TNAG-1855-FCO40-2630-Legislative-Council-of-Hong-Kong-memoranda-and-minutes-of-me-1989 — Page 40

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 February 1989

香港立法局 一九八九年二月二十二日

38

responsible for the offence. The fine for this offence should therefore remain at $140. The fine for drivers of private cars similarly stays at $140.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

DR. IP: Sir, it is right that front seat passengers of taxis, light buses and goods vehicles, who are over 15 years of age, should bear full responsibilities for their own safety. It is also a caring government to make it an offence if seat belts are not worn, simply to ensure that they are, for the safety of the passengers themselves. What I disagree is to charge the defaulter by way of summons and not by fixed penalty.

Summoning the defaulter and witnesses to court wastes man hours and valuable court time. In the present day of labour shortage, we should be working towards saving time and efforts. I consider it justified to expand the present computer system to include information on all residents in the territory, so that fixed penalty can be issued to passengers. Such computer backup will pave the way to introducing fixed penalty for littering, spitting, jaywalking, hawking and smoking in public places. A lot more court time can then be saved.

I agree that this will take time and accept that we should go ahead first with charging by way of summons. However I urge Government to reconsider the fixed penalty system which will be more cost effective in the long run, when other ancillary use are taken into consideration.

MR. DAVID CHEUNG: Sir, while I support that offences should not go unpunished especially in serious cases involving speeding, reckless and dangerous driving, and overloading, I am sceptical of the justifications for increasing the fixed penalty fines en bloc, particularly those for minor traffic violations.

Increases by 40% or more in fixed penalty fines, from $140 to $200 and from $200 to $280, do not seem to be justified because Government cannot offset accumulated inflationary effect by one shot. Neither is inflation, in my view, an acceptable argument for such hefty increases.

If the increases are aimed at restoring the deterrent value of the fixed penalty fines as I have been told, I do not think they will achieve the purpose.