Page 273 of 606
PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
267
illegal hawking by means of court summons. The Department raised strong objections to it by citing advice from the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Department of Justice, etc. Now that the Steering Committee proposes to introduce fixed penalty to replace prosecuting litter offenders by means of court summons, has the Department put forward different opinions?
(b) If the introduction of administrative punishment proposal is implemented, is it necessary to amend the existing legislation? Would it be stipulated in the penalty rule that compulsory street-sweeping is the sole punishment for repeated offenders? Is it expected that staff of foreman rank or above in the Urban Services Department be the enforcers?
(c) Does the above proposal aim to impose 'quick, harsh and strict punishment' by replacing court trial with administrative penalty? Are there any other merits and demerits in it? Is it necessary for the enforcers to consider the reports given by probation officers before an administrative directive is issued for imposing the penalty of compulsory street-sweeping?
(d) Has the Department conducted any research or consulted experts in the 'Bill of Rights' on whether the above penalties will infringe upon human rights?
(e) In relation to the compulsory education course that repeated offenders are required to attend as mentioned in the proposal, what is the course content? For how long will repeated offenders be required to attend the course?
(f) It is also mentioned in the above proposal that repeated offenders are required to clean up streets at specified locations. If the proposal is adopted, how long should the repeated offenders clean up streets at those specified locations?
(g) The Steering Committee plans to introduce administrative punishment in place of court trial, and to make compulsory street-sweeping as the punishment for repeated offenders. Has the plan been submitted to the Legislative Council and the two Municipal Councils for discussion?
(I) Are the terms of reference drawn up for the Steering Committee upon its set-up to replace the formulation and amendments of policies and legislation on public health by an elected Council?
(i) Are the meetings of the Steering Committee and its working groups open to the public and the media? Are the materials for those meetings available for public's access and perusal?
Mr. Joseph Chan Yuek-sut, Chairman of the Public Health Select Committee, replied as follows (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, this question concerns the new forms of penalty proposed for litter offenders which are reportedly being discussed at the Steering Committee of Healthy Living Campaign, and the work of the Steering Committee.
I am informed by the Urban Services Department that in response to public concern that the existing level of fines for litter offences have achieved little
Page 273 of 606
Page 273 of 606
Page 273 of 606
Page 273 of 606
PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
267
illegal hawking by means of court summons. The Department raised strong objections to it by citing advice from the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Department of Justice, etc. Now that the Steering Committee proposes to introduce fixed penalty to replace prosecuting litter offenders by means of court summons, has the Department put forward different opinions?
(b) If the introduction of administrative punishment' proposal is implemented, is it necessary to amend the existing legislation? Would it be stipulated in the penalty rule that compulsory street-sweeping is the sole punishment for repeated offenders? Is it expected that staff of foreman rank or above in the Urban Services Department be the enforcers? (c) Does the above proposal aim to impose 'quick, harsh and strict punishment by replacing court trial with administrative penalty? Are there any other merits and demerits in it? Is it necessary for the enforcers to consider the reports given by probation officers before an administrative directive is issued for imposing the penalty of compulsory street-sweeping? (d) Has the Department conducted any research or consulted experts in the 'Bill of Rights' on whether the above penalties will infringe upon human rights?
(e) In relation to the compulsory education course that repeated offenders are required to attend as mentioned in the proposal, what is the course content? For how long will repeated offenders be required to attend the course?
(f). It is also mentioned in the above proposal that repeated offenders are required to clean up streets at specified locations. If the proposal is adopted, how long should the repeated offenders clean up streets at those specified locations?
(g) The Steering Committee plans to introduce administrative punishment în place of court trial, and to make compulsory street-sweeping as the punishment for repeated offenders. Has the plan been submitted to the Legislative Commcil and the two Municipal Councils for discussion? (I) Are the terms of reference drawn up for the Steering Committee upon its set-up replace the formidation and amendments of policies and legislation on public health by an elected Council?
(i) Are the meeting of the Steering Committee and its working groups open to the public and the media? Are the materials for those meetings available for public's access and perusal?
Mr. Joseph Chan Yuek-sut, ChairmAN OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SELECT
·COMMITTEE, replied as follows (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, this question concerns the new forms of penalty proposed for litter offenders which arc reportedly being discussed at the Steering Committee of Healthy Living Campaign, and the work of the Steering Committee.
I am informed by the Urban Services Department that in response to public concern that the existing level of fines for litter offences have achieved little
Page 273 of 606
Page 273 of 606
Page 273 of 60
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.