Motion Debate on "Franchised bus fares" (14 December 2005)

MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): President, Ms Miriam LAU has just presented our views and proposed an amendment on behalf of the Liberal Party.

She then asked Mr LEE Wing-tat what his amendment to her amendment actually proposes. Perhaps let me repeat the question posed by Ms Miriam LAU just now. She wishes Mr LEE Wing-tat to clarify if, provided that his proposals are not sweeping in nature, bus companies will be given the flexibility to implement the proposals according to their abilities. If Mr LEE Wing-tat's suggestion is to offer concessions on some of the routes, the Liberal Party may consider it.

President, I think the way in which this motion is being dealt with today has set a good precedent. In the past, various political parties would know well in advance the amendments and wordings proposed by other people and they would decide before the debate whether they would vote in favour of or against them or if they would abstain. However, this time, we are willing to give Mr LEE Wing-tat the benefit of doubt and let him clarify before we make a decision.

Since Mr LEE Wing-tat agreed with what Ms Miriam LAU said, I will make a decision on behalf of the Liberal Party: We will support Mr LEE Wing-tat's amendment. In the amendment proposed by Mr LEE Wing-tat, there are two points which are not mentioned in Ms Miriam LAU's amendment and I hope Mr LEE Wing-tat will also take note of them. Parts (d) and (e) of Ms Miriam LAU's amendment propose that the introduction of a monthly Free-ride Day for the elderly and travel concessions for people with disabilities be studied. Mr LEE Wing-tat has deleted the word "studying". That means no study is necessary and these measures should simply be introduced.

President, to look into this matter, I have met Mr John CHAN of the Kowloon Motor Bus Company (1933) Limited (KMB) to understand some aspects of its operation in detail. One of the issues he raised was the definition of people with disabilities. If we define them as wheel-chair bound people, there would not be any problem and the KMB would be able to comply.

However, if people with impaired hearing or impaired vision are also considered people with disabilities, then the number will be in the order of hundreds of thousands. In that case, this matter would become thorny. Therefore, I believe studies should be conducted on the issue of offering concessions. It is possible for us to support studying the introduction of concessions and requesting that the concessions be implemented by all means, however, people with minor problems should not be included in the definition of people with disabilities.

President, after making comments that Mr LEE Wing-tat would love to hear, I will next say something that may not please him. I believe the three Members, that is, Mr Andrew CHENG, Mr WONG Kwok-hing and Mr LEE Wing-tat, probably have never had any experience in doing business. They think that by doing so, bus companies can increase their business turnover, that is, by offering more concessions, more customers will patronize them and if all elderly people can have free rides on Sundays, business turnover will also increase. Since they have asked bus companies to do so, they can also ask the MTR Corporation Limited, minibuses and taxis to do the same. If all of them offer concessions, which of them will see an increase in patronage? I believe the number of passengers is finite, unless elderly people usually do not go out on Sundays but given the free-ride concessions, they all turn out in force. I believe that even if they choose to go out, they still have to have meals. Does anyone mean that they do not have to have meals if they go to Central? The food sold in the eating establishments in Central is just as expensive. The pie can only be that large. Do you think that by fiddling with things, more business can be generated?

President, the most controversial part of the motion is part (a), which is about a reasonable method of fare reduction, including offering, in the return journey, a reduction of not less than 10% of the fares for both the forward and return journeys taken. On this point, the Liberal Party is of the view that it is necessary to strike a balance between a reasonable principle in business operation, namely, that of getting returns, and the interests of the public. Take the KMB as an example, I have made detailed enquiries with the company and it also stated in its annual report last year that the turnover of the KMB - and by that I mean its bus service operation only and its other investments are excluded - was some $5 billion to $6 billion last year. How much profit did it make? Some $500 million to $600 million. Put simply, if we request that its fares be reduced by 10%, it seems this is not much on the face of it. If the fare is $20, to reduce it by 10% is to reduce it by $2 and it is still necessary to pay $18. If the fare is $10 and $1 is taken off it, this is only a trivial amount, so why would anyone object to this and why does the Liberal Party also have reservations about this proposal? This is because if the fare is reduced by 10%, although it appears that only $1 or $2 are involved, if a turnover of $5 billion or $6 billion is reduced by 10%, that means $500 million or $600 million is taken off automatically. A company that originally makes $600 million in profit will immediately become unprofitable.

I also noticed that several Members who spoke just now attach great importance to workers' rights. They often demand that bus companies treat their employees well and hope that bus drivers and the employees of bus companies can be given a pay rise and more fringe benefits. They want the best of both worlds. What should be the course of action then? If an across-the-board reduction is really made, the turnover of $5 billion to $6 billion would be reduced by $500 million to $600 million and the profit of $600 million will be reduced to naught. If bus companies are only requested to forego only $50 million or $60 million of their profit of $500 million to $600 million, rather than to reduce all fares across the board by 10% such that it will lose $500 million to $600 million all of a sudden, which is tantamount to wiping out nearly all the profits made originally, I believe it is possible to consider this suggestion and the Liberal Party will also support the suggestion that bus companies put this into practice as far as possible. On the face of it, the proposal may sound marvellous, however, in reality, this is in fact impractical and it is also impossible for bus companies to do so.

The KMB also said that the proposal on which they are trying to reach an agreement with the Government involves the use of about $50 million or $60 million to offer concessions. They think that since they have made a profit of $500 million to $600 million, they can shell out $50 million or $60 million to offer concessions. As regards in what way the concessions should be offered, of course, we in this Council and the Government can also play a part by expressing views. Our suggestion is to do so as far as possible. How should this amount of $50 million or $60 million be allocated? Should it be allocated to people with disabilities, elderly people, long-haul passengers, short-haul passengers or passengers interchanging to other bus routes? Of course, it is necessary for the Panel on Transport to work this out with the Government and bus companies.

In sum, in order to enable the passage of the motion, the Liberal Party supports the further amendment made by Mr LEE Wing-tat to the amendment proposed by Ms Miriam LAU to Mr Andrew CHENG's motion. However, on the four words "studying the introduction of" in parts (d) and (e), although we do not wish to oppose Mr LEE Wing-tat's view again after deliberating this matter here, at the same time as we support his amendment, we wish to point out that concerning the offer of concessions, it would be better if they can consider conducting studies before offering concessions. Thank you, President.