HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. BERNACCHI (in English):--Mr. Chairman, the Chairman of the Food Hygiene Select Committee has not quite answered my original question and that is whether he means that emphasis is not being put on those other illegal food caterers that he has mentioned?
(Mr. Alex S. C. WU left the meeting at this point.)
MR. SIN (in English):—I am sorry that I misunderstood you. It was a meeting after Select Committee, I think, in late September that emphasis on prosecution was against the type of caterers I mentioned in my answer, namely those who operate in flats which they occupy wholly have been given low priority in prosecution.
MR. BERNACCHI (in English):-Now, has any action been taken on the suggestion that I believe has been made to alter the Bylaws to legalize public kitchens?
CHAIRMAN (in English):-That is not in your original question, but I will admit it if it is in the public interest and the Chairman of the Select Committee wishes to answer it.
MR. SIN (in English):-Sir, again, I must say it is impossible for me to answer the question because I don't know what is a public kitchen.
MR. BERNACCHI (in English):-Then I will change it to private kitchen.
MR. SIN (in English):-Sir, if it is a matter of private kitchen, there are no arrangements to be made. But, of course, it is not an easy problem and advice has been obtained from our Principal Crown Counsel and from the Attorney General Chambers and they both agree, although from different angles, that even the word "private kitchen" may be contrary to our Food Bylaws. I can let Mr. BERNACCHI have the two opinions.
MR. BERNACCHI (in English):-Thank you. I would like to have a look at them. And as a result, has the Select Committee decided that no amendment to the Bylaws in this respect is now contemplated?
MR. SIN (in English): -No amendment is being contemplated.
CHAIRMAN (in English):-I think, Mr. SIN, the answer should be "No amendment is legally possible at this time”.
MR. SIN (in English):-Yes, Mr. Chairman.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 118 of 187
199
MRS. ELLIOTT (in English):-Mr. Chairman, in the answer, the Chairman of the Select Committee said that the decision of the Council in this matter was emphasis on prosecution should be against illegal caterers and so on, from co-tenancies, roof-tops, lanes and common parts of the building, could the Chairman clarify whether this is intended for the public good, for the convenience and cleanliness for the public good.
MR. SIN (in English):-Actual word I used, Mr. Chairman, was the Select Committee, not the Council, and this decision was taken because of economic factors existing since the latter half of this year.
MRS. ELLIOTT (in English):—I don't think I have made my question clear. I am asking if the purpose in emphasizing the prosecution against these particular caterers is intended for the good of the public in the matter of cleanliness and so on.
MR. SIN (in English):—Yes, Mr. Chairman, to enforce our Food Business by-laws.
MRS. ELLIOTT (in English):—In the case, Mr. Chairman, it may be outside the question, but could the Select Committee also consider similar inconveniences being caused to tenants by private clubs.
MR. SIN (in English):-Private clubs are not included in our By-laws, Mr. Chairman.
MRS. ELLIOTT (in English):-Mr. Chairman, I am interested in cleanliness.
CHAIRMAN (in English):-The matter will be referred to the Select Committee.
MRS. ELLIOTT (in English):-Thank you.
MISS CECILIA L. Y. YEUNG (in Cantonese): -Mr. Chairman, I have just heard from the Chairman of the Food Hygiene Select Committee, Mr. SIN, who said that emphasis on prosecution should be against illegal caterers operating from co-tenancies. I want to know if illegal caterers operating from their own tenancies, there is no other family sharing the premises with them, for those who have been prosecuted before this decision, will they be let free?
MR. SIN (in English):—It is a question of priority of prosecution. Once prosecution has commenced, it is not within our powers to interfere.