Page 302 of 654
HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
299
(a). In the past two years, how many restaurants still continued their business illegally after their licences were cancelled under the Demerit Point System?
(b) It is understood that under the Urban Services Department's existing policy, the food premises in contravention of the legislation are issued with a summons every month as a form of punishment. However, does the above-mentioned case reflect that this policy is not an effective deterrent measure?
(c) The Council has suggested enacting a legislative amendment in respect of hygiene problems so as to empower the Director of Urban Services to close the premises concerned. Yet the Urban Services Department claimed that the Director of Health already had the power to close the premises that gave rise to hygiene problems. Does the above-mentioned case reflect that, in respect of urban services issues, the Director of Urban Services should also have the power to close the premises that have committed serious offences under the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance? Will the Council consider the matter again?"
MR. JOSEPH Chan Yuek-sut, CHAIRMAN OF THE Public Health SELECT COMMITTEE, replied (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, this is a three-part question.
On the first part of the question, in the past two years seven restaurants have had their licences cancelled by the Council under the Demerit Points System. Four have ceased operation while three have continued their business. The licences of the three restaurants concerned were cancelled on 18.6.96, 7.7.97 and 15.9.97 respectively.
The Department has taken enforcement action against these three unlicensed restaurants. On 10.4.97, the Department was granted a Prohibition Order by the court against the restaurant which had its licence cancelled on 18.6.96. The restaurant has refused to obey the Order. The Department is now considering seeking the court's approval for a Closure Order against this restaurant. The Department is currently applying to the courts for Prohibition Orders against the remaining two restaurants.
The second and third parts of the question are related and I will answer them together. The current policy on enforcement actions against unlicensed food business was endorsed by the Council on 5.3.1997. Under this policy, unlicensed food businesses not under application for the Council's licence are subject to monthly prosecutions. If convicted, they are liable to a maximum fine of $50,000, imprisonment for 6 months and a daily fine of $900. In addition, Prohibition Order may be applied for under Section 128 of Cap. 132 to prohibit the continued operation of the unlicensed food business. Any person who contravenes a Prohibition Order will be prosecuted and is liable to a maximum fine of $100,000, imprisonment for 12 months and a daily fine of $1,750 upon conviction. Where a Prohibition Order is not complied with, the
Page 302 of 654
Page 302 of 654
Page 302 of 654
: TY
Page 302 of 654
HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
299
(a). In the past two years, how many restaurants still continued their business illegally after their licences were cancelled under the Demerit Point System?
(b) It is understood that under the Urban Services Department's existing policy, the food premises in contravention of the legislation are issued with a summons every month as a form of punishment. However, does the above-mentioned case reflect that this policy is not an effective deterrent measure?
(c) The Council has suggested enacting a legislative amendment in respect of
hygiene problems so as to empower the Director of Urban Services to close the premises concerned. Yet the Urban Services Department claimed that the Director of Health already had the power to close the premises that gave rise to hygiene problems. Does the above-mentioned case reflect that, in respect of urban services issues, the Director of Urban Services should also have the power to close the premises that have committed serious offences under the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance? Will the Council consider the matter again?"
MR. JOSEPH Chan Yuek-sut, ChaIRMAN OF The Public Health SELECT COMMITTEE, replied (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, this is a three-part question.
On the first part of the question, in the past two years seven restaurants have had their licences cancelled by the Council under the Demerit Points System. Four have ceased operation while three have continued their business. The licences of the three restaurants concerned were cancelled on 18.6.96, 7.7.97 and 15.9.97 respectively.
The Department has taken enforcement action against these three unlicensed restaurants. On 10.4.97, the Department was granted a Prohibition Order by the court against the restaurant which had its licence cancelled on 18.6.96. The restaurant has refused to obey the Order. The Department is now considering secking the court's approval for a Closure Order against this restaurant. The Department is currently applying to the courts for Prohibition Orders against the remaining two restaurants.
The second and third parts of the question are related and I will answer them together. The current policy on enforcement actions against unlicensed food business was endorsed by the Council on 5.3.1997. Under this policy, unlicensed food businesses not under application for the Council's licence are subject to monthly prosecutions. If convicted, they are liable to a maximum fine of $50,000, imprisonment for 6 months and a daily fine of $900. In addition, Prohibition Order may be applied for under Section 128 of Cap. 132 to prohibit the continued operation of the unlicensed food business. Any person who contravencs a Prohibition Order will be prosecuted and is liable to a maximum fine of $100,000, imprisonment for 12 months and a daily fine of $1,750 upon conviction. Where a Prohibition Order is not complied with, the
Page 302 of 654
Page 302 of 654
Page 302 of 654
:
TY
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.