1990 — Page 42

Page 42 of 95

78

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

MR. LAM CHAK-PIU, VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE MARKETS AND STREET TRADERS SELECT COMMITTEE replied as follows (in Cantonese):--Mr. Chairman, the first part of the question concerns the departmental procedures in dealing with a fixed pitch including a wall stall when the licensee has lodged an appeal to the Governor in Council, or from now on the Urban Services Appeals Board.

The second part of the question concerns a query on why Mr. TAI Poon- hing's wall stall was demolished on 23 August 1990 even though Mr. TAI had| appealed to the Governor in Council.

It is the usual practice of the Urban Services Department to hold in abeyance all penalizing actions against hawker licensees including demolition of hawker stalls when an appeal has been made to the Governor in Council and is awaiting hearing. Sometimes, one-month temporary licences are also issued to

the licensees.

In the case of Mr. TAI Poon-hing, the Markets and Street Traders Select Committee at its meeting on 17 January 1990 decided that his fixed pitch (wall stall) hawker licence should not be renewed upon its expiry on 19 February 1990. A notice was served on Mr. TAI on 27 February requiring him to cease occupation and remove the wall stall at No. 12 Hok Yuen Street. On 6 March Mr. TAI appealed to the Governor in Council through his solicitors. In view of the appeal, the Department held in abeyance the enforcement of the notice served on Mr. TAI. On 21 April Mr. TẠI was informed by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs that his appeal was not accepted because it did not fall within Section 125(10) of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance, Cap. 132. Therefore, the Department reinstated the notice requiring Mr. TAI to cease occupation and remove the wall stall.

A fresh notice was served on Mr. TAI on 14 June requiring him to comply before 21 June but the Department withheld action pending further legal representation from Mr. Tar's solicitors. The Department received no further representation and subsequently set the date of demolition of the wallstall on 7 August. However, as Mr. TAI claimed that he had engaged a solicitor to take legal proceedings in respect of the matter, demolition action was postponed to 23 August. Since Mr. TAI still failed to inform the Department of any intended legal proceedings, demolition of the wall stall was carried out on 23 August.

Before the demolition was carried out on 23 August, the Department carefully looked into the matters raised by Mr. BERNACCHI and reviewed all the facts and circumstances related to the case. It was clear to the Department that up to the date before action was taken on the wall stall, there was no appeal pending from Mr. TAI to either the Governor in Council or the Urban Services Appeals Board. Since Mr. Tar's appeal had not been accepted by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs as a statutory appeal, the matter had already been disposed of before the enactment of the Municipal Services Appeals Board Ordinance and the Urban Services Appeals Board had no jurisdiction over the

matter.

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 42 of 95

79

MR. B. A. BERNACCHI (in English):—Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask two supplementary questions. The first one is in really three parts. Why does the Urban Council know the statutory appeal on 21 April was held out of order? Was it a question of the interpretation of the definition of a wall stall? Was the Governor-in-Council consulted about the interpretation of a wall stall or was it interpreted by someone even before it reached the Governor-in-Council?

CHAIRMAN (in English):—I think Mr. BERNACCHI, you cannot in all fairness ask Mr. LAM to answer that, because he would be speaking on behalf of the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs. I am sure he has no idea whatsoever the rationale or reason that Secretary gave. It is not within the jurisdiction of this Council or the Department.

MR. B. A. BERNACCHI (in English):—Mr. Chairman, I merely ask Mr. LAM whether the Urban Council knows why it was held not to be within the jurisdiction of the Governor-in-Council? If the answer is no, it does not. I am content. MR. LAM CHAK-PIU (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, of course we are not aware of the circumstances, but we were informed by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs that this appeal had not been accepted. Therefore, the Urban Services Department took the correct procedures afterwards. In fact, Mr. BERNACCHI is asking about procedures which I think are correct. MR. B. A. BERNACCHI (in English):—I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, the second question refers to the last part of Mr. LAM's answer. He said that there was no appeal pending from Mr. LAI to either the Governor-in-Council or the Urban Services Appeals Board. Does the Urban Council know of a letter to me in my ward more than three days before 23 August saying that the matter would be taken up by Urban Services Appeals Board, and if so, why was the demolition proceeded on 23rd?

MR. LAM CHAK-PIU (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, procedurally, according to our record, the Appeals Board did not have any legal proceedings pending. I think there must have been some mistakes somewhere. Mr. BERNACCHI claimed that he had received a letter three days before 23 August. I do not really know when that letter was forwarded to the Urban Council Secretariat. The Department fixed the date on 23 August for demolition and was satisfied that sufficient notice had been given to Mr. TAI for the enforcement action to be taken and that there should not be further postponement.

4. MR. FUNG KWONG-CHUNG asked the following question (in Cantonese):- I have learnt that since September last year when the coin-return lockers at the UC public swimming pools came to full operation for swimmers to keep their personal belongings therein, dozens of theft cases have occurred, which seldom happened previously. This shows that there are some security problems with these newly installed lockers. In this connection I would like to ask the following questions:

Page 42 of 95