Page 251 of 485
Page 251 of 485
226
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
M.S.A.B.. They have considered various factors before formulating three principles. I represented the Council to attend the last meeting of the M.S.A.B., At the meeting, the Board expressed great dissatisfaction on the resolution of the L.L.B.. it was somewhat like an open condemnation. The M.S.A.B. felt that the L.L.B. does not have a clear and open policy over a lot of issues. As a result, the applicants or the people affected do not have a clear idea on the criteria for the issue of licence. I disagree to the amended motion because of the following reasons.
First, it does not state clearly that there should be an open licensing policy and secondly, it allows too much flexibility as consideration on these principles is concerned. As those are principles, they should not be taken as factors to be considered but should be clearly written down as licensing conditions. Why doesn't the original motion mention that we should consider whether the applicant is fit and proper, and whether the premises will cause nuisance or inconvenience. This is because the existing policy of the L.L.B. has already given due consideration to these two aspects, that is, whether it will cause nuisance to the residents and whether the applicant is a fit and proper person. These two aspects are not drawing much comment. The comments are mainly directed towards the land use factor.
Therefore I think that we should formulate an open and clear licensing policy. Whether the applicant is fit and proper and whether inconvenience will be caused are practical considerations. I also agree with Miss Wong that circumstances of cases differ and the L.L.B. should handle them with flexibility. Some people may not understand why a certain applicant is not fit and proper, this is in fact based on information provided by the police and should not be disclosed here. However, as to whether the premises complies with the terms of land lease and occupation permit as well as the land use, it can easily be judged basing on specific and clear principles. Nobody would disagree with this. In fact, regarding whether a piece of land or its occupation permit allows the operation of this particular kind of business, there may also be opposite views that the land lease, occupation permit and land use should not be factors merely considered by the L.L.B. in issuing licenses but there should be inter-departmental coordination instead. I strongly object to this view. The L.L.B. should consider licence applications independently. For many people, when they move to live in a certain area, they expect to live in an environment that is free from liquor selling places. Such expectation is reflected in the land lease, occupation permit and land use documents. If there is no clear policy that if the land lease, occupation permit and land use terms have not been complied with, license should not be issued, I think such arrangement would provide protection to residents. My view is that we should retain the original motion rather than amending it and making it vague.
Mr. Daniel Wong Kwok-tung (in Cantonese):—I am quite worried that if the original motion is carried, the Council will be put in an embarrassing situation and the L.L.B. will be put in such a position that it will not be able to handle its work. The