HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
227
original motion seems to be criticising the L.L.B. for not having a licensing policy and that cases of non-compliance with stipulations of land lease, occupation permit and land use had to do with the issue of liquor licence. I appreciate the spirit and motive behind the original motion, however, it has not considered the facts and the practical problems, i.e. whether it can be implemented and what are being done. It is true that when we consider an application, we do not take land leases, occupation permits and land uses into consideration. Why don't we do so? The reason is very simple. When we approve an application, the license would not be immediately granted. The liquor license will be issued only after the premises got a general restaurant license or light refreshment restaurant license. Before the L.L.B. issues a license, it will ask the Department whether the premises has been issued any general restaurant license or light refreshment restaurant license, and whether the Buildings Department and Lands Department have been consulted. That's what the L.L.B. would do for each case. It is only with the approval from these departments that a liquor license would be issued, and it is only with the approval of the departments concerned that the premises will be issued general restaurant license or light refreshment restaurant license.
When we talk about land use, occupation permit and land lease, when comes to legal aspects, which departments' duties are they? If any consideration needs to be taken, who should do it? It's the Building Department and the Lands Department. If these departments approve or raise no objection to the case, they must have considered the clauses of the occupation permit, land use and land lease. As the authorities give no objection, why should the L.L.B. raise any objection? According to the law, who is responsible for enforcing those licenses? Never the L.L.B.. I appreciate that we should respect the aspiration of the residents, but I hope the Council can make it clear to the public that if they are worried about the situation, they should make enquiries of the Building Department and the Lands Department. I have been a member of the L.L.B. for years, and we have consulted the relevant departments for each and every case and the licenses were all issued with these departments' consent. It is not necessary for the L.L.B. to consider the said factors because the authorities concerned have approved or raised no objection to the case. According to the law, if 'modification' is not established, it will be 'waiver'. If the government departments approve or raise no objection to the case, there is no need for us to consider the said factors. In what capacity are we to query the decision of the government departments? So the original motion cannot be implemented. If we carry the original motion, we are telling the public that the L.L.B. has been doing its jobs with the eyes closed in the past. I think we are really closing our eyes without looking at the real situation, and putting the L.L.B. in a dangerous position that is beyond the capacity of the Council. Experience in the past tells us that the L.L.B. did have done the job in this respect, but we are just relying on the relevant departments which have the authority under the law to supervise these matters. We only do the job with the approval and consent of the departments concerned.
Page 252 of 485
Page 252 of 485