1971 — Page 228

C

Page 228 of 242

436

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Hung Hom; at these three estates 21 supernumerary labourer posts were provided in the 1971-72 Estimates for an experimental door-to-door refuse collection scheme. This scheme is now being reviewed to decide whether it should be abandoned, or extended to the other eight estates.

In these eight estates where an official door-to-door refuse collection service is not provided, the tenants engaged an independent scavenging firm to collect their refuse and convey it to the nearest refuse collection point in the estates. I do not think this is a satisfactory arrange- ment, and my department will consider whether it can be improved, in the light of our experience with the experimental scheme in the three estates which I have just mentioned. I feel sure that an efficient refuse collec- tion system can play a major part in reducing the quantity of refuse thrown into the public open spaces in the estates.

MR. Lo:--Mr. Chairman, will the Commissioner for Resettle- ment extend the experimental scheme to other estates rather than abandon it?

COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT:-Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very interesting subject and we could speak about it for hours. Certainly we will do that, but I would like to make the point that the provision of a service has to have the basic physical facility within the blocks for coping with the refuse and in that context we must admit the absence of any refuse rooms in older estates. It is this sort of physical aspect we have very much in mind in considering services as such. I think myself, if you ask me to guess what would happen, I would probably tell you that we would not repeat it. We would probably try to get a contract for the refuse collection to be done by an outside contractor responsible to the department. But as I say, the success of that would depend upon our looking at the old Mark I and II estates and see whether or not we can provide refuse rooms and shutes in each block.

(9) MR. JOHN MACKENZIE asked the following question:

Can this Council be advised: -

(a) the total numbers of unlicensed restaurants, food factories, bakeries, fresh provision shops and siu-mei lo-mei shops now operating in the Urban areas of Hong Kong and Kowloon?

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

437

(b) how many of these unlicensed premises are unsuit- able for licensing, and what effective measures are being taken to put a halt to these operations com- pletely?

(c) what progress has been made by the special Sub- Committee set up to consider procedures with regard to prosecution and closure of unlicensed restaurants and food shops, and if this Sub-Committee has obtained the advice and assistance of Legal De- partment?

(d) if additional health inspection staff has been allocated to this problem since it was last raised in 1970?

MR. PETER P. K. NG, CHAIRMAN OF THE FOOD AND FOOD PREMISES SELECT Committee, replied as follows:----

This question refers to a situation which has concerned, and has been given very serious consideration by, the Food and Food Premises Select Committee.

There are at present 270 restaurants, 371 food factories, 87 fresh provision shops, and 24 siu mei lo mei shops operating without a licence in the urban areas. Of these, the premises of 125 restaurants, 310 food factories, 41 fresh provision shops and 9 siu mei lo mei shops are unsuitable for the grant of a licence.

In the case of premises which are unsuitable for a licence, the applicant is informed that his application has been rejected by the Council and is given full reasons for the rejection. The applicant is also warned that legal action will be taken should he start in business. In the case of premises which would be suitable subject to the applicant meeting the Council's requirements, a set pros- ecution procedure is applied. In both cases, the pros- ecution procedure leads to a request to the court for a closure order. In many cases, a closure order cannot be granted as a proviso to section 128(1) of the Public Health and Urban Services Ordinance specifically ex- cludes the grant of a closure order on premises used for human habitation. However, it is encouraging to note the more severe penalties which are now being imposed by the courts on persons prosecuted for operating an unlicensed food business. It is now not uncommon for the department's Prosecution Section to achieve a fine of $1,500 or three months in jail.