believed by the people and I do not know whether it is true or false. My reasons for objecting are as follows. First of all, the issue of a licence is not the best way to prevent cases of food poisoning because there are cases of food poisoning even in licensed restaurants and the U.S.D. can prove this point. The restaurants in the U.K. do not have to be issued with a licence and food poisoning is not a serious problem in the U.K. The second point is that the conditions in the canteens in factories are better than the licensed and unlicensed food stalls. If you want any proof, you need only look at the bucket of water used to wash dishes. The food canteens and food stalls are all under the Urban Council. If we are to look after only canteens in factories, it seems that we are avoiding the problems and we have misplaced our priority. Thirdly, we would not be able to control food premises just by the issue of a licence. Some people have said that it is only through the issue of a licence that we can have effective control. According to the inspecting staff, aside from the Code of Practice, Inspectors will visit the canteen once a month and to teach them various aspects of hygiene. According to the record of the meeting of the Committee in April 1976, if the canteens in the factories do not meet our requirements and if they do not improve after repeated warning, we can prosecute them according to the Nuisance By-law, so the issue of a licence is not the only method of control. I feel that our respon-sibility to the public is to serve them and not to inconvenience them unduly. The conditions for the issue of a licence are very strict so that factory owners would be deterred from operating a canteen. The conditions for the issue of a licence for canteens in factories are like those of a fast food shop but are slightly relaxed. As far as I can gather, the fast food shop will have to comply with 31 requirements and when they are in operation, they will have to comply with another 30 conditions. This is indeed very strict. The factories are manufacture in nature. They do not want to operate a canteen for profit. Not many industrialists would like to allocate some space for a canteen in the present high rent condition. If the canteen is only to serve the workers in a factory and if the factory feels that there is too much trouble and would not operate a canteen, those affected will be the welfare of the workers who are advocated to protect. The sixth point is that if canteens in factories are on the decrease, they will force the workers to have food from the mobile hawkers and they would be under even greater health threat, so will this not enable us to carry out our statutory responsibility of safeguarding public hygiene? I think that control through the issue of a licence is not the best method. We should encourage the setting up of canteens in factories so that they can look after the lunches of their workers. What we must do is to co-operate with them. We teach them so that they would know how to comply with the various conditions. Nobody wants cases of food poisoning to occur, and I think that education and self-discipline is better than prosecution. The U.C. and the factories do not want food poisoning to occur so we must step up the health education. It is much better than just prosecuting them. Therefore, I again suggest that as long as we cannot control the unhygienic mobile food hawkers, if there are no requirements under the law that a factory must set
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 36 of 120
41
up a canteen for the workers, and in order to protect public health, we should step up our education campaign to urge people to co-operate with the Urban Council so that they will comply with our requirements. Under such condi-tions we can again consider the issue of a licence to canteens in factories. I urge that my colleagues use their intelligence and should carefully look at all aspects and then make the correct decision.
MRS. E. ELLIOTT (in English):-Mr. Chairman, I rise to associate myself with the remarks of Dr. Denny HUANG and also to oppose the motion as it now stands. This must not be taken to mean that I am opposed to supplying food under hygienic conditions to workers. It is simply that I believe the whole exercise to have been carried out highhandedly and illogically, and that it is self-defeating. It may, in fact, result in the closure of canteens, forcing the workers to eat from street stalls in less hygienic conditions.
The Hong Kong Government boasts that it governs by consultation and consent. If the Urban Council is to be associated with that intention, one would expect a consultative method to be carried out in the present case. For example:
1. The first step is discussion with the associations concerned; this, in fact, was done; discussions were held in May this year;
2. The second step would be the drawing up of the proposed relaxed regula-tions, followed by a further meeting with the organizations to seek further amendments or clarification;
3. Then the final draft would be prepared and published for further com-ment;
4. Finally, when common agreement had been reached, the By-laws would be passed.
But the Council has not followed any such consultative method. Instead, we are asked today to pass the by-laws first and discuss the promised 'far less stringent' regulations later. These 'far less stringent regulations have never been spelled out either to the factory operators or to this Council. However, the Director of Urban Services has given little hope that there will be any changes at all. Once these by-laws are passed, there will be no relaxa-tion. Any objectors will simply have the book of rules thrown at them.
Therefore, far from having consulted the Associations concerned, it is clear that the Council has flouted the proposals made by the canteen operators in May and June. Even as late as 27 June 1980, the Chinese Manufacturers' Association pointed out these relevant factors:
1. They agreed that public health should be protected, and that inspections and health education will do more to that end than getting a licence;
2. They pointed out that canteens run on welfare lines, some providing free food, should not have the frustration and expense of carrying out detailed regulations;
Page 36 of 120