1982 — Page 81

120

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

departments including The Royal Hong Kong Police Force combined to prosecute an expected 100,000 persons during the campaign—a monstrous figure.

Of course, there are still areas where we could do better—hawkers and recreationalists, for example. With hawkers, the ultimate solution lies in removing them to markets, but a great many people, recreationalists and shopkeepers included, still seem to pay little heed to the environment, and these are the offenders we should really punish severely. We cannot allow the anti-social habits of a few to jeopardize the cleanliness of our city. This type of habit costs taxpayers money and costs our staff more work.

Concerning punishment, I am still disappointed at the level of fines. The average fine on Hong Kong Island from November 1981 to April 1982 was almost $200; Kowloon $150. Yet recently, the comparative averages hover around $125 and $108, i.e., there's a decrease. If careless attitudes towards littering are to be successfully combatted, we must surely aim for an average of $108. Surely this is not too much to ask, for a year ago this was the norm. I will continue to watch results closely. Enforcement and education must go hand in hand.

I also feel that it is important that the district backlane clearance programmes are maintained and supervised effectively to ensure that re-erections do not occur. The District Offices (and District Boards) are the leaders in these operations, and I trust that the districts will give the same excellent impetus to these programmes in 1983 as they have done this year, because it is at the district level that the real work and coordination are achieved.

Finally, let me reassure members that in 1983, the Clean Hong Kong campaign will not fizzle out. We have an operational strategy already outlined. Although we have yet to get the full cooperation of every member of the public, we have the administrative infrastructure, the cleansing services, and most important of all, the will to succeed. The aim of my Committee in the coming year will be to maintain the standards this Campaign has set and improve on them if possible. I hope that all members will support this approach.

MOTION

1. MR. SHUM CHOI-SANG, Chairman of the MARKETS AND STREET TRADERS SELECT COMMITTEE, moved the following motion:—

'RESOLVED that the Hawker (Amendment) By-laws 1982 be made under section 83A of the Public Health and Urban Services Ordinance, Cap. 132.' He said (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, I rise to move the motion standing in my name.

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 81 of 142

121

The Hawker (Amendment) By-laws 1982 increase the fees for hawker licences and for the allocation of fixed pitches with effect from 1 March 1983. The new fees for the issue and renewal of hawker licences are shown under Part I of the amended schedule to the principal by-laws, while the new fees for the allocation of fixed pitches are shown under Part III of the same schedule.

These fee increases are in line with the general policy that the contribution made by this Council towards the costs of hawker management and control should not be allowed to rise above sixty per cent and indeed should be reduced gradually through regular reviews so as to reduce the deficit incurred on this service whilst also maintaining the fees at realistic levels.

During 1983-84, it is estimated that hawker management and control will cost nearly $109 million, with revenue at existing fee levels amounting to $35.2 million. This will produce a deficit of nearly $74 million or a contribution by this Council in percentage terms of 68%. The fee increases before you are set at the rate of 35% of existing fees and are designed to produce additional revenue during 1983-84 of $11.9 million to bring total revenue up to $47.1 million. On this basis, the deficit during 1983-84 will amount to an estimated $61.9 million or a contribution by the Council of 57% towards the cost of hawker management and control.

In line with the policy described, it is considered that the revised fees before you are set at a fair and reasonable level for promulgation with effect from 1 March 1983. With these remarks, I beg to move.

MR. AUGUSTINE S. K. CHUNG, VICE-Chairman of the MARKETS AND STREET TRADERS SELECT COMMITTEE, seconded (in English):—Mr. Chairman, may I second the motion.

MRS. ELLIOTT (in English):—Mr. Chairman, I am opposing this Motion on a matter of principle, regardless of the arguments that an increase in hawker licence fees is necessary to cover costs, and that the increase in actual dollars is in some cases small.

I am aware that my views will be rejected, but regardless of the fact, I must state them.

I shall not expand on the argument that this is no time to be talking of an increase of any kind that might even in the smallest way aggravate inflation.

The main point I wish to make is that although we have been told for many years that more control personnel would contain the number of hawkers operating illegally, as well as tidy up areas where they operate legally, we have never come any nearer to that objective, in spite of the fact that we claim to be subsidizing hawking to the tune of $35m a year of public money. In fact, I would like to suggest that in areas where there are insufficient marketing

Page 81 of 142