1975 — Page 87

Page 87 of 154

142

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

of the increase, but they consider it unfair. Firstly, the hawking sites are decided by the Urban Council and the prosperity of various districts is very different. Hawkers trading in very isolated areas may not be able to share the added burden of increased fees; what remedies are there? As far as I know, many pedlar hawkers have the right to fixed pitches, but they only pay the pedlar hawker fees. To other itinerant hawkers without fixed pitches, this is indeed very unfair. How do we make up for this? As to the management cost, do we include the management of H.P.A. and also the management of illegal hawkers? If these are included, I think these expenses should not be borne by the licensed hawkers because licensed hawkers should not subsidize unlicensed hawkers. Finally I think that the proposed increases are not timed properly. I disagree with this motion.

MISS CECILIA L. Y. YEUNG (in Cantonese): - Mr. Chairman, the Hawkers Select Committee proposed increase in hawker licence fees. I feel that it is untimely because it will increase the burden of hawkers, but we must bear in mind that many other trades have also to shoulder this burden. So we should not increase the fees of a certain type of person and not to increase the fees of other persons. Although hawkers are trying to make a living, I feel that if the Urban Council wants to increase licence fees, we should do it very fairly. All hawkers who are now trading should have licences. Genuine hawkers should all be given licences. This will increase the revenue of the Urban Council. Hawkers with fixed pitches should shoulder a greater licence fee because they have a place to hawk. As to itinerant hawkers, and as I have said in the Standing Committee of the Whole Council, I feel that some of them have difficulties in making a living. Although they can move from place to place, some are restricted. Because they are all trying to make a living, but without the licence fees increased, they may be able to sell the goods at a lower price. So I feel that hawkers hawking in front of shops and the shops have to pay rent and have to compete with the hawkers setting their stalls in front of the shops and trading in the same manner, thus affecting their business. At the same time, hawkers do not have to pay such a high fee, this is unfair. I feel I am rather puzzled when Mr. CHOW mentioned that licence fees were last increased in 1973, but Mr. Hu said that the rate of charge was the same from 1960. I would like to seek clarification. I feel that if shopkeepers and hawkers are trading together we should not favour hawkers, we must also look at the overall situation. So I agree to the licence increased, but I hope that the date can be set back a little. Hawkers whose licences do not expire on April or October, are not the only exception. If the licence expires in April, we should give them a period of grace. Many people have a licence, but they

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

143

do not trade. Others may like to wind up their business. We should give them some time, so that they can sell out their stock. They may feel that the licence fee is too high and they may like to wind up their business, so I think we should give them a period of grace. I hope that the Urban Council will delay the date of the licence fee increase, otherwise I support the motion.

MRS. E. ELLIOTT (in English):--I wish to voice my strong opposition to this package deal for hawkers.

Some increases for Fixed Pitch Licences are no doubt justified, but a blanket increase does not take into consideration the fact that not all pitches are equally viable. My strongest opposition is against the proposed increase in fees for pedlar hawker licences. These hawkers are being asked to pay almost twice as much for what is usually only a useless slip of paper; to operate, the hawker must also pay the triad protectors, as well as court fines for obstruction.

This Council, in its wisdom or otherwise, is now proposing to allow one half of the pedlar hawker community to operate illegally and free of charge, in order to keep the triads in business; and to force the other half of the hawker community to pay the expenses of a pretence at control within the areas surrounding the free-for-all Hawker Permitted Areas. Large numbers of genuine pedlar hawkers with licences dating back as long as twenty years are being put out of business in the areas surrounding the Hawker Permitted Areas in order to allow the triads to squeeze the unlicensed hawkers within the Hawker Permitted Areas.

This Council is trying to justify the increase from $40 to $75 on the grounds that hawkers are costing the public a lot of money in the form of Hawker Control and General Duties Teams. We are told that the cost to the public is $20 million, but that licence fees bring in only $3 million. The shallow thinking that goes into many of our policies in order to steam-roll them through and fill our coffers has now concluded that the problem of hawker costs can be met by the simple expedient of charging up the cost to the unlucky hawkers who hold licences. Look at the statistics and you will see that more than half the expenditure for hawker control is on account of the Hawker Permitted Areas, and very little is being spent on licensed hawkers. Pedlar hawkers get nil for their licences, but look at any court on any day and see how much the hawkers have to pay in court fines for alleged obstruction, simply because we offer them a licence to go on the street, but when they go on the street they are arrested for obstruction. To charge them anything at all in the circumstances is sheer

Page 87 of 154