182
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
CHAIRMAN:--Could you by way of clarification, Mr. BERNACCHI, say why you did not raise this point when the previous by-laws went before this Council?
MR. BERNACCHI :-When?
CHAIRMAN:-This afternoon.
MR. BERNACCHI:-With the previous by-laws I, perhaps, should have, but I did not because they were in respect to laundries and I did not think that any essential point was necessary to raise. I agree entirely that I should have raised it, but in this case, Mrs. ELLIOTT has raised the point and there may be other points that could and should be raised as to the drafting and as to the effect of these by-laws. I consider that it should be put before the Council in Committee before it is passed in a public meeting.
CHAIRMAN: --Authority in this matter has been delegated to the Hawkers' Select Committee.
MR. HU: Mr. Chairman, having read these by-laws, I only have one conclusion. I think it is too much restriction and too much hardship for the hawker licensee. They are not guilty persons. We having read the by-laws, really presume that the untidiness of our streets is entirely their responsibility, or anything wrong is their responsibility. I do not think that we can presume that all is their responsibility, in our free economic society that they should be penalized by this by-law. This is the grounds that I for one, cannot agree to that. Secondly, having read the explanatory notes on page 6, Mr. Chairman, you will see that the authority is the Urban Council. What does this mean? As a matter of fact, authority in this case means Governor in Council and the equivalent of the Urban Council. This involves in my view a very fundamental point, I think this point alone should be discussed in Committee of the Whole Council. And thirdly, while we are rejecting Mr. BERNACCHI's second motion, it is very strange to find on page 41 item (b) for a pitch 4' x 6' $500. Mr. Chairman, if we think that there would be no single fixed pitch exceeding 4′ × 3′ then why are we charging them $500 per year? Mr. Chairman, I cannot render my support for these by-laws, although I understand that for 6 or 7 years many people have been labouring on these by-laws. I was on the Hawkers Select Committee at the very beginning, I later withdrew myself because I did not think I could support the general policy about hawkers. Therefore, based on my consistent view I must object to these by-laws and oppose it.
The question was put.
The motion was carried with 10 votes for and 4 against.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
ADJOURNMENT
5.40 P.M.
183
That concludes the business of this meeting, ladies and gentlemen, Council stands adjourned until Tuesday, 10th October at 4.00 p.m.
PRINTED BY THE GOVERNMENT PRINTER, HONG KONG
Page 101 of 206
182
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
CHAIRMAN:--Could you by way of clarification, Mr. BERNACCHI, say why you did not raise this point when the previous by-laws went before this Council?
MR. BERNACCHI :-When?
CHAIRMAN:-This afternoon.
MR. BERNACCHI:-With the previous by-laws I, perhaps, should have, but I did not because they were in respect to laundries and I did not think that any essential point was necessary to raise. I agree entirely that I should have raised it, but in this case, Mrs. ELLIOTT has raised the point and there may be other points that could and should be raised as to the drafting and as to the effect of these by-laws. I consider that it should be put before the Council in Committee before it is passed in a public meeting.
CHAIRMAN: --Authority in this matter has been delegated to the Hawkers' Select Committee.
MR. HU: Mr. Chairman, having read these by-laws, I only have one conclusion. I think it is too much restriction and too much hard- ship for the hawker licencee. They are not guilty persons. We having read the by-laws, really presume that the untidiness of our streets is entirely their responsibility, or anything wrong is their responsibility. I do not think that we can presume that all is their responsibility, in our free economic society that they should be penalized by this by- law. This is the grounds that I for one, cannot agree to that. Secondly, having read the explanatory notes on page 6, Mr. Chairman, you will see that the authority is the Urban Council. What does this mean? As a matter of fact, authority in this case means Governor in Council and the equivalent of the Urban Council. This involves in my view a very fundamental point, I think this point alone should be discussed in Committee of the Whole Council. And thirdly, while we are rejecting Mr. BERNACCHI's second motion, it is very strange to find on page 41 item (b) for a pitch 4' x 6' $500. Mr. Chairman, if we think that there would be no single fixed pitch exceeding 4′ × 3′ then why are we charging them $500 per year? Mr. Chairman, I cannot render my support for these by-laws, although I understand that for 6 or 7 years many people have been labouring on these by- laws. I was on the Hawkers Select Committee at the very beginning, I later withdrew myself because I did not think I could support the general policy about hawkers. Therefore, based on my consistent view I must object to these by-laws and oppose it.
The question was put.
The motion was carried with 10 votes for and 4 against.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
ADJOURNMENT
5.40 P.M.
183
That concludes the business of this meeting, ladies and gentlemen, Council stands adjourned until Tuesday, 10th October at 4.00 p.m.
PRINTED BY THE GOVERNMENT PRINTER, HONG KONG
Page 101 of 206
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.