A 13/14-31
Legislative Council
Agenda
Wednesday 11 June 2014 at 11:00 am
I. Tabling of Papers
Other Paper
| No. 106 | - | Correctional Services Children's Education Trust
Report by the Trustee for the period from 1st September 2012 to 31st August 2013 |
| (to be presented by Secretary for Security) | ||
II. Questions
1. Hon POON Siu-ping to ask: (Translation)
According to the 2013 Report on Annual Earnings and Hours Survey published by the Census and Statistics Department, as at the middle of last year, some half a million of employees were engaged in the catering and retail industries, accounting for about one-sixth of Hong Kong's workforce. Some members of the catering and retail industries have relayed to me that quite a number of frontline employees in the industries suffer from diseases involving lower limb musculoskeletal disorders ("LLMD"), as they need to stand for a long time at work. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether there were employees in the catering and retail industries receiving compensation under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance in the past three years for permanent total or partial incapacity resulting from work-related LLMD during the course of employment; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (2) given that currently, upper limb disorders like traumatic inflammation of the tendons of the hand or forearm, or of the associated tendon sheaths, have been listed as occupational diseases, whether it will include diseases of LLMD (such as osteoarthritis of knee, lower limb varicose vein and plantar fasciitis) in the list of compensable occupational diseases in the Second Schedule of the Employees' Compensation Ordinance; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
2. Hon Alice MAK to ask: (Translation)
Under the Summary Offences Ordinance, any person who organizes or participates in a lion dance, dragon dance or unicorn dance, or any attendant martial arts display ("dragon and lion dance sports") in a public place is guilty of an offence unless the person has been issued with a permit by the Commissioner of Police. In addition, applicants for the permit and all participants are required to authorize the authorities to provide the commander of the relevant police district or the licensing office with information on their criminal records to facilitate consideration of their applications by the latter. On the other hand, no permit is required for conducting performances for combat sports such as Muay Thai and Taekwondo. There are views that the authorities' regulation of dragon and lion dance sports has a labelling effect which makes people to form the impression that such sports are undesirable activities, thus obstructing their popularization. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) apart from dragon and lion dance sports, whether there are other sports which are subject to similar form of regulation; if so, of the names of the sports, the regulatory practice and the reasons for imposing the regulation; (2) apart from dragon and lion dance sports, whether there are other sports the performance of which is subject to the issuance of a permit, and whether the considerations for issuance of such a permit include the criminal records of the participants; and (3) given that dragon and lion dance sports have become leisure sports for quite a number of primary and secondary students as well as young people, whether the authorities will review the regulation of dragon and lion dance sports; if so, when they will do so; if not, of the reasons for that?
3. Hon Andrew LEUNG to ask: (Translation)
With the technology of unmanned aircraft systems ("UAS") maturing gradually and miniaturization of UAS, UAS have become increasingly versatile. On the civilian side, UAS can be used for leisure pursuits, aerial photography, search and rescue, etc. Regarding the regulation and application of UAS, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) as UAS may be used for aerial photography and video-recording, whether the authorities have reviewed if the existing legislation is adequate for protecting the privacy of the public against intrusion; (2) given that at present, the Civil Aviation Department has issued general safety operational parameters only for UAS weighing 7 kilograms or more (without fuel), whether the authorities will consider drawing up such operational parameters for UAS weighing less than 7 kilograms; as UAS have become increasingly versatile (e.g. some major online stores and courier companies are exploring the use of UAS for delivery of goods), whether the authorities will amend the existing operational parameters so as to protect public safety; if they will, of the details and timetable; if not, the reasons for that; and (3) apart from the Civil Engineering and Development Department deploying UAS for surveying work, whether other government departments such as the Hong Kong Observatory, the Fire Services Department and other disciplined forces have plans to bring in UAS for discharging their duties; if they do, of the reasons for that?
4. Hon Claudia MO to ask: (Translation)
The Chief Executive has recently indicated that the Government is conducting a study on the regulation of visitor arrivals and its growth rate, which includes discussing with the relevant mainland authorities the issue of "multiple entry permits", but so far it has not yet given an account of the measures to be launched to regulate visitor arrivals ("regulatory measures"). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the specific contents and current progress of the aforesaid study; whether the study is being undertaken by an inter-departmental group; if it is, of the membership list of the group; whether it has invited people from various sectors of the community and representatives from authorities outside the territory to take part in the study; if it has, of the name list of these people and representatives; whether the authorities will set a timetable for giving an account to the public on the outcome of the study and the regulatory measures to be adopted; (2) whether the Government has, since the authorities proposed the Boundary Facilities Improvement Tax Bill 11 years ago, conducted any assessment again on the imposition of a land departure tax or arrival tax, such as levying a tax on visitors who are not Hong Kong residents upon their entry by land so as to reduce the number of same-day visitors coming to Hong Kong to shop for daily necessities, thereby mitigating the impact of their visits to Hong Kong on the daily lives of members of the public; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (3) as it has been reported that with effect from 1 June last year, all policy documents submitted to policy committees and the Executive Council must include an assessment on the reaction of the Mainland to the relevant policies, whether the authorities have assessed the reaction of the mainland people and government to the regulatory measures under consideration; if they have, of the assessment outcome; whether it is the case that the authorities dare not request the mainland authorities to cancel the "multiple entry permit" arrangement or introduce a land arrival tax because they are worried about hurting the feelings of the mainland people; whether the authorities will, with regard for Hong Kong people's interests, expeditiously implement regulatory measures?
5. Hon Tony TSE to ask: (Translation)
The Chief Executive ("CE") announced the implementation of the "Hong Kong Property for Hong Kong People"("HKP-HKP") policy in 2012, with the objective of according priority to meeting Hong Kong people's needs for home purchase. Under this policy, the authorities will, at the time of selling selected sites, add land lease conditions restricting the sale of the flats developed at the sites to Hong Kong permanent residents ("HKPRs") for 30 years from the date of the relevant land grants. The Government executed the policy only once when two residential sites in Kai Tak were offered for sale by tender in March last year. In response to press reports that the policy had been shelved by the Government, CE said earlier on that the policy was already well received by the market and proved to be feasible, and therefore it could be activated within a short period of time when necessary in future. The Secretary for Development also indicated earlier on that at this juncture, there was no pressing need to apply the policy to other sites available for sale or make it a long-term measure for implementation. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has conducted any comprehensive review on the contents, execution and effectiveness of the HKP-HKP policy, its impact on the property market and home purchases by members of the public, as well as on the land lease conditions for implementing this policy, etc.; if so, of the outcome and the improvement recommendations in this regard; if not, the reasons for that, and whether it will conduct such a review; (2) whether it will implement the HKP-HKP policy continually during the current term of CE; if it will not, of the reasons for that; if so, the considerations, criteria and indicators based on which the authorities will decide whether to reactivate the relevant measure; whether there is any plan to apply the HKP-HKP policy to the sites in the land sales programme of the current financial year; if there is, of the details (including the land lease conditions, and the number and average size of the residential flats involved); if not, the reasons for that; apart from the HKP-HKP policy, of the existing policies put in place, and whether it will implement any new measures, to assist HKPRs and accord priority to them in home purchase; and (3) whether it has assessed the impact of the HKP-HKP policy on the prices of the relevant residential sites and developers' willingness to submit tenders for the sites; if so, of the details and outcome of the assessment; if not, the reasons for that?
6. Dr Hon Kenneth CHAN to ask: (Translation)
Earlier on, a democracy activist who arrived in Hong Kong from Taiwan was refused entry by the Immigration Department ("ImmD"). In the past, a number of democracy and human rights activists were also refused entry. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it currently maintains a list of democracy or human rights activists who are to be refused entry; if so, of the criteria adopted by the Government for drawing up the list, and whether it has communicated with the Central People's Government ("CPG") or its offices in Hong Kong in the course of drawing up the list; if it does not maintain such a list, of the criteria based on which ImmD refused entry of the aforesaid democracy activist; (2) whether ImmD refused entry of any visitors in the past three years on the basis of their political backgrounds or possible political influences that their entry might cause; if so, of the number of such visitors who were refused entry and the details; if not, the reasons for refusing entry of a number of democracy and human rights activists in the past; and (3) whether CPG or its offices in Hong Kong demanded in the past the SAR Government to include certain persons in the list of persons to be refused entry; if so, of the number of such persons and the specific reasons for including them in the list?
*7. Hon Ronny TONG to ask: (Translation)
I have recently received complaints from some members of the public who allege that in an attempt to increase the supply of residential sites, the Government has been grabbing land blindly in various districts, including putting forward a proposal to rezone a site of some eight hectares at Pak Shek Kok (East) in Tai Po from "Other Specified Uses" annotated "Science Park" to "Residential (Group B) 6" for medium-density residential development ("the rezoning proposal"). Such members of the public have expressed the concerns that upon completion of the residential development on the site involved in the rezoning proposal, the resultant increase in population will overload the infrastructure and ancillary transport facilities in areas around Pak Shek Kok, and that the rezoning proposal will also hinder the development of the Hong Kong Science Park ("Science Park"). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has conducted any comprehensive district consultation on the rezoning proposal; if it has, of the resident groups and local stakeholders consulted; (2) given that some residential developments at Pak Shek Kok (East) are under construction, whether the Government has consulted the prospective residents of such residential developments on the rezoning proposal; if it has, of the mode of consultation; (3) given that the site involved in the rezoning proposal was originally reserved for the Phase 4 Development of the Science Park, whether the Government consulted the tenants of the Science Park on the rezoning proposal; if it did, when such consultation was conducted and of the views of the tenants; whether the Government has reserved another site for the expansion of the Science Park; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (4) of the projected number of residents upon completion of the residential developments on the site involved in the rezoning proposal; whether it has made any improvement to the infrastructure and ancillary transport facilities in areas around Pak Shek Kok in light of such increase in population and the future development of the Science Park; if it has, of the details?
*8. Hon MA Fung-kwok to ask: (Translation)
Regarding the standard of the bus services of various franchised bus companies, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has conducted any survey on the situation of lost bus trips of various franchised bus companies in 2013; if it has, of the overall rate of lost trips, and set out a breakdown by bus company and the District Council district from which the bus routes start; (2) of the number of complaints concerning franchised bus services received by the Government in 2013 and, among such complaints, the number of those involving lost trips; and (3) given that when it responded in January this year to the Direct Investigation Report of the Office of The Ombudsman, Hong Kong, on "Mechanism of Transport Department for Monitoring the Frequencies of Franchised Bus Services", the Government undertook to review the definition of lost bus trips and the current system of sanctions, of the progress of and the timetables for such reviews?
*9. Hon Alice MAK to ask: (Translation)
It is learnt that quite a number of water sports centres under/recognized by national sports associations of water sports ("NSAs") and yacht clubs organize various training programmes on water sports such as windsurfing, sailing and canoeing, and provide relevant gear for hiring by members of the public. As there have been accidents involving the use of such gear and a child even drowned while attending such a programme, there are views that the authorities should put in place a regulatory mechanism, including the introduction of a licensing system for water sports centres, so as to ensure the safety of participants in water sports. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the information on the water sports centres under/recognized by various NSAs, including their names, locations, the institutions to which they belong and the types of training programmes they provide; (2) whether it knows the number and details of water sports accidents involving the water sports centres mentioned in (1) in the past 10 years, including the causes of such accidents, the resultant casualties and the names of the centres involved; (3) whether it knows if various NSAs have formulated safety requirements in respect of the water sports training programmes and the hiring of the relevant gear; if they have, of the following details of such requirements: (i) the number of lifeguards, (ii) the number of lifeboats, (iii) the safety gear that the lifeboats are required to be equipped with, (iv) the qualifications of coaches, (v) the ratio of coaches to students, (vi) the waters for practice, (vii) swimming proficiency required of the participants, (viii) the qualifications that hirers of such gear are required to have attained and the waters that they are allowed to enter for doing water sports, and (ix) the number of inspections of the water sports centres conducted by representatives of NSAs; if no safety requirements have been formulated, the reasons for that, and whether the authorities will introduce measures to enhance the awareness of NSAs of water sports safety; (4) whether the authorities will discuss with various NSAs and study the setting up of a licensing system for water sports centres, so as to enhance water sports safety; (5) as it has been reported that the programmes provided by some NSAs to water sports coaches for licence renewal are incomprehensive, e.g. some of these programmes only involve viewing reference videos, whether the authorities received any complaint about such programmes in the past 10 years; if they did, of the follow-up actions taken by the authorities and the responses given by the relevant NSAs; and (6) given that the water sports centres under the Leisure and Cultural Services Department ("LCSD") require that hirers of craft must be holders of relevant certificates and be proficient in swimming, whether the authorities will consider requiring water sports centres and gear rental shops to follow the practice of LCSD and stipulate qualifications for hiring water sports gear; if not, of the authorities' measures to ensure the safety of hirers?
*10. Hon Claudia MO to ask: (Translation)
The Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586) aims to give effect in Hong Kong to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora ("CITES"). The sale of proprietary Chinese medicines containing ingredients from bear gall bladders on the Mainland is subject to control by the State Forestry Administration and the Ministry of Health, and the Key Wild Animals under State Priority Protection published by the State Council has also included black bear as one of the wild animals under priority protection. Nevertheless, I have learnt that raising black bears in captivity and inhumanely "extracting bear bile from live bears" are common practices on the Mainland. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the details of the information about the ingredients from bear gall bladders which drug dealers are required to submit to the authorities in applying for the import of Chinese medicines containing such ingredients; whether such information includes the names of the countries exporting those ingredients, the types of bears involved, as well as the method adopted for extracting the ingredients from bear gall bladders; if so, of the details; if not, whether it will consider requiring drug dealers to submit the relevant information before they may import the products concerned, so as to observe the CITES principles; (2) of the latest information on products containing ingredients from bear gall bladders (including Chinese herbal medicines, proprietary Chinese medicines and other derivative products) currently registered and on sale in Hong Kong, including the names of the relevant products, their registration numbers, ingredients, places of production, volume of import in the past three years, and the names of the pharmaceutical manufacturers concerned; (3) given that the results of the researches conducted by some Chinese medicine bodies show that there are at least 54 kinds of herbs which have similar medicinal effects (i.e. clearing heat and jaundice, as well as calming the liver and improving acuity of vision) as that of bear gall bladders, e.g. Caulis Hederae Sinensis, Taraxacum Mongolicum, Chrysanthemum, Sage, Radix et Rhizoma Rhei, Lonicera Japonica, Fructus Forsythiae, Rhizoma Coptidis, Chrysanthemum Indicum, etc., whether the authorities have studied the feasibility of banning the sale of Chinese herbal medicines and proprietary Chinese medicines that contain ingredients from bear gall bladders; if so, of the details; if not, whether they will do so; and (4) given that the Chief Executive had promised to a black bear concern group before assuming office that he would consider following up with the central authorities the issue of black bear abuse on the Mainland, that the Legislative Council Panel on Health Services passed a motion at its meeting on 14 May 2012 "That this Panel requests the Government to legislate against the sale or import in Hong Kong of Chinese herbal medicines or proprietary Chinese medicines which contain ingredients from bear gall bladders extracted with any inhumane method", and that some research results have shown that there are alternatives to products made with bear gall bladders, whether the authorities took any follow-up actions in respect of the Chief Executive's promise and the aforesaid motion in the past two years; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for not having commenced the legislative proceedings and when they will take follow-up actions?
*11. Hon CHAN Kin-por to ask: (Translation)
In recent years, cases have occurred from time to time in which tutors of tutorial or interest classes offered by tutorial schools or education centres ("private educational institutions") and private tutors sexually assaulted young students. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of cases in the past three years of tutors of private educational institutions and private tutors allegedly sexually assaulting students, and the respective numbers of such cases in which the tutors concerned were prosecuted and convicted, as well as the sentences imposed on the convicted persons by the court; (2) of the annual numbers of employers, since the implementation of the Sexual Conviction Record Check Scheme ("the Scheme") in December 2011, applying for checking whether their prospective employees had any sexual conviction record and, among them, the number of those which were private educational institutions; whether it has conducted any study on revising the Scheme to allow employers to check if their serving employees have such records and parents to check if the private tutors they intend to hire have such records; if it has conducted such a study, of the progress; if not, the reasons for that; (3) whether it has put in place any mechanism (e.g. the imposition of fines or cancellation of the relevant licences) to penalize those private educational institutions which have failed to implement appropriate preventive measures, thus resulting in their students being sexually assaulted by the tutors employed by them; if it has, of the details; if not, the current monitoring measures to ensure that students of such institutions are protected from sexual assaults, and whether it will conduct a study on the feasibility of implementing a penalty mechanism; (4) whether it has any plan to establish a registration system for tutors, under which persons who have committed sexual offences will be denied registration as tutors; if it has such a plan, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (5) whether it has stepped up public education to increase the alertness to guard against sexual assaults among students attending tutorial and interest classes, as well as their parents, and issued guidelines to private educational institutions to assist them in implementing measures for protecting students from sexual assaults; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*12. Dr Hon CHIANG Lai-wan to ask: (Translation)
Quite a number of members of the public have relayed to me that while the railway is the major mode of transport of Hong Kong, passenger facilities provided at railway stations are not comprehensive. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) as it has been reported that the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") has planned to invest $1 billion to implement a series of service enhancement measures which include upgrading of station facilities, whether the Government has found out the relevant details from MTRCL; if it has, of the details, together with a tabulated breakdown of such information by MTR station; if not, whether it will expeditiously find out the relevant details from MTRCL; (2) whether it knows the progress of MTRCL's plan to retrofit public toilets at those interchange stations not yet provided with such facilities, and the expected completion dates of such works, together with a tabulated breakdown of such information by MTR station; (3) as MTRCL has indicated that it is difficult to retrofit public toilets at non-interchange stations due to technical problems, whether the Government has enquired with MTRCL about the situation and explored solutions to such problems so that the relevant works can be proceeded with; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (4) whether it has assessed the effectiveness of MTRCL's promotional activities targeted at its passengers on (i) offering seats to passengers in need and (ii) giving priority to passengers in need of using the lifts connecting the ground level and the platform; if the assessment outcome is in the negative, whether the Government will, in collaboration with MTRCL, review the relevant promotional activities and take improvement measures; and (5) as quite a number of residents in Kowloon West have relayed to me that some areas in certain railway stations (e.g. Exits A and B of Hung Hom Station as well as Exits A and C of Cheung Sha Wan Station) have poor ventilation and the stuffy air there has caused passengers to feel sick, whether the Government has enquired with MTRCL about the situation and explored solutions to such problems; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*13. Hon Albert CHAN to ask: (Translation)
In reply to my question at the meeting of this Council of 29 May 2013, the Government indicated that to minimize the impact of aircraft noise on the districts near the flight paths, the Civil Aviation Department had implemented a series of aircraft noise mitigating measures, which included implementing a new set of flight procedures to reduce the noise impact of aircraft on the areas over which they flew when departing to the northeast of the airport, in accordance with the balanced approach to aircraft noise management promulgated by the International Civil Aviation Organization. Yet, I have learnt that aircraft noise during the hours between 11pm to 7am the next day still often causes nuisance to the residents of quite a number of housing estates, making it difficult for them to fall asleep. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the monthly data recorded between January 2013 and May 2014 by various aircraft noise monitoring terminals on aircraft noise levels which reached 70 to 74, 75 to 79, and 80 decibels ("dB") or above during the aforesaid hours; (2) of the types of aircraft with noise levels reaching 80 dB or above last year, and the names of the airline companies to which such aircraft belonged; and (3) whether it will further enhance the existing aircraft noise mitigating measures to reduce the nuisance caused to residents in the districts concerned; if it will, of the details?
*14. Hon Frederick FUNG to ask: (Translation)
It has been reported that the London Stock Exchange of the United Kingdom requires all listed companies to submit carbon emission reports on their business operations. Separately, according to a report on carbon performance of the listed companies in Hong Kong published earlier, only 10% of the listed companies in the Hang Seng Composite Index ("HSCI") have published formal carbon reports, while none of the 1 221 listed non-HSCI companies has any form of disclosure on carbon emissions. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the existing regulation by The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong and the Securities and Futures Commission on the conduct of carbon audits (including the calculation method of carbon emissions) by listed companies and on the disclosure of the relevant information by listed companies; and of the present situation of the conduct of carbon audits and disclosure of the relevant information by listed companies; (2) as some members of the finance industry have relayed that when investing in listed companies, quite a number of investors and asset management companies will consider the environmental impacts and carbon emissions generated by the business operations of such companies, whether the authorities will follow the practice of the London Stock Exchange to expeditiously regulate carbon audits and reporting by listed companies and require listed companies to submit carbon emission reports on their business operations; if they will not, of the reasons for that; and (3) whether it knows if the various statutory bodies (e.g. the Hong Kong Monetary Authority and the Hong Kong Housing Authority) currently consider, apart from investment returns and risk factors, the performance of the investment objects in terms of environmental protection and carbon emissions when they make investment decisions for funds under their management; if they do, of the weightings of such considerations; if not, the reasons for that, and whether the authorities will consider requiring the statutory bodies to consider such factors when making investment decisions?
*15. Hon Kenneth LEUNG to ask: (Translation)
The Environment Bureau released in March this year the Future Fuel Mix for Electricity Generation Consultation Document to launch a public consultation on two fuel mix options ("consultation options"). One of the options is the "grid-purchase option", under which more electricity will be imported through purchasing electricity from the China Southern Power Grid Co. Limited ("CSG") of the Mainland, and the other is the "local generation option", under which more natural gas will be used for local electricity generation. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether the Government had, before putting forth the two consultation options, conducted detailed studies on the feasibility of other options; if it had, of the details, and the justifications for putting forth the two consultation options only; (2) as the Secretary for the Environment has indicated that the "grid-purchase option" could be regarded as the first step for opening up the electricity market, but some scholars have pointed out that this could not be regarded as a genuine opening up of the electricity market since electricity bought from CSG would still need to be transmitted to the public through the power grids of the two power companies in Hong Kong ("two power companies"), whether the Government had, before putting forth the two consultation options, studied how such options could facilitate the opening up of the electricity market and introduction of competition (e.g. the implementation of segregation of the generation sector from the network sector and the introduction of a third power company); if it had, of the details; (3) given that it has been reported that the consultant commissioned by the Government to conduct the study on the Feasibility of Purchasing Electricity from CSG was formerly under a subsidiary of CSG, whether the Government will publish those contents of the related consultancy report which do not involve sensitive business information; if it will, when it will do so; if not, of the reasons for that; whether the Government will commission an independent consultant to conduct a study and risk assessment on the reliability of CSG supplying electricity to Hong Kong; if it will, of the details; (4) as the local generation option will involve using more natural gas for electricity generation, whether the Government has any plan to allow the two power companies to build more infrastructure facilities for electricity generation by natural gas (including liquefied natural gas receiving terminals, etc.) and make other investment in related technology under that option; if it does, of the details and the estimated costs; if not, the reasons for that; (5) whether it has conducted any study on the fluctuations in the price of and the demand for natural gas on the Mainland and the impacts of such fluctuations on the two consultation options; if it has, of the details; and (6) of the respective target ratios of the use of renewable energy ("RE") (including waste-to-energy) in the overall fuel mix of the two consultation options, and whether such ratios are different from that recommended in the public consultation document on "Hong Kong's Climate Change Strategy and Action Agenda" released by the Environment Bureau in 2010; if the ratios are different, of the reasons for that; whether it has conducted any comprehensive review on the cost effectiveness of the existing RE power generation projects which have already been developed (including the impacts of technological development on cost reduction in the long run); if it has, of the details?
*16. Dr Hon LAM Tai-fai to ask: (Translation)
Given the public concern about the impacts of the continuous growth in mainland visitor arrivals on people's livelihood, the Chief Executive ("CE") indicated earlier that the Government was looking into means to adjust the growth in visitor arrivals and the composition of visitors, and would announce the outcome as soon as possible after discussions with the Central Authorities and relevant mainland departments. Meanwhile, CE earlier brought up for discussion, at a meeting of the Commission on Strategic Development, the issue of reducing mainland visitor arrivals by 20%, which has aroused concerns among various sectors after the media reported on the issue. In addition, the Hong Kong Retail Management Association has expressed its worry that reducing mainland visitor arrivals by 20% will tarnish Hong Kong's image as "a hospitable city", affect the livelihood of retail workers, and impact on Hong Kong's overall economic development. Moreover, an article published earlier in the Overseas Edition of People's Daily has pointed out that if the number of mainland visitors coming to Hong Kong under the Individual Visit Scheme ("IVS") is deliberately reduced through policies, Hong Kong's tourism receipts will drop markedly, and it is estimated that a reduction in the number of same-day visitors coming to Hong Kong on the one-year multiple-entry Individual Visit Endorsements ("multiple-entry permits") alone may result in a decrease of $10 billion in Hong Kong's annual tourism receipts, as well as 10 000 people losing their jobs. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective numbers of mainland visitors coming to Hong Kong on "multiple-entry permits" and "exit endorsements for non-permanent residents" (i.e. "one-entry endorsements" or "two-entry endorsements") in the 12 months from June last year to May this year; (2) whether the Government initiated last year any discussion with the Central Authorities on the feasibility of ceasing the issuance of "multiple-entry permits" to mainland residents and reinstating the issuance of "one-entry endorsements"; if it did, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (3) as some Members of this Council have proposed to change the "multiple-entry permits" to a "one trip per day" arrangement, whether it has assessed the circumstances and conditions under which this proposal can be implemented; (4) given that the Government indicated earlier that it would make greater efforts to enhance Hong Kong's capacity to receive visitors, and endeavour to balance the impacts of the tourism industry on economic development and people's livelihood in our society, how the Government assesses Hong Kong's current social carrying capacity and receiving capacity for visitors; (5) whether, based on the outcome of the assessment referred to in (4), it has determined the number of visitors that Hong Kong can receive each year after balancing Hong Kong's social carrying capacity and receiving capacity for visitors; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (6) of the justifications for the authorities to bring up for discussion the issue of reducing mainland visitor arrivals by 20%, including the reasons for not bringing up for discussion a reduction by a percentage such as 10%, 30% or 40%; (7) whether it has assessed the impacts of reducing mainland visitor arrivals by 20% on the (i) industrial and commercial sectors, (ii) the business turnover of the retail industry, (iii) the business turnover of the catering industry, (iv) the hotel occupancy rate, and (v) the overall economy; if it has assessed, of the outcome; if not, the reasons for that; (8) whether it has assessed if a reduction in mainland visitor arrivals by 20% can alleviate the problem of crowdedness in compartments of public transport in Hong Kong; if it has assessed, of the outcome; if not, the reasons for that; (9) whether it has studied if the projection made in the aforesaid article with regard to the impacts of a reduction in the number of IVS visitors on Hong Kong's tourism and employment situations is justified; if the study outcome is in the affirmative, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (10) whether it has assessed by how much Hong Kong's annual tourism receipts will be reduced and how many workers in the relevant industries will be rendered unemployed as a result of a reduction in the number of same-day mainland visitors coming to Hong Kong on the "multiple-entry permits"; if it has assessed, of the outcome; if not, the reasons for that; (11) whether it has assessed if a reduction in the number of IVS visitors will tarnish the image of Hong Kong as "a hospitable city"; if it has assessed, of the outcome; if not, the reasons for that; and (12) as the Government has indicated that the proposal of building major shopping facilities in areas close to the boundary for diverting visitors is worth considering, whether owners of lands in areas close to the boundary have approached the Government and indicated their interest in building such shopping facilities; if so, of the details; if not, whether it is the case that the Government will not consider taking the lead in implementing this proposal in the short term?
*17. Dr Hon Kenneth CHAN to ask: (Translation)
Since 2011, Hong Kong Football Association ("HKFA") has received funding from the Government for implementing Project Phoenix, a three-year project to revive football in Hong Kong. It has been reported that the Football Task Force ("FTF") under the Home Affairs Bureau has recently recommended that the Government continue to fund the project for five years, and requested HKFA to delete the post of Technical Director. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether the authorities had, before FTF made the aforesaid recommendation, conducted a comprehensive review of Project Phoenix and prepared a report on such a review; if they had, whether they can make public the whole report; if they cannot make public the report, of the reasons for that; if they had not conducted such a review, of the justifications which FTF and the authorities had based when they deliberated on whether to continue to fund Project Phoenix; (2) whether the authorities will consult different stakeholders before making the decision on whether to continue to fund Project Phoenix; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (3) given that the funding period was set at three years when the Government provided funding for Project Phoenix for the first time in 2011, of the justifications for FTF's current recommendation of extending the funding period to five years; (4) whether it knows the details of the plan for the next round of work, estimates of expenditure, work schedule, performance indicators and review mechanism for Project Phoenix after its funding support has been extended; and (5) as HKFA has originally planned to organize matches for the Hong Kong Professional Football League ("HKPFL") under Project Phoenix in the 2014-2015 football season but it has been reported that so far two local First Division teams have declined to join HKPFL, whether it knows if HKFA will organize HKPFL matches as scheduled; if HKFA will, of the details; if HKFA will not, the relevant arrangements?
*18. Dr Hon Elizabeth QUAT to ask: (Translation)
It has been learnt that because of the improper designs or use of materials (e.g. using clear glass for parapets, escalator balustrades and partition walls) in some buildings managed by government departments and private organizations (e.g. the Ping Shan Tin Shui Wai Public Library, Hong Kong Central Library, Hysan Place, PopCorn and the recently opened PMQ, etc.), there are currently quite a number of black spots where women are susceptible to accidental exposure. In addition, gadgets currently available for sale on the market which may be used for clandestine video-recording/photo-taking are increasingly miniaturized and easy to be concealed, thereby defying precautions. Some members of the public have indicated that peeping and even clandestine video-recording/photo-taking activities at black spots of accidental exposure are increasingly rampant. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether the Buildings Department has issued guidelines to Authorized Persons prescribing that the designs and use of materials for public places in buildings should avoid the creation of locations where users will become susceptible to accidental exposure; if it has, of the details; if not, whether it will issue such guidelines; (2) to which government department members of the public may at present lodge complaints when their complaints to the management of the public places about the high-risk locations for accidental exposure in the relevant premises are in vain, and which department will take follow-up actions; (3) as some members from the legal profession have pointed out that due to the difficulties for the authorities in proving that a person has peeped on others, the numbers of relevant prosecutions and convicted cases are on the low side, whether the Government will consider amending the legal requirements for proof for such cases, so as to curb peeping behaviours; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (4) whether it will consider regularly releasing information on convicted cases relating to peeping at black spots of accidental exposure in order to deter others from peeping at such locations; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (5) of the number of complaints received by the authorities in the past 10 years about clandestine video-recording/photo-taking activities, as well as the number of cases in which the persons concerned were prosecuted; and (6) whether it has reviewed if the penalties under the existing legislation for acts of peeping and clandestine video-recording/photo-taking are too lenient, hence lacking deterrent effects; if the outcome of the review is in the affirmative, whether it will raise the relevant penalties; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*19. Hon CHAN Hak-kan to ask: (Translation)
Fine suspended particulates means suspended particles in air with a nominal aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 μm or less ("PM2.5"). It has been reported that the findings of a medical research reveal that PM2.5 are very active, and harmful or toxic substances can be easily attached to them. It is also difficult to exhale PM2.5 after it has been inhaled into the human body through respiratory tracts. As a result, PM2.5 pose rather serious hazards to human health. On the other hand, while concentrations of PM2.5 in air are closely monitored in some mainland cities in recent years, there is no comprehensive monitoring network for PM2.5 in Hong Kong. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) given that at present, some mainland web sites report on a real time basis the data on PM2.5 concentrations in various parts of the Mainland and the air quality across the country, as well as provide information about PM2.5, of the reasons why the data on concentrations of air pollutants at various air quality monitoring stations ("AQMSs") published on the web site of the Environmental Protection Department of Hong Kong ("EPD") are confined to information (i) for the past 24 hours and (ii) on or before 31 December 2013; whether the authorities can make reference to Mainland web sites in providing more information (such as the health impacts of PM2.5); (2) given that one of the major sources of PM2.5 in the air of Hong Kong is vehicle emissions, whether the authorities can collect data on PM2.5 concentrations at roadside AQMSs and publish them on a real time basis for reference by the public and for publicity purposes; if they cannot, of the reasons for that; (3) given that PM2.5 are hazardous to human health, for example, they may induce upper respiratory tract diseases and even cancers, whether the authorities have assessed the impacts of PM2.5 on human health and formulated any countermeasures; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; whether the authorities will collect data through district-wide health screening exercises for the purpose of studying the impacts of PM2.5 on human health; (4) given that a PM2.5 monitor has been installed at Wan Po Road in Tseung Kwan O, of the reasons why the relevant data are not published on EPD's web site; whether it can publish such data on the web site concerned; whether the authorities have studied the sources of PM2.5 on that road and the reasons for the persistently high PM2.5 concentrations there; whether they have formulated any measures to tackle the air pollution problem on that road; and (5) despite the fact that the Pearl River Delta, which has a close relationship with Hong Kong, has been identified as one of the focal regions for controlling PM2.5 emissions in the "National Environmental Protection Plan under the 12th Five-year Plan", of the reasons why the reports on the monitoring results of the Pearl River Delta Regional Air Quality Monitoring Network published annually have not mentioned any information relating to PM2.5; whether analyses on PM2.5 can be incorporated into future reports; of the measures adopted by the authorities to tie in with the collaboration plan on emission reduction and to educate the public on the health impacts of PM2.5?
*20. Hon LEUNG Kwok-hung to ask: (Translation)
PMQ is a revitalization project implemented at the former Police Married Quarters on Hollywood Road. To implement this project, the Musketeers Education and Culture Charitable Foundation Limited ("the Musketeers Foundation"), which has been selected to conserve this heritage site, has established the PMQ Management Company Limited ("the Management Company"), which is responsible for the daily operation of PMQ. Recently, quite a number of tenants of PMQ have relayed to me that the project has been mismanaged, and that the operations of the two aforesaid companies lack transparency and external monitoring, resulting in rectifications of the management problems of PMQ pending for a long time. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether the Government deployed any staff to communicate with the tenants of PMQ in the past six months in order to understand and monitor the progress and implementation of the project; if it did, of the dates and times of such meetings, the government departments to which such staff belong, as well as the number of tenants attending such meetings; if not, the reasons for that; (2) whether it knows if the Musketeers Foundation and the Management Company awarded all outsourced service contracts of PMQ through open tender; if they did, whether the Government monitored the relevant tendering processes, and of the number of local newspapers in which the tender notices were published; if not, the reasons for that, and the measures put in place by the two companies to ensure high transparency of the procedures for selecting outsourced service contractors; whether it knows if any of the persons-in-charge or shareholders of the outsourced service contractors have interests related to the executives of the two companies or their family members; if there are such persons-in-charge or shareholders, of their number, and the measures put in place by the two companies to prevent any transfer of benefits in the selection processes; (3) given that the Management Company is required to submit to the Government annually mid-year progress reports (including financial reports and cash-flow statements) and year-end reports (including annual audited financial statements), as well as the final evaluation report (including the final audited accounts) upon expiry of the project tenancy agreement, whether the Government will make public or brief Members of this Council on such reports; if it will, when such reports will be made public and the way in which the briefing will be conducted; if not, of the reasons for that; (4) whether it has tightly monitored the PMQ project in accordance with the relevant guidelines made by the Independent Commission Against Corruption, so as to prevent any transfer of benefits or cases of non-compliance; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (5) given that the Management Company is a charitable institution exempt from tax under section 88 of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap. 112), whether the Government knows if any government officer is a member of the management committee of the company; if there are such officers, of their ranks in the Government; if not, the reasons for that; whether the Government will propose to the Management Company the appointment of no less than two representatives of the tenants of PMQ to the management committee of the company for effective monitoring; if it will, when it will do so; if not, of the reasons for that; and (6) given that the Advisory Committee on Revitalisation of Historic Buildings is responsible for assisting in the assessment of applications under the Revitalising Historic Buildings Through Partnership Scheme, and monitoring the subsequent operation of the successful applicant, whether the Government will appoint no less than two Members of this Council and no less than two representatives of the tenants of PMQ to be members of that Committee, so that Members of this Council and tenants of PMQ can more effectively monitor the implementation of the PMQ project and relay public opinions to the Committee; if it will, when it will do so; if not, of the reasons for that?
*21. Dr Hon KWOK Ka-ki to ask: (Translation)
Recently, a member of the public has complained to me that his applications for credit cards and loans have been affected by a bad credit history, which has remained in his personal credit data since someone else made loan applications to banks and finance companies using his identity fraudulently during the period when he had lost his identity card ("ID card"), despite confirmations having been made subsequently by the Police to such institutions that the person had reported to the Police on the loss of his ID card. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows how financial institutions handle the bad credit history of members of the public which they claim to have been caused by the fraudulent use of their identity; whether the guidelines of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority ("HKMA") and relevant government departments have specified such practices; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (2) whether the law enforcement agencies concerned have put in place established procedures for handling cases of fraudulent use of stolen identity to apply for loans; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (3) whether HKMA monitors the compliance by financial institutions with its guidelines on the provision of and access to credit data; if it does, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*22. Hon Charles Peter MOK to ask: (Translation)
Owing to the huge cost overrun in a number of public works projects ("PWPs") in recent years, applications for additional funding need to be made to the Finance Committee ("FC") of the Legislative Council. Some members of the public are therefore concerned about the expenditure control of PWPs and the fiscal affordability of the Government. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) for each of the past 10 years, (i) of the percentage of the expenditure on capital works projects against the nominal Gross Domestic Product ("GDP") and (ii) of the percentage of the total amount of increase in the Approved Project Estimates ("APE") of PWPs approved by FC against the original total APE; whether it has calculated the economic benefits generated by those works projects; (2) of the estimated expenditure on PWPs under planning and expected to be submitted to FC for funding approval in the coming five years, and whether it has made any estimation on the economic and social benefits of those projects; (3) in view of the cost overrun in a number of PWPs, whether the authorities have put in place a mechanism to review if the various completed works projects have generated the anticipated direct and indirect economic benefits; if they have, of the details; (4) given that the Government is studying the deceleration of the growth rate of mainland visitors coming to Hong Kong on Individual Visit Scheme and is even considering to reduce their number, whether the authorities will review if the justifications for undertaking various PWPs under planning (e.g. cross-boundary transport infrastructure projects), such as the assumptions for calculating the anticipated economic benefits, are still tenable; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (5) given that the Working Group on Long-Term Fiscal Planning ("the Working Group") has earlier recommended the creation of a "Future Fund", and the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury has indicated that the Fund should only be used for covering non-recurrent expenditure items such as PWPs relating to housing and land restructuring, whether the authorities have drawn up any timetable for the creation of the Fund and the planning of its operation mode so as to ascertain as early as possible the impact of the Fund on the Government's ability to bear the expenditure incurred by PWPs; whether the Fund will be used to meet the cost overruns of PWPs or provide injections into the Capital Works Reserve Fund; if so, of the details; and (6) given that the Working Group has pointed out in its report released earlier that "it is not sustainable to allow government expenditure to persistently grow faster than government revenue and nominal GDP", whether the authorities will re-evaluate the urgency, cost-effectiveness, economic benefits and financial viability of various PWPs in order to control the increase in the relevant expenditures; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
* For written reply
III. Bill
| First Reading
Supplementary Appropriation (2013-2014) Bill | ||
| Second Reading (Debate to be adjourned)
| ||
| Supplementary Appropriation (2013-2014) Bill | : | Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury
|