A 13/14-9
Legislative Council
Agenda
Wednesday 27 November 2013 at 11:00 am
I. Tabling of Papers
| Subsidiary Legislation / Instrument | L.N. No. |
|---|---|
| Antiquities and Monuments (Declaration of Historical Buildings) Notice 2013 | 186/2013 |
Other Papers
II. Question under Rule 24(4) of the Rules of Procedure
Dr Hon KWOK Ka-ki to ask: (Translation)
The two successive fatal cases involving two children infected by serotype 3 Streptococcus pneumoniae ("pneumococcus") last week have aroused public concern. After a meeting held on 25 November, the Scientific Committee on Vaccine Preventable Diseases and its Working Group on Pneumococcal Vaccination of the Centre for Health Protection of the Department of Health considered that a booster dose of 13-valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine ("PCV13") among children under five years old who had received PCV7 or PCV10 was not required at this point in time. However the Government announced concurrently that it decided to subsidize, through the Vaccination Subsidy Scheme, one booster dose each for children aged two to under five years old who had not previously received PCV13 ("booster dose programme") and the details of the programme would be announced later. Some parents have said that these two pieces of news, which contain contrasting information concerning the need or otherwise for children to receive vaccination, have sent out confusing messages, which is not conducive to stabilizing the epidemic and will also pose a serious threat to the health of children. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether it will immediately publish clear guidelines to assist parents in deciding whether their children need to receive pneumococcal vaccination; if it will, of the contents of the guidelines; if not, the reasons for that; (b) whether it has put in place any immediate measures to ensure an adequate supply of vaccines by pharmaceutical manufacturers; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (c) when the booster dose programme will be implemented the soonest; whether the Government has put in place emergency measures to cope with an outbreak of invasive pneumococcal epidemic prior to the implementation of the booster dose programme; if it has, of the details, including the circumstances under which the Government will implement such measures; if not, how the Government can ensure that the epidemic will be under control?
IIA. Questions
1. Hon Albert HO to ask: (Translation)
At the Legislative Council meeting on the 6th of this month, a Member of this Council moved a motion under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("the P&P Ordinance") to authorize a panel of this Council to order the Government to produce the relevant documents involved in the vetting and approval of domestic free television programme service licence applications ("seeking documents under the P&P Ordinance"). Two Members of this Council have revealed that, prior to the aforesaid meeting, some officials of the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("LOCPG") had approached them and discussed the subject with them. Subsequently, in responding to the criticism that such action of LOCPG was tantamount to interfering in the internal affairs of Hong Kong, a Member of the Executive Council ("ExCo") said that seeking documents under the P&P Ordinance would impact on the confidentiality system of ExCo and as constitutional issues were involved, LOCPG had the responsibility to uphold the Basic Law and the policy of "One Country, Two Systems". In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) as Article 22 of the Basic Law stipulates that "[n]o department of the Central People's Government and no province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government may interfere in the affairs which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region administers on its own in accordance with this Law", whether the authorities have formulated any mechanism or procedure to deal with situations where there is interference in the affairs which Hong Kong administers on its own; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (b) whether it has assessed if seeking documents under the P&P Ordinance is an affair which the Hong Kong SAR administers on its own as stipulated in Article 22 of the Basic Law; if the assessment outcome is in the affirmative, whether it has assessed if the officials of LOCPG have contravened the aforesaid article of the Basic Law by discussing the matter with Members of this Council; if the assessment outcome is in the affirmative, whether the authorities have relayed to LOCPG that its officials have contravened the Basic Law by expressing views on this matter; if they have not, of the reasons for that; and (c) whether the aforesaid views of the ExCo Member reflect the views of ExCo; if so, of the justifications for ExCo to hold such views?
2. Dr Hon Fernando CHEUNG to ask: (Translation)
Recently, there have been a few incidents in which students were bullied, beaten up and indecently assaulted by teaching staff, and more than one school was involved. According to the Code for the Education Profession of Hong Kong, a member of the education profession, in the course of his teaching, should have concern for students' safety, seek to establish confidence and trust grounded on mutual respect between himself and the students, and avoid making students feel embarrassed or ashamed. In addition, according to the guidelines of the Education Bureau ("EDB") regarding the safety of students, the school should provide a safe learning environment for students to protect their physical and mental health and safety. Under section 62(f) of the Code of Aid for Special Schools and section 57(f) of the Code of Aid for Secondary Schools/Primary Schools, the School Management Committee ("SMC") may suspend a teacher from his duties if he is involved in criminal proceedings of a serious nature, or if he is under investigation for serious misconduct and it would be against the interest of the school for him to continue to teach in the classroom. However, such provisions do not require the school to consider the interest of students, and are implemented by SMC rather than EDB. SMC may therefore decide that the teacher concerned be allowed to continue teaching and there is no need to suspend his duties. On the other hand, the monitoring of teachers' professional conduct is currently under the purview of the Council on Professional Conduct in Education ("CPC") under EDB, but CPC has no real power and will only advise the Permanent Secretary for Education on cases of misconduct involving educators. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the existing procedures and guidelines for schools to handle incidents in which teachers and other staff members are suspected of bullying students, and the respective power and responsibilities of EDB, SMCs and school principals in such incidents; whether the Government will amend the legislation to stipulate that if a teacher is involved in a serious incident of bullying or suspected of having committed a criminal offence, EDB may, in the interest of students, directly order the school concerned to suspend the teacher concerned from his duties; if it will, of the timetable and details; if not, the reasons for that; (b) whether the authorities will make reference to the mechanisms for regulating the conduct of professionals such as social workers, lawyers, doctors and nurses, and set up an independent organization to regulate the professional conduct of teachers in place of the current arrangements; if they will, of the timetable and details; if not, the reasons for that; and (c) of the number of complaints received by EDB in the past 10 years about teachers allegedly bullying students and, among them, the number of cases substantiated, and the penalties imposed on the teachers concerned?
3. Dr Hon LEUNG Ka-lau to ask: (Translation)
It has been learnt that there are currently quite a number of doctor vacancies to be filled in the accident and emergency ("A&E") departments of public hospitals, and such shortage of manpower has resulted in exceedingly long waiting time for A&E services for patients triaged as semi-urgent and non-urgent. Some of these patients had to wait for more than 20 hours. I have also learnt that the Secretary for Food and Health has urged public and private doctors to participate in the scheme to work part-time in A&E departments of public hospitals in order to alleviate the situation of manpower shortage. However, the hourly salary of part-time doctors in A&E departments at present is merely around 70% of that of full-time doctors. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council whether it knows:
(a) the respective average weekly working hours of full-time doctors of various ranks in A&E departments of public hospitals at present, as well as the respective median hourly salary (including basic salary and regular allowances) of doctors of various ranks calculated on the basis of the aforesaid working hours; (b) the respective median hourly salary of part-time doctors of various ranks in A&E departments of public hospitals at present, as well as the criteria for determining the relevant salary level; and (c) if the Hospital Authority conducted open recruitment of part-time doctors for A&E departments in the past three years; if so, when and how the recruitment was conducted; if not, of the reasons for that?
4. Hon Mrs Regina IP to ask: (Translation)
According to the information on the web site of the Education Bureau, the results of the central allocation of Primary One places as well as the results of the allocation of discretionary places and central allocation of Secondary One places ("allocation results") for 2014-2015 school year will be released on 7 June and 8 July 2014 respectively, while those primary and secondary schools under the Direct Subsidy Scheme ("DSS") will conduct their own admission exercises and determine when to release the results. It has been learnt that DSS schools usually set the deadlines for admitted students to reply whether to accept the places ahead of the release dates of the allocation results, and those students who have accepted places of DSS schools will not be allocated government or aided school places. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether it will consider advancing the release dates of the allocation results to dates earlier than the deadlines set by DSS schools for students to reply if they accept the places, so as to allow those students offered places by DSS schools and their parents to make choices between the places offered by DSS schools and those by government or aided schools; if not, of the reasons for that; (b) if the allocation results will not be released earlier, whether the authorities will consider increasing the ratio of discretionary places for schools and requiring the schools concerned to advance the release of the results of allocating such places; if not, of the reasons for that; and (c) as there are views that the experience of teachers has direct impact on a school's attractiveness to gifted students and there is a succession gap of teacher talents at present, whether the Government will consider deferring the retirement ages of school principals and teachers to help those schools with enrolment difficulties to maintain their teaching quality, so as to attract students to enroll in such schools; if not, of the reasons for that?
5. Dr Hon Elizabeth QUAT to ask: (Translation)
To achieve the reduction targets for pollutant emission by 2015 and those for carbon emission by 2020, to tie in with the gradual reduction in the use of the existing coal-fire generating units, and to meet the future demands for electricity, the Government will review Hong Kong's fuel mix for electricity generation. Options available for consideration include increasing the use of natural gas, buying electricity from mainland power grid and importing nuclear energy, etc. The Government has planned to consult the public on the future fuel mix for electricity generation by the end of this year, and indicated that in the relevant review, it will strike a proper balance among the energy policy objectives such as safety, reliability, affordability and environmental protection. In this regard, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether the authorities will expedite the formulation of a comprehensive energy policy; of the targets of the fuel mix in the short, medium and long terms which have been considered by the authorities when formulating the energy policy, as well as the timetable for implementing such targets; whether the authorities have thoroughly considered and evaluated the impact of increasing the proportion of natural gas used on tariff and people's livelihood when they set the short-term target for the reduction in pollutant emission by 2015; in respect of setting the medium-term target for reduction in carbon emission by 2020, whether the authorities will make reference to Japan's recent announcement on lowering its latest target for reduction in carbon emission and in response to the ever-changing environmental factors, and consider conducting a corresponding review; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (b) in determining the new fuel mix required for meeting the reduction targets for pollutant emission and carbon emission, whether the authorities have drawn up any option (such as setting up a fund for stabilizing the price of natural gas fuel) to ensure a stable supply of fuel for electricity generation and the electricity tariff at a reasonable level which is affordable to members of the public; if they have, of the details of the options; if not, the reasons for that; and (c) with regard to the long-term plans for power grid development, whether the authorities will examine different options for opening up the power grids and for power interconnection, so as to tie in with the objective of the future fuel mix (e.g. importing renewable energy from the Mainland by means of "dedicated transmission lines"); if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
6. Dr Hon KWOK Ka-ki to ask: (Translation)
The Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, which was concluded on the 12th of this month, decided to establish a State Security Committee ("SSC"). It has been reported that the purpose of establishing SSC is to "improve China's mechanism and strategy for state security, and to ensure national security". It has also been reported that members of SSC will include the heads of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council ("HKMAO") and the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("LOCPG"). Regarding the impact of SSC on the work of the Government of Hong Kong, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) when and through which channel it first learnt of the decision to establish SSC; whether the Police and the Department of Justice will revise the existing law enforcement and prosecution policies in response to the purpose of SSC; if they will, of the details; whether the Government will restart the work of enacting local legislation to implement Article 23 of the Basic Law; if it will, of the timetable and details; (b) whether it has assessed if, upon the establishment of SSC, there will be corresponding changes in the roles played by HKMAO and LOCPG in handling matters related to the relationship between the Central Authorities and the Hong Kong SAR in accordance with the Basic Law; if there will be changes, of the details; whether it has studied if there is a legal basis for HKMAO and LOCPG to carry out tasks in Hong Kong in furtherance of the purpose of SSC; if there is a legal basis, of the details; and (c) as Article 22 of the Basic Law stipulates that all personnel of the departments of the Central Government shall abide by the laws of the Hong Kong SAR, whether the Government has made enquiries with the Central Authorities to see if SSC personnel will carry out activities in Hong Kong, including handling matters related to the "Occupy Central" movement, in order to ensure that they abide by the laws of the Hong Kong SAR; if they will carry out activities, of the legal basis, and whether the authorities have assessed if such a practice will violate the policy of "one country, two systems" and the principle of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy" being implemented in Hong Kong?
*7. Hon CHAN Han-pan to ask: (Translation)
Recently, I have received requests for assistance from the operators of money changers holding licences issued by the Commissioner of Customs and Excise to operate money changing service ("licensed MCs"). They indicated that some banks had refused to open bank accounts for their MCs, causing great difficulties and inconvenience to their businesses. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the current number of licensed MCs in Hong Kong and the measures currently undertaken by the Customs and Excise Department to monitor the compliance with the licensing requirements by the operators concerned; (b) whether it knows the number of licensed MCs which have accounts with banks in Hong Kong; if no such information is available, whether it will compile such statistics; (c) whether the authorities had, in the past three years, received complaints or requests for assistance from the operators of licensed MCs in respect of their being unable to open accounts with banks; if so, of the details; and (d) of the mechanisms the Hong Kong Monetary Authority has in place and the measures it has taken at present to help the operators of licensed MCs to open bank accounts and to receive related complaints?
*8. Hon Frankie YICK to ask: (Translation)
Some members of the logistics industry have relayed to me that the Government's current practice of leasing out logistics sites on short-term tenancies (not more than three years) by way of tendering is not conducive to the development of the industry. These people have pointed out that many tenancies are on a fixed term of one year only, and although the tenancies thereafter may be extended on a quarterly or monthly basis, the rents will usually be raised substantially. However, lessees of logistics sites (especially those used as open storage areas or container yards) need to invest heavily on site formation, development of infrastructures and purchase of operation tools and equipment before they can do business. Since the term of the tenancies is fixed at one year only, the lessees often find it difficult to recoup the costs on infrastructures; and upon the expiry of the tenancy term, once they are informed that the tenancies will not be extended, they must move out of the sites within one month, but they find it difficult to find suitable sites for relocation in such a hasty manner. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the following information on each logistics site leased out on a short-term tenancy in the past five years (set out in table form): (i) site location; (ii) land use; (iii) site area; (iv) the date on which the existing lessee was first granted the tenancy, and the cumulative duration of the tenancy to date; and (v) the commencement date and fixed term of each tenancy, and the rate of rent increase (%) as compared to the preceding tenancy, as well as the reasons for termination of tenancy (if applicable); (b) whether the authorities will consider leasing out logistics sites on a longer fixed term (e.g. five to seven years) so that the lessees can have the opportunities to recoup the costs on infrastructure investment; if they will, of the details; if not, the measures put in place by the authorities to reduce the financial loss suffered by the lessees due to non-renewal of short-term tenancies; whether they will, in re-tendering a logistic site, consider giving priority to the former lessee who has invested substantially on that site in leasing the site, and determining the new rent based on the rent of the former tenancy adjusted by the cumulative inflation rate, instead of determining the new rent in accordance with the change in land value of the sites nearby; and (c) of the details of the logistics sites to be leased out by the authorities on short-term tenancies in the coming three years, and set out the information in the following table? Expected commencement date of the tenancy Location Land use Area Tenancy term Anticipated rent
*9. Hon Emily LAU to ask:
I have received a request for assistance from villagers in Fanling who claimed that they had been affected for more than 20 years by the pollution and stenches emitted from a lard boiling factory ("the factory") in Tai Tong Wu Village. At least nine nearby villages were affected. The factory was built on government land under Short Term Tenancy ("STT") with permitted land use for cow bone crushing activities, but it switched to lard production. The villagers said that the factory's lard production gave off stenches every day, causing headache, nausea and vomiting among residents of nearby villages and thus endangering their health. The villagers consider that both the Lands Department ("LandsD") and the Environmental Protection Department ("EPD") are to blame for the decade-long problem. Apart from sending several warning letters to the factory operator between 1992 and 2012, LandsD had neither prosecuted the operator nor terminated its land lease for violating the permitted land use. Moreover, EPD issued a specified process licence ("the licence") to the factory operator in 1999, which was subsequently renewed for several times, and in 2011, EPD extended the licence to April 2016. However, LandsD, in its reply to the Legislative Council Secretariat in 2012, indicated that EPD's Environmental Assessment Division had stated that it "does not support" the application for change of land use on account of factory's operation violating the Code of Practice on Handling the Environmental Aspects of Temporary Uses and Open Storage Sites. Subsequently, the factory operator commissioned the Hong Kong Productivity Council ("HKPC") to prepare an environmental assessment report ("EA report") for submission to EPD in respect of its application for change of permitted land use from cow bone crushing to lard production. However, villagers said that HKPC had sent their staff only twice to the neighbourhood of the factory to measure emissions when the factory emission was low and no odour was detected. They also said that while the standard practice of HKPC's staff was to measure emissions when a factory was running in "full load capacity", such staff of HKPC had to rely on the factory concerned to tell them what was the "best time" to go there for measurement. Until now, despite repeated requests from the villagers, EPD has refused to disclose the EA report on the premise that the report is regarded as "third party information" under the Code of Access to Information. In this connection, will the Executive Authorities inform this Council:
(a) as EPD has pointed out that the aforesaid EA report is not a statutory report under the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap. 499), whether EPD has considered this report before giving comments to LandsD on the aforesaid application by the factory operator for changing the permitted land use; (b) whether EPD has measured the levels of emissions, sewage and other pollutants from the factory; if so, of the findings; (c) as the factory operator had been fined nine times for violating the Air Pollution Control Ordinance (Cap. 311) between 2000 and 2002, why EPD still renewed the licence to the factory for several times; (d) as LandsD has stated that EPD had "no objection" to the operator's application for changing the permitted land use under STT from cow bone crushing to lard production, of the justifications for EPD making the "no objection" comment; whether, in view of the pollution and stench concerns expressed by the residents, EPD will withdraw its "no objection" comment; (e) as I was told that EPD officials had said at a rural committee meeting held earlier this year that EPD had reservations about the factory's application for changing the permitted land use under STT from cow bone crushing to lard production, whether such reservations still stand; (f) as the villagers have told me that the aforesaid EA report is public information based on which the Government has made decisions affecting them, whether EPD will make public the report; if so, when EPD will do so; if not, of the justifications for that; (g) given that The Ombudsman indicated in 2012 that LandsD had failed to enforce the conditions in the land lease concerned and allowed the factory operator to violate the permitted land use, why LandsD did not enforce the conditions in the land lease and terminate the STT for the factory; and (h) whether LandsD has decided to renew STT for the factory despite the evidence submitted by the villagers, The Ombudsman's report, and the opinion of the Environmental Assessment Division of EPD?
*10. Hon Jeffrey LAM to ask: (Translation)
Some members of the business sector have relayed to me that the shortage of international school places in the Hong Kong, in particular primary school places on Hong Kong Island and in Kowloon, has deterred quite a number of talents interested in developing their career in Hong Kong from doing so as they are worried of being unable to find suitable schools in Hong Kong for their children. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether it knows the average fill-up rate of international schools in Hong Kong in the past five years, the numbers of students waiting for admission to various international schools in Hong Kong at present and their longest waiting time; (b) although the Education Bureau ("EDB") has reportedly said that international school places are currently sufficient overall, given that the business sector has pointed out that places in international primary schools on Hong Kong Island and in Kowloon are particularly in short supply, whether the Government has studied if there is a problem of imbalance between the supply of and demand for school places in various districts; if there is such a problem, of the solution; (c) whether EDB has assessed if the children born to mainland women whose spouses are not Hong Kong permanent residents (commonly known as "doubly non-permanent resident children") coming to Hong Kong for studies will aggravate the problem of insufficient international school places; if so, whether the authorities have studied corresponding solutions; (d) whether the authorities will consider expediting the vetting and approval of applications of school sponsoring bodies ("SSBs") for conversion of vacant school premises into international schools, in order to solve the problem of insufficient international school places; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (e) apart from allocating vacant school premises to SSBs for opening and operating international schools, whether the Government has other measures to solve the problem of insufficient international school places; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*11. Prof Hon Joseph LEE to ask: (Translation)
As stated in the consultation document on population policy released recently, to cope with the low birth rate situation in Hong Kong, the Government intends to explore various measures to encourage childbirth, including subsidizing treatment using assisted reproductive technologies. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council whether:
(a) it knows the number of couples seeking assistance from infertility treatment service units in public hospitals, their age distribution, the number of such couples who received reproductive technology treatment, as well the success rate, waiting time and average unit cost of the treatment services concerned, in each of the past five years; (b) it has assessed the demand for reproductive technology treatment services in the coming 10 years; if it has, of the details; if not, whether it will conduct such an assessment; (c) it has assessed the expenditure required to enhance public hospitals' reproductive technology treatment services to meet the demand mentioned in (b); if it has, of the details; if not, whether it will conduct such an assessment; and (d) it knows the current numbers of reproductive technology experts and relevant professionals in public hospitals; whether the authorities have assessed if there is adequate manpower at present to extend the said services to meet the demand mentioned in (b); if the assessment result is in the negative, whether it will train up additional manpower; if it will, of the details?
*12. Dr Hon LAM Tai-fai to ask: (Translation)
With an ageing population in Hong Kong, it is anticipated that the demand for columbarium niches will continue to increase. The Government has identified 24 potential sites across the 18 districts of the territory for columbarium development to meet the demand. Moreover, the Private Columbaria Bill to be introduced by the Government into the Legislative Council in the second quarter of next year will propose a statutory licensing scheme for private columbaria. On the other hand, it has been reported that some unauthorized private columbaria have illegally occupied government land for many years. Despite the long expiry of the deadlines specified in the removal orders issued by the Government, the Government has procrastinated in taking law enforcement actions, causing dissatisfaction among the local residents. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the respective numbers of niches currently provided by all public and private columbarium facilities in Hong Kong, broken down by District Council ("DC") district; (b) whether it has projected the demand for columbarium niches as well as the number of niches that can be provided by public and private columbarium facilities in the territory in the coming five years; if it has, of a breakdown of such numbers by DC district; if not, the reasons for that; (c) of the current total number of columbaria which are illegally occupying government land, or are operated illegally in private, commercial and industrial buildings, as well as the number of niches provided by such columbaria, broken down by DC district; the respective numbers of law enforcement actions taken and removal orders issued by the authorities against such illegal columbaria in each of the past three years; the grace period generally given in such removal orders, and the number of illegal columbaria cleared in compliance with the removal orders; (d) of the respective numbers of niches expected to be provided by the columbarium facilities to be developed at the aforesaid 24 potential sites as well as their completion timetables, broken down by DC district; (e) given that by 2041, according to the consultation document on population policy recently published by the Government, about one in three persons of Hong Kong's population will be aged 65 or above, of the number of years that the authorities anticipate the needs can be met by the existing niches and those under planning, and whether such niches will be able to meet the demand arising from the ageing population; (f) of the conditions to be met by the 96 private columbaria (the number as at September this year) listed in Part B of the Government's Information on Private Columbaria (i.e. those columbaria that do not fall under Part A which sets out the columbaria that are "compliant with the user restrictions in the land leases and the statutory town planning requirements and are not illegally occupying government land") for them to be allowed by the Government to operate legally; (g) as the demand for niches is very keen, whether the Government will regulate the prices of private niches to prevent speculative activities; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (h) whether the authorities will consider granting exemption from compliance with the new licensing scheme to those private columbaria which meet certain conditions (such as being operated by charitable organizations, funeral parlours or undertakers, or providing niches up to a certain specified number, or having been operated for a long period of time); if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (i) as the authorities have, in response to some private columbaria offering members of the public guarantees for "full refund" or "replacement niches", reminded the public that "they should pay due attention to the risks inherent in purchasing niches from columbaria that do not comply with the relevant statutory and Government requirements. Members of the public are advised to make enquiries with the operators concerning the details of any guarantee, and how such guarantees would be honoured", whether the authorities have taken law enforcement actions against such columbaria that do not comply with the relevant statutory requirements so as to avoid members of the public from being misled into believing their guarantees; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (j) as the authorities have indicated that they will actively explore various new measures, including (i) the designation of different worship periods for different blocks of niches so as to divert traffic and visitor flows; and (ii) the introduction of time-limited occupation of new niches, with post-occupation re-use through renewal or re-allocation, so as to increase the supply of niches, whether the authorities have conducted any feasibility study on such measures; if they have, of the details, and if the outcome of such study is that they are feasible, of the anticipated implementation time; if they have not conducted such study, the reasons for that; (k) as I have learnt that some members of the Sha Tin DC have demanded that when the authorities implement the construction of public columbarium facilities on the two selected sites in Sha Tin, they should at the same time make improvements to the ancillary transport facilities of the district, whether the authorities will accede to such demand; if they will, of the details and timetable; if not, the reasons for that; and (l) as the Government is conducting a feasibility study on the project for the construction of a public columbarium facility on the selected site in Tai Po, of the latest progress of the study, and whether it has assessed the difficulties it may encounter?
*13. Hon Alan LEONG to ask: (Translation)
In reply to my question on 10 July this year concerning chronic obstructive pulmonary ("COP") disease, the Secretary for Food and Health indicated that since 2011-2012, the Government had provided additional recurrent funding of $44 million for the Hospital Authority ("HA") to expand the clinical application of long-acting bronchodilators for treatment of COP disease. Yet, some members of the public have relayed to me that only those receiving treatments at the specialist out-patient ("SOP") clinics under the Respiratory Medicine Division ("RMD") had been prescribed with that drug, whilst those receiving treatments at the general out-patient ("GOP") clinics and the out-patient clinics under the General Medicine Division ("GMD") had not benefitted from the measure. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council whether it knows:
(a) the criteria adopted by HA for referring patients diagnosed to be suffering from COP disease ("COP patients") to the SOP clinics under RMD; (b) the respective numbers of COP patients at the SOP clinics under RMD in various hospital clusters at present; (c) if HA has collected data on COP patients at GOP clinics; if HA has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (d) the respective amounts out of the aforesaid funding currently allocated by HA to the SOP clinics under RMD, GOP clinics and the out-patient clinics under GMD?
*14. Hon CHAN Hak-kan to ask: (Translation)
According to the reply of the Environment Bureau to my question in March this year regarding the Estimates of Expenditure 2013-2014, there were more than 430 units of electric vehicles ("EVs") in use on the roads in Hong Kong at that time and, among them, only 75 units belonged to the government fleet, while there were about 150 units to be delivered within this year for use by various government departments. On the other hand, although the Hong Kong Housing Authority ("HA") provides at five of its car parks parking concessions of free parking up to two hours for EVs undergoing electricity charging, it has been reported that the utilization rate of such charging facilities last year was rather low, being about 175 times only. Regarding the promotion of the use of EVs, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the difficulties it has encountered in using more EVs in the government fleet; whether the Government will consider further increasing the proportion of EVs in the government fleet so as to take the lead; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (b) whether it has assessed if the existing some 1 000 charging facilities in Hong Kong (including more than 500 installed in government public car parks) are sufficient to cope with the demand; if the assessment result is in the affirmative, of the justifications; if the assessment result is in the negative, the improvement measures to be implemented; (c) given that the utilization rate of the charging facilities at HA's car parks was on the low side last year, whether the authorities have taken measures to improve the utilization rate; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (d) as the reasons for some members of the public not purchasing EVs are that major vehicle dealers do not sell EVs and the exterior design of EVs is not as attractive as that of ordinary vehicles, whether, apart from continuing to provide economic incentives (including the waiver of First Registration Tax and the Pilot Green Transport Fund) to those who use EVs, the Government will consider implementing in the coming decade policies to encourage vehicle dealers to introduce more EVs into Hong Kong so as to increase the choices available for members of the public; and whether the Government will implement measures to facilitate vehicle dealers to introduce into Hong Kong EVs manufactured on the Mainland; and (e) of the number of meetings that the Steering Committee on the Promotion of Electric Vehicles, established by the Government in April 2009 and chaired by the Financial Secretary, has held and its major achievements so far?
*15. Hon Christopher CHUNG to ask: (Translation)
Some members of civil organizations have relayed to me that if they need to use copyright works (including musical products and film clips, etc.) when staging public performances at hired venues in the community halls and community centres ("halls and centres") under the Home Affairs Department ("HAD"), they have to apply on their own to the licensing bodies concerned for copyright licences to use the relevant copyright works and to pay copyright royalty charges. They have also pointed out that the organizations hiring such venues are mostly non-profit making bodies with limited funding, and since these bodies do not have professional knowledge in handling copyright matters, they may easily incur legal liabilities arising from copyright infringement. On the other hand, as the Leisure and Cultural Services Department ("LCSD") has already collectively acquired copyright licences from the Composers and Authors Society of Hong Kong Limited ("CASH"), persons hiring venues in the city halls, civic centres or theatres under LCSD are authorized, without the need to apply on their own, to use the relevant copyright works in their public performances. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the reasons why LCSD and HAD have adopted different approaches in dealing with matters of acquiring copyright licences; (b) of LCSD's expenses on acquiring music copyright licences from CASH, and whether the licences are valid for one year or for good; (c) whether HAD will consider following LCSD's practice and acquiring collective copyright licences for the public performances staged in its halls and centres; if it will not, whether HAD will offer assistance to organizations hiring its halls and centres on matters of acquiring copyright licences; and (d) whether, apart from CASH, LCSD will acquire from the other two copyright licensing bodies (namely the Phonographic Performance (South East Asia) Limited and the Hong Kong Recording Industry Alliance Limited) the copyright licences for their relevant works, so that venue hirers will have a wider choice of musical works and film clips for their performances?
*16. Dr Hon Kenneth CHAN to ask: (Translation)
The authorities indicated in March this year that the review of the Chinese Temples Ordinance (Cap. 153) ("the Ordinance") was near completion, but so far they have not yet proposed any legislative amendment to the Ordinance or conducted public consultation. Some members of the public have relayed to me that in recent years, the private columbarium businesses operated by quite a number of temples registered under the Ordinance ("registered temples") have irregularities. However, the authorities have neither taken law enforcement actions to rectify such irregularities nor monitored the financial situations of such temples. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether it can provide information on the revenues and expenditures of various registered temples in the past three years; if it cannot, of the reasons for that; (b) whether it knows the registered temples that are currently operating the business of selling columbarium niches or other commercial activities and the revenues so derived by each of these temples in the past three years, broken down in table form by revenue item; whether the authorities will consider exercising the powers conferred by the Ordinance to require the temples concerned to transfer their surplus to the Chinese Temples Fund; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (c) whether the authorities received any complaint in the past three years about malpractices in the administration or financial management of registered temples; if they did, of the number and contents of the complaints, the names of the temples involved, as well as the relevant follow-up actions taken; and (d) when the authorities will complete the review of the Ordinance, and whether they have drawn up work plans and timetables for amending the Ordinance and the relevant consultation procedures; if they have, of the details; if not, whether they will draw up such plans shortly; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*17. Hon Albert CHAN to ask: (Translation)
In reply to my question on 28 November 2012 on the issue of telecommunications service operators ("TSOs") overcharging service fees, the Government said that where there was evidence indicating that a TSO might have breached the Telecommunications Ordinance (Cap. 106) or the licensing conditions, the Office of the Communications Authority ("OFCA") would conduct an investigation and penalize the TSO if the case was substantiated. Yet, I have still received complaints recently from a number of members of the public that TSOs had charged them for services that they had not applied for, or overcharged telecommunications service fees, thus causing them to suffer huge losses. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether it knows the numbers of complaints, received in the past 12 months by OFCA and the Consumer Council respectively, which involved overcharging by TSOs and the names of TSOs in substantiated cases, broken down by type of telecommunications services (e.g. fixed-line phones, mobile phones, external telecommunications and broadband Internet access, etc.) and content of the complaints; (b) whether it knows, among the cases in (a), the number of those in which the complainants succeeded in getting compensation, as well as the names of TSOs which were prosecuted and the number of times they had been prosecuted; and (c) apart from continuing to implement the existing measures to regulate TSOs, whether the authorities will adopt new regulatory measures to better protect consumers' rights and interests; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*18. Hon Paul TSE to ask: (Translation)
It has been reported that the last Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("the Commissioner") was alleged to have often violated the relevant regulations on expenditure during his term of office (e.g. buying hard liquor and gifts with public money for entertainment and bestowal of gifts for guests and mainland officials), which are acts that should not have been done by the head of an organization devoted to fighting corruption and promoting integrity. Some comments have attributed the cause of this incident to the fact that the current system of appointment of the Commissioner by the Chief Executive ("CE") ("the Commissioner's appointment system") has no objective selection criteria and lacks transparency. Besides, the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC") has spent much time in the investigation into the corruption complaint against CE of the last term but the case is yet to conclude, and some people have conjectured that such a situation is unusual. There are comments that such conjecture was caused by the fact that the Commissioner is only accountable to CE ("the Commissioner's accountability system") at present. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether it will, in the light of the aforesaid situations, consider afresh conducting a study on and making improvements to the Commissioner's appointment system, such as introducing more objective criteria in the selection of candidates for the Commissioner, refraining from appointing a candidate who has not yet left or may in future return to the civil service, and enhancing the transparency of the appointment process; (b) whether it has assessed if the Commissioner's accountability system should be reviewed and improved, so as to ensure that ICAC can effectively investigate complaints in relation to allegations of corruption or dereliction of duty against CE; if it has assessed, of the results; if not, whether it will do so immediately; and (c) whether it has examined if the current Commissioner's appointment and accountability systems will lead or has led the public to query if ICAC is able to investigate impartially complaints about alleged dereliction of duty by a former or the incumbent CE; if it has examined, of the results; if not, whether it will do so immediately?
*19. Hon Kenneth LEUNG to ask: (Translation)
Earlier on, the Government has, on the ground that the long-standing system of confidentiality of the Executive Council ("ExCo") should make no exception for any individual incident, declined to disclose the entire process of the vetting and approval of the domestic free television programme service licence applications by ExCo, and refused to further disclose the reasons for rejecting the application of Hong Kong Television Network Limited. The incident has aroused public concern about the confidentiality system of ExCo and there is also a view that the confidentiality system has been reduced to a tool for the Government to cover up its black box operation. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the historical background of the confidentiality system of ExCo; (b) of the legal basis for the current confidentiality system of ExCo, and whether it has ever been revised; and (c) given the view that ExCo has failed to strike a balance between its confidentiality system and the public's right to know, whether the authorities will consider afresh to review and revise the confidentiality system of ExCo to allow the Chief Executive, the Convenor of ExCo and the Secretaries of Department or Bureau Secretaries responsible for the policies concerned to give the public a detailed account of the justifications for various major policy decisions made by ExCo?
*20. Dr Hon Helena WONG to ask: (Translation)
Some District Council members have relayed to me that many restaurants (including quite a number of unlicensed restaurants) in Yuen Long Town and Tin Shui Wai extend their business area illegally at night. They occupy the walkways with more than a thousand dining tables, creating obstruction, noise and environmental hygiene problems, etc., as well as blocking the emergency accesses. As a result, the daily lives of the residents nearby are seriously disturbed. In addition, in its Direct Investigation Report published in May this year on illegal extension of business area by restaurants, the Office of The Ombudsman put forth to the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") and Lands Department 17 recommendations for improvement, including exercising more stringent control on the unlicensed restaurants concerned. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether the authorities have compiled statistics on the number of unlicensed restaurants; if they have, of the number of unlicensed restaurants in the past three years, and among them, the number of restaurants which had continued to operate without a licence despite their licences having been suspended after their accumulated demerit points had exceeded the limit under FEHD's Demerit Points System for restaurants; of the number of prosecutions instituted against the unlicensed restaurants by the authorities in the past three years; (b) whether the authorities will make public the list of unlicensed restaurants so that consumers can identify them; if they will, of the time to do so; if not, the reasons for that; (c) whether the Director of FEHD is authorized to order unlicensed restaurants to cease operation immediately; if so, of the details; if not, the relevant restrictions; (d) whether, in the past three years, there were cases of food poisoning of members of public allegedly caused by their dining in unlicensed restaurants; if so, of the details, and whether it knows if the punishment imposed by the court on unlicensed restaurants convicted for selling food unfit for human consumption is heavier than that imposed on licensed restaurants; (e) of the short-term and long-term measures put in place to address the problem caused by extension of business area to walkways by restaurants in Yuen Long Town and Tin Shui Wai; and (f) regarding the 17 recommendations for improvement put forth by The Ombudsman, of the recommendations which have been implemented, are planned to be implemented and will not be implemented respectively; of the implementation details of the recommendations which have been implemented, as well as the time to implement the to-be-implemented ones?
*21. Hon Abraham SHEK to ask:
Will the Government inform this Council of the respective numbers and total values of the transactions of private residential properties acquired by non-Hong Kong permanent residents and those acquired in the name of a company in each month between January and October this year, with a breakdown by transaction price of property (set out separately in tables of the same format as the following)?
-
(Month) 2013
Transaction price of residential properties (a)
Private residential properties acquired by non-Hong Kong permanent residents(b)
Private residential properties acquired in the name of a company(a+b)
Total number of transactions(a+b)
Total value of transactionsNumber of transactions Total value of transactions Number of transactions Total value of transactions Below $4 million $4 million to $8 million Over $8 million to $20 million Over $20 million
*22. Hon Frederick FUNG to ask: (Translation)
At the Legislative Council meeting on the 6th of this month, a Member of this Council moved a motion under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap. 382) to authorize the Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting to order the Government to produce relevant documents involved in the vetting and approval of domestic free television programme service licence ("licence") applications. It has been reported that prior to this, some officials of the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("LOCPG") had exerted pressure on some Members of this Council and asked them to vote against the motion. Some Members have admitted that some LOCPG officials had contacted them on the matter, while some Members of the Executive Council ("ExCo") and some pro-establishment newspapers have commented that officials of LOCPG are entitled to express to Members their views on the matter. However, Articles 13, 14, 16 and 22 of the Basic Law stipulate respectively that the Central People's Government shall be responsible for foreign affairs and defence, while the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("SAR") shall be vested with executive power, and no department etc. of the Central People's Government may interfere in the affairs which the SAR administers on its own. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the criteria based on which the authorities at present define the scope of affairs which the SAR "administers on its own" in accordance with the Basic Law as stipulated in Article 22 of the Basic Law; whether the authorities have formulated any mechanism and criteria to assess if there have been contraventions to such Article; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that, and whether the authorities have assessed if, in the absence of such a mechanism and criteria, the Chief Executive and officials of bureaux will beckon or allow departments of the Central People's Government to interfere in the affairs which the SAR administers on its own for certain reasons (e.g. to garner support from various parties when there are difficulties in governing, to curry favour with officials of the Central Authorities or to pander to the will of the Central Authorities); whether the authorities had uncovered any case of such interference in the past five years; if they had, of the details and follow-up actions taken by the authorities; (b) whether the Chief Executive, ExCo members and officials of the relevant bureau, etc. had, during the process of the vetting and approval of licence applications, directly or indirectly received views from officials of the Central Government or LOCPG, etc. on the vetting and approval of licence applications; if they had, of the views received and the response and follow-up actions of the authorities, and whether the authorities have assessed if such an action of the mainland officials involved had contravened the Basic Law (including the policy of "One Country, Two Systems" and the principle of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy" being implemented in Hong Kong); and (c) whether the Chief Executive, officials of the Office the Chief Executive, ExCo Members and officials of the relevant bureaux have requested assistance from LOCPG in persuading Members of this Council to vote against the aforesaid motion; if they have, of the details and justifications for doing so; if not, whether they have assessed if LOCPG had acted in contravention of the Basic Law (including the policy of "One Country, Two Systems" and the principle of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy" being implemented in Hong Kong) in making contacts with some Members of this Council; if the assessment outcome is in the affirmative, whether the authorities will express dissatisfaction to the Central People's Government; if they will not, of the reasons for that?
* For written reply
III. Motions
| 1. | Proposed resolution under the Criminal Procedure Ordinance
Secretary for Home Affairs to move the following motion: Resolved that the Legal Aid in Criminal Cases (Amendment) Rules 2013, made by the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee on 4 October 2013, be approved. | ||
| (The Rules are in Appendix I and were also issued
on 11 November 2013 under LC Paper No. CB(3)160/13-14) | |||
| 2. | Proposed resolution under the Pharmacy and Poisons Ordinance
Secretary for Food and Health to move the following motion: Resolved that the following Regulations, made by the Pharmacy and Poisons Board on 25 October 2013, be approved - | ||
| (a) | the Pharmacy and Poisons (Amendment) (No. 6) Regulation 2013; and
| ||
| (b) | the Poisons List (Amendment) (No. 6) Regulation 2013.
| ||
| (The two Regulations are in Appendices II and III and were also issued
on 7 November 2013 under LC Paper No. CB(3) 145/13-14) | |||