Page 253 of 485
228
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL,
Therefore, I think that the proposal is not feasible. If the relevant department approves or raises no objection, it is difficult for the Council to raise any objection. Though it can be done according to the law, I do not agree with this.
With regard to the common entrance/exit in the mutual covenant, in fact it will not cause any nuisance by itself. There were many cases in which licenses were issued when the premises shared the same entrance/exit with the building. We did not know as no complaints were received from the residents, so we issued the licenses. Hence, it is always difficult for us to decide whether the common entrance/exit will cause any nuisance when we consider an application. If residents living upstairs have been sexually harassed or peeped etc., that is a nuisance. The common entrance/exit itself will not contribute a nuisance, only problems that may happen at the common entrance/exit can cause nuisance.
However, does it imply that premises sharing a common entrance should not be granted a license? In other words, should we grant the license to premises with a separate entrance without any consideration? If we reduce our discretion power in the relevant stipulations, it shows that we lack self-confidence. If we take all evidence into consideration and make unprejudiced decisions, there is no need to reduce our power of discretion.
Hence, I think that the spirit of the original motion is good, but it has not considered how the L.L.B. can carry it out if the motion is passed. However, I do not agree with the amended motion of Miss Ada Wong either because her motion is also difficult to be carried out. In fact, the L.L.B. has considered the verdict of the M.S.A.B., but with regard to land use, we let the committee concerned enforce the stipulations and the relevant department handle the issue. As I compare the two motions, I find that Miss Ada Wong's motion is better. But for the time being, I have not made any decision yet.
Mr. Lee Kwok-keung (in Cantonese):—I am very glad that Members have spoken on this subject, i.e. a more open and specific policy on liquor licensing should be formulated for the Liquor Licensing Board. Why were there so many problems in the past? It is all because of too much flexibility. The excessive flexibility meant that L.L.B. members often had to make decisions under many different circumstances. Mr. No Wing-fai's motion aims at reducing flexibility, and in turn eliminating some embarrassing situations. In other words, a decision should be based on matters of principle such as land lease, occupation permit and prescribed land uses. Don't forget, premises licensed to sell alcoholic drinks can always apply for a change of land use provided the proper procedures are followed and the land use clause so allows. That means L.L.B. can issue a licence, but if the land use clause prohibits selling of alcoholic drinks, L.L.B. should not issue a licence. Once we adopt this policy, L.L.B. would not issue a licence to premises prohibited by the land use clause from selling alcoholic drinks regardless of other government departments' recommendations. If the applicant needs a liquor licence, he must apply for a change of land use first. This way, L.L.B.'s decision would be more soundly-based, and Members would not so frequently face embarrassments. This is
Page 253 of 485
85