Page 52 of 126

86

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

$300 and $2,500 and $5,000 plus six months imprisonment is very large. So in fact, the court can still impose much heavier penalties. That is why we do not think it an urgent matter to increase the penalty. I hope that this reply can satisfy Mr. CHAN Tak-chor.

MR. CHAN TAK-CHOR (in Cantonese):-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not satisfied with the reply at all. I would like to know whether the penalty will be reviewed. I am requesting for a review. I am not asking Mr. Lâu to comment on the penalty on the basis of previous statistics. Because it was recently reported in the press that newspaper hawkers can be fined $2,000. If we treat cooked food hawkers as a separate category of hawkers, we can certainly do better to have greater deterrent effect.

MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese): I thank Mr. CHAN for delegating the authority of review to me. But what penalty is imposed is the right of the judges who are independent. We really cannot review the penalties imposed by our judges. I can tell you that the highest fine is $2,500 on first conviction but $5,000 plus six months imprisonment for subsequent convictions. The review of the penalty should be the responsibility of the judiciary rather than the Urban Council. As regards the suggestion of treating cooked food hawkers as a separate category, as far as I know, for illegal cooked food hawkers once they are arrested they will be prosecuted under three offences. First one for illegal hawking, secondly obstruction of streets and thirdly for selling prohibited food. As for the other hawkers they will only be fined for obstruction of street and illegal hawking. So that is really different.

MR. MAN SAI-CHEONG (in Cantonese):—In the course of discussion, I notice that the trading commodities of these cooked food hawkers pose potential hazard to members of the public. In view of this, can we amend the law in order to increase the penalty. Also, can we do something to protect our GDTs? Can we take out higher insurance policy for them?

MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, I think in paragraph 5 of my reply, I have already said that clear instructions have already been given to our enforcement staff that for illegal cooked food hawking, details of the cases should be submitted to the court hoping that the court can impose appropriate sentence according to the seriousness of the case. As regards protection for our enforcement staff or whether or not we can take out higher insurance policy for them, I consider that all along we have been offering very good protection for our staff and up till now there has not been one single member of our GDTs who has not been properly taken care of when they have sustained injury.

MR. WONG HON-CHING (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question. If a member of the public is injured by hot soup or hot oil whilst members of GDTs in RSD or USD are chasing illegal hawkers, what will be our obligation? Do we need to compensate to that member of the public and can he or she apply to the Government for compensation?

Page 52 of 126

1

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 52 of 126

87

CHAIRMAN (in English):-Would you attempt to answer as it is not quite so simple as in question form?

MR. B. A. BERNACCHI (in English): Mr. Chairman, Mr. Wong asked about my question on hawkers whether two or three members of the GD Team could be present all the time i.e. preventive rather than what happens afterwards. Shouldn't that be the aim of the Council? I know it is not possible at present, but should not the aim of the Council be to have members of the GD Teams present all the time, then the likelihood of this type of incident would be greatly reduced?

CHAIRMAN (in English): Just now the question asked by Mr. WONG Hon-ching touched on the solution of an abstract legal case, so according to a standing order, this is not quite a supplementary question per se, but I leave it to the discretion of the Chairman to answer your question together with Mr. Brook BERNACCHI's question.

MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, when hawkers flee, they may give rise to injury sustained by a third party and the Urban Council has no obligation in this regard. But if it is the GDTs who have caused injuries to pedestrians, then we have an overall coverage in terms of insurance for such accidents. But in the past, no member of the public has come forward to serve as witnesses and to say that they have sustained injuries. As regards whether we can station 2 to 3 GDT members permanently on site to prevent accidents from happening, I think it is very difficult for the Council to make such a commitment because we do not know before hand where hawkers will be fleeing, or where injuries will occur. But if we can know for sure when and where such things will happen then such things will not have happened at all. So actually such cases emerge very suddenly. And it will be a very heavy financial burden on the Council if we are to have permanent staff on site. In order to minimise the number of accidents and injuries we really have to rely on the training provided to our GDTs and the GDTs' handling of individual cases on site. In fact, if members of the public patronize these illegal cooked food hawkers, they are putting their lives at risk and danger.

MR. WONG SHUI-LAI (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, at present GDTs conduct sudden raids in order to arrest illegal hawkers. Can we step up the frequency of their patrol? Is this feasible?

MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, as far as tactics are concerned, if you tell people before hand what you are going to do then you are like a tiger without teeth. You cannot solve the problem. Now we have already given very clear instructions to our GDT members telling them that whenever the arrest of illegal hawkers will give rise to public injuries, then the GDT members on site can make up their own mind as to whether or not they should chase the hawkers. That means they can give up, chasing the hawkers wherever there is a danger to the public. I think this is the most logical and

Page 52 of 126

Share This Page