Replies to LegCo questions

LCQ17: Control over unlicensed hawkers

Following is a question by the Hon Albert Chan and a written reply by the Secretary for Health, Welfare and Food, Dr York Chow, in the Legislative Council today (December 14):

Question:

In reply to my question at the Council meeting on June 23 last year, the Government said that arrest action with subsequent prosecution was the most effective way to deal with unlicensed hawking activities as this would bring such activities to an immediate halt, and the staff of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department could also forfeit the equipment and commodities of the hawkers. However, I note that unlicensed hawking activities have shown no sign of declining in recent years. Regarding the cost-effectiveness of controlling unlicensed hawkers, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the total public expenditure on controlling unlicensed hawkers, the number of prosecutions instituted against them and the average amount of public funds spent on each prosecution in the year 2004-05; and

(b) whether it will re-consider using less costly ways in taking enforcement actions against unlicensed hawkers, such as issuing fixed penalty notices in place of summonses; if so, of the relevant details; if not, the reasons for that?

Reply:

Madam President,

(a) In 2004-05, the total expenditure incurred by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) on hawker control work (including managing licensed hawkers, patrolling hawker blackspots and taking enforcement action against unlicensed hawkers) was $789.9m. During the same period, a total of 21 744 prosecutions were instituted against unlicensed hawkers. As hawker control expenditure covers not only prosecutions against unlicensed hawkers but also other types of work, the cost of each prosecution is not available.

(b) For most cases, FEHD officers take action in accordance with the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap. 132) to arrest unlicensed hawkers who will be taken to a police station where charges will be laid against them. FEHD is also empowered under the law to seize the equipment and commodities of the unlicensed hawkers during arrest. Upon conviction of the offences, the court may order the seized equipment and commodities to be forfeited.

Arrest action with subsequent prosecution will bring unlicensed hawking activities to an immediate halt and the equipment and commodities of the unlicensed hawkers may be forfeited. Therefore, we consider that this is a more effective way to deal with unlicensed hawking activities as compared to fixed penalty.


Ends/Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Issued at HKT 12:05

NNNN