Page 82 of 606
PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
103
meters for the purpose of the charging of fees for the use of fixed pitches for hawking and related matters.
The first part of the question enquires why the Council has not enforced the relevant legislation since enactment in 1972. I understand that back in 1969 the then CUC pressed for the provision of meters for hawker pitches because in his opinion this would reduce the hawker problems considerably. Hence, in a consolidated amendment to the old Hawker By-laws, the Council included these by-laws in the amended legislation for enactment in 1972. The then Hawkers Select Committee considered the use of hawker meters for a pilot scheme at suitable off-street sites in 1973. However, there were practical operational problems to implement the scheme, such as the resources required for collection of fees, policing and maintenance of hawker meters far exceeded the estimated revenue. Moreover, enforcement action on the ground to maintain order and to monitor the use of the meters might lead to serious confrontations. After a re-appraisal in 1976, the Hawkers Select Committee decided to abandon the scheme. While the SCWC at the meeting on 15 November 1977 endorsed the decision of the Hawkers Select Committee not to proceed with the pilot scheme, it directed to retain the relevant provisions because of the possibility of reviving the proposal for hawker meters in future. However, since then there has been no further discussion on this subject.
With regard to the second part of the question about whether consideration would be given to repealing the relevant provisions if there were no intention for the Council to erect hawker meters, the answer is yes.
As regards the way to handle obsolete provisions in the Urban Council by-laws, I would make a point that because a provision that has not been enforced does not necessarily make it obsolete. We have to consider the issue case by case. For the present case, there is no perceived urgency to repeal by-laws 28 to 30 of the Hawker (Urban Council) By-laws because these provisions as they stand do not affect our services to the general public. As for other Urban Council by-laws, I am not in a position to comment since they are not within my purview of responsibilities.
THE HON. LI WAH-MING (in Cantonese): - Mr. Chairman, the last paragraph of Hon. Ambrose Cheung's reply is not included in the written reply, but frankly, it is better than what is given in the written reply.
I presume none of us present today started being an Urban Councillor in 1973. In other words, none of us was an Urban Councillor in 1973. That is why I need to ask whether a pilot scheme was ever implemented when considerations were given to install meters at hawker pitches.
My second question is directed at the claim that a provision never implemented is obsolete. For provisions made as a result of policy and never enforced, the problem is not whether they are obsolete but whether they should be retained. I would like to ask the Chairman of the Market and Street Traders Select
Page 82 of 606
Page 82 of 606