Page 89
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
87
Thirdly, the suitable number of licenses to be issued should be decided in accordance with individual circumstances. The Board will not rule on a certain limit and hence, there will not be speculation. No one will or can know the upper limit for one area because everything is based on the opinion of residents.
Liquor licenses now issued by the Board come with additional clauses. For example, in residential areas, establishments are not allowed to open all folding doors after 6 pm and no selling is allowed after 11 pm. However, the clauses are unable to uproot the problem of nuisance caused by the large number of liquor selling establishments in one area.
I would like to point out one thing more. The problem explained just now is not alone to the Central and Western or Mid-Levels Districts. We have received complaints recently about the situation in Causeway Bay as well. Incorporated Owners bodies are raising objection. However, the Liquor Licensing Board has not put the halt on the issue of licenses or the number of licenses to be issued. May be I should add here that the Urban Services Appeal Board and the Independent Commission Against Corruption have asked the Board to take more into account the views of the public and to consider putting in more factors for approvals. ICAC has also suggested a limit on the number of licenses to be issued for different areas.
Mr. Chairman, restricting the number of licenses to be issued not only answers the needs of the public and the urban area, but also takes into consideration the views of the Appeal Board and ICAC. I have so spoken in the hope that Members will voice their opinions for the reference of the Liquor Licensing Board as well as support my motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. AMBROSE CHEUNG WING-SUM (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, Mr. KAM just listed the 3 criteria adopted by the Liquor Licensing Board. As to whether the criteria meet needs in the Board's handling of the matter and implementation of the policy, the answer is 'no'.
In more concrete terms, the 3 criteria cannot ensure protection of residents from nuisance caused. As it is, only when there is concrete evidence of nuisance to residents will the Board re-consider its decision on issuance.
As for prevention, there is nothing we can do under existing criteria. We may try to anticipate problems, but basically, we can do nothing. If we reject an application, the applicant can go to the Appeals Board. If current criteria are not revised, we will lose the appeal in the end. So, I think we should ask ourselves whether there is need to review the policy with reference to nuisance to residents. We should set out criteria for applicants and the public to see the stand of the Liquor Licensing Board. That should be our main direction. As we know, back in 94/95, the Appeals Board in its judgment suggested that the Urban Council come up with an upper limit on licenses issued for one street, area or building. As for buildings with shared access mainly for residents and
Page 89 of 654