):-The question is in two parts. The first concer whether the fee increases which came into effect on 1 April this year for bait houses and recreation facilities have influenced their attendance. The secon: asks whether the income dervied from these increases is up to forecast.
As bath-houses are not my speciality and as the Council neither regards the as recreational facilities nor charges for their use, I shall disregard them in th context of this reply.
Perhaps I could take the second part first. Fees were revised for a number recreational facilities in April this year with the main aim of ensuring that it: Council subsidy towards their cost remained at approximately the san proportion as hitherto. The primary objective of the exercise is, therefore. re
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 90 of 194
149
to raise additional revenue. However, for costing purposes, the revenue forecast previous year. Revenue figures now available which relate to the first seven for this financial year in this regard assumed the same level of attendance as the months of 1983-84 show a different pattern of usage of these facilities. Where attendance rates are significantly different from previous years they will be explained in the latter part of this reply.
The relevant statistical information on attendance rates in respect of the full range of recreational facilities is represented graphically on a series of charts which are tabled. They show the usage of Indoor Games Halls, squash courts, tennis courts, lawn bowls, the putting green, obstacle golf-courses and swimming pools for the months of April to October 1983 this year and the
corresponding period in 1982.
From the graphs for Indoor Games Halls, squash courts and tennis courts, Members will note that attendance rates have generally gone up, indicating general acceptance of the order of the fee increases.
As regards the graph for lawn bowls, Members may recall that the revision in charges from April was more a revision of system than an increase in fees. The effect of the new system is to replace the old 'player rate per hour' by a 'rink rate er hour. A straight comparison is, therefore, not valid in this case. Members will note that there is a healthy rate of increase of usage of the green since April. As regards the Councils putting green and the two obstacle golf courses the pattern has, for several years, been one of reducing usage and the graphs reflect this continuing trend. I, frankly, doubt whether the present $2 per head charge has made any impact on usage of the putting green. In any event the Council has already taken a decision to convert the green for lawn bowls. The obstacle golf-courses (at Morse Park and Shek O) are essentially landscape features and not primarily intended to generate revenue.
in
As regards swimming pools, there has been a very significant overall decline usage although figures for the first month following the increase in charges show attendance went up by some 65% suggesting that people were not deterred by them. By mid-May, rumours were rife that infectious disease could spread in public swimming pools and pool attendance dropped. These rumours were totally unfounded. Nevertheless, though attendance did pick up during the summer months it never reached last year's level. The same rumours also affected the beaches for which, of course, there are no charges. As a number of factors are brought into play including, of course, the awful weather at the beginning of the swimming season, it is difficult to be precise as to whether the fee increases played any significant role in this. We will be in a better position to judge at the end of the next swimming season.
To sum up, may I say that with the possible exception of swimming pools, the revision of fees for recreational facilities introduced in April, appears to have little overall adverse effect on attendance at the Urban Council's venues.
Page 90Page 91
Page 91 of 194
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.