HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. BERNACCHI:-No, Mr. Chairman, it is necessary for Members that want to speak on the amended Motion to now have an opportunity to speak before you take the vote on the amendment. For instance, I would invite Mr. Hu, if he so desires, to give his speech and say, for those reasons that he either supports the amendment or prefers the original Motion.
CHAIRMAN:-Certainly, Mr. BERNACCHI, I had assumed that no one wished to speak on the amended Motion.
MR. SALES: Am I not right in understanding that Mr. BERNACCHI has already spoken for Mr. Hu? (Laughter).
MR. HU:-Mr. Chairman, I think it is my duty to speak on the amendment to the Motion or on the original Motion. Anyway, this is my idea about this matter. I think the original Motion has its merits, because the purpose of the original Motion is merely to regulate the state of affairs in resettlement and industrial areas, where the cooked food stalls are prevailing. Owing to the fact that no cooked food stall licences have been issued in the last ten years, these cooked food stalls are operating on an illegal basis.
The effects which I can see of operating cooked food stalls without having licences, may be as follows. Firstly, they cannot be properly controlled, some of them are now blocking the entrances to the resettlement buildings which may cause a fire hazard. Secondly, we cannot satisfactorily require them to meet the hygienic standards, which may cause a health hazard to the people living there, particularly during the summer time. Thirdly, the Government would naturally lose some revenue if this state of affairs is not remedied. The reputation of Government might further be enhanced, otherwise the common people would think, rightly or wrongly, that the authorities would always tolerate illegal things to go on indefinitely. It is therefore high time that this matter should be reconsidered in Council rather than in the Select Committee. I think the principle is a sound principle, and I would rather the original Motion be carried without any amendment.
MRS. ELLIOTT:--Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that it is a matter of juggling with words to see whether the Chairman of one club is going to win the Motion from the Chairman of another club. I suggest that we should unite on this matter, because it does not really make any difference whether the wording is according to the first one or the second, the purpose appears the same. I would like some one to clarify what the difference is and why we should change from the first to the second, I would be very happy to hear the clarification.
MR. SALES: -Mr. Chairman, I have not spoken on the amendment, may I do so?
CHAIRMAN: --Please.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. SALES-Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to do so because what Mr. CHEONG-LEEN put forth was clear. In point of fact, I support the sentiment of the original Motion by Mr. BERNACCHI Seconded by Mrs. ELLIOTT. Mr. Henry Hu as usual has brought it out very clearly. But the Council must not overlook the fact that less than a month ago the Hawker Policy Select Committee at its meeting of 16th April, of which I am not a Member, but at which Mrs. ELLIOTT was present under the Chairmanship of Mr. CHEONG-LEEN, accepted a working programme. It was carried unanimously. The question of cooked food stalls was brought out in the minutes and Mrs. ELLIOTT expressed herself in favour of a broadening of that policy. Now, if the Urban Council through a properly constituted Select Committee, the Hawker Policy Select Committee, adopted a working programme, and that programme was adopted only on the 16th April, and to-day the 6th May, only three weeks later, we introduce into this Council a Motion which does not take into account that working policy, to me such action does not seem to be correct. It means we are chopping and changing without that working programme having been given the chance of being reviewed, as it was the intention of the Select Committee to do, either every three months, or perhaps three months after its adoption, or even after a period of six months. This is brought out in paragraph 24 of the minutes. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it is only sensible, if we are to introduce a working programme for a Select Committee, that that working programme should not be jeopardised before it has had a chance and that it should not be changed until it is reviewed by the proper Select Committee.
There is nothing wrong with Mr. BERNACCHI's Motion except the last clause and that last clause, in my view, has been correctly amended by the Chairman of the Hawker Policy Select Committee, in discussion with the Chairman of the Hawker Management Select Committee, and we must rightly and in all fairness accept their opinion, so long as the intention of the original motion is achieved. I therefore support the amendment.
MR. BERNACCHI :-Speaking on the amendment, I entirely agree with Mrs. ELLIOTT that, by and large, it is a difference in phraseology and not a difference in meaning. I think that "consideration" is possibly not as strong as "remits this matter." As for the words "in accordance with its programme". Of course, the Select Committee has always power to deal with matters in an ordinary way in accordance with its programme, but I prefer my original Motion because it is simpler and remits this matter to the Hawker Policy Select Committee for it to work out the practical details. In my opinion, an amendment "for consideration in accordance with its programme" weakens the Motion, and there is no necessity for it.
MR. PETER C. K. CHAN:-Mr. Chairman, although I seconded the amendment, I reserved my speech.
Page 36