A 13/14-18
Legislative Council
Agenda
Wednesday 19 February 2014 at 11:00 am
I. Tabling of Papers
Other Papers
| 1. | No. 74 | - | Education Scholarships Fund
Trustee's Report on the Administration of the Fund and Financial Statements for the year ended 31 August 2013 |
| (to be presented by Secretary for Education)
| |||
| 2. | No. 75 | - | Vocational Training Council
Annual Report and Financial Report 2012/2013 |
| (to be presented by Secretary for Education)
| |||
| 3. | No. 76 | - | The Government Minute in response to the Report of the Public Accounts Committee No. 60A of November 2013 |
| (to be presented by the Chief Secretary for Administration, who will address the Council)
| |||
| 4. | Report No. 11/13-14 of the House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments | ||
| (to be presented by Hon Andrew LEUNG, Chairman of the House Committee)
| |||
| 5. | Report of the Bills Committee on Stamp Duty (Amendment) Bill 2012 | ||
| (to be presented by Hon Starry LEE, Chairman of the Bills Committee) | |||
II. Questions
1. Hon Dennis KWOK to ask: (Translation)
Article 22(3) of the Basic Law stipulates that "[a]ll offices set up in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region by departments of the Central Government, or by provinces, autonomous regions, or municipalities directly under the Central Government, and the personnel of these offices shall abide by the laws of the Region". Moreover, Article 63 of the Basic Law stipulates that "[t]he Department of Justice of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall control criminal prosecutions, free from any interference". In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has studied if the personnel of the offices set up in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region by departments of the Central Government ("CG offices in Hong Kong") who have committed the following acts have breached the laws of Hong Kong: (i) offering any advantage as defined under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance ("POBO") to any public servant as an inducement to or reward for the public servant's performing or abstaining from performing any act in his capacity as a public servant, and (ii) soliciting or accepting any such advantage as an inducement to or reward for their performing or abstaining from performing any act in relation to the affairs or business of their offices; if it has studied, of the results; (2) whether it has studied if "advantage" as defined in POBO includes (i) the appointment of a person to an official position on the Mainland (e.g. a deputy to the National People's Congress or a member of the National Committee or a Local Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference), and (ii) an undertaking or act to provide assistance to a person for his appointment to an official position on the Mainland; if it has studied, of the results; and (3) whether it has reviewed if the existing legislation is adequate for imposing criminal sanctions on those who have committed the following acts: public servants soliciting or accepting deferred benefits (such as post-service appointment to an official position on the Mainland) and those personnel of CG offices in Hong Kong offering such deferred benefits to public servants; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
2. Hon CHAN Yuen-han to ask: (Translation)
In the past decade or so, quite a number of local cultural and arts workers have rented industrial building units for use as studios. On the other hand, the Government announced in 2009 a set of revitalization measures to facilitate the redevelopment and wholesale conversion of old industrial buildings ("revitalization measures"), which have been implemented since April 2010. The results of the "Survey on the Current Status of Industrial Buildings for Arts Activities and Future Demand" released by the Hong Kong Arts Development Council in 2010 indicated that the revitalization measures had activated the transactions of industrial building units, posing problems such as increase of rentals and termination of tenancies to quite a number of cultural and arts workers who had set up studios in industrial buildings, and that situation was most acute in Kowloon East. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has conducted any survey on the number of tenants, vacancy rate and average rental of industrial building units in each year since the Government announced the implementation of the revitalization measures in 2009; of the measures taken by the authorities to assist those cultural and arts workers affected by the revitalization measures in coping with problems such as increase of rentals and termination of tenancies; (2) whether it has conducted any survey on the number of studios set up by cultural and arts workers in industrial building units in Kowloon East, and the average percentage of the rental expenses against the total income of such studios, in each year since 2008; whether the authorities contacted the cultural and arts workers affected by the revitalization measures and conducted related studies in the past three years, so as to understand their difficulties and needs; if they did, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (3) whether it will conduct a comprehensive survey on the current uses of industrial building units in Kowloon East as well as those throughout Hong Kong, including the businesses of the tenants, the uses of the units, etc.; if it will, of the timetable; if not, the reasons for that; whether it will conduct a review of the impact of the revitalization measures on the cultural and arts workers, with a view to formulating development plans and policies for industrial areas which can better meet the actual needs of the stakeholders?
3. Hon Christopher CHUNG to ask: (Translation)
The Development Bureau announced in June last year that a site of an area of merely 476 square metres at the junction of Oi Tak Street and Oi Kan Road in Shau Kei Wan ("Oi Tak Street site") would be included in the land sales programme of the current financial year. The site will be put up for sale by open tender on the 21st of this month for private residential development. Some residents in the district strongly oppose such an arrangement, pointing out that the "diminutive" waterfront site provides a maximum permissible gross floor area of merely 4 287 square metres, and that the new building, which will be very close to Tung To Court and Oi Po House of Oi Tung Estate, will obstruct natural lighting and ventilation of inland buildings. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether, before offering the aforesaid site for sale by tender, the authorities have studied the impact of the new building on the ventilation in the area, access to natural light by the lower-floor units of the buildings nearby and the property prices of the neighbouring estates, and the issue of the area of that site being possibly further reduced due to a 12-metre-diameter underground sewer discharging to the sea; if they have conducted such a study, and the outcome shows that the new building will not impact on the surrounding environment, of the justifications and data; if not, how the authorities know whether the plan has any impact on the residents in the vicinity; (2) given that, in the consultation document issued in September last year, the Long Term Housing Strategy Steering Committee suggested building single-block public rental housing buildings dedicated for singletons, but it has been reported that some Members of this Council, District Council members and members of the public oppose to constructing buildings by making use of every single space, and the consultation report will be released in the first quarter of this year, why the authorities have decided to offer the Oi Tak Street site for sale by tender on the 21st of this month without waiting for the release of the report; whether it has assessed if the authorities have fully considered public views in making the decision to call for tenders; if it has assessed, of the outcome; and (3) as I have learnt that, before proceeding with reclamation at the location of the aforesaid site and in its vicinity in 1999, the Government had made an undertaking to the Eastern District Council that the reclaimed land would be used only for providing subsidized housing and community facilities rather than developing private housing, whether the Government has assessed if it has reneged on its undertaking by putting up the Oi Tak Street site for sale for private residential development?
4. Hon CHUNG Kwok-pan to ask: (Translation)
According to the Standard Employment Contract ("contract") for employing foreign domestic helpers ("FDHs"), employers have to provide their FDHs with free passage from Hong Kong to their places of origin on termination or completion of the contracts. Some employers of FDHs have relayed to me that some intermediaries for FDHs ("intermediaries") and FDHs have seized the opportunity and collaboratively abused the arrangement for premature termination of contracts and change of employers (commonly known as "job-hopping"). They have employed various tactics to make the employers initiate contract termination with their FDHs so that the FDHs may receive the money for the passage and the intermediaries may charge new employers for placement service. However, instead of returning to their places of origin, such FDHs have departed for Macao, Shenzhen or other neighbouring places and then re-entered Hong Kong to work. Given that job-hopping by FDHs causes psychological and financial damages to the employers and that the problem has become increasingly serious, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether the authorities will consider not issuing new employment visas to FDHs who have had more than two employment contracts terminated prematurely within the 12 months prior to their visa applications; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (2) whether it will review and amend the Immigration Ordinance to strictly require FDHs to return directly to their places of origin within 14 days upon premature termination or completion of their contracts with the employers, and to permit employers to monitor if the FDHs have actually left Hong Kong; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (3) whether it will consider, upon the request of a prospective employer of an FDH and with the consent of the FDH concerned, providing the prospective employer with the information kept by the Immigration Department on that FDH's employment history in Hong Kong (including the places of work and duration as well as the reasons for leaving, etc. in respect of each of the previous contracts) for reference so as to combat job-hopping by FDHs and prevent prospective employers from falling into the traps of job-hopping FDHs, in order to enhance the protection for employers; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
| Public Officers to reply | : | Secretary for Security
Secretary for Labour and Welfare |
5. Hon WONG Kwok-hing to ask: (Translation)
It is learnt that quite a number of taxi drivers offering discounts on taxi fares (commonly known as "the discount gangs") place several smart phones on the dashboards of their taxis to facilitate communication with passengers who need taxi-call service. Such taxi drivers use mobile phones by touching or sweeping the screens of their mobile phones with their fingertips ("operating mobile phones with fingertips") while driving. Many members of the taxi trade and passengers have expressed concern that as it is easy for the driver to get distracted under such circumstances, traffic accidents are prone to occur, posing danger to taxi passengers and other road users. The Road Traffic (Traffic Control) Regulations, however, only prohibit drivers from using a mobile phone by holding it in their hands or between their heads and shoulders while driving, but not from operating mobile phones with fingertips while driving. Nor is there any restriction on the number of mobile phones which may be placed by a driver on the dashboard of a vehicle. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective numbers of taxi drivers prosecuted in the past three months for offering fare discounts to passengers and for using mobile phones while driving; (2) in each of the past five years, of the number of taxi drivers who were convicted within the same year for using mobile phones while driving and offering fare discounts to passengers, the number of traffic accidents involving taxis which occurred when their drivers were using mobile phones, and whether police officers were deployed to disguise as customers (commonly known as "undercover operations") for taking law enforcement actions against discount gangs; if so, of the number of taxi drivers arrested during undercover operations; and (3) whether the authorities stepped up law enforcement actions in the past three months against taxi drivers placing several mobile phones on the dashboard, and of the number of such taxi drivers prosecuted for careless driving; whether the authorities will consider amending the legislation to stipulate the maximum permitted numbers of mobile phones to be placed on the dashboard and used by the driver, so as to enable police officers, members of the taxi trade and other drivers to act in accordance with the law; if they will, of the legislative timetable (including consultation with the taxi trade)?
6. Hon LEUNG Che-cheung to ask: (Translation)
It has been reported that the prices of Aquilaria sinensis ("incense trees"), an endangered species, and the resin secreted by them have been rising incessantly in recent years, resulting in many cases of illegal felling and theft of incense trees in Hong Kong. For instance, more than a hundred incense trees at Pak Ngan Heung, Lantau have all been felled in the past few years. It is learnt that lawbreakers first make cuts on the trunks of incense trees to stimulate secretion of resin and then return to collect the resin and fell the trees for profit. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of incense trees illegally felled in the past five years; if such figure is not available, of the reasons for that; while the Government has indicated that a territory-wide survey for incense trees is neither practicable nor useful, whether the authorities will consider afresh collecting such data to facilitate formulation of a policy for better protection of incense trees; (2) of the number of persons arrested for illegal felling of incense trees in the past five years and the highest penalty imposed on the convicted persons; whether the Government will increase the penalty for illegal felling of trees so as to enhance the deterrent effect; as cases of illegal felling of incense trees happen time and again, whether the authorities have reviewed the effectiveness of the relevant protection measures; whether it has made reference to the measures taken, legislation enacted, and penalties imposed by overseas authorities for curbing similar cases; if it has, of the details; and (3) whether it has considered restoring the damaged habitats of incense trees, including the planting of incense tree seedlings; if it has not, of the reasons for that?
*7. Hon Steven HO to ask: (Translation)
It is reported that tens of American soldiers who participated in the earthquake relief efforts in Fukushima Prefecture in 2011 have collectively filed a lawsuit against the Tokyo Electric Power Company for concealing the truth about the serious leakage of nuclear radiation from a nuclear power plant there, which resulted in their developing cancers due to drinking and exposure to radiation-contaminated water. Moreover, the Japanese Government has recently found that in Fukushima Prefecture, a number of children have developed thyroid cancer, and the underground water has been contaminated by nuclear radiation. Members of the public are therefore worried that radiation-contaminated Japanese food products may be imported into Hong Kong. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the types, quantities, values and origins of the Japanese food products imported into Hong Kong in the past three years, as well as the respective percentages of the volumes of such food products imported in the total consumption of the same types of food products in Hong Kong; whether the authorities have assessed the impacts of a complete ban on Japanese food imports on local food supply should this be necessary due to radiation contamination problems, and whether they have formulated any contingency plan, including implementing measures to help the trade source food products from other regions; (2) whether it will liaise with the Japanese authorities to find out if there is any correlation between the aforesaid children's cancers and the consumption of radiation-contaminated food; whether it will review immediately the adequacy of the equipment and manpower in Hong Kong for monitoring the radiation level of food products, step up radiation testing on Japanese food imports and study if it is necessary to extend the restrictions on the import of Japanese food products into Hong Kong; and (3) whether it has plans to set up a food safety notification mechanism with the Japanese authorities to enhance the exchange of information, and stipulate under the mechanism that once excessive radioactive materials have been detected in food products or water sources for food production, or when it is suspected that any local resident has fallen ill due to the consumption of radiation-contaminated food, the Japanese authorities must notify the Centre for Food Safety ("CFS") in Hong Kong immediately and forward to it the testing results concerned; if not, of the reasons for that?
*8. Hon Tommy CHEUNG to ask: (Translation)
To prevent and control human infections of avian influenza A (H7N9), the authorities conduct tests at the Man Kam To Animal Inspection Station ("MKT") for H7 avian influenza ("AI") on samples taken from live chickens imported from the Mainland, and allow these live chickens to be delivered to the Cheung Sha Wan Temporary Wholesale Poultry Market ("Market") while waiting for the test results. On the 27th of last month, H7 AI viruses were found in the samples from a batch of live chickens imported from the Mainland. The authorities therefore culled more than 20 000 live chickens in the Market, including local live chickens. In addition, the Market had to be closed for 21 days and trading of both imported mainland live chickens and local live chickens had to be suspended during the period, causing tremendous economic losses to the local poultry industry. I have received complaints from members of the local poultry industry, saying that the authorities should not so readily resort to banning the sale of live chickens, which would nullify all their efforts over the years in strengthening preventive measures against AI. Instead, the authorities should step up measures for the segregation of live poultry imported from the Mainland from those supplied locally, as well as for infection prevention. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective time currently needed for obtaining the results of H7 AI serological tests conducted at MKT on live chickens imported from the Mainland, and of H7 genetic tests for further ascertaining whether the live chickens carry H7 AI viruses; whether such periods can be shortened to within half an hour, so that the test results on the live chickens imported from the Mainland can be made available before they are delivered to the Market; if so, when this will be implemented; if not, of the reasons for that, as well as whether it will conduct researches on related technology and, if needed, seek funding approval from this Council; (2) whether the authorities will consider building a facility on the site near Man Kam To Road in Sheung Shui which was originally planned for the development of a centralized poultry slaughtering centre, or on another site to be identified in the vicinity, for temporary storage of live chickens imported from the Mainland pending the test results; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (3) given that there is currently no H7N9 vaccine for poultry, whether the authorities will provide funding for the development of such a vaccine; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*9. Hon Mrs Regina IP to ask: (Translation)
With the successive completion of infrastructure projects such as the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge ("HZMB") and the Tuen Mun-Chek Lap Kok Link in the coming few years, commuting between Hong Kong and the Mainland will become faster and more convenient. Some members of the exhibition industry have forecast that the utilization of the AsiaWorld-Expo ("AWE") on North Lantau will increase substantially by then. In addition, in his reply to a question raised by a Member of this Council last year, the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development said that he would continue to explore with the industry ways to enhance the cooperation between the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre ("HKCEC") and AWE, so as to facilitate a more effective utilization of the overall convention and exhibition facilities in Hong Kong. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) given that the utilization of the exhibition facilities at AWE almost reached saturation on eight show days in 2012, whether the authorities have any plan to expand AWE to cater for the increased demand for exhibition facilities concomitant with the commissioning of the aforesaid infrastructure facilities, as well as to tie in with the authorities' policy objective of giving full play to the benefit of HZMB facilitating the "bridgehead economy" in Tung Chung and the neighbouring areas; if they do not have such plans, of the reasons for that; and (2) as it has been learnt that the Hong Kong Trade Development Council is conducting studies on acquisition of the operating right of AWE with a view to putting the two exhibition venues under the operation of one management company, so as to facilitate more effective co-ordination on rental matters of exhibition facilities, whether the authorities have conducted any feasibility study and formulated specific plans in connection with acquisition of the operating right of AWE; if they have not, of the reasons for that?
*10. Hon Emily LAU to ask: (Translation)
I have learnt that a public assembly was held at Chater Road, Central on 1 January this year, during which some police officers attempted to seize some protest items and thus came into conflict with the protesters. Some journalists saw two uniformed police constables making video records of the scene of the conflict. In this connection, will the Executive Authorities inform this Council:
(1) of the details of the guidelines issued by the authorities on the use of video-recording devices by police officers when discharging law enforcement duties, including the circumstances under which video records of public assemblies and processions may be made; (2) whether they have investigated if, before making video records, the two aforesaid police constables or other police officers had notified the persons present by raising information signs or other means that they would be making video records; if such notification had been made, of the details; if no notification had been made, the reasons for that; (3) as some protesters have relayed that when making video records during public assemblies and processions, the Police often do not notify the persons present that video recording is in progress, whether the Police will in future assign police officers to notify the persons present before making video records that they will do so; and (4) of the uses and means of disposal of the information collected by the Police by using video-recording devices; the monitoring mechanism the Police have in place to prevent police officers from making video records of public assemblies and processions arbitrarily?
*11. Hon TANG Ka-piu to ask: (Translation)
At present, employers are required to file with the Inland Revenue Department ("IRD") an Employer's Return of Remuneration and Pensions ("Employer's Return") in respect of each employee, furnishing information such as the employee's personal particulars and remuneration paid to the employee in the relevant year of assessment, etc. Recently, some members of the public have approached me for assistance, saying that they had accidentally discovered that the information furnished by their former employer about them, including their annual income, was untrue, and that they were merely temporary staff of that employer, rather than full-time employees, as furnished by the employer. They have also pointed out that there are loopholes in the aforesaid arrangement because employees will not know that their employers have furnished IRD with untrue information about them if they have not received the tax demand notes from IRD, and no confirmation by employees by means of signature is required for the Employer's Returns filed with IRD by employers. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether IRD has conducted random checks regularly on the Employers' Returns filed by employers; if it has, how it verifies the existence of employment relationship between employers and employees, as well as the truthfulness of the employees' personal particulars and remuneration reported on the Employer's Returns; (2) since it is stated on IRD's web site that after filing the Employer's Return, the employer should pass a copy of the document to his employee, of the measures put in place by the authorities to conduct random checks and verify if the employers have done so; of the number of cases uncovered by the authorities in the past five years in which the employers had not done so, and whether the employers concerned have been penalized; if they have, of the penalties in general; and (3) of the respective numbers of cases in the past five years in which the authorities uncovered that the employers had furnished false information on their employees' remuneration because of the complaints received or through other channels; among such cases, of the number of those in which the employers had exaggerated their employees' remuneration, the relevant total amount of taxes that should have been paid by the employers, and the number of employers consequently convicted; how the authorities will plug the aforesaid loopholes?
*12. Dr Hon KWOK Ka-ki to ask: (Translation)
Recently, some Tsing Yi residents have relayed to me that due to the low frequency of the MTR Tung Chung Line trains, which they usually take to travel between Tsing Yi Station and Hong Kong Station, they are often unable to board the train. On the other hand, the patronage of the Airport Express which stops at these two stations en route has yet to reach its maximum capacity. They are of the view that the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") has failed to make optimal use of the passenger capacity of the Airport Express to meet the transport need of Tsing Yi residents. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council whether:
(1) it knows the maximum design daily capacity of the Airport Express and its average actual daily patronage in the past 10 years; if there is a great discrepancy between the two figures, whether it has looked into the reasons for the discrepancy, and whether MTRCL implemented any measure in the past three years to increase the patronage of the Airport Express; if MTRCL did, of the results achieved; (2) it knows if it is technically feasible to increase the train frequency of Tung Chung Line during peak hours; if it is not feasible, of the details; if it is feasible, of the reasons why MTRCL has not made full use of the capacity of the Tung Chung Line to enhance its service; (3) it knows the respective total hourly frequencies and patronages of trains of the Airport Express and Tung Chung Line running between Tsing Yi Station and Kowloon Station and those running between Tsing Yi Station and Hong Kong Station during peak hours and non-peak hours; and (4) it has encouraged MTRCL to introduce an Airport Express Monthly Pass similar to the Tung Chung Line Monthly Pass to provide Tsing Yi residents with one more transport option and attract Tsing Yi residents to switch from riding on cross-harbour buses to railway, so as to increase the patronage of the Airport Express and implement the policy objective of "revolving around a railing-based network complemented by bus services", put forward in the 2013 Policy Address; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*13. Hon Frederick FUNG to ask: (Translation)
It has been reported that the Director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council indicated on 19 December last year that the arrangements for the Chief Executives ("CEs") of Hong Kong and Macao to pay duty visits to Beijing to report on their work were to be standardized, and that duty visits in future would be completed by 19 December each year. He added, "We have to specify clearly what areas should be covered by duty visits. Instead of focusing only on the achievements made in the past year, now we also require the identification of inadequacies as well as the inclusion of the new plans for the year ahead." He also stressed that during the duty visits, CEs would also need to report on the progress made and problems encountered in the thorough implementation of the Basic Law. Regarding the arrangements for duty visits of the CE of Hong Kong to the Central Authorities, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the modes and circumstances of the duty visits made by the CEs of the previous terms; whether the Government has received any demand from the Central Authorities in the past for standardizing and changing the modes and contents of CE's duty visits; whether the current-term Government has ascertained why the Central Authorities require the standardization of CE's duty visits; if it has, of the details; (2) of the details of the standardization of CE's duty visits; whether the duty visit in December last year was made in accordance with the latest standards; whether the authorities have carried out a review of any inadequacy in last year's governance; if they have, of the conclusion, and whether such conclusion was reported to the Central Authorities during that duty visit; and (3) whether it has assessed if the Central Authorities' requirement for the standardization of CE's duty visits will have an impact on the implementation of policies by the Government under the principle of "one country, two systems", and will arouse public concern that the Central Authorities interfere in Hong Kong's internal affairs; if the assessment outcome is in the affirmative, whether the authorities have relayed it to the Central Authorities, and how they allay such public concern?
*14. Hon Charles Peter MOK to ask: (Translation)
According to the Transparency Report published biannually by Google, an Internet search-engine service provider, the Hong Kong Government made 253 requests to the company for disclosure of its users' information in the first half of 2013, but about two-thirds of such requests were not acceded to by the company. In addition, the Law Enforcement Requests Report published by Microsoft, a computer technology company, indicated that the company received 597 requests for disclosure of its users' information from the Hong Kong Government during the same period, and it provided part of its users' information in response to about 80% of such requests. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the details of the requests made by government departments to various types of Internet service providers/Internet platforms/web sites (collectively referred to as "service providers") for disclosure of their users' information since February 2013, including: (i) names of service providers (if such information can be provided); (ii) types of service providers; (iii) types of requests; (iv) whether content information was included; (v) amount of information requested; (vi) number of accounts involved; (vii) reasons for making the requests; (viii) details of the information requested; (ix) whether the requests were made under a court order; (x) dates on which the requests were made; (xi) deadlines for processing the requests (regardless of whether such requests were acceded to or not); (xii) whether the requests were acceded to by service providers; and (xiii) reasons given by service providers for not acceding to the requests, with a breakdown by name of government department set out in Table 1 (if such information cannot be provided, of the reasons for that);
Table 1Name of government department (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xii) (xiii)
(2) of the details of the requests made by government departments to service providers for removal of their users' information since February 2013, including: (i) names of service providers (if such information can be provided); (ii) types of service providers; (iii) types of requests; (iv) amount of information requested for removal; (v) number of accounts involved; (vi) reasons for making the requests; (vii) details of the information requested for removal; (viii) whether the requests were made under a court order; (ix) dates on which the requests were made; (x) deadlines for processing the requests (regardless of whether such requests were acceded to or not); (xi) whether the requests were acceded to by service providers; and (xii) reasons given by service providers for not acceding to the requests, with a breakdown by name of government department set out in Table 2 (if such information cannot be provided, of the reasons for that);
Table 2Name of government department (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xii)
(3) of the details of the internal guidelines and mechanisms under which requests are made by government departments/law enforcement agencies to service providers for disclosure or removal of users' information; whether the authorities conducted any review on such guidelines last year, in particular whether they will consider requesting service providers for such information only if there is no intrusion into commercial secrets and personal privacy; if they did, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (4) whether the authorities will make public the mechanisms currently in place for monitoring requests made by government departments/law enforcement agencies to service providers for disclosure or removal of users' information, and whether they will regularly publish the information mentioned in (1) and (2), so as to increase the transparency of the Government's work; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*15. Hon Paul TSE to ask: (Translation)
It has been reported that the 16 funds set up or with moneys injected by the Government in 2008 or later have an aggregate balance of $67 billion, and the investment return rates of more than half of such funds lagged behind that of the Exchange Fund ("EF") over the same period, and the investment returns of as many as 11 funds could not even cover the expenses. Moreover, the Arts and Sport Development Fund, which received an injection of $3 billion in 2011-2012, suffered a loss equivalent to 5% of the amount injected that year. Some members of the public have queried that the investment failure of the funds concerned has resulted in loss of public money. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the differences between the investment returns of the various funds mentioned above and the return of EF under the management of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority ("HKMA") in the past three years; (2) whether it has conducted any study on the causes for the deficits suffered by the 11 aforesaid funds and taken any measure to improve their investment return rates; if it has, of the outcome of the study; if not, the reasons for that; (3) whether it has taken measures to regulate, and reviewed regularly, the investment models, types of investment products, returns and expenses on management fees of the aforesaid funds; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (4) of the fees paid by the 11 aforesaid funds on investment management in each of the past three years, and how such amounts compare with the relevant fees incurred by EF; the measures and mechanisms to ensure that management fees for the funds concerned are cost effective, so as to avoid fund capital and government injections being depleted by excessive or unreasonable management fees; and (5) whether it has conducted any study on pooling the moneys of various funds and entrusting them to HKMA for investment; if it has, of the outcome of the study; if not, the reasons for that and whether it can do so immediately?
*16. Hon WU Chi-wai to ask: (Translation)
The Fire Safety (Buildings) Ordinance (Cap. 572) ("the Ordinance"), which has come into operation since 2007, stipulates that the fire safety of composite and domestic buildings constructed on or before 1 March 1987 must be enhanced to better meet the requirements of today. It is learnt that quite a number of owners' corporations and minority flat owners of buildings have encountered difficulties in making improvements to the fire service facilities of their buildings in order to comply with the Ordinance. Although the Government has repeatedly indicated in its replies to questions raised by Members of this Council that it would, without compromising basic fire safety, adopt a flexible and pragmatic approach in handling individual cases, quite a number of minority flat owners have relayed to me that they are unclear about the criteria adopted by the Fire Services Department and the Buildings Department for enforcing the Ordinance flexibly, making it difficult for them to comply with the Fire Safety Directions ("FS Directions") issued by the two departments. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) as the Government indicated in July last year that it would conduct inspections on target buildings throughout Hong Kong in two phases, whether it has completed inspections of the some 9 000 buildings under the first phase; if it has not, of the anticipated completion time; if it has, whether it has launched the second phase of inspections; if so, of the progress and the respective numbers of buildings inspected under the two phases, broken down by District Council district; (2) among the buildings inspected under the first phase, of the respective numbers of buildings in respect of which: (i) the authorities have not issued any FS Directions, (ii) the authorities have issued FS Directions which have been complied with, (iii) the authorities have issued FS Directions which have been partially complied with, (iv) the authorities have issued FS Directions all of which have not been complied with, and (v) the authorities have issued FS Directions and subsequently exempted the owners concerned from complying with such FS Directions as well as the contents and total number of FS Directions compliance with which has been exempted; (3) among the buildings in respect of which FS Directions have been issued and fully complied with, of the numbers of those which involved (i) installation of water tanks, (ii) installation of hose reel systems, (iii) structural building works, (iv) non-structural building works, and (v) adoption of alternative proposals (with a breakdown by the type of such alternative proposals); (4) of the criteria, legislation or guidelines based on which the authorities decide whether or not to accept alternative proposals, e.g. the criteria based on which the authorities will consider accepting the alternative proposal of obtaining water directly from town mains for automatic sprinkler systems of those composite buildings with commercial portions not exceeding four storeys; whether the authorities will promulgate to the minority flat owners their criteria for vetting and approving alternative proposals, so that minority flat owners will know what alternatives they may consider in respect of compliance with FS Directions; (5) whether it will draw reference from the alternative proposal mentioned in (4) and consider allowing owners of residential buildings to adopt the same alternative proposal, i.e. allowing the fire-fighting systems of residential buildings to obtain water directly from town mains; if it will not, of the reasons for that; and (6) whether it has compiled statistics on the average works expenses borne by each flat owner of buildings for compliance with FS Directions in the past five years, with a breakdown by the number of households in the building; as quite a number of owners have indicated that it is difficult for them to raise funds for paying the related works expenses, whether the authorities will accept more alternative proposals of different types, so as to relieve burdens of minority flat owners?
*17. Hon Kenneth LEUNG to ask: (Translation)
The number of visitor arrivals to Hong Kong has been rising continuously in the past 10 years, surpassing 54 million last year. Regarding the travel patterns of these visitors, will the Government set out in the table below a breakdown, by source market (Mainland China, short-haul markets, long-haul markets and new markets), of the number of visitor arrivals to Hong Kong (with a further breakdown by the number of nights they stay), their average length of stay and their average per capita spending in Hong Kong in each of the past five years?
| Year | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | |
| Mainland China | ||||||
| Visitor arrivals | Same-day visitor | |||||
| Stay one to two nights | ||||||
| Stay three nights or more | ||||||
| Entry by land | ||||||
| Entry by sea | ||||||
| Entry by air | ||||||
| Average length of stay (night) | ||||||
| Average per capita spending in Hong Kong | ||||||
| Short-haul markets (excluding Mainland China) | ||||||
| Visitor arrivals | Same-day visitor | |||||
| Stay one to two nights | ||||||
| Stay three nights or more | ||||||
| Average length of stay (night) | ||||||
| Average per capita spending in Hong Kong | ||||||
| Long-haul markets | ||||||
| Visitor arrivals | Same-day visitor | |||||
| Stay one to two nights | ||||||
| Stay three nights or more | ||||||
| Average length of stay (night) | ||||||
| Average per capita spending in Hong Kong | ||||||
| New markets | ||||||
| Visitor arrivals | Same-day visitor | |||||
| Stay one to two nights | ||||||
| Stay three nights or more | ||||||
| Average length of stay (night) | ||||||
| Average per capita spending in Hong Kong | ||||||
Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development
*18. Hon Abraham SHEK to ask: (Translation)
It has been reported that according to the Survey on Opinions of Employers on Major Aspects of Performance of Sub-degree Graduates in Year 2010 released recently by the Education Bureau, the score for the overall performance of those graduates as assessed by employers has hit a record low among the same surveys over the past decade. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the graduation rates of sub-degree programme students in each of the past five years; (2) as the aforesaid survey reveals that the performance score for English language proficiency of sub-degree programme graduates is on the low side among the various attributes, whether the Education Bureau has assessed the causes for this situation; if it has, of the results and improvement measures in place; if not, the reasons for that; (3) as self-financing sub-degree programmes offer more than 30 000 places each year, whether the authorities will draw up a set of common academic standards to be attained by graduates of such programmes so as to ensure the quality of the graduates; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (4) whether it will conduct in the near future a comprehensive review on the way forward in respect of sub-degree programmes; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*19. Hon CHAN Hak-kan to ask: (Translation)
Some concern groups on animal interests have said that the penalties under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance (Cap. 169) ("the Ordinance") lack deterrent effect, and that the authorities have failed to provide sufficient resources to curb acts of cruelty to animals. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of animal cruelty cases in respect of which applications for appeal were lodged by the Department of Justice last year on the ground that the penalties imposed were too lenient, as well as the results of the appeals; (2) given that at present the senior veterinary officers of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD") are authorized to arrest any person who is suspected to have treated animals cruelly, as well as to enter and search the buildings where suspected cases of animal cruelty are occurring or have occurred, whether the Government will consider amending the Ordinance to authorize all officers of the Veterinary Officer grade in AFCD to exercise such powers concerned so as to enhance the efficiency of the law enforcement actions; (3) whether it has plans to consider afresh establishing an animal police team which is dedicated to investigating and following up animal cruelty cases; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (4) whether it will consider enacting legislation to make it compulsory for persons who have been convicted of animal cruelty offences to receive psychological counselling and attend courses on promoting kindness to animals?
*20. Hon Albert CHAN to ask: (Translation)
At the Council meeting on 19 October 2011, I asked the authorities about the emission levels of various types of air pollutants from aircraft movements and aircraft parking at the Hong Kong International Airport ("HKIA") each year between 2009 and 2010, and whether the authorities had taken measures to reduce the emissions from aircraft so as to alleviate the problem of air pollution in Tung Chung and thereby reduce the impact of air pollutants on the health of Tung Chung residents. The authorities indicated in their reply that they had taken measures to reduce emissions of air pollutants and carbon from aircraft. Yet, residents in Tung Chung have still relayed to me that the number of flights operating at HKIA has been growing constantly in the recent three years and aircraft emissions have also increased correspondingly, hence worsening the air quality in Tung Chung and affecting the health of the residents in the district. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the emission levels of various types of air pollutants from aircraft movements and aircraft parking at HKIA each year between 2011 and 2013, with a breakdown, by aircraft model in table form, of the emission levels of various types of air pollutants from aircraft, as well as which aircraft model had the highest level of emissions, and what measures currently have been put in place by the authorities to reduce emissions from aircraft of such models; (2) whether it has assessed if the worsening of the air quality in Tung Chung in recent years is related to the increase in air pollutant emissions from aircraft; if the assessment outcome is in the affirmative, to what extent the increase in emissions from aircraft has led to the worsening of air quality in Tung Chung; if the assessment outcome is in the negative, of the reasons for that; and (3) whether it will take new measures to reduce the impact of the air pollutants emitted by aircraft on the health of Tung Chung residents; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*21. Hon LEUNG Kwok-hung to ask: (Translation)
The Government has repeatedly told this Council and the media that owing to the shortage of land or opposition from the local communities, several projects such as building subvented residential care homes for the elderly ("RCHEs"), columbaria and waste management facilities could not be implemented. Quite a number of members of the public have relayed to me that as most of the areas of the land in the North East New Territories New Development Areas ("NDAs") are undeveloped and NDAs have a relatively smaller population, NDAs can provide the land needed for building the aforesaid facilities, and it is also believed that opposition from the local communities in NDAs would be relatively less than that in other developed areas for implementing such projects. Regarding the land planning of NDAs, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) as the Government indicated in its reply to a question raised by a Member of this Council in November last year that land would be reserved in NDAs for building RCHEs, of the areas of the lands reserved and the number of subvented RCHEs that can be built, as well as the number of places to be provided by those RCHEs; (2) as the Government indicated in its reply mentioned in (1) that land would be reserved in NDAs for the development of a hospital, of the area of the land reserved and the number of beds to be provided in the new hospital; whether the Government has reserved land for building subsidized infirmaries; if not, how the Government solves the problem of the shortage of subsidized infirmary places; (3) as the Government indicated in its reply mentioned in (1) that land would be reserved in NDAs for building subsidized housing, of the respective areas of the lands reserved for public rental housing ("PRH") estates and Home Ownership Scheme ("HOS") courts, as well as the respective numbers of flats to be provided in the PRH estates/HOS courts concerned; (4) whether the Government has reserved lands in NDAs for building columbaria; if so, of the areas of the lands reserved and the number of columbaria that can be built, as well as the numbers of large and small niches to be provided in those columbaria; if not, how the Government addresses the shortage of niches; (5) whether the Government has reserved lands in NDAs for building funeral parlours; if so, of the areas of the lands reserved and the number of funeral parlours that can be built, as well as the number of mourning halls to be provided in those funeral parlours; if not, how the Government ensures that funeral services are adequate; (6) as the Government has indicated that there is an urgent need to develop integrated waste management facilities with incineration as the core technology, whether the Government has reserved lands in NDAs for building such facilities; if so, of the areas of the lands reserved, and how many tonnes of wastes can be processed by such facilities each day; if not, how the Government implements projects for building such facilities; (7) whether the Government has reserved land in NDAs for developing a new landfill; if so, of the area of the land reserved, and how many tonnes of wastes the new landfill can take in per day; if not, how the Government solves the problem of the existing landfills nearing exhaustion; and (8) whether the Government has reserved land in NDAs for building a centralized quarantine centre for live poultry, so as to step up the related quarantine work; if so, of the area of the land reserved, as well as the number of live poultry the quarantine centre can quarantine per day; if not, how the Government addresses the need for quarantine of imported live poultry?
*22. Hon CHEUNG Kwok-che to ask: (Translation)
I have earlier received a complaint from a member of the public who said that she was close to nervous breakdown because she had suffered from generalized serious skin allergies, even partial skin ulceration, after using skin care products but there was no channel for her to lodge complaints. Since there is currently no statutory definition of beauty and skin care products in Hong Kong, only some of the beauty and skin care products are regulated by the Consumer Goods Safety Ordinance (Cap. 456), the Pharmacy and Poisons Ordinance (Cap. 138) and the Chinese Medicine Ordinance (Cap. 549), etc., in accordance with their composition. Moreover, it is learnt that quite a number of advanced places/countries (e.g. the European Union ("EU"), South Korea, the United States, Japan and Singapore, etc.) have long ago enacted legislation to stringently regulate the products concerned. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the total number of complaints about beauty or skin care products received by the authorities and the Consumer Council in each of the past three years; (2) of the channels through which members of the public can hold the persons concerned responsible and make claims against them when they suffer from health problems after using imported beauty or skin care products; (3) of the differences between Hong Kong and the aforesaid places/countries in the arrangements for the regulation of beauty and skin care products; and (4) whether the authorities will consider drawing reference from the practices of the aforesaid places/countries and formulating a statutory definition of beauty and skin care products, adopting EU's practice of specifying a "responsible person" and introducing a piece of dedicated legislation to regulate such products, as well as setting up a dedicated law enforcement organization similar to the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety in South Korea, so as to enhance the protection for consumers; if they will, of the implementation details and timetable; if not, the reasons for that?
* For written reply
III. Bill
Second Reading (Debate to resume), Committee Stage and Third Reading
| Stamp Duty (Amendment) Bill 2012 | : | Secretary for Transport and Housing
| |||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
IV. Members' Motions
Clerk to the Legislative Council