1991 — Page 27

Page 27 of 126

Page 27 of 126

46

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

every private building has its own Owners Incorporation. Even if there is one, it doesn't mean that the management is perfect. In many old areas in Hong Kong many old private buildings do not have Owners Incorporations. With regard to refuse collection and junk removal, there is really no control and the owners of the buildings simply deal with it in their own ways. Some will hire cleansing workers and some will even pack up the garbage into bags and dump it by the way side or at the staircase in the evening. This will cause environmental nuisance and increase the workload of our staff in terms of clearing the garbage or prosecution which involves many difficulties. I would like to ask since the Council is a responsible authority for dealing with refuse collection, can some legislations or regulations be made to ask every private building to hire cleansing companies or cleansing workers to deal with the refuse in the building concerned. I wonder if this is possible?

MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, as I have said in my answer that whether there were Owners Incorporations in the buildings or not, under the law, the responsibility for the maintenance, repair and disposal of waste of the buildings rests with the property owners. I agree with Mr. MA and Mr. WONG that at present the situation concerning waste disposal in some buildings is not satisfactory. We will try to improve the situation in terms of policy and enforcement. As regards Mr. Ma's suggestion of making legislation so that every owner or building has to hire a cleansing company to deal with garbage in every building, personally I think in Hong Kong, as a law-abiding and democratic society, we should give the choice to those who are responsible under the law. If we make it mandatory in so great a detail, it will be difficult for us to manage all these minor situations. But I agree that in future when our Committee reviews the policy, we should take into account Mr. Ma's point.

MR. JOSEPH CHAN YUEK-SUT (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, can we go through other Government Departments like the City and New Territories Administration to solicit their assistance to set up Owners Incorporations for those buildings which do not have mutual aid committees or Owners Incorporations. Mr. PAO said that for those buildings with Owners Incorporations, the management would be better and the cleansing situation in the buildings could be improved. Secondly, regarding the summons on deposit of waste in the common parts, what is the level and nature of the penalty? How many summons were issued in the past year and are the prosecutions effective?

MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, there are two follow-up questions by Mr. CHAN. The first one is whether we can go through the CNTA so that they can assist in organising Owners Incorporations in private buildings. In principle, I agree to this method. However, it is outside the ambit of the Council to assist with the setting up of Owners Incorporations. Of course, we can put this message across to the CNTA for their consideration. I understand that the CNTA in the past two years has stepped up work in this regard. For example, many district Coordination Committees were set up. We

Page 27 of 126

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

47

can convey Mr. CHAN's point to the CNTA for their consideration. As for the second question, I can provide him with detailed information. For contravention of Bylaw 4(1), the maximum penalty is $10,000 and 6 months imprisonment. Bylaw 4(1) refers to indiscriminate disposal of waste in common areas. As for contravention of Bylaw 5, which concerns the issue of notice upon the occupiers of the premises in proximity to the deposit, or the corporations, the maximum penalty is $2,500 for the first offence, or $5,000 for the second offence. In the past twelve months, 5 424 notices in respect of common parts of buildings and 3 436 notices in respect of the canopies of private buildings were issued.

2. MR. RONNIE WONG MAN-CHIU asked the following question (in Cantonese):—About a month ago, a hawker in North Point was prosecuted by the Department for selling poisoned vegetables. Members of the public have given a series of responses to this incident. I would like to ask the following two questions:-

(a) What are the criteria that the Department bases on in determining who

should be held responsible for the sale of these vegetables?

(b) Is the Department delegated with full power to ensure that all sorts of

imported food are up to the standard?

MR. PAO PING-WING, CHAIRMAN OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SELECT COMMITTEE replied as follows (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, under sections 52(1) or 54(1) of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance, Cap. 132, any person, be he a retailer, wholesaler, or producer, who sells any food unfit for use by man is liable to prosecution. In taking out prosecution, the Department relies entirely on the evidence obtained by its inspectors in the course of carrying out their duties. Hence if the evidence points to the retailer, prosecution will be taken out against the retailer.

However, in any prosecution under sections 52 and 54, the defendant may rely on section 70 and seek to prove that the contravention was due to the act or default of some other person.

As regards the second part of the question, the Department has powers under provisions in Part V (Food and Drugs) of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance, Cap. 132 and its subsidiary legislation to ensure that all imported food meet with the required health and hygiene standards laid down in law.

MR. RONNIE WONG MAN-CHIU (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, as far as I know at the border when food is imported, it is not totally under the control of the Urban Council. Could I ask how far is the Department involved? How can we ensure that all imported food is up to the required health and hygiene standards laid down in law?

Page 27 of 126