1987 — Page 153

Page 153 of 185

296

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

which invariably cause disruption to the traffic and/or the pedestrians. Very often, hardly any activity is seen at these sites for periods of time, and one wonders why the works cannot be immediately and actively pursued so that the roads or pavements may be quickly restored.

Now to a different subject altogether, one that directly relates to this Council. The Urban Council plays a vital role in the safeguarding of environment hygiene and public health and to this end, instigates prosecutions to enforce the law, principally under The Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance Cap. 132 and its subsidiary legislation which deal with, inter alia, the popular offences of littering, the offences of illegal hawking and those related to the food businesses and environmental hygiene. Statistics for the year 1986-87 show that a total of 50 620 prosecutions were undertaken in regard to these offences, that is to say, an average of 4 200 cases a month and 150 cases a day. The magistrates courts presently adjudicate all such offences. With the society becoming increasingly complicated and with a growing population such as that of Hong Kong, magistrates courts are pressed with cases to be heard and the valuable time of the courts should be left to more serious offences and crimes. I feel it an opportune time to call for the establishment of Urban Council Tribunals to deal exclusively with cases under the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance and its subsidiary legislation.

The adjudicators of the proposed tribunals may be seconded from the Judiciary who would sit full-time to implement and enforce the Council's policies. I would suggest that the costs and expenditure for such tribunals be for the account of our Council and the fines collected from offenders be paid into the Council's general revenue. The principal advantages of such tribunals are that there will be a more uniform approach to the implementation of our council's policies, and prosecutions of offenders may be strengthened. The Tribunal should apply a procedure as simple as possible with the view to speeding up the hearing of the summonses.

Our Council has recently been invited to establish an Appeals Board to implement the Executive Council's decision to replace the statutory right of appeal under the aforesaid Ordinance and its subsidiary legislation to the Governor-in-Council, by a statutory right of appeal to the Municipal Councils. It has been suggested that the Board will have a quorum of not less than 3 members at any meeting and such a panel will consist of one councillor and two non-council members appointed by the Council. An appeal to the Governor-in- Council is final and he is not obliged to give reasons for his decision. On the other hand, it has been suggested that the proposed Appeals Board is not a final avenue of appeal and a Petitioner may further appeal to the Court for a judicial review of his case. In these circumstances, I respectfully suggest that dis- regarding whether the Appeals Board panel will consist of 3 or more members, one of the panelists should be a qualified lawyer employed by the Urban Council to guide the panel on procedure and on points of law and to assist the

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 153 of 185

297

panel to prepare the reasons for its decision on each case. If the Urban Council Tribunals,

as proposed above, are established, the ideal persons to sit as legal officers in the Appeals Board would be the adjudicators of the Tribunal, as an integral part of their duties.

Mr. Chairman, I support the motion.

MRS. ELEANOR C. M. LING (in English):-Mr. Chairman, it was only as recently as the 1986/1987 financial year that this Council passed a budget exceeding $2 billion for the first time.

Yet with the rapid growth of Council activities and inflation, we already see the total budget for 1988/1989 exceeding $2.5 billion. This budget also provides for another small surplus, of about $72 million, and this amounts to a mere 2.8% of our expenditure!

Thus we have very little room for error, particularly in the area of expendi- ture. I here echo Mr. Marvin CHEUNG's rejoiner that we must continue to exercise strict controls to ensure 'value for money' on every dollar we spend.

But by far the biggest item of our expenditure (almost 58%) is virtually beyond our control. This is the item 'Personal Emoluments'. It is the estimated $1.46 billion required to pay salaries, staff on-costs and allowances to the staff in the Urban Services Department (USD), seconded from Government, and to contract staff employed directly by the Council.

Enormous though this amount may be, it does not provide for any salary increase which may be approved by Government during the fiscal year. The increase will be decided by the Government on recommendation of the Standing Commission on Civil Service Salaries and Conditions of Service, and after consultations with the civil service unions. Once approved, the award will also apply to all staff employed for or by the Council.

The Council has absolutely no say or control over the size of the increase. We must merely accept the consequences. This is unsatisfactory. We have the responsibility, but no real authority over an issue which has major financial implications for the Council.

Even more unsatisfactory is the methodology used in the Pay Trend Survey which determines the size of the increase. In the private sector, salary adjust- ments are usually made once a year, taking into account the inflation rate and the merits of the staff concerned. But our civil servants are more fortunate; they have two wage increases a year. Every April the Government makes a pay award to the public sector following the average annual increase of the private sector which is supposedly adjusted to exclude the merit increment. For this merit increment which is additionally paid to all civil servants who are not at the top of their scales, on the anniversary date of their joining the civil service.