HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
whilst Part III stipulates the new fees for the allocation of fixed pitches in all categories of fixed pitch hawker licences. With the exception of the fees for hawker licence fees are payable annually and will now range in cost from a temporary licence, deputy's permit, and a duplicate licence or permit, all $4,480 a year for a cooked food stall licence, as against the existing annual fee of $2,850, $620 a year for the Other Classes four by three fixed pitch licence, as against the existing annual fee of $390, to $120 a year for the ordinary itinerant hawker licence, the existing fee being $75.
The last general fee increase was promulgated as long ago as 1975, although some fees were increased in 1978. It is considered that the new fees are equitable taking into account the amount of business handled by hawkers and the increasingly heavy expenditure incurred by this Council on hawker management and control in the urban areas. During the current financial year, expenditure on this service will total about $45.4 million, whilst revenue from hawker licence and pitch fees is only expected to reach $10.5 million at current fee levels. This amounts to a subsidy by the rate-payer of nearly $35 million or 77 per cent. If the fees continue to remain unchanged during 1980-81, the deficit on hawker management and control in the urban areas will rise to over $40 million, a subsidy of over 79 per cent. The new fees to be applied from 1 March 1980 will produce additional revenue during 1980-81 of about $5.7 million and reduce the subsidy on this service to 70 per cent thus lightening the burden on the ratepayer. This will still mean however that the Council will be contributing approximately $34.6 million dollars to the total cost of hawker management and control in the urban areas which is estimated to amount to $50.8 million in 1980-81.
It is intended that the level of subsidy I have referred to should not in future be allowed to rise above 70%. Indeed every effort must be made to reduce this subsidy still further to prevent a continuing drain of the Council's resources on this service.
With these remarks, I beg to move.
MR. AMBROSE K. C. CHOI (in Cantonese):—As the Vice-Chairman of the Street Traders Select Committee I would like to second the motion.
CHAIRMAN (in English):—The motion has been proposed and seconded. It is now open for discussion. Does any member wish to take the floor? Mrs. ELLIOTT, please.
MRS. E. ELLIOTT (in English):—Mr. Chairman, I intend to oppose the motion today, as I opposed it in the closed door session of the select committee, for these reasons. Our hawker policy is mainly one of convenience. If we need more revenue, the answer is surely not just to increase the fees of those who
Page 71 of 136
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
streets for trade without paying for a licence to do so. There are hundreds of hawkers in the hawker permitted areas, where business is exceedingly good, who pay their fees to the triads but obtain service and protection from the Urban Council's General Duties Teams. These G.D. Teams are costly and the high costs are paid by the easy to catch licensed hawkers and, as we heard today, by the ratepayers. The triads have the benefits.
The last time licensed hawker fees were raised we were promised action on non-paying hawkers in the HPAs but no action was taken. Now, we are again being asked for higher licence fees and again we are promised action on HPAs. Although the speech made today doesn't mention any action to do anything about unlicensed hawkers, I want to see the action first this time. However, from information coming to me, it seems that the triads are getting geared up for any action to be turned to their own benefit again. Our delays are giving them the chance to organize their syndicate action with those police who have triad connections.
There are other sources of revenue still untapped if we would get up and do something instead of sitting collecting money from the easy to catch licensed hawkers. For example the San Po Kong and Kwun Tong factory areas are sadly lacking cooked food arrangements for workers. Our inflexible policy of not licensing cooked food stalls in industrial areas has led to a negative policy of search and destroy operations against hawkers attempting to fill the need. This destructive policy does nothing to increase revenue or to help the workers at lunch time, but it does increase the cost of negative control action paid for by licensed hawkers and by ratepayers.
Some of us have been pointing this out for over 10 years and so far we have received only unfulfilled promises. If land is so precious that sadly it cannot be used for people but only to produce revenue, then the ground floor levels of some buildings could be reserved for cooked food stalls to provide food for the workers. Moreover, in some newly developed areas, multi-storey development has increased the need for shopping facilities. Little attention has been paid to this need with the result that hawkers are attempting illegally to supply the everyday needs of the residents but when hawkers appear on the streets, they are rounded up only to return a few minutes later to carry on their much needed trade and wait for the next round-up.
This so-called control is wasting the income from licensed hawkers and ratepayers as well as adding a heavy burden to taxpayers in court costs when hawkers are charged for illegal trading. This increased charge today on licensed hawkers will offer no genuine protection against unlicensed hawkers, who block up many bazaar and market entrances. The increased charge will do nothing to protect itinerant hawkers who pay for a piece of paper which offers them no hawking site but leaves them to the mercy of the triads or to the discretion of the Police who may at any time charge them with obstruction.
I am not suggesting that these problems are easy to solve, I am merely suggesting that positive not negative measures are urgently needed. If some of our appointed members point out, as one of them did the last time I