Page 99 of 485 ·
Page 99 of 485
01485
76
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
the motion is carried, then the Public Health Select Committee would be able to discuss it in detail. I think it is an indication of direction. If the motion is carried, the Public Health Select Committee will discuss the details of the proposal and how to amend the legislation. After detailed discussion, it will be put to SCWC or the Council for adoption. So, I think this motion is worthy of our discussion and I think we should continue to discuss this matter. I oppose the dilatory motion.
MR. CHAN KWOK-LEUNG (in Cantonese):—I am also against deferring the discussion of this motion. Actually, according to the minutes of the Public Health Select Committee, there have been discussions on the licensing system for seawater suppliers. But up to this stage, we have not been able to present a consolidated view.
We can see that water quality in Victoria Harbour is very poor. The water contains excessive ecoli and heavy metals which would pose health hazards to the public if we continue to use contaminated seawater to keep fish. In the light of deteriorated water quality and a lot of reports in the media saying that seawater suppliers continue to get contaminated water from the Victoria Harbour and supply it to nearby food establishments to keep seafood, I think we should express our views on such a problem. This is our responsibility. I hope Mr. To's motion will not be deferred.
MR. CHRISTOPHER CHUNG SHU-KUN (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, I support the motion to defer discussion. I am aware that the intention of Mr. To's motion is very good but the wordings used in the motion are problematic. It is not suitable for adoption now because in the original motion it says `RESOLVED that in view of the deterioration in the water quality in the Victoria Harbour and the potential health hazard to the public posed by restaurants using such untreated sea water to keep seafood...', does it mean that all seawater used to keep seafood must be treated beforehand? How is water treated? What about fishermen who get seawater from the Nam Sha Islands? Do they need to treat seawater before they can keep fish? I think it is impossible for them to do so.
Secondly, it asks that anybody supplying seawater to restaurants for keeping seafood must comply with specific hygienic standards. I think we need detailed discussion on this because it concerns all people involved in the keeping and handling of the seafood, including the vendor of seafood, fishermen, restaurant owners and seawater suppliers. There are a whole host of people involved who have the chances of filling the tank with untreated water. Do we require each and everyone of them to get a licence and test the seawater in which seafood are kept before they are consumed? If that is the case, then nobody will be able to consume any seafood. I think although it is a very well intentioned motion, we need to have very detailed discussions before we can come up with a consensus view.
185