Page 68 of 654
54
66
# HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
openly accused the Urban Services Department for not prosecuting cleaning companies and quoted examples too. However, was prosecution for uncleanliness in estates or that a certain company made mistakes on points of cleanliness and hygiene? The company could have piled up rubbish all over the place or left rubbish bins uncovered. Then, prosecution was not on account of uncleanliness of the estates. The accusation that the Department tolerated cleaning companies would give the public a misunderstanding that monitoring the performance of cleaning contractors of housing estates is the responsibility of the Urban Council That is 100% wrong. Only the Housing Authority and the Housing Department can monitor those cleaning companies employed by them. This Council cannot do that job.
To take out prosecution when places are found unclean or against hygiene regulations, we must decide on the target. If that place falls within a private building, the one to be prosecuted should be the Owners' Corporation, not the cleaning company, not cleaning staff either. I believe the owner of public estates is the Housing Authority and the Housing Department. Therefore, we have yet to find out whether we are empowered to prosecute.
Unless we take over power from the Housing Authority, it will be ridiculous to speak of monitoring the work of cleaning companies. Prosecution is the work of the Urban Services Department, but sentencing is that of the courts. If we give grading to housing estates, it is tantamount to involving ourselves in passing sentence on minor offences. If the Urban Services Department takes up grading of public estates, we can hardly shy away from grading private estates. Let us not forget that a large portion of the funding of the Urban Council comes from private premises. If private premises request the Department to do the grading, should the Department take it up? This will inevitably involve a point of law. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, based on the spirit of the law and the division of power, I oppose the original motion. Thank you.
Mr. Lam Man-FAI (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, the hygiene condition of public estates has all along been less than satisfactory. Last year, there was a motion in this Council asking for prosecution against estates found not up to standard in cleanliness. Figures show that the Department did take enforcement action. The problem is whether there are estates which have remained the same. I think the most important point is that we are holding the trump card. We have the right to prosecute.
If we carry the motion, it amounts to giving up our trump card. We would then have to grade cleaning companies and wait a few months before going to the prosecution step. We will be just disarming ourselves. I feel that the grading system may be good, but should we make use of Urban Council resources to grade matters outside our jurisdiction? We will be doing our duty to prosecute people for not complying with hygiene conditions and jeopardising public health. I think it is more suitable to leave grading to the Housing Authority and the Housing Department. In fact, they appreciate the
Page 68 of 654