1996 — Page 473

Page 473 of 498

Page 473 of 498

514

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

My second question asks in how many of the 119 confrontation cases did the Department ask for Police assistance. What was the consideration at the time?

MR. IP KWOK-Chung (in Cantonese):-Thank you for your questions, Ms. Au. As far as I know, one of the 14 hawkers and I passer-by who claimed to have sustained injuries asked for compensation by the Department.

On your second question on in how many of the i19 confrontation cases the Department asked for Police assistance. I do not have information in hand. If Ms. AU wants statistics, I can provide you with them after the meeting.

(2) MR. CHAN CHOI-HI asked the following question:—'I have the following questions about the offences under the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance, Cap. 132 which concern public health and marketslstreet_traders

matters:

(a) In respect of those more commonly committed offences, please list the number of cases heard and the respective amount of fine imposed by the courts last yeur.

(b) Has the Urban Council considered citing the Summary Offences

Ordinance, Cap. 228 in prosecuting persons in breach of the Ordinance? (c) When did the Council last conduct a review on the amount of fine prescribed by the Ordinance? Will the Council review this Ordinance again within a short period?

MR. JOSEPH CHAN YLEK-SUT, Chairman oF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows:-This three-part question enquires about the offences under the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance, Cap. 132 which concern public health and markets street traders matters.

The first part of the question concerns the number of cases heard and the respective amount of fine imposed by the courts for commonly committed offences concerning these matters over the past year.

The relevant statistics have been compiled and are tabled at this meeting for Members' information. Members will note that the most commonly committed offences under the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance are unlicensed hawking and dumping of litter in public places which amounted to 38% and 23% respectively of the total commonly committed offences. Typical fine levels imposed last year on cases of unlicensed hawking were between $400 and $500. In respect of dumping of litter in public places, typical fine levels were from $300 to $500 depending on the scale of the dumping. Total fines for these two offences last year were $14,511,390.

The second part of the question asks whether the Council has considered using the Summary Offences Ordinance to prosecute persons.

In fact, the Department regularly prosecutes hawkers, particularly itinerant hawkers, for causing obstruction in public places under the Summary Offences

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

515

Ordinance, and also uses this Ordinance to prosecute those found dumping litter into the waters of the territory.

The last part of the question asks when the Council last conducted a review on the amount of fines prescribed by the Ordinance and enquires when the Council reviews this Ordinance again.

A comprehensive review on the amount of fines prescribed by the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance, Cap. 132 was conducted by the Department and later approved by the Council on 16 May 1995. The revised fines under Cap. 132 and all other Ordinances specifying fines as means of punishment were approved by the Legislative Council and came into force on 8 May 1996. As a result of this exercise on revision of fines, fines are now stipulated in terms of six levels. These six levels of fines are to be updated regularly in order to take into account inflation. The Governor in Council will update the monetary figures of the six levels to bring them in line with inflation but at this stage we have no knowledge of exactly when this will be undertaken. MR. CHAN CHOI-HI (in Cantonese);—I would like to know if it is possible to provide us with more information after the meeting on the six levels of fines mentioned in paragraph 7. After the conduct of the review, the existing Chairman of the Select Committee said that we had no knowledge at this level of exactly when it would be undertaken, I find that answer somewhat general. Can we have more definite information sometime later on when the review will be undertaken? That is my first question.

My second question is about the figures for 1996 as supplied by the Department. Littering in public places resulted in more than $4 million of fines. With the number of cases at 13 000, the average fine for each case was $364. As for unlicensed hawking, the total amount of fines imposed was over 59 million, representing an average amount of $430 for each of the 22 000 cases. I feel that such levels of fine have no deterrent effect at all. Shouldn't we adopt other methods such as introducing fixed penalties or compulsory social service in lieu of fines? For example, for each spitting, one is asked to clean up 10 spittings or for each piece of garbage dumped, one has to pick up 10 pieces.

MR. JOSEPH CHAN YUEK-SUT (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, we could furnish information after the meeting as requested by Mr. CHAN in his first question. The amounts of fincs are divided into six levels, I can furnish Mr. CHAN with relevant information later on. If there are other Members also interested in this, I can supply them with information too.

Concerning the review on fine adjustment, the Council can actually make a request for an adjustment. However, as the last adjustment only came into force in May last year, it would only be one year by May this year. If the Council feels there is need for an adjustment every year, it could be raised at the Public Health Select Committee and put forward to the Governor in

Page 473 Page 473 of 498

Page 473 of 498