1985 — Page 17

Page 17 of 195

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

I understand that the public are generally aware that lands fenced off Public Cargo Handling Areas are 'RESTRICTED AREAS' and that use of them is under the control and supervision of Marine Department and is subject to prescribed charges. The Secretary for Health and Welfare has also been reminded that revenue so generated from charges levied on users of the Public Cargo Handling Area could be used to provide higher standard of cleansing services for the area.

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Such a mal-practice constitutes an offence under By-law 13 of the Food Business By-laws; the maximum penalty prescribed for this offence is a fine of $2,000 and imprisonment for 3 months. District health inspectors make regular inspections of all food premises; they take out prosecutions when these and other breaches of the provisions of the Food Business By-laws are noticed.

3. MR. TONG KAM-BIU asked the following question (in Cantonese):—It has come to my notice that some cooked-food or eating establishments are being operated at some private, vacant building sites. Could I be informed if such establishments have obtained valid licences from the Urban Council? Are they violating the Public Health and Urban Services Ordinance in regards hygienic aspects?

MR. WALTER M. SULKE, Chairman of the Food Hygiene Select Committee, replied as follows (in English):-This question concerns the position of cooked food or eating establishments operating on private, vacant building sites. Located as they are on private land, they cannot be licensed as hawkers. Neither can they be licensed as food business as they cannot possibly meet the licensing requirements for protection of public health. Such establishments are therefore completely illegal and are subject to law enforcement action. In the last 12 months, 23 such prosecutions have been instituted by our Health Inspectors.

MR. TONG KAM-BIU (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, since they are illegal and subject to law enforcement action, does the Urban Council have the right to prosecute them because they are operating illegally? Can we penalize them as usually we find shortage of water in these private vacant building sites, so usually they will take up the private road sites and they are making the place very dirty. Can we do something against them?

MR. SULKE (in English):-Mr. Chairman, I did say in my answer that we already have prosecuted 23 of them during the last 12 months. We do have a right to go into private land and that is in sub-section 126 of the Ordinance and our Health Inspectors are certainly doing so.

4. MR. TONG KAM-BIU asked the following question (in Cantonese):—Some eating houses and Siu Mei & Lo Mei shops are occupying part of the pavement outside their premises for cooking purposes, some using even frying pans with boiling oil at the risk of pedestrian safety and public health. Is the Urban Council concerned about such violations of the law?

MR. WALTER M. SULKE, Chairman of the Food Hygiene Select Committee, replied as follows (in English):-This question relates to the use by food business operators of pavements, lanes, alleys or other open spaces for the preparation or storage of open food.

For the six months (September 1984 to February 1985) there were a total of 225 prosecutions taken out in respect of such offences.

MR. TONG KAM-BIU (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, we have had 225 prosecutions, are these prosecutions enough to have a deterrent effect? Now going around Hong Kong, we can see a lot of these incidents, will we deploy more inspectors to stop these operations?

MR. SULKE (in English):-I think the simple answer, Mr. Chairman, is that they are not enough to be a deterrent. This is a problem we will always have, magistrates tend to be rather lenient and the operators write off their penalties to expenses. Perhaps, one could appeal to a magistrate some time to put one of these people in jail rather than to fine them which might have a better effect. In the meantime, I can assure Mr. TONG that our inspectors are doing everything possible.

MOTIONS

1. THE CHAIRMAN, Urban Council, moved the following motion:-

'RESOLVED that the Council should resolve itself into the Standing Committee of the Whole Council under Standing Order 2.'

He said (in English):-'RESOLVED that the Council should resolve itself into the Standing Committee of the Whole Council under Standing Order 2.'

MRS. E. ELLIOTT seconded (in English):—Mr. Chairman, I rise to second your motion.

The question was put.

The motion was carried unanimously.

(Note: The minutes of the Standing Committee of the Whole Council had been recorded separately in Committee Minutes CW/2/85.)

Page 17 of 195