HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Turning on to the issue of fine, in the absence of past prosecution statistics, why is it necessary to consider catching up with inflation by doubling the fine? What is the reason for doing this?
Turning now to another part of the answer concerning dishes. I just wonder that there is no provision in the legislation in this respect, although there are adequate licensing conditions and codes of practice to deal with such instances. Are there more specific guidelines in this regard?
The last part of the reply mentions stickers being displayed at conspicuous places. My observation is that the stickers were not displayed at conspicuous places. I wonder what is the basis of the reply. Can we consider the possibility of strict enforcement of the bylaws and, if stickers are to be displayed, stipulate that they should be displayed at conspicuous places?
Mr. Joseph Chan YEUK-SUT (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, the first point concerns whether enforcement difficulties have led to no prosecution statistics and only one complaint case. In fact, food premises licensees usually try to resolve problems themselves because once prosecution is taken, both the dog owner and the food premises licensee are to be held responsible and will be prosecuted. Therefore, generally speaking, when a food premises operator sees someone taking a pet or a dog into the premises, that person is advised to take it away from the premises. If the situation is successfully handled, there is no need to go to the stage of prosecution by the Council. Prosecution statistics therefore are low. In case a person notices another taking a dog into a food premises, a phonecall can be made immediately to the Urban Services Department for our staff to take prosecution procedures. If the dog owner has taken his dog away from the premises before the arrival of USD staff, no prosecution action will be necessary. If a dog owner insists on not leaving with his dog after the arrival of USD staff, he will be prosecuted. If a food premises operator does not intervene and allows a dog owner to take in his dog, the licensee will be prosecuted as well. If the licensee claims that the dog owner refuses to take his dog away despite warning and advice, usually only the dog owner will be prosecuted but not the licensee. It is not so much that there are difficulties in prosecuting, but rather that the problem has already been resolved without resorting to prosecution actions.
Concerning the amendment of bylaws, Ms. Chow queried the need for amendment even though there is no prosecution statistic. At present, the highest penalty is a fine of $5,000 and three months' imprisonment. The Standing Committee has agreed to carry out an overall review of all penalties and for this reason, a fine of $10,000 has been suggested.
The third point concerns licensing conditions and codes of practice. The Council provides codes of practice for compliance by food premises licensees. Their contents safeguard hygiene in food premises as well as ensure the health of our citizens. For example, the codes stipulate that no dogs and cats are
Page 12 of 498