Page 82 of 498
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
79
responsible for patrolling district facilities. The frequency of inspection depends very much on the location of the open spaces in question. For large parks in prestigious locations, designated parkkeepers are normally provided. For small gardens, playgrounds and sitting-out areas, staff in the area/district on patrolling duties visit such open spaces once in one or two days. For black spots where there have been reported gambling activities, staff will visit such places daily or more frequently to take appropriate actions as warranted.
MR. TAM KWOK-KIU (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I have 3 follow-up questions. First of all, as mentioned by Mr. Ronnie WONG, the Department in fact did not exercise the power vested by the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance for our parkkeepers to arrest people gambling in our parks in the past three years. Of course, Mr. WONG mentioned some of the practical difficulties. My question is whether the Council or the Department has studied any way to overcome difficulties in this respect to avoid having an Ordinance to no effect. This is my first question.
Secondly, in paragraph 3 of the reply, it was mentioned that only mobile parkkeepers were deployed to patrol the Council's 400 parks and 300 small roadside amenity areas or else no parkkeeper service was provided at all. One can say that there is almost no control over such amenity areas. I just want to ask if we have plans to improve the state of no control of the law in such areas.
Thirdly, paragraph 4 of the reply mentioned some black spots, for example black spots where complaints against gambling were reported. It was mentioned that, apart from sending staff to patrol them daily, certain appropriate actions were taken. I want to know what these appropriate actions are.
Mr. Ronnie Wong Man-chIU (in Cantonese):—Let me answer Mr. Tam's third question first. Generally, at such black spots where we discover gambling activities, the Department will step up patrols. First of all, parkkeepers will advise and stop such activities. If after repeated advice, gambling activities still continue, we will notify the police to take action.
The second follow-up question asks what plans the Department has formulated to manage 300 or 400 not so large parks where duty parkkeepers are not warranted. In fact, I do not agree with the expression ‘no control of the law' because the Department did send staff to patrol sitting-out areas. Only that on the grounds of resource saving, it is also a fact that such parks do not warrant full-time parkkeepers on duty, the decision was not to put full-time staff on duty. As to what methods can be taken to improve the management of parks, I am sure we can continue to explore at the meetings of the Recreation Select Committee.
Will Mr. TAM repeat his first question?
Page 82 of 498
Page 82 of 498
Page 82 of 498
Page 82 of 498
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
79
responsible for patrolling district facilities. The frequency of inspection depends very much on the location of the open spaces in question. For large parks in prestigious locations, designated parkkeepers are normally provided. For small gardens, playgrounds and sitting-out areas, staff in the area/district on patrolling duties visit such open spaces once in one or two days. For black spots where there have been reported gambling activities, staff will visit such places daily or more frequently to take appropriate actions as warranted.
MR. TAM KWOK-KIU (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, I have 3 follow-up questions. First of all, as mentioned by Mr. Ronnie WONG, the Department in fact did not exercise the power vested by the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance for our parkkeepers to arrest people gambling in our parks in the past three years. Of course, Mr. WONG mentioned some of the practical difficulties. My question is whether the Council or the Department has studied any way to overcome difficulties in this respect to avoid having an Ordinance to no effect. This is my first question.
Secondly, in paragraph 3 of the reply, it was mentioned that only mobile parkkeepers were deployed to patrol the Council's 400 parks and 300 small roadside amenity areas or else no parkkeeper service was provided at all. One can say that there is almost no control over such amenity areas. I just want to ask if we have plans to improve the state of no control of the law in such areas.
Thirdly, paragraph 4 of the reply mentioned some black spots, for example black spots where complaints against gambling were reported. It was mentioned that, apart from sending staff to patrol them daily, certain appropriate actions were taken. I want to know what these appropriate actions are.
Mr. Ronnie Wong Man-chIU (in Cantonese):—Let me answer Mr. Tam's third question first. Generally, at such black spots where we discover gambling activities, the Department will step up patrols. First of all, parkkeepers will advise and stop such activities. If after repeated advice, gambling activities still continue, we will notify the police to take action.
The second follow-up question asks what plans the Department has formulated to manage 300 or 400 not so large parks where duty parkkeepers are not warranted. In fact, I do not agree with the expression ‘no control of the law' because the Department did send staff to patrol sitting-out areas. Only that on the grounds of resource saving, it is also a fact that such parks do not warrant full-time parkkeepers on duty, the decision was not to put full-time staff on duty. As to what methods can be taken to improve the management of parks, I am sure we can continue to explore at the meetings of the Recreation Select Committee.
Will Mr. TAM repeat his first question?
Page 82 of 498
Page 82 of 498
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.