HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
465
(i) the number of dog owners prosecuted for offences relating to dog fouling last year; and
(ii) the strength and establishment of staff responsible for taking out such prosecution.
(b) Dog owners normally bring their dogs for strolling in the morning and at night; has the Department assigned more staff to undertake patrol duties during such period? Is there any 'dog fouling blackspots"? If yes, please list out the locations of these blackspots. Have any staff been assigned to monitor these blackspots?
(c) Has the Department considered imposing fixed penalty against dog owners for offences relating to dog fouling?
(d) Please give the number of dog excreta collection bins provided in each district.
(e) When will a review on the effectiveness of dog excreta collection bins be carried out?
MR. WONG Kwok-HING, VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE Public Health Select Committee, replied as follows:-This five-part question is about actions taken by the Urban Services Department in dealing with dog fouling offences.
In 1996, a total of 115 prosecutions were taken out against dog owners for allowing their dogs to soil the streets or public places. Prosecution statistics and existing establishment and strength of cleansing staff responsible for taking actions by districts against dog fouling have been tabled at this meeting for Members' reference. I should stress that district cleansing staff also perform other duties in addition to taking actions against dog fouling offences.
There are altogether 80 locations identified as dog fouling blackspots in the urban districts. These blackspots are closely monitored by district cleansing staff and their locations are also tabled today. To improve the situation, the Department provides either dog toilets or dog excreta collection bins at strategic locations. Handbills are distributed to dog owners periodically advising them on the proper way to dispose of dog excreta. Furthermore, blitz operations are mounted from time to time and during the more popular hours to take actions against offenders.
Concerning the introduction of a fixed penalty system for litter offence cases (including dog fouling) to replace the existing enforcement system, the pros and cons of the two systems had been thoroughly discussed by the Council in the early 90s. It was then decided that the existing system to issue a Form 1A to the offender requiring him to appear in court for hearing should be sustained. The main reservations on the introduction of a fixed penalty system for litter offences then were: firstly, a fixed penalty would mean less trouble for the offender as he would not have to appear in Court. The deterrent effect would therefore be less strong unless the penalty was set at very high level which would likely be considered inappropriate under Hong Kong's established legal and judicial system; and secondly, the system would not be
Page 421 of 498
Page 421 of 498