TNAG-1735-FCO40-2448-Minutes-and-Hansards-of-the-Legislative-Council-of-Hong-Kong-1988 — Page 171

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 May 1988

-

1433

As Mr. YEUNG Po-kwan has pointed out, representatives from the film industry, and cinema operators in particular, have raised some practical matters related to the Bill in its present form. The original Bill contains provisions for the existing practice whereby film distributors submit advertising materials for films to the Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing.

It was considered, subsequently, that there was no justification for film advertising material to be dealt with differently from any other printed adverti- sing material, and so, this provision was removed from the Bill. To elaborate on Mr. YEUNG's statement on the need to maintain consistent standards in dealing with such advertisements, I can confirm that besides the Attorney General, only the police, the Customs and Excise, and the Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing, have delegated authority to refer suspected obscene or indecent articles to the tribunal. The police and customs and excise have agreed that they will make all their referrals, both those related to films and those related to other publications, through the Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing, in the first instance, thereby ensuring a consistent approach at the initial stage of enforcement.

The hon. Mrs. Selina CHOW has expressed concern over possible problems arising out of the nature of work and lack of career structure for the film inspectors which number five. We cannot anticipate all such problems but we have taken advice from the Corruption Prevention Department of the ICAC and we will be establishing procedures to minimise corruption opportunities. This principally involves rotating the inspectors between different districts. If and when other problems should arise, we will deal with them in the light of experience again.

I am grateful to Mrs. CHOW for her suggestion that consideration should be given to seconding officers from other disciplinary services to carry out inspection duties. When I can see some attraction in the idea, I rather suspect that my Finance Branch colleagues may well conclude that to use highly trained law enforcement officers to perform inspection duties in such a restricted area, would not be value for money.

Mr. YEUNG and Mrs. CHOW both refer to the need for guidelines for cinema operators when dealing with category III films. The Commissioner for Televi- sion and Entertainment Licensing has already drafted a set of administrative guidelines to cinema operators. The operators, in permitting people to gain admittance to their cinemas, are entitled to take steps to see that their legal duties are discharged. These steps include requiring persons whom they suspect of being under age to show proof of their age, and excluding them if they are under age. Clearly, the effort required to do this is more than is required under the present legislation, but cinema operators are by no means obliged to show category III films. They are free to carry on operating with category I and category II films as at present. I foresee that certain cinemas may become specialised in category III films in future. Others, who do not welcome this liberalisation, can continue to operate under the status quo.