A 13/14-4
Legislative Council
Agenda
Wednesday 23 October 2013 at 11:00 am
I. Tabling of Papers
| Subsidiary Legislation / Instrument | L.N. No. |
|---|---|
| Electronic Transactions (Exclusion) (Amendment) Order 2013 | 156/2013 |
Other Papers
| 1. | No. 10 | - | Customs and Excise Service Children's Education Trust Fund Report by the Trustee for the year 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013 |
| (to be presented by Secretary for Security) | |||
| 2. | No. 11 | - | Traffic Accident Victims Assistance Fund Annual Report for the year from 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013 |
| (to be presented by Secretary for Labour and Welfare) | |||
| 3. | No. 12 | - | The Land Registry Trading Fund Hong Kong Annual Report 2012-13 |
| (to be presented by Secretary for Development) | |||
| 4. | No. 13 | - | The Government Minute in response to the Report of the Public Accounts Committee No. 60 of July 2013 |
| (to be presented by the Chief Secretary for Administration, who will address the Council) | |||
II. Questions
1. Hon Abraham SHEK to ask:
A report of the Steering Committee on the Review of Legal Education and Training released in August 2001 recommended that the postgraduate qualification programme, namely Post Graduate Certificate in Laws ("PCLL"), be discontinued and a free-standing institution be established, preferably in its own premises, to conduct a course of practical vocational preparation for law graduates seeking to be admitted as barristers or solicitors in Hong Kong. Meanwhile, the Hong Kong Law Society proposed a new qualifying examination for solicitors to replace the examinations conducted by the three universities running Bachelor of Laws ("LLB") and PCLL programmes, namely the University of Hong Kong, The Chinese University of Hong Kong and the City University of Hong Kong. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether it knows, in the past three years, the respective numbers of LLB or Juris Doctor ("JD") graduates from the three universities, the respective numbers of LLB and JD graduates from local and overseas universities applying for and being admitted or not admitted to the PCLL programmes run by the three universities, their success rates, and the admission criteria of such programmes; (b) of the basis and authority on which the Government has granted the three universities, which are institutions providing tertiary education, the power to determine who shall be qualified to be a lawyer by running the PCLL programmes, as completion of such programmes was a prerequisite for law-degree holders to become lawyers; and (c) given that the PCLL programmes run by the three universities have different curricula and examinations, whether the Government will consider making reference to the practice of the United States and Australia and introducing a common qualifying examination for law graduates, in order to uphold the principles of fairness and openness, and to ensure that the entrants to the legal profession are well qualified; whether the Government will actively consider introducing amendments to the Legal Practitioner Ordinance to abolish all PCLL programmes; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and whether it will adopt measures to increase the number of legal practitioners in Hong Kong and enhance their professional standards?
2. Hon Ronny TONG to ask: (Translation)
Earlier, the local media reported on an Italian court case in which the accused, a former Italian senator ("the ex-senator"), revealed when giving evidence that the Chief Executive ("CE") of the last term, being a Catholic, had requested the ex-senator in 2008 to arrange for him a private audience with the then Pope Benedict XVI through the Special Representative for Hong Kong Economic and Trade Affairs to the European Communities, Brussels ("the Special Representative") at that time, who is the incumbent Permanent Secretary for Transport and Housing (Housing). The ex-senator also said that he had agreed to make the arrangement, but had demanded as an exchange condition the Hong Kong Government's refusal to transfer to the Italian prosecuting authority evidence of a corruption and money laundering case involving the former Italian Prime Minister, and that the Special Representative had indicated in a written reply to him that the former had discussed the matter with the then Secretary for Justice and was following up his request. Regarding the regulation of CE and government officials' handling of private affairs in their official capacity and the authorities' transfer of evidence of cases to overseas prosecution departments, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) which officials of the HKSAR Government had handled the aforesaid incident, and whether the audience took place; if it did, of the details, including the date of the audience and whether it was official; (b) whether CE has the power under the existing regulations to instruct officials to handle private affairs for him; if so, of the relevant criteria and the monitoring mechanism in place to prevent abuse of such power; whether the scope of such private affairs covers those involving personal religious belief; if it does not, whether the Government will investigate if anyone had abused the power for personal gains or committed acts of misconduct in the aforesaid incident; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (c) whether CE has the power under the existing regulations to instruct the Department of Justice and the Judiciary to refuse the transfer of evidence of criminal cases to overseas prosecution departments; if so, of the legal basis and source of the power; whether the Government will investigate if anyone had committed acts of misconduct or unlawful acts such as perverting the course of justice, etc. in the aforesaid incident; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
3. Dr Hon Kenneth CHAN to ask: (Translation)
It has been reported that the government funding received by the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority ("HKEAA") is not sufficient for meeting the expenses in conducting public examinations, and given that HKEAA has to operate on a self-financing basis, it may not have enough resources to improve its software and hardware facilities. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the total public funding received by HKEAA, its income of examination fees from various kinds of public examinations and its total expenditure on conducting public examinations, in each of the past five years; (b) whether it will consider reviewing the existing mechanism for funding HKEAA and the level of funding; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (c) whether it will consider meeting the expenses of all public examinations from public coffers so as to exempt candidates from paying examination fees, thereby alleviating their financial burden; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
4. Dr Hon LAM Tai-fai to ask: (Translation)
It has been reported that, early this month, a large number of parents of cross-boundary students queued up overnight for admission application forms outside the kindergartens in districts such as the North District and Tuen Mun, etc. which gave rise to a phenomenon of intermediaries queuing on behalf of the parents. Some mainland parents criticized the kindergartens concerned for the improper arrangements, while local parents marched to protest about cross-boundary students affecting the opportunities of local children to study in kindergartens close to their homes. Moreover, owing to the "Year of the Dragon" effect, the number of children born in Hong Kong in 2012 is higher than those in other years. As such children will apply in the next year for kindergarten places in the year after next, some parents in Hong Kong are worried that the competition for kindergarten places next year will be even more intense than this year. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the respective numbers of local and international kindergartens in each of the past five years, broken down by District Council district, the respective numbers of places in Nursery, Lower and Upper classes provided by those kindergartens, as well as the respective numbers of cross-boundary students who applied for and were admitted to those kindergartens; (b) whether it has projected the demand for kindergarten places in Hong Kong in the coming five years and, among such places, the number of those which will be taken up by cross-boundary students; if it has, of the relevant figures and the details of the method adopted for the projection; if not, the reasons for that; and (c) given that the Secretary for Education said publicly on 7 October this year that kindergartens could use vacant classrooms to flexibly provide places for different classes, of the respective numbers, according to the Government's estimation, of kindergartens in the North District, Tuen Mun, Yuen Long and Tai Po which can provide additional places through this method in the 2014-2015 school year, as well as the respective numbers of places to be flexibly provided in each of these districts through using vacant classrooms; the respective numbers of cross-boundary students which the authorities expect to be admitted by the kindergartens in these districts in the 2014-2015 school year?
5. Hon LEUNG Yiu-chung to ask: (Translation)
In recent years, whenever Members of the Legislative Council debate or vote on an important motion or bill, the Government very often deploys public officers to station at the various passageways and doorways of the Legislative Council Complex. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the reasons for making the aforesaid arrangement, and the specific duties of the public officers concerned; (b) of the number of public officers deployed on each occasion for the aforesaid arrangement, the ranks of the public officers concerned and the payroll cost for deploying the relevant public officers to discharge the duties concerned; and (c) whether it has reviewed if there is an actual need to make that arrangement; if it has, of the criteria adopted for the review; if the review outcome is in the affirmative, of the departments and ranks of the public officers responsible for deciding whether or not to make that arrangement; and whether it will consider not to make that arrangement anymore?
6. Hon WONG Ting-kwong to ask: (Translation)
The Government has given in-principle approval for the Airport Authority Hong Kong ("AA") to adopt the three-runway system as the development option for the Hong Kong International Airport ("HKIA") to cope with the annual growth in passenger traffic and freight cargoes. Currently, AA is carrying out the environmental impact assessment ("EIA") and the related planning work for the construction of the third runway. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) given that the air traffic movements ("ATMs") at HKIA have been increasing continuously and are expected to reach the runway capacity of 68 movements per hour in 2015, but no date has been set for the construction works of the third runway to commence, of the measures put in place by the authorities to tackle the problem of ATMs reaching saturation; whether they have assessed if such a problem will result in flight delays and impact on aviation safety; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (b) given that the EIA of the third runway will not be completed until the end of this year or early next year at the earliest and it is learnt that the construction works concerned will take at least 10 years to complete, while airports in the neighbouring regions have been expanding continuously with increasing numbers of international routes, whether the authorities have assessed the financial losses and the impact on the competitiveness of Hong Kong to be brought about by ATMs reaching saturation; how the authorities strive to maintain Hong Kong's status and advantages as an international aviation hub; and (c) given an official of the Civil Aviation Department has told the press that discussions with the civil aviation authorities of the Mainland and Macao on relaxing the height restrictions of the airspace in the Pearl River Delta region are under way and that daily flight movements within the region are expected to increase from 3 000 flights at present to 5 000 flights by that time, whether such plans can be implemented by 2020; of the details of the plans; what impact such plans will have on HKIA's runway capacity?
*7. Hon CHUNG Kwok-pan to ask: (Translation)
This Council enacted the Competition Ordinance (Cap. 619) ("the Ordinance") in June last year to put in place a legal framework for curbing anti-competitive conduct in various sectors, so as to build a sustainable and fair business environment and promote free trade. For the implementation of the Ordinance, the Chief Executive appointed the Chairperson and members of the Competition Commission ("the Commission") in April this year, while the Judiciary appointed the President and Deputy President of the Competition Tribunal ("the Tribunal") in July, to take charge of the enforcement of the legislation. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the progress of the preparatory work undertaken by the Commission for the full implementation of the Ordinance (including the number of staff members to be employed and the payroll cost involved), and the progress of the preparatory work undertaken by the Judiciary for the operation of the Tribunal; (b) of the implementation timetable for the various parts of the Ordinance, and when the drafting of the relevant regulatory guidelines and rules will be completed; (c) given that the majority of owners of small and medium enterprises ("SMEs") have little knowledge of the Ordinance, of the publicity activities to be launched by the authorities and the timetable for such activities; and (d) how the authorities will help the business sector, particularly SMEs, to prepare for the full implementation of the Ordinance?
*8. Hon Andrew LEUNG to ask: (Translation)
It is learnt that traffic accidents of vehicles crashing into the water barriers at the roadside have occurred time and again during the implementation of the road widening works on Fanling Highway. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the number of traffic accidents on Fanling Highway and the casualties caused since the relevant works commenced; and (b) whether it has reviewed the temporary road facilities (such as the locations where the water barriers were placed) after the occurrence of each traffic accident on Fanling Highway, with a view to reducing its chance of recurrence; if it has not, of the reasons for that?
*9. Hon James TO to ask: (Translation)
On 4 August this year, an organization held a forum entitled "Support Vigilant Law Enforcement Actions taken by the Police; Let Vulgarism Stay Away from Schools" at the pedestrian precinct in Mong Kok. It has been reported that since several thousand people who came from both camps in support of and against the forum organizer showed up, and engaged in a war of words, the Police had to separate them and implement crowd management measures by putting up mills barriers. In the course of the assembly, a participant claimed to have been assaulted and immediately sought assistance from the police officers on the spot. However, on the ground that they were carrying out crowd management duties, the police officers concerned instructed the person concerned to call the command and control centre of the Police ("999 Control Centre") on his own for assistance. It was not until one hour after the person concerned had made the report did other police officers arrive at the scene to handle the assault incident. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether, in the course of carrying out crowd management duties, frontline police officers may refuse to provide assistance to members of the public who have encountered emergency matters (such as being assaulted); if so, of the justifications for that; (b) whether the authorities have issued clear guidelines to frontline police officers on the handling, while carrying out crowd management duties, of requests for assistance from members of the public who have encountered emergency matters; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (c) of the number of requests for assistance received directly in the past three years by frontline police officers whilst on duty from members of the public concerning personal safety under threat (such as being assaulted); among such cases, the number of those in which members of the public seeking assistance were instructed by frontline police officers to report to the Police by calling the 999 Control Centre on their own, as well as the average time required for police officers to arrive at the scene upon receipt of reports, with a breakdown by the district in which the incidents occurred; (d) of the number of complaints received to date by the authorities from members of the public against police officers on duty at the aforesaid assembly, the contents of the complaints as well as the progress of investigation; and (e) whether the authorities have reviewed the handling of the conflicts that occurred during the aforesaid assembly (including the conflicts among participants as well as the conflicts between the Police and members of the public), and issued new guidelines to frontline police officers with a view to handling such activities and conflicts more effectively; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*10. Hon NG Leung-sing to ask: (Translation)
According to reports of the United Nations and international relief organizations, the civil war in Syria has been worsening. As of date, more than 100 000 people have been killed and over 2 million refugees displaced (including 1 million children). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council whether it has considered allocating funds from the Disaster Relief Fund to international relief organizations such as the Hong Kong Red Cross and the Hong Kong Committee for the United Nations Children's Fund ("UNICEF"), etc. or using other means, to provide humanitarian aid to the refugees in Syria; if it has considered, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
Public Officer to reply : The Chief Secretary for Administration
*11. Hon Jeffrey LAM to ask: (Translation)
Under normal circumstances, the Inland Revenue Department will request taxpayers to pay salaries tax by two instalments in the ninth and twelfth months of each financial year. The tax amount in the first instalment is the balance of the salaries tax payable for the preceding year (i.e. the salaries tax payable less the provisional salaries tax ("PST") which had been paid for that year) plus 75% of PST for the current year. The tax amount in the second instalment is 25% of PST for the current year. There is a view that the proportion of PST payable in the first instalment is so high that some taxpayers are under financial pressure as they are required to pay a tax of an amount equivalent to one month's salary. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the number of taxpayers who paid salaries tax using Tax Reserve Certificates in the past three years and the total amount of tax income involved; (b) whether it has assessed the respective impacts on public finance (e.g. cash flow and interest income, etc.) of lowering and even reducing to zero the proportion of PST payable in the first instalment, given the Government's large fiscal reserve at present; whether it has gauged the views of the public and the business sector on the arrangements of lowering the aforesaid proportion or reducing it to zero; if it has, of the channels through which it gauged their views and the views collected; (c) whether it has assessed the merits of and the improvements which can be made to the existing arrangement for payment of salaries tax; if it has, of the outcome; and (d) whether it has examined adopting other arrangements for payment of salaries tax (e.g. paying the tax by three or more instalments) for taxpayers to choose; if it has, of the arrangements that the Government has considered and the reasons for not adopting such arrangements?
*12. Hon IP Kwok-him to ask: (Translation)
According to a thematic study contained in the Half-yearly Economic Report 2007 published by the Government, new arrivals from the Mainland settling in Hong Kong ("new immigrants") comprised mostly housewives and students, and their labour force participation ("LFP") rate was consistently far lower than the total labour force. For example, in 2006, the LFP rate of such new immigrants was 45.7%, distinctly lower than the 60.7% of non-Mainland arrivals and the 60.3% of the total labour force. It has been reported that some community groups have recently made an appointment to meet with officials of the Labour Department, and they pointed out at the meeting that the employment support for new immigrants was inadequate and urged for improvement. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether it had, in the past six years, compiled statistics and analysed the employment situation of new immigrants; if so, of the data and findings of such analyses; if not, whether it has any plan to conduct such analyses; (b) whether the authorities have conducted any analysis to identify the factors contributing to the low LFP rate of new immigrants, other than the factor that they are mostly housewives and students; and (c) of the measures put in place by the authorities to provide employment support to new immigrants at present and whether they have conducted any review to evaluate the effectiveness of those measures?
*13. Hon TANG Ka-piu to ask: (Translation)
Last year, the Government launched the concessionary fare scheme for elderly people aged 65 or above and eligible persons with disabilities to travel on trains, buses and ferries at $2 per trip ("the Scheme"). Since the Scheme does not cover green minibus and red minibus routes, elderly people and persons with disabilities who need to use minibuses to access to other transport services still have to pay a higher fare, thus discouraging their desire to go out. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the monthly average number of person-trips benefitting from the Scheme and its percentage in the total number of person-trips since the implementation of the Scheme, broken down by mode of public transport; the respective amounts of differential fare reimbursed to the various public transport operators so far and the relevant administrative costs incurred; (b) of the green minibus routes directly connecting public housing estates and public hospitals at present, as well as the names of the housing estates and hospitals concerned and the districts in which they are situated; the number of such routes not served by alternative franchised buses; the number of meetings held by the working group to study the feasibility and technical details of the inclusion of green minibuses into the Scheme since its establishment last year, as well as the progress and the expected completion date of its work; and whether the authorities will encourage and assist the transport operators in enhancing minibuses' fare collection systems so as to ensure compatibility with the centralized settlement platform of the Scheme; and (c) as a full review of the Disability Allowance is now underway notwithstanding the Government had indicated that a comprehensive evaluation of the Scheme would be conducted three years after its full implementation, whether the authorities will expeditiously evaluate the Scheme and give concrete responses to the relevant improvement proposals (e.g. lowering the deposit amount and minimum reload value of Personalized Octopus Cards used by the target beneficiaries under the Scheme, expanding the target beneficiaries under the Scheme to include children aged below 12 who are 100% disabled and including more modes of public transport in the Scheme, etc.); if they will, of the relevant timetable; if not, the reasons for that?
*14. Hon CHEUNG Kwok-che to ask: (Translation)
It has been reported that the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority ("HKEAA") awarded performance-based incentives ("bonuses"), amounting to $7 million in total, to nearly 400 staff members twice in the past 12 months, breaking the records in recent years in terms of the amount and number of staff members involved, which has aroused public concern. Meanwhile, the Government provided a grant of about $90 million as funding support to HKEAA in 2010 as HKEAA then forecast a huge deficit because of a significant drop in the number of candidates sitting for the Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination in 2011 and the Hong Kong Advanced Level Examination in 2013, which would be held for the last time. Yet, HKEAA recorded surpluses amounting to tens of million dollars both in 2011 and 2012. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council whether it knows:
(a) the staff establishment and pay scale for staff of HKEAA; the respective percentages of the amount of bonuses awarded by HKEAA to its staff members in each of the past five years in the total expenditure for that year, as well as the number of staff members who were granted the bonuses; (b) the criteria adopted by HKEAA for deciding to award bonuses to its staff; whether the Human Resources Committee of HKEAA had discussed and made recommendations on the award of bonuses; whether the authorities will consider requesting HKEAA to reduce or waive the examination fees for local candidates, or reducing the Government's funding support to HKEAA, so as to make better use of the surpluses of HKEAA; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (c) the current number and names of government departments and quasi-government bodies which have set up staff bonus schemes?
*15. Hon James TIEN to ask: (Translation)
At the special meeting of the Panel on Environmental Affairs of this Council held on 17 September this year, in respect of the leakage problem of the leachate storage lagoon ("the lagoon") at the North East New Territories ("NENT") Landfill in Ta Kwu Ling, the authorities reported that since 2 September, there had been no recurrence of the pollutant levels in the water of the Kong Yiu Channel ("the Channel") in the vicinity of the Landfill exceeding the prescribed threshold. It has been reported that the media collected water samples from the Channel at four locations on the following day for laboratory tests, and results of such tests revealed that the level of ammonia nitrogen, a parameter for measuring the level of pollution, in the samples had seriously exceeded the prescribed threshold, with the sample collected from the location closest to the Landfill exceeding the prescribed threshold by as much as 61 times. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) why the authorities have all along failed to give a clear account of the pollution situation in the Channel and in the nearby rivers and groundwater; (b) as the Deputy Director of Environmental Protection had told the media after the aforesaid meeting that on the basis of visual inspections, the authorities judged that there was no further discharge of leachate from the lagoon, whether the authorities have assessed if visual inspections could be used in place of taking samples for laboratory tests as the basis for judging if there is any leachate discharge; and whether they have assessed if the adoption of visual inspections is casual and unprofessional; if they have, of the assessment results; if not, the reasons for that; (c) of the respective data or methods that the authorities have employed in judging that the leakage problem of the lagoon at the NENT Landfill has already been solved, and in judging if there is leakage of leachate from the other two landfills in Hong Kong; (d) given that the Secretary for the Environment had said that a more stringent water quality objective in the contracts of the landfill contractors, which was 10 times more stringent than legal requirements, had been adopted in testing the water samples collected by the media and the water pollution level as shown in the samples had therefore exceeded the prescribed threshold, why the authorities have adopted a less stringent water quality objective in assessing the pollution level in the Channel, and whether that objective is different from those adopted by other advanced cities; if there is a difference, of the details; and (e) whether the authorities will conduct further studies to more effectively monitor and prevent leakage of leachate from the three landfills?
*16. Hon KWOK Wai-keung to ask: (Translation)
To alleviate the work pressure on staff members and to enhance the quality of their family life, the Government has implemented the five-day work week in government departments by phases since 2006. It also promotes the idea of the five-day work week in society and encourages public and private organizations to follow the practice. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the names of the government departments in which the five-day work week has been fully implemented and the total number of employees of such departments; (b) of the number of staff members working in the bureaux/government departments (including civil servants, non-civil service contract staff, staff employed by contractors for outsourced services, and staff employed by intermediaries) who do not work under the five-day work week mode at present, and the percentage of this number in the total number of staff, with a breakdown by upper, middle and lower salary bands in the Master Pay Scale or comparable salary bands; (c) whether the Government has collected data on the implementation of the five-day work week in public organizations; if it has, of the respective numbers and percentages of the employees of public organizations who work under the five-day work week and those under other work modes, with a breakdown by their ranks; (d) whether the Government has collected data on the implementation of the five-day work week in the private sector; if it has, of the respective numbers and percentages of the employees in the private sector who work under the five-day work week and those under other work modes, with a breakdown by industry; and (e) as it has been nearly seven years since it launched the five-day work week, whether the Government will set a schedule for full implementation of the five-day work week in government departments, set a target on the proportion of public and private organizations implementing the five-day work week, as well as promote wider implementation of the five-day work week?
*17. Hon LEUNG Kwok-hung to ask: (Translation)
I have received complaints from members of the public alleging that the coverage of the Block Insurance Policy ("BIP") taken out by the Education Bureau for aided schools is not comprehensive, resulting in inadequate protection for the students concerned. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the number of claims made under BIP by students of aided schools, the number of cases in which compensation was awarded and the amounts of compensation involved, in the past five years; (b) given that BIP provides compensation only in respect of permanent disablement or accidental death of students taking part in school activities, whether the Government will review if the coverage of BIP should be extended to include accidental injuries sustained by students taking part in school activities; if so, when it will conduct such a review; if not, the reasons for that; and (c) given that compensation claims involving minors suffering from accidental injuries must be initiated by their guardians ad litem (such as their fathers or mothers) on their behalf, and the minors concerned must be represented by lawyers during legal proceedings, with the result that families with financial difficulties but ineligible for legal aid may give up due to the huge legal costs involved, whether the Government has assessed if this is fair to these families?
*18. Hon WU Chi-wai to ask: (Translation)
According to a paper submitted by the Government to this Council in July this year, the Government plans to build a major acute hospital in the Kai Tak Development Area and will review the positioning of Our Lady of Maryknoll Hospital ("OLMH") in Wong Tai Sin for drawing up its redevelopment plan. Besides, it is learnt that while the Government has earlier earmarked lands for building clinics at the site on Anderson Road for public housing development and in Yau Tong, the relevant plans are not yet finalized and the Government has recently considered re-designating the clinic site in Yau Tong for public housing use. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the progress in planning for the proposed hospital to be built in the Kai Tak Development Area, and the expected dates for finalization of the relevant planning and submission of the funding proposals to this Council; (b) whether the review of the positioning of OLMH has commenced and when its redevelopment plan is expected to be finalized; of the authorities' plans to improve OLMH's services before its redevelopment is completed; (c) of the number of land lots earmarked for building public hospitals or clinics in the past 10 years, and the number of those lots on which the related healthcare facilities have been built, with a breakdown by (i) the location of the lot, (ii) the date on which the lot was earmarked for healthcare facilities, (iii) the type of facility, (iv) site area, and (v) the current situation of the lot (such as whether the land use had been changed, or hospitals/clinics have been built on the land, etc.); (d) whether the authorities have commenced the planning work for building the clinic at Anderson Road; if so, of the details and when the construction works are expected to commence; if not, when the relevant planning work is expected to commence; and (e) given that the population in Kowloon East and the Kai Tak Development Area has been increasing, of the measures to be taken by the authorities next year for improving the out-patient and other healthcare services in the area?
*19. Hon Alice MAK to ask: (Translation)
Quite a number of residents in Tuen Mun and Yuen Long have relayed to me that the entry and exit processors of the Light Rail ("LR") have all along been equipped with small black-and-white screens only, making it difficult for the passengers to read clearly the information thereon. Moreover, during peak hours or when the stops are crowded, passengers often cannot be sure whether the entry processors have sounded a confirmation tone after they have held their Octopus cards against the entry processors when entering the stops due to the noisy environment, resulting in non-payment of fares unknowingly. Upon ticket inspection by staff of the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL"), these passengers are subject to the payment of a surcharge of $290 for failing to produce a valid ticket. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether it knows, in each of the past three years, (i) the number of LR passengers who were required to pay surcharges, (ii) the number of those who were required to pay such surcharges more than once within one year, (iii) the number of passengers who lodged appeals with MTRCL to request for the exercise of discretion in the handling of their cases and, among them, (iv) the number of those who were exempted from the payment of such surcharges; (b) whether it knows, in each of the past three years, the fare evasion rate of LR, and the number of passengers who were prosecuted for refusing to pay the surcharges; (c) whether it knows if MTRCL has plans to improve the fare system for LR (e.g. installing on the platforms entry and exit processors with larger screens to facilitate the elderly, as well as developing a mobile application which can be used for fare payment); if MTRCL has such plans, of the implementation timetable and details; if not, the reasons for that; (d) whether it knows if MTRCL will consider improving the relevant facilities in LR stops (e.g. installing closed-circuit television systems on the platforms or near the entry processors) for the purpose of ascertaining if the passengers allegedly evaded fare have failed to pay their fares unknowingly; and (e) given that some people in the community have pointed out that, over the years, the open fare system for LR has caused passengers to easily forget to pay their fares and incur surcharges as a result, hence exerting psychological pressure on passengers, whether the authorities and MTRCL will review afresh the design of the open fare system?
*20. Hon CHAN Chi-chuen to ask: (Translation)
The Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority ("HKEAA") awarded a total of HK$7 million as performance-based incentives ("bonuses") to 90% of its staff in about half a year's time between November 2012 and April 2013. There are comments that HKEAA has wasted public money and its request for government funding support was unreasonable. In response to the concerns of the community, HKEAA stated that the bonuses were awarded in order to retain experienced talents. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether it can give an account of the dates, reasons and amounts involved each time HKEAA awarded bonuses to its staff since 2009; (b) whether it can explain if HKEAA has imposed a cap on the frequency and amount for awarding such bonuses; if HKEAA has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (c) whether it can give an account of the annual number and ratio of HKEAA's staff turnover since 2009, as well as the posts involved; (d) given that as HKEAA considered in 2010 that deficits would be incurred in its administration of the Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination in 2011 and the Hong Kong Advanced Level Examination in 2013, it had requested the Government to provide it with a one-off funding support amounting to HK$90.65 million, but HKEAA subsequently recorded tens of million dollars of surpluses in 2011 and 2012, with the accumulated surpluses reaching HK$169 million, whether the authorities can explain the reasons for the substantial differences between the estimated and actual income and expenditure in the years concerned; and (e) whether it can give an account of the ratios and priorities of HKEAA's various items of expenditure in 2011 and 2012, so as to illustrate if the award of bonuses twice within half a year at an aggregate amount of HK$7 million was an appropriate arrangement?
*21. Hon Frederick FUNG to ask: (Translation)
The Chief Executive promised in his election manifesto that his government would expeditiously conduct a feasibility study on the implementation and operational model of an arrangement to co-locate immigration and customs facilities for both the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("co-location arrangements") at the Hong Kong Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL"). The expected commissioning date of the Hong Kong Section of XRL is just over two years away, but the Government has not yet released any study findings so far. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) given that the authorities have indicated that a task force has been set up to study the implementation of the co-location arrangements at the West Kowloon Terminus of XRL, of the latest progress of the study undertaken by the task force as well as the timetable for the completion of the study and the announcement of proposals; of the details of the various feasible models being studied at present and the technical or legal problems involved; whether the scope of the study includes the granting of permission for the law enforcement agencies of the Mainland to take law enforcement actions within the territory of Hong Kong; if so, whether it has gauged if Hong Kong people have great concerns about that arrangement and whether the proposals concerned involve amendments to the Basic Law; whether it has considered the proposal to perform immigration clearance for passengers on XRL trains; if it has, of the details; and (b) whether it has assessed the impacts on XRL's operation, its number of permitted routes and passenger load, etc. in the event that co-location arrangements cannot be implemented, and of the difference between the actual economic benefits and those in the original projection; whether the authorities have formulated contingency and remedial measures to reduce the losses to be incurred due to the erroneous estimation of the passenger flow and the scale of operation; if they have, of the details; if they have not, the reasons for that?
*22. Hon CHAN Hak-kan to ask: (Translation)
In 2008, the Hong Kong Government and the Shenzhen Municipal Government announced their collaboration in developing the "Shenzhen-Hong Kong Innovation Circle" technology project, with a view to establishing a Solar Energy Research and Industrial Platform together. The Financial Secretary said at that time, "solar energy was a clean and sustainable energy resource. The development of solar energy would help reduce the use of fossil fuels in generating electricity. This would in turn help to reduce air pollution and the effects of global warming." In 2009, the Commissioner for Innovation and Technology advised that the Government would promote and facilitate wider use of solar photovoltaic and cleaner energy. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the latest progress of the "Shenzhen-Hong Kong Innovation Circle" technology project; (b) whether it knows the growth rate of solar power generation as well as the annual output of electricity generated with the use of renewable energy (including solar energy) by the two power companies in the past five years, and the percentage of such output in the overall electricity output, together with the impact on electricity tariffs; (c) whether it knows the current output of electricity generated by solar energy in Hong Kong, and the percentage of such output in Hong Kong's overall electricity output; (d) whether it knows which solar power generation projects are being undertaken by the two power companies, as well as the details of such projects (including the electricity output, time of generation, maintenance costs and the usage of such electricity power, etc.); (e) whether it knows the costs of solar power generation at present, and how such costs compare with those of other means of power generation; (f) whether the Government has set any target for the growth of solar power generation; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (g) apart from providing financial assistance, of the ways in which the Government will help the two power companies increase the use of renewable energy (including solar energy) for electricity generation; (h) of the government buildings and public facilities currently using solar energy to generate electricity; and (i) whether the Government has considered installing solar power facilities in formed land not suitable for large building development, vacant government land (e.g. closed landfills) or rooftops of government buildings; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
* For written reply
III. Bill
| First Reading
Air Pollution Control (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2013 Second Reading (Debate to be adjourned) | ||
| Air Pollution Control (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2013 | : | Secretary for the Environment |