Page 105 of 195
Page 105 Page 105 of 195
179
178
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
licences, restaurant licences, liquor licences, billiard room licences, etc. Obviously restaurants, fast food outlets, bars, and even billiard rooms need some sort of control but the control can be supplied without licensing. Licensing at the moment is really a bit of a joke. There are many restaurants which operate without licences because their owners not only got fed up waiting for the licences to be issued but also because they couldn't afford the delay since they were paying rent for premises they couldn't legally use. These illegal restaurants are fined regularly for operating without a licence, but they simply add those fines to their overheads and go merrily on their way, and believe it or not the law does not allow us to shut them down and my committee is now considering asking LegCo to alter the law. This is a really weird and wonderful situation and the faster something is done about it the better. An equally ridiculous situation exists in billiard saloon licensing where anybody can open a private club, put in a hundred tables, and operate without a licence. This sort of thing of course makes us Councillors into a laughing stock.
But that is not the reason why I want to abolish licensing. I want to abolish licensing because I think it is essential for us to free our citizens from as much red tape as possible, and I see no earthly benefit to be derived from our present licensing system. Licensing would only make sense, if we could raise revenue from it, but under the M.A.A., Government does not allow us to raise revenue via licensing. All we can do is cover our expenses so our licensing system simply creates unnecessary work for some of our staff, which the licencee then has to pay for (I think it is quite wrong of Government not to allow us to raise funds via the licensing system, or to cross fertilize from one licensing system to another. It is quite ridiculous that a large hotel with half a dozen bars should pay the same liquor licence fee as a small hole-in-the-wall bar, and both restaurant licences and liquor licences could be increased quite substantially without creating any hardship for the owners or the public using them and could thus cover some of our deficits in, for instance, the hawker licensing area).
Secondly, the desired control can be achieved by a system of simple registration, i.e. if you want to open a restaurant you simply come to us and register and we hand you a book which tells you all the laws and regulations with which you have to comply, and then you are put on our list of places to inspect. And when we come to inspect, which we will do quite regularly, and find that you are not complying with the little book of rules we have issued we simply shut you down until you do so. These rules and regulations will include Fire Brigade regulations as well as the lease conditions which may be imposed by the Lands Department (the reason why it often takes so long to issue a restaurant or a liquor licence is that there are three different Government Departments involved and often when one Department says O.K. another one finds a fault and there is a six week or two month's cycle, which means that the applicant will have to wait nearly two months for one Department and then two months for another one, and then if he has still not fully complied it takes another two months etc. etc. My Committee has suggested that a system of Departmental conferences should be instituted which could very effectively cut out some of these delays and we are hoping that this new method will be adopted during 1986).
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
out some of these delays and we are hoping that this new method will be adopted during 1986).
When we shut down a restaurant or bar there must obviously be a course of Appeal. At the moment this Appeal is to the Select Committee. I would much prefer if such Appeals were made to the Department in the first place. Such Appeals should be heard in public and the Department should play an educational role, in other words, help the miscreant to put things right and only if the appellant still feels he hasn't had a fair go could the Appeal be made to the Select Committee.
None of these suggestions are original. They are all being exercised in various countries in the World. The Conference system operates in Malaysia, the Departmental Appeal System operates in San Francisco, and the Licensing and Examinations of Restaurant Managers operates in Vancouver, and similar systems operate elsewhere. This is not the place to go into detail. Suffice it to say that I think they are all practical solutions which will save the Department quite a lot of work, and save the applicants a lot of heartache and I hope the Food Hygiene Select Committee will explore this matter further, because we are in business here to enhance the quality of life of every citizen and freeing our citizens from bureaucracy certainly will enhance the quality of their lives!
I suppose it is a little unusual for a Chairman of a Committee to recommend its dissolution but I personally think that the Food Hygiene Committee could operate very well within the Environmental Hygiene Select Committee and that there is no necessity for a separate Food Hygiene Committee. Amalgamation of these two committees would save members and the Department time and would not affect the effectiveness of the work done by the Committee.
Let me just say a couple of words about the Keep Hong Kong Clean Committee. This used to be one of the most important committees in the Urban Council because the campaign was fully supported by Government and funds available from Government were very large. But because Government in its wisdom thinks that Hong Kong is now clean enough they don't think a Keep Hong Kong Clean campaign is really necessary and not only did they dissolve the Chief Secretary's committee, they also recommended we dissolve ours. However, we don't think Hong Kong is clean enough. Just look at multi-owner buildings, squatter areas, beaches on a summer evening, country parks on a Monday morning, cargo handling areas on any day of the week etc. etc. So now it is entirely up to this Council and we are proud to take on such a big job, but, of course, we do not have the funds which are really necessary to run a proper campaign. Government do support us on the publicity side but even taking that into consideration our total outgoings this year will be less than HK$2 million which is all that we can afford and which I think is a ridiculously small sum to spend on encouraging our citizens to keep Hong Kong clean. We need much more money and much more manpower to do an effective job, and we need much more inter-departmental support. I personally think that the most important aspect of the campaign must be educational. Although the Education
Page 105 of 19.
Page 105Page 106
Page 106 of 195
Page 105 of 195
Page 105 Page 105 of 195
179
178
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
licences, restaurant licences, liquor licences, billiard room licences, etc. Obviously restaurants, fast food outlets, bars, and even billiard rooms need some sort of control but the control can be supplied without licensing. Licensing at the moment is really a bit of a joke. There are many restaurants which operate without licences because their owners not only got fed up waiting for the licences to be issued but also because they couldn't afford the delay since they were paying rent for premises they couldn't legally use. These illegal restaurants are fined regularly for operating without a licence, but they simply add those fines to their overheads and go merrily on their way, and believe it or not the law does not allow us to shut them down and my committee is now considering asking LegCo to alter the law. This is a really weird and wonderful situation and the faster something is done about it the better. An equally ridiculous situation exists in billiard saloon licensing where anybody can open a private club, put in a hundred tables, and operate without a licence. This sort of thing of course makes us Councillors into a laughing stock.
But that is not the reason why I want to abolish licensing. I want to abolish licensing because I think it is essential for us to free our citizens from as much red tape as possible, and I see no earthly benefit to be derived from our present licensing system. Licensing would only make sense, if we could raise revenue from it, but under the M.A.A., Government does not allow us to raise revenue via licensing. All we can do is cover our expenses so our licensing system simply creates unnecessary work for some of our staff, which the licencee then has to pay for (I think it is quite wrong of Government not to allow us to raise funds via the licensing system, or to cross fertilize from one licensing system to another. It is quite ridiculous that a large hotel with half a dozen bars should pay the same liquor licence fee as a small hole-in-the-wall bar, and both restaurant licences and liquor licences could be increased quite substantially without creating any hardship for the owners or the public using them and could thus cover some of our deficits in, for instance, the hawker licensing area).
Secondly, the desired control can be achieved by a system of simple registration, i.e. if you want to open a restaurant you simply come to us and register and we hand you a book which tells you all the laws and regulations with which you have to comply, and then you are put on our list of places to inspect. And when we come to inspect, which we will do quite regularly, and find that you are not complying with the little book of rules we have issued we simply shut you down until you do so. These rules and regulations will include Fire Brigade regulations as well as the lease conditions which may be imposed by the Lands Department (the reason why it often takes so long to issue a restaurant or a liquor licence is that there are three different Government Departments involved and often when one Department says O.K. another one finds a fault and there is a six week or two month's cycle, which means that the applicant will have to wait nearly two months for one Department and then two months for another one, and then if he has still not fully complied it takes another two months etc. etc. My Committee has suggested that a system of Departmental conferences should be instituted which could very effectively cut
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
out some of these delays and we are hoping that this new method will be adopted during 1986).
When we shut down a restaurant or bar there must obviously be a course of Appeal. At the moment this Appeal is to the Select Committee. I would much prefer if such Appeals were made to the Department in the first place. Such Appeals should be heard in public and the Department should play an educational role, in other words, help the miscreant to put things right and only if the appellant still feels he hasn't had a fair go could the Appeal be made to the Select Committee.
None of these suggestions are original. They are all being exercised in various countries in the World. The Conference system operates in Malaysia, the Departmental Appeal System operates in San Francisco, and the Licensing and Examinations of Restaurant Managers operates in Vancouver, and similar systems operate elsewhere. This is not the place to go into detail. Suffice it to say that I think they are all practical solutions which will save the Department quite a lot of work, and save the applicants a lot of heartache and I hope the Food Hygiene Select Committee will explore this matter further, because we are in business here to enhance the quality of life of every citizen and freeing our citizens from bureaucracy certainly will enhance the quality of their lives!
I suppose it is a little unusual for a Chairman of a Committee to recommend its dissolution but I personally think that the Food Hygiene Committee could operate very well within the Environmental Hygiene Select Committee and that there is no necessity for a separate Food Hygiene Committee. Amalgamation of these two committees would save members and the Department time and would not affect the effectiveness of the work done by the Committee.
Let me just say a couple of words about the Keep Hong Kong. Clean Committee. This used to be one of the most important committees in the Urban Council because the campaign was fully supported by Government and funds available from Government were very large. But because Government in its wisdom thinks that Hong Kong is now clean enough they don't think a Keep Hong Kong Clean campaign is really necessary and not only did they dissolve the Chief Secretary's committec, they also recommended we dissolve ours. However, we don't think Hong Kong is clean enough. Just look at multiowner buildings, squatter areas, beaches on a summer evening, country parks on a Monday morning, cargo handling areas on any day of the week etc. etc. So now it is entirely up to this Council and we are proud to take on such a big job, but, of course, we do not have the funds which are really necessary to run a proper campaign. Government do support us on the publicity side but even taking that into consideration our total outgoings this year will be less than HK$2 million which is all that we can afford and which I think is a ridiculously small sum to spend on encouraging our citizens to keep Hong Kong clean. We need much more money and much more manpower to do an effective job, and we need much more inter-departmental support. I personally think that the most important aspect of the campaign must be educational. Although the Education
Page 105 of 19.
Page 105Page 106
Page 106 of 195
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.