1985 — Page 25

Page 25 of 195

Page 25 of 195

23

22

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

In line with the development of district administration, the District Boar

which has proved to be the appropriate organ for consultation of

publ

opinions, should be entrusted the task to reflect district views as it represents district and understands the situation as well as the people in the district. Ont other hand, residents who consent or object to the applications may talk direct to their District Board members. So if delegation of power to the lower level

really to be promoted, or transfer of power carried out in a democratic

way.

district Board should replace the District Office with regard to the consultatio

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

consulted. For instance, if one referred it to the chairman of the respective district board and left it to him to decide whether there is likely to be any objection or not. If there is likely to be objections, then, of course, he could put it on the agenda for the next district board meeting, otherwise he will return the file to the City Services with no comment. As I see it, this motion is designed to change the method of consultation with the local people from the District Office to the district board, and in that respect one of principles rather than one of design to work out how that motion can be referred and the district board be consulted. So I think that there is no need to have any motion at all referring it the Urban Council and the District Boards, enabling the latter to have a ben of course be sent to the Liquor Licensing Board to work out the details. It is not Secondly, adoption of the motion will result in a closer relationship betwee to the Liquor Licensing Board, because if we passed this motion then it would understanding of the work of the Council and to co-operate with the Council, the framing of the motion, it is a general framing and not a particular framing, precisely, how this is to be done. So I would not support the amendment Thirdly, the District Board will be in a better position to analyse the situatie the Liquor Licensing Board for implementation and at that stage, the Liquor because it is not necessary. The original motion if passed must then go back to and offer fair comments. And, after the issue of licences, it may also he Licensing Board can decide how to consult the district boards.

and presentation of public opinions.

its efforts to champion the interests of the local communities.

supervise the observance of the licensing requirements covering noise at overtime selling of liquor etc. and promptly make known any violation licensing conditions.

Fourthly, the changeover will alleviate the work of the District Office.

MISS CECILIA YEUNG seconded (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I support motion by Mr. KWAN.

MR. HOWARD YOUNG (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Hash resolution been discussed at the Liquor Licensing Board before it was moved her

MR. PETER CHAN (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, as a chairman of the Lique Licensing Board, according to 15(c) of the Standing Orders it states that at the Urban Council meeting, matters can be referred to the committee fo consideration. I would like to say that this resolution is fairly interesting an that the views of the proposer and the seconder be referred to the Lique Licensing Board for further consideration, any seconder?

MR. SAMUEL WONG (in English):----Mr. Chairman, I second the motion.

MR. BERNACCHI (in English):- Mr. Chairman, I am going to support the motior: as originally framed but I will be speaking to both motions. I would like to poin out that perhaps 9 cases out of 10 are formal applications that would involven objection before the Liquor Licensing Board of this Council. I would sugges that the present motion without the referral to the Liquor Licensing Boards sufficiently vague in its implications to satisfy my friend Mr. Peter CHAN in the matter. It, in fact, leaves him as a chairman of the Liquor Licensing Board and the Liquor Licensing Board to decide exactly how the district board is to

MRS. ELLIOTT (in English):--Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to support the amended motion, I do not usually disagree with my friends of the Reform Club, but on this occasion I think that the resolution and the motion as it stands, does not make anything very clear and could result to a blind referral of all the cases to district boards, and I would like to point out that if that was done it could take a long long time for a restaurant or some other things to get a licence. It could mean delaying the business of the restaurant for months because the district board meets only once in two months and therefore I think we need to have that matter worked out in detail by the committee and put again to the Whole Council before we could accept it. I think the timing element is very important, may be the district board would have to set up an ad hoc committee to deal with cases in a very urgent way.

DR. DENNY HUANG (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I object to the motion put forward by Mr. KWAN. He suggested that we should consult the district boards because they represent public opinion, he can also purport to represent public opinion because he is an elected member. The Legislative Council will have elected members and if we are going to consult the district boards and possibly in future the Legislative Council, then our efficiency would be very low indeed. If before we issue a licence whether in connection with liquors or with licence to do with billiards we already consult many other departments, the District Office is only one of them and the District Office usually consults people in the direct vicinity, for instance, mutal aid committees and so on, so the information gathered by the District Office in fact is more comprehensive than what the district board itself can do, because the District Office often consult residents living directly next to the establishment and I think it is more appropriate to go on in that way.

Page 25Page 26

Page 26 of 195