| Date
| Context
| Summary of development
| Action
|
|---|
|
13.10.98
| ES
| The Administration briefed the Panel on the Chief Executive (CE)'s Policy Address 1998. Members noted the Government's commitment to develop a multi-media theme park such as Disneyland. The Administration confirmed that land was available to build theme parks in Hong Kong.
|
|
|
11.11.98
| CM
| A motion moved by Hon David CHU as amended by Hon Howard YOUNG on developing Hong Kong's tourism industry was passed. [Hansard "page 117"]
|
|
|
8.10.99
| ES
| The Panel noted that the Administration aimed at reaching a decision with the Walt Disney Company (WD) by the end of October 1999.
|
|
|
3 & 5.11.99
| HC
| The Administration briefed members on the agreement reached between
the Government and WD on 2 November 1999 for the development of Hong Kong
Disneyland (HKD). Members noted the individual PWSC, FC and ESC submissions
would be put to the relevant committees/ sub-committees for consideration.
[Paper]
While the majority of Members were in support of the HKD project, members raised a number of concerns relating to the agreement reached between the Government and WD, the financing arrangements for HKD, the impact of HKD on future Government budget, the economic assessment, traffic impact assessment, environmental impact assessment (EIA) and sustainability impact assessment (SIA) of HKD, and other employment-related issues. Members decided that the HKD related matters would be followed up by the ES Panel.
|
|
|
11.11.99
| ES
| The Panel met with academics and deputations who expressed the following views and concerns on the proposed HKD:
| a. | The academics held different views on the economic benefits of HKD as projected by the Administration.
| | b. | The tourism and hotel industries were in support of the HKD project. They were of the view that the project would contribute significantly to the tourism industry and enhance Hong Kong's position as the region's most preferred tourist destination.
| | c. | The green groups expressed reservation on the HKD project. They considered that a full EIA and SIA study should be carried out prior to project endorsement.
|
The Administration provided the following papers for the meeting:
EIA for the HKD [Paper], Financing and Financial Benefits of HKD [Paper], Impact of HKD on Government Budget [Paper], HKD Third Party Investors [Paper], a briefing paper on "Economic Assessment of HKD projects [Paper], Comparison between HKD and Paris Disneyland [Paper] and fact sheets of Tokyo and Paris Disnelyland. [Paper], [Paper]
|
|
|
15.11.99
| ES
| The Panel continued discussion on HKD with reference to the Administration's papers for the previous meeting on 11.11. 1999. Major discussions are summarized as follows:
| a. | In view of the serious cost-overrun in the Paris Disneyland, the Administration advised that HKD would be developed in phases and within the budget to avoid excessive capital up-front. Both WD and the Government would adopt a prudent approach in assessing the economic viability of the project.
| | b. | Some members queried on the assumption in calculating the forecast number of attendees to HKD. The Administration explained that it had used a conservative approach in forecasting the number of tourists visiting Hong Kong vis-à-vis the growth potential of neighbouring economies, including the Mainland.
| | c. | Notwithstanding the fact that some development feasibility studies for North-East Lantau, including the site earmarked for the HKD development which was originally proposed for container port development, had been carried out over the past years, some members were of the view that the financial proposal for HKD should not be submitted until a specific EIA study for the HKD project was completed and the results were up to the satisfaction of the Director of Environmental Protection. The Administration explained that it had completed an environmental review on the environmental impacts of the reclamation works associated with HKD. The review concluded that the environmental impacts of the reclamation works for the HKD development would be less than those arising from the container port development. A detailed EIA study would be carried out specifically for the HKD development to address potential environmental issues that might arise during the construction and operation stages.
| | d. | Members noted that a rail link and a road link would be constructed to connect HKD to various parts of Hong Kong.
|
In response to members' requests at previous meetings, the Administration provided a supplementary information paper [Follow-up Paper] and the Master Project Agreement (MPA) between the Government and WD for members' reference. [Follow-up Paper]
|
|
|
17.11.99
| ESC
| ESC endorsed the creation of four supernumerary posts of one Administration Officer Staff Grade C (AOSGC) (D2) in the Government Secretariat: Economic Services Bureau , one Principal Government Engineer (D3) and one Chief Engineer (D1) in the Civil Engineering Department from 1 December 1999 to 31 March 2005; and one Chief Structural Engineer (D1) in the Buildings Department from 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002; and redeployment of one permanent post of Chief Engineer (D1) in the Civil Engineering Department from 1 December 1999 for the additional manpower resources required for the development of HKD. [Paper]
|
|
|
17.11.99
| PWSC
| PWSC accepted in principle of the financial implications, estimated at $13.569 billion, for the site formation, construction of associated infrastructure and the provision of government, institution and community (GIC) facilities in connection with the development of HKD on Lantau Island. [Paper]. The Administration would submit this proposal to Finance Committee (FC) for approval in principle in order to enter into binding contracts with WD.
Members noted that the Administration would phase the expenditure over a period of about 11 years starting from 2000. The Administration would submit further funding proposals to PWSC and FC for upgrading the project works in phases to Category A of the Public Works Programme.
In response to a member's request, the Administration provided further information on the cost and timing of alternative methods of reclamation for Penny's Bay Development. [Follow-up Paper]
|
|
|
26.11.99
| FC
| FC approved the following proposals:
| a. | A Capital commitment to inject $3,250 million as equity, to provide $5,619 million as a loan from the Capital Investment Fund to Hongkong International Theme Parks Limited (HKITP) and to approve an investment of $4,000 million in subordinated equity by the Capital Investment Fund representing land premium for the Phase I site to allow the company to proceed with the development and operation of HKD. [Paper]
| | b. | Staffing proposal (EC(1999-2000)24) endorsed by ESC on 17.11.1999. [Paper]
| | c. | The proposed Public Works Programme for HKD (5660CL) accepted in principle by PWSC on 17.11.1999. [Paper]
|
|
|
|
8.12.99
| PWSC
| Subsequent to FC's acceptance in principle of the financial implication for HKD on 26.11.1999, PWSC endorsed the Administration's proposal to upgrade part of 5660CL, entitled "Reclamation of Penny's Bay Stage 1 works, design of site formation at Yam O and design of associated infrastructure and GIC for the development of HKD Phase 1 on Lantau Island", to Category A at an estimated cost of $6,923.9 million in money-of-the-day (MOD) prices. The remainder of 5660CL would be retained in Category B. [Paper]
At Members' request, the Administration provided supplementary information on the following issues:
| (a) | a breakdown of the costs of investigation and consultants' design fees in respect of land formation at Yam O;
| | (b) | a breakdown of the costs of investigation and consultants' design fees in respect of associated infrastructure and GIC facilities; and
| | (c) | data to substantiate that there would be sufficient capacity in the disposal areas for the disposal of contaminated and uncontaminated mud generated from the project. [Follow-up Paper]
|
|
|
|
17.12.99
| FC
| FC approved the proposal to upgrade part of 5660CL endorsed by PWSC on 8.12.99. [Paper]
|
|
|
28.2.00
| ES
| Members considered the following discussion papers provided by the Administration:
Progress update on HKD [Paper]
- Members noted that the Government, WD and HKITP had signed the project agreements on 10.12.1999.
- Members were concerned about the possible slippage of the HKD project due to the hiccups encountered in the course of resuming the land occupied by Cheoy Lee Shipyard (CLS) on the proposed site of HKD.
Air Intrusion Limitation Zone (AILZ) over HKD [Paper]
The Panel noted the Administration's plan to provide an AILZ zone under Air Navigation (Hong Kong) Order to ensure public safety and to provide an aura of fantasy and distance from reality for HKD visitors.
Prohibited Anchorage Area (PAA) in the water south of HKD
[Paper]
The Panel noted the Administration's proposal to amend the Shipping and Port Control Regulations (Chapter 313 sub. leg.) to establish a PAA south of the HKD at Penny's Bay to prohibit anchoring in the area. The purpose was to ensure safety and control of marine traffic.
Some members remarked that the Administration's proposals to establish AILZ and PAA for the HKD were overly restrictive. They urged the Administration to revisit the proposals having regard to members' views and suggestions.
|
|
|
8.3.00
| CQ
| Hon Emily LAU raised a question on the details of the public
works projects which were shelved or postponed in order to make way for
the Cyberport and the HKD projects. [Hansard
"page 62"]
|
|
|
27.3.00
| ES
| The Panel considered the findings of the EIA studies in connection with the development of HKD. [Paper]
The Panel considered that the EIA studies should be discussed at a meeting of the Environmental Affairs Panel (EA Panel).
|
|
|
7.4.00
| EA
| The Panel discussed the paper on the EIA studies for HKD. [Paper]
Consultants and deputations were invited to express their views. Their views are summarized as below:
- EIA was not comprehensive
- Large scale reclamation was not desirable
- EIA should not be hastily compiled
Members also concerned about the rush compilation of EIA report and the impact on marine ecology. In addition, they queried the methodology for completing the EIA study. The Panel agreed to forward the comments of deputations and members to Director of Environmental Protection before expiry of the public inspection period (11.4.00) for consideration under the statutory EIA process.
|
|
|
24.5.00
| COU
| At the meeting of the Executive Council on 9.5.2000, the Council advised and the Chief Executive ordered that:
| (a) | the Shipping and Port Control (Amendment) (No.3) Regulation should be made under section 80 of the Shipping and Port Control Ordinance (for the creation of PAA in HKD) [LegCo Brief]; and
| | (b) | the Air Navigation (Flight Prohibition) Order should be made under sections 2A(2) and 12(2) of the Civil Aviation Ordinance (Cap.448) (for the creation of AILZ at Penny's Bay) [LegCo Brief].
|
Both pieces of subsidiary legislation were published in the Gazette on 19.5.2000 and tabled at the LegCo on 24.5.2000.
[LSD Report]
|
|
|
24.10.00
| ES
| The Administration briefed members on progress of the HKD project as at October 2000. [Paper] On members' concern about the progress in resuming land occupied by CLS, the Administration advised that liaison with the owner was still underway and it aimed at resuming the land by the first half of 2001.
|
|
|
26.2.01
| ES
| The Administration sought members' support for the construction of Yam O Tuk fresh water service reservoir and its associated works at an estimated cost of $165 million in MOD prices to serve the development of Phase 1 of HKD. The Panel in principle supported the proposal. [Paper]
|
|
|
4.4.01
| PWSC
| PWSC endorsed the upgrading of part of 660CL, entitled "Infrastructure for Penny's Bay Development, Package 1 - Yam O Tuk fresh water service reservoir and associated works", to Category A at an estimated cost of $165 million in MOD prices. [Paper]
|
|
|
23.4.01
| ES
| The Administration sought the Panel's support to upgrade the proposed construction of infrastructure and associated works for Penny's Bay Development at an estimated cost of $3,917 million to serve the development of phase 1 of the HKD. Members noted that the progress of related works for the Penny's Bay project had been smooth except for the infrastructure works within the area of CLS, the decommissioning of which had to be carried out after the completion of an EIA study by early 2002. [Paper]
|
|
|
27.4.01
| FC
| FC approved the proposal endorsed by PWSC on 4.4.2001 on upgrading part of 660CL to Category A at an estimated cost of $165 million in MOD prices. [Paper]
|
|
|
6.6.01
| PWSC
| PWSC endorsed the upgrading of part of 660CL, entitled "Infrastructure for Penny's Bay Development, Package 2", to Category A at an estimated cost of $3,917 million in MOD prices for the construction of infrastructure and associated works to serve the HKD Phase 1. [Paper]
At Hon CHAN Yuen-han's request, the Administration provided supplementary information on the World Trade Organization Agreement on Government Procurement and its implication for contract packaging. [Follow-up Paper]
|
|
|
22.6.01
| FC
| FC approved the proposal endorsed by PWSC on 6.6.01 on upgrading of part of 660CL to Category A at an estimated cost of $3,917 million in MOD prices for the construction of infrastructure and associated works to serve the HKD Phase 1. [Paper]
|
|
|
5.12.01
| CQ
| Dr Hon LAW Chi-kwong raised a question on the horticultural works
for the HKD. [Hansard
"page 72"]
|
|
|
18.12.01
| ES
| The Administration briefed members on progress of the HKD project as at December 2001. [Paper] It also reported that the EIA study for the decommissioning of CLS was progressing on schedule and expected to be completed by January 2002.
|
|
|
12 & 19.3.02
| EA
| The Panel considered the key findings of the EIA study on the decommissioning of the former CLS at Penny's Bay [Paper] and invited members, deputations, experts and the Administration to exchange views on the treatment of dioxin-contaminated soil at CLS.
Members noted the submissions from Conservancy Association [Paper], Friends of Earth [Paper], Green Lantau Association [Paper], and Greenpeace [Paper] & .[Paper]
|
|
|
20.3.02
| ES
| The Panel discussed the financial implication of the decommissioning of CLS at Penny's Bay [Paper], [Background brief]
The Administration explained that the substantial increase in decommissioning cost from $22 million to $450 million was mainly attributed to the presence of dioxins in the soils at CLS. The Administration supplemented that effective and thorough treatment was very expensive. On whether the cost of dioxin treatment should be borne by CLS, the Administration advised that the government lawyers were still examining the possibility. The Panel noted that the EA Panel would follow up the effectiveness of the treatment methods of dioxins and other related issues.
|
|
|
10.4.02
| EA
| The Panel discussed the papers on the EIA of decommissioning CLS at Penny's Bay [Paper] and the effect of dioxins and removal of dioxin-contaminated soil at the site of CLS. [Paper], [Paper].
Members were concerned about the risk and alternative of treatment of contaminated soil as well as the liability for land contamination.
|
|
|
12.4.02
| PLW
| The Panel discussed the paper on the proposed construction of infrastructure, associated works and reclamation works for Penny's Bay Development. Members expressed concerns on the financial implication for decommissioning of CLS. They also noted that the Administration intended to submit the related funding proposal to PWSC on 8.5.02. [Paper]
|
|
|
19.4.02
| EA
| Subsequent to the EA Panel meeting on 10.4.02, the Panel invited the Administrations and Deputations to continue the discussion on CLS decommissioning project.
|
|
|
8.5.02
| PWSC
| PWSC endorsed to upgrade part of 660CL to Category A at an estimated cost of $2,375.9 million in MOD prices for the construction of infrastructure and GIC facilities including the decommissioning of CLS to serve the HKD Phase 1 and the reclamation works for the future development of HKD Phase 2. [Paper]
The Secretariat had prepared a brief on the decommissioning of CLS for members' reference [Background Brief]
|
|
|
24.5.02
| FC
| FC approved the proposal endorsed by PWSC on 8.5.02. [Paper]
|
|
|
5.6.02
| CQ
| Ir Dr Hon HO Chung-tai raised a question on the proposal to build
an arboretum in Penny's Bay. [Hansard
"page 53"]
|
|
|
5.6.02
| CQ
| Hon Emily LAU raised a question on the progress of the construction
project for the HKD. [Hansard
"page 56"]
|
|
|
9.7.02
| TP_RPD
| Under the Master Project Agreement (MPA) between the Government, WD and HKITP in 1999 on HKD, the Government will procure a rail shuttle service between Yam O and HKD. The rail shuttle service was known as Penny's Bay Rail Link (PBRL), now renamed as Disneyland Resort Link.
Special meetings were also held on 16.7.02, 22.7.02 and 24.7.02 to discuss the Mass Transit Railway PBRL Project Agreement (the Project Agreement) [LegCo Brief]. The target completion date of PBRL was 2005 to tie in with the target opening date of HKD.
|
|
|
31.3.03
| ES
| The Administration briefed members on the progress of the HKD project as at March 2003. [Paper]. Members noted the background brief prepared by the Secretariat to give an overview on the funding arrangement of reclamation and infrastructure works, CLS decommissioning and other concerns expressed by members. [Background brief]
Members noted that construction works at the CLS site would commence in July 2003. On members' request for additional financial information on the HKD project to facilitate Panel's monitoring of Government expenditure and assessment of investment performance, the Administration undertook to see if some general analysis/information on whether the actual contract prices were within original estimates and whether HKITP was operating within budget.
|
|
| 10.03
| AUD
| Director of Audit conducted a value-for-money audit on the Contract of Penny's Bay reclamation stage I project (Contract A). The Audit findings [Paper] reviewed that during the implementation and management of Contract A, it was necessary to
| a. | include an Environmental Permit in the tender documents;
| | b. | critically assess contract provisions affecting contract completion dates; and
| | c. | avoid design changes after the award of contract. |
|
|
|
24.11.03
| ES
| The Administration briefed members on the progress of the HKD (Phase 1) project (the sixth progress report) as at October 2003. [Paper] Members noted a background brief prepared by the Secretariat on financing of the HKD Project; EIA; fireworks and decommissioning of CLS. [Background brief]
Referring to the supplementary information on the actual payment and estimated cost for settling outstanding contractors' claims under the HKD project [Paper], members asked if any measures would be taken to avoid further claims due to slippage of works, etc. The Administration said that contractual claims were a normal and integral part of construction contract and it was confident that the final total expenditure on Government works would be within budget.
At members' request, the Administration provided supplementary information on data related to jobs provided by the HKITP. [Paper]
|
|
|
9.6.04
| CM
| A motion moved by Hon Howard YOUNG as amended by Hon CHAN Kam-lam
and Hon Miriam LAU Kin-yee on enhancing the attractiveness of Hong Kong
to tourists was passed. [Hansard
"page 187"]
|
|
|
28.6.04
| ES
| The Administration briefed members on the progress of the HKD (Phase 1) project (the seventh progress report) as at June 2004. [Paper] Members were informed that the progress of the project (Phase 1) was on schedule and within budget.
Considering the numbers of visitors has increased substantially upon the implementation of Individual Visit Scheme, members urged that base tourists forecasts should be adjusted accordingly so that Phase 2 development of HKD could be justified and taken forward readily.
On number of employees and staff training in relation to the HKD project, the Administration said that most of the 5 000 staff required on opening would be locally recruited and intensive training would be provided.
| A
|
|
8.12.04
| ESC
| ESC endorsed the retention of the supernumerary AOSGC (D2) post in the Tourism Commission, Economic Development and Labour Bureau (Economic Development Branch) from 1 April 2005 to 31 December 2005. [Paper]
|
|
|
24.11.04
| CQ
| Hon Howard YOUNG raised a question on complementary tourist facilities upon the opening of Hong Kong Disneyland [Hansard "page 25"]
|
|
| ES
| An information paper provided by the Administration on the progress of the HKD (Phase 1) project (the eighth progress report) and a related staffing proposal for the project. [Paper]
|
|
|
8.12.04
| ESC
| ESC endorsed the retention of the supernumerary AOSGC (D2) post in the Tourism Commission, Economic Development and Labour Bureau (Economic Development Branch) from 1 April 2005 to 31 December 2005. [Paper]
|
|
|
9.3.05
| CQ
| Hon CHOY So-yuk raised a question on Energy-saving Designs of Hong Kong Disneyland. [Hansard "page 42"]
|
|
|
16.3.05
| ES
| ES Panel The Administration briefed members on the progress of the HKD (Phase 1) project (the ninth progress report). [Paper]
Development to date presented in background brief prepared by the Secretariat [background brief]
|
|
|
15.6.05
| CQ
| Hon David LI raised a question on fireworks display at Hongkong Disneyland. [Hansard "page 63"]
|
|
|
27.6.05
| ES
| The Administration briefed members on the arrangements for the opening of HKD and associated facilities at Penny's Bay. [Paper]
|
|
|
6.7.05
| CQ
| Hon CHEUNG Hok-ming raised a question on concessions on ticket prices for the Hongkong Disneyland. [Hansard "page 135"]
|
|
|
19.10.05
| CQ
| Hon LI Wah-ming raised a question on overcrowdedness of the Hong Kong Disneyland. [Hansard "page 90"]
|
|
|
19.10.05
| CQ
| Hon LEE Cheuk-yan raised a question on area of the park in Hong Kong Disneyland. [Hansard "page 96"]
|
|
|
26.10.05
| CQ
| Hon LAU Kong-wah raised a question on operation of Hong Kong Disneyland. [Hansard "page 7"]
|
|
|
26.10.05
| CQ
| Hon CHOY So-yuk raised a question on mosquito infestation in the Hong Kong Disneyland. [Hansard "page 26"]
|
|
|
26.10.05
| CQ
| Hon LEUNG Yiu-chung raised a question on public transport arrangements for the Hong Kong Disneyland. [Hansard "page 27"]
|
|
|
2.11.05 | CQ
| Hon CHAN Yuen-han raised a question on non-local staff recruited by the Hong Kong Disneyland. [Hansard "page 17"]
|
|
|
2.11.05 | CQ
| Hon Emily LAU raised a question on financial arrangement of Hong Kong Disneyland. [Hansard "page 91"]
|
|
| 28.11.05 | ES
| The Administration briefed members on the progress of the HKD (Phase 1) (the tenth progress report). [Paper]
Development to date presented in background brief prepared by the Secretariat [background brief]
|
|
| 30.11.05
| CQ
| Hon CHOY So-yuk raised a question on monitoring of construction costs of the facilities in Hong Kong Disneyland. [Hansard "page 62"]
|
|
| 14.12.05
| CQ
| Hon Margaret NG raised a question on governance of the joint venture company for Hong Kong Disneyland. [Hansard "page 53"]
|
|
| 18.1.06
| CQ
| Hon CHEUNG Chiu-hung raised a question on employment of persons with disabilities by the Hong Kong Disneyland. [Hansard "page 26"]
|
|
| 27.2.06
| ES
| The Administration briefed members on the operation of the Hong Kong Disneyland. [Paper]
Development to date presented in background brief prepared by the Secretariat [background brief]
|
|
| 15.11.06
| CQ
| Hon WONG Yung-kan raised a question on Development of tourist attractions. [Hansard "page 41"]
|
|
| 21.12.06
| ES
| The Administration briefed members on the Progress Update on Hong Kong Disneyland. [Paper]
Development to date presented in background brief prepared by the Secretariat [background brief]
|
|
| 23.5.07
| CQ
| Hon TAM Heung-man raised a question on Financial position of the Hong Kong Disneyland. [Hansard "page 23"]
|
|
| 24.10.07
| CQ
| Dr Hon David LI raised a question on Car park adjacent to the MTR Sunny Bay Station. [Hansard "page 45"]
|
|
| 5.12.07
| CQ
| Dr Hon David LI raised a question on Economic benefits brought by the Hong Kong Disneyland. [Hansard "page31"]
|
|
| 19.12.07
| CQ
| Hon Fred LI raised a question on Injection of funds into the Hong Kong Disneyland. [Hansard "page 32"]
|
|
| 19.12.07
| CQ
| Hon WONG Ting-kwong raised a question on Financial arrangements regarding the Hong Kong Disneyland. [Hansard "page 62"]
|
|
| 21.12.07
| EDEV
| The Administration briefed members on the Progress update on Hong Kong Disneyland. [Paper]
Development to date presented in background brief prepared by the Secretariat [background brief]
|
|
| 4.6.08
| CQ
| Hon David LI raised a question on studies on tourism (including an enquiry on whether value for money audit has been conducted on tourism infrastructure projects including the Hong Kong Disneyland). [Hansard "page 74"]
|
|
| 16.12.08
| EDEV
| The Administration briefed members on Hong Kong Disneyland [Paper]
Development to date presented in background brief prepared by the Secretariat [background brief]
|
|
| 14.1.09
| ESC
| ESC endorsed the creation of one supernumerary post of Administrative Officer Staff Grade C (D2) in Tourism Commission under Commerce and Economic Development Bureau (Commerce, Industry and Tourism Branch) of Government Secretariat for a period of nine months from 16 February 2009 to 15 November 2009 to support Government's discussions with The Walt Disney Company on a proposed expansion plan for Hong Kong Disneyland and possible capital realignment of the Hongkong International Theme Parks Limited. [Paper]
|
|
| 13.2.09
| FC
| FC approved the proposal endorsed by ESC on 14.1.09. [Paper]
|
|
| 30.6.09
| EDEV
| The Administration briefed members on Hong Kong Disneyland [Paper]
Development to date presented in background brief prepared by the Secretariat [background brief]
|
|
| 4.7.09
| EDEV
| Administration's paper on update on proposed expansion of Hong Kong Disneyland, the note sets out the supplementary information requested by members during the discussion at the special meeting on 30 June 2009 [Paper]
Fact sheet on Financial arrangements relating to the construction and expansion of Hong Kong Disneyland prepared by the Legislative Council Secretariat [Paper]
|
|
| 10.7.09
| EDEV
| Administration's paper on proposed expansion of Hong Kong Disneyland , the note sets out the supplementary information requested by members during the discussion at the special meeting on 4 July 2009 [Paper]
Administration's response to questions raised by Hon Emily LAU and Hon Fred LI [Paper]
Administration's paper on proposed expansion of Hong Kong Disneyland (Supplementary information) [Paper]
Paper on proposed expansion of Hong Kong Disneyland prepared by the Legal Service Division of the Legislative Council Secretariat [Paper]
Fact sheet on financial arrangements relating to Tokyo Disneyland, Disneyland Paris and Hong Kong Disneyland prepared by the Legislative Council Secretariat [Paper]
|
|
| 10.7.09
| FC
| FC approved an increase in Government's equity in the Hongkong International Theme Parks Limited (HKITP), through conversion of part of an existing loan from the Capital Investment Fund to HKITP, subject to the balance of the remaining loan not falling below $1,000 million after the proposed conversion, to allow the company to implement a package of arrangements relating to the expansion and operation of Hong Kong Disneyland. [Paper]
|
|
| 25.1.10
| EDEV
| The Administration briefed members on update on Hong Kong Disneyland [Paper]
Development to date presented in background brief prepared by the Secretariat [background brief]
The Administration/Hong Kong Disneyland has provided information on attendance figures accounted by complimentary tickets, sponsoring free visitations to HKD for the elderly, staffing situation and work-related injuries in the past fiscal years. [Follow-up paper]
|
|
| 10.3.10
| CQ
| Hon Emily LAU Wai-hing raised a question on employment of persons with disabilities by the Hong Kong Disneyland. [Hansard "page 110"]
|
|
| 24.1.11
| EDEV
| The Administration briefed members on update on Hong Kong Disneyland [Paper]
Development to date presented in background brief prepared by the Secretariat [updated background brief]
|
|
| 17.1.12 |
EDEV |
The Administration briefed members on update on Hong Kong Disneyland [Paper] [Follow-up paper]
Development to date presented in background brief prepared by the Secretariat [background brief] |
|
| 25.2.13 |
EDEV |
The Administration briefed members on update on Hong Kong Disneyland [Paper]
Development to date presented in background brief prepared by the Secretariat [background brief]
|
|
