Page 54 of 485
Page 54 of 485
Tage 54 of 485
32
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
4. According to records of the Urban Services Department, the operators of all 6 cinemas have submitted applications to the Department for licensing under the Places of Public Entertainment Ordinance, Cap. 172. Of these applications, 3 have been issued with letters advising them of the necessary requirements. They will be granted a licence upon compliance with such requirements. Recent inspections, however, have revealed that licensing requirements, mainly in respect of ventilation, have not yet been fully met. Of the remaining 3 applications which have not been issued with a letter of requirements, 2 applications have been rejected by the Buildings Department because of the change of usage of the premises from shop to cinema and because structural alteration and additional works which have been carried out did not have the prior approval of the Building Authority. The two concerned applicants have been advised to engage Appointed Persons to take necessary steps to overcome these objections before their applications can be further processed by the Department. As regards the last application which was submitted only in February this year, the proposed layout plan of the cinema is currently being vetted by the 3 Departments concerned, that is, USD, Buildings Department and the Fire Services Department.
5. Enforcement action in the form of successful prosecutions has been taken against all of these unlicensed cinemas and fines have ranged between $1,500 and $8,000 with daily fines of $150 to $300 had been imposed.
6. The last part of the question asks who should be responsible for any accident that occurs during the operation of these unlicensed cinemas.
7. In the event of an accident such as a fire, victims could claim legal remedies against persons responsible including the owner of the unlicensed cinemas who would be culpable for operating a place of public entertainment without a licence.
MR. STANLEY NG Wing-Fai (in Cantonese):--Of the 6 unlicensed cinemas, 3 have problems with ventilation and 2 have problems with structural alterations and additions. The penalties imposed are fines of $1,500 to $8,000 and daily fine of $150 to $300. The sale of a few tickets will generate about $150. So has the Department or the Council reviewed the legislation on fines, and if so when will it be done?
My second question is whether the Council will consider acting like the Consumer Council to announce the names of those unlicensed cinemas, so that the public can be forewarned not to take the risk of going there?
Mr. Joseph Chan (in Cantonese):--Mr. Chairman, the maximum penalty according to the Ordinance is $10,000 and imprisonment of 6 months. The maximum daily fine is $1,000. As for the level of fines meted out by the court, I have already mentioned. We cannot interfere with the decision of the courts with regard to the imposition of fines. If it is considered that the penalty cannot achieve a deterrent effect, then the review should not only be done by this
Page 54 of 485
Page 54 of 485
Page 54 of 485