1988 — Page 6

4

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

MR. WALTER M. SULKE (in English):-Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out that I first asked this question in December and we are now in April. And as they already had three months, how much longer will they take?

MR. SAMUEL P. W. WONG (in English):-Mr. Chairman, I think Central Government had been quite busy lately in going through White Paper, Green Paper and what not. Now they have time, they should be able to prepare an answer to Mr. SULKE's question very soon.

MR. PETER C. K. CHAN (in English):—Mr. Chairman, if my memory serves me correct, I think some years ago the Urban Council did assign five places for demonstration. One of the most frequently used is the Victoria Park, perhaps the Chairman of Recreation Select Committee can dig up the paper or dig up the decision and see whether Chater Gardens should be included there? As far as I can recall when that decision was made, Chater Gardens was not in existence. Perhaps if that is included or not included, Mr. SULKE's answer could be ...... I don't know whether the Chairman is going to do that in the Recreation Select Committee.

CHAIRMAN (in English):-You mean the papers are buried in one of the Parks and we should dig it out.

MR. PETER C. K. CHAN (in English):-I don't think they had put it in the time capsule under the Park but SUC would be able to dig it up.

CHAIRMAN (in English):-You don't have to answer it. It is a supplementary without any notification.

MR. PETER C. K. CHAN (in English):-No, that is to ask whether the Chairman is willing to re-open the case? I think it is a legitimate question under Standing Order, Sir.

CHAIRMAN (in English):-It is, is it? Well I bow to your superior legal knowledge of the Standing Order, would you like to give him some comments?

MR. SAMUEL P. W. WONG (in English):—Mr. Chairman, I think the five venues mentioned by Mr. Peter CHAN did not include Chater Gardens. I think we should leave this to the deliberations and final results of two Government Departments before making a public statement.

MR. MAN SAI-CHEONG (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, regarding this question I also agree that we must demarcate our duties more clearly so that we know whether Chater Gardens can be used for demonstration especially political demonstration. But I also would like the Chairman to give me a clear answer i.e. when UC comes to decide which places can be used for public demonstration, the public right should be taken into consideration. Since the Chater Gardens is close

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 6 of 182

5

to the Legislative Council Chambers and demonstration is likely to take place around Legislative Council Chambers frequently, could we take into consideration a practical need of the citizens for public demonstration?

MR. SAMUEL P. W. WONG (in English):—Yes.

3. MR. WALTER M. SULKE asked the following question (in English):-If my memory serves me correctly while I was still a member of the Food Hygiene Select Committee in May 1986 we decided to instruct the Department to amend the law so that unlicensed restaurants could be closed instead of, as now, remain open and pay a relatively low fine which gets written off to expenses and thus makes a laughing stock of our inspections, health controls and the Council as such. I asked a question about this matter in the Council exactly a year ago and was then told that the matter was in hand and that the Department was sorting it out. It is now nearly 2 years since the Council made the decision to alter the law. Why has this not been done? And when will it be done so that this quite unacceptable situation is rectified?

MR. L. H. KWAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE FOOD HYGIENE SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows (in English): This question asks why legislative amendments required to permit physical closure of unlicensed restaurants have not yet been finalised.

The Principal Legal Officer has advised-

"The authority to amend the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance Chapter 132 (that is, the principal Ordinance, not the subsidiary legislation) is not vested in the Urban Council but in the Legislature. Since the amendment to permit physical closure of unlicensed restaurants requires amendment to the principal Ordinance, and not merely to the subsidiary legislation, the "instruction to the Department to amend the law" of which the question speaks cannot, therefore, be quite accurate.

An instruction can only be, in a case of this kind, to require the Department to request Government to consider proposing the amendment to the Legislature. Neither Council nor the Department has the right of direct access to the Legislature, and the Department must act in accordance with the procedures agreed between the Legislature and the Government in presenting any proposal for legislative amendment.

In instigating amendments to this Ordinance the Urban Services Department must, therefore, act through the Municipal Services Branch.

As the Ordinance is equally applicable to the Regional Council the preparation of the drafting instructions required detailed consultation by the Municipal Services Branch with the Regional Council.