CO129-616-6 Hotels Ordinance- 1949 21-2-1949 - 21-2-1949 — Page 25

2.

25

Quite so

cy

А ні Гуряд

muinnte.

Mr. Wallace.

The case presented by Counsel for the petitioners followed the lines anticipated.

The criticisms directed against the proceedings of the Advisory Committee are to a certain extent, justified. It is true that the went beyond the terms of reference. Moreover, if the averments made regarding the "Lucky" and the "Tuck tin" Apartments are correct, it would appear that the Committee erroneously classified them as having been in pre-war days "boarding houses for Europeans". If as alleged by Counsel, these apartments catered for transient Chinese, there was no justification for reserving all their rooms for Hong-Kong residents (Compare paragraph 11/4) of Committee's Report).

2. The position,however, is that, in the the unsatisfactory features of the Advisory Committee's report were cured by the passing of the Ordinance. The time for fighting against the Report was when the Bill was before the Legislative Council.

The same remark applies to the point that the Committee's recommendation regarding appeals was not included in the Ordinance.

3.

From the strictly legal point of view, therefore, the petitioners have failed to show that there are sufficiently cogent grounds for disallowing the Ordinance.

Two points which were not put forward are:

(a) that paragraphs (e) and (g) of section 4 (a) empower the Quartering Authority to make regulations requiring managers to provide specified services without charging therefor;

7

(b) that section (a) is unsatisfactory in that it makes it an offence to provide accommoda- tion or service except for the uses sanctioned by or under the Ordinance.

As regards (a) the danger is only a potential one because it is hardly likely that regulations would be made compelling hotels to provide services without receiving consideration therefor, directly or indirectly.

I have already dealt with (b) in my minute of 4/4/49 and this is, I think, the only point to which attention need be called when motore of non-disallowance is glue.

4. To conclude; the petition can be refused on the grounds that the Ordinance was passed almost unanimously by the Legislative Council, that it is not legally unsound and finally that the position in Hong Kong calls for and

justifies the measure for the time being.

M. de Comarme

29.6.45

V.