1988 — Page 25

Page 25 of 182

42

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

MR. SAMUEL P. W. WONG, CHAIRMAN OF THE RECREATION SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows (in Cantonese):-This question concerns the effect on attendance at public swimming pools of the increase in admission fees intro- duced in June 1987.

The fee increase in 1987 applied only to gate admission and not to groups or other swimming pool users. My reply will therefore concentrate on the effect of the fee increase on gate admissions.

Attendance at UC swimming pools for the last 5 years was as follows:

2 million

1983

1984

3.8 million

1985

3 million

1986

3.5 million

1987

3.1 million

When considering these statistics it should be borne in mind that there has been a substantial increase in the number of private licensed swimming pools from 93 in 1985 to 137 in 1987, an increase of 47% thus giving rise to a corresponding decrease in the numbers likely to be using Council pools.

Admission fees over this period were increased in 1985 from $5 per adult and $2 per child to $6 and $3 respectively, and in 1987 further increased to $8 per adult and $4 per child. The 1985 increase was followed by a 21% decrease in usage (from 3.8 million to 3 million) and the 1987 increase by a 14% decrease in usage (from 3.5 million to 3.1 million). Of course, other factors, such as poor weather or fear of infection with skin diseases played a part in the decreases experienced in usage in 1984/85 and 1986/87, but there seems little doubt that the increase in admission fee was of significance.

It has already been decided that there will be no increase in admission fees for the 1988 swimming season. In addition a number of measures will be taken to improve the swimming pool complexes as well as to make current admission charges even better value. The most significant measures are:

(1) introduction of coin-operated turnstiles in the Lai Chi Kok and Victoria

Park swimming pools in 1987 and all other pools in 1988; (2) the introduction of single session opening arrangements at Lei Cheng Uk, Chai Wan, Kennedy Town, Lai Chi Kok, Tai Wan Shan and Pao Yue Kong in 1988, and 3 sessions at Morrison Hill, Victoria Park, Morse Park, Kowloon Tsai, Kwun Tong and Sham Shui Po swimming pools, the intention being to extend single session opening to all pool complexes in due course thus making it cheaper to use pools on an hourly basis; and (3) improvements will be made to the environment of swimming pools, in particular to introduce more shade and additional sun bathing facilities. These and other measures are designed to improve the level of service and value for money given to swimmers and to encourage increased attendance at the Council's swimming pools.

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 25 of 182

43

MR. LAM CHAK-PIU (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, a supplementary question. Since the usage rate is low, there must be other reasons but I am worried about the number of students. Secondly, it is said that there will be no fee increase this year and that there are improvements, it is really encouraging. However, just now the reply cited factors like inclement weather and other similar factors. Well, there is no definite proof that this had led to the decrease in patronage. For example, recently, it is said that frequent exposure to sunlight can lead to Cancer but still many people continue to go to the beaches. I think fee increase will affect the patronage to a certain extent. Moreover, the increase in private swimming pools does not have much bearing on the grass-root people in patronising the public swimming pools. I think the increase in fees will affect the usage rate for students. I want to know that has any survey been done to this effect?

(Miss Fox Pui-yee left the meeting at 3.25 p.m.)

MR. SAMUEL P. W. WONG (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, we don't have definite figures for dropping attendance which can single out between the student groups and the adults. However, our pool management staff perhaps can provide some information. As I have said there are many reasons for decrease in usage and generally speaking after a fee increase, people may be psychologically resistant to patronising the pools but the level of increase was not very great. For the children, the admission is only $4, which is not that high at the present standard of living. The subsidy level for pools annually reaches about 65%.

MR. WALTER M. SULKE (in English):—Mr. Chairman, isn't it significant that our income has gone down in spite of our raising the fees and that our subsidies had to be increased. Would my colleague not consider recommending the Committee to drop the charges especially for small children? Because for a family of four or five, $4 is a considerable amount of money and it is a commercial experience when you drop prices you really often maximize income.

MR. SAMUEL P. W. WONG (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, as I have just said, we raised the admission fee slightly but at the same time we have adjusted the sessional periods. From most pools, we have only a single session daily. It means for the patrons whether they are adults or children they get good value for money because after they pay once, they can stay there nearly half a day or even the whole day. As for the actual income, our Committee has discussed this issue. This figure has not risen or fallen sharply. In other words, the actual revenue has not increased significantly. Regarding reduction of fees next year or in the future for children, we can consider this.

THE HON. HILTON CHEONG-LEEN (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, can the Select Committee consider liaising with the Education Department and the District Boards? As we know, many children and students would like to use the pools

Page 25Page 26

Page 26 of 182