Page 94 of 654
FO1654
92
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Chairman (in Cantonese):—Will the mover exercise his right of reply?
Mr. Kam Nai-wai (in Cantonese):~I shall respond briefly. First of all, I think all Hong Kong people should read the motion. It says clearly that the Liquor Licensing Board should consider restricting the number of liquor licenses for residential areas. If the motion is carried today, it is not to be implemented tomorrow. Similar to Mr. IP Kwok-chung's motion, in no case will manpower be increased tomorrow after the motion is carried today.
Secondly, I wish to reiterate that the Board cannot tackle some cases. When there is nuisance on our streets and many liquor licenses have been issued there, we cannot confirm where the nuisance has come from. We cannot stop this happening and we continue to issue some more licenses. I also want to point out that in my suggestion, there is no mention of the upper limit of licenses to be issued. We will decide on individual merits. All I want is to make the restriction on numbers the fourth criterion. Let me give an extreme example. If there are 10 Chiuchow restaurants on the same street and the 11th one applies for a liquor license, should we issue it? Or should we reject the application? We have to study into different cases, say, we should find out whether the 10 restaurants were ever involved in nuisance. We must decide on individual circumstances and applicants should find out about the area they intend to operate in.
It was mentioned that the Appeals Board as well as ICAC had asked us, as bodies collecting public opinion, to be more concerned about nuisance caused to residents. This has absolutely nothing to do with free economy. Why is it that we restrict the number of banks? Banks won't cause nuisance. Maybe one day there will be a bank run and people will queue up, but there will not be nuisance caused all the time. As for the Liquor Licensing Board, the criteria have to be stated clearly that a certain establishment will not cause nuisance. In fact, we have this assumption that places selling liquor easily cause nuisance. If there is no such assumption, we don't need to handle applications one by one.
So, let me say again that I have not specified an upper limit for licenses issued to establishments in residential areas. That is not in the spirit of my motion, either. The question of speculation is not considered. I just want to correct the Democratic Alliance on it. I hope Members will support my motion. As to details of implementation or how to be seen by the public of our implementation, I cannot list them out today. I hope Members will support my motion. I am sure the Liquor Licensing Board will consider your opinions and set out a policy suited to the needs of the public. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The question was put.
The motion was carried with 9 votes in favour and 5 abstentions.
(Record of votes on Mr. KAM Nai-wai's motion attached as enclosure B)
Page 94 of 654