MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): Chairman, the main purpose of the Dutiable Commodities (Amendment) Bill 2017 ("the Bill") is to prohibit the sale of liquor to minors. But apart from fulfilling the above objective of the Bill, the authorities must also consider the issue of actual enforcement. The growing popularity of online shopping has led to increasing retail sale of liquor through channels other than physical shops. This group of amendments mainly concerns the question of whether third-party deliverymen need to bear the responsibility of checking the identity proofs of product recipients.

At present, online shopping has shown two major trends. First, physical shops directly open online stores and provide product delivery services themselves. Second, mega-sized e-commerce platforms have been set up to induce medium, small and tiny enterprises to open stores on such platforms, such as Tmall and HKTV Mall. The feature of e-commerce platforms is that they provide shopping interfaces, payment systems and delivery services. But actual product storage and delivery preparation are rested with various small shops. They resemble massive electronic shopping malls, and customers may purchase many different products on such websites. But actually, they are purchasing from various shops.

E-commerce platforms specialize in the sale of daily necessities, and it can be said that they are e-supermarkets. Liquor is precisely one of their major products for sale. For example, if you click on the category "Alcoholic Beverages" on HKTV Mall, you can find some 1 700 liquor products. This shows that online shopping offers a great variety of liquor options. Hong Kong people are getting more and more inclined to buy daily items and foodstuffs online because first, they can enjoy the benefit of free delivery; and second, they can spare the need of fetching the items from supermarkets themselves. In particular, they have gradually become accustomed to buying some heavier beverage products through online shopping. This is a trend.

As online shopping has turned increasingly popular and standardized, various links such as product storage, retailing, promotion and delivery have become more and more refined. The phenomenon that online shops outsource the task of product delivery to professional logistic companies and couriers has become more and more noticeable. If deliverymen are required to check the identity of parcel recipients, many problems will arise. Members can come to imagine this. Perhaps some of us may have used consolidated delivery services to consolidate products purchased from different shops into one single parcel before delivery, so as to save delivery costs. So, it is impossible for a deliveryman to know if a parcel contains any liquor. Those with experience in online shopping will know that deliverymen are very efficient. After delivering a parcel to the destination, they will leave at once. If they fail to get in touch with the recipient, sometimes they may even leave the parcel with the caretaker of the building and ask him to acknowledge receipt of the parcel. This situation does exist. So, with the increasingly popular use of courier services, it will be difficult to require deliverymen to take up the responsibility of checking any identification documents.

The original legislative intent of the authorities was to categorize people responsible for distributing liquor into those directly employed by sellers and those by suppliers. In the particular case of deliverymen employed by sellers, I think they should bear the responsibility of checking the identity of parcel recipients because they as direct employees of sellers should be able to understand their companies' requirements through training. But speaking of those deliverymen who are not employed by sellers, I think the authorities should pay attention. For example, it is now difficult to exercise control on, for example, online shopping I mentioned just now. So, I also agree that these people should be exempted.

Third-party deliverymen, meaning those who are not directly engaged by sellers as we mentioned just now, will be exempted according to the original legislative intent. But the Bill's wording is not stringent enough, so people may be easily misled into thinking that third-party deliverymen will also become an agent of buyers or suppliers and have to bear certain responsibilities. This time around, the Government puts forth amendments to proposed regulations 35, 37, 44(1)(a) and 44(2) to specify that a person delivering intoxicating liquor in the course of business for another person who sells or supplies the liquor will not be regarded as selling or supplying the liquor, thus not subject to the new regulatory regime, provided that such person is not employed by the seller or supplier nor involved in the sale or supply of the liquor. As we said just now, deliverymen who are not directly employed by a seller will be exempted. Besides, a corresponding amendment will also be made to regulation 35 to delete the definition of "agent", so as to increase the clarity of the Bill's wording and in turn achieve the original legislative intent. For these reasons, I support this group of amendments.

Speaking of the second group of amendment, I will likewise render my support. This group of amendment seeks to specify that a magistrate may allow an inspector to collect evidence in domestic premises by issuing a search warrant, provided that the magistrate meets the specified conditions. This is targeted at the unlawful sale of liquor to minors in private domestic premises. To ensure smooth enforcement of the law, law enforcement officers must be vested with corresponding power. The Bill initially specified that an inspector might enforce the law in any public place. However, as the coverage of "public place" is too extensive, the Bureau concerned has proposed an amendment to replace "public place" with "distribution point". "Distribution point" means a place where liquor is sold or supplied (other than domestic premises).

While the Bill has empowered inspectors to conduct inspections and enforce the law at distribution points (meaning retail shops), and ordinary customers may purchase liquor at retail points, the prevalence of online shopping has presented more and more opportunities for distributing liquor in private domestic premises. This is prone to manipulation as a grey area. Some may make use of the grey area in law and distribute or sell alcoholic drinks in domestic premises, in total disregard for the physical health of youngsters.

Since the law has yet to be enacted, Members may think that the current situation is not that serious, and not many people will distribute liquor in domestic premises. The reason is that they can already buy liquor in retail stores. But the situation in the future will not be like this. If this provision is enacted and domestic premises are exempted, some may manipulate this grey area and sell or distribute liquor in domestic premises. This will hinder the Government's efforts of adopting the Bill as a means to prevent anyone from selling liquor to underage youngsters through this channel. Therefore, I personally think that inspectors should be empowered to conduct investigation in domestic premises, so as to ensure that the Bill can achieve its desired effects.

At present, polices officers may conduct investigation in domestic premises as long as they have obtained a search warrant. So, some have proposed, "In that case, is it possible to entrust the police with law enforcement instead of incorporating the relevant arrangement into the Bill?" In my view, this is not quite so effective in normal circumstances. If this had been effective … Our observation is that the Buildings Department ("BD") initially conferred this power on the police. But later, they changed their mind and raised the need to enact legislation. Therefore, an amendment exercise was conducted in 2012 to enable BD's law enforcement personnel to collect evidence in the premises upon direct application to the court for a search warrant, so as to ban unauthorized building works. Why did BD find it necessary to do so? It is because the police did not understand the spirit of the law when collecting evidence.

In the case of the tourism industry, for example, suppose a complaint is lodged against someone about operating an unlicensed travel agency―I have also encountered such complaints―the complaint will be referred to the Travel Agents Registry ("TAR"). But TAR is not vested with any investigative power, so they can only refer the complaint to the police. In a case I handled, police officers found that tourism-related products were offered for sale at a shop after inspection at the scene. But the shop was actually a money changer. After inspecting the shop, police officers thought that there was no problem as they noticed that a business licence was displayed inside the shop. Therefore, they informed TAR that there was nothing wrong with the shop. This was what TAR told me in its reply, and I also informed the complainant that there was nothing wrong with the shop. Nevertheless, the complainant told me that the shop was a money changer, but it offered tourism-related products for sale. Therefore, I asked TAR again if they had enquired of the police about the type of licence displayed in the shop. Later on, it was found that the shop did not possess any Travel Agent's Licence and only had a business licence. We can see from this example that the authorities will be unable to achieve the desired law enforcement effect if they rely on the police to handle a case after receiving a complaint. Therefore, I think that giving inspectors of the relevant law enforcement department with investigative power and entrusting them to apply for a search warrant from the court and conduct inspection after obtaining a search warrant can achieve better effects than counting on the police to enforce the law or collect evidence on their behalf.

As other law enforcement departments (such as BD I mentioned a moment ago) have already changed their practices, and the Travel Industry Bill also intends to confer law enforcement power on a Travel Industry Authority to be set up in the future, I think Members should endorse the amendments to the Bill to grant certain power to inspectors, so that they may apply for a search warrant directly and conduct investigation according to the law into the actual environment of the scene after obtaining the warrant.

As for some Members' concern about the excessiveness of this power and the resultant abuse of power, I think they need not worry too much. The reason is that as I said just now, this arrangement has already been adopted by various government departments. Besides, magistrates also have a certain level of wisdom to consider and decide on the justifiability of the grounds put forth by law enforcement officers before granting a search warrant. Certainly, some Members may ask if this arrangement is overly lenient. But police officers likewise apply for a search warrant in the same way. If we accept what they have said, what should we do with other departments? So, I do not think Members should vote down this amendment due to their concern about abuse of power on the part of inspectors.

I support the second group of amendment. Thank you, Chairman.