Council Meeting (Agenda) 29 February 2012

A 11/12-20

Legislative Council

Agenda

Wednesday 29 February 2012 at 11:00 am

I. Tabling of Papers

Subsidiary Legislation / Instrument	L.N. No.
Smoking (Public Health) (Designation of No Smoking Areas) (Amendment) Notice 2012	29/2012

Other Papers

1.	No. 73	-	Hong Kong Arts Development Council Annual Report 2010/11
(to be presented by the Chief Secretary for Administration)
2.	No. 74	-	The Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts Annual Report 2010-2011 and financial statements together with the independent auditor's report for the year ended 30 June 2011
(to be presented by the Chief Secretary for Administration)
3.	No. 75	-	AIDS Trust Fund Financial statements together with the Report of the Director of Audit for the year ended 31 March 2011
(to be presented by the Secretary for Food and Health)
4.	No. 76	-	Report on Activities of the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority and financial statements together with the independent auditor's report for the year ended 31 August 2011
(to be presented by the Secretary for Education)
5.	Report No. 13/11-12 of the House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments
(to be presented by Hon Miriam LAU, Chairman of the House Committee)

IA. Questions under Rule 24(4) of the Rules of Procedure

*1. Hon Albert CHAN to ask: (Translation)

It has been reported that on 21 February, the Chief Executive ("CE") stayed overnight on board a super-yacht of a tycoon and returned to Hong Kong on it, and on 9 February, he travelled with more than 10 business celebrities to Phuket in Thailand for holiday and back to Hong Kong in a private jet provided by a tycoon and rented a penthouse in Shenzhen with a market value of HK$61.5 million from another tycoon as his residence after his departure from office. In response to the aforesaid reports, CE responded that he had made payments to the super-yacht owner for using the super-yacht and also to the tycoon for using the private jet equivalent to the Hong Kong-Macao ferry fares and air fares, and that he paid market rent for the aforesaid flat. Given that quite a number of members of the public and civil servants are deeply perplexed by the behaviour of CE in travelling on super-yacht and private jets provided by tycoons as well as renting a penthouse, and they are worried that there may have been transfer of benefits, will the Government, in order to address the concerns of the public and those of more than 160 000 civil servants, inform this Council:

(a)	whether acceptance by public officers of tycoons' invitation to travel on super-yachts and private jets is considered to be accepting an advantage under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance; if so, whether public officers making payments equivalent to the fares for similar journeys travelled via public transport constitutes reasonable excuse;
(b)	whether there is any law prohibiting public officers from receiving discounts in renting or purchasing flats from persons with whom they have official dealings, and whether such law is applicable to CE; and
(c)	given that the existing general principles made by the Civil Service Bureau state that a civil servant "must not engage in activities or behaviour which may bring into question the impartiality of the Civil Service or bring the Service into disrepute", whether CE has to observe such principles; if not, of the reasons why the civil servants are still required to observe such principles?

Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs

*2. Hon Cyd HO to ask: (Translation)

The Chief Executive ("CE") openly admitted on 22 February that during his term of office, he accepted entertainment offered by tycoons on four occasions. The persons offering the entertainment included the supporters of one of the contenders for the office of CE. Members of the public not only query that the entertainment may involve a conflict of interest, but also worry that some people are interfering with the election of the next-term CE by offering entertainment to CE. In addition, quite a number of serving or retired civil servants made telephone calls to radio programmes on current affairs in recent days, saying that the nature and contents of the entertainment accepted by CE were in breach of the relevant disciplinary requirements for civil servants, and the incident had dealt a serious blow to the integrity of CE as well as the clean reputation and the credibility of the governance of the SAR Government. Furthermore, there were long press reports on 23 February that CE had rented a penthouse in Futian District in Shenzhen as residence after his departure from office, triggering concerns about suspected transfer of benefits. As the credibility of governance of the SAR Government will be affected by the aforesaid matters, will the Government immediately inform this Council:

(a)

whether the persons extending the offer of the aforesaid entertainment and the accompanying persons have official dealings with the Government; if they have, of the details; whether it knows when and where they provided the entertainment as well as the arrangements for transport, meals, accommodation, entertainment activities, security, etc.; whether the amounts of payments required to be paid by participants for such items were set by the persons who extended the offer, and of the market prices of the aforesaid entertainment; and

(b)

whether the owner of the aforesaid penthouse has official dealings with the Government; if so, of the details; whether it knows the date on which the tenancy of the penthouse was entered, as well as the length and rental of the tenancy; the channel through which the penthouse was leased out and the renovation expenses paid by the owner?

Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs

*3. Hon CHEUNG Kwok-che to ask: (Translation)

It has been reported that on 18 February this year, the Chief Executive ("CE") visited Macao on invitation to attend a spring gathering held in a hotel by a casino VIP club, and the guests attending the gathering included "a group of gambling club operators, members of loan-sharking syndicates, night-club personnel and many heavyweights of dubious background". Moreover, CE indicated that during his term of office, he travelled to and from Macao on private yachts twice and visited Phuket in Thailand and Japan by private jets twice respectively, and that he had already paid the expenses of amounts equivalent to the fares of public transport in accordance with the "internal codes of the Government". According to section 5.10 of the Code for Officials under the Political Appointment System, a politically appointed official shall not accept entertainment if it is of excessive nature or the persons present are of questionable character, so as to avoid embarrassment or being brought into disrepute. To immediately address public concerns, will the Government inform this Council:

(a)	of the details of the aforesaid "internal codes of the Government" (including whether travelling on private yachts or private jets is regarded as accepting a passage or accepting entertainment);
(b)	whether it has assessed the impact of accepting similar entertainment by public officers on the public's perception of the Government and public officers; if not, whether it will make an assessment immediately; and
(c)	whether the Code for Officials under the Political Appointment System is applicable to CE; whether acceptance of similar entertainment by public officers is in breach of the Code; whether there are any other codes regulating CE's acceptance of entertainment; if not, whether it will formulate the codes immediately?

Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs

*4. Hon LEE Cheuk-yan to ask: (Translation)

It has been reported that the Chief Executive ("CE") has repeatedly accepted extravagant entertainment and he had rented a luxurious apartment in Futian District in Shenzhen as residence after his departure from office, paying a rental below the market rate. Given that the reports have aroused suspicion among some members of the public on the conduct of CE, in order to address public concerns, will the Government immediately inform this Council:

(a)	whether acceptance of similar entertainment and renting luxurious apartments constitute "interests" referred to in Chapter 5 of the Code for Officials under the Political Appointment System;
(b)	whether, during meetings of the Executive Council at which items relating to businesses operated by the aforesaid tycoons or property owner were discussed, any person attending such meetings had made any declaration (including whether such person has accounted for his personal friendship with the aforesaid tycoons or property owner, his acceptance of entertainment offered by them, or his intention of renting their properties); if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(c)	whether measures are in place to prevent CE from handling matters with real or potential conflicts of interest, including acceptance of deferred benefits; if not, whether the Government can formulate such measures immediately?

Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs

*5. Hon Alan LEONG to ask: (Translation)

In response to media enquiries, the Chief Executive ("CE") admitted that he had travelled to and from Macao on yachts twice and also by private jets twice for round trips to Thailand and Japan, and he had made payments equivalent to economy and business class airfares respectively (i.e. several thousand dollars and several tens of thousand dollars), and such payments were far lower than the amounts needed for hiring a plane for round trips to the two places. It has been learnt that the trips on private jets were arranged by the Chairman of The Cross-Harbour (Holdings) Limited ("the Company"), which holds an interest in the Western Harbour Tunnel and also has multiple connections with the policies handled by CE. Besides, during CE's recent return trip from Macao on a yacht, his duties were not undertaken by any officer in acting capacity. The spokesman of the Office of the Chief Executive explained that "CE can return to Hong Kong within a few hours upon departure, so it is not necessary to make any acting appointment." In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a)	of the mechanism for determining the amounts of payments required for the aforesaid entertainment; the actual amounts calculated according to such mechanism; whether it has a mechanism for assisting CE, when he considers whether or not to accept entertainment, in assessing whether the acceptance of the entertainment will involve any conflict of interest; if it has, of the details of the mechanism and the person who makes the assessment; whether the mechanism was used in the aforesaid incidents; if not, whether it will consider setting up such a mechanism immediately;
(b)	given that at present, entertainment accepted by CE is not required to be declared, whether the Government will immediately amend the existing mechanism to increase its transparency, and state whether public officers have to make declarations regarding the advantages they accepted while on leave, so as to address public concerns; and
(c)	whether the practice of not arranging acting arrangement for CE's leave is consistent with the existing acting arrangements for civil servants or officials under the accountability system; whether CE when he is on leave with no acting arrangement made still has the capacity as CE and should still be regarded as carrying an official capacity during the period; if so, whether CE is still subject to the regulation by the laws and requirements relating to public officers during the said period?

Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs

*6. Hon Paul TSE to ask: (Translation)

It has been reported that the Chief Executive ("CE") accepted tycoons' invitation to travel on private jets and paid the costs at market prices, and in renting a luxurious apartment in Shenzhen, he was alleged to have obtained concessions such as a rental below the market rate and a waiver of the renovation expenses in excess of 10 million dollars. The public and the media query the integrity and conduct of CE, and they also have concern about the number of similar incidents of suspected unreasonable acceptance of entertainment and concessions which have yet to be uncovered. The public have expressed their discontent by joining several demonstrations and processions, and the incident has been extensively covered by overseas media, causing a serious blow to the credibility of the governance of the SAR Government. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a)	of the system put in place by the Office of the Chief Executive to keep records of various entertainment or concessions received by CE (including the means of and information used for assessing the market prices); the mechanism in place to enable the public to check such records; if no system or mechanism is in place, whether it will set it up immediately;
(b)	given that after the passage of the Prevention of Bribery (Amendments) Ordinance 2008 in July 2008, CE comes within the remit of the provisions in the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance which prohibit public officers from soliciting and accepting advantages, under what circumstances the Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC") will take the initiative to investigate CE and other public officers accepting discounts and extravagant entertainment; whether there are now such circumstances; if so, whether it will launch an investigation immediately; and
(c)	given that a press report has queried the independence of the Commissioner of ICAC as CE was suspected to have "given special treatment" to the incumbent Commissioner by giving him a further appointment of three years without announcing the reason for the further appointment, whether the Government will immediately adopt the recommendation made by some academics of setting up an independent committee with members drawn from ICAC and the Audit Commission to comprehensively review the code of ethics and conduct for CE?

Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs

*7. Hon LEE Wing-tat to ask: (Translation)

It has been reported that the Chief Executive ("CE") had rented a penthouse of East Pacific Garden in Futian District in Shenzhen as residence after his departure from office, and probably because the owner of East Pacific Garden is a shareholder of the Digital Broadcasting Corporation Hong Kong Limited ("DBC"), the public query that in respect of the licensing of DBC, CE was suspected to be involved in the transfer of benefits, and giving rise to public concern about the integrity and conduct of government officials. To immediately resolve the doubt of the public about the governance of the Government, will the Government inform this Council if it knows:

(a)	whether the tenancy offer was initiated by the owner of the aforesaid residential unit; if so, the details (including when the offer was made); whether the owner had, when he leased out the unit, indicated that the tenant might give views on the fitting-out of the unit; if so, the details; and
(b)	whether the owner of the aforesaid unit had, in the process of leasing out the unit, indicated to the tenant that he would consider selling the unit during the tenancy term or upon the expiry of the tenancy agreement, and whether he had indicated that there was any specific target buyer; if so, the name of the target buyer?

Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs

*8. Hon KAM Nai-wai to ask: (Translation)

It has been reported that the Chief Executive ("CE") admitted on 26 February that he had sold 1 600 bottles of his private wine collection in 2010 to a former Chairman of the American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong, and donated all the sale proceeds totalling $2 million to charitable organizations, but CE admitted that he had claimed tax deduction for the donations. In 2003, the Government leased the former Central Ordnance Munitions Depot, Shouson Hill to a wine cellar operated by that former Chairman for a monthly rent as low as $2,700. The report pointed out that the incident has aroused suspicion among the public on whether some officials may have engaged in the transfer of benefits and has given the general public a negative perception of public officers. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a)

whether it has assessed if public officers engaging in private dealings with persons with whom the Government has official dealings and benefiting from such transactions may have impact on the public's perception of the Government and public officers; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; if it has not assessed, whether it will carry out the assessment immediately; and

(b)

with regard to the leasing of the former Central Ordnance Munitions Depot, Shouson Hill to the wine cellar operated by that former Chairman, of the government departments and post titles of the officers involved in making the decision; further, whether such government departments had received recommendations on the lessee, verbally or in writing, from staff members of the Chief Executive's Office; if so, of the details?

Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs

* For written reply

II. Questions

1. Hon Andrew CHENG to ask: (Translation)

In response to recent media enquiries on the West Kowloon Reclamation Concept Plan Competition ("the Competition") held in 2001-2002, the Government indicated that after the voting process had been completed, it came to the notice of the Competition Team that a project team member of an entrant on the preliminary list of winning entries appeared to be associated with a member of the Jury for the Competition, who was a public officer. The incident has caused extensive discussions in various sectors of the community, and how the Government handles incidents relating to omissions in declaration of interests by public officers has aroused much concern. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a)	in the past 10 years, of the number and details of omissions by public officers, including Members of the Executive Council to declare interests on matters relating to public interests;
(b)	of the criteria of the Government for determining whether to make public or keep confidential the incidents of omissions to declare interests in (a); and
(c)	in the past 10 years, whether the Government had imposed any punishment on the persons involved in the incidents of omissions to declare interests in (a); if it had, of the details of the punishments and the number of times they were imposed, as well as the criteria for determining whether or not to impose punishment?

Public Officers to reply

The Chief Secretary for Administration
Secretary for the Civil Service
Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs

2. Hon Mrs Regina IP to ask: (Translation)

Will the Government inform this Council:

(a)	of the staff establishment (including the number of posts, ranks as well as the functions, remunerations and benefit levels of the various posts) and the total staffing expenditure of the Chief Executive's Office ("CE's Office") at the time when the First Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region was established on 1 July 1997, as well as the respective details of the aforesaid items as at 1 January 2012;
(b)	of the number of posts, which were vacant for a long time before June 2006, filled by CE's Office so far, as well as the functions, remunerations and benefit levels of those posts; in addition, the posts newly created, the posts upgraded, as well as their remunerations and benefit levels; and the reasons for creating or upgrading such posts; and
(c)	how the Government assesses and measures whether there is any significant improvement in the effectiveness of the Chief Executive in leading the work of the SAR Government after CE's Office upgraded certain posts and increased manpower?

Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs

3. Hon Starry LEE to ask: (Translation)

At present, except under the Student Travel Scheme offered by MTR, students have to pay full fares when taking other modes of transport such as public buses and ferries, etc. Moreover, students who wish to apply for subsidy under the Student Travel Subsidy Scheme ("STSS") offered by the Student Financial Assistance Agency are required to meet a number of criteria (including passing the means test, residing beyond 10 minutes' walking distance from school and travelling to school by public transport). The amount of travel subsidy provided under STSS is just sufficient to pay for the average public transport fare for home-school travel, and does not cover the travelling expenses incurred when students take part in other learning activities. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a)	of the increase in the number of beneficiaries and government expenditure to be resulted in expanding the public transport fare concessions scheme ("fare concessions scheme") for the elderly and persons with disabilities to cover all students receiving formal primary, secondary education or attending a full-time day course up to first degree level in an acceptable institution in Hong Kong; whether it will consider expanding the fare concessions scheme to cover such students; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(b)	whether it will suggest the Community Care Fund to look into the feasibility of providing the aforesaid fare concessions to full-time students; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(c)	when the scope of assistance under STSS was last reviewed; whether the Government will consider relaxing the eligibility criteria for applying for STSS and increasing the amount of subsidy with a view to encouraging students to participate in different kinds of activities and broadening their learning experience; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Education

4. Hon Alan LEONG to ask: (Translation)

It has been reported that a member of the public bought an "Oceanaire Garden Residence" flat situated on the podium floor of a residential property named "Oceanaire" in Ma On Shan at a price of $7 million. As the member of the public bought the flat during the pre-sale of uncompleted flats of the property, it was not until two months ago when he took possession of the flat that he came to know that it is actually situated on the ground level, and he suspects that the contents of the sales brochure of the property are misleading. The sales brochure states that the residential flats are situated on the podium floor and on the fifth to the 30th floors, and there is no ground floor, first to fourth floors, 13th, 14th and 24th floors in the property. The floor plans are only in English and the distance between the podium floor and the ground level is not indicated; further, the layout plan of the clubhouse shows that the podium floor is situated above the clubhouse which is on the first floor. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a)	when approving the building plans of the aforesaid residential property, whether the Buildings Department ("BD") had considered if the contents of the sales brochure would mislead buyers into believing that the flats on the podium floor which they bought are not on the ground level; if it had, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(b)	given that according to the Practice Note for Authorized Persons, Registered Structural Engineers and Registered Geotechnical Engineers ("Practice Note") amended by BD in May 2010, omission of floor numbers "4", "13" and those ending with a "4" may be accepted, but assigning floor numbers with other omissions would not be allowed, and the use of non-numerical names, alias names, alternative floor numbers (e.g. in the form of "also known as x/F"), illogical or non-consecutive numbers would also not be accepted for assigning floor numbers, so as to avoid causing confusion to potential property buyers, visitors and government departments which provide emergency services, whether the authorities had, when approving the building plans of "Oceanaire", assessed if the developer had violated the Practice Note by stating that flats located below the fifth floor are on a non-numerical floor of "podium floor" and omitting the first to third floors; if so, of the details and whether they had requested the developer to amend the plans properly; if no assessment had been made, the reasons for that; and
(c)	according to the Government's proposed legislation to regulate the sales of first-hand residential properties, whether the aforesaid "Oceanaire" case has violated any provision in the proposed legislation; if so, of the details; if not, whether it will consider including the relevant requirements, so that the proposed legislation can better protect the consumers?

Public Officers to reply

Secretary for Development
Secretary for Transport and Housing

5. Hon CHEUNG Kwok-che to ask: (Translation)

In the 2010-2011 Policy Address, the authorities proposed to support the development of autistic children through healthcare, education, pre-school services and social services. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a)	given that quite a number of organizations which provide services to persons with intellectual disabilities ("PIDs") have reflected that 20% to 60% of PIDs suffer from autism, of the respective current numbers of autistic persons and PIDs with autism in Hong Kong; whether the authorities at present offer additional support to organizations which provide services to PIDs with autism; if they do, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(b)	of the direct or ancillary services and support under the various areas of healthcare, primary education, secondary education, pre-school services and social welfare, etc. offered at present by the authorities to autistic persons at different stages of their developmental process; the details of implementation of the services proposed in the aforesaid Policy Address to date; and
(c)	of the employment support or vocational training offered at present by the authorities to autistic persons after their graduation from secondary schools, and how the authorities assist them in pursuing tertiary education?

Public Officers to reply

Secretary for Labour and Welfare
Secretary for Education

6. Dr Hon PAN Pey-chyou to ask: (Translation)

After the Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited ("HKEx") implemented the first phase of the extension of trading hours of the securities market last year, HKEx has planned to take forward the second phase trading hour extension as from 5 March 2012 in which the lunch break will be further shortened from one and a half hours to one hour. Quite a number of workers unions and practitioners of the trade have expressed their dissatisfaction with such an arrangement and request HKEx to maintain a lunch break of one and a half hours. However, HKEx has brushed aside the request and will implement the second phase of trading hour extension in March as planned. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a)	whether it knows if HKEx has proactively held discussions with the trade before it implements the second phase of the plan to understand the difficulties the trade will encounter upon the further shortening of the lunch break; if it has, what the difficulties are; if not, the reasons for that;
(b)	whether the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau and the Securities and Futures Commission have assessed the impact of HKEx shortening the lunch break on the practitioners of the trade, and whether the relevant supporting facilities are sufficient; if such assessment has been made, of the outcome; and
(c)	given that according to the consultation conclusions published by HKEx in November 2010, there were in fact more members of the trade supporting the plan to shorten the lunch break to one and a half hours, plus the fact that quite a number of practitioners now object to further shortening the lunch break, whether the authorities will require HKEx to temporarily suspend the plan and consider other options (e.g. opening the market earlier and closing the market later, etc.) to replace the decision of shortening the lunch break to one hour; if they will not, of the reasons?

Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury

*7. Hon LAU Kong-wah to ask: (Translation)

At present, many tenants of Tenants Purchase Scheme ("TPS") estates indicate that they still wish to purchase the public rental housing ("PRH") flats in which they have been living for years. Under the current policy, the special credits given to the sitting tenants of TPS estates purchasing their flats are only applicable to those who purchase their flats within two years from commencement of the tenancy, while those who purchase their flats in the third year or thereafter are not entitled to such credits. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a)	of the total number of tenants of TPS estates who had purchased their flats as at December 2011; among them, of the respective number of tenants who were given a full credit, a halved credit as well as no credit at all;
(b)	whether the authorities will consider amending the current policy by relaxing the aforesaid restrictions on special credits to enable tenants who have rented their flats for over two years to enjoy such credits when they purchase their flats; if not, of the reasons for that; and
(c)	given that the authorities terminated TPS after launching TPS Phase 6B in 2005-2006, but many PRH tenants still wish to purchase their residing PRH flats, whether the authorities will reconsider launching a new phase of TPS; if not, of the reasons for that?

Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Transport and Housing

*8. Hon LEUNG Kwok-hung to ask: (Translation)

Hong Kong has received gifts which are national treasures such as giant pandas and Chinese sturgeons from the Central Government several times, yet they are only displayed in the Ocean Park ("the Park"). Except for the elderly and those whose birthdays fall on the day of their visit, members of the public who wish to watch these national treasures have to buy a $280 ticket for admission to the Park in order to get a glimpse of their glamour. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a)	of the reasons for deciding in the first place to entrust the Park with the custody and keeping of the giant pandas given to Hong Kong; which government department made such decisions; and whether the Government has considered that such arrangement might hinder the grassroots from watching the giant pandas;
(b)	given the Government's huge fiscal surplus at present, whether it will consider following the practice of the Government of the Macao Special Administrative Region in that the Government will keep those giant pandas, which are gifts from the State, and charge an admission fee of $10 only, so as to enable the general public to watch the giant pandas at a lower price; and
(c)	given the imminent 15th anniversary of the reunification of Hong Kong, whether the Government will consider, when the same kind of animals are given to the people of Hong Kong again by the Central Government, keeping them at free-admission venues such as the Hong Kong Zoological and Botanical Gardens, etc.?

Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Home Affairs

*9. Hon Abraham SHEK to ask:

On 19 November 2010, the Financial Secretary announced that he would introduce, amongst other measures, a Special Stamp Duty ("SSD") on residential properties at the point of resale in order to curb short-term speculative activities that threatened our economic and financial stability, reduce the risk of asset bubbles forming and ensure the healthy development of the property market. He described such initiatives as extraordinary measures under exceptional circumstances. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a)	of the total number of residential property transactions subject to the payment of SSD since its implementation, and the total amount of SSD so collected;
(b)	out of the transactions in (a), of the number of those which were loss-making to vendors (i.e. where the price realized from the sale of the property was lower than its original purchase price);
(c)	whether the Government has granted exemption from SSD to any residential property transaction so far; if so, of the total number of such exemptions and under what circumstances they were granted; and
(d)	whether the Government has considered if the policy objectives of SSD, namely curbing short-term speculative activities and reducing the risk of asset bubbles forming, have been fulfilled?

Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Transport and Housing

*10. Hon Audrey EU to ask: (Translation)

It has been learnt that quite a number of Hong Kong residents who have emigrated overseas are very concerned about issues such as their declaration of nationality and their children's right of abode in Hong Kong ("ROA"), etc. and it has aroused heated discussions in online parent-child discussion forums. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a)	whether Hong Kong residents who wish to return to Hong Kong for employment or settlement after emigrating overseas are entitled to ROA; whether they are required to make declaration of change of nationality to the Immigration Department ("ImmD"); if so, of the reasons; if not, the reasons for that;
(b)	of the number of declarations of change of nationality made by Hong Kong residents to ImmD in each year since the handover of sovereignty over Hong Kong in 1997;
(c)	whether children born overseas to Hong Kong residents who have emigrated overseas and become local residents there are entitled to ROA; if so, of the reasons; if not, the reasons for that; and
(d)	of the number of applications for ROA made to ImmD in each year since the handover of sovereignty in 1997 by children born to Hong Kong residents who have emigrated overseas; and the numbers of cases approved and rejected each year?

Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Security

*11. Hon Tanya CHAN to ask: (Translation)

The first phase of the trial scheme on one-off ad hoc quotas for Guangdong/Hong Kong cross-boundary private cars ("Self-drive Tour Scheme") will be launched next month. The Government has repeatedly stressed that details of the second phase will be determined only after reviewing the effectiveness of the first phase. Given that quite a number of members of the public still have reservations about whether the Self-drive Tour Scheme should be launched, will the Government inform this Council:

(a)	of the respective average monthly numbers of cross-boundary vehicle trips of the five types of boundary crossing vehicles (i.e. HKSAR/mainland coaches, HKSAR hire cars, HKSAR private cars, mainland official/enterprise vehicles and HKSAR/mainland goods vehicles) at present; whether it has assessed the changes in such numbers upon the launch of the Self-drive Tour Scheme;
(b)	of the criteria to be adopted by the Government in assessing the effectiveness of the first phase of the Self-drive Tour Scheme, and the justifications for adopting such criteria, together with examples to demonstrate the specific circumstances under which the first phase will be judged to be effective, and the second phase will be taken forward;
(c)	whether the authorities had given any undertaking to the Guangdong Provincial Government during their discussion on the Self-drive Tour Scheme that the second phase must be launched after implementation of the first phase; if they had, of the details of such undertaking; if not, whether the Government will shelve the Self-drive Tour Scheme in view of the strong public reaction against the launch of the second phase of the Scheme; if not, of the reasons for that; and
(d)	whether the authorities have established any mechanism of communication and consultation with the Guangdong Provincial Government to deal with various problems arising after the launch of the Self-drive Tour Scheme, to collect views from the public of the two places on the Scheme and to discuss their views and worries; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Transport and Housing

*12. Hon Paul TSE to ask: (Translation)

An investigation conducted by a British Broadcasting Corporation programme has revealed that certain intermediaries used fake proofs of residential addresses in Hong Kong to assist applicants of different nationalities who held overseas driving licences to obtain full Hong Kong driving licences by direct issue without test, and then made use of the agreement on mutual exchange of driving licences between Hong Kong and the United Kingdom ("UK") to assist such applicants to exchange for Great Britain ("GB") driving licences without test. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a)	whether it knows, in the past three years, how many foreign nationals had, by the aforesaid means, obtained Hong Kong driving licences first and then applied to the British transport authorities for exchanging their driving licences for GB driving licences;
(b)	whether the Government will verify the information provided by each foreign national who applies for a Hong Kong driving licence by the aforesaid means (including proof of the applicant's residential address in Hong Kong and the authenticity of the applicant's overseas driving licence); if it will, of the details; if it will not or will only conduct random checks, the reasons for that and the details;
(c)	given that it has been reported that the Transport Department made enquiries with overseas consulates or transport departments and with relevant mainland authorities regarding 401 such applications and, as a result, 106 applications were rejected and 126 were subject to further verification, of the reasons for rejecting the 106 applications; the number of applications which were suspected of involving the provision of false application information by intermediaries; and
(d)	of the measures in place to curb the aforesaid fraudulent practices of those intermediaries who profiteer through the illegal use of the Hong Kong-UK agreement on mutual exchange of driving licences?

Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Transport and Housing

*13. Hon Frederick FUNG to ask: (Translation)

In reply to my question on 8 February this year concerning the implementation of the new Air Quality Objectives ("AQOs"), the Secretary for the Environment ("SEN") did not give any definite response to the inquiries about updating the existing Air Pollution Index ("API") first and the need to amend the legislation, and emphasized that the implementation of the new AQOs and related transitional arrangements required amendment of the Air Pollution Control Ordinance (Cap. 311) ("the Ordinance"). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a)	given that it is already stipulated in section 7(3) of the Ordinance that "[a]ny air quality objective may be amended from time to time by the Secretary, after consultation with the Advisory Council on the Environment", of the justifications for SEN to point out that the implementation of the new AQOs required amendment of the Ordinance; and the related transitional arrangements mentioned by SEN;
(b)	whether it has studied the feasibility of updating the existing API first; and
(c)	whether it has assessed the impact on public health of postponing the implementation of the new AQOs to 2014?

Public Officer to reply : Secretary for the Environment

*14. Hon CHEUNG Kwok-che to ask: (Translation)

In 2010-2011, the authorities extended the services of Integrated Community Centre for Mental Wellness ("ICCMW") to all the 18 districts across the territory and established 24 ICCMWs. Some frontline workers have relayed that even though the authorities have allocated additional resources to mental health services, such support is far from being adequate to meet the needs of the community, and in view of their huge workload and excessive work pressure, they hope that the authorities will provide additional resources for recruiting more professional grade staff to help enhance the services. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a)	of the amount of funding allocated to each ICCMW last year, and their respective numbers of staff belonging to different professional grades (social workers, nurses and occupational therapists);
(b)	of the respective numbers of members, various types of cases and small group activities of each ICCMW last year, together with the number of cases handled by each social worker;
(c)	of the respective numbers of the various types of service targets (i.e. people recovering from mental illness aged 15 or above, people with suspected mental health problems, their families/carers and residents in the district) of ICCMWs at present, together with a breakdown by various districts delineated by the Social Welfare Department or the Hospital Authority; and the principles adopted by the authorities in determining the ratio of ICCMW manpower to their service targets; and
(d)	whether it knows, among the existing ICCMWs, the number of those which need to rent premises in commercial buildings because permanent sites are not provided to them; whether the authorities will offer rent allowance to enable such service units to have sufficient space to deliver normal service; if so, of the details (including the maximum amount of allowance); if not, the reasons for that?

Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Labour and Welfare

*15. Hon LEUNG Kwok-hung to ask: (Translation)

Regarding the supply of columbarium niches, will the Government inform this Council whether:

(a)	it knows the total number of niches provided by the 32 private columbaria under Part A (i.e. private columbaria compliant with user restrictions in the land leases and the statutory town planning requirements and are not illegally occupying Government land) in the list of private columbaria updated by the Development Bureau ("DevB") as at 30 December 2011, and the utilization rate of such niches;
(b)	it knows the total number of niches provided by the 66 private columbaria under Part B (i.e. other private columbaria known to the Lands Department and/or Planning Department that do not fall under Part A) in the list of private columbaria updated by DevB as at 30 December 2011, and the utilization rate of such niches;
(c)	it has carried out any planning for the number of public niches to be supplied in the coming 10 years; if it has, of the details; and
(d)	it has carried out any planning for the number of private niches to be supplied in the coming 10 years; if it has, of the details?

Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Food and Health

*16. Hon Starry LEE to ask: (Translation)

It has been reported that in a public housing estate in Tung Chung which has been in occupation for almost seven years, nearly one hundred large units which can accommodate six to nine persons are suspected to have been unoccupied, and some flats are in such brand new state that even the plastic tapes over the door viewers and plastic wrappers over the handles have not been taken off. The report indicated that a large number of units have been left vacant for years, resulting in a waste of public housing resources. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a)	in each public housing estate, other than those unpopular public rental housing ("PRH") units to be allocated under the Express Flat Allocation Scheme, of the respective current numbers of units available for lease which have been left vacant for one year, one to two years, two to four years and over four years and not yet been allocated to public housing applicants; among them, the respective numbers of those units for families of one person, two persons, three to four persons, and five persons and more, and set out the breakdown in table form;
(b)	of the causes for the aforesaid PRH units being left vacant for a long time;
(c)	of the amounts of rental income foregone by the Housing Department in each of the past five years as a result of the aforesaid PRH units being left vacant; and
(d)	of the measures taken by the authorities in the past five years to minimize the circumstances of PRH units being left vacant for a long time; whether they have plans to convert large units which have been left vacant for a long time into smaller ones; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Transport and Housing

*17. Hon KAM Nai-wai to ask: (Translation)

It has been reported that in response to media enquiries, a spokesman for the Chief Executive's Office stated on 13 February this year that the Chief Executive ("CE") had reminded various Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux to review whether there was any unauthorized building work ("UBW") in the properties owned by them, and that if necessary, they should appoint authorized persons themselves to inspect their property units and seek professional advice, while CE had not requested the officials concerned to report the progress of handling. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a)	when CE reminded the Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux of the aforesaid issue; why he did not request them to report the progress of handling;
(b)	how many and which Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux (or former Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux) have reported to CE or the authorities so far whether there are UBWs in the properties owned by them, and which of them have not yet done so;
(c)	whether there are UBWs in the properties owned by the Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux (or former Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux) who have reported to CE or the authorities as mentioned in (b); if so, of the details (including the locations of the properties, the types and sizes of UBWs, when such UBWs were erected, the means of handling by the authorities, whether and when such UBWs were removed, as well as the current situation, etc.); and
(d)	regarding the Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux (or former Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux) in (b) who have not reported to CE or the authorities, whether the authorities have investigated or whether they know if there is any UBW in their properties; if the investigation results reveal that or if the authorities know that there are UBWs in their properties, of the details (including the locations of the properties, the types and sizes of UBWs, when such UBWs were erected, the means of handling by the authorities, whether and when such UBWs were removed, as well as the current situation, etc.); if so far the authorities have not carried out any investigation or do not know the relevant situation, whether they will request them to give reports as soon as possible, and make public the contents (including the details of UBWs if there is any) of their reports; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Development

*18. Dr Hon LAM Tai-fai to ask: (Translation)

A total of eight supplements have been signed since the Mainland and Hong Kong signed the Mainland and Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement ("CEPA") in 2003 to gradually implement the market liberalization measures under CEPA. Yet, quite a number of small and medium-sized enterprises ("SMEs") and members of the professional service sector in Hong Kong have reflected to me that the situation of "big doors are open, but small doors are not yet open" in fact still exists in the mainland market, and they face considerable difficulties in exploring business opportunities on the Mainland. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a)	whether it has assessed the actual situation of "big doors are open, but small doors are not yet open" faced by various Hong Kong industries on the Mainland; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(b)	given that some SMEs have reflected that the mainland company registration procedures are complicated and time-consuming, whether it knows such procedures and the time generally required for vetting and approval on the Mainland; if it knows, of the details; if not, whether it will seek an in-depth understanding of the matter;
(c)	given that some SMEs have reflected that before applying for registration for the commencement of business in some mainland cities, they need to set up an office and provide its detailed address to the local registration department but the address may only be used by the company which applies for registration and may not be shared use by several companies, hence creating investment risks for the company which applies for registration, whether it knows the details and whether it has discussed the solutions with the Mainland;
(d)	given that some tax professionals in Hong Kong have reflected that the rules and regulations made by the State Administration of Taxation are subject to different interpretations in different cities, whether it knows the details and whether it has discussed the solutions with the Mainland;
(e)	given that some members of the accounting profession in Hong Kong have reflected that there are still certain restrictions on the scope of the business they may develop on the Mainland and they encounter difficulties in employing mainland accountants, whether it knows the details and whether it has discussed the solutions with the Mainland;
(f)	given that some SMEs providing construction and related engineering services in Hong Kong have reflected that the thresholds for company registration and qualification assessment in certain mainland cities are very strict, whether it knows the details and whether it has discussed the solutions with the Mainland;
(g)	given that some members of the legal profession have reflected that there are certain restrictions on the scope of the practice to be set up by Hong Kong law firms on the Mainland and they cannot employ mainland practising lawyers, whether it knows the details and whether it has discussed the solutions with the Mainland;
(h)	given that some members of the medical profession in Hong Kong have reflected that there are strict regulations and restrictions on the practice of medicine, setting up medical clinics or renting mainland medical facilities by Hong Kong private medical practitioners in mainland cities, whether it knows the details and whether it has discussed the solutions with the Mainland;
(i)	whether it knows the difficulties faced by Hong Kong pharmaceutical manufacturers in registration on the Mainland; if so, of the details and whether it has discussed the solutions with the Mainland;
(j)	given that some members of the insurance industry in Hong Kong have reflected that it is still difficult for Hong Kong insurance brokers to provide services in mainland cities at present, whether it knows the details and whether it has discussed the solutions with the Mainland;
(k)	whether it has assessed the progress of the mutual recognition of various professional qualifications between the Mainland and Hong Kong; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(l)	whether it has any plan to further lower the threshold to enter the mainland market and strengthen the mutual recognition of professional qualifications between the two places?

Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development

*19. Hon Paul TSE to ask: (Translation)

It has been reported that an organization in the name of "Hong Kong Society of Healthy Family" had been issued with 120 temporary hawker licences by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") within a year, and on various occasions sold goods in public places for fund-raising purpose nearby the MTR Ngau Tau Kok Station, but the funds raised were not put into donation boxes. It has also been reported that neither the Companies Registry nor the Business Registration Office has any information on this organization, no web page or means of contact of this organization can be found on the Internet, and the person-in-charge of this organization has also refused to disclose its financial report and address. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a)	whether it has investigated how the aforesaid organization handles the funds raised;
(b)	of the policies and measures (including verification of financial reports) in place to prevent charitable organizations selling goods in public places for fund-raising purpose from embezzling the funds raised and ensure that such funds are used for charitable purpose; whether there is any cooperation and coordination among government departments to prevent any organization from obtaining money fraudulently by false charity sales; and
(c)	of the number of temporary hawker licences issued to charitable organizations by FEHD in each of the past three years; and the criteria for vetting and approving the applications ?

Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Food and Health

*20. Hon Frederick FUNG to ask: (Translation)

The Chief Executive ("CE") undertook in mid-2010 that the Government would submit to the Legislative Council ("LegCo") legislative proposals on the abolition of the District Council ("DC") appointment system in autumn of the same year. Subsequently, the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs indicated that the local legislative arrangements regarding the CE and LegCo elections in 2012 should be dealt with first before addressing the issue of appointed DC members. In mid-September last year, without any consultation, the authorities announced that the number of DC members to be appointed in the fourth term of DCs in 2012 would be reduced by one-third, while the remaining appointed seats would be abolished over one term or two terms, and complete abolition would be no later than 2020. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a)	given that in reply to a question raised by a Member of this Council on 19 October last year, the authorities indicated that there were views in the community in support of the abolition of all appointed seats in one go while others believed that appointed seats should be abolished in phases, why the authorities decided that DC appointed seats be abolished in phases in the absence of any public consultation; of the justification for abolishing appointed seats in phases; why the authorities do not opt for the abolition of all appointed seats in one go;
(b)	why the authorities opt for reducing the number of DC appointed seats by means of reducing the number of appointed DC members instead of instituting legislative amendments; whether they have assessed if such arrangement will allow the Government of the next term to decide once again to appoint the full slate of the 102 DC members; if they have, of the assessment result; and
(c)	whether the authorities will submit legislative proposals in connection with the way forward for the remaining two-thirds of the appointed seats; if they will, of the timetable and specific details; whether the authorities will ultimately abolish the DC appointment system completely by means of legislative amendments, that is, repealing provisions in the District Council Ordinance (Cap. 547) which stipulate that CE may appoint a maximum of 102 persons as DC members?

Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs

* For written reply

III. Bills

First Reading

1.	Construction Industry Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2012
2.	Trade Descriptions (Unfair Trade Practices) (Amendment) Bill 2012
3.	Trade Descriptions (Amendment) Bill 2012
Second Reading (Debates to be adjourned)
1.	Construction Industry Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2012	:	Secretary for Development
2.	Trade Descriptions (Unfair Trade Practices) (Amendment) Bill 2012	:	Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development
3.	Trade Descriptions (Amendment) Bill 2012	:	Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development
Second Reading (Debate to resume), Committee Stage and Third Reading
Banking (Amendment) Bill 2011		:	Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury
Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury to move Committee stage amendments (The amendments were issued on 24 February 2012 under LC Paper No. CB(3)495/11-12)

IV. Motions

Proposed resolution under the Pharmacy and Poisons Ordinance

Secretary for Food and Health to move the following motion:

Resolved that the following Regulations, made by the Pharmacy and Poisons Board on 3 February 2012, be approved –

(a)	the Pharmacy and Poisons (Amendment) Regulation 2012; and
(b)	the Poisons List (Amendment) Regulation 2012.
(The two Regulations are in Appendices I and II and were also issued on 9 February 2012 under LC Paper No. CB(3)424/11-12)

Proposed resolution under the Criminal Procedure Ordinance and the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance

Secretary for Home Affairs to move the motion in Appendix III.

(The motion was also issued on 23 February 2012
under LC Paper No. CB(3)503/11-12)

V. Members' Motions

Proposed resolution under section 34(4) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance

Hon Mrs Sophie LEUNG to move the following motion:

Resolved that in relation to the Rating (Exemption) Order 2012, published in the Gazette as Legal Notice No. 14 of 2012, and laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 8 February 2012, 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 28 March 2012.
Motion under Rule 49E(2) of the Rules of Procedure

Hon Miriam LAU to move the following motion:

That this Council takes note of Report No. 13/11-12 of the House Committee laid on the Table of the Council on 29 February 2012 in relation to the subsidiary legislation and instrument(s) as listed below:

Item Number Title of Subsidiary Legislation or Instrument

(1) Places of Public Entertainment (Exemption) (Amendment) Order 2011 (L.N. 183/2011).

Public Officer to attend : Secretary for Home Affairs
Proposed resolution under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance

Hon Miriam LAU to move the following motion:

That this Council appoints a select committee for the purpose of studying Mr LEUNG Chun-ying's involvement as a member of the Jury in the West Kowloon Reclamation Concept Plan Competition, and related issues; and that in the performance of its duties the committee be authorized under section 9(2) of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap. 382) to exercise the powers conferred by section 9(1) of that Ordinance.

Public Officer to attend : Secretary for Home Affairs
Motion for the adjournment of the Council under Rule 16(2) of the Rules of Procedure

Hon Cyd HO to move the following motion: (Translation)

That this Council do now adjourn for the purpose of debating the following issue: the integrity and probity of the Chief Executive and his responsibility for upholding the fairness and impartiality of the next Chief Executive Election to be held on 25 March.

Public Officer to attend : Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs
Report of the Subcommittee to Study Issues Relating to the Power of the Legislative Council to Amend Subsidiary Legislation

Dr Hon Margaret NG to move the following motion:

That this Council notes the Report of the Subcommittee to Study Issues Relating to the Power of the Legislative Council to Amend Subsidiary Legislation.

Public Officer to attend : The Secretary for Justice

Expanding land resources

Hon CHEUNG Hok-ming to move the following motion: (Translation)

That the Government estimates that Hong Kong's population will reach 8.9 million in 2039, while the number of households will reach 3.1 million; in the Policy Address announced last year, the Chief Executive stated that the Government would innovate to expand land resources, so as to meet the demand of housing and economic development; recently, the authorities have also conducted consultation on the development of rock caverns and possible reclamation sites outside the Victoria Harbour; in this connection, this Council urges the Government to:

(a)	formulate a concrete policy and timetable for materializing the concept of land reserve, and build a land reserve under a sustainable development approach, so as to formulate long-term land planning and stabilize land supply;
(b)	innovate to encourage residential development projects on private lands, including studying allowing owners of private lands to participate in the land development of new development areas or new towns, appropriately relaxing the plot ratio for rural residential land, and enhancing the transparency of premium payment;
(c)	review the existing compensation mechanism for land resumption, so as to expedite the Government's pace of land resumption for building new towns or new development areas;
(d)	comprehensively look into the use of green belt areas and agricultural land in the New Territories which are devegetated, deserted or formed, thus no longer performing their original functions, and convert them into housing sites;
(e)	before finalizing any reclamation works project outside the Victoria Harbour, release as a mandatory requirement important information such as environmental impact and project costs, etc. for conducting intensive consultation with affected stakeholders, and make compensation in respect of affected fishermen and the ecological environment; and
(f)	expedite the construction of the Northern Link with a view to driving land development in the Northwest New Territories.

Amendments to the motion
(i)	Hon CHAN Hak-kan to move the following amendment: (Translation) To add ", given that" after "That"; to add ", and have materialized the opening of the Frontier Closed Area" after "sites outside the Victoria Harbour"; to delete "and" after "the ecological environment;"; and to add "; and (g) expedite the development of the Lok Ma Chau Loop and Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai Boundary Control Point, and formulate a concrete plan for developing the land of the former Frontier Closed Area, so as to optimize the use of 2400 hectares of land as released" immediately before the full stop.
(ii)	Hon LEE Wing-tat to move the following amendment: (Translation) To delete "the Government estimates that" after "That" and substitute with ", according to the projection of the Government,"; to delete "innovate" after "(b)" and substitute with "strengthen public participation through public consultation for perfecting the planning and design of new development areas or new towns, and study using innovative ideas"; to add "including allowing affected households to apply for purchasing Home Ownership Scheme flats without having to undergo income and asset tests," after "mechanism for land resumption,"; to delete "thus no longer performing their original functions, and convert them into housing sites" after "deserted or formed," and substitute with "regulate the use and development of the land in the New Territories, expeditiously include the land in the New Territories in the Outline Zoning Plan, and draw up a draft development permission area plan for the land adjacent to country parks, so as to actively combat 'destroy first, develop later' practices, restore the damaged natural environment to the original state, and convert the lands which no longer perform their original functions into housing, commercial, cultural and eco-tourism sites, etc."; to delete "release as a mandatory requirement" after "outside the Victoria Harbour," and substitute with "ensure as a mandatory requirement that such reclamation works projects will not cause serious impact on the nearby marine ecological environment and the development of nearby areas, and that the land use under the relevant development plans suits Hong Kong's long-term development and have the support of appropriate ancillary measures and social consensus, release"; to add "and adopt remedial measures" after "and make compensation"; and to delete "fishermen" after "respect of affected" and substitute with "people (including fishermen)".
(iii)	Hon Tanya CHAN to move the following amendment: (Translation) To add "the land in Hong Kong falls short of the demand in recent years, thereby directly driving up property prices, therefore a comprehensive land policy is very important to society;" after "That"; to add "strike an appropriate balance between development and conservation when formulating a land policy, and to" after "urges the Government to"; to add "(b) expeditiously include all lands within the territory of Hong Kong in statutory plans, so as to monitor the planned use of all lands and regulate the development of land resources; (c) comprehensively review the Town Planning Ordinance and the functions of the Town Planning Board, and strengthen the Town Planning Board's independence and effectiveness in monitoring, vetting and approving plans for developing land resources;" after "stabilize land supply;"; to delete the original "(b)" and substitute with "(d)"; to delete "including studying allowing owners of private lands to participate in the land development of new development areas or new towns, appropriately relaxing the plot ratio for rural residential land, and enhancing the transparency of premium payment" after "on private lands," and substitute with "and strengthen the support and co-ordination for property owners in old districts to participate in redeveloping old districts, and incorporate conservation elements such as historical buildings and local cultural features in the course of redeveloping old districts"; to delete the original "(c)" and substitute with "(e)"; to add "as well as the rehousing and removal arrangements for affected residents" after "mechanism for land resumption"; to delete "(d) comprehensively look into the use of green belt areas and agricultural land in the New Territories which are devegetated, deserted or formed, thus no longer performing their original functions, and convert them into housing sites;" after "new development areas;" and substitute with "(f) strengthen the enforcement of the Town Planning Ordinance and other relevant laws to prevent land owners from damaging the agricultural land and land in green belt areas and from developing residential sites by unlawful means, so as to ensure the lawful and sustainable development of land resources;"; to delete the original "(e)" and substitute with "(g)"; and to delete the original "(f)" and substitute with "(h)".
(iv)	Hon Albert CHAN to move the following amendment: (Translation) To delete "and" after "of land reserve," and substitute with "draw up an annual '10-year rolling mechanism for land supply' and regularly inject new lands to serve as reserve so as to ensure that Hong Kong can"; and to delete "so as to" after "sustainable development approach," and substitute with "and to".

Public Officer to attend : Secretary for Development

Clerk to the Legislative Council

Legislative Council

Agenda Wednesday 29 February 2012 at 11:00 am

Agenda

Wednesday 29 February 2012 at 11:00 am