Page 15 of 498
Page 15 of 498
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
15
About the second question, I feel there is a need to carry out a review on publicity because owners of some food premises often let clients enter with their pets. As they are not certain whether the client is a Councillor or a powerful person, owners very often dare not advise him to take away his pet. So, is this now an opportune time to review the publicity campaign in order to bring home the message of 'no pets allowed' to owners of all food premises and the public? Take note that apart from the nuisance aspect mentioned just now, pets may be germ carriers or infected with diseases. This is most important in respect of public health.
Chairman (in Cantonese):—Mr. CHAN, can these two points be reviewed?
MR. JOSEPH CHAN YEUK-SUT (in Cantonese):—Yes. Both points can be reviewed.
MR. CHAN KWOK-LEUNG (in Cantonese):—I want to ask, apart from fines and imprisonment, will the demerit point system be applied to food premises operators in case of dogs being brought into food premises?
Secondly, the Committee Chairman has indicated that fines would be reviewed and increased. However, from the extremely low prosecution figures, one can see that an increase of fines would not have any deterrent effect. As it is very difficult to take out prosecution, can we consider new systems such as the issuance of warning letters for display at conspicuous places? Such warning could be much more effective.
Mr. Joseph CHAN YEUK-SUT (in Cantonese):—With regard to the demerit points system, I cannot give a reply to Mr. CHAN here. I will give him an answer after the meeting. Generally, points will be deducted when situations give rise to hygiene problems. We must also consider if there is impact on environmental health, if so, the relevant food premises will certainly have points deducted. The suggestion for the issuance of warning letters is also a good one that is worth consideration.
MR. JOSEPH LAI CHI-KEONG (in Cantonese):—I agree to point 2 in the reply in which Ms. CHOW said that food utensils should not be shared between humans and pets. I hope the Chairman will urge the authorities concerned for amendment of the regulations to ban the sharing of dishes between humans and animals and the feeding of animals with such dishes. In fact, the basic cure to this problem is not to allow pets into the area of food premises. The problem in hand observed by me is that customers bring dogs into food premises. In fact, they are familiar with the owner or the licensee, or they are close friends of the waiters/waitresses. Neither the owner nor the licensee would take the initiative to advise customers against bringing pets because they are either frequent customers or people in the neighbourhood. What can the Department do about this? Surely, under such circumstances, the owners of food premises should be held responsible and
Page 15 of 498
Page 15 of 498
Page 15
Page 16
Page 15 of 498
Page 15 of 498
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
15
About the second question, I feel there is a need to carry out a review on publicity because owners of some food premises often let clients enter with their pets. As they are not certain whether the client is a Councillor or a powerful person, owners very often dare not advise him to take away his pet. So, is this now an opportune time to review the publicity campaign in order to bring home the message of 'no pets allowed' to owners of all food premises and the public? Take note that apart from the muisance aspect mentioned just now, pets may be germ carriers or infected with discases. This is most important in respect of public health.
Chairman (in Cantonese):—Mr. CHAN, can these two points be reviewed?
MR. JOSEPH CHAN YEUK-SUT (in Cantonese):-Yes. Both points can be reviewed.
MR. CHAN KWOK-LEUNG (in Cantonese):—I want to ask, apart from fines and imprisonment, will the demerit point system be applied to food premises operators in case of dogs being brought into food premises?
Secondly, the Committee Chairman has indicated that fines would be reviewed and increased. However, from the extremely low prosecution figures, one can see that an increase of fines would not have any deterrent effect. As it is very difficult to take out prosecution, can we consider new systems such as the issuance of warning letters for display at conspicuous places? Such warning could be much more effective.
Mr. Joseph CHAN YEUK-SUT (in Cantonese);—With regard to the demerit points system, I cannot give a reply to Mr. CHAN here. I will give him an answer after the meeting. Generally, points will be deducted when situations give rise to hygiene problems. We must also consider if there is impact on environmental health, if so, the relevant food premises will certainly have points deducted. The suggestion for the issuance of warning letters is also a good one that is worth consideration.
MR. JOSEPH Lai Chi-keong (in Cantonese):—I agree to point 2 in the reply in which Ms. CHow said that food utensils should not be shared between humans and pets. I hope the Chairman will urge the authorities concerned for amendment of the regulations to ban the sharing of dishes between humans and animals and the feeding of animals with such dishes. In fact, the basic cure to this problem is not to allow pets into the area of food premises. The problem in hand observed by me is that customers bring dogs into food premises. In fact, they are familiar with the owner or the licensee, or they are close friends of the waiters/waitresses. Neither the owner nor the licensee would take the initiative to advise customers against bringing pets because they are either frequent customers or people in the neighbourhood. What can the Department do about this? Surely, under such circumstances, the owners of food premises should be held responsible and
Page 15 of 498
Page 15 of 498
Page 15Page 16
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.