A 16/17-5
Legislative Council
Agenda
Wednesday 9 November 2016 at 11:00 am
I. Tabling of Papers
| Subsidiary Legislation / Instruments | L.N. No. | |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Marine Parks (Designation) (Amendment) Order 2016 | 166/2016 |
| 2. | Merchant Shipping (Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships) Regulation (Commencement) Notice | 167/2016 |
| 3. | Merchant Shipping (Prevention and Control of Pollution) (Fees) (Amendment) Regulation 2015 (Commencement) Notice | 168/2016 |
Other Papers
| 1. | No. 21 | - | Traffic Accident Victims Assistance Fund
Annual Report for the year from 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016 |
| (to be presented by Secretary for Labour and Welfare)
| |||
| 2. | No. 22 | - | Environment and Conservation Fund
Trustee Report 2015-2016 |
| (to be presented by Secretary for the Environment)
| |||
| 3. | Report No. 2/16-17 of the House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments | ||
| (to be presented by Hon Starry LEE, Chairman of the House Committee) | |||
II. Questions
Stand over items: Question nos. 1 to 6 (since the meeting of 19 October 2016)
1. Hon HUI Chi-fung asked: (Translation)
Quite a number of the arrangements for the Legislative Council ("LegCo") General Election just held have attracted various criticisms. Some electors who claimed that they were eligible to vote in the District Council (Second) Functional Constituency ("DC (Second) FC") election were refused to be issued with the ballot papers for that FC election; the Registration and Electoral Office arranged polling staff to take home ballot papers, copies of register of electors and electoral materials about one week before the polling day for temporary custody, and bring them to the polling stations on the morning of the polling day; at some polling stations, the numbers of ballot papers issued and collected did not tally with each other; the polling hours of several polling stations had to be extended because a large number of electors were still queuing to cast their votes there at the scheduled polling end time of 10:30 pm, and some electors even had to wait until 2:30 am on the following day before they could vote. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the total number of polling stations which were set up at smaller premises because requests for borrowing premises had been rejected; whether it has reviewed if the arrangement for polling staff to keep custody of electoral materials for as long as one week is appropriate; if it has not reviewed, of the reasons for that; if it has reviewed and the outcome is in the negative, the improvement measures; (2) as it is stipulated in the legislation that a person applying for registration as an elector for a geographical constituency is also regarded as having applied for registration as an elector for DC (Second) FC unless the person indicates otherwise, of the number of electors who, albeit not having indicated otherwise at the time of elector registration, were refused to be issued with the ballot papers for that FC election, and the reasons for that; and (3) of the number of polling stations at which the numbers of ballot papers issued and collected did not tally with each other, and set out the relevant reasons by name of polling station; the number of polling stations of which the polling hours were extended, and set out the relevant reasons by name of polling station; the measures in place to prevent the recurrence of the aforesaid two situations?
2. Hon Mrs Regina IP to ask: (Translation)
The Securities and Futures Commission ("SFC") and The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited ("SEHK") issued a joint consultation paper on proposed enhancements to SEHK's decision-making and governance structure for listing regulation in June this year. Some members of the financial services industry have reacted strongly to the proposals put forth in the consultation paper. They are of the view that the existing structure has all along been working well in the recent 30 years or so. However, the proposed new Listing Regulatory Committee and Listing Policy Committee, each with less than 10 members, may make decisions overriding those of the existing Listing Committee which is broadly representative, allegedly weakening the latter's power to vet and approve listings. Also, the Financial Services Development Council, Hong Kong has recently indicated that the proposals concerned simply cannot achieve the objectives set out in the consultation paper. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) as the objectives of the proposals put forth in the consultation paper include the establishment of a more efficient decision-making structure to address various regulatory issues (including stock price manipulation, corporate governance shortfalls, disclosure problems and other misconduct which prejudices public investors), whether the Government knows the respective numbers of cases in which SFC conducted investigations and instituted prosecutions in respect of such issues and the number of convictions concerned, in each year during the period from 2011 to September this year, with a tabulated breakdown by regulatory issue, as well as the percentage of the number of companies investigated in the total number of listed companies; (2) as the Chief Executive Officer of SFC has indicated that there is no Plan B for the consultation, how the authorities will deal with the situation where the proposals concerned are not accepted by the industry; whether the authorities have assessed if the proposals concerned have violated the market participant-based regulatory principle set out in the Davison Report, which has been adopted by the authorities since 1988; whether the Government will request SFC to revise the proposals concerned so as to garner more support from members of the industry; if it will, of the details; and (3) as some members of the industry have indicated that the proposals put forth in the consultation paper, if implemented, will increase the costs and time required for listing, impact on the development of the industry and undermine the competitiveness of Hong Kong, whether the Government knows the time generally required for completing the entire initial public offering ("IPO") process currently; how the time for vetting and approving listing applications in Hong Kong compares with the relevant time in other major securities markets; as Hong Kong ranked first globally in terms of IPO funds raised last year, whether the Government has assessed the impact of the implementation of the proposals concerned on the competitiveness of Hong Kong as an international financial centre; if it has assessed, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
3. Hon MA Fung-kwok to ask: (Translation)
In June this year, a No. 4 alarm fire broke out in the mini-storages of an industrial building at Ngau Tau Kok Road. Subsequently, the Lands Department ("LandsD") takes risk-based enforcement actions against lease breaches involving the change of uses in industrial buildings. LandsD will issue warning letters to owners of industrial building units involved in lease breaches, requiring them to rectify the breach of uses within 14 days, or else LandsD will initiate the procedure for re-entering such units. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of cases to date in which LandsD has issued warning letters; among such cases, the number of those related to lease breaches involving uses of industrial building units for arts, cultural, recreational and sports purposes; whether the authorities will give consideration to stakeholders' views and grant longer grace periods to the persons concerned in those cases of lease breaches that do not involve high fire safety risk; if they will not, of the reasons for that; (2) of the criteria currently adopted by LandsD for assessing the fire safety risk involved in using industrial building units for arts, cultural, recreational and sports purposes, as well as the criteria adopted for assessing such risk involved in other non-industrial uses like mini-storages, scientific researches, etc. in industrial building units; if the two sets of criteria are the same, of the reasons for that; and (3) as there are views that the enforcement actions taken by LandsD run contrary to the direction of the policy, put forward earlier by the authorities, that the restrictions on non-industrial uses in industrial buildings be appropriately relaxed to better utilize the existing spaces in industrial buildings, whether the authorities will expeditiously revise the definition of "industrial use" set out in the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines as well as the relevant fire safety requirements, so as to avoid compressing the room for survival of the arts, cultural, recreational and sports industries; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
| Public Officers to reply | : | Secretary for Development
Secretary for Security |
4. Hon LEUNG Yiu-chung
(Dr Hon Fernando CHEUNG to ask on his behalf): (Translation)
Some persons with hearing impairment have relayed to me their hope that the Government will make sign language as an official language, and require television ("TV") stations to provide sign language interpretation service in their news programmes, so as to foster a barrier-free environment for these persons to receive important information. On the other hand, when conducting a public consultation exercise in 2014 in respect of the application for renewal of a domestic free TV programme service licence ("TV licence"), the Communications Authority ("CA") noted the views expressed by various groups that there was an increasing demand for sign language interpretation service provided in news programmes. However, as the licensee said at that time that there was a short supply of qualified sign language interpreters, CA eventually only included in the renewed licence concerned an enabling clause on the provision of sign language interpretation service. CA also indicated that it had planned to conduct a review at the end of 2015 to explore ways to ensure the accuracy of the contents of news programmes upon inclusion of sign language interpretation in such programmes, so as to comply with the relevant programme standards. The effective date of the clause would be subject to the outcome of CA's review. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the details and progress of the aforesaid review conducted by CA; whether CA has formulated a timetable for implementing the clause on the provision on sign language interpretation service in the TV licence; if CA has, of the details; if not, when CA will formulate such timetable; (2) of the training and accreditation schemes for sign language interpreters to be implemented by the authorities in the next three years; and (3) whether it will consider making sign language as one of the official languages?
| Public Officers to reply | : | Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development
Secretary for Labour and Welfare Under Secretary for Labour and Welfare |
5. Hon Paul TSE to ask: (Translation)
In recent years, cases of Mainland-funded consortia investing huge sums of money to buy commercial and residential sites and properties in Hong Kong have been on the rise. Over the past several months, two thirds of Grade A commercial buildings were gobbled by Mainland-funded consortia, involving an amount as high as some $20 billion, which far exceeded the total amount in the past decade. In addition, in the past two years, among the 50-odd residential sites sold by the Government, 20% of which were bought by Mainland-funded consortia. Like a rising tide that lifts all boats, the price of the units of the first residential project built under the "Hong Kong property for Hong Kong residents" policy (i.e. with land lease conditions restricting the resale of such units to Hong Kong people only) and developed by a Mainland-funded consortium is as high as $18,000 per square foot ("ft2"). Meanwhile, local developers also offer high prices in land auctions in order to compete for development sites, resulting in many small flats with an area of 200 to 300 ft2 fetching $20,000 per ft2, which is far beyond the affordability of the general public. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has assessed if the continuous buying of commercial and residential sites and properties in Hong Kong by Mainland-funded consortia has any impact on the abilities of the general public to buy homes and conduct business; if it has assessed, of the details; if not, whether it will expeditiously do so; whether the so-called "influx of capital from the Mainland into Hong Kong" will offset the effect of the Chief Executive's policy initiative of increasing land supply in the hope of cooling down the overheated property market; if so, of the details; (2) whether it will, in view of the incessant rise in property prices, put forward and implement a more effective housing policy to assist first-time home buying families and relieve the youth housing problem; and (3) as the Government has adopted the approach of "working on the easier tasks first and the more difficult ones later" (i.e. to proceed with the removal and relocation of non-indigenous villages before developing brownfield sites) in taking forward the public housing development at Wang Chau, whether the Government will adjust the approach and resume illegally occupied Government land for the development of large brownfield sites first, so as to increase the supply of residential sites more quickly?
| Public Officers to reply | : | Secretary for Transport and Housing
Under Secretary for Transport and Housing |
6. Dr Hon Elizabeth QUAT to ask: (Translation)
In March 2014, the Court of Final Appeal ("CFA") held that, on the basis of the circumstances of the case, a person convicted of overstaying in Hong Kong had been "unlawfully detained" for part of the period for which he was placed, after serving his sentence, under administrative detention by the Director of Immigration Department pursuant to the Immigration Ordinance, and the person was entitled to claim damages for unlawful detention. It is learnt that since the handing down of CFA's judgment, the number of damage claims for unlawful detention lodged by torture claimants has soared. As at February this year, the District Court had a backlog of about 730 such claims. In addition, in August this year, a District Court judge pointed out in his judgment that 450 cases of such claims were handled by the same law firm and 212 of them were granted legal aid. The judge questioned the sources of funding for the claimants who had not been granted legal aid in their institution of proceedings, and warned that the court would not hesitate to refer any such cases to the authorities for investigation if there was evidence to show that they involved champerty. The judge also pointed out that as the claimants of some cases appeared to be economic migrants and their claims had a low success rate, the relevant proceedings should not be commenced at all. The judge also said that a copy of the judgment would be sent to the Director of Legal Aid for reference and consideration. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) in respect of the aforesaid cases involving the institution of proceedings by claimants who had not been granted or who had not applied for legal aid, whether the authorities will take the initiative to investigate if the legal services provided by the law firm concerned involved champerty; (2) in the light of the situation in which 212 claim cases granted with legal aid were handled by the same law firm, whether the authorities will review the existing declaration system to ensure that in nominating lawyers to act as their legal representatives, the aided persons have not agreed to share with any person any damages or costs which they may be awarded at the close of the proceedings; and (3) given that the cumulative number of non-refoulement claims to date has exceeded 11 000, whether the authorities have assessed if there will be a further surge in the number of claim cases related to unlawful detention; whether the Legal Aid Department ("LAD") will review if the threshold for approving legal aid applications lodged by claimants is too low; if LAD will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
| Public Officers to reply | : | Secretary for Home Affairs
Secretary for Security |
*7. Hon Andrew WAN to ask: (Translation)
Regarding the provision of interpretation services and public services for the ethnic minorities ("EMs"), will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the number of interpreters currently hired by (i) the Hospital Authority ("HA") and (ii) subvented organizations commissioned by the Government to provide interpretation services; if it does, of a breakdown by name of organization; whether it has assessed if such organizations have sufficient manpower to provide interpretation services (including telephone interpretation and on-site interpretation); if it has assessed and the outcome is in the negative, whether the authorities will consider allocating additional resources to such organizations, with a view to enabling them to provide more expeditious and appropriate interpretation services; (2) whether it knows the respective current situations of telephone interpretation service and on-site interpretation service provided for EMs by public hospitals and clinics under HA, government departments and public organizations (including the Integrated Family Service Centres and the Social Security Field Units under the Social Welfare Department); (3) for how long EMs currently have to wait in general before they are provided with telephone interpretation service and on-site interpretation service respectively; if such information is not available, of the reasons for that; whether the various government departments will consider including in their performance pledges the maximum waiting times for telephone interpretation service and on-site interpretation service; if they will, of the implementation plan; if not, the reasons for that; (4) given that the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau ("CMAB") has formulated the Administrative Guidelines on Promotion of Racial Equality ("the Guidelines") to provide guidance for various bureaux, government departments and public organizations with a view to providing equal opportunities for EMs to access public services, quite a number of EMs have relayed that when they requested government departments to provide them interpretation services in order to use public services, they were repeatedly turned down by the departments concerned for various reasons, of the criteria currently adopted by the authorities for determining whether a government department has to provide telephone interpretation service for EMs; (5) as CMAB reviewed the operation of the Guidelines in 2014 during which various bureaux, government departments and public organizations gave a positive response to the implementation of the Guidelines, and a number of them indicated that they had put in place new measures to assist EMs, whether the authorities will upload the review report onto government websites for public access in the light of public concern about the operation of the Guidelines; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (6) given that quite a number of EMs living below the poverty line are unable to complete application forms because they do not understand Chinese and English, rendering them unable to benefit from the various poverty alleviation measures provided by the Government for the needy, whether the six support service centres for EMs and two sub-centres currently provide any service to assist EMs in completing application forms; if not, whether the authorities will include the provision of such service in awarding new contracts for service centres; if they will, of the implementation plan; if not, the reasons for that; and (7) given that some EMs have relayed that their unemployment problem is serious and that the Labour Department has set up the Selective Placement Division dedicated to providing free employment placement and recruitment services for persons with disabilities and their prospective employers, whether the authorities will set up a similar employment services division for EMs?
*8. Dr Hon KWOK Ka-ki to ask: (Translation)
In February this year, the Government invited applications from non-profit-making educational institutions which offered self-financing full-time locally accredited programmes at sub-degree level or above to rent two government premises at a nominal rent for the operation of their programmes. The Government subsequently received applications from 10 institutions. The Education Bureau announced on 22 September that on the recommendation of the Vetting Committee for the Allocation of Sites and Start-up Loan for Post-secondary Education Providers ("Vetting Committee"), it had decided to lease the two government premises to the Community College of City University ("CCCU") and Yew Chung Community College ("YCCC") for the reprovisioning of their existing campuses. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the considerations based on which the Vetting Committee recommended to lease the aforesaid two government premises to CCCU and YCCC; and (2) as CCCU announced in 2014 that it had formed an alliance with the University of Wollongong in Australia ("UOW") for the operation of self-financing programmes at associate degree, degree and taught master's degree levels, etc. under the management of UOW, and that it planned to let UOW lead the management of the college after a five-year transitional period, whether the authorities know if the Vetting Committee took into account the development plans of the institutions applying for renting government premises when vetting and approving their applications; how the authorities ensure that the institutions which have been given approval for renting government premises will use such premises for operating self-financing local programmes?
*9. Hon CHAN Chun-ying to ask: (Translation)
Regarding the competitiveness of Hong Kong, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) given that three authoritative international research institutions (i.e. the World Economic Forum ("WEF"), the Z/Yen Group and the International Institute for Management Development in Lausanne, Switzerland ("IMD")) published this year their global competitiveness reports one after another, and Hong Kong's ratings as well as rankings in such reports varied from the first to the ninth place, whether it has explored why Hong Kong's rankings vary quite significantly among such reports; whether it has reviewed and targetted the items on which Hong Kong has obtained relatively lower ratings in the reports and introduced new policies to enhance Hong Kong's competitiveness in respect of such items; if it has not, of the reasons for that; (2) given that as indicated in the Global Competitiveness Report 2016-2017 published by WEF on 29 September this year, Hong Kong's overall ranking in 2016-2017 in the Global Competitiveness Index has dropped to the ninth place, and Hong Kong's rankings in the aspect of innovation in the past three years were all lower than the 25th place, whether the Government has, in light of the report, studied ways to enhance Hong Kong's capacity for innovation; if it has not, of the reasons for that; and (3) given that albeit IMD's ranking Hong Kong as the world's most competitive economy in the World Competitiveness Yearbook 2016 published in May this year, the Yearbook mentions at the same time that except Hong Kong and Singapore, the rankings of other Asian economies have all dropped as compared with those in the year before, whether the Government has studied the overall economic outlook of the economies in Asia and reviewed if such an outlook would affect the long-term economic development of Hong Kong; if it has studied and the outcome is in the affirmative, of the new corresponding measures the Government has in place; if it has not studied, the reasons for that?
*10. Hon LAM Cheuk-ting to ask: (Translation)
Recently, a number of members from the ethnic minorities ("EMs") have sought my assistance. They say that quite a number of government departments (including the Hong Kong Police Force, Customs and Excise Department, Immigration Department, Social Welfare Department and Labour Department) and public organizations (including public hospitals and clinics) have failed to provide adequate interpretation services for EMs. As a result, non-Chinese/English speaking EMs have encountered difficulties in areas such as employment, education and access to public services. On the other hand, in 2010, the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau issued the Administrative Guidelines on Promotion of Racial Equality ("the Guidelines") to provide guidance to the relevant policy bureaux, government departments and other public authorities so as to promote racial equality and ensure EMs' equal access to public services in key areas concerned. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of government departments which employed in the past three years interpreters to assist their staff in communicating with EMs, and set out by department the languages of EMs involved; (2) whether the authorities will step up their support for public organizations in respect of the provision of interpretation services for EMs; if they will, of the details; if not, how the authorities ensure that public organizations provide adequate interpretation services for EMs who use their services; and (3) since the review of the Guidelines in 2014, whether the authorities have reviewed afresh the effectiveness of the Guidelines; if they have, of the outcome of the review in respect of the provision of interpretation services for EMs, and the details of the relevant improvement measures; if not, the reasons for that?
*11. Hon HO Kai-ming to ask: (Translation)
The Government, the Vocational Training Council ("VTC") and the Hong Kong Retail Management Association ("HKRMA") jointly launched in 2014 a Pilot Earn and Learn Scheme for the Retail Industry ("the Pilot Scheme") to provide student-workers with an opportunity to "earn and learn" as well as a well-defined progression pathway, aiming to attract talents to join the retail industry. In respect of the Foundation Diploma ("FD") programme under the Pilot Scheme, the first cohort of student-workers graduated in March this year and the second cohort will graduate in February next year. Upon graduation, if the student-workers are to become full-time employees of the same employer as during the training period, they will be entitled to a monthly income of not less than $11,000, which includes basic salary and commission. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the number of graduates in the first cohort of the FD programme, and among such graduates, the number of those who are at present still employed by the same employer as during the training period; (2) whether it knows the total number of positions offered to the graduates in the first cohort of the FD programme by the employers participating in the Pilot Scheme; among such positions, the respective numbers of those with a basic salary of more than and less than $11,000 per month; among the positions with a basic salary of less than $11,000 per month, the respective numbers of those with a basic salary of less than $5,000, between $5,000 and $7,000, between $7,001 and $9,000, and more than $9,000; (3) whether it knows the number of the second cohort of student-workers studying in the FD programme; the total number of confirmed positions to be offered to such student-workers by the employers concerned; among such positions, the respective numbers of those with a basic salary of more than and less than $11,000 per month; and (4) regarding the steering group comprising representatives from VTC, HKRMA and the Government, of the details of its work in monitoring the operation and progress of the Pilot Scheme over the past two years; whether the steering group will consider inviting trade union representatives to join the group so as to enhance its communication with trade unions in the industry; if the steering group will, when such invitation will be extended; if not, of the reasons for that?
*12. Dr Hon LAU Siu-lai to ask: (Translation)
As revealed by the findings of a survey conducted earlier on, the amount of subsidy provided under the Subsidy Scheme for Internet Access Charges ("SIA") is insufficient to meet Internet access charges. As a result, the relevant grass-roots families have to pay almost $100 per month out of their own pockets to cover the shortfall. Moreover, quite a number of the families surveyed have indicated that they cannot afford the costs for repair or replacement of their computers, and 10% of such families have not purchased any computer, resulting in the students of these families being unable to undertake Internet learning at home. There are comments that such a situation would result in a "digital divide", making the students of grass-roots families unable to enjoy equal learning opportunities when compared with other students. Regarding the support for Internet learning for students of grass-roots families, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether aided kindergartens and primary and secondary schools are required to install, for use by their students, computers of such a number which is no less than a particular percentage of the number of students; if so, of the details; (2) whether it has compiled statistics on the respective average numbers of computers installed in each aided kindergarten, primary and secondary schools for use by their students, as well as the respective average daily usage rates; if it has; of the details; (3) of the current number of computers installed in each public library for public use, and the average daily usage rate of such computers; (4) of the respective current public expenditure and manpower involved in the various Internet learning support programmes provided for students from grass-roots families (including SIA and the "i Learn at home" programme); whether the authorities will take measures to further encourage schools to allow needy students to use the school computers to finish their homework relating to Internet learning; (5) given that the amount of subsidy for Internet access charges has been increased by $100 for the 2016-2017 school year, but the adjusted amount, as revealed in the aforesaid survey, is still below the amount actually needed, of the mechanism for the adjustment of the subsidy and whether it will make improvements to the mechanism; whether it will adjust the amount of the subsidy upward to an amount actually needed so as to alleviate the financial burdens of grass-roots families and, at the same time, provide other subsidies for grass-roots families to meet expenses on repair and purchase of computers; if it will, of the implementation timetable; if not, the reasons for that; and (6) given that when they launched the Internet Learning Support Programme ("ILSP"), the authorities estimated that 410 000 students from 300 000 eligible families would benefit from ILSP in the 2011-2012 school year and an additional 112 000 students from 82 000 families would benefit from ILSP in the following four years, but some organizations have pointed out that for five years since ILSP's implementation, only 10 889 computers were purchased and 13 427 cases of Internet connections were set up under ILSP, which accounted for only a very small proportion of some 340 000 students from grass-roots families, indicating that ILSP has a very low utilization rate and cannot meet the needs of grass-roots families, whether the authorities will comprehensively review ILSP to ensure that ILSP can meet the needs of grass-roots families?
*13. Hon Nathan LAW to ask: (Translation)
Since April 2014, the Development Bureau has implemented a series of measures to revitalize old industrial buildings, with the aim of "encouraging owners to revitalize industrial buildings by ways of redevelopment and wholesale conversion" to better utilize vacant industrial building units, so as to release more space for use by small and medium enterprises as well as arts, culture, sports and charity organizations. Owners of industrial building units intending to use their units for uses other than those permitted under the lease must first apply to the Lands Department ("LandsD") for temporary waiver permitting the intended use. If the application is approved, the applicant is required to pay a waiver fee and an administrative fee, and accept other terms stipulated in the waiver. However, some tenants of industrial building units consider that such revitalizing measures have minimal effects and have instead fuelled speculations in industrial buildings. On the other hand, LandsD has commenced the risk-based enforcement actions against breaches of land lease conditions in industrial buildings since 29 August this year in the wake of the No. 4 alarm fire at an old industrial building in Kowloon Bay in June this year. However, quite a number of tenants of industrial building units have criticized LandsD for being excessively stringent in law enforcement and ambiguous about the criteria for enforcement actions, causing worries among such tenants that they will be forced to move out of the industrial building units at any time. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) given that a survey conducted in late February 2015 by LandsD on temporary waiver applications revealed that there were then approximately 1 000 valid temporary waivers applicable to industrial building units, of the respective original uses and approved new uses of those units, with a tabulated breakdown of the numbers of such cases by category of their approved new uses; the procedures and criteria adopted by LandsD for vetting and approving applications for temporary waivers; (2) given that LandsD charges fees for temporary waivers and the standard rate for industrial building units of Group B uses (i.e. uses other than those for residential purposes but excluding hotels; Group B uses cover those offices and operations that involve the direct provision of customer services or goods to the general public) in the urban area and Tsuen Wan/Kwai Tsing was $308/square metre ("m2") per annum in 2003, of the reasons why LandsD doubled the rate to $650/m2 in 2014; whether LandsD has assessed if such a move has dampened the desire of owners of industrial building units to apply for temporary waivers and has hence deviated from the policy intent of the measures to revitalize industrial buildings; if LandsD has, of the details, and whether LandsD will provide more incentives for application for temporary waivers, including lowering the fee rates to a level affordable to tenants, so as to better utilize industrial building units; (3) given that some tenants of industrial building units who had placed television sets and sofas in their units were issued warning letters by LandsD for suspicion of using the units for domestic purposes, whether LandsD has assessed if such an enforcement force is excessively stringent; whether LandsD has formulated guidelines on the enforcement actions for compliance by enforcement officers; if LandsD has, of the details of the guidelines, and whether LandsD will make public such guidelines; if not, whether LandsD will formulate such guidelines expeditiously, and collect and take on board the views of tenants of industrial building units and other stakeholders when formulating the guidelines; (4) given that many non-profit-making organizations renting industrial building units have received warning letters one after another, whether enforcement officers are required to consider the social and cultural values inherited in the uses of the units concerned when taking enforcement actions; (5) whether the authorities have set up an inter-departmental meeting or working platform on ways to promote social functions, such as culture, sports and community services, etc., and included the related policies in their consideration of the policy regarding industrial buildings, so as to enable those tenants of industrial building units who cannot afford the rentals of commercial buildings but are engaged in businesses beneficial to the development of Hong Kong to rent industrial building units at reasonable rentals, thereby putting Hong Kong's land resources to more effective use for the development of local industries such as those related to culture, sports, design, etc.; and (6) whether LandsD will consider suspending the aforesaid enforcement actions for one year and consult the affected owners and tenants of industrial buildings before resuming the enforcement actions; if LandsD will not, of the reasons for that?
*14. Hon Charles Peter MOK to ask: (Translation)
The Government commenced in 2015 a study on developing Hong Kong into a smart city. The Chief Executive stated in the 2016 Policy Address that the Innovation and Technology Bureau would, in collaboration with research institutions and public and private organizations, study the development of a smart city. The Government told this Council in June this year that a consultancy study on the smart city development blueprint ("consultancy study") would commence in the second half of this year. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the name(s) of the organization(s) commissioned to conduct the consultancy study, the related consultancy fees and work schedule, and the progress to date of the study; (2) whether the authorities have consulted the various government departments concerned on the scope of the consultancy study; whether they will explore the feasibility and details of conducting inter-departmental joint projects; (3) given that smart city development involves the collaboration between public and private organizations on various fronts, of the criteria to be adopted by the Government for selecting its private sector partners, and how it ensures that the relevant selection criteria and procedures are in compliance with the principles of openness, impartiality and fairness; (4) whether it has currently any plan to collaborate with certain private organizations in developing a smart city; if so, of the details (including the model of collaboration it intends to adopt); and (5) as the authorities have indicated that a dedicated portal will be set up in the initial stage of the consultancy study for collating inputs regarding the smart city from stakeholders and the public at large, how the authorities will handle these inputs; whether the authorities will provide other channels and incentives to encourage the public to provide inputs and suggestions and participate in the development of a smart city?
*15. Hon CHAN Hak-kan to ask: (Translation)
The Government has implemented the Animal Watch Scheme since 2011 to step up cooperation among the relevant government departments and organizations in the joint combat against cruelty to animals. However, an animal protection organization has pointed out that incidents of animal abuse still occur from time to time. In the past three months, there were already more than 30 stray cats suspected to have been abused to death in To Kwa Wan. The organization is disappointed that after a long time, the Police have not arrested nor instituted prosecutions against the abusers involved in such cases. The organization has further pointed out that the relevant departments and organizations always passed the buck among themselves when dealing with cases of animal abuse. For example, the Police will open a case file and initiate criminal investigation only if a staff member of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ("SPCA") has concluded on the spot that the animal's cause of death is suspicious. However, SPCA is often unable to determine the animal's cause of death without first conducting an autopsy, and the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD") will conduct an autopsy only after the Police have opened a case file. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) given that extremely serious cases of animal abuse occur frequently in To Kwa Wan, whether the authorities will consider setting up a Crime Investigation Team in Kowloon City Police District to deal with such kind of cases; (2) given that the cause of death of an animal whose carcass has no visible injury may be found to be suspicious upon autopsy, how the Police and SPCA handle the animal carcasses seized by them; whether the authorities will consider handing over such animal carcasses to animal welfare organizations for them to arrange autopsies; if they will not, of the reasons for that; (3) of the respective current roles and duties of the relevant government departments and organizations (including the Police, AFCD, SPCA and veterinary associations) under the Animal Watch Scheme; whether the authorities have formulated guidelines and codes of practice on issues relating to the operation of the scheme; if they have, of the details, and whether they will review the effectiveness of the scheme; if they will, of the details; (4) given that the Tai Lung Veterinary Laboratory ("TLVL"), Sheung Shui, under AFCD is currently the only laboratory providing official autopsy services, of (i) the number of laboratory rooms in TLVL, (ii) the time TLVL normally takes for conducting an autopsy, and (iii) the maximum daily number of animal carcasses autopsies TLVL can conduct; (5) of the respective numbers of suspected cases of cruelty to animals in the past five years in respect of which the Police received reports, opened case files for criminal investigation and instituted prosecutions; and (6) given that quite a number of members of the public have relayed to me that the existing Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance (Cap. 169) is more lenient than the relevant legislation in other jurisdictions, and is not effective in deterring animal abusers from inflicting cruelty to animals, when the authorities will commence work on reviewing and amending the legislation?
*16. Dr Hon Elizabeth QUAT to ask: (Translation)
Some members of the public have relayed to me that Hong Kong is a very safe city, thanks to our professional and dedicated disciplined services. Besides, as Hong Kong is currently facing various challenges (problems such as riots and bogus refugees), it is necessary for the Government to expand the establishment of the disciplined services, enhance their accoutrements and improve their conditions of service, so as to boost staff morale. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) given that the current retirement age of most police officers is 55 and, with the onset of a wave of retirement in the Police Force in the coming few years, there will be a wastage of a large number of experienced police officers, whether the Government will consider dealing with the retirement age of police officers flexibly; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (2) whether it will allocate additional resources to the Hong Kong Police Force for it to expand the establishment of the Police Force and procure additional accoutrements (e.g. the provision of body-worn video cameras for every police officer), so as to cope with the need of maintaining law and order; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (3) given that the work of firemen may involve complicated, urgent and dangerous situations, whether the Government will establish for the Fire Services Department ("FSD") an independent grade structure and pay scale similar to those for the Police Force, and allocate to FSD corresponding resources; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (4) as some firemen have reflected that, due to manpower shortage in FSD, they have to start performing duties after receiving professional rescue training for a compressed duration, whether the Government will allocate additional resources to FSD to ensure that firemen start performing duties only after receiving adequate professional rescue training; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (5) whether it will increase the manpower of FSD for setting up dedicated inspection teams to perform, as a precautionary measure, routine fire safety inspections; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (6) as there has been a significant rise in the number of non-refoulement claims in recent years, which has increased the work pressure of the Castle Peak Bay Immigration Centre ("CPBIC"), the centre for detaining such claimants, coupling with the fact that repeated incidents of disturbances and fights occurred in CPBIC in the past, which has posed threats to the safety of the staff of the Immigration Department ("ImmD"), whether the Government will increase the manpower of CPBIC, and provide ImmD staff with adequate accoutrements and training, so that they can handle unforeseen incidents in an effective manner; whether the Government will allocate space to build detention centres for separate detention of claimants having committed crimes in Hong Kong and other claimants, with a view to facilitating the management work of ImmD staff; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (7) whether it will expedite the studies on amending the Weapons Ordinance (Cap. 217) to put ImmD within the ambit of the Ordinance, with a view to facilitating ImmD staff in discharging their duties; if it will, of the implementation timetable; if not, the reasons for that; and (8) given that quite a number of police officers, firemen and ImmD staff have relayed that the departmental quarters provided by the authorities are in short supply, whether the Government will build more departmental quarters for the various disciplined services; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*17. Hon CHU Hoi-dick to ask: (Translation)
In connection with the planning and development of lands in the New Territories, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) in respect of Kam Tin South housing development, (i) given that the authorities completed the Land Use Review for Kam Tin South and Pat Heung in April 2014, and the Chief Executive in Council approved the draft Kam Tin South Outline Zoning Plan in September 2016, of the reasons and the basis for the authorities not having conducted any public consultation on the project so far; the details of the procedures and guidelines to be followed by the authorities on conducting public consultations for the planning of new towns and major development projects, and set out the names of those projects for which public consultations were conducted in the past three years in accordance with the relevant guidelines; and (ii) whether the authorities are going to adopt the Conventional New Town Approach ("CNTA") (i.e. using public money to resume lands for development of the areas concerned) for implementing the project; if so, of the details; if not, whether the development under the project is required to observe the restrictions on rural residential density prescribed in paragraph 3.4.2 in Chapter 2 of the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (i.e. "Zone 1 relates to a medium rise residential block with up to 12 floors including at most two commercial lower floors. It is the highest density appropriate to non-urban areas ... (Maximum plot ratio 3.6)"); and (2) in respect of the planning of North East New Territories New Development Areas, given that the then Secretary for Development said in June 2012 that the authorities had decided to adopt CNTA, instead of the Public-Private-Partnership Approach ("PPPA"), for implementing the project, and in September of the same year, the incumbent Secretary for Development indicated that consideration would be given to adopting PPPA for the project, and in July 2013, the authorities announced the adoption of an Enhanced Conventional New Town Approach ("ECNTA") for the project: (i) of the new towns which were developed under CNTA, PPPA and ECNTA respectively, and the respective site areas of such new towns; (ii) of the entire decision-making process leading to a change in the development approach for the project (setting out the dates of all relevant meetings, participants of such meetings, the relevant justifications, as well as the specific dates on which the various decisions were made); (iii) of the respective projected revenues from land sales and land premiums for implementing the project using the aforesaid three development approaches; and (iv) of the respective major views opposing and supporting the adoption of PPPA/ECNTA for the project which were received by the authorities at different stages of consultations (including informal consultations, public consultations as well as different forms of public engagement activities conducted by the Town Planning Board), and set out the information by category of such views?
*18. Hon Kenneth LEUNG to ask: (Translation)
In July 2013, the turf of the Hong Kong Stadium ("the Stadium") became muddy after an international friendly soccer match had been held there. In August of the same year, the Leisure and Cultural Services Department ("LCSD") set up an Expert Group on the Hong Kong Stadium Turf Pitch ("the Expert Group") to offer professional advice on how to enhance the turf quality of the Stadium. Following the Expert Group's recommendation, LCSD started works to reconstruct the entire turf system of the Stadium in 2015. The works project was completed in July 2015. Nevertheless, it has been reported earlier that the turf of the Stadium was beset by problems such as loose soil and moss growth after two soccer matches had been held in late September this year. Besides, it has been reported that LCSD has offered high salary earlier to engage an overseas expert to Hong Kong, who was specially tasked to impart knowledge of turf maintenance to LCSD staff. However, a staff member who has received the training was subsequently transferred out to manage other facilities. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the expenditures involved in the maintenance and management of the turf of the Stadium since 2013; among which, of the respective amounts met by government funds and the funding from the Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust, with a breakdown by expenditure item; (2) whether LCSD has, since 2013, regularly inspected the quality of the turfs of the Stadium and other sports grounds; if LCSD has, of the inspection mechanism, criteria and outcome; if not, the reasons for that; (3) of the details (including the number of staff members specially tasked to undertake such work, with a breakdown by the total amount of the monthly salary and allowance of staff member) of the human resources allocated currently by LCSD to manage the turf of the Stadium and train staff who manage the turf; (4) of the details of the monthly salary, allowance and duties of the aforesaid overseas expert engaged by LCSD; and whether LCSD has carried out a value-for-money assessment on the post; if LCSD has carried out such an assessment, of the outcome; (5) of the justifications for LCSD to transfer out the local staff member who has acquired turf maintenance knowledge from the in-house turf management team despite the fact that the turf quality of the Stadium was found to be poor; and (6) of the details of the work of the Expert Group; the number of meetings held by the Group so far; whether LCSD has assessed the effectiveness of the work of the Expert Group; if LCSD has, of the outcome?
*19. Hon Paul TSE to ask: (Translation)
A Hong Kong resident, Mr TANG Lung-wai ("Mr TANG"), was sentenced to a long-term imprisonment of 40 years in the Philippines after trials suspected to be unreasonable and unfair, and his appeal is now in progress. In reply to my question concerning Mr TANG's situation that I raised at the Council meeting of 29 June this year, the Secretary for Security ("the Secretary") advised that the Government attached great importance to cases where individual Hong Kong residents were imprisoned for a long term outside Hong Kong. However, Mr TANG has pointed out that such a reply is not true; the Government has never showed great concern for his case or his situation in the prison, and he urges me to ask the Security Bureau the following issues. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) given that Mr TANG has pointed out that personnel from the British Embassy in the Philippines have, for a long time, been keeping a close watch on his case, visiting him in the prison every three months and keeping records of each visit, of the number of visits paid by the personnel of the Hong Kong Government and the Chinese Embassy in the Philippines ("the Embassy") to Mr TANG in the detention centre and the prison, the date of each visit, as well as the assistance rendered to him and the follow-up actions taken; if no information about the Embassy's records is available, whether the Government will enquire with the Embassy; (2) given that Mr TANG has pointed out that during his trials in the past, he was provided with interpretation service only once by an anti-narcotics officer of the Philippines whose reliability, fairness and impartiality was in doubt, and this is entirely different from the Secretary's claim that the Embassy has been helping to relay his request for interpretation service, whether the Government knows the date(s) and the relevant records regarding the Embassy's provision of interpretation services for Mr TANG during his trials; if no such information is available, whether the Government will enquire with the Embassy; (3) as the incumbent Government of the Philippines, since its inauguration, has reportedly executed more than 3 000 prisoners allegedly related to narcotics, whether the Government has kept a close watch on the development of such a situation and explored ways to ensure the personal safety of Mr TANG; whether it will (i) request the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China ("MFA") to urge the Philippine authorities to expedite the processing of Mr TANG's appeal and (ii) in case his appeal is unsuccessful, expeditiously approve Mr TANG's transfer back to Hong Kong to serve his remaining sentence according to the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Ordinance (Cap. 513), so as to avoid a Hong Kong resident becoming another victim after Mr CHEUNG Tai-on's death in a foreign country due to suspected unjust imprisonment; (4) as the incident that a student movement activist was refused entry to Thailand and detained for 12 hours early last month has aroused wide public concern, and there are comments that Mr TANG, who has been unjustly imprisoned in the Philippines for years, deserves more concern and support from Hong Kong people, the Security Bureau and MFA, whether the Government will, in light of the situation mentioned in item (3), urge MFA to offer more assistance to Mr TANG and take other actions to ensure that Mr TANG will have open and fair trials during his appeal; and (5) as the Secretary has reiterated for many times that the Government and the Embassy "must respect and abide by the local judicial systems" when giving assistance to Mr TANG's case, but Mr TANG has pointed out that in his case and the case of Mr CHEUNG Tai-on who died in a foreign country, they were convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to 40 years' imprisonment by the Philippine authorities in the absence of any interpretation service, evidence given by police officers and exhibits, which was tantamount to their being framed, and thus Mr TANG doubts the Government and MFA are turning a blind eye to their unjust cases under the pretext of respecting the local judicial system, whether the Government will review afresh the assistance rendered to Mr TANG and step up its efforts to rescue him in response to the public views?
*20. Hon WU Chi-wai to ask: (Translation)
At present, financial intermediaries are not subject to the regulation by the Money Lenders Ordinance (Cap. 163) and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority ("HKMA"). In reply to a question of this Council in 2014, the Government indicated that "there is currently no justification from the perspective of maintaining the stability of our banking and financial systems for considering placing the businesses of money lenders under the regulation of HKMA". However, incidents about financial intermediaries employing unscrupulous business practices have still occurred one after another in recent years. For example, some companies with the description of "accounting affairs firms" in their Chinese names seek to promote loan services under the guise of offering financial assessment services to clients, and they charge exorbitant handling fees. There are views that the Government should expeditiously amend the Money Lenders Ordinance to plug the regulatory loopholes, so as to prevent members of the public from falling into credit traps inadvertently. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective numbers of cases in the past three years in which various law enforcement agencies conducted investigations into and instituted prosecutions against the illicit acts of financial intermediaries, and set out the respective numbers of prosecution and conviction cases by the provisions involved (such as section 29(10) of the Money Lenders Ordinance and provisions relating to "false trade description" or "misleading omissions" in the Trade Descriptions Ordinance (Cap. 362)); (2) given that the Government will impose additional licensing conditions on money lenders' licences by stipulating that a money lender must (i) ask the intending borrower to state whether or not he has entered into or signed any agreement with a third party ("the third party agreement") and (ii) state in writing, in the loan agreement, the intending borrower's reply, and if that reply is in the affirmative, the money lender must not grant any loan unless the third party is a person appointed by the money lender, whether the authorities will consider formulating effective measures to ensure that both money lenders and financial intermediaries will strictly comply with such requirements, and whether the authorities will mandate the incorporation of provisions on cooling-off periods into loan agreements; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (3) given that no major amendment has been made to the Money Lenders Ordinance since its enactment in 1980, whether the Government will, with the protection of borrowers as its prime consideration, review existing regulatory policies and amend the Ordinance, so as to place all the businesses of money lenders and the financial intermediaries concerned under the scope of regulation of HKMA; whether it will set regulatory standards, stipulate that the licensee must be a "fit and proper person", and carry out work such as on-site examinations?
*21. Hon Frankie YICK to ask: (Translation)
To encourage the elderly and persons with disabilities to participate in community activities, the Government has implemented in phases the Public Transport Fare Concession Scheme for the Elderly and Eligible Persons with Disabilities ("the Scheme") since June 2012. The public transport services currently covered under the Scheme include general lines of the Mass Transit Railway as well as some routes of franchised buses, green minibuses ("GMBs") and ferries. The Government has indicated that it will review the Scheme three years after full implementation. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the respective annual increases in passenger patronage and revenues generated for the operators of various types of public transport services by their participation in the Scheme; (2) as the first phase of the Scheme has been implemented for over four years since June 2012, whether the authorities will conduct a review of the Scheme; if they will, of the details; (3) given that red minibuses ("RMBs") have not been included in the Scheme, but there are similarities (including running fixed routes and having Octopus card readers installed) between the mode of operation of some RMBs and that of GMBs, which have already been included in the Scheme, whether the authorities will consider including the former in the Scheme; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (4) whether the authorities will study the inclusion of more ferry services (e.g. kaito ferry service) in the Scheme; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (5) whether the authorities will study the extension of the Scheme to other public transport modes (e.g. trams); if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*22. Hon Nathan LAW to ask: (Translation)
Early last month, a student movement leader was refused entry to Thailand when he arrived there by flight. He was repatriated to Hong Kong after 12 hours' detention. It was reported that the Prime Minister of Thailand subsequently indicated that such a move had been made at the request of the Chinese Government. In addition, in the past, some Hong Kong residents who supported social movements were refused entry to places such as India, Malaysia and Macao. Such incidents have caused some members of the public to worry that the freedom to travel and to leave the territory enjoyed by Hong Kong residents under Article 31 of the Basic Law is in jeopardy. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the number of Hong Kong residents holding valid travel documents who were refused entry to and repatriated by other jurisdictions in the past five years, with a tabulated breakdown by jurisdiction and reason of entry refusal for such individuals; (2) whether, in respect of the detention of Hong Kong residents upon their entry to other jurisdictions, the Government will negotiate with the governments of such jurisdictions; if it will, how and through what channels it will conduct the negotiations; whether any mechanism is currently in place to ensure that the Government will commence negotiations and inform the public of the situations within the shortest possible time; (3) whether any mechanism is currently in place to safeguard the basic human rights of Hong Kong residents during their detention after entry to other jurisdictions, including their rights to contact lawyers and the Hong Kong Immigration Department ("ImmD"); of the channels available to the Government for holding the governments of other jurisdictions responsible for violating the basic human rights of Hong Kong residents; (4) as there are comments that the Thai Government has so far failed to clearly explain the reasons why the aforesaid student movement leader was detained overnight and not allowed to contact lawyers and ImmD, whether the Government will (i) seriously demand the Thai Government to give a clear explanation in this respect, and (ii) demand the Thai Government to offer an apology when no reasonable explanation is given; and (5) as some press reports have alleged that the Chinese Government has requested the governments of Macao, Malaysia and Thailand to prohibit the entry of some Hong Kong residents who are on a blacklist, whether the Government knows the content of the blacklist; whether the Government will request the Chinese authorities to withdraw the blacklist so as to safeguard the freedom to travel and to leave the territory enjoyed by Hong Kong residents under the Basic Law?
* For written reply
III. Government Bill
| Stand over item (since the meeting of 19 October 2016)
First Reading Supplementary Appropriation (2015-2016) Bill | |||
| Second Reading (Debate to be adjourned)
| |||
| Supplementary Appropriation (2015-2016) Bill | : | Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury | |