Page 181 of 606
1 of 606
Page 181 of 606
178
PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
The third part of the question enquires about the allocation of the HCT working hours to the daily work and the percentage of working hours spent on actions against illegal hawkers, obstruction and litter bugs respectively. There is no fixed apportionment of time for various duties of HCT staff, nor is it operationally desirable to make a fixed arrangement. The allocation of HCT working hours must be flexible and vary according to the changing situation on the ground. Top priority is of course given to the control of illegal hawking, but for example in areas with large numbers of fixed pitch hawkers, ensuring that the hawkers comply with their licensing conditions can often be an important duty.
With regard to the total number of prosecutions against shops in San Po Kong for unlicensed hawking and obstruction during the past three months and the number of shops involved, there were totally 122 arrests made against shop operators in San Po Kong area during the period from 1.5.98 to 15.8.98. This comprised 104 arrests for causing obstruction at shop fronts and 18 arrests for both causing obstruction and unlicensed hawking. A total of 48 shops were involved.
As for the average extension beyond the shop premises concerned which have been prosecuted for obstruction, it is impossible to define what would be regarded as an average extension. Illegal extensions not only vary in depth, height and width of shop frontage taken up but also with time as the nature and amount of goods sold can vary throughout the day. The worst case recorded in San Po Kong to date has been a total area of pavement of 3.75 sq.m.
The last part of the question enquires about the total number of prosecutions against unlicensed hawking in the same area during the same period. The answer is that there were totally 49 arrests.
Ms. ADA WONG YING-KAY (in Cantonese):—I have two follow-up questions. Firstly, if anyone runs a business illegally on the pavement, or if any shop extends its area of business illegally, we will certainly support the Department to enforce the law. The question is who should enforce the law and which ordinance should be invoked. It is pointed out in the written reply that Health Inspectors, cleansing staff and the HCT may invoke different ordinances in their enforcement action. It is also mentioned in paragraph 4 of the written reply that staff of the HCT may, depending on the circumstances involved, invoke the Summary Offences Ordinance. May I ask the Chairman of the Select Committee whether he could elaborate the phrase of 'depending on the circumstances involved'?
Secondly, I hope the Chairman of the Select Committee will advise us whether any prosecution case against the shops has ever been dismissed by the court. If yes, how many cases are there?
Chairman (in Cantonese):--The first question is about 'depending on the circumstances involved'. I am sure that when members of the Hawker Control