A 13/14-29
Legislative Council
Agenda
Wednesday 28 May 2014 at 11:00 am
I. Tabling of Paper
| 1. | No. 104 | - | Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation Annual Report 2013 |
| (to be presented by the Financial Secretary)
| |||
| 2. | No. 105 | - | Securities and Futures Commission Approved budget of income and expenditure For the financial year 2014/2015 |
| (to be presented by Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury)
| |||
| 3. | Report No. 19/13-14 of the House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments | ||
| (to be presented by Hon Andrew LEUNG, Chairman of the House Committee)
| |||
II. Questions for Written Replies
1. Hon Frederick FUNG to ask: (Translation)
Recently, I have received complaints from several members of the public alleging that the surfaces of the carriageway and the footpath ("the road") outside the entrance to a construction site at Hung Luen Road, Hung Hom are constantly damaged and uneven as a result of frequent passage of heavy duty vehicles entering or leaving the construction site. The poor road surface conditions have posed danger to pedestrians and vehicles. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has explored the reasons for the constantly poor surface conditions of the aforesaid road; whether the Highways Department ("HyD") will expeditiously repair the surface of that road in order to safeguard the safety of drivers and pedestrians; (2) of the number of complaints received by HyD in the past three years about the surface conditions of the roads outside the entrances to construction sites and the details of such complaints; how HyD followed up such complaints, including whether it instituted any prosecution against the contractors concerned and requested the contractors to carry out corrective repairs on the relevant road surfaces; in case the repair works for the relevant road surfaces were carried out by HyD, whether HyD recovered the costs from the contractors concerned; and (3) whether there is any mechanism at present to monitor the surface conditions of the roads outside the entrances to construction sites; if there is not, whether it will take actions only upon complaints received from members of the public, and whether it will only passively wait for the contractors concerned to take the initiative to repair the surfaces of the roads concerned?
2. Hon CHAN Hak-kan to ask: (Translation)
Some members of the public have relayed to me that certain auction web sites and shops selling photographic equipment are putting up for sale photographic equipment that is claimed to be suitable for clandestine photo-taking. With the constant drop in sizes and prices of such equipment, cases of under-ladies' skirt clandestine photo-taking using such equipment happen from time to time, and there is even hearsay that clandestine photo-taking equipment has been installed in public lavatories. Besides, drones (also known as "unmanned aerial vehicles") equipped with surveillance devices (including zoom cameras) have also become popular in recent years. The aforesaid situation has aroused public concern about the invasion of the privacy of members of the public by clandestine photo-taking activities. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of reports of clandestine photo-taking received by the authorities in the past three years, and among them, the number of cases of clandestine photo-taking using drones; (2) given that the Law Reform Commission's Review of Sexual Offences Sub-committee has pointed out in its consultation paper entitled Rape and Other Non-consensual Sexual Offences that "it is outside the scope of the Sub-committee to address whether conducts other than ‘under-the-skirt' photography which involve an infringement of privacy should be covered by the criminal law", whether the Government has any plan to regulate clandestine photo-taking activities other than "under-the-skirt" photography; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (3) of the clandestine photo-taking activities which currently constitute criminal offences and the offences involved; (4) apart from curbing, by way of legislation, those clandestine photo-taking activities that should be banned, whether the Government will study the regulation of the manufacture, import and sale of micro-photographic equipment (e.g. establishing a licensing system); if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (5) whether it has conducted studies on the impacts of the increasing popularity of drones on the protection of the privacy of members of the public; if it has, of the outcome; if not, the reasons for that?
3. Dr Hon LAM Tai-fai to ask: (Translation)
The Government forecast that annual visitor arrivals would surpass 70 million in 2017 and over 100 million in 2023. I have learnt that, in March this year, officials from the Central Government requested the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government to conduct a study on Hong Kong's capacity to receive visitors and ways to enhance such capacity. As some members of the public staged earlier on protests against mainland visitors under the Individual Visit Scheme ("IVS"), which deepened the conflicts between Hong Kong and mainland residents, and the number of mainland visitors visiting Hong Kong during this year's Labour Day Golden Week holidays dropped by 1.7% as compared to that of last year, the first decline since the implementation of IVS, the tourism industry is worried about the prospect for tourism. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has assessed how the various facilities and services of Hong Kong can cope with the visitor arrivals which will surpass 70 million in 2017 and will be as many as 100 million in 2023; if it has assessed, of the results; if not, the reasons for that; (2) of the details of the requests made by the aforesaid officials from the Central Government; which bureaux/government departments or government officials are responsible for taking relevant follow-up actions and preparing the relevant report, and when the follow-up actions are expected to be completed; when it will submit the report to the Central Government and make the report public; (3) whether it has assessed, with the continued growth in the number of mainland visitors to Hong Kong, if the conflicts between them and the Hong Kong residents will be intensified and the grievances of Hong Kong residents will be exacerbated; if it has assessed and the outcome is in the affirmative, of the mitigation measures put in place by the authorities; if not, the reasons for that; (4) whether the authorities have taken any follow up action in respect of the series of recent incidents of harassment of mainland visitors by some local residents; if they have, of the latest progress; if not, the reasons for that; (5) whether it has assessed the impacts of the growth in mainland visitor arrivals on Hong Kong in terms of (i) immigration control and (ii) environmental hygiene; if it has assessed, of the outcome; if not, the reasons for that; (6) as a Member of the Executive Council has remarked that crowdedness in compartments of public transport is a result of the increase in working population rather than the increase in the number of IVS visitors, whether the authorities will reassess the pressure on the service capacity of local public transport brought about by the growth in the number of mainland visitor arrivals and by the increase in working population respectively, and formulate corresponding measures; (7) whether it has assessed the impacts of the continuous growth in mainland visitor arrivals on (i) the inflation rate and (ii) rentals of retail shops in Hong Kong; if it has assessed, of the outcome; if not, the reasons for that; (8) whether it has assessed (i) the reasons for the drop in the number of mainland visitors to Hong Kong during this year's Labour Day Golden Week holidays and its impacts on Hong Kong in terms of the following aspects, (ii) the overall economy, (iii) the unemployment rate, (iv) the business turnover of the retail industry, (v) the business turnover of the catering industry, and (vi) the hotel occupancy rate; if it has assessed, of the outcome; if not, the reasons for that; (9) whether it has discussed with the mainland authorities on the feasibility of resuming the issuance of "one-entry permits" to mainland residents to replace the one year multiple-entry IVS endorsements ("multiple-entry permits"); if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (10) of the latest progress of the authorities' study on the feasibility of building major shopping facilities in areas close to the boundary, as well as the expected completion time of such facilities; and (11) as the authorities have indicated that they will develop new tourist attractions in various districts in collaboration with the 18 District Councils ("DCs") to divert visitors, of the latest progress of such initiatives, including (i) the DCs with which discussions are under way, (ii) the DCs that have completed the planning for new tourist attractions, and (iii) the completion dates for the new tourist attractions?
4. Dr Hon Kenneth CHAN to ask: (Translation)
The Secretary for Education ("SED") stated on the 14th of this month that the "Occupy Central" movement was bound to be unlawful, and urged students not to participate in it. He also advised that teachers "convicted for participating in unlawful activities will and must bear the legal liabilities and related consequences in their professional and career prospects". In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether SED had assessed, prior to making the aforesaid remarks, if such remarks would contravene Article 27 of the Basic Law, which provides that Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of speech and assembly; if he had assessed and the outcome was in the affirmative, of the reasons why SED still made the aforesaid remarks; whether SED would consider withdrawing the aforesaid remarks; if he would not, of the reasons for that; (2) whether it will issue guidelines to schools asking them to forbid students from discussing and exchanging views in school on "Occupy Central" or other civil disobedience campaigns involving illegal activities; if so, of the reasons and justifications for that; (3) given that the initiators of "Occupy Central" have already said that only people who are aged 18 or above may sign the letter of intent for "Occupy Central" to signify their support for or their "participation" in the movement, whether, according to the Government's stance, primary and secondary students may observe, express their support for or comment on "Occupy Central"; if the answer is in the negative, of the reasons for that; and (4) which provisions in the Code for the Education Profession of Hong Kong that the participation of teachers in "Occupy Central" will contravene; whether the authorities will refer matters relating to the registration of any teacher who has been convicted for participation in "Occupy Central" to the Council on Professional Conduct in Education ("CPCE") for handling; if so, of the number of cases concerning teachers convicted of breaching the law which were handled by CPCE in the past five years, and the details of such cases, with a breakdown of the number by sanction imposed by the Permanent Secretary for Education on the teachers concerned (including suspension or cancellation of the registration of the teachers concerned)?
5. Dr Hon KWOK Ka-ki to ask: (Translation)
According to the results of the 2011 Population Census, the population of Ma Wan in mid-2011 was 13 056, in which 11 529 people (88%) lived in the private housing estate Park Island; and among the residents of Ma Wan, 78.9% of students studied and 98.5% of working persons worked in other districts respectively. At present, apart from vehicles issued with permits by the Transport Department may enter Ma Wan and specified classes of vehicles may do so during specified time periods, all vehicles are not permitted to enter Ma Wan. Apart from taking urban taxis which are permitted to enter Ma Wan during certain time periods, Ma Wan residents mainly rely on the six residents' bus routes and two ferry routes operated by the Park Island Transport Company Limited ("PITCL"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the developer of Park Island, for external transport. Some Ma Wan residents have complained about a shortfall of external transport services in Ma Wan. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has compiled statistics on the average daily person trips commuting to and from Ma Wan at present, with a breakdown by mode of transport (including urban taxis, residents' buses and ferries); if it has, of the results; (2) of the criteria adopted by the authorities for assessing whether the external transport services in Ma Wan can meet the residents' demand; (3) whether it has any measure to monitor the frequency and fares of the external transport services in Ma Wan; if it has, of the relevant measures; of the justifications of PITCL for applying for each adjustment of fares and frequencies of buses/ferries made by PITCL, and the criteria adopted by the authorities for approving such applications; (4) given that the aforesaid residents' bus services are mainly short-haul feeder services to railway stations and Ma Wan residents, after the bus trips, still have to change to other means of transport to reach their destinations, whether the authorities have conducted any survey on the transport needs of Ma Wan residents for travelling to and from other districts; if they have, of the results; (5) whether, according to the agreement signed between the Government and the developer of Park Island, the developer has the franchise to operate the external bus services of Ma Wan; if it does, of the franchise tenure and relevant details; if not, the reasons why there is no other company providing the relevant bus services; and (6) according to the agreement mentioned in (5), whether the Government has the power to introduce other external transport services to Ma Wan (e.g. services of franchised buses and minibuses) and to provide more taxi stands within Park Island; if it does not, of the measures put in place by the Government to ensure that the transport services provided by the developer can meet the needs of Ma Wan residents; if it has such power, whether the Government will introduce services of franchised buses and green minibuses plying between Ma Wan and other districts; if it will, of the details and timetable?
6. Hon LEUNG Kwok-hung to ask: (Translation)
PMQ is a revitalization project implemented at the former Police Married Quarters on Hollywood Road. Recently, it has been reported by the media and pointed out by some tenants of PMQ that as renovation works are still in progress in quite a number of units at PMQ, there are almost no visitors due to the poor environment, resulting in unsatisfactory business for the tenants. These tenants have also pointed out that the Musketeers Education and Culture Charitable Foundation Limited, which has been selected to conserve this heritage site, and the PMQ Management Company Limited ("the management company"), which is responsible for the daily management of PMQ, have all along failed to listen to the opinions of the tenants and rectify the mismanagement of PMQ. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective numbers of units, among the 130 studio units and eight commercial units at PMQ, the tenants of which have opened for business for one month or more and not yet opened for business as at the 24th of this month; whether it has assessed if the number of tenants which have opened for business is so small that it can hardly attract a substantial visitor flow, resulting in unsatisfactory business performance for those tenants which have opened for business; if it has assessed, of the outcome; if not, the reasons for that; whether it has assessed when PMQ will meet the target of having 80% of its units opened for business; (2) whether it knows if the management company has put in place measures to urge those tenants of the units in which renovation works have been carried out for a long time but are still uncompleted to open for business as soon as possible, so as to boost the visitor flow of PMQ; (3) whether, notwithstanding that the management company has, in view of the actual circumstances, decided not to start collecting rents from the studio units until this month, the authorities will request the management company to defer the collection of rents until July this year or 80% or more of the units have opened for business and the ancillary facilities at the site have been improved further, so as to support and nurture local budding creative enterprises and achieve the original objectives of the revitalization project; if they will not, of the reasons for that; (4) whether it knows if the two sole restaurant units provided with seating in PMQ have opened for business as at 24th of this month; if they have opened for business, of their daily business hours; if not, the reasons for that, as well as when they will open for business and the types of food and beverage services they will provide; and (5) given that the management company has advised that PMQ is still under partial operation stage and vending machines are yet to be provided, whether the Government has found out from the management company if vending machines will be provided on each floor of PMQ in future for the convenience of visitors and staff members; if vending machines will be provided, of the number and the goods to be sold; if not, the reasons for that?
7. Hon WONG Ting-kwong to ask: (Translation)
A Research Brief on Individual Visit Scheme ("IVS") released by the Legislative Council Secretariat in May this year points out that while IVS has brought economic benefits to Hong Kong, it has aroused public concern over the impacts of the continuous growth in mainland visitors to Hong Kong on the local community (e.g. the supply of daily necessities and usage of the public transport system and public facilities/amenities). The Brief suggests that the Government should take the "social carrying capacity" as one of the considerations in determining the tourism carrying capacity. In addition, it has been reported that the Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, who is also the head of the Hong Kong and Macao Work Coordination Group, has earlier asked the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council and the China National Tourism Administration to look into and study Hong Kong's capacity to receive mainland visitors, and to practically collaborate with the Hong Kong SAR Government in coming up with corresponding measures. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it will assess afresh the carrying capacity, in particular the social carrying capacity, of Hong Kong's tourism; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (2) as it has been reported that the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development has recently indicated that the authorities are communicating with the Central Authorities about the number and the composition of mainland visitors to Hong Kong, with a view to coming up with proposals that can benefit the Hong Kong economy but lessen the impact on people's livelihood, of the progress of the work, and the expected time to announce the specific outcome; and (3) as the data from the Hong Kong Tourism Board reveal that the proportion of "same-day" visitors among IVS visitors increased substantially from 27.6% in 2004 to 64.9% in 2013, and their main purpose of visiting Hong Kong was shopping, of the measures put in place by the authorities to divert such visitors from shopping areas to other areas, so as to alleviate the pressure brought about by their shopping activities on the public facilities and malls in shopping areas, as well as on the public transport systems connecting those areas?
8. Hon LEUNG Che-cheung to ask: (Translation)
Regarding the crowdedness of footpaths, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether the authorities have made reference to the Highway Capacity Manual ("HCM") in planning new footpaths and improving the existing ones; if so, of the extent to which such reference was made and the details thereof, including the year of publication of the HCM adopted for reference; (2) whether it has used the indicators set out in HCM to measure the crowdedness of footpaths; if so, of the details of such indicators; (3) whether the following factors have been taken into account in the methodologies set out in HCM for measuring the crowdedness of footpaths: (i) the number of pedestrians walking on footpaths, (ii) the number of pedestrians staying temporarily on footpaths (e.g. pedestrians waiting to board vehicles or cross the road), (iii) the variations in different periods (including rush hours and non-rush hours), and (iv) the number of obstacles on footpaths (e.g. bus stops, trees and mail boxes); if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (4) whether it regularly conducts surveys on the crowdedness of footpaths; if it does, of the respective locations and crowdedness of the 10 most crowded footpaths, and whether it has taken measures to alleviate the crowdedness of these footpaths; if it does not, the reasons for that, and whether it will conduct such surveys; and (5) as some members of the public have relayed to me that the footpaths along the road sections in Yuen Long as listed in the table below are very crowded most of the time, thus forcing pedestrians to walk on the carriageways, of the following regarding these footpaths, including (i) the designed pedestrian capacity, (ii) the actual pedestrian capacity (during rush hours), (iii) the actual pedestrian capacity (during non-rush hours), and (iv) the improvement measures taken or being planned (set out in the table below)?
Location of footpath (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) Tai Tong Road Transport Interchange at Castle Peak Road (Yuen Long Section) ("CPR(YLS) ") Pedestrian crossing at Hong Lok Road Light Rail Transit ("LRT") station at CPR(YLS) Pedestrian crossing at Fung Nin Road LRT station at CPR(YLS) Pedestrian crossing at the junction of the Citimall at Kau Yuk Road and Tai Tong Road
9. Hon Tony TSE to ask: (Translation)
According to a paper submitted by the authorities to a subcommittee of this Council in March this year, the consultant commissioned by the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority ("WKCDA") has completed the technical assessments on the traffic, environmental, air ventilation, visual impacts and building height implications of the proposed planning application for minor relaxation of development intensity of the West Kowloon Cultural District ("WKCD") site ("the proposal"). The assessment results show that the proposal is technically feasible. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the benchmarks, principles and presumptions based on which the consultant conducted the aforesaid assessments, and the period covered by such assessments; (2) whether it has comprehensively studied if the composition of WKCDA as well as its modes of management and operation can dovetail with the overall development of WKCD under the proposal; if it has conducted such a study, of the details and results; if not, the reasons for that and whether it will do so; and (3) whether it has comprehensively reviewed if the delay in the construction works of the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link will have an impact on the results of the aforesaid assessments; if it has conducted such a review, of the details and results, and the follow-up actions taken; if not, the reasons for that and whether it will conduct such a review?
10. Hon CHAN Kin-por to ask: (Translation)
The Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Ordinance (Cap. 485) ("MPFSO") has been in force since 2000. The complaints received by the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority ("MPFA") in recent years were mainly related to employers' defaults on contributions to Mandatory Provident Fund ("MPF") schemes and failure to enrol their employees in MPF schemes. For example, 283 and 136 of the 372 complaints received in March 2014 were related to such non-compliance situations respectively. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council whether it knows:
(1) the number of cases in which MPFA filed civil claims in court against employers for defaults on MPF contributions and, among such cases, the number and percentage of those in which the contributions in arrears were successfully recovered, in each year since 2009; (2) the number of cases in which criminal prosecutions were instituted by the authorities against employers for defaults on contributions or failure to enrol their employees in MPF schemes since 2009, broken down by whether the employers concerned were companies or individuals; among such cases, the respective numbers of those in which the employers were prosecuted for more than once and convicted; the highest, lowest and average amounts of fines and/or the longest, shortest and average terms of imprisonment imposed on the employers convicted; and (3) given that the Government amended MPFSO in 2012 to stipulate that it is a criminal offence for an employer failing to comply with a court order for the payment of arrears of MPF contributions, whether MPFA has examined if the situation of employers defaulting on contributions has improved since the implementation of the legislative amendment; whether it will consider introducing new measures, such as vesting greater power in MPFA and stepping up prosecution efforts, so as to reduce defaults by employers on contributions; whether it has plans to impose heavier penalties on repeated offences; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
11. Hon Christopher CHUNG to ask: (Translation)
I have received quite a number of complaints from the residents on Hong Kong Island claiming that the utilization rates of quite a number of footbridges are very low because there are more convenient alternative road crossing facilities or some of the exits of the footbridges are blocked ("disused footbridges"). Such residents have also pointed out that due to long-standing poor management, such footbridges often become environmental hygiene black spots or even hotbeds of crime. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has compiled statistics on the current total number of disused footbridges in Hong Kong (including those constructed by the Government and those by private developers in accordance with land lease requirements and open for public use), and set out in a table the locations of such footbridges by the 18 District Council districts; (2) whether there is any policy at present to deal with disused footbridges; if so, of the details and the responsible government department(s); if not, whether it will conduct a review and expeditiously formulate such a policy; (3) whether, in the past five years, it received reports or complaints from the public about disused footbridges being misused or used for unlawful purposes, e.g. laying of personal items, drug abuse, street sleeping and gambling; if so, of the number of such reports and complaints, and whether the authorities have taken law enforcement actions; if they have, of the details; and (4) whether, in the past five years, it demolished or demanded private developers to demolish disused footbridges; if so, of the number and locations of such footbridges; if not, whether it will take measures such as putting up wooden hoardings around the entrances and exits of the footbridges to prevent them from being misused or used for unlawful purposes?
12. Hon TAM Yiu-chung to ask: (Translation)
Quite a number of the residents in New Territories West take the Light Rail ("LR") or feeder buses as well as the West Rail Line ("WRL") for travelling to and from the urban areas every day. Some Tuen Mun residents have relayed to me that by the time they arrive at Tuen Mun on the last train of WRL, the last train of the LR routes and the last bus of the feeder bus routes concerned have already departed. As a result, they can go home only by taxi or on foot, which causes inconvenience and personal safety hazards to them. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the current numbers of LR and feeder bus routes whose last departure times from West Rail stations are earlier than the arrival times of the last WRL trains at those stations; and the major housing courts and estates that these LR and feeder bus routes pass en route; (2) whether it knows why the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") has not arranged for the last departure times of all feeder bus routes from West Rail stations to dovetail with the arrival times of the last WRL train at those stations; and (3) whether it will request MTRCL to extend the service hours of all relevant LR and feeder bus routes so as to cater for the needs of the passengers of the last WRL trains; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
13. Dr Hon Elizabeth QUAT to ask: (Translation)
It has been nearly one year since the commissioning of the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal ("the Terminal") in June 2013. Regarding the facilities, design and transport link of the Terminal, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) as it was reported that, notwithstanding the reply by the Government to a question raised by a Member of this Council on 7 May this year that "[t]he remedial works and water tightness tests are substantially completed", water leakage still occurred in the terminal building after the rainstorm on the next day, of the details of the remedial works and water tightness tests conducted by the authorities regarding the water leakage; whether they can give a clear account of the completion time for the relevant works and tests, and whether they have taken any measure to ensure that leakage problems will not arise again in this rainy season; if they have, of the details of such measures; if not, the reasons for that, and whether they have drawn up any interim remedial measures; (2) given the Government's indication in October last year that the Terminal had received 59 applications from cruise vessels for berthing at the Terminal between October last year and the end of 2016, totalling about 103 days of berthing, whether it knows the latest figures; if the figures have dropped, of the reasons for that; (3) as it has been reported that there are some problems with the design of the rooftop park on the terminal building (e.g. the planting beds obstruct the access by members of the public to the fences to enjoy the sea view, the signage is not clear enough, and some directional signs have the left-right directions reversed), whether the authorities will review the design of the rooftop park and draw up improvement proposals, and whether they have comprehensively inspected the signage within the Terminal; if they have not, of the reasons for that; (4) as some members of the public have pointed out that Wi-Fi signals at some locations (such as the rooftop park) in the Terminal are weak, whether the Government has tested, at various locations of the Terminal, the signal strength of the free Wi-Fi service provided under the Government Wi-Fi Programme; if it has, of the outcome; if not, the reasons for that; (5) given that at present quite a number of Hong Kong people visit the Terminal during holidays, but it has been reported that facilities such as restaurants and shops are not yet available in the Terminal, whether it knows the timetable for and details about the opening for business of the restaurants and shops in the Terminal; (6) given the report that some taxi drivers are unwilling to drive their taxis to the Terminal to take disembarking visitors to their destinations because they are dissatisfied that the shuttle bus services provided by the Terminal operator, vessel companies and shopping arcades have vied for patrons with the taxi trade, resulting in visitors having to wait in a long queue for taxis, whether the Government has examined the situation and co-ordinated among the parties concerned; (7) given that the second berth of the Terminal will be commissioned within this year, whether the Government has any concrete plan to further improve the transport arrangements to and from the Terminal; if it does, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (8) as it has been reported that the Terminal operator has suggested the Government to build a public pier in the vicinity of the Terminal to provide visitors with ferry services to and from the urban areas, whether the Government has received any document submitted by the operator concerning this proposal; if it has, of the progress of the authorities in studying this proposal; if not, the Government's current stance on this proposal?
14. Hon Charles Peter MOK to ask: (Translation)
It has been reported that on the 27th of last month, a router in the data network transmission system ("transmission system") of the monitoring and communications system ("signalling system") of the MTR East Rail Line ("ERL") malfunctioned, causing a 36-minute suspension of the service of the entire ERL. The MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") stated on the next day that replacement of the router in question had been arranged. Separately, the backup transmission system failed to activate automatically when the incident occurred and the trains had to switch to manual operation mode before train service resumed normal. There are views that the failure of MTRCL to explain in detail the causes of the system malfunctioning has caused people's concern about the reliability of MTR's signalling system. Also, the contingency measures (including the emergency notification mechanism and the connecting transport arrangements) taken by MTRCL during the incident have aroused dissatisfaction among passengers. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the progress of MTRCL's investigation into the aforesaid incident, the causes of the malfunctioning of the system and components concerned, if the causes of the aforesaid incident involved components other than the router, and the reasons for the failure of the backup system to activate automatically (and whether system software errors were involved); (2) as it has been reported that MTRCL requested the Australian supplier of the router in question to send personnel to Hong Kong to investigate the aforesaid incident, whether it knows the scope, timetable and progress of the investigation; (3) whether it knows the possible factors that might have led to the double failure of both the transmission and backup systems of MTR; as MTRCL indicated on the 28th of last month that replacement of the routers in question had been arranged, the reasons why failures of the signalling systems still occurred on the 29th of last month and also on the 2nd and 3rd of this month; whether such failures were related to the two primary routers or other components of the integrated communications and control system; whether software and hardware updates have recently been performed for the system concerned or its sub-systems to align with the development needs of other railway lines (e.g. the Shatin to Central Link); if such updates have been performed, of the details, and whether MTRCL has assessed the additional risks thus caused to the system, and has any plan to restore the software to its original version; (4) whether it knows if MTRCL has assessed the risks of the signalling systems of its railway lines being attacked, including the possibility of sabotage or online attacks against the relevant components; if MTRCL has assessed, of the outcome; whether MTRCL has put in place a contingency plan to ensure the continued provision of safe train service in the event of an attack on its signalling systems; (5) as it has been reported that, for urban railway lines, the signalling units are configured in a "de-centralized" way that the signalling units of various stations are connected to form a network, which allows individual station units to take control when the Operations Control Centre is unable to regulate the train service and ultimately allows the integrated backup panels in individual stations' control rooms to alter the track directions through the circuit switch in order to let trains in and out one by one in the event that the signalling units suffer a network connection failure due to a communication breakdown, whether it knows if MTRCL adopted, in the past five years, such an approach in maintaining the train service; if MTRCL did, of the details; (6) as it has been reported that, for non-urban railway lines, the signalling units adopt a "centralized" configuration under which MTRCL can only activate the backup computer system as remedy when the Operations Control Centre is unable to regulate the trains, whether it knows if MTRCL has reviewed the impacts of the "centralized" configuration on the reliability of the existing railway transport system; if MTRCL has reviewed, of the details; (7) as I have learned that subsequent to a number of signalling failures which occurred on ERL, additional backup systems were installed for ERL but the one commissioned in 2010 failed during the aforesaid incident, whether it knows if MTRCL has any measure in place to ensure that the additional backup systems can operate when needed; (8) as I have learned that, before the rail merger, the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation could shift to the "temporary block post working" by using aids e.g. flag signals, light signals and direct telephone lines etc. to help identify the locations of trains in order to maintain railway service when ERL's signalling system failed, whether it knows if MTRCL can use this method to provide railway service at present; if it can, whether this method was used during the recent railway incidents; if MTRCL no longer uses this method, of the reasons and justifications for that; and (9) whether it has plans to engage independent experts and academics to conduct thorough investigation into the aforesaid incident and publish the results in order to allay public concerns; if so, of the details?
15. Hon WU Chi-wai to ask: (Translation)
The income limits of the Waiting List ("WL") for public rental housing for 2014-2015, which came into effect on 1 April 2014, have increased by an average of 8.4% over those for 2013-2014. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of (i) the total number of households in rented private accommodation in the fourth quarter of 2013 and, among them, (ii) the number and percentage of households with the then incomes equal to or below the relevant WL income limits for 2013-2014, as well as (iii) the number and percentage of households with the then incomes equal to or below the relevant WL income limits for 2014-2015, with a breakdown by household size (set out in Table 1); and
Table 1
Household size (i) (ii) (iii) 1 person 2 persons 3 persons 4 persons 5 persons 6 persons 7 persons 8 persons 9 persons 10 persons and more Total (2) of the 10th percentile, thereafter the percentiles of 10-percentage-point intervals up to the 90th percentiles, and the 25th and 75th percentiles, of the monthly incomes of the households referred to in (1), with a breakdown by household size (set out in Table 2)?
Table 2
Household
sizePercentiles of monthly incomes of households 10th 20th 25th 30th 40th 50th 60th 70th 75th 80th 90th 1 person 2 persons 3 persons 4 persons 5 persons 6 persons 7 persons 8 persons 9 persons 10 persons and more Overall
16. Hon Kenneth LEUNG to ask: (Translation)
Last month, the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") announced that the project to construct the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL") could not be completed by 2015 as scheduled. According to a paper submitted by the Government to the Subcommittee on Matters Relating to Railways of this Council ("the Subcommittee") for its meeting held on the 5th of this month, lags and delays in the construction works of the XRL Project had happened time and again since its commencement in 2010. In a paper submitted to the Subcommittee, MTRCL indicates that it will make every effort to complete the project in accordance with the revised programme and it looks forward to delivering the XRL for passenger service by the end of 2017. There are views that the delay in the XRL Project not only incurs additional expenditure on the works, but also reflects MTRCL's mismanagement of the works, raising doubts as to whether the Government has adequately monitored major infrastructure projects. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows MTRCL's considerations and justifications for splitting the XRL Project into 20 major civil contracts which were awarded to 17 contractors; given that some engineers have pointed out that the arrangement of splitting projects and awarding them to different contractors will aggravate the difficulties of interfacing and coordination in project management, whether MTRCL and the authorities have reviewed if such an arrangement has resulted in contractors shirking their responsibilities, thus causing an overall project delay; if the assessment outcome is that such an arrangement did result in project delay, whether the authorities have taken any corresponding improvement and remedial measure; (2) as it was reported by the media as early as May last year that the contractor Gammon-Leighton JV had indicated in its letter to MTRCL in March last year that the work progress in the northern section of the XRL West Kowloon Terminus ("WKT") was 310 days behind the original schedule and the overall WKT works were expected to delay for 562 days, and it had made a claim for $1.5 billion, but the aforesaid government paper reveals that MTRCL still told the Government in November last year that despite the difficulties encountered at WKT and the cross-boundary tunneling works, XRL could still be completed and commissioned in 2015, whether the authorities have reviewed if MTRCL had provided false information, and if the Highways Department has endeavoured to perform its duties in monitoring and reporting on the progress of the XRL Project; whether the authorities will strengthen the monitoring and reporting mechanisms for major infrastructure projects in the long run; (3) whether it has reviewed if MTRCL had carried out the advanced preparatory works of the XRL Project (including geological surveys, etc.) in a hasty and careless manner, and if such works met the standards and complied with the routine procedures for public works of the same nature; whether the authorities will draw up more stringent procedures and monitoring measures for the advanced preparatory works of major infrastructure projects in future, if they will, of the details; (4) whether it knows the number of XRL works projects to date the works for which have yet to commence even though the latest commencement dates stipulated in the contracts have lapsed; of the respective details of these projects, and the estimated additional daily expenditure or amounts of claims that may be caused by delay in the project as stipulated under the contract terms of various projects; (5) whether it knows the number of XRL works projects the awarded contracts of which have stipulated that the works concerned have to commence by the end of this year but it has been confirmed that such works cannot commence as scheduled; of the respective details of these projects, and the estimated additional daily expenditure or amounts of claims that may be caused by delay in the project as stipulated under the contract terms of various projects; (6) whether it knows the number of contractors which have made claims to MTRCL due to delay in commencing the XRL works projects so far and the amount of claims involved as well as the justifications for such claims; and (7) as a paper submitted by the Government to the Subcommittee in November 2009 revealed that MTRCL allowed a 20% contingency for WKT/Alignment/System-wide electrical and mechanical works in the Project Cost Estimate in August 2009, and reduced such percentage to 15% in its updated Project Cost Estimate in September 2009, whether the authorities had looked into the reasons for MTRCL's reduction of the percentage, the basis and method for calculating the contingency percentage each time when relevant adjustment was made; whether it knows the latest percentage and amount of contingency allowed by MTRCL in the Project Cost Estimate of the aforesaid works, the percentage of such amount in the contingency for the whole XRL Project, and the breakdown of the contingency for the whole XRL Project; whether the authorities have assessed if MTRCL's reduction of that percentage at the early stage of the XRL Project has reflected that MTRCL has all along taken risk management lightly; if the authorities have assessed, of the details and results?
III. Bills
| Committee Stage and Third Reading | |||
| Appropriation Bill 2014 | : | The Financial Secretary | |
| Amendments to heads of estimates in Committee of the whole Council on the Appropriation Bill 2014 | |||
| Hon Albert CHAN, Hon LEUNG Kwok-hung, Hon CHAN Chi-chuen, Hon Claudia MO, Hon WONG Yuk-man, Hon SIN Chung-kai, Hon James TO, Dr Hon Helena WONG, Hon Gary FAN, Hon WU Chi-wai, Hon LEE Cheuk-yan, Dr Hon Fernando CHEUNG, Hon CHEUNG Kwok-che and Hon Cyd HO to move the Committee stage amendments in the Appendix.
| |||
| (These amendments were also issued on 17, 24 and 30 April 2014 under LC Paper Nos. CB(3)566/13-14, CB(3)573/13-14 and CB(3)602/13-14 respectively) | |||
| (Debate and voting arrangements for Committee stage amendments to the Appropriation Bill 2014 (updated version issued on 5 May 2014 under LC Paper No. CB(3) 615/13-14(01))
| |||
| Other Public Officers to attend the Committee stage | : | The Chief Secretary for Administration The Secretary for Justice Secretary for Transport and Housing Secretary for Home Affairs Secretary for Labour and Welfare Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Secretary for Security Secretary for Education Secretary for the Civil Service Secretary for Food and Health Secretary for the Environment Secretary for Development Under Secretary for Home Affairs Under Secretary for the Environment Under Secretary for Transport and Housing Under Secretary for Security Under Secretary for Food and Health Under Secretary for Education Under Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Under Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Under Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Under Secretary for Development | |
| Second Reading (Debate to resume), Committee Stage and Third Reading | |||
| Dutiable Commodities (Amendment) Bill 2014 | : | Secretary for Food and Health | |
IV. Members' Motions on Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments
V. Member's Bill
| First Reading
Kowloon Tong Church of the Chinese Christian and Missionary Alliance Incorporation (Amendment) Bill 2014 Second Reading (Debate to be adjourned) | |||
| Kowloon Tong Church of the Chinese Christian and Missionary Alliance Incorporation (Amendment) Bill 2014 | : | Dr Hon Priscilla LEUNG | |
VI. Members' Motions
| 1. | Motion under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance
Hon Gary FAN to move the following motion: That this Council appoints a select committee to inquire into whether the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTR Corporation") has covered up the progress and causes of delay in the construction of the Hong Kong section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL"), and whether there are any problems with the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government and the MTR Corporation in supervising and co-ordinating the construction of the Hong Kong section of XRL; and that in the performance of its duties the committee be authorized under section 9(2) of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap. 382) to exercise the powers conferred by section 9(1) of that Ordinance. Amendment to the motion Hon Claudia MO to move the following amendment: To add "the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government and" after "to inquire into whether"; to delete "has" after "("MTR Corporation")" and substitute with "have"; and to add "whether the MTR Corporation has properly completed the site investigation work at the West Kowloon Terminus Station to avoid unnecessary works and supplementary appropriation in the future," after "("XRL"),". Public Officer to attend : Secretary for Transport and Housing |
| 2. | Motion under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance
Dr Hon Kenneth CHAN to move the following motion: That the House Committee be authorized under section 9(2) of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap. 382) to exercise the powers conferred by section 9(1) of that Ordinance to order the Secretary for Transport and Housing to attend before the House Committee on or before the date of the first meeting of the House Committee after the passage of this motion to produce the full report on the Transport and Housing Bureau's investigation into staff conduct in the Marine Department in relation to the vessel collision incident near Lamma Island on 1 October 2012. Public Officer to attend : Secretary for Transport and Housing |