Page 49 of 195
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
69
68
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Party, that run the Review Committee, and the USD has promised us that they are looking into the matter. We will have to push this in the Markets and Street Traders Meetings, not only the Working Party but also in the original committee meetings. We must press on as it is a very important matter.
MR. TONG (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, I have one more question. As far as I know, in 1981 the Police had said that they wanted nothing to do with the hawker control matters. Of course, there are regular 6-monthly meetings but I do not know whether the Police will work according to their decision in 1981 and give up hawker control eventually and leave everything in the hands of the Urban Council. Have we spoken to the Judiciary about this? A lot of hawkers have been arrested and they have been let off with very low fines; this generally has no deterrent effect on illegal hawkers. So, I hope the department or our Review Committee will take note of that.
MRS. ELLIOTT TU (in English):---Mr. Chairman, Mr. TONG again is quite right in what he said. About referring matters to the Judiciary, I am afraid that we cannot tell the Judiciary what they should do about this question, but we will draw their attention by giving them a copy of our recommendations and from that, we hope that they will draw their own conclusions as to what action to take. Our legal adviser is making sure that they are kept in touch. It is also quite true that in 1981, the Police said that they would reduce their responsibility towards hawkers, but they did admit that the USD was not yet fully equipped to control the hawkers and therefore they must have a presence on the streets. We are not very satisfied with this recommendation which was made in 1981. We are not blaming them because this was the arrangement made between the department and the Police, but we are asking the Police to take more action and to cooperate more with the Urban Services Department and the Urban Council because unless they do so, I am afraid any kind of policy that we are going to make will fail. It is all very well to talk about management, but still, there will be some criminal elements involved and there will be some problems where the Police will be involved and therefore we want a definite promise from the Police and we are pushing for this.
2. MR. L. H. KWAN asked the following question (in Cantonese):—
(a) Does the Urban Council have the power to restrict or permit the erection of sign-boards in commercial districts?
(b) Would the neon-signs, if not properly maintained, along Nathan Road in Mong Kok and Yau Ma Tei cause environmental pollution?
DR. THE Honourable KIM Y. S. CHAM, Chairman of the Administration Select Committee, replied as follows (in Cantonese):—
The questions concern:—
(a) The Urban Council's power to restrict or permit the erection of sign-boards in commercial districts; and
(b) environmental pollution caused by improperly maintained neon-signs along Nathan Road in Mong Kok and Yau Ma Tei.
Under current legislation, it is illegal to erect any occulting sign or any neon sign which obstructs any fire escape or which interferes with road traffic. The Council has power to license 'sky signs' and may also take action by way of nuisance abatement notice to require the removal of any advertisements which, in the opinion of the Council, disfigure the natural beauty of any scenery or affect injuriously the amenity of any locality. In the early 1970s, the Council considered the advisability of amending the law to gain powers to require all advertisements to be licensed and recommended to Government that this be done, subject to Government meeting the costs of the exercise, in order to improve the visual impact of advertisements in Hong Kong.
In spite of the fact that the Council has the theoretical power to license sky signs, it has never exercised this authority because the definition of ‘sky sign' (formerly contained in the Advertisements Regulation Ordinance which was repealed in 1960 following the enactment of the Public Health and Urban Services Ordinance) no longer exists.
As early as 1977, the government confirmed that it could not commit resources to implement the Council's proposed licensing scheme for advertisement signs. As a result of this, it was envisaged that the cost of administering the licensing system would far exceed revenue. The Council therefore decided on 26 October 1977 that the licensing scheme for advertisement signs be dropped.
Following the abandonment of the proposal to license advertisements, it was for some years proposed to keep for the Council the power to require removal of advertisements considered injurious to the amenity of a locality. However, it was found in practice that many of these signs were old and ill-maintained neon signs whose removal required legal powers and engineering expertise not available to the Urban Services Department without assistance from other Government Departments. Because of this, the Council agreed in principle on 8 July 1985 to return to Government all its powers to control, restrict, or permit the erection, or to require the removal, of any advertisement.
MR. L. H. KWAN (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I have two supplementary questions. The first question is: has the Council discussed this matter with any Government departments, that is, which department should be responsible for the removal of these advertisement signs? Secondly, have we informed the general public of this transfer of power, so that if in future the public have any complaint, they would know which department to complain to?
DR. THE HONOURABLE KIM CHAM (in Cantonese): Firstly, it is the Building Ordinance Office of the Building Development Department at the moment which is responsible for dangerous signboards, the old signboards, and those that are dangerous to the general public. According to the Building Ordinance,
Page 49 of 195