Second Reading of Government Bill： ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) (RIDE-HAILING SERVICE) BILL 2025
Deputy President, over the past decade, the transport mode of booking personalized point-to-point transport services online has rapidly gained popularity worldwide. In a number of Mainland cities, ride-hailing vehicles have captured over 50% of the market share, becoming a vital pillar of transport.
In Hong Kong, point-to-point transport services are now mainly provided by taxis. I believe many members of the public have such experience. But during the shift-changing hours of taxis, at windy or rainy weather, or after large-scale events, it is difficult to hail a taxi. The availability of ride-hailing services as a supplementary option, I believe, can effectively enhance our travel convenience. Currently, Hong Kong lacks regulation over the operation of ride-hailing platforms, and the private cars in service lack appropriate insurance, leaving passengers without adequate protection. Therefore, I have never used ride-hailing services myself.
I strongly support this amendment exercise of the Government on the Bill, which introduces a regulatory regime for ride-hailing services, providing a legal basis for industry development while safeguarding the travel safety of the public, promoting transport service diversity, and addressing the actual needs of society. However, I would like to make three points. Firstly, regarding the penalties for platforms, the maximum penalty for operating a ride-hailing platform without a licence is a fine of $1 million and imprisonment for 12 months. In respect of arranging for vehicles or drivers without valid permits to transport passengers, there are different levels of imprisonment and fines, depending on whether it is a first or subsequent conviction. However, regarding who shall be criminally liable, the authorities mentioned in the Bills Committee that the directors or persons-in-charge of the platforms may be subject to criminal liability. The expression is relatively vague. I hope the authorities can specify who shall be liable in the subsidiary legislation.
Besides, the deterrent effect of the current fines and sentences of imprisonment seems insufficient, particularly for persistent violations. To safeguard passenger safety and maintain market order, I suggest introducing a progressive penalty mechanism. Penalties should escalate according to the number of violations, the scope of impact and the platform’s scale. An administrative demerit system or authority to suspend operations should also be established. For example, for first-time violation, in addition to a fine and imprisonment, the platform should also be suspended from operation for a month, and for subsequent violations, the suspension would be longer. Only in this way can the accountability of the platforms be enhanced.
Secondly, regarding the regulation of vehicles, considering the demand for the supply, we support the authorities to substantially relax the vehicle age limit from 7 to 12 years, which will facilitate the inclusion of more eligible vehicles and drivers. In addition, the Government plans to require ride-hailing vehicles to undergo annual vehicle inspections throughout their operational period, so as to ensure that they are mechanically sound. Therefore, the public need not worry too much about the vehicle age. Moreover, the market will actually make self-adjustment based on demand, supply and passenger preferences. Reference can be drawn from the Mainland ride-hailing platforms where passengers can choose different vehicle models according to their budget and preferences. The fares for new vehicles and vehicles of famous brands are naturally higher, whereas those for general vehicle models are more affordable.
Compared to other cities, Hong Kong’s road resources are limited. I fully support the Government to control the number of permits issued for ride-hailing vehicles, but the final quota should be carefully determined. The operational model of ride-hailing vehicles differs from that of taxis. Taxis are permanently stationed on the roads, whereas ride-hailing vehicles use the roads at varying times which are not fixed. Some may accept bookings around the clock, while others may only pick up passengers during holidays, at specific time slots, or when en route to their own destination. Consequently, the number of ride-hailing vehicle permits will not equate to the actual number of vehicles providing services on the roads. The Government needs to consider the operational characteristics of ride-hailing vehicles and relax the number of permits so that the platforms can flexibly deploy their fleets according to actual demand. If the restriction is too tight, it will be difficult for the platforms to adjust the fleet size promptly. The service coverage and flexibility in meeting peak demand will also be affected, which will directly impact the hailing experience of passengers, who may end up having no available rides. At the same time, the Government should establish a mechanism to monitor and manage the actual number of ride-hailing vehicles travelling on the roads. I believe that during the initial implementation period, it will be hard to fully grasp the actual situation of the operations. I suggest that consideration be given to setting a trial period to collect data on platform operations and passenger usage frequency. After a period of implementation, say, six months, formal licensing quotas should be introduced according to actual traffic flow, market demand and platform operational performance. Moreover, technological means such as platform data monitoring and real-time dispatch systems should be employed to regulate the cap on vehicles in service at different time slots every day, thereby leveraging the advantages of ride-hailing vehicles while preventing road congestion.