1975 — Page 88

Page 88 of 154

144

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

trickery as we do not tell them where they can use their licences. Rather than increase the fees, it would be fair to cancel the charges, since we offer them nothing in return. The unlicensed hawkers in the Hawker Permitted Areas, on the contrary, bring in precisely nil to the Treasury, but they are well protected by the triads who are making a fortune from money that should be paid to this Council.

Let me mention something of the history of this Motion. Seven months ago, the suggestion was made that hawker licence fees should be raised in two steps. At that time, I stated that I would not oppose an increase, on the condition that these pieces of paper misnamed licences to hawk would ensure that the hawkers had a place from which to trade without fear of summonses for obstruction. I was assured that the Urban Services Department had a plan to mark out 14,000 hawker sites where hawkers could trade without fear of prosecution. It was also agreed that re-issue of licence would begin, because of the economic situation, and in order to save unlicensed hawkers having their goods confiscated if they traded outside the Hawker Permitted Areas. At that time I welcomed the plan to give security to licensed hawkers, and to give those hard hit by unemployment the chance to buy licences and make a living. I said that after talking to hawkers, I was convinced that if they were given security, they would not mind an increase in licence fee, even to $100 instead of paying $40. They are in fact paying a great deal more than that in triad squeeze and court fines. Some may argue that the increase amounts to only 10¢ a day, but there are hawkers paying $100 a month or more in fines because we fail to allocate them a site for hawking.

This reasonable plan proposed some months ago to legalize and allocate hawker sites was made only in May this year, and it was strongly supported by the previous Director, Mr. David ALEXANDER. By September, the scheme had been sabotaged, and the Department did not even take the trouble to inform the Urban Council Select Committee which had made the decision. Instead, we were told that the Hawker Permitted Areas had been a success and should continue indefinitely, that no more licences should be issued, and that the fees for all licences would rise by one jump instead of in two steps. If the Council accepts this Motion today, it will ensure the triads of their existence, will protect their illegal protection racket, and allow them to continue to liquidate licensed pedlar hawkers, because most of the money involved in this proposed increase is going to be used on Hawker Permitted Areas.

I am not merely trying to stop this Motion going through today. I wish to propose a more reasonable solution to the hawker problem.

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

145

No solution is perfect, but I firmly believe that if hawker sites were marked out colony-wide in places where they would cause a minimum of obstruction and nuisance to the public, and if all licensed hawkers were allocated fixed pitches from which to operate, while all unlicensed hawkers were issued with licenses and offered similar treatment, at least the result would be less chaotic than the present situation. For example, I have proposed that the hawkers at Ngau Chi Wan be given an off-street building site big enough to accommodate them all; if these sites were marked out, and if each were given a licence endorsed for that site, the result would be better relations with hawkers and public, more money in the Treasury, and little need to control the hawkers. But for some reason or other, sensible solutions seem to be ruled out in favour of chaos and discontent.

MR. BERNACCHI's suggestion that let the hawkers pay first and consider what we should give them later is useless. I am sure he never buys anything without seeing what he is going to get.

I request that members oppose the motion today and ask for further discussion and a more reasonable solution acceptable to all concerned on the lines of the suggestion by Dr. Denny HUANG. Therefore I oppose the motion.

MR. JOHN MACKENZIE (in English): Mr. Chairman, the proposal before this Council is that there should be an increase in Hawker Licence Fees which would bring in additional revenue of about $600,000 in the current year, and $3.4 million in the next financial year ($3.9 million-$4.5 million-$7.3 million). On the other side of the coin, the recurrent expenditure for hawker services has already increased by $3.85 million in the current year and will increase, on a conservative estimation, by nearly $9.27 million in 1976-77 ($20.23 million-$24.05 million-$29.5 million). The shortfall—that is the excess which the Rate-payers of Hong Kong must contribute towards the services needed for the control and administration of hawkers—will rise from $16.3 million last year, to $19.55 million in the current year, and no less than $22.16 million in 1976-77.

Let me underline this point, Mr. Chairman, even with the presently proposed increases, the cost to the Rate-payer of providing USD hawker services (which currently employs 1,000 staff and will require 1,500 USD personnel next year) will be $2.5 million in every month of next year against a possible collection of about $0.6 million per month from increased licence fees. In other words, the subsidy element will be $2 million per month.

Page 88 of 154