A 13/14-22
Legislative Council
Agenda
Wednesday 9 April 2014 at 11:00 am and
Thursday 10 April 2014 at 9:00 am
I. Tabling of Papers
| Subsidiary Legislation / Instruments | L.N. No. | |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Pesticides Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 1) Notice 2014 | 43/2014 |
| 2. | Immigration (Anchorages and Landing Places) (Amendment) Order 2014 | 46/2014 |
| 3. | Shipping and Port Control Regulations (Amendment of Seventh Schedule) Notice 2014 | 47/2014 |
Other Paper
Report No. 15/13-14 of the House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments
(to be presented by Hon Andrew LEUNG, Chairman of the House Committee)
II. Questions for Written Replies
1. Hon Ronny TONG to ask: (Translation)
Will the Government inform this Council, since the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region:
(1) of the respective annual numbers of applications for judicial review ("JR") (regardless of whether the Government is one of the litigating parties) and, among them, the numbers of cases in which leave was granted by the Court; and the respective percentages of those ruled in favour of or against the plaintiffs in JR cases; (2) of the respective annual numbers of legal aid applications received and approved by the Legal Aid Department in respect of JR cases; and (3) of the respective percentages of JR cases ruled in favour of or against the Government each year?
2. Hon CHAN Yuen-han to ask: (Translation)
It is learnt that quite a number of neighbouring countries and regions are proactively promoting cycling tourism to let visitors experience local street cultures and enjoy the natural landscape by means of low-carbon tourism. Those countries and regions offer visitors affordable bicycle rental services through public-private partnerships and provide suggested routes for cycling tours. They also conduct relevant courses to reduce conflicts between cyclists and other road users. Regarding the ancillary facilities for cycling and promotion of cycling tourism, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the details of "SmartBike", which will soon be launched officially; of the number of times the bicycles were hired and the expenditure on repairs and maintenance during the trial run of such service; the plans put in place by the authorities to promote the service, when they will conduct an interim assessment on the effectiveness of the service, and the timetable for extending the service to other districts; (2) of the numbers of Hong Kong residents and visitors who were prosecuted for illegal cycling on pedestrian ways or carriageways in the past three years; the first five districts where the highest number of such offences occurred and the relevant figures; whether the authorities have conducted studies on visitors cycling in Hong Kong during their visits and, drawing reference from overseas practices, formulated policies on promoting cycling tourism; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for not conducting the relevant studies with a view to promoting low-carbon tourism and providing diversified ways of touring; (3) how the authorities implemented last year the improvement measures recommended in the report of the Traffic and Transport Consultancy Study on Cycling Networks and Parking Facilities in Existing New Towns in Hong Kong, including those on the improvement works for cycle track networks, cycle parking facilities, directional road signs, etc., together with a breakdown by the anticipated year of completion; and (4) whether it has drawn reference from the experience of overseas countries and regions in promoting safe cycling and introduced courses to enhance cyclists' road safety awareness; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
3. Hon James TO to ask: (Translation)
A group of property owners staged a procession last month requesting the Government to seriously address the problem that some lawbreakers secured contracts for major maintenance projects of some buildings by means of bid-rigging, bribing, etc. On the other hand, most minority property owners have no knowledge of whether the project fees are reasonable. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) as the Appendix to the Building Maintenance Guidebook ("the Guidebook") prepared by the Buildings Department lists the reference costs for 29 types of general maintenance works (which involve re-roofing; refurbishment of external walls, internal walls, internal floors and internal ceilings; spalling repair; plumbing and drainage; electrical works; maintenance of doors and windows, etc.), but such costs were prepared on the basis of information as at 2001, whether the authorities have the latest reference costs; if they do, of the details, with a breakdown in tables of the same format as that of the Appendix to the Guidebook; if not, the reasons for that; (2) as the Appendix to the Guidebook also contains case analyses which provide reference fee scale for the services provided by building professionals in the market in carrying out building inspections, assessment and supervision of maintenance works, of the time of the information on which the fees were based, and whether the authorities have the latest reference costs; if they do, of the details with examples (such as the reference costs for general consultation and construction fees for carrying out a project involving basic refurbishment of external walls, waterproof roofing and replacement of drain pipes of a single-block residential building with some 20 storeys and 150 flats, as well as the difference between the cost reference for refurbishing external walls with paint and that with mosaic); if not, the reasons for that; (3) for buildings which are not targets of "Operation Building Bright" but the maintenance works of which will be carried out, of the measures put in place by the authorities to assist owners of such buildings in assessing whether the service fees and project costs quoted by the building professionals and contractors to be engaged are reasonable, and in preventing lawbreakers from securing contracts for major maintenance projects of their buildings by means of bid-rigging and bribing; (4) as the authorities will introduce the "AP Easy" Building Maintenance Advisory Service Scheme this month, whether the Scheme will provide owners with reference costs or reasonable fee ranges concerning the proposed building maintenance works; and (5) whether the authorities will consider amending the Building Management Ordinance (Cap. 344) and related ordinances to enhance regulation of owners' corporations and companies bidding for building maintenance works so as to curb bid-rigging; if they will, of the anticipated time for conducting public consultation and introducing the legislative proposal to this Council?
4. Hon Albert HO to ask: (Translation)
Recently, the occurrence of incidents one after another involving the railway systems of the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL"), coupled with the press reports that some of the newly procured MTR trains may contain materials harmful to the human body, have aroused public concerns about the safety of railway systems. Regarding the monitoring of the safety of railway systems, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the details of the follow-up actions taken by the Railways Branch of the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department ("EMSD") last year in respect of each railway incident (including whether it accepted the reports submitted by MTRCL, and whether it conducted further investigations into the contents of these reports, etc.), and set out such information in a table; (2) apart from inspecting the trains before their formal commissioning and monitoring through the government representatives on the Board of Directors of MTRCL, whether the Government has, at present, requested MTRCL to provide, on a regular basis, information on the quality of the newly procured trains (including the technical problems encountered in the tests conducted at the manufacturing sites); if it has not, whether it will consider requesting MTRCL to provide such information; and (3) given that the Hong Kong section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL") is expected to be commissioned in 2015, whether the Government knows the present progress of the procurement of XRL trains (including whether technical or design problems have been identified in the tests on the trains); if it knows, of the details; if not, whether the Government will request MTRCL to allow the direct participation of or supervision by EMSD staff in the tests on the trains conducted outside Hong Kong?
5. Hon LEUNG Yiu-chung to ask: (Translation)
Some stall tenants in the public markets under the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department have relayed to me that some public markets are poorly ventilated and their vacancy rates are on the high side, resulting in low patronage, which makes it difficult for them to do business there. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the overall vacancy rate of public markets in each of the past five years; whether it has conducted a study on the vacancy situation and the causes for it; if it has, of the outcome of the study and whether it has formulated measures to reduce the vacancy rate; if it has, of the details; if it has not formulated any measure, the reasons for that; (2) whether it has found that some stalls in public markets are used only for storage rather than sale of goods; if it has, of the details and whether it has studied the impacts of this situation on the patronage of the markets; if it has not studied, of the reasons for that; (3) given that upon installation of air-conditioning ("A/C") systems in public markets, stall tenants will have to share recurrent expenses such as extra electricity charges, repair and maintenance costs of the A/C systems, whether it will study the provision of subsidies to stall tenants to encourage them to agree to the installation of A/C systems so as to improve the patronage of the markets; if it will provide subsidies, of the form of subsidies and the implementation timetable; if it will not provide subsidies, the reasons for that; and (4) whether it will step up the promotion of public markets to increase its patronage and reduce the rents of stalls to alleviate stall tenants' business difficulties; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
6. Hon MA Fung-kwok to ask: (Translation)
On 15 October last year, the Chief Executive in Council decided that the applications for a domestic free television programme service licence ("licence") from the Fantastic Television Limited and Hong Kong Television Entertainment Company Limited ("licence applicants") be granted approval-in-principle. It has been more than five months since the authorities made that decision, but the progress of granting the licences has not yet been announced. Some members of the public have relayed to me that the public hope that the new licensees can start broadcasting expeditiously to offer more television programmes for their choices, and to boost the development of the local television industry. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective progress of the outstanding work relating to the two aforesaid licence applications; whether it knows when the Communications Authority ("CA") will start discussing with the two licence applicants the details of the licences; (2) when CA is expected to submit to the Chief Executive in Council its recommendation on whether or not licences should be formally granted to the two licence applicants, and when the latter is expected to make the relevant decisions; of the earliest time the authorities expect the two licence applicants to start broadcasting after the issuance of the licences; and (3) whether the authorities will specify in the licences that the licensees are required to produce or procure a specified quantity of locally produced programmes, so as to boost the development of local television production?
7. Hon CHAN Kin-por to ask: (Translation)
It has been reported that a civilian passenger aircraft went missing over the waters near Vietnam on the 8th of last month, and subsequent investigation uncovered that some passengers might have boarded the plane on passports which had been reported missing. As pointed out by the International Criminal Police Organization, the relevant information on those passports has long been listed in the Stolen and Lost Travel Documents database ("passport database"). Although the database contains information on more than 40 million stolen and lost passports issued by a number of countries, the law enforcement departments of only a small number of countries have systematically made use of the database for passport checking. Regarding protection of aviation safety, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of cases in the past three years in which residents of Hong Kong reported their Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR") passports missing, and the distribution of the locations at which the passports were lost or stolen; the number of cases in which people entering or departing Hong Kong with fake passports or other people's passports were intercepted by the authorities during the same period, the nationalities of the people concerned, and whether the authorities are aware of the illegal activities they intended to engage in at the destinations; (2) whether the authorities proactively and systematically searched and perused the information in the passport database in the past three years; if they did not, of the reasons for that; whether the authorities have established a separate database for HKSAR passports which have been reported missing; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (3) whether it has, in response to the aforesaid incident, reviewed the procedures for conducting passport and security checks on air passengers; if it has, of the details, including whether it will implement improvement measures to ensure the safety of aircraft departing Hong Kong?
8. Hon Gary FAN to ask: (Translation)
Currently, certain mainland vehicles belonging to the mainland government, departments directly under the mainland authorities or some enterprise units are only required to obtain International Circulation Permits for running on the roads of Hong Kong, and are not required to be registered and licensed in Hong Kong. The local vehicle registration marks of these vehicles are prefixed by "FU" or "FV". It has been reported that when these vehicles are illegally parked in Hong Kong, there is insufficient information on the vehicles for the authorities to institute prosecutions because these cross-boundary mainland vehicles are not required to display vehicle licences (commonly known as "vehicle licence discs") on the front windscreens. Regarding monitoring the compliance with the traffic legislation of Hong Kong by the aforesaid cross-boundary mainland vehicles, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) in the past five years, of the number of cross-boundary mainland vehicles with vehicle registration marks prefixed by "FU" or "FV", the number of fixed penalty notices issued by the authorities to owners or drivers of these vehicles for contravention of the traffic legislation of Hong Kong, as well as the number of fixed penalty notices in respect of which the penalties were still not fully settled after the expiry of the statutory deadlines; and (2) how the Police institute prosecutions against the persons mentioned in (1) who did not fully settle the penalties by the deadlines, and of the number of cases in the past five years in which prosecutions could not be instituted?
9. Dr Hon Helena WONG to ask: (Translation)
To align with booking procedures made online, Leisure Link counter booking has ceased to accept identity documents other than a Hong Kong Identity Card since 1 February this year. Non-Hong Kong residents have to apply, in person with valid travel documents bearing photographs, for Leisure Link Temporary Patron ("LLTP") registration at the Leisure Link Telephone Services Centre of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department ("LCSD") before they can make bookings for land-based facilities (except on-the-spot bookings). The validity period of an LLTP registration is six months or the applicant's limit of stay, whichever is less. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) in respect of each type of Leisure Link facilities under the management of LCSD, of the (i) average hire charge per session, (ii) average cost per session, (iii) average usage rate per week, and (iv) average number of idle hours per week (set out in the table below) at present;
Leisure Link Facilities (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) Activity room American pool table Archery range Billiard table Carom table Cricket practice net Artificial turf pitch Basketball court Badminton court Baseball court Batting cage Bowling green Climbing wall Dance room Fitness room Golf driving bay Golf practice green Natural turf pitch Netball court Rope course Squash court Table tennis table Tennis court Tennis court (indoor) Tennis practice court Volleyball court Table tennis table and serving machine
(2) of the respective numbers of Hong Kong residents and non-Hong Kong residents registered as Leisure Link patrons at present; the respective numbers of person-times of these two types of users using Leisure Link facilities last year; (3) whether there is currently any difference between the charges paid by Hong Kong residents and non-Hong Kong residents for using Leisure Link facilities; if there is not, of the reasons for that, and whether LCSD will set different cost recovery rates for, and accordingly apply different hire charges to, these two types of users; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (4) whether LCSD will charge non-Hong Kong residents fees for LLTP registration, so as to partially recover the costs; if it will, of the fees; if not, the reasons for that; and (5) whether LCSD will introduce measures to accord priority to local residents in booking and using Leisure Link facilities; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
10. Hon Christopher CHUNG to ask: (Translation)
In 2000, the Government entered, through three private and wholly-owned companies set up under the Financial Secretary Incorporated ("FSI"), into cooperation with a private developer in developing the Cyberport Project, which comprises a Cyberport Portion and an ancillary Residential Portion. It has been a decade since the Cyberport Portion, managed by the Hong Kong Cyberport Management Company Limited ("HKCMCL"), was completed and commissioned in 2004. Regarding the operation of Cyberport, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective numbers of existing Cyberport tenants engaged in (i) the information and communications technology ("ICT") industry, and (ii) industries unrelated or indirectly related to that industry, and set out in Table 1 and Table 2 a breakdown by the type and nature of industry respectively;
Table 1
Type of industry Number of tenants Development, manufacture or design of computer hardware Development or design of computer software (other than games) Development or design of communications technology hardware Development or design of mobile applications (other than games) Development and design of game programs (computer or mobile phone) Total:
Table 2
Nature of industry Number of tenants Total:
(2) of the respective vacancy rates of Cyberport's offices and retail space in its arcade in the past three years; (3) of the number of internationally renowned multinational ICT companies attracted to Cyberport, and the state-of-the-art technologies brought in for research and development in Cyberport, by HKCMCL in the past five years, as well as the details of such technologies; (4) given that the vision of HKCMCL is to establish Cyberport as "a leading ICT hub in the Asia-Pacific region", whether the authorities have assessed if this vision has been achieved; (5) given that some members of the public have pointed out that Cyberport and Hong Kong Science Park are both projects developed by the Government with the common objectives of promoting innovation and technological development in Hong Kong, incubating local technology start-ups and nurturing technology talents, and that quite a number of tenants in Science Park are also engaged in businesses concerning computer software and hardware and communications technology, whether the authorities have assessed if there is currently any overlap in scope of work, if there is a division of work between Cyberport and Science Park, and if resources have been wasted due to duplication of work; if there is a division of work, of the details; and (6) given that, according to a document submitted by the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau to a panel of this Council in March this year, the operating revenue of FSI (excluding the project income from the residential development) was $407 million in 2012-2013, of the sources of this revenue; given that the authorities have stated in the document that the Cyberport Project is now entering the final stage and the Government is working closely with the project developer to wrap up the Project, of the relevant details; whether the completion of the Project will affect the future operation and development directions of Cyberport?
11. Hon Albert CHAN to ask: (Translation)
In 1999, the Government resumed the land of Wah Kai Industrial Centre under the relevant provisions of the Railways Ordinance (Cap. 519). I have learnt that a number of former factory operators of the industrial building have not yet reached any compensation agreement with the Government. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of (i) the number of claims made by the aforesaid factory operators, as well as the numbers of cases for which compensation (ii) has been paid and (iii) has not been paid by the authorities, and set out a breakdown by type of compensation in Table 1;
Table 1
Type of compensation (i) (ii) (iii) Property compensation Removal allowance Extinguishment allowance (2) in respect of the number of cases for which compensation has been paid, of a breakdown by type of compensation (i.e. (i) property compensation, (ii) removal allowance and (iii) extinguishment allowance) as well as the grouping to which the amount of compensation belongs (set out such information in Table 2); and
Table 2
Amount of compensation (ten-thousand dollars) (i) (ii) (iii) Less than 50 50 to 99 100 to 199 200 to 299 300 or above
(3) given that some factory operators have alleged that they co-owned the public toilets in Wah Kai Industrial Centre, whether the authorities will compensate the owners concerned for the resumption of such ownerships; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
12. Hon CHAN Hak-kan to ask: (Translation)
It is learnt that over 30 million mainland visitors entered Hong Kong by land transport in 2013. There are comments that although such visitors can help boost the economic development of Hong Kong, they have also caused some problems, such as shop rentals soaring continuously which have led to the closure of some small and unique shops, overcrowding of vehicle/train compartments of public transport and the streets, rising commodity prices, as well as shortage of certain daily necessities. On the other hand, residents in the New Territories North have to travel to other districts to work due to insufficient job opportunities in their district. Thus, building a mega business and shopping centre in an area close to the boundary can not only divert the excessive number of visitors from the urban areas, but also create job opportunities for residents in areas near the boundary in the New Territories North. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether the upcoming "Preliminary Feasibility Study on Developing the New Territories North" will include studying the feasibility of building the aforesaid business and shopping centre; if so, of the details; if not, whether it will include this subject in the Study; (2) whether it will consider identifying a suitable site in an area close to the boundary for building the aforesaid business and shopping centre, and applying to the Town Planning Board for zoning the site for "Other Specified Uses" annotated "Business" to facilitate private enterprises to develop such facilities on that site; and (3) whether it has plans, in collaboration with the MTR Corporation Limited, to explore the feasibility of constructing a new station along the Lok Ma Chau Spur Line and building the aforesaid business and shopping centre above that station?
13. Hon TANG Ka-piu to ask: (Translation)
Regarding the fees and charges of the Mandatory Provident Fund ("MPF") schemes, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the (i) amounts of contributions (with a breakdown according to mandatory and voluntary contributions made by employers and employees), (ii) accrued benefits withdrawn (with a breakdown according to mandatory and voluntary contributions made by employers and employees), (iii) net accrued benefits (with a breakdown according to mandatory and voluntary contributions made by employers and employees), (iv) fund expense ratios and (v) fund expenses, in each year since the implementation of the MPF Scheme; (2) given that, as revealed by the Report on a study of administrative costs in the Hong Kong MPF system published in 2012, the three major components of MPF fund expense are investment management fees, administration costs and other costs (including trustee profits, sponsor fees, member rebates and other expenses), whether it knows the current monthly expenses of those three components and their respective percentages in the fund expenses concerned in respect of the 41 MPF schemes under the 19 approved trustees; the details of the follow-up actions taken by the authorities on the reform recommendations made in the Report, and the initiatives to be taken next year to lower the fees and charges of the MPF schemes; (3) whether it knows the total amount of commissions collected by registered MPF intermediaries last year and its percentage in the MPF administration costs; (4) of the measures in place to prevent approved trustees from regarding expenses irrelevant to their MPF business as administration costs of MPF schemes; whether there is a mechanism to monitor if approved trustees have misappropriated MPF contributions or administration charges collected for developing other businesses; if there is, of the details of the monitoring mechanism and penalties; if not, the reasons for that; (5) whether it knows the current asset values and fund expense ratios of the MPF funds managed respectively by the 19 approved trustees; whether it has monitored if approved trustees handle the MPF administration work by themselves or have entrusted the work to subsidiary companies or outsourced it to other companies; if so, of the details and set out the names of the subsidiary companies or outsourced companies concerned; (6) whether it knows, since the implementation of the "MPF Employee Choice Arrangement", the extent of decrease in MPF fund expenses, and the number of cases in which employees transferred the accrued benefits derived from their own contributions in their accounts to other MPF trustees and schemes selected by them; the number, age and salary range of these employees; (7) whether it knows the current number of MPF contributors who leave investment decisions to the sole discretion of their approved trustees, their monthly contributions and the total asset values of the MPF funds concerned; and (8) as the Financial Secretary mentioned in the 2013-2014 Budget that the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority was preparing proposals regarding the implementation of a cap on MPF fees that would be introduced in case of market failure, whether it has assessed if the current level of MPF fees reflects market failure; if the assessment outcome is in the affirmative, when the authorities intend to introduce the cap on MPF fees?
14. Dr Hon Kenneth CHAN to ask: (Translation)
The principal of a subsidized primary school on Hong Kong Island has earlier relayed to me that the premises of the school are far below the current standards in terms of its area, space and facilities (commonly known as "matchbox-style school premises"). Given that the school premises, which were built in the 1970s, have very limited space and are frequently in need of repair and maintenance, the school has no means to improve the learning environment of students. The principal has also indicated that the premises of an adjacent school, which have the same design as the premises of his school, have been left vacant. He has hoped that the authorities could allocate the vacant premises to his school, so as to alleviate the crowded conditions suffered by students, but some of the facilities on the vacant school premises have already been demolished and removed. Regarding the increase in the area of school premises and arrangements for the facilities on vacant school premises, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the current number, locations, commissioning dates and usage of "matchbox-style school premises" of public-sector schools; (2) whether it has drawn up a timetable to phase out all the existing "matchbox-style school premises"; if it has, of the timetable and details; if not, whether it will consider drawing up such a timetable and work plan; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (3) given that at present, the school premises of some public-sector schools, due to space constraints, can hardly meet the current standards even if improvement works are carried out, whether the authorities will consider according priority to these schools in allocating the vacant school premises adjacent to such schools, so as to increase the space on their premises; if they will, of the specific arrangements; if not, the reasons for that; and (4) of the criteria adopted by the authorities for deciding whether the facilities on vacant school premises should be demolished or materials therein be removed; whether the authorities will consider retaining the basic facilities on these vacant school premises as far as possible, so that once the new use of such school premises is confirmed, the time for reinstalling the facilities can be shortened; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
15. Dr Hon LAM Tai-fai to ask: (Translation)
On 4 December last year, the Government published the Consultation Document on the Methods for Selecting the Chief Executive in 2017 and for Forming the Legislative Council in 2016 and launched a five-month public consultation on constitutional development, which will end on 3 May this year. In this connection, members of the Task Force on Constitutional Development earlier hosted four dinners to meet in groups with Members of this Council from different political affiliations, and held four breakfast meetings to enable Members of this Council to exchange views on constitutional development in groups with officials from the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR"). Moreover, the Central People's Government has made arrangements for Members of this Council to visit Shanghai on the 12th and 13th of this month and during the visit, mainland officials such as the Director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council as well as the Chairman of the HKSAR Basic Law Committee under the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") will meet with Members of this Council in Shanghai and discuss the constitutional development of Hong Kong. In this regard, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of submissions received so far and, among them, the respective numbers of submissions from individuals and organizations; (2) given that paragraph 1.14 of the aforesaid Consultation Document points out that amendments to the methods for selecting the Chief Executive and for forming the Legislative Council have to go through the "Five-step Process", of the timetable for each step of the five-step process; the expected time for launching the second round public consultation, as well as the time for putting forward concrete proposals on constitutional development; (3) of the list of attendees of each of the aforesaid dinners and breakfast meetings (set out in tables), and whether it has assessed the effectiveness of such activities in reducing the differences and building consensus among Members of this Council in respect of constitutional development; whether it will hold similar exchange activities again before the end of the consultation; (4) whether it knows the detailed arrangements for Members of this Council to meet in groups with the mainland officials for exchanging views on constitutional development during the visit to Shanghai; (5) given that Article 45(1) of the Basic Law stipulates that "the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People's Government", whether the Government has studied the definition for "selected through consultations", among whom the consultations should be conducted, as well as the circumstances under which the Chief Executive should be selected through consultations; (6) given that Article 45(2) of the Basic Law stipulates that "[t]he method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures", of the definitions adopted by the Government for the following terms: (i) "actual situation", (ii) "gradual and orderly progress", (iii) "broadly representative", and (iv) "democratic procedures"; (7) whether it will seek legal advice on the constitutionality of the "civil nomination" and the "three-track nomination" (i.e. candidature in the 2017 Chief Executive election can be obtained through any one of the three routes, namely civil nomination, nomination by political parties and nomination by a nominating committee) proposed by the pan-democrats, and give the public an account of the views obtained; if it will, of the time to give such an account; if not, the reasons for that; (8) if it has sought legal advice on whether the "Occupy Central" movement is illegal, and whether it will give an account of this to the public; if it will, when it will give such an account; if not, the reasons for that; and (9) as it has been reported that the NPCSC's Chairman indicated earlier that the Chief Executive selected by way of universal suffrage should be a person who "loves the country and Hong Kong", whether the Government has studied how to define "a person who loves the country and Hong Kong"; whether it has studied if a person who promotes, participates in or supports the "Occupy Central" movement as well as one who does not uphold the Basic Law should be regarded as a person who loves the country and Hong Kong; if it has studied, of the justifications for the relevant conclusions?
16. Dr Hon Elizabeth QUAT to ask: (Translation)
Some women have relayed to me that at present the support facilities for breastfeeding are insufficient, public education for promoting breastfeeding is ineffective, and support from members of the public and family members for breastfeeding is also inadequate and, as a result, quite a number of mothers of new-born babies have given up or prematurely stopped breastfeeding. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it will introduce legislation to require that breastfeeding rooms and baby-sitting rooms be provided in public places such as shopping malls in newly constructed buildings, and require that when renovation works are carried out for the public places in the existing buildings, such facilities have to be retrofitted; if it will, of the details and the legislative timetable; if not, the reasons for that; (2) whether it will take measures to encourage private enterprises to provide staff who have resumed duty after maternity leave with an environment congenial to breastfeeding mothers, including the time and place for expressing breast milk, as well as refrigerating facilities for storing breast milk; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (3) among the offices of various government departments, of the current number and percentage of those providing support facilities for breastfeeding mothers; whether it will step up the supervision of various government departments in their implementation and enforcement of the policy of the Department of Health on support for breastfeeding, so as to further encourage the departments to provide staff who have resumed duty after maternity leave with an environment congenial to breastfeeding mothers; if it will, of the details and the timetable for all departments to fully implement the policy; if not, the reasons for that; (4) whether it will consider lengthening the statutory maternity leave to enable working women to feel at ease in breastfeeding their babies at home for a longer period after giving birth, so that they will not stop breastfeeding prematurely owing to a lack of support facilities in their work place; if it will, of the details and the legislative timetable; if not, the reasons for that; (5) whether it will further step up the publicity on the merits of breastfeeding so as to strengthen support for breastfeeding in the community, with a view to reducing the pressure faced by women who breastfeed their babies; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (6) whether it will step up training for healthcare personnel of maternal and child health centres in providing breastfeeding mothers with guidance and support on breastfeeding skills; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (7) whether it will encourage private and public hospitals to provide more training courses on breastfeeding skills and knowledge for participation by pregnant women, mothers of new-born babies and their family members, and step up support measures to encourage more pregnant women to choose in advance to breastfeed their babies immediately after delivery; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
17. Dr Hon KWOK Ka-ki to ask: (Translation)
In as early as 2004, the authorities proposed building a special school in Tung Chung. In reply to a written question from a Member of this Council on 4 May 2011, the Education Bureau indicated that it had preliminarily selected a suitable site for building the school, and was actively studying the feasibility of the related land use and conducting technical studies with the departments concerned. It has been learnt that quite a number of parents of students with special educational needs, as well as concern groups, have expressed dissatisfaction that so far the authorities have not yet announced the building project for the school. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the latest progress of the project to build a special school in Tung Chung, including the site selected and the construction schedule, as well as details of the relevant consultation exercise, including the dates and venues of consultative sessions, the attending officials and the public views received; (2) of the number of various types of special schools across the territory and the number of places offered by them each year since 2004, with a breakdown by District Council district; and (3) of the number of students currently living in the Islands District and attending special schools in other districts; whether the Government has any measure in place to help the parents of such students to ease their stress and burden of transport expenses arising from escorting children to and from schools; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
18. Hon Paul TSE to ask: (Translation)
It has been reported that since the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal ("the Terminal") Park formally opened to the public in October last year, it has become a new tourist spot for quite a number of local one-day tours. However, to avoid overcrowding of the terminal facilities on port call days, the operator of the Terminal charges each coach a gate fee ranging from $125 to $250 for picking up and dropping off visitors at the Terminal, although spaces are still available for coaches at the coach bays. It is a common scene during the rush hours on Sundays that nearly one hundred coaches pick up and drop off visitors on the streets and at the roundabout near the Terminal in order to avoid paying gate fees, which has not only caused traffic jam, but also posed danger to a large number of visitors when they cross the roads. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has assessed the numbers of local tour groups, visitors and coaches visiting the Terminal on port call days; if it has, of the details; whether it has assessed the utilization of the coach parking spaces, public toilets and other facilities at the Terminal; if it has not, whether it will expeditiously conduct such assessments; (2) whether it has assessed if sufficient tourism facilities are provided at the Terminal at present; whether the Lands Department, the Leisure and Cultural Services Department and the operator of the Terminal have discussed the coordination measures to address the transport needs of both cruise visitors and visitors of local tours, so as to avoid any chaos; (3) whether it will consider suggesting the operator of the Terminal to adjust the measure of charging gate fees, and to allocate some spaces for free parking by coaches of local tour groups in the light of the parking spaces needed for coaches to pick up and drop off cruise visitors; and (4) of the latest occupancy rate of the shops in the Terminal Building; the number and types of the shops which have opened and those which are expected to open within this year; whether it has assessed the impact of newly added shops on the visitor flow at the Terminal?
19. Hon LEUNG Kwok-hung to ask: (Translation)
Quite a number of students studying at Ma On Shan St. Joseph's Secondary School and their parents have complained to me that the rule of the school which prohibits students from bringing mobile telephones to school is unreasonable and that the teachers of the school have also searched students' belongings to enforce the rule. Also, when conducting such searches, the teachers have asked students to make moves which caused embarrassment to the latter, and checked the call logs in students' mobile telephones. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the number of searches of students' belongings conducted by the teachers of the aforesaid school in the past five years; whether, during the sports day of the school in the 2013-2014 school year, any teacher searched the belongings of students of the opposite sex; (2) as the aforesaid school issued on 5 March this year a circular to the parents of students citing the prevention of students from using mobile telephones to carry out improper acts (e.g. clandestine photo-taking) at school as its ground for prohibiting students from bringing mobile telephones to school, whether the Education Bureau ("EDB") knows if, in the past five years, there were cases in the aforesaid school in which students were found to have carried out clandestine photo-taking using their mobile telephones; if there were, of the number of such cases and, among them, the number of those referred to the Police for follow-up; if not, whether EDB has assessed if prevention of students from using mobile telephones to carry out improper acts as cited in the aforesaid circular is a tenable argument; (3) whether it knows, in each of the past five years, the number of students of the aforesaid school who were punished by the school for bringing mobile telephones to school, as well as the details of the punishment; (4) whether it knows the current requirements and arrangements of aided schools concerning students bringing mobile telephones to school; (5) whether the Education Ordinance (Cap. 279) and the guidelines issued by EDB to aided schools prohibit students from bringing mobile telephones to school, or using mobile telephones during recess and lunch break or their journeys to and from school; if so, of the legal basis for such rules, and whether EDB will immediately impose punishment on those schools which allow students to do so; (6) whether EDB has assessed if the school rule of prohibiting students from bringing mobile telephones to school, as well as the practice of checking the call logs of students' mobile telephones have contravened Article 30 of the Basic Law, which stipulates that "[t]he freedom and privacy of communication of Hong Kong residents shall be protected by law", or violated the legislation on protecting personal data privacy and human rights; if it has assessed and the outcome is in the positive, whether EDB will require the schools concerned to abolish that school rule and cease such a practice; if it will, when it will do so; if not, whether EDB will rectify such a situation only after the parents have instituted legal proceedings; (7) whether any existing legislation has empowered teachers in aided schools to search students' belongings; if so, of the details and the legal basis; and (8) whether the Education Ordinance and the guidelines issued by EDB to aided schools stipulate that searches of students' belongings should only be conducted by teachers of the same sex; if so, of the details, including the penalty for violating such a requirement; if not, whether EBD will make such a requirement so as to avoid embarrassment being caused to female students by male teachers searching their belongings?
20. Hon Charles Peter MOK to ask: (Translation)
This Council enacted the Competition Ordinance (Cap. 619) in June 2012 to provide a legal framework to curb anti-competitive practices in various sectors in order to promote fair and effective competition. The authorities expect the Competition Commission ("the Commission") to commence enforcement of the relevant provisions of the Competition Ordinance next year. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the progress of the work on drafting the regulatory guidelines and conducting consultation on the relevant matters by the Commission; (2) whether it knows the Commission's work plan for organizing educational and publicity activities for the public and the trades; whether the Commission will prepare specific regulatory guidelines and host relevant seminars tailored made for individual trades and industries, so as to assist various trades in understanding the requirements of the Competition Ordinance and to enhance their knowledge of anti-competitive practices, such as collusive price-fixing and abuse of market power; (3) whether it knows if the Commission will (i) monitor the anti-competitive practices in individual trades and industries in order to promote a level-playing field in Hong Kong, and (ii) monitor any anti-competitive phenomenon caused by the economic activities of exempted statutory bodies, so as to ensure that these bodies do not abuse the exemption arrangement; and (4) given that the competition provisions of the Broadcasting Ordinance (Cap. 562) and the Telecommunications Ordinance (Cap. 106) will be repealed upon the implementation of the relevant transitional arrangements, and that concurrent jurisdiction over such matters will be conferred on the Commission and the Communications Authority ("CA") under the Competition Ordinance for which they should prepare and sign a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") as soon as possible to co-ordinate the performance of their respective functions under the Competition Ordinance, whether it knows the contents of the MOU, if the Commission and CA will consult this Council and the public on such contents, and how they will handle complaints about anti-competitive practices in the broadcasting and telecommunications industries; if there will be consultations, of the details and their timetable?
21. Hon WU Chi-wai to ask: (Translation)
Under the existing policy, the Government may grant short term tenancies ("STTs") for temporary use of vacant government land that has no intended use or is not required for development in the near future. Where an STT is applied for a non-profit-making purpose and has the "policy support" of the relevant policy bureau or department, the District Lands Office concerned under the Lands Department ("LandsD") will grant the tenancy at nominal rent ("STTs at nominal rent"). In his Direct Investigation Report in March 2012 ("the Report"), The Ombudsman expressed concern about the implementation of the related monitoring system, including failure on the part of LandsD and the policy bureax or departments giving "policy support" to conduct regular site inspections of the leased land, to follow the procedures for tenancy renewal, and to take enforcement actions (including unauthorized building works on the sites and illegal sub-letting against tenancy breaches), etc. Regarding the granting of STTs at nominal rent, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the following information on each of the government land sites leased on STTs at nominal rent (set out in the following table by the responsible district land office): (i) location/address of the site; (ii) site area; (iii) tenant; (iv) use of land put forward by the tenant in the first STT; (v) the name of the policy bureau/department giving the "policy support" and the justification for that; (vi) date on which the STT was first granted; (vii) date on which the STT was renewed most recently; (viii) whether LandsD had conducted inspections of the site and consulted the policy bureau/department giving the "policy support" prior to the most recent tenancy renewal; and (ix) breach of lease by the tenant (if applicable);
District land office:
(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (2) whether LandsD has followed up on the five recommendations made by The Ombudsman in the Report; if it has, of the details; and (3) of the number of cases in each of the past five years in which the tenants of the sites mentioned in (1) were found to have breached the tenancy terms; whether the authorities terminated the tenancies concerned; if they did, set out the details of each case?
22. Hon Kenneth LEUNG to ask: (Translation)
With the release of a consultation paper on the future fuel mix for electricity generation last month, the Environment Bureau has launched a three-month public consultation on two fuel mix options. The first one is the "grid-purchase option", under which more electricity will be imported through purchasing electricity from the China Southern Power Grid Co. Limited ("CSG"). The second is the "local generation option", under which more natural gas will be used for local electricity generation. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether the authorities had, before putting forth the "grid-purchase option" as a choice for consultation, collected statistics on the number of power supply incidents in CSG in the past and looked into its fuel mix for electricity generation in order to assess the stability of its power grid as well as the impacts of purchasing electricity from CSG on the regional environment; if they had, of the details and whether such information will be made available to the public; (2) given that the grid-purchase option involves capital investments for installing cross-boundary transmission infrastructure and local back-up generating capacity, as well as possibly transportation and load management charges, whether the authorities have assessed the level of investments, the management charges and the service lives of the transmission infrastructure concerned; if they have, of the results; (3) given that the local generation option involves capital investments for installing new power generation units, whether the authorities have assessed the level of investments as well as the service lives of the new power generation units concerned; if they have, of the results; (4) whether it will consider, on the premises that the public approve of the increase in the share of nuclear power in the future fuel mix for electricity generation and that new power generation units will not be built, purchasing more electricity from Daya Bay Nuclear Power Station for supply to Hong Kong; (5) whether it will set any output target on the electricity generated by using renewable energy and by turning waste to energy; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; of the expenditure involved in, as well as the specific details of, the development of renewable energy by the Government in the past five years, and the quantity of electricity generated using renewable energy each year; and (6) as an engineer has pointed out that for some reasons, the hydro-power stations in Yunnan Province opened up the spillway to dispose of the stored water instead of generating electricity, resulting in a loss of approximately 24 000GWh in the power generation output of the whole province last year, which is more than half of the whole-year electricity consumption (43 000GWh) of Hong Kong, and that in view of this, Hong Kong may consider purchasing from the Yunnan authorities the electricity generated at designated stations and transmitting it to Hong Kong through CSG and paying to CSG the charges on electricity transmission through its power grid, together with the additional investment expenditure on infrastructure, whether the authorities have considered if the proposal is feasible and studied the option of only purchasing the electricity from the Mainland power grid which is generated using renewable energy; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
III. Bill
Second Reading (Debate to resume)
Appropriation Bill 2014 : The Financial Secretary
IV. Member's Motion
Motion under Rule 49E(2) of the Rules of Procedure
Hon Andrew LEUNG to move the following motion:
That this Council takes note of Report No. 15/13-14 of the House Committee laid on the Table of the Council on 9 April 2014 in relation to the subsidiary legislation and instrument(s) as listed below:
| Item Number | Title of Subsidiary Legislation or Instrument |
| (1) | Toys and Children's Products Safety (Additional Safety Standards or Requirements) Regulation (L.N. 17/2014) |
| (2) | Toys and Children's Products Safety Regulation (Repeal) Regulation (L.N. 18/2014) |
| (3) | Toys and Children's Products Safety (Amendment) Ordinance 2013 (Commencement) Notice (L.N. 19/2014). |
Clerk to the Legislative Council