A 18/19-12
Legislative Council
Agenda
Wednesday 12 December 2018 at 11:00 am
I. Tabling of Papers
Other Papers
II. Questions
1. Hon HUI Chi-fung to ask: (Translation)
The Report on Review of Public Service Broadcasting in Hong Kong published in 2007 has pointed out that the status and structure of Radio Television Hong Kong ("RTHK") as a government department does not fit the bill of a public service broadcaster in full. It has been reported that in August this year, the Director of Broadcasting prohibited the News and Current Affairs of RTHK from televising live a speech delivered by the Convenor of the Hong Kong National Party. Some members of the public have queried that the incident has reflected that the Director of Broadcasting, in his capacity as a department head, can hardly safeguard the editorial independence of RTHK as a public service broadcaster, simply by virtue of the Charter of Radio Television Hong Kong ("the Charter") signed by RTHK with the Chief Secretary for Administration and the Chairman of the Broadcasting Authority. On the other hand, the Government submitted a funding proposal to the Public Works Subcommittee of this Council at the end of 2013 for the construction of a New Broadcasting House to replace the existing three buildings which were aging, had obsolete facilities and had run out of space, and for RTHK to implement new services and projects to fulfill its mission as a public service broadcaster, but the funding proposal was subsequently negatived. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) as it is stated in the Charter that RTHK will adhere to the editorial principles of being impartial in reflecting views and immune from commercial, political and/or other influences, whether the Government has assessed if the aforesaid act of the Director of Broadcasting has violated the spirit of the Charter; whether it will demand the Director of Broadcasting to undertake to continue to safeguard RTHK's editorial independence and keep RTHK immune from external interferences; (2) of the measures in place to ensure that RTHK is provided with sufficient resources to fulfill its mission as a public service broadcaster; the follow-up work undertaken by the Government on the construction of the New Broadcasting House and the latest progress made; and (3) whether it has studied the disestablishment of RTHK from the government structure and giving RTHK financial and operational autonomy, with a view to ensuring that RTHK will adhere to the editorial principle of being immune from political and commercial influences; if so, of the outcome; if not, the reasons for that?
2. Hon Michael TIEN to ask: (Translation)
In 2015, the Government commissioned a consultant to conduct a Planning, Engineering and Architectural Study for Topside Development at Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities Island of Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge ("HZMB"), and expected that the study would be completed by February 2017. However, the said study is expected to complete in 2019, as currently shown on the Planning Department's website. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the reasons why the completion of the aforesaid study needs to be deferred to 2019, and the latest progress and outcome of that study; (2) whether the facilities recommended for construction in the consultant's latest proposal include a large entertainment centre providing shopping, catering, cinema and other diversified indoor entertainment facilities with characteristics, so as to attract visitors coming to Hong Kong through HZMB on one-day tours to stay in the Hong Kong Port area for spending, thereby alleviating the current situation of an excessive number of visitors flocking to Tung Chung; if so, whether those facilities will be provided outside or within the closed area of the Hong Kong Port; if not, whether the Government will request the consultant to conduct a study in this regard; and (3) whether it has, by drawing reference from the HZMB Macao Port Park-and-Ride Scheme, examined the provision of car parks at the closed area of the Hong Kong Port for inbound private cars, so that visitors to Hong Kong may, after parking their cars, change to public transport for entering the urban areas of Hong Kong together with other passengers in their cars, thereby alleviating the traffic burden on the road networks?
3. Hon CHAN Hak-kan to ask: (Translation)
The Canadian authorities have relaxed the control on recreational cannabis since October this year. Nationals of that country may purchase cannabis as well as food products and drinks containing cannabis from licensed suppliers. Given the frequent economic and trade exchanges and flows of residents between Canada and Hong Kong, some members of the public are concerned that the trend of consuming cannabis may spread to Hong Kong. Moreover, quite a number of parents of students are worried that their children who are studying or participating in study tours in Canada may bring cannabis or food products containing cannabis into Hong Kong when they return to the territory, thereby contravening the law inadvertently. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in Toronto ("Toronto ETO") of Canada has publicized the perils of cannabis among the Hong Kong people who are studying, touring or operating business there, and reminded them and people intending to visit Hong Kong that the laws of Hong Kong prohibit the bringing of food products containing cannabis into Hong Kong; if Toronto ETO has, of the details; (2) whether it will step up the interception of the various types of food products or gifts containing cannabis to prevent them from being brought into Hong Kong; and (3) of the respective numbers of cases of law enforcement agencies smashing cannabis plantations and seizing food products containing cannabis, as well as the number of prosecutions for cannabis-related crimes and the penalties generally imposed on the convicted persons, in the past three years; whether it will step up law enforcement and publicity efforts to combat cannabis-related crimes?
4. Hon Kenneth LEUNG to ask: (Translation)
Since 1 April last year, the Government has reduced the concessions on first registration tax ("FRT") for electric private cars ("e-PCs") from full exemption in the past to putting in place a cap at $97,500. The measure led to a significant drop in the number of first registered e-PCs, which plunged from 4 294 in the six-month period prior to its implementation to 300 in the 17-month period after its implementation. However, the number of first registered fuel-powered private cars rose from 19 382 in the six-month period before the implementation of the measure to 21 345 in the six-month period after. On the other hand, among the public chargers for electric vehicles across the territory, about 40% are standard chargers that have relatively lower charging speed. As at August this year, less than 2% of private cars are e-PCs. In respect of promoting the popularization of e-PCs, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it will reinstate the full exemption of FRT for e-PCs; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (2) given that the Government introduced, at the end of February this year, a "One-for-One Replacement" Scheme under which a vehicle owner who scraps an old private car and buys a new e-PC may enjoy a greater amount of FRT concession, of the respective numbers of applications received, approved and rejected by the Government so far, and the reasons for some applications being rejected; as there have been criticisms that the eligibility criteria of the Scheme are stringent, whether the Government will review the effectiveness of the Scheme and relax the eligibility criteria; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (3) whether it has plans to upgrade, in the coming two years, the public chargers to medium or quick chargers across the board; if so, of the estimated expenditure, work timetable and detailed plans; if not, the reasons for that?
5. Hon Paul TSE to ask: (Translation)
Following the leakage of the personal data of more than 9 million passengers by Cathay Pacific Airways Limited, the Marriott International hotel group has also leaked the personal data of nearly 500 million customers worldwide. Besides, it was revealed that the website of TransUnion Limited ("TransUnion"), which holds the credit records and personal data of over 5 million members of the public, had serious information security loopholes. After obtaining the personal data of the Chief Executive and the Financial Secretary, reporters of a media organization successfully impersonated them and obtained their detailed credit reports from the website. Some members of the information and technology sector have criticized that the identity verification procedure of the website is too lax, making the database therein a "doorless coop" which allows indiscriminate access by anyone, thereby giving lawbreakers opportunities to take advantage of the loopholes. Several members of the public have relayed that the successive occurrence of data leakage incidents has caused them to doubt whether commercial organizations are capable of protecting the security of their customers' data, and whether it is the case that the authorities can do nothing about the situation. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the progress of the compliance check on TransUnion conducted by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data ("PCPD"); whether the scope of the compliance check, apart from TransUnion itself, also covers the personal data security protection for TransUnion's customers implemented by those organizations or companies which have business connections with TransUnion; (2) given that at least five organizations are providing the public, in collaboration with TransUnion, free service of online enquiry of personal credit information, and some of the websites concerned have requested users to authorize TransUnion to transfer their data to its collaborating organizations or the overseas servers of such organizations, whether the authorities have regulated this type of data transfer; if not, of the follow-up actions; whether the authorities have assessed the impacts on the public when there is a leakage of personal data by the collaborating organizations of TransUnions or by their overseas servers; and (3) as TransUnion's business is currently not subject to any regulation and PCPD can only deal with the situation after occurrence of incidents of personal data leakage, whether the authorities have assessed if the existing regulatory regime is tantamount to a "toothless tiger", not being able to protect the personal data privacy of the public; whether the authorities will consider implementing new measures or enacting legislation to actively regulate such situation; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
6. Hon Charles Peter MOK to ask: (Translation)
In the World Talent Report 2018 published by the International Institute for Management Development in Lausanne of Switzerland, Hong Kong's ranking has fallen from the 12th place of last year to the 18th of this year, and Singapore, which ranks the 13th, has replaced Hong Kong as becoming the highest ranking economy in Asia. There are comments that in order to enhance Hong Kong's international competitiveness and to ensure the diversification of its economy, the Government needs to strengthen its work in the areas of "talents investment and development", "appeal to and retention of talents" and "readiness for talents", step up its efforts to promote the upgrading and transformation of various industries through application of innovation and technology, and enhance the training of local technology talents. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it will formulate a comprehensive strategy for training of talents, and conduct studies on the impacts of artificial intelligence, including studying the impacts of the technological development in areas such as artificial intelligence, machine learning and robotics on various industries in the next decade, as well as draw up specific targets in respect of training of talents; (2) whether it will provide tuition fee subsidies and other incentives (e.g. providing employers with a double tax deduction for training expenditure) to encourage local technology talents to enroll in local and overseas technology training courses and massive open online courses and obtain recognized professional qualifications; and (3) whether it will analyze the competitive strengths and weaknesses of various major industries, as well as their needs for and challenges in undergoing upgrading and transformation; whether it will formulate corresponding support strategies to assist enterprises (especially small and medium enterprises) in increasing investment in the application of digital technologies for upgrading and transformation, and to assist practitioners in the industries in acquiring the required skills?
*7. Dr Hon CHENG Chung-tai to ask: (Translation)
Recently, quite a number of members of the public sought my assistance, saying that they had been harassed by debt collection agencies by various means (including threatening letters, frequent telephone calls, short messages, and threatening notes posted outside their residences) in an attempt to coerce them to repay loans on behalf of other people. They suspected that their personal data had been stolen and used at an earlier time, resulting in their being deemed to be loan guarantors without their knowledge. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of reports, received by the Police since January this year, about harassment by debt collection agencies; and (2) whether it will review the provisions in and the enforcement of the Money Lenders Ordinance (Cap. 163), with a view to eradicating the acts of stealing the personal data of others for the purpose of taking out loans?
*8. Hon Christopher CHEUNG to ask: (Translation)
The Capital Investment Entrant Scheme ("the Scheme"), introduced by the Government in 2003, was suspended on 15 January 2015. However, applications which (i) had been submitted before that date and (ii) were submitted within six months from investments that had been made within six months before that date would not be affected. As stipulated in the rules of the Scheme, an applicant/investor is not required to top up his/her investment in any class of the permissible investment assets should the market value of the investment fall below the Scheme's investment threshold (i.e. $10 million). Nevertheless, some investors of the Scheme recently complained that the Immigration Department ("ImmD") had demanded them to top up their investments after the market values of their investments had fallen below the threshold as a result of investment failure in bonds. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the following information in each year since 2015: the respective numbers of applications under the Scheme that were (i) outstanding at the end of the year, (ii) rejected within the year and (iii) approved within the year; (iv) the number of investors and their dependents who became eligible for and were granted the Hong Kong permanent resident status within the year; (v) the number of investors whose eligibility to stay in Hong Kong was cancelled within the year as the market values of their investments were lower than the threshold; (vi) the number of investors who were requested within the year to top up the values of their investments as the market values of their investments were lower than the threshold; and (vii) the number of investors whose eligibility to stay in Hong Kong was cancelled due to other reasons (set out in the table below); Year (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) 2015 2016 2017 2018 (as at 30 November) Total: (2) whether ImmD has, according to different classes of investment assets, treated differently investors whose investments had market values lower than the threshold; if so, of the details and justifications; and (3) of the reasons why ImmD demanded some of the investors whose investments had market values lower than the threshold to top up their investments; whether the authorities will examine afresh those cases and review the relevant practice?
*9. Hon Martin LIAO to ask: (Translation)
The Hong Kong Climate Change Report 2015 published by the Government has pointed out that Hong Kong's annual greenhouse gases ("GHG") emissions over the period from 1990 to 2012 ranged from 33.3 million to 43.1 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent ("CO2-e"), and has explained that the slight rise in carbon emissions in 2012 was likely due to an increase in local cement production to meet the demand of infrastructure projects. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of Hong Kong's GHG emissions each year since 2013, with a breakdown by emission source, and the causes for the relevant figures to rise, drop or remain unchanged; (2) of the current per capita carbon emissions in Hong Kong, together with a roadmap on how the per capita carbon emissions reduction targets set by the authorities can be attained, i.e. being reduced to "less than 4.5 tonnes" in 2020, and further reduced to "about 3.3 to 3.8 tonnes" in 2030; the expected time when the per capita carbon emissions can be reduced to 2 tonnes CO2-e, and when the target of keeping the global average temperature increase to below 2ºC relative to pre-industrial levels can be attained; (3) whether it will echo the appeal made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5ºC published this year by stepping up its efforts in leading Hong Kong people in making contributions towards keeping the global average temperature increase to not more than 1.5ºC, including formulating more ambitious targets for carbon intensity and emissions reduction; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (4) regarding the report on Study on Emissions Trading in the Mainland: Options for Hong Kong published last year by the former Central Policy Unit, in particular the recommendation in the report that the issue of carbon pricing be raised and formulation of corresponding actions be considered at the meetings of the Steering Committee for Climate Change, whether the authorities have taken follow-up actions; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*10. Hon KWOK Wai-keung to ask: (Translation)
The Long Term Housing Strategy has set a public housing supply target of 280 000 units for the coming 10-year period, i.e. 28 000 units each year on average. However, the estimated public housing production for each of the coming four financial years is less than 20 000 units. On the other hand, in June this year, the Chief Executive ("CE") announced the reallocation of nine private housing sites for public housing development. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective numbers of (i) private housing sites converted to public housing sites and (ii) public housing sites converted to private housing sites by the Government in the past five years, and set out, by the new use, the location, area and number of residential units that can be provided in respect of each site; (2) of the number of Government, Institution or Community sites rezoned to public housing sites by the Government in the past five years, and set out, by the new use, the location, area and number of residential units that can be provided in respect of each site; (3) of the Government's considerations in converting private housing sites to public housing sites; (4) whether it will establish a mechanism whereby, when it is envisaged that the public housing production targets for certain years in the future cannot be met due to insufficient sites being available, a certain number of private housing sites must be timely converted to public housing sites to provide the sites that are required to make up for the shortfall in housing production; and (5) as CE has stated in this year's Policy Address that the Government will increase the ratio of public housing in the public/private split of new housing supply and allocate more sites for public housing development, of the specific measures to be put in place to implement such decisions?
*11. Hon AU Nok-hin to ask: (Translation)
In recent years, quite a number of public works projects experienced cost overruns, arousing public concern. Regarding the statistics on public works projects, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the details of the projects to which approval for increasing the approved project estimates ("APE") was given by the Finance Committee of this Council in each of the past five years, including (i) the names of the projects, (ii) the amounts of APE increased, (iii) the amounts of the revised APE, and (iv) the rates of increase in APE (set out in a table); (2) of a breakdown of the number of the projects mentioned in (1) by the following reasons for the needs to increase APE (set out in a table): (i) increase in the provision for price adjustment due to escalation in labour and material costs, (ii) increase in the project contingency to account for unforeseen circumstances when the works were in progress, and (iii) other reasons (please specify); (3) among the projects mentioned in (1), of the number of those for which the awarded prices of the main contracts were lower than the relevant estimates under the original APE; and (4) of the names of the respective top three companies which were awarded (a) the highest number of public works contracts and (b) the highest total value of consultancy study contracts for public works, in each of the past four years, as well as (i) the total value of the contracts awarded and (ii) the number of contracts awarded to each company (set out in a table)?
*12. Hon LEUNG Yiu-chung to ask: (Translation)
At present, the daily quota for mainland residents coming to Hong Kong for settlement on Permits for Proceeding to Hong Kong and Macao ("One-way Permits" ("OWPs")) is 150. Since 1 April 2011, the Mainland authorities have allowed eligible mainland "overage children" of Hong Kong residents (i.e. mainland residents who were under the age of 14 when their natural fathers or mothers obtained their first Hong Kong identity cards on or before 1 November 2001) to apply for OWPs for settlement in Hong Kong for reunion with their natural parents. Regarding the issuance of OWPs to mainland children of Hong Kong residents, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) as the Government told this Council in 2005 and 2009 respectively that the Security Bureau had on occasions relayed the views of the public to the Mainland authorities for their consideration of setting up a channel under the OWP system for mainland adult children of Hong Kong residents to settle in Hong Kong, of the progress of the matter; (2) whether it will urge the Mainland authorities to relax the eligibility criteria for OWP to allow mainland "elder overage children" of Hong Kong residents (i.e. mainland children of Hong Kong residents who were over the age of 14 when their natural fathers or mothers obtained their first Hong Kong identity cards on or before 1 November 2001, who are thus ineligible to apply for OWPs in the capacity of overage children) to settle in Hong Kong for reunion with their natural parents; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (3) whether it knows (i) the number of OWP applications approved by the Mainland authorities and (ii) unused OWP quota, in each year since April 2011; and (4) given the former Secretary for Security's remark that the Government has reached a consensus with the Mainland authorities to make use of the unused OWP quota to handle the OWP applications made by overage children, whether the Government knows the respective numbers of OWP applications made by overage children (i) received and (ii) approved by making use of the unused OWP quota by the Mainland authorities, in each year since April 2011; whether it will study with the Mainland authorities the use of unused OWP quota to handle the OWP applications made by elder overage children; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*13. Hon Andrew WAN to ask: (Translation)
The Legislative Council Kowloon West Geographical Constituency By-election was held on the 25th of last month. It has been reported that on the morning of that day when a candidate and some members of his electioneering team were conducting canvassing activities in a Chinese restaurant in Shek Kip Mei, a Presiding Officer told the candidate that the premises were within a No Canvassing Zone ("NCZ") and demanded that he immediately stop his canvassing activities and leave. However, the Presiding Officer did not make the same demand to another candidate who was present at the premises at the time. The Chairman of the Electoral Affairs Commission subsequently met the media and advised that there was no problem for candidates to canvass for votes on non-street level storeys within NCZs. On the other hand, section 40(17) of the Electoral Affairs Commission (Electoral Procedure) (Legislative Council) Regulation (Cap. 541D) provides that a person may, on polling day, canvass for votes, without obstructing any person, on the storeys above or below street level in a building within NCZ provided that the person's entry to the building for canvassing votes is allowed and the building has no polling station inside it. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has gained an understanding of the reasons for the aforesaid Presiding Officer to adopt different approaches for handling the conduct of canvassing activities by the two candidates; whether personal political orientations were involved; if so, of the authorities' further measures to ensure that polling staff will act in an impartial manner; and (2) whether it has reviewed if the training on electoral legislation and relevant guidelines currently provided to polling staff is sufficient; if it has, of the outcome; if not, the reasons for that?
*14. Hon Steven HO to ask: (Translation)
Cases of wild pigs appearing in country parks, farms and urban areas have been heard from time to time in recent years. Some members of the public have pointed out that wild pigs eat and damage crops as well as tip over rubbish bins, thereby jeopardizing environmental hygiene and posing threats to the personal safety of the public. Given the outbreak of African swine fever ("ASF") in recent months on the Mainland, they are worried about wild pigs spreading ASF to the pigs in pig farms. On the other hand, the Government launched in October last year a two-year Pilot Study on the Contraception and Relocation of Wild Pigs ("Pilot Study"). As at September this year, the Government conducted 30 operations under the Pilot Study and captured 101 wild pigs, among which 33 female wild pigs were administered with contraceptive vaccine and six wild pigs received permanent surgical sterilization. The Government also relocated another 72 captured wild pigs to the countryside far away from residential areas. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it will consider conducting an assessment of the number of wild pigs and the number of wild pig herds across the territory as well as their fertility trend; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (2) of the estimated expenditure of and the manpower needed for the Pilot Study; the locations to which the aforesaid 72 wild pigs were relocated and the location selection criteria (whether they include distance from farms); whether it has reviewed if the number of operations was on the low side; whether it will increase the number of operations and review the effectiveness of the Pilot Study; if it will review, when the outcome will be published; if not, of the reasons for that; (3) given that the Government has commissioned a local university to examine and improve the design of refuse collection facilities to prevent wildlife animals from foraging food from refuse, of the progress of such work, and whether the relevant design will be adopted for the refuse collection facilities situated in the vicinity of residential areas, country parks and farms; (4) as the Government has advised that it will conduct public education to remind members of the public not to feed wild pigs, of the details of such work; (5) as the Government has advised that infrared cameras will be used to take photos of feeding activities once environmental hygiene problem has been found to have been caused by the feeding of wild pigs, and the photos so taken will be referred to the relevant departments for follow-up actions, how the relevant departments follow up those referrals; in respect of the aforesaid work undertaken by the Government in the past three years, of the manpower deployed, the number of prosecutions instituted, the penalties generally imposed and the maximum penalty imposed on the convicted persons, as well as the number of cases involving repeated offenders; (6) of the Government's suggestions for farmers about how to protect their personal safety when wild pigs intrude into farms; and (7) whether it has assessed the risk of wild pigs spreading ASF to pigs in local pig farms; whether it will (i) implement measures and provide financial assistance to help pig farm operators guard against ASF, and (ii) formulate a contingency mechanism to deal with the situation of massive deaths of wild pigs; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*15. Dr Hon CHIANG Lai-wan to ask: (Translation)
Since June 2013, the Immigration Department ("ImmD") has stepped up its scrutiny of the employment visa applications of foreign domestic helpers ("FDHs") who changed employers for several times, in order to curb suspected abuse by FDHs of the arrangements for premature contract termination in order to change their employers (commonly known as "job-hopping"). It has been reported that during the period from the implementation of the measure to August this year, ImmD found 10 863 cases of suspected job-hopping among 530 000 employment visa applications of FDHs, but eventually rejected 1 776 applications only. Besides, some employment agencies ("EAs") have abetted FDHs to deliberately perform badly to get themselves fired, so that such FDHs can obtain one month's wages in lieu of notice as well as free air tickets and passages to return to their places of domicile while the EAs concerned can collect intermediary fees from new employers who have employed them ("collusive job-hopping"). There are views that the existing measures cannot effectively combat the aforesaid acts of FDHs and EAs. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) in respect of the aforesaid cases of suspected job-hopping, of the number of those in which the ex-employers had given negative comments on the performance of the FDHs concerned in the premature termination notifications/complaint letters submitted by them, and among such cases, the number of those in which the employment visa applications of the FDHs concerned were subsequently approved; (2) whether it will examine allowing employers to amend, subject to FDHs' consent, the Standard Employment Contract for employing FDHs, such as by adding a probation period or stipulating a longer or a shorter termination notice period; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (3) whether it will consider setting up an inter-departmental working group which comprises representatives from the Labour Department and ImmD to gather intelligence and conduct investigations in respect of acts of job-hopping and collusive job-hopping; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (4) whether it will contact FDH employer groups to step up the publicity among employers that they can report to ImmD suspected acts of job-hopping and collusive job-hopping; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (5) in each of the past three years and this year (as at the end of November), of (i) the number of complaints about collusive job-hopping received and, among them, (ii) the number of cases found substantiated, by the authorities as well as the penalties imposed on the EAs concerned; whether it will introduce a diversified punishment mechanism, such as requiring the management personnel of the EAs concerned to attend compulsory training courses; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (6) whether it has reviewed if the existing measures can effectively combat acts of job-hopping and collusive job-hopping, so as to suitably protect the rights and interests of employers of FDHs; if so, of the outcome; if not, whether it will conduct a review expeditiously?
*16. Hon Jeremy TAM to ask: (Translation)
In 2010, the then Chief Executive indicated in his Policy Address that "[t]he ultimate policy objective of the Government is to have zero emission buses running across the territory." Nevertheless, as at early this year, among the 36 single-deck electric buses purchased by franchised bus companies ("bus companies") with full subsidies by the Government, only 24 buses had been put into service. It has been reported that bus companies face quite a number of difficulties should they switch to use electric buses for the whole bus fleets, including that thousands of bus parking spaces have not been installed with electric bus charging facilities, the power supply facilities at parking spaces and in bus depots do not have the capacity to meet the power demand for simultaneous charging of a large number of electric buses, and there are a host of technical issues. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows in respect of each bus company, the respective current numbers of bus parking spaces located at (i) bus termini, (ii) bus depots and (iii) other places, and among them, the numbers of those provided with charging facilities as well as their detailed locations (set out in a table by name of bus company and location of the parking space); (2) whether it knows the following details of each of the electric buses already put in service: (i) the bus model, (ii) the manufacturer and place of origin, (iii) the route number and the first and last stops of the bus route plied by the bus, (iv) the number of breakdowns in the past year, (v) the location of and site area occupied by its charging facilities, and (vi) the amperage for charging (set out by name of bus company in a table); (3) whether it knows the time needed for fully charging the supercapacitor buses already put in service and their power storage capacities, as well as their maximum travel distance; the maximum number of supercapacitor buses that can be simultaneously charged under the existing power supply facility of each bus depot; (4) of the performance indicators for those electric buses which are plying (i) routes with more uphill roads and (ii) routes with more level roads (set out in the table below); Performance Indicator (i) (ii) (a)Maximum travel distance (km) (b)Fuel economy (km/kWh) (c)Effectiveness in reducing emission of various air pollutants (d)Fuel cost (dollar/km) (e)Number of breakdowns each year (f)Downtime due to repairs and maintenance (day/year) (g)Maintenance cost (dollar/km) (h)Total operating cost (dollar/km) (5) whether it has assessed if it is technically feasible to have more bus routes switched to be plied by electric buses; if it has assessed and the outcome is in the affirmative, of the route numbers and details of such routes, and whether there are plans and timetables for switching to plying such routes by electric buses; (6) whether, in the coming three years, it will provide assistance to bus companies for installing more electric bus charging facilities and upgrading such facilities; and (7) whether it has reviewed the progress in achieving the objective of "hav[ing] zero emission buses running across the territory" and the effectiveness of the relevant measures; if so, of the outcome; if not, whether it will conduct a review expeditiously?
*17. Hon WU Chi-wai to ask: (Translation)
Regarding the regulator kiosks, rest rooms and toilets provided for use by bus captains and regulators of franchised bus companies ("bus companies"), will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the current number of bus termini not provided with toilets (such as public toilets provided by the Government or toilets provided by bus companies) therein and within 50 metres therefrom, with a breakdown by District Council ("DC") district; (2) of the number of public transport interchanges ("PTIs") currently not provided with toilets and their locations (set out the relevant information by DC district); as the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines stipulates that essential facilities such as toilets and regulator kiosks should be provided at PTIs, whether the Government will, in its future planning for PTIs, provide such facilities across the board; (3) given that currently bus companies have to obtain the consent of government departments (such as the Transport Department, the Lands Department and the Highways Department) before installing latrines fitted with a chemical closet fitment for bus captains' use, of (i) the respective numbers of the relevant applications received, approved and rejected by the Government and (ii) the average and longest processing time taken in respect of the approved cases, in each of the past five financial years, as well as the current number of such applications being processed (with a breakdown by name of bus company); (4) whether it will require that bus termini to be constructed in the future be provided with regulator kiosks, rest rooms and toilets; and (5) whether the bus companies have to pay the Government nominal rents or market rents for the sites occupied by the aforesaid facilities of the bus termini; if the latter is the case, of the amount of rents paid by each bus company in each of the past five financial years; whether the expenditures concerned are included in the operating costs of the bus companies?
*18. Hon LAM Cheuk-ting to ask: (Translation)
Regulation 47(3) of the Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) Regulations (Cap. 374 sub. leg. D) ("the Regulations") provides that taxi passengers may carry free of charge light personal hand baggage, that is to say, light suitcases, hat boxes, attache cases and similar articles, inside the passenger compartment of the taxi ("compartment baggage"). On the other hand, the Guidelines to Taxi Regulations ("the Guidelines") published by the Transport Department ("TD") elucidates that "[a]s a general rule, each piece of light personal baggage that is placed inside the passenger compartment can be carried free of charge if its total dimensions (length + width + height) do not exceed 140 cm". It is also elucidated on TD's website that taxi drivers may levy an additional charge for every piece of compartment baggage with total dimensions (length + width + height) exceeding 140 cm. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of (i) the number of complaints, received by the authorities in each of the past three years, about taxi drivers overcharging passengers of the additional charge for compartment baggage and (ii) among such cases, the respective numbers of those in which follow-up actions were taken by the Police and prosecutions were instituted against the drivers concerned; (2) of the legal basis for the dimension limits specified in the Guidelines and on TD's website for compartment baggage to be carried free of the additional charge; and (3) whether it has examined if the elucidations, in the Guidelines and on TD's website, for the additional charge for compartment baggage are consistent with the provision in regulation 47(3) of the Regulations; if it has examined and the outcome is in the negative, whether it has assessed if this situation has caused confusion among taxi drivers and passengers and made disputes between them prone to occur, and of the solution for that; if it has not examined, of the reasons for that?
*19. Hon Tony TSE to ask: (Translation)
There are views that the housing courts of the Home Ownership Scheme ("HOS") and the Green Form Subsidised Home Ownership Scheme ("GSH") put up for sale in recent years look very much the same as public rental housing ("PRH") estates in terms of building designs and ancillary facilities, as well as the layouts and installations of and materials used in the units, etc. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the housing development stage at which the authorities usually decide whether the units of an individual public housing development project should be used for rental purpose or put up for sale under a subsidized sale flat ("SSF") scheme, and the relevant considerations; (2) whether the authorities have set standards, in terms of building designs and ancillary facilities, as well as the layouts and installations of and materials used in the units, etc., for (a) PRH estates, (b) HOS courts and (c) GSH courts; (i) if so, of the details; whether the following situation arose in the past five years: a housing development project had progressed, when the authorities made the decision mentioned in (1), to a rather late stage rendering it necessary to deviate from those standards; if there was such situation, whether the authorities will in future make the relevant decision at an earlier stage as far as possible; (ii) if not, the reasons for that; and (3) whether the authorities will (i) more clearly define the market positioning of various SSF schemes, including the target buyers, eligibility criteria and prices, and (ii) ensure that the building designs and ancillary facilities of the housing courts, as well as the layouts and installations of and materials used in the units, etc., can reflect their respective market positioning; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*20. Hon James TO to ask: (Translation)
At its meeting held on 20 July 2015, the Panel on Administration of Justice and Legal Services of this Council discussed the administration of the estate of the late Ms Nina KUNG. In addition, the Government disclosed early this year that it had drawn up in May 2017 the latest draft of the administration scheme on using the estate for charitable purposes ("the Scheme") and was awaiting a response from the Chinachem Charitable Foundation ("the Foundation"). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) given that a government representative undertook at the aforesaid meeting to provide the Panel with the information on the arrangements for the interim administration of the estate and a breakdown of its properties insofar as it was allowed under the law, of the reasons why the Government has not yet provided such information, and whether it will do so immediately; (2) whether it knows the following information on the estate: (i) the current total value, (ii) the respective total amounts of fees collected so far by the interim administrators of the estate, the managers recruited from outside and other persons involved in the administration of the estate (please specify), and (iii) the amounts of money used for charitable purposes in each of the past three years; and (3) whether the discussions conducted between the Government and the Foundation on the Scheme have been concluded; (i) if not, whether the Government has set a deadline; at what time the latest the Government will seek the Court's directions to ensure that the Scheme will be confirmed and implemented expeditiously; whether it will consider taking measures to enhance the administration of the estate (e.g. appointing government officials to sit on the Board of Governors of the Foundation); and (ii) if so, whether the Government has submitted the Scheme to the Court?
*21. Hon Jimmy NG to ask: (Translation)
In September this year, the Government extended the Food Truck Pilot Scheme ("the Scheme"), which was launched in February 2017, by two more years whereby the 15 food trucks could operate up to 2 February 2021. Under the relevant licensing conditions, food trucks may operate only in tourist locations and during events designated by the authorities. From the commencement of the Scheme up to mid-August this year, the food truck with the best business performance had a gross revenue between $3.5 million and $4 million, while all of the six food trucks with worst performance had a gross revenue of $2 million or below each. The operating venues with the best, the second best and the worst business performance were the Hong Kong Disneyland, Tsim Sha Tsui Salisbury Garden and Energizing Kowloon East respectively, yielding gross revenues of $17,890,000, $2,900,000 and $460,000 respectively for the food trucks. Some operators of the food trucks have reportedly pointed out that as the people flow in various operating venues has been decreasing, and the authorities do not understand the operation of food trucks and ignore the aspirations of the operators, it is difficult for them to sustain their businesses. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has conducted studies to look into the causes for the great variances in (i) the business performance of different food trucks and (ii) their business performance in different operating venues; if so, set out the relevant information in a table; if not, whether it will conduct such studies; (2) whether it has compiled statistics on (i) the volume of people flow at the operating venues for the food trucks and (ii) the turnover of the food trucks, at different hours and during various events; if so, set out the relevant information in a table; if not, whether it will compile such statistics; and (3) whether it will relax the relevant licensing conditions so as to give the food trucks greater room for survival, e.g. allowing, on the premise of not affecting the traffic and the business situation of eateries in the vicinity, the food trucks to provide catering services for private banquets (e.g. wedding banquets), so as to offset the losses incurred by their operation in certain designated operating venues; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*22. Dr Hon Elizabeth QUAT to ask:
The sale of rhinoceros horns and products (which may be in the form of libation cups, boxes, vessels, hairpins, etc.) is regulated in Hong Kong under the Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586), through which the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora ("CITES") is implemented in Hong Kong. It is learnt that under Cap. 586, products of those rhinoceros horns which had been acquired before the CITES provisions started to apply to rhinoceros ("pre-Convention rhinoceros horns") are allowed to be commercially traded in Hong Kong only if such products are accompanied by a pre-Convention certificate issued by the export country. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) given that antique collectors generally object to the age of their valuable artefacts be ascertained by applying the current dating methods (e.g. radiocarbon-14 dating and DNA-testing) which involve removal of small parts from the artefacts for testing, (i) how the law enforcement agencies can accurately determine the age of a rhinoceros horn product offered for sale in the market to ascertain that the product in question is indeed from a pre-Convention stock, and (ii) whether testimony of experts (from the antique industry and/or Chinese arts and crafts) of their visual identification has so far been admissible in court hearings concerning suspected illegal trading of rhinoceros horn products; if so, of the number of such cases in which the persons concerned have been convicted; if not, the reasons for that, and how the authorities can effectively enforce the ban on illegal trading of rhinoceros horn products; (2) as the authorities regularly dispose of seized ivory and pangolin scale specimens by incineration, whether they dispose of seized rhinoceros horn specimens by the same method; if not, of the reasons for that and whether they will do so in future; if they will not, of the reasons for that; (3) of the quantity of rhinoceros horn specimens seized in Hong Kong in the past five years and up to October this year, and among them, the respective quantities of rhinoceros (i) whole horns and (ii) horn cut pieces seized; (4) of the total number of holders in Hong Kong of pre-Convention certificates for pre-Convention rhinoceros horn products as at the end of 2017; and (5) of the total quantity of pre-Convention rhinoceros horn products registered in Hong Kong for commercial purpose as at the end of 2017?
* For written reply
III. Government Bills
| First Reading and Second Reading (Debate to be adjourned)
| |||
| 1. | Inland Revenue and MPF Schemes Legislation (Tax Deductions for Annuity Premiums and MPF Voluntary Contributions) (Amendment) Bill 2018 | : | Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury
|
| 2. | Inland Revenue (Profits Tax Exemption for Funds) (Amendment) Bill 2018 | : | Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury
|
| 3. | Fire Safety (Industrial Buildings) Bill | : | Secretary for Security
|
| 4. | Discrimination Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2018 | : | Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs
|
IV. Members' Motions
| 1. | Proposed resolution under section 34(4) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance
Dr Hon KWOK Ka-ki to move the following motion: Resolved that in relation to the Antiquities and Monuments (Declaration of Monuments and Historical Buildings) (Consolidation) (Amendment) Notice 2018, published in the Gazette as Legal Notice No. 224 of 2018, and laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 21 November 2018, the period for amending subsidiary legislation referred to in section 34(2) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) be extended under section 34(4) of that Ordinance to the meeting of 9 January 2019. | |||||||||
| 2. | Proposed resolution under section 34(4) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance
Hon Starry LEE to move the following motion: Resolved that in relation to the - | |||||||||
| (a) | Road Tunnels (Government) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulation 2018, published in the Gazette as Legal Notice No. 237 of 2018; | |||||||||
| (b) | Tsing Ma Control Area (Tolls, Fees and Charges) (Amendment) Regulation 2018, published in the Gazette as Legal Notice No. 238 of 2018; and | |||||||||
| (c) | Tsing Sha Control Area (Tolls, Fees and Charges) (Amendment) Regulation 2018, published in the Gazette as Legal Notice No. 239 of 2018, | |||||||||
| and laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 5 December 2018, the period for amending subsidiary legislation referred to in section 34(2) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) be extended under section 34(4) of that Ordinance to the meeting of 23 January 2019.
| ||||||||||
| 3. | Proposed resolution under section 3(5) of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance
Hon Starry LEE to move the following motion: Resolved that in relation to the Fugitive Offenders (France) Order, published in the Gazette as Legal Notice No. 240 of 2018, and laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 5 December 2018, the period for repealing an order referred to in section 3(3) of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance (Cap. 503) be extended under section 3(5) of that Ordinance to the meeting of 23 January 2019. | |||||||||
| 4. | Motion under Rule 49E(2) of the Rules of Procedure
Hon Starry LEE to move the following motion: That this Council takes note of Report No. 7/18-19 of the House Committee laid on the Table of the Council on 12 December 2018 in relation to the subsidiary legislation and instrument(s) as listed below: | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
| 5. | Report of the joint-Panel delegation of the Panel on Economic Development, Panel on Financial Affairs, Panel on Commerce and Industry, and Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting on its duty visit to the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area
Hon Jeffrey LAM to move the following motion: (Translation) That this Council notes the Report of the joint-Panel delegation of the Panel on Economic Development, Panel on Financial Affairs, Panel on Commerce and Industry, and Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting on its duty visit to the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area from 20 to 22 April 2018.
| |||||||||
| 6. | Requesting the Government to set up crisis support centres for sexual violence victims and abused children in public hospitals
Dr Hon Pierre CHAN to move the following motion: (Translation) That given the rising trend in the number of cases of sexual violence and child abuse in Hong Kong in recent years, this Council urges the Government to allocate additional resources to the Hospital Authority for, in accordance with the Guidelines for medico-legal care for victims of sexual violence issued by the World Health Organization, setting up a crisis support centre in public hospitals respectively in the New Territories, on Hong Kong Island and in Kowloon to provide sexual violence victims and abused children ('victims') with 24-hour one-stop services; details of recommendations are as follows: | |||||||||
| (1) | designating a suitable place with high privacy protection for setting up a 24-hour one-stop crisis support centre in three public hospitals, thereby allowing victims to receive treatment and follow-up services and undergo necessary procedures, including medical treatment, forensic examinations, reporting to the Police, statement taking (with the provision of facilities for the Police to take statements from victims by way of video-recorded interview), receiving support and counselling from social workers, in the same place;
| |||||||||
| (2) | properly maintaining overall statistics on victims receiving diagnosis and treatment or undergoing examinations, giving statements to the Police and undergoing forensic examinations in public hospitals;
| |||||||||
| (3) | instructing the Social Welfare Department to review the existing procedural guide for regulating the handling of child abuse cases while clarifying its coordination role to foster cooperation with the Police, health care personnel and other departments, in order to provide abused children with timely assistance and follow-up;
| |||||||||
| (4) | providing frontline personnel (including police officers and social workers) with professional and specialized training to enhance their sensitivity and skills in handling cases of sexual violence and child abuse involving different genders, backgrounds, cultures and sexual orientations; and
| |||||||||
| (5) | formulating uniform standards of interpretation and translation services for languages of various ethnic minorities and providing training for interpreters to ensure that they render interpretation and translation services to ethnic minorities victims in a professional and impartial manner.
| |||||||||
| Hon Alice MAK, Hon SHIU Ka-chun and Dr Hon Fernando CHEUNG to move amendments to the motion
| ||||||||||
| (The amendments were issued on 23 November 2018
under LC Paper No. CB(3) 189/18-19) | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
| 7. | Fully transforming into a green and low-carbon smart society and economy, and proactively alleviating and coping with global climate change
Hon Martin LIAO to move the following motion:(Translation) That given the worsening problem of global climate change and the imminent crisis, this Council urges the SAR Government to cope with climate change more proactively, lead various social sectors and all people to fully transform Hong Kong into a green and low-carbon smart society and economy, and review at an appropriate time and enhance as appropriate Hong Kong's capabilities to withstand extreme weather and adapt to climate change, with a view to making every endeavour to help alleviate this crisis faced by all mankind, providing Hong Kong people with due protection of their lives and properties, and promoting the sustainable development of the society and economy. | |||||||||
| Ir Dr Hon LO Wai-kwok, Hon HUI Chi-fung, Hon KWOK Wai-keung, Hon Charles Peter MOK, Hon Gary FAN, Hon CHU Hoi-dick, Dr Hon Elizabeth QUAT, Dr Hon KWOK Ka-ki and Hon Kenneth LEUNG to move amendments to the motion
| ||||||||||
| (The amendments were issued on 7 December 2018
under LC Paper No. CB(3) 241/18-19) | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||