Page 271 of 485
246
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
department's administration. USD will only provide information to AFD but whether additional charges are laid, it's up to the AFD to decide. Of course, I can pass Mr. LEE's views to AFD for their consideration. Legally speaking, I feel that laying additional charges can be done but it is up to the AFD to decide whether that be done or not.
MR. LEE Kwok-KEUNG (in Cantonese):—Just a point of clarification, we are not requesting the AFD to prosecute the hawker. We just want the Department to pass the information to them to enable them to make decisions. If we have the evidence, we can furnish the AFD with information. If the AFD does not take any action, of course we can't force them to do so. But the most important thing is to supply information to the AFD, I want to know clearly whether we will do so or not. If we are not doing this today, shall we consider offering information to the AFD in future?
Mr. Ip Kwok-CHUNG (in Cantonese):—In fact as I have said just now, the Department will provide AFD with information such as the location of trading etc. However, whether they will take any prosecution or follow up action is entirely their own business.
MR. ALBERT LAI WING-LIN (in Cantonese):—Questions raised by Members just now sparked off this question of mine. When we conduct raids against unlicensed hawkers, if we seize toys not up to the safety standard, will we pass the information to the relevant departments concerned for taking prosecution actions?
MR. IP KWOK-CHUNG (in Cantonese):—This question is out of the scope of today's discussion, I don't think it's appropriate to answer here. However, this can be considered. As it concerns the legislations on trade marks enforced by the Trade Department, we can pass the information to that Department. I emphasize once again that this is not USD's responsibility but we do not object to passing such information to other government departments concerned.
3.
MR. WU CHI-WAI asked the following question (in Cantonese):— According to the existing Urban Council Legislation, the Urban Services Department may prosecute shop operators for displaying goods on the public pavements if they cause obstructions to the department in providing cleansing services and if the shop operators fail to make any improvement in response to the advice given by the Department. I would like to ask:
(a) In the past 3 years, how many shop operators were prosecuted? How many staff were involved in each operation? What are the average cost incurred and fine imposed in respect of each prosecution?
(b) Can the existing prosecution procedures be simplified? If yes, please explain in detail. If no, please give details of the difficulties involved.
Page 271 of 485