A 12/13-7
Legislative Council
Agenda
Wednesday 14 November 2012 at 11:00 am
I. Tabling of Papers
| Subsidiary Legislation / Instruments | L.N. No. | |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Allowances to Jurors (Amendment) Order 2012 | 170/2012 |
| 2. | Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cemeteries) (Amendment of Fifth Schedule) Order 2012 | 171/2012 |
Other Papers
| 1. | No. 19 | - | Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation Annual Report 2011/12 Report of the Directors and Financial Statements 2011/12 |
| (to be presented by Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development) | |||
| 2. | No. 20 | - | Hong Kong Productivity Council Annual Report 2011-2012 |
| (to be presented by Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development) | |||
| 3. | No. 21 | - | Consumer Council Annual Report 2011-2012 |
| (to be presented by Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development) | |||
| 4. | No. 22 | - | Director of Social Welfare Incorporated Financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2012 |
| (to be presented by Secretary for Labour and Welfare) | |||
| 5. | No. 23 | - | Report of the Director of Audit on the Accounts of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region for the year ended 31 March 2012 |
| (to be presented by the President of the Legislative Council)
| |||
| 6. | No. 24 | - | Report No. 59 of the Director of Audit on the results of value for money audits - October 2012 |
| (to be presented by the President of the Legislative Council)
| |||
| 7. | No. 25 | - | Accounts of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region for the year ended 31 March 2012 |
| (to be presented by Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury)
| |||
| 8. | Report No. 3/12-13 of the House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments | ||
| (to be presented by Hon Andrew LEUNG, Chairman of the House Committee) | |||
II. Questions
1. Hon LEUNG Kwok-hung to ask: (Translation)
According to a survey report published by the "Alliance for Universal Pension" in September 2010, over 90% of the respondents urged the Government to expeditiously carry out comprehensive planning and public consultation on the establishment of a universal retirement protection system. On the other hand, the Secretary for Labour and Welfare has indicated earlier that a task force on social security and retirement protection under the soon-to-be re-established Poverty Commission will be set up and headed by the Chief Secretary for Administration to conduct in-depth studies on the issues concerned, and to examine proposals for enhancing the existing retirement protection system. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) how it will build consensus in the community regarding the implementation of a universal retirement protection system, and of the specific timetable for conducting public consultation; (b) when the aforesaid task force will be set up and of the roadmap of its work; and (c) regarding the enhancement of the existing retirement protection system, whether the authorities have considered implementing systems such as public trustee for Mandatory Provident Fund ("MPF"), public annuities and "MPF Full Portability", and considered such proposals as combining the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance payments for the elderly and the Old Age Allowance, and made projections of the sustainability of these proposals; if they have, of the estimated expenditure of various proposals; if not, the reasons for that?
| Public Officers to reply | : | Secretary for Labour and Welfare Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury |
2. Hon Mrs Regina IP to ask: (Translation)
At the meeting of this Council on 17 October, the Chief Executive stated the following policy direction of "addressing district issues at the district level and capitalising on local opportunities" so as to "gradually relax the Government's 'all-embracing' hand on district affairs". On the other hand, some members of the District Councils ("DC members") have reflected to me that at present members of the public have increasingly high expectation of DC members and seek assistance from DC members on various district issues, big or small. Thus, DC members have to work around the clock to serve the public. These DC members consider that an honorarium of $22,090 per month for a DC member fails to reflect the important role shouldered by DC members in district administration, and can hardly attract talents to become full-time DC members. Furthermore, the Operating Expenses Allowance of only $292,428 per year (or $24,369 per month) makes it difficult for DC members to recruit sufficient number of talents and talents of higher quality to be their assistants, thus affecting the quality of services provided to the public. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) given that the role, functions and composition of District Councils ("DCs") were last reviewed in 2006, and in view of the aforesaid policy direction stated by the Chief Executive, whether the authorities have plans to examine afresh its long-term stance of regarding the nature of work of DC members as a public service, as well as comprehensively review the nature of work and the remuneration package of DC members, so as to reflect their role in district administration and their status as representatives of public opinion; if they have, when the review will be conducted; (b) whether it has assessed the importance of DCs as a platform for nurturing political talents in addition to serving the public; and whether the authorities will increase the honorarium for DC members so that more talents who aspire to serve the community will become full-time DC members; and (c) whether it has assessed the importance of assistants to DC members in facilitating DC members' discharge of their duties; whether the authorities will increase the Operating Expenses Allowance for DC members to employ assistants to enable them to build higher quality teams to serve the public?
3. Hon Albert CHAN to ask: (Translation)
The exchange rate of Renminbi ("RMB") against Hong Kong Dollars ("HKD") has hit record high time and again in recent months and, at the same time, funds amounting to tens of billions of HKD have flowed into Hong Kong, causing the exchange rate of HKD against the United States ("US") Dollars ("USD") to touch the strong-side Convertibility Undertaking on several occasions. As such, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority injected funds to buy up USD by selling HKD a number of times, so as to maintain the linked exchange rate. Quite a number of people have pointed out that one of the major reasons for the inflow of funds is the Linked Exchange Rate ("LER") System which makes it impossible for HKD to appreciate, and the inflow of funds in turn is the major cause for the asset bubbles, nullifying the anti-property speculation administrative measures. They have therefore proposed that in view of the continuous appreciation of RMB and continuous depreciation of USD, the authorities should not maintain the LER System anymore but should allow HKD to appreciate. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the reasons for continuing to maintain the LER System at present; whether it has assessed the negative impact of maintaining such System on the economy of Hong Kong; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (b) whether measures are in place to alleviate the negative impact of the continuous price rises caused by the continuous depreciation of HKD against RMB on the economy of Hong Kong; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (c) whether it has assessed the impact of delinking HKD with USD on the economy of Hong Kong; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and whether the authorities will consider abolishing the LER System in the light of the current economic situation in Hong Kong; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
4. Dr Hon LAM Tai-fai to ask: (Translation)
The Government announced on the 26th of last month that it would amend the Stamp Duty Ordinance to increase the duty rates and extend the property-holding period in respect of the Special Stamp Duty, and introduce a Buyer's Stamp Duty ("BSD") equivalent to 15% of the property price payable by all companies and non-Hong Kong permanent residents acquiring residential properties. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council, before introducing the aforesaid measures, whether:
(a) it has consulted legal professionals or experts outside the Government on whether BSD should apply to residential properties acquired by buyers in the names of companies; if it has, of a detailed list of the names of such persons and their legal advice; if not, the reasons for that; (b) it has assessed the amount of capital that will flow to places outside Hong Kong for property investment because of the implementation of such measures by the Government; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (c) it has assessed the impact of such measures on the small and medium enterprises using residential properties as collateral to seek financing from banks; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
| Public Officers to reply | : | Secretary for Transport and Housing Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury |
5. Hon Ronny TONG to ask: (Translation)
Since the commencement of the Building Management (Amendment) Ordinance 2007 ("the Ordinance"), I have been receiving complaints from owners' corporations ("OCs") and owners, saying that the Ordinance could not help resolve disputes between the owners and OCs nor those between owners and property management companies. Moreover, they consider that the Home Affairs Department ("HAD") is unable to provide needed assistance to them. On the other hand, mediation service has been used by the Lands Tribunal ("LT") since 1 July 2009 as a standard practice for the disposal of building management cases in an efficient, expeditious and fair manner. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the total number of cases received in each of the past five years by HAD and its various District Offices from owners or members of OCs seeking assistance in issues concerning compliance with the Ordinance; the mediation work carried out by HAD on the disputes involved in these cases; the number of cases involving breaches of the Ordinance; and the number of cases in which legal proceedings have been instituted by the authorities as well as the respective issues involved in such cases; (b) as some members of the public have pointed out that there are inadequacies in the Ordinance, whether the Government has considered amending the relevant legislation; if it has, of the specific legislative timetable; if not, the reasons for that; and (c) of the financial and other resources currently allocated to the mediation service scheme under LT each year; whether it has assessed the results achieved by this scheme so far and compared them with the authorities' expectations; if there is a discrepancy between them, how the authorities will improve the scheme?
6. Dr Hon Priscilla LEUNG to ask: (Translation)
In the evening of 1 October this year, a vessel collision accident happened in the waters off the northwest of Lamma Island. As a result, a vessel of the Hongkong Electric Company Limited sank and 39 members of the public died, with many others injured. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether it has offered emergency financial assistance to the injured and the families of the deceased in the aforesaid maritime disaster; if so, of the amounts; if not, the reasons for that; whether it has formulated other initiatives of a longer term to help those victims of the accident who have financial difficulties; if so, of such initiatives; if not, the reasons for that; (b) of the number of applications received by the "Emergency Relief Fund" under the Social Welfare Department in the past three years, as well as the total amount of grants made and the respective types of disasters involved; whether the victims of the aforesaid maritime disaster are eligible to apply for the Emergency Relief Fund; if they are not, whether the authorities will consider exercising discretion in this case, in view of the heavy casualties in the maritime disaster; and (c) whether it will learn from the experience in handling the aftermath in the two fire incidents involving the hawker stalls at Fa Yuen Street and the aforesaid maritime disaster, and consider proactively establishing a standing emergency contingency fund in order to provide emergency financial assistance to victims when major natural or man-made disasters (including air disasters, maritime disasters and accidents of an extremely large scale) happen; if it will not, of the reasons for that?
*7. Hon CHAN Han-pan to ask: (Translation)
In recent years, some members of the public have proposed that the Government should vigorously develop Lantau Island so as to strengthen Hong Kong's connection and integration with the Pearl River Delta ("PRD") region. On the other hand, some people have repeatedly urged the Government for years to open up the SkyPier at the Hong Kong International Airport for providing cross-boundary ferry services to non-transit passengers. Although the Government had told this Council's Panel on Economic Development in 2007 that it would consider the proposal, it later indicated that a review on whether there was such a need should be conducted after the commissioning of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge ("HZMB"). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether it knows the current annual maximum passenger handling capacity and the actual patronage of the SkyPier; (b) whether it knows the annual increase in patronage of the SkyPier since the completion of the construction of SkyPier's permanent pier; whether it has assessed if the increase in patronage is satisfactory and the reasons for that; whether the Government will conduct an in-depth study on the growth in the patronage of the pier; (c) whether the authorities will consider afresh opening up the SkyPier for cross-boundary services so as to strengthen Hong Kong's connection with the PRD region; if they will, whether they will consider providing cross-boundary ferry services other than those to and from Zhuhai and Macao, so as to avoid affecting the utilization of HZMB upon its completion; and (d) whether the authorities will consider expeditiously conducting a comprehensive review on the development plan of Lantau Island, so as to ensure that the development of Hong Kong's south-western areas will tie in with the rapid development of the PRD region?
*8. Dr Hon Helena WONG to ask: (Translation)
It has been reported that a supermarket was recently found to have dumped food which was still edible in the refuse room after it closed at night. Moreover, a Member of this Council asked a question on 27 June 2012, enquiring whether the Government had made reference to the relevant legislation on food donation in overseas places to formulate exemption clauses for food donors. However, the Government did not respond to that question. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether it knows the quantity of edible food dumped by supermarkets in each of the past five years, with a breakdown by the names of the supermarkets; (b) of the reasons why it did not respond to the above-mentioned question; whether the Government has made reference to relevant legislation on food donation in overseas places to formulate legislation with exemption clauses for food donors (e.g. excluding the liability of the donors in case the beneficiaries feel sick after consuming the food), so as to encourage food donation; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; of the measures taken to encourage more supermarkets to implement a regular food donation mechanism, and to help beneficiary organizations to collect and handle the food; (c) whether it knows the details about those major local chain supermarkets which regularly donate edible food to people in need, including the names and number of those supermarkets, and the names and number of those beneficiary organizations, the quantity of food and the modes of operations of the donation programmes; of the details about those supermarkets which are currently discussing food donation with people in need, and the implementation timetables of their donation programmes; (d) given that, in its reply to the above mentioned question, the Government had indicated that "The Environment Bureau (ENB) has also particularly contacted the major chain supermarkets urged the supermarket trade to review its practice of handling individual types of food wish that the supermarkets can actively consider collaborating with non-profit-making organizations in different areas. ENB is willing to line up with suitable organization to facilitate such collaboration", of the names of the supermarkets which the authorities have contacted so far; whether it knows if those supermarkets continue to dump edible food; if so, of the follow-up actions taken by the authorities; whether the authorities have taken the initiatives to contact non-profit-making organizations in need to understand these organizations' modes of operations, so as to promote collaboration between supermarkets and non-profit-making organizations; and (e) whether the Government has considered providing tax concessions to food donors, prohibiting the disposal of edible food in landfills or imposing special levies for such disposal; if it has, of the details and work progress?
*9. Dr Hon Fernando CHEUNG to ask: (Translation)
The Office of The Ombudsman, Hong Kong pointed out in its direct investigation report published on 29 October 2009 that problems were found in areas such as the eligibility criteria for Disability Allowance ("DA"), the role of the Social Welfare Department ("SWD") in the DA scheme, as well as SWD's appeal procedures, etc. The Office also made certain recommendations accordingly. Responding to the report on the same day, SWD indicated that it would form a cross-departmental working group with the Labour and Welfare Bureau, the Hospital Authority and the Department of Health to conduct a comprehensive review of the implementation details of the DA scheme, which was expected to be completed within six to nine months. Nevertheless, the outcome and specific recommendations of the review have not been announced so far. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the operation of the aforesaid working group, including when it was formed, the names and post titles of its members, the name of its chairman/convenor, its functions, the number of meetings held so far, ways by which the views of stakeholders (in particular the views of DA recipients and their families) were gathered, its work schedule, the reasons why the review outcome has not yet been announced, as well as when it will complete the review and announce the outcome; (b) whether it has examined or revised the current eligibility criteria, including whether a new definition has been formulated for "severely disabled"; whether it has reviewed how far the current levels of DA help the recipients "meet special needs arising from severe disability", and whether the policy objectives can be achieved; and (c) whether it has considered developing an electronic platform for vetting and approving DA applications to replace the existing mode of processing applications by circulating paper documents, so as to allow officers to exchange information and process applications via the electronic platform; if it has, of the timetable and options for developing the platform; if not, the reasons for that?
*10. Dr Hon LEUNG Ka-lau to ask: (Translation)
The Government of the last term advocated the development of the "medical services industry" and recommended the implementation of a voluntary "Health Protection Scheme" ("HPS") to enable more members of the public to access private healthcare, thereby relieving the pressure on the public healthcare system. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether it knows the total number of hospital beds, bed occupancy rate, number of discharges and deaths, as well as number of patient days in private hospitals in each of the past 10 years, setting out the information according to the table below; and
Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total number of hospital beds Bed occupancy rate Number of discharges and deaths Number of patient days
(b) whether the incumbent Government has modified the policies on the medical services industry and the voluntary HPS; if so, of the details; if not, the latest timetable for taking forward the two policies?
*11. Dr Hon KWOK Ka-ki to ask: (Translation)
According to media reports on 8 and 9 October this year, there were suspected unauthorized developments of tourist attractions and camp sites at Shui Hau Wan on Lantau Island. After the slope in the vicinity of Shui Hau Wan was leveled and the trees on which were cleared, the area was paved with concrete and connected to sewers, and a greenhouse was being built. Besides, a number of caravans used in foreign countries for travelling were also parked at the scene. It has also been reported that the problem of unauthorized developments has become increasingly serious in recent years, and in most cases, it was only after the media, local communities or environmental groups had uncovered such developments did the authorities deploy staff to carry out inspections and require the persons concerned to restore the land to the original condition, but it was difficult to restore the ecological environment of the land concerned to the original condition as it has already been damaged. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) given that according to the approved South Lantau Coast Outline Zoning Plan, the entire area of Shui Hau Wan has been included in the "Coastal Protection Area" ("CPA"), and planning permission granted by the Town Planning Board ("TPB") is required for the development of holiday camp facilities and utility installation for private projects at CPAs, whether TPB has received such applications; if it has, of the outcome of such applications; if not, what follow-up actions the authorities will take and the details concerned; (b) of the number of cases of unauthorized developments that came to the authorities' attention in the past five years, broken down by the means through which the authorities had learnt of such cases (including complaints from the public, inspections, media reports and others); the respective numbers of cases in which the authorities took law enforcement actions and the people involved were convicted; the number of cases of failure in restoring the ecological environment to the original condition, the locations of the land concerned and the reasons why the land cannot be restored to the original condition; and list the figures in the table below; and
Year No. of cases of unauthorized
developments of which the authorities
had learnt through the following meansNo. of cases in which law enforcement actions were taken No. of cases in which the people involved were convicted No. of cases of failure in restoring the ecological environment to the original condition Complaints from the public media reports inspections others 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
(c) whether the Government will introduce new measures to combat unauthorized developments; if it will, of the details?
*12. Hon Andrew LEUNG to ask: (Translation)
It has been reported that while traffic accidents involving cargo compartments (commonly known as "skips") placed on roadsides in urban areas happened frequently in recent years, the Police have been unable to take law enforcement actions against the skips placed on streets. In an accident that occurred last month on Harcourt Road in Wan Chai, a taxi crashed fiercely into a skip at the road bend probably due to failure to slow down in time, causing serious damage to the front part of the vehicle and injuries to one passenger. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) how the authorities currently regulate the placing of skips (including whether advance application is required), which government departments are responsible for taking law enforcement actions, and how they handle skips which are indiscriminately placed on roadsides; (b) of the number of complaints about skips received by the authorities last year, together with the number of traffic accidents involving skips and the resultant casualties; and (c) given that under section 4A of the Summary Offences Ordinance (Cap. 228), if any skips obstruct, inconvenience or endanger any person or vehicle in a public place, the law enforcement agency may take action against the persons responsible for placing such skips, of the number of prosecutions instituted by the authorities under this section in each of the past three years?
*13. Hon Tony TSE to ask: (Translation)
It has been reported that a number of incidents of window panes in residential flats cracking and falling off occurred in Hong Kong in recent years. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the number of relevant reports received by the government departments concerned in the past three years; the details of each case, including the name and type (i.e. private or public) of the housing estate, the name of the construction contractor of the building, the size of the cracked and fallen window pane and the reason why it fell off, together with the resultant casualties; (b) whether it has any plans to assess the safety of window panes in residential flats, put forward improvement proposals and implement focused measures; if not, of the reasons for that; (c) apart from implementing the Mandatory Window Inspection Scheme, how the authorities monitor the materials and safety of window panes in residential flats; whether they have assessed if there is adequate legislation regulating such matters; if the assessment result is in the affirmative, of the provisions and their enactment dates, and whether the authorities have any plans to conduct a comprehensive review of such provisions; (d) whether it will consider introducing legislation to prohibit the use of certain types of window panes under specified circumstances (e.g. in flats above a certain storey level); if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (e) whether the authorities have made reference to and studied the relevant overseas experience and practices, with a view to further enhancing the safety of window panes in residential flats; if they have, of the details; if not, whether they will allocate resources to conduct such research studies in the future; if they will, of the relevant timetable?
*14. Dr Hon CHIANG Lai-wan to ask: (Translation)
Some ethnic minorities have relayed to me that the number of ethnic minority ("EM") students has been increasing in recent years, and such students include both school children and young people born and bred in Hong Kong, as well as those who have resettled in Hong Kong. Such ethnic minorities have also indicated that due to differences in cultural and family background, EM students encounter great difficulties in learning the Chinese language, and they are often unable to be admitted to mainstream secondary schools and universities, and as a result, both their future studies and employment are affected. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the current number of school-age ethnic minorities in Hong Kong, with a breakdown by (i) whether they were born and bred in Hong Kong or have resettled in Hong Kong, and (ii) whether they are currently studying in mainstream or non-mainstream primary and secondary schools; (b) of the support currently provided to EM students by mainstream schools; whether the Government will consider allocating more resources to enhance the support for EM students in learning the Chinese language after school, and also consider afresh developing a Chinese language curriculum specifically designed for the ethnic minorities, in order to enable them to learn the Chinese language more easily; (c) whether it will provide funding to schools for employing an additional number of qualified EM teachers, teaching assistants or janitors, who will also perform translation work, so as to help EM students at school and improve their learning conditions; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (d) of the measures currently in place to help EM young people to pursue continuing education and employment, especially those who can read, speak, write and listen to Chinese but are not able to attain a pass in the Chinese language subject in school examinations and public examinations?
*15. Hon Emily LAU to ask: (Translation)
It has been reported recently that an unauthorized structure in the form of a fabric canvas covering 3 000 square feet was erected on the garden terrace of Harbour Plaza Metropolis in Hung Hom for hosting wedding banquets and conferences. In this connection, will the Executive Authorities inform this Council:
(a) whether they have investigated the aforesaid incident of suspected unauthorized structure; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (b) of the details (including the dates, locations, names of the buildings where the unauthorized structures were located, the statutory provisions contravened by the persons convicted, as well as the penalties imposed on such persons) of the cases handled by the authorities in the past three years which involved unauthorized structures in the form of outdoor canvases; (c) of the details (including the dates, locations, names of the buildings where the unauthorized structures were located and the reasons for not dealing with such cases) of the cases in respect of which complaints involving unauthorized structures in the form of outdoor canvases were received but not dealt with by the authorities in the past three years; and (d) of the measures adopted to prevent recurrence of such kind of incidents of unauthorized structures?
*16. Hon WU Chi-wai to ask: (Translation)
As the number of people waiting for public rental housing ("PRH") continues to increase in recent years, the Hong Kong Housing Authority ("HA") launched the Refined Policy on Redevelopment of Aged Public Rental Housing Estates ("Refined Policy") last year to increase the supply of PRH units and decided that Pat Tin Estate would be redeveloped under the Refined Policy. Moreover, the Chief Executive has also undertaken in his manifesto that he will "redevelop old public housing estates with outdated facilities or low plot ratios but possessing redevelopment potentials". The former Secretary for Development also indicated early this year that consideration would be given, when necessary, to allocate more sites on the Application List which remained idle for a long time for PRH or Home Ownership Scheme ("HOS") housing development. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the details of each PRH estate completed over 30 years ago, including the age of the buildings, existing plot ratio and maximum height, the approved plot ratio and statutory height restriction of the site concerned, as well as the average maintenance cost for each unit; (b) as the authorities indicated in May this year that they were conducting redevelopment studies on six aged housing estates, of the names of those six housing estates and progress of the studies; of the expected time for completion of the studies and commencement of redevelopment works; as land supply is insufficient, whether HA will expeditiously conduct studies on more redevelopment projects or expand the scope of the existing studies; if it will, of the details; (c) given that when the Government launched in the 1990s a large-scale comprehensive redevelopment programme for PRH, it adopted a redevelopment schedule based on a five-year rolling programme in order to take forward the redevelopment programme smoothly and orderly, whether the Government will re-launch a similar programme; (d) as some members of the public have pointed out that the launching of the redevelopment of Pak Tin Estate shortly after completion of the improvement works in the Estate is a waste of resources, whether the Government will lay down objective indicators (e.g. age of the buildings) for the Refined Policy for deciding whether redevelopment studies on individual estates should be initiated, with a view to enhancing transparency of the decision-making process; (e) as land supply is insufficient at present, whether the Government has any new measures to increase the supply of PRH units; if it has, of the details; (f) of the total number of sites on the Application List which had been allocated for constructing PRH or HOS housing in each of the past three years, together with a list of the time when each site was allocated for such development, whether the site was allocated for developing PRH or HOS housing, the permissible gross floor area and the number of units to be built; in view of the shortage of PRH sites at present, whether the Government has studied the allocation of more sites on the Application List for PRH or HOS housing development; if it has, of the progress of the study; (g) as the Government indicated in April 2011 that a number of PRH construction projects needed to be re-submitted to District Councils for consultation due to objection from local communities, of the present status of such projects; of the PRH supply in each of the coming five years according to the Government's latest estimation, and how those figures compare to those submitted by the Government to the Panel on Housing of this Council in July 2011; (h) as the Government indicated last year that studies were being conducted on a number of sites for medium-to-long-term housing use, among which the preliminary targets for the supply of PRH units for the Development of Anderson Road Quarry and the North East New Territories New Development Areas projects had been set, of the latest estimated supply of PRH units under these projects; and (i) apart from the aforesaid proposed long-term projects and projects which have already commenced, of the number of finalized PRH and HOS projects to be launched by HA in the next three years together with the project details, including their locations, numbers of units and dates of commencement of works?
*17. Hon LEUNG Che-cheung to ask: (Translation)
Villagers from the Tai Kong Po Tsuen in Yuen Long have told me that the Tai Kong Po section of Kam Tin River ("Tai Kong Po section") has been polluted and emitting stenches since 2004, which is caused by frequent illegal discharge of sewage and livestock waste into the stream at nighttime, seriously affecting the environmental hygiene of the area. Although villagers have been relaying the situation to and lodging complaints with the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD"), Drainage Services Department ("DSD") and Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department over the past eight years, the situation has not improved so far. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the number of complaints received about illegal discharge in the Tai Kong Po section, the number of nighttime inspections conducted, as well as the number and details of prosecutions instituted by the Environmental Protection Department ("EPD"), in the past five years; whether EPD will step up its prosecution efforts; (b) of the number of times and the dates on which DSD carried out stream cleaning work at the Tai Kong Po section in the past five years; whether DSD will clean the stream more frequently; (c) as some villagers have pointed out that DSD has wrongly paved the river bed of the Tai Kong Po section with marbles, which makes pollutants easily accumulate, whether a similar pollution problem has been found in streams with the same design; whether DSD will consider carrying out improvement works for the Tai Kong Po section; (d) whether the government departments concerned have set any standard on the water quality of the Tai Kong Po section; if they have, of the measures to be taken to achieve such standard, and whether a timetable for achieving such standard has been drawn up; if such standard and timetable have not been set, of the reasons for that; and (e) as FEHD has stated in its written reply to the villagers of Tai Kong Po Tsuen that FEHD officers inspected the stream facing 361 Tai Kong Po Tsuen on 21 March 2011 "without finding any hygiene nuisance or mosquitoes breeding problem there", while DSD has stated in its written reply that DSD officers inspected the same location on the 23rd of the same month and "found that the stream concerned was polluted by livestock waste", whether it has examined why there is such a discrepancy in the outcome of the inspections conducted by officers of these two government departments on the same location within two days, and whether there was dereliction of duty on the part of any officers of the government departments concerned?
*18. Hon Christopher CHUNG to ask: (Translation)
I have recently received requests for assistance from quite a number of licensed fixed pitch hawkers in Hong Kong East. These hawkers allege that individual members of the Hawker Control Teams ("HCT") of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") not only have very poor attitude during law enforcement, but they also take actions with inconsistent standards, targeting their actions at some hawkers while letting other hawkers get away. As a result, conflicts between the hawkers and HCT members happen from time to time. When there are such conflicts, the hawkers involved often have no way to seek redress of their grievances due to the lack of a third party as the witness. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the number of complaints received by the authorities in the past three years about HCT members being alleged of corruption, the number of cases among these complaints which had been referred to the Independent Commission Against Corruption for follow-up, and the number of convictions; (b) whether the Environmental Hygiene Branch of FEHD has a mechanism in place to monitor HCT members' law enforcement actions (such as deploying plain-clothed management staff to secretly monitor if individual hawkers have been targeted at) so as to ensure that HCT members take law enforcement actions impartially; (c) whether FEHD has provided regular training for HCT members to ensure their service quality and good attitude; (d) as FEHD indicated earlier in a document on the outcome of a public consultation that it had exercised flexibility to allow hawkers to display their goods outside the approved stall areas during business hours, whether the authorities had instituted prosecutions against any hawkers for placing their goods outside the boundaries of their pitches last year; if so; of the number of hawkers prosecuted; and (e) whether FEHD will improve its hawker management policy to enhance the business environment of hawkers of open-air stalls?
*19. Hon Kenneth LEUNG to ask:
The current ad valorem stamp duty ("SD") on property transactions in Hong Kong ranges from HK$100 to 4.25% of the stated consideration or the market value of the property (whichever is higher) ("value of transaction"). For residential property acquired on or after 20 November 2010 and disposed of within 24 months ("holding period"), Special Stamp Duty ("SSD") at a rate from 15% to 5% of the value of transaction is also payable on top of SD. On 26 October, the Government announced that it would increase the SSD rates and extend the holding period. Some members of the public have pointed out to me that SD and SSD could be evaded by effecting property transactions through transfer of shares in offshore companies holding the properties as change in ownership of such companies could not be traced. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether it has tolerated the tax evasion arrangement for years; if so, of the reasons for that; (b) of the estimated amounts of SD and SSD foregone in the past five financial years as a result of the tax evasion arrangement; and (c) whether the Government has any plan to crack down on the tax evasion arrangement by amending the Stamp Duty Ordinance (Cap. 117); if not, of the reasons for that?
*20. Hon CHAN Hak-kan to ask: (Translation)
It has been reported that a company providing hospice service for pets was entrusted by its clients to cremate their pets but it eventually sent the carcasses direct to the Animal Carcass Collection Points ("Collection Points") under the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD"), arousing concern among animal lovers. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the channels through which pet owners or relevant organizations (e.g. pet clinics or companies providing hospice service for pets) may dispose of the carcasses of pets at present; (b) of the total number of animal carcasses collected by FEHD's Collection Points in the past three years and where such carcasses came from, with a breakdown by the types of animals; (c) of the handling procedures to be adopted and the hygiene requirements to be met by the public before sending the carcasses of pets to FEHD's Collection Points; whether they will be subject to any penalties if they dispose of the carcasses of pets at the Collection Points without complying with such procedures or requirements; if yes, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (d) whether the authorities or the Consumer Council had received any complaints relating to hospice service for pets in the past three years; if yes, of the details, and how they followed up such complaints; and (e) of the laws currently in place to regulate hospice service for pets; if there is no regulation, whether the authorities will consider formulating any guidelines or regulating it through licensing; if yes, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
* For written reply