Page 133 of 206
244
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
is available. Once again I ask Government to come to an early decision.
I now turn to a somewhat controversial subject which has been very much in the news recently. I refer to food caterers, who supply meals for consumption off the premises particularly to office workers. As the law now stands, they are classified as food factories, although their scale of operation is such that few people would regard them as factories in the normal sense. Their operations undoubtedly meet a need. They charge about $2.00 to $2.50 per meal whereas in the Central district, to eat a meal even in a cheapest restaurant would cost at least three or four times that amount.
We should, therefore, do what we can to allow them to operate, provided always, and this is most important, that there are no health hazard or fire risks involved in their operations. Food caterers operating from back alley or in insanitary conditions in garages cannot be tolerated. But what about food caterers operating from kitchens in residential flats? If a food caterer operates from a properly equipped kitchen in a residential block, will his operation necessarily be unacceptable? Surely not. After all, it is only doing on a larger scale what the housewife does for her family on a small scale.
We should create a new kind of license to be known perhaps as a Food Caterer License to allow the preparation of cooked meals for consumption off the premises. Such a license would be a simpler and modified version of a food factory license, which would stand in the same relationship to a Food Factory License as a Light Refreshment Restaurant License stands to a General Restaurant License. Conditions could be laid down prohibiting the use of passage ways for storage purposes and requiring the kitchen and food preparation room to be suitably equipped.
We should not be hampered in our thinking by policy laid down in the past that food business would not be permitted in residential buildings. We should look at the proposed operation and see whether it can be carried on without hazard to health or fire risk and without too much nuisance and annoyance to neighbours. Residents in a building may not appreciate having a food caterer in their midst. However, would that be any worse than having a restaurant on the floor below you which is already the case in many of our big centrally located residential buildings? There must be a certain amount of give and take. Of course, we will undoubtedly encounter difficulty with the Fire Services Department, who will not agree to the operation of a factory in a residential building, merely because the operation is labelled as a factory. We must get away from this kind of thinking and examine whether the proposed operation is in fact a fire hazard or a health hazard. If so it cannot be tolerated but if not, it should
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
245
be permitted. We should not try to stop it merely because we call it a factory. We should look instead to the reality of the operation.
Mr. Chairman, we are now in the midst of the Clean Hong Kong Campaign. Of course, it is too early to assess its success or failure, but even at a cursory glance, at least some success has been achieved. Most people are aware of what is being attempted and seem well disposed to the objects of the Campaign.
Our efforts must not cease with the month of November. Having cleaned Hong Kong, it will be to no avail if we slide back into our old litter depositing habits. We must instead maintain and improve on what has been achieved. If we all persevere I am sure this can be done.
With these remarks, I am happy to support the motion before the Council. (Applause).
MR. HENRY H. L. Hu (In Cantonese): -We are now participating in this Annual Debate of the Urban Council. But in this year I think there are few particular meanings concerning this Annual Debate.
First, at the time when the Urban Council's jurisdiction has shrunk from time to time the occasion of Annual Debate in which we can discuss the matters outside the jurisdiction of the Council seems to me more precious.
Secondly, it is the first time that in the open meeting of the Urban Council we can use Chinese in our speech. Although the law has not been changed, that is the persons who would be the candidates of the Urban Council Election must understand English and in the Select Committees it is still English which in principle should be the language to be used. But no one can deny that in the use of language this is a great step forward. This is why I would speak today in Chinese. But about my Cantonese dialect I am afraid that I cannot speak so well. If anybody could not understand my Cantonese well, I would tender my apologies. I hope in a very near future, in the Urban Council meetings one can use Chinese national language to speak.
Thirdly, as the Reform Club has been always advocating for the public housing, the expansion of education and social welfare, it was only recently that our aim has been formally recognized as the Government's policy. I am particularly pleased on hearing of this.
After saying that, I have the following views to express concerning the affairs of Urban Council in particular and concerning Hong Kong in general.
Page 133 of 206
Page 133 of 206
244
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
is available. Once again I ask Government to come to an early
decision.
I now turn to a somewhat controversial subject which has been very much in the news recently. I refer to food caterers, who supply meals for consumption off the premises particularly to office workers. As the law now stands, they are classified as food factories, although their scale of operation is such that few people would regard them as factories in the normal sense. Their operations undoubtedly meet a need. They charge about $2.00 to $2.50 per meal whereas in the Central district, to eat a meal even in a cheapest restaurant would cost at least three or four times that amount.
We should, therefore, do what we can to allow them to operate, provided always, and this is most important, that there are no health hazard or fire risks involved in their operations. Food caterers operat- ing from back alley or in insanitary conditions in garages cannot be tolerated. But what about food caterers operating from kitchens in residential flats? If a food caterer operate from a properly equipped kitchen in a residential block, will his operation necessarily be un- acceptable? Surely not. After all, it is only doing on a larger scale what the housewife does for her family on a small scale.
We should create a new kind of license to be known perhaps as a Food Caterer License to allow the preparation of cooked meals for consumption off the premises. Such a license would be a simpler and modified version of a food factory license, which would stand in the same relationship to a Food Factory License as a Light Refresh- ment Restaurant License stands to a General Restaurant License. Conditions could be laid down prohibiting the use of passage ways for storage purposes and requiring the kitchen and food preparation room to be suitably equipped.
We should not be hampered in our thinking by policy laid down in the past that food business would not be permitted in residential buildings. We should look at the proposed operation and see whether it can be carried on without hazard to health or fire risk and without too much nuisance and annoyance to neighbours. Residents in a building may not appreciate having a food caterer in their midsts. However, would that be any worse than having a restaurant on the floor below you which is already the case in many of our big centrally located residential buildings? There must be a certain amount of give and take. Of course, we will undoubtedly encounter difficulty with the Fire Services Department, who will not agree to the operation of a factory in a residential building, merely because the operation is labelled as a factory. We must get away from this kind of thinking and examine whether the proposed operation is in fact a fire hazard or a health hazard. If so it cannot be tolerated but if not, it should
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
245
be permitted. We should not try to stop it merely because we call it a factory. We should look instead to the reality of the operation.
Mr. Chairman, we are now in the midst of the Clean Hong Kong Campaign. Of course, it is too early to assess its success or failure, but even at a cursory glance, at least some success has been achieved. Most people are aware of what is being attempted and seem well disposed to the objects of the Campaign.
Our efforts must not cease with the month of November. Having cleaned Hong Kong, it will be to no avail if we slide back into our old litter depositing habits. We must instead maintain and improve on what has been achieved. If we all preservere I am sure this can be done.
With these remarks, I am happy to support the motion before the Council. (Applause).
MR. HENRY H. L. Hu (In Cantonese): -We are now participating in this Annual Debate of the Urban Council. But in this year I think there are few particular meanings concerning this Annual Debate.
First, at the time when the Urban Council's jurisdiction has shrunken from time to time the occasion of Annual Debate in which we can discuss the matters outside the jurisdiction of the Council seems to me more precious.
Secondly, it is the first time that in the open meeting of the Urban Council we can use Chinese in our speech. Although the law has not been changed, that is the persons who would be the candidates of the Urban Council Election must understand English and in the Select Committees it is still English which in principle should be the language to be used. But no one can deny that in the use of language this is a great step forward. This is why I would speak today in Chinese. But about my Cantonese dialect I am afraid that I cannot speak so well. If anybody could not understand my Cantonese well, I would tender my apologies. I hope in a very near future, in the Urban Council meetings one can use Chinese national language to speak.
Thirdly, as the Reform Club has been always advocating for the public housing, the expansion of education and social welfare, it was only recently that our aim has been formally recognized as the Govern- ment's policy. I am particularly pleased on hearing of this.
After saying that, I have the following views to express concerning the affairs of Urban Council in particular and concerning Hong Kong in general.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.