1964 — Page 137

312

250

Page 137 of 312

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

With this answer to the first part of the question; the second part does not arise insofar as it relates to infirmity being a qualification to be an itinerant hawker. However, together with the third part of the question, it does raise an important question as regards the present status of pedlar hawkers, many of whom have traded from static positions for many years and have, as you say, been per- mitted to remain stationary.

The fourth part of the question follows to some extent from the third. As I have said, pedlar hawkers have remained static in certain areas for some time past. However, it must be appreciated that it can happen that hawkers in permitted areas could still cause obstruction even if they keep within the bounds of approved size of stall, if for example they position themselves on street corners or in the street in such a way as to impede the passage of traffic. The Police, acting under the provisions of Section 3, Subsection 5 of the Summary Offences Ordinance which concerns the causing of annoyance or obstruction in any public place, have in recent months been summonsing pedlar hawkers on "obstruction" charges. And this matter, as you know, is under intensive review at present by the Hawkers Select Committee.

The answer to the fifth part of the question is that I am not so aware. If you have the details of the cases perhaps you will give them to me after the meeting. Of course, this Council cannot consider any matter that is sub judice before any Court including Courts of Appeal.

As regards the sixth part of the question, again the question of appeal against a charge considered to be unjust is a matter normally to be pursued through the Courts and the Courts would be the first to take objection to any action designed to interfere with their judicial process. In addition, it is open to anyone to make representations if he considers that any particular regulation, including a by-law of the Urban Council or any decision of the Council or one of its Select Committee, is unreasonable. I am authorized by the Chairman to say that as regards any assurances which he is, as Chairman of the Urban Council, in a position to give, he is quite certain that, within the scope of its authority, the Council would never condone the penalization of any person merely on the ground that he had made such representations. I would suggest that, if any particular cases arise, the proper course would be to report the facts to him or myself or

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

251

any other Member of Council or indeed, the appropriate officers of the Urban Services Department.

MRS. ELLIOTT: -May I thank the Chairman of the Hawkers Select Committee for his very full answer to my question. I would like to ask him, through you, Mr. Chairman, if you do not mind, whether he knew that some of the hawkers felt that they had been penalized in their positions at Jardine's Crescent because they had opposed removal from Jardine's Bazaar? Whether it is true or not, of course, I cannot say, but I do not know whether you are aware of that yourself.

MR. BERNACCHI:-I take full responsibility for the action taken, right or wrong, but I do not regard that as penalization. The position was that the hawkers in Jardine's Bazaar were asked to turn in their licences for the purpose of balloting for fresh sites at Jardine's Crescent. Now, of course, the Urban Council is under no obligation to give a hawker a particular site. A pedlar hawker hawks from a site that he can obtain, but in this case the Urban Council, in view of the circumstances, held a ballot for places and gave the places according to the ballot. A certain number, about a third, turned in their licences and I was present when the ballot took place. You, Mrs. ELLIOTT, were invited but were unable to attend owing to other commitments. The position was this, in addition to those who turned in their licences, a number of other hawkers appeared at the ballot and I gave instructions that those who did so and those who had already turned in their licences, were to be balloted for first and, of course, the better sites went to them. Say there were 200 hawkers, then they balloted for the 200 better sites. Afterwards, the others had second thoughts and notified us that they would now be willing to take up positions in Jardine's Crescent. They had previously shown no interest in doing so and the Urban Council was left in the dark as to whether or not they would take up the positions. At that stage, therefore, I ordered, (at the same date actually), a second ballot to be held for all the other names on the list that we had in our possession, of hawkers in the area and if they indicated that they wanted a position in Jardine's Crescent, then they would be directed to a position balloted for at the second ballot. So there were two ballots: one for the hawkers who had turned in their licences or other- wise appeared at the ballot and one for the hawkers who we did not know whether or not they would be interested in places in Jardine's Crescent, and obviously to award a position to a hawker who had not shown any interest in Jardine's Crescent, perhaps the best place of the lot, would be unfair to the hawkers who had shown that they were interested in hawking in Jardine's Crescent. I take full responsibility, for better or for worse, in ordering two ballots: one for hawkers who had turned in their licences or had shown up at the ballot and indicated that they wanted places in Jardine's Crescent, and the other for hawkers who did not indicate that they wanted places.