Page 179 of 606
Page 179 of 606
Page 179 of 606
176
PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
prosecuting shops for unlicensed hawking and obstruction unreasonably, I would like to ask:
(a) Is there any quota for prosecution to be undertaken by the HCT? What is the daily quota? Does it happen that the HCT prosecutes shops unreasonably and repeatedly in order to meet the quota? Is it appropriate to prosecute shops for 'unlicensed hawking'?
(b) If the situation of unlicensed hawking has reduced in a certain district, will the HCT of that district be allowed flexibly to cross the district to help out in other districts with blackspots of unlicensed hawking?
(c) How does the HCT allocate the working hours to the daily work? What is the percentage of working hours spent on against illegal hawkers, obstruction and litter bugs respectively?
(d) What is the total number of prosecutions against shops in San Po Kong for unlicensed hawking and obstruction during the past three months? How many shops are involved?
(e) Regarding the prosecutions against shops for obstruction, what is the average extension beyond the shop premises concerned?
(f) What is the total number of prosecutions against unlicensed hawking in the same area during the same period?
MR. IP KWOK-Chung, Chairman of the Markets and Street Traders Select Committee, replied (in Cantonese):—I am going to give the following reply in the capacity as Chairman of the Markets and Street Traders Select Committee.
I believe that this question is probably raised in connection with a petition to the Chief Executive, the Director of Urban Services, Members of the Legislative Council, Provisional Urban Council (PUC) and Wong Tai Sin Provisional District Board from a group of San Po Kong shop operators who complained against the Hawker Control Team (HCT) staff for abusing power and prosecuting shops for unlicensed hawking and obstruction unreasonably. Before responding to the six points raised by Ms. Ada WONG, I think it appropriate to give some general comments and explanation about the issue of illegal shop extensions. As this Council is well aware, pavement obstructions caused by illegal shop extensions create serious environmental nuisances and are frequently the subject of complaints by the public and the media. Indeed, Members have on several occasions criticized the Department for not taking effective action to improve the situation. Depending on the circumstances of the case, the Department can use one of the three approaches.
District health inspectors are able to prosecute the licensees of licensed food premises under the relevant provisions of the Food Business (Urban Council) Bylaws, Cap. 132 for conducting a food business outside their licensed premises. This covers problems such as hot pot restaurants using the pavements as seating accommodation. In addition to a fine, the operators are subject to action under the Council's demerit points system.
Page 179 of 606
Page 179 of 606
Page 179 of 606
Page 179 of 606
Page 179 of 606
Page 179 of 606
176
PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
prosecuting shops for unlicensed hawking and obstruction unreasonably, I would like to ask:
(a) Is there any quota for prosecution to be undertaken by the HCT? What is the daily quota? Does it happen that the HCT prosecutes shops unreasonably and repeatedly in order to meet the quota? Is it appropriate to prosecute shops for 'unlicensed hawking'?
(b) If the situation of unlicensed hawking has reduced in a certain district, will the HCT of that district be allowed flexibly to cross the district to help out in other districts with blackspots of unlicensed hawking?
(c) How does the HCT allocate the working hours to the daily work? What is the percentage of working hours spent on against illegal hawkers, obstruction and litter bugs respectively?
(d) What is the total number of prosecutions against shops in San Po Kong for unlicensed hawking and obstruction during the past three months?
How many shops are involved?
(e) Regarding the prosecutions against shops for obstruction, what is the
average extension beyond the shop premises concerned?
(f) What is the total number of prosecutions against unlicensed hawking in
the same area during the same period?'
MR. IP KWOK-Chung, ChaIRMAN OF THE MARKETS And Street Traders Select CommitTEE, replied (in Cantonese):—I am going to give the following reply in the capacity as Chairman of the Markets and Street Traders Select Committee.
I believe that this question is probably raised in connection with a petition to the Chief Executive, the Director of Urban Services, Members of the Legislative Council, Provisional Urban Council (PUC) and Wong Tai Sin Provisional District Board from a group of San Po Kong shop operators who complained against the Hawker Control Team (HCT) staff for abusing power and prosecuting shops for unlicensed hawking and obstruction unreasonably. Before responding to the six points raised by Ms. Ada WONG, I think it appropriate to give some general comments and explanation about the issue of illegal shop extensions. As this Council is well aware, pavement obstructions caused by illegal shop extensions create serious environmental nuisances and are frequently the subject of complaints by the public and the media. Indeed, Members have on several occasions criticized the Department for not taking effective action to improve the situation. Depending on the circumstances of the case, the Department can use one of the three approaches.
District health inspectors are able to prosecute the licensees of licensed food premises under the relevant provisions of the Food Business (Urban Council) Bylaws, Cap. 132 for conducting a food business outside their licensed premises. This covers problems such as hot pot restaurants using the pavements as seating accommodation. In addition to a fine, the operators are subject to action under the Council's demerit points system.
£606
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.