A 13/14-32
Legislative Council
Agenda
Wednesday 18 June 2014 at 11:00 am
I. Tabling of Papers
| Subsidiary Legislation / Instruments | L.N. No. | |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Food and Drugs (Composition and Labelling) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulation 2014 | 90/2014 |
| 2. | Import and Export (General) Regulations (Amendment of Schedules) Order 2014 | 91/2014 |
| 3. | Import and Export (Fees) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulation 2014 | 92/2014 |
| 4. | Solicitors (General) Costs (Amendment) Rules 2014 | 93/2014 |
Other Papers
| 1. | Report No. 20/13-14 of the House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments |
| (to be presented by Hon Andrew LEUNG, Chairman of the House Committee)
| |
| 2. | Report of the Subcommittee on Inland Revenue (Exchange of Information relating to Taxes) (United States of America) Order |
| (to be presented by Hon James TO, Chairman of the Subcommittee, who will address the Council)
| |
| 3. | A Companion to the history, rules and practices of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
Part I - An introduction to the Legislative Council, its history, organisation and procedure (together with a covering paper on the Companion) |
| (to be presented by the President of the Legislative Council)
| |
II. Questions under Rule 24(4) of the Rules of Procedure
1. Hon TANG Ka-piu to ask: (Translation)
Over the last two Fridays when the Finance Committee ("FC") of this Council was scrutinizing the funding application relating to the North East New Territories New Development Areas, some of the protesters employed violent means and attempted to force their way into the Legislative Council Complex ("the Complex"). They charged at the police officers and security staff of the Legislative Council Secretariat, causing injuries to a number of people (including more than 10 security staff of the Secretariat) and damages to certain facilities of the Complex. As FC will continue to scrutinize the aforesaid funding application this Friday, and it has been reported that the protesters will resort to violent acts again, will the Government inform this Council of the emergency measures to be taken by the Police for upholding the law as well as maintaining public order so as to protect the personal safety of the people, including police officers and security staff, present at the scene?
Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Security
2. Hon IP Kwok-him to ask: (Translation)
On the night of last Friday, 13 June, the Legislative Council Complex ("the Complex") was stormed by more than one thousand protesters. In an attempt to force their way into the Complex, the protesters damaged the security facilities of the Complex, forcibly pulled away the mills barriers placed in the demonstration area outside the Complex, and tried to pry open the doors with bamboo poles. The violent attacks by the protesters have resulted in damages to several parts of the Complex and the early adjournment, due to security concerns, of the meeting of the Finance Committee ("FC") of the Legislative Council ("LegCo"), which was then scrutinizing the funding application relating to the North East New Territories New Development Areas, thus hindering the normal operation of LegCo. Some people also impeded LegCo Members’ free entry into and exit from the Complex. Some people have threatened that they will storm the Complex again when FC continues to scrutinize the aforesaid funding application this Friday, 20 June. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether the Police have immediately reviewed their deployment at the Complex last Friday, in particular if the police manpower deployed to the scene was adequate; if they have, of the results; (b) how the Police assess the possible risks of disruption of public order outside the Complex this Friday in order to make corresponding deployment; and (c) given the situation last Friday and the fact that some people have threatened that they will storm the Complex again during the FC meeting this Friday, whether the Police have planned to increase the police manpower to be deployed, and to cooperate with the LegCo Secretariat on issues such as how to prevent protesters from violently storming the Complex, as well as ensuring that the FC meeting will not be interfered and LegCo Members can enter and leave the Complex safely and freely?
3. Dr Hon Fernando CHEUNG to ask: (Translation)
On the 13th of this month, when the Finance Committee ("FC") of this Council was scrutinizing the funding application relating to the North East New Territories New Development Areas ("North East Development"), more than 1 000 villagers who would be affected by the project concerned and other members of the public staged protests outside the Legislative Council Complex ("the Complex"), urging the Government to withdraw the related funding application. Some of the protesters attempted to enter the Complex and thus clashed with the police officers at the scene. The Police subsequently cleared the scene. A reporter alleged that the Police carried him away from the scene by force and some protesters also alleged that the Police inflicted pain on them by bending their joints. In addition, some protesters and personal assistants of Members were arrested by the Police and some of them claimed that while they were on police vehicles, some police officers hurled abuse at them, beat them with fists, hit their heads, spat at them, slapped them and pulled their hair. Given that FC will continue to scrutinize the aforesaid funding application this Friday and there may be conflicts again as it has been reported that there will be protests again, whether the Government has immediately reviewed if the practices of the Police in clearing the scene last Friday (including removing a reporter from the scene, and the process of bringing protestors back to the police station) were in compliance with the Police General Orders, particularly the principle of using minimum force; and whether it has put in place specific measures to further ensure that the law enforcement actions to be taken by the Police for handling the protests this Friday will comply with the Police General Orders?
Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Security
4. Hon Starry LEE to ask: (Translation)
Last Friday, when the Finance Committee ("FC") of this Council was scrutinizing the funding application relating to the North East New Territories New Development Areas, a clash erupted outside the Legislative Council Complex ("the Complex"), which was the fiercest in recent years. Protesters stormed at various entrances of the Complex, resulting in damages of various facilities of the Complex as well as a number of people being injured and arrested. FC will continue its scrutiny of the aforesaid funding application this Friday. Some netizens who claimed to have participated in the said storming called on others, through Internet forums, to participate in besieging the Complex again. They even disseminated action guidelines teaching people openly how to besiege the Complex, how to break tempered glasses, how to use mills barriers and fire extinguishers as weapons, and how to deal with pepper spray attacks, etc. These netizens also displayed the structural plan of the various entrances of the Complex, explained how to break through the entrances and even said clearly that "there is no need to worry about the safety of those behind the glasses". In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether the Police have immediately assessed if such seditious comments on the Internet have increased the risks of disruption of public order outside the Complex this Friday; if the assessment outcome is in the affirmative, of the details and the Police’s corresponding deployment plans; and (b) whether the Police will take actions expeditiously to curbs such acts on the Internet of teaching other people how to use weapons, encouraging the participation in the storming of the Complex, and instigating the deliberate infliction of bodily harm on other people; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
IIA. Questions
1. Dr Hon LAM Tai-fai to ask: (Translation)
It has been reported that earlier on, some individuals and Members of this Council belonging to the pan-democratic camp met with senior officials of the United States of America ("the USA") and the United Kingdom on issues relating to constitutional development, but the Members concerned have declined the invitation of the Director of the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("the Liaison Office") to discuss the related matters with him. The individuals concerned have indicated that they will take part in an action to organize over 10 000 people to block the roads in Central ("Occupy Central") unless the constitutional development proposals put forward by the Government meet their demands. Separately, in reply to my question on whether letters of no objection would be issued for public assemblies or processions related to Occupy Central during his attendance at the Question and Answer Session of this Council earlier on, the Chief Executive ("CE") said that the Government could not sit back and do nothing, and it would not underestimate the eventuality of such incident, and that he himself, the Security Bureau and the Hong Kong Police Force attached great importance to this issue and they were making due preparation on various fronts, including operational deployment. He also indicated that the Government would not issue letters of no objection in respect of assemblies, demonstrations and processions to any person who seeks to paralyze the financial centre. In any event, the Government would act in accordance with the law and the Police would resolutely enforce the laws should there be any unlawful acts. Meanwhile, he "was given to understand that quite a number of financial institutions, industrial and trade organisations, as well as professional practices located in Central were making preparations for instituting civil proceedings. They would demand the persons concerned to stop occupying and paralyzing Central by way of civil proceedings, and would seek court orders for the persons concerned to compensate for the economic losses so incurred once the situation of Central being paralyzed occurred." In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has identified any foreign forces meddling with Hong Kong affairs, including making indiscreet remarks on the direction of constitutional development, as well as advocating and supporting Occupy Central; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (2) whether it has looked into the reasons why individual pan-democrats (including former and incumbent Members of this Council) have had high-profile meetings with the Vice President of USA, Consul General of USA in Hong Kong and the British consul in Hong Kong, etc. to discuss constitutional development while declining the invitation of the Director of the Liaison Office for discussion on such issues; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (3) as CE indicated that the Government could not sit back and do nothing about Occupy Central and was making due preparation on various fronts, whether the Government will assist the business and industry sector or other individuals who suffer losses as a result of Occupy Central in claiming compensation from its organizers through legal means; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
| Public Officers to reply | : | Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Secretary for Security |
2. Hon Paul TSE to ask: (Translation)
The Medical Council of Hong Kong ("MCHK") is vested with statutory powers to conduct inquiries into complaints about the professional conduct of registered medical practitioners, and may take disciplinary actions against those practitioners found to be guilty of professional misconduct. It has been reported that MCHK receives about 500 complaints each year, but conducts disciplinary hearings on only 22 of such complaints on average. Some members of the public have criticized that the fact that MCHK is mainly composed of medical professionals will easily give rise to the situation of "doctors harbouring each other", such as imposing lenient penalties on those doctors guilty of professional misconduct. Moreover, MCHK has taken a very long time in handling some of the cases, causing grievances among the victims of medical incidents and their families. For instance, concerning the death of a newborn son of a couple in 2005, it is not until recently (i.e. nine years after the incident) that MCHK has adjudicated that the doctor concerned is guilty of professional misconduct. This case has aroused wide public concern about the composition, operations and complaint handling procedure of MCHK. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has assessed if the current composition, criteria for appointment of its members and modus operandi of MCHK are conducive to its handling of complaints in an objective, fair, credible and efficient manner; if it has assessed, of the methodology and outcome of the assessment, as well as the relevant follow-up actions taken; if not, the reasons for that, and whether it can immediately conduct such an assessment; as some members of the public consider that the penalties meted out by MCHK to doctors guilty of professional misconduct are often too lenient, thus lacking sufficient deterrent effect, of the follow-up actions the authorities will take; (2) as it has been reported that the couple in the aforesaid case have spent more than $1 million on legal fees and engaging medical specialists to prepare independent assessment reports, etc., of the policies and measures put in place by the authorities to assist those victims of medical incidents and their families who have financial difficulties and lack medical expertise in seeking justice; and (3) whether it will examine the establishment of a new independent redress mechanism (such as office of the ombudsman for medical services) dedicated to handling complaints about medical incidents?
3. Dr Hon KWOK Ka-ki to ask: (Translation)
In attending the Question and Answer Session of this Council last month, the Chief Executive ("CE") stated that the Government would not underestimate the eventuality of "Occupy Central", and therefore he himself, the Security Bureau and the Hong Kong Police Force attached great importance to this issue. They were making due preparation on various fronts, including operational deployment. CE also pointed out that as Occupy Central would paralyze Central, the Government would not issue letters of no objection in respect of assemblies, demonstrations and processions to any person who seeks to paralyze the financial centre. In addition, the initiators of Occupy Central will hold a ballot on the 22nd of this month inviting the public to choose a proposal for selecting CE by universal suffrage in 2017, and Occupy Central will strive for the implementation of that proposal. Regarding the Government's deployment against Occupy Central, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it will consider incorporating the proposal chosen through the aforesaid ballot by Occupy Central into the document for the second-round consultation on constitutional development, so as to avoid the occurrence of Occupy Central; if it will not, of the policies and procedures based on which the authorities will decide whether to incorporate the proposals supported by the public into that consultation document; (2) whether there were cases in the past five years in which the Police had already made decisions of refusal to issue letters of no objection before the organizers of assemblies or processions submitted their applications; if there were, of the number and details of such cases; whether the Police have decided, in accordance with the aforesaid remarks made by CE, not to issue letters of no objection to public assemblies or processions involving Occupy Central; if they have so decided, whether it is because of the fear that such activities may subsequently develop into Occupy Central, whether such a practice is different from the established procedures adopted by the Police in the past and whether it will become a precedent; and (3) whether it will keep the personal information of the participants of Occupy Central for reference by government departments or other employers in future recruitment exercises; if it will, of the details, including the legal and policy bases for such a practice, and whether its purpose is to discourage the public from participating in Occupy Central?
| Public Officers to reply | : | Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Secretary for Security |
4. Hon CHEUNG Kwok-che to ask: (Translation)
The Government announced in the 1999 Budget the introduction of a competitive bidding system for the delivery of social welfare services, with price and quality being the criteria for evaluation of bids. Subsequently in 2001, the Social Welfare Department ("SWD") started granting time-limited contracts for "Contract Homes" and "Enhanced Home and Community Care Services"("EHCCS") for the elderly through competitive bidding. I have learnt that a new bidding exercise will shortly be conducted for the EHCCS project, and subsequent to the failure of some service agencies in bidding for the new contracts, some users of such services have experienced difficulties in adapting to the services provided by new service agencies and their staff. Moreover, some service agencies have ceased employing experienced staff, whose salaries were relatively higher, for the purpose of reducing costs so as to boost their chance of success in the bidding, resulting in deterioration of the service quality. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective numbers of contracts for Contract Homes and EHCCS awarded to new service agencies through competitive bidding in each of the past 10 financial years; (2) whether it has considered incorporating provisions into the tender documents for EHCCS to the effect that the pay offered to the relevant staff by the successful bidders must be adjusted in line with the pay adjustments for civil servants each year; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (3) as there are views that SWD's granting of time-limited contracts for EHCCS by competitive bidding will result in low morale among the front-line staff and aggravate the brain drain problem, whether the authorities will consider bringing such services within the ambit of the Lump Sum Grant Subvention System; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
5. Hon WU Chi-wai to ask: (Translation)
It is learnt that the number of visitor arrivals in 2013 exceeded 54 million, with mainland visitors accounting for 75% of the figure and their arrivals exceeding 40 million. Early this year, some members of the public were dissatisfied that the excessive number of mainland visitors to Hong Kong had seriously impacted on the livelihood of Hong Kong residents, and thus urged the Government to implement measures to limit the number of mainland visitors to Hong Kong. The Chief Executive ("CE") said at that time that mainland and overseas visitors coming to Hong Kong could create a large number of job opportunities for the tourism industry and the grassroots in Hong Kong, and that Hong Kong people "should not become conceited before getting rich". Afterwards, an official of the Central Authorities said that he would ask the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council and the China National Tourism Administration to look into Hong Kong's capacity for receiving visitors. Recently, the Government raised for discussion the issues of visitors' demand management and a 20% cut in the number of mainland visitors to Hong Kong. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has assessed if the viewpoint put forward by CE that Hong Kong people "should not become conceited before getting rich" is still applicable at present; if the assessment result indicates that it is still applicable, why the Government raised for discussion the issues of visitors' demand management and a 20% cut in the number of mainland visitors; if the assessment result indicates that it is not applicable, of the justifications for that; (2) whether objective consideration or the attitude of the Central Authorities is currently the primary basis on which the Government formulates the relevant policies on the Individual Visit Scheme ("IVS"); should it be the former, of the importance of the attitude of the Central Authorities; should it be the latter, the reasons for that; and (3) whether it has assessed if a reduction in the number of same-day mainland visitors to Hong Kong will have less impact on Hong Kong's economy; if the assessment result is in the affirmative, whether the Government will discuss with the mainland authorities changing the One-year Multiple-entry IVS Endorsements (i.e. "multiple-entry permits"), currently issued to mainland residents, to "one trip per day" permits; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
6. Hon Frederick FUNG to ask: (Translation)
According to Articles 16 and 22 of the Basic Law, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("SAR") shall, on its own, conduct the administrative affairs of SAR in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Basic Law, and no department of the Central People's Government and the like may interfere in the affairs which SAR administers on its own in accordance with the Basic Law. However, it was reported that some officials of the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in SAR had approached some Members of this Council in November last year regarding the vetting and approval of domestic free television programme service licence applications. In addition, on the 22nd of last month, the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council ("HKMAO") issued a statement relating to some Members of this Council "interrupting the speech of and throwing objects at" the Chief Executive ("CE") while he was attending the CE's Question and Answer ("Q&A") Session held on that day. In the statement, HKMAO stated that "…we oppose any behaviour that abuses the Rules of Procedure, and disrupts the SAR Government's policy implementation in accordance with the law…". In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether, before the aforesaid Q&A Session, any member of the SAR Government had discussed with the officials of the Central Authorities on any matter relating to the Q&A Session and formulated counter-measures (e.g. preparing a relevant statement in advance or planning to stage a walkout en masse by the officials); whether HKMAO had issued the aforesaid statement at the request of the SAR Government; (2) whether it has studied the scope of "the affairs which" SAR "administers on its own" as provided in Article 22 of the Basic Law; whether there is any mechanism in place at present to prevent CE and the officials of various bureaux from inviting, for certain reasons (e.g. to take advance of the authority of or to pander to the wish of the Central Authorities), the Central Authorities to interfere in the affairs which SAR administers on its own; and (3) whether it has assessed if HKMAO has contravened the Basic Law (including the policy of "One Country, Two Systems" and the principles of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy" being implemented in Hong Kong) by issuing the aforesaid statement; if the assessment outcome is in the affirmative, whether it will express dissatisfaction to the Central Authorities; whether it has assessed if such an act of HKMAO has caused the people of Hong Kong to be concerned about the Central Authorities violating the aforesaid policy?
*7. Hon CHUNG Kwok-pan to ask: (Translation)
In recent years, the waiting times for hearing of some court cases have been longer than the targets set by the Judiciary. In 2014-2015, the Judiciary plans to create additional judicial posts and other support staff posts, in order to relieve the pressure of inadequate manpower and shorten the waiting times for hearing of cases. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) given the indication by the Judiciary Administrator that judicial workload has been persistently heavy, whether it knows if the Judiciary will, in the long run, expedite the handling of cases by improving the workflow or the deployment of resources, apart from enhancing its manpower provision; if the Judiciary will, of the details; if the Judiciary will not, the reasons for that; and (2) whether it knows if the problem of inadequate manpower in the Judiciary has impacted on the time taken by the courts to deliver judgments on cases after the conclusion of their hearings; of the respective times taken on average by various levels of courts to deliver judgments on cases after the conclusion of their hearings in the past three years, with a tabulated breakdown by year and by type of cases; whether the Judiciary has set any target for the time taken for delivery of judgments; if such a target has been set, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*8. Dr Hon Priscilla LEUNG to ask: (Translation)
At a subcommittee meeting of this Council on the 28th of last month, the Chief Secretary for Administration indicated that the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority had sufficient funds to cover the construction costs of the Batch 1 and Batch 2 facilities of the West Kowloon Cultural District ("WKCD") project. However, owing to factors such as rising construction costs and that the construction of some facilities of the WKCD project could not commence as scheduled because of the delay of the project to construct the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL Project"), the authorities had to comprehensively review the sources of funding and implementation timetable of the Batch 3 facilities (including the Great Theatre, Musical Theatre and Music Centre). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has assessed afresh the construction costs of various facilities of the WKCD project, taking into account factors such as the rising costs of construction and the anticipated inflation rate; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (2) whether it has estimated the financial losses brought about by the delay of the XRL Project on the WKCD project; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; whether the authorities have reserved the right to claim losses from the MTR Corporation Limited, the party responsible for the XRL Project; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (3) as there are views that the delayed completion of the Batch 3 facilities of the WKCD project will affect the development of local arts, cultural and creative industries, whether the authorities have any plan to expeditiously confirm and announce the arrangement and timetable for implementation of the Batch 3 facilities of the WKCD project?
*9. Hon Michael TIEN to ask: (Translation)
Since 2010, the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") has increased its fares for five consecutive years under the established mechanism. Although MTRCL has offered various fare concessions, some members of the public are still dissatisfied that albeit having recorded sizeable profits, MTRCL has increased its fares year after year, thereby increasing their burden. Regarding the profits made and the fare concessions offered by MTRCL, will the Government inform this Council whether it knows, from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2014:
(1) the total underlying business profit of MTRCL each year, with a tabulated breakdown of the profit arising from: (i) Hong Kong transport operations, (ii) Hong Kong station commercial business, (iii) Hong Kong property rental and management businesses, (iv) Hong Kong property developments, (v) Mainland China and international businesses, and (vi) other businesses (including Ngong Ping 360, railway consultancy and project management services); (2) the total number of shops in MTR stations, the average lease period of such shops, and the rental income of MTRCL from the shops in each year (set out in table form); and (3) the projected amount of the fare concessions to be benefited by passengers each year when MTRCL introduced them and the actual amount benefited by passengers each year, with a tabulated breakdown by its major fare promotions and concessions (including fare concession for children, Student Travel Scheme, fare concession for the elderly, Fare Saver discounts and half-fare concessions for persons with disabilities, etc.)?
*10. Hon Jeffrey LAM to ask: (Translation)
The Financial Secretary has indicated in his 2014-2015 Budget that in respect of the management of municipal solid waste, the Government will invest about $30 billion in infrastructure for waste recycling and treatment. In addition, the Government has earmarked $1 billion for the setting up of a Recycling Fund, which aims at promoting the sustainable development of the recycling industry. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the projects in which the aforesaid $30 billion will be invested; and the latest estimated expenditure for the various projects; (2) according to the initial thinking of the Government, of the modus operandi of the Recycling Fund and the types of recyclers which may benefit from the Fund; (3) whether it will consider providing concessions in rent or tax to local recyclers, with a view to increasing the proportion of waste recycled locally; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (4) as quite a number of recyclers have relayed that they have difficulties in recruiting adequate manpower for those obnoxious duties such as waste recovery and separation, of the measures put in place by the Government to encourage more people to join the recycling industry?
*11. Hon Alice MAK to ask: (Translation)
It has been reported that loss of sand has occurred at a number of public beaches (including Cafeteria Old Beach, Golden Beach, Stanley Main Beach and Deep Water Bay Beach), some of which have to be closed temporarily. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it conducted in the past five years any investigation into the quantities of sand lost from public beaches; if it did, of the details, and set out such quantities by year in tables of the same format as the table below;
Year: __________
Beach Quantity of sand lost (tonnes) (2) whether it conducted in the past five years any study on the prevention of sand loss from public beaches; if it did, of the details, and set out by year in the table below the details and number of such studies as well as the manpower and expenses involved;
Year Details of the studies Number of studies Manpower and expenses involved 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 (3) whether it received in the past three years any enquiry or complaint from District Councils or members of the public about the loss of sand from public beaches; if it did, of the details, and set out the number of enquiries and complaints from various districts by year in tables of the same format as the table below;
Year: __________
District Number of enquiries and complaints (4) whether it took the initiative to deploy, in the past three years, manpower to inspect the situation of sand loss from public beaches; if it did, of the details, and set out, by year in tables of the same format as the table below, the numbers of inspections of the beaches in various districts and the manpower involved; if not, whether the authorities have any plan to deploy staff to conduct regular inspections on the situation of sand loss from public beaches;
Year: __________
District Number of beach inspections Manpower involved (5) whether it took remedial measures in the past five years in respect of the public beaches which had suffered sand loss; if it did, of the details, and set out, by year in tables of the same format as the table below, the details and number of the remedial measures taken for those public beaches, as well as the manpower and expenses involved;
Year: __________
Beach Details of the remedial measures Number of remedial measures Manpower and expenses involved (6) as it has been reported that the preventive and remedial works for sand loss, e.g. replacement of sand layers, construction of retaining walls and groynes, carried out by the authorities at beaches like Cafeteria Old Beach and Golden Beach are ineffective, whether the authorities have formulated other preventive and remedial measures; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (7) as some experts have queried that the loss of sand at some public beaches is mainly attributable to the inappropriate design of the stormwater outfalls nearby, whether the authorities will inspect the stormwater outfalls at various public beaches and carry out improvement works?
*12. Hon LEUNG Che-cheung to ask: (Translation)
In July last year, an international friendly soccer match was held at the Hong Kong Stadium ("the Stadium"). As the turf of the Stadium was not in good condition, coupled with inclement weather at that time, the pitch became muddy soon after the match had started. The Government subsequently indicated that it would formulate short, medium and long term measures to improve the quality of the turf of the Stadium. Regarding the management of turfs of sports grounds under the Leisure and Cultural Services Department ("LCSD"), will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the measures taken by LCSD since July last year for improving the quality of the turfs of the Stadium and other sports grounds as well as the effectiveness of such measures; (2) whether it has regularly inspected the quality of the turfs of the Stadium and other sports grounds since July last year; if it has, of the standards and results of the inspections; if not, the reasons for that; (3) of the current staff establishment within LCSD responsible for the management of the turfs of sports grounds; whether LCSD has, in recruiting experts in the management of turf pitches, set standardized requirements for candidates regarding the professional qualifications they must hold and their experience in managing turfs in sub-tropical regions; if it has not, of the reasons for that; and (4) whether it will allocate more resources to improve the quality of turfs of the Stadium and other sports grounds; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*13. Hon Christopher CHUNG to ask: (Translation)
A large quantity of antiquities and monuments, traceable to the Song Dynasty, were earlier excavated from the works site of the To Kwa Wan Station on the MTR Shatin to Central Link ("SCL"). Some members of the Antiquities Advisory Board ("AAB"), historians and members of the education sector have pointed out that such antiquities and monuments are of greater archaeological significance than the Lei Cheng Uk Han Tomb that was uncovered in the 1950s. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has grasped the quantity of the antiquities and monuments excavated from the aforesaid works site, as well as the dynasties from which they are dated and their types; if so, of the details and set out such information in table form; if not, whether the archaeologists engaged by the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") to carry out the excavation work have regularly reported the progress to the Government or AAB; (2) whether it has already set the deadline for completing the archaeological work at the end of September this year; if it has not, whether it has set a deadline for the archaeological work (if so, of the deadline); if it has set the deadline at the end of September this year, whether the construction works of SCL will resume in the event that the archaeological work has yet to complete on expiry of the deadline; (3) as there are views that the current practice of MTRCL to appoint experts on its own to carry out archaeological work in the aforesaid works site is open to question because MTRCL, under the pressure to complete the project as scheduled, may damage the monuments out of hastiness, whether the authorities will request MTRCL to invite local archaeologists, historians, and experts from the Leisure and Cultural Services Department to join the excavation work, so as to protect the monuments properly; (4) whether it will expeditiously consult independent experts or conduct a public consultation to decide on matters such as whether to preserve in-situ the monuments uncovered at the works site of SCL, as well as whether realignment of SCL is required; if it will not, of the mechanism for formulating preservation proposals; and (5) as some historians have pointed out that the said archaeological work is significant for understanding the history of Hong Kong, whether it will consider setting up an expert committee upon completion of the relevant excavation work to carry out follow-up studies, including compiling the history of Hong Kong afresh based on the relics excavated, so as to enhance Hong Kong people's understanding of the ancient Hong Kong, and to strengthen their sense of belonging to the motherland?
*14. Hon TAM Yiu-chung to ask: (Translation)
It has recently been reported by some media that the number of torture claim cases received by the Immigration Department is rising, but only very few of such cases have been substantiated after screening. There are views that the continuous increase in the number of torture claim cases has not only consumed public money, but also given rise to problems such as claimants engaging in illegal employment and criminal activities during their stay in Hong Kong. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the time taken and expenditure incurred (including the expenditure for processing appeals lodged upon rejection of claims) on average in processing a torture claim by the authorities in the past three years; and the longest time taken for processing a torture claim and the expenditure on that case; and (2) whether the authorities have studied ways to expedite the processing of torture claim cases and strengthen the immigration control system to reduce the impact of the rising number of torture claims on the Hong Kong community; if they have studied, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*15. Hon Dennis KWOK to ask:
In his 2014 Policy Address, the Chief Executive ("CE") said that "[t]he Government will continue to actively promote Hong Kong's legal and dispute resolution services to enhance our status as a centre for international legal and dispute resolution services in the Asia-Pacific region". Also, in reply to the questions raised by Members of this Council on the Estimates of Expenditure 2014-2015, the Government indicated that an Advisory Committee on Promotion of Arbitration ("the Advisory Committee") would soon be established, which will advise on and co-ordinate on-going and new initiatives for the promotion of Hong Kong's arbitration services in the Asia Pacific region. On the other hand, Hong Kong has recently lost out to Sydney in the bid for the right to host the 2018 Congress of the International Council for Commercial Arbitration ("ICCA Congress"). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has assessed the reasons for Hong Kong losing the bid for hosting the aforesaid ICCA Congress; if it has, of the findings and details of the assessment, as well as the follow-up actions; if not, the reasons for that; (2) whether it has studied if there will be other international arbitration conferences, similar to the aforesaid ICCA Congress, in the near future that Hong Kong may bid for the right to host them; if it has, of the findings and details of the study; if not, the reasons for that; (3) of the latest progress of the establishment of the Advisory Committee, including when it will be established as well as its proposed terms of reference, composition and work plans; (4) whether it has plans to invite international legal bodies and arbitration institutions, such as the London Court of International Arbitration, Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce and the Permanent Court of Arbitration in Hague, to set up regional offices in Hong Kong; if it does, of the details of such plans; if not, the reasons for that; and (5) whether it has plans to assist the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre ("HKIAC") in gaining recognition as a formal arbitration commission on the Mainland, and/or obtaining other relevant legal status on the Mainland, so as to enable HKIAC to enter the Mainland arbitration field; if it does, of the details of such plans; if not, the reasons for that?
*16. Dr Hon CHIANG Lai-wan to ask: (Translation)
When a juvenile under the age of 18 has been arrested for having committed an offence, and there is sufficient evidence to charge him/her with the offence, the Police may, other than bringing the case to the Juvenile Court/Court, exercise discretion by referring the case to a Police Officer of the rank of Superintendent or above to issue a caution ("superintendent's caution") to the juvenile offender under the Police Superintendent's Discretion Scheme. Regarding the statistics on and the effectiveness of superintendents' cautions, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of juveniles issued with superintendents' cautions in each of the past 10 years, with a tabulated breakdown by type of cases; (2) of the number of juveniles in each of the past 10 years who recidivated within two years from being issued with superintendents' cautions, with a tabulated breakdown by type of cases; (3) of the current measures in place to assist juveniles who were issued with superintendents' cautions in their rehabilitation with a view to reducing their recidivism; and (4) as some juveniles have been issued with superintendents' cautions for more than once, whether the authorities will review the effectiveness of the existing policy of superintendents' cautions in assisting juveniles in rehabilitation; if they will, of the details?
*17. Dr Hon Elizabeth QUAT to ask:
According to government statistics, some 5 400 metric tons of shark fin products were imported into Hong Kong in 2013. It is learnt that the practice of shark finning is a direct cause of the worldwide collapse of shark population and the near extinction of a number of shark species. Many countries have enacted legislation to ban the sale or possession of shark fins, and quite a number of businesses (such as airlines, shipping lines, eateries and hotels) have also disassociated from shark fin trade. In addition, the Government pledged last year to exclude shark fins, among others, in the menus of official entertainment functions "to demonstrate its commitment to the promotion of green living and sustainability". In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it will, for better regulation of the shark fin trade and improvement of its transparency, consider improving the existing Hong Kong Harmonized System codes used for classifying the goods for lodging import/export declarations in Hong Kong, including (i) following the coding practice used for bluefin tuna to identify the shark species that need to be tracked, (ii) deploying scientific identification methods (e.g. DNA testing of randomly sampled shark fins for verification purposes), and (iii) collecting and publishing full statistics on Hong Kong's shark fin trade (including the species, volume and country of origin of the sharks involved); if it will not, of the reasons for that; (2) whether it will consider not consuming the fins of rays, which are used as substitutes for shark fins, at its official entertainment functions; if it will not, of the reasons for that; and (3) whether it will draw reference from the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan to take cross-boundary actions for the protection of endangered shark species; if it will not, of the reasons for that?
*18. Hon Kenneth LEUNG to ask: (Translation)
It has been reported that some employers collect employees' biometric information, such as fingerprints and genetic data derived from blood samples, for internal investigation or security purposes. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, Hong Kong ("OPCPD") has pointed out that such practices allegedly constitute improper collection of personal data and serious invasion of employees' privacy. There are comments that the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486) has failed to effectively regulate employers' collection, holding, processing and use of employees' personal data, resulting in inadequate protection of employees' privacy. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the number of complaints received by OPCPD in each of the past three years about improper collection of employees' personal data by employers, and the outcome of the handling of such cases by OPCPD; (2) given that the Government indicated in its Report on Public Consultation on Review of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance published in October 2010 that it did not intend to subject sensitive personal data (particularly biometric information) to more stringent regulation, but proposed in the Report that the protection of such data be enhanced, of the details of the efforts made so far by the authorities and OPCPD in promoting the protection of sensitive personal data; (3) given that with technology advances, biometric systems, which capture physiological attributes of individuals, are increasingly used for identification and authentication purposes, whether the authorities and OPCPD have plans to enact laws or draw up codes of practice/guidelines to step up the regulation of the collection and use of biometric information; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (4) whether it knows, in respect of some employers requiring their employees to undergo comprehensive pre-employment physical check-ups (including the collection of biometric information), if OPCPD has taken any corresponding actions to protect employees' privacy and to ensure that the recruitment activities concerned are conducted without unreasonable and excessive collection of personal data, and that adequate protection of the personal data concerned is provided in the course of the collection, processing and storage of such data; if so, of the details and the effectiveness of such actions; if not, the reasons for that?
*19. Dr Hon Kenneth CHAN to ask: (Translation)
In April last year, NAE Hong Kong Limited ("NAE") was allocated vacant school premises in Lam Tin by the Education Bureau ("EDB") for setting up an international school. It has been reported that while the school sponsoring body and the international school concerned are institutions exempt from tax under section 88 of the Inland Revenue Ordinance ("IRO") (Cap. 112), the parent company of NAE is currently seeking a public listing. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether EDB has rules or guidelines at present for regulating the financial management and use of funds of schools and their sponsoring bodies which are exempt from tax; if it does, of the details; if it has not, whether it will consider formulating such rules or guidelines; if it will do so, of the specific plans; if not, the reasons for that; (2) whether NAE has informed EDB of the public listing plan of its parent company; if it has not, whether EDB has assessed if NAE has breached the relevant rules or guidelines of EDB; if the assessment outcome is in the affirmative, of the details and the follow-up actions taken by EDB; (3) given that when granting the aforesaid school premises at nominal rent, the Government made the requirement that the international school operating on the premises and its sponsoring body must be institutions exempt from tax under section 88 of IRO, whether EDB will take measures to ensure that the international school and its sponsoring body continue to operate on a non-profit-making basis; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (4) whether it has studied if the public listing plan of the parent company of NAE will affect the eligibility of NAE for tax exemption in Hong Kong; if the study outcome is in the affirmative, of the details; if the study outcome is in the negative, the reasons for that?
*20. Hon CHAN Hak-kan to ask: (Translation)
The Government established the Ping Wo Fund in 2003 to finance preventive and remedial measures to address gambling-related problems. Since matches of the World Cup Finals are ongoing at present, legal and illegal football betting activities may become even more active during this period. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the situation of crime syndicates' operation of illegal football betting through taking bets via the Internet, including the total amount of bets, in the past four years; whether it has assessed if such activities have become more rampant during this year's World Cup; if it has assessed, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; of the measures taken to step up efforts to combat such activities, as well as the effectiveness of such measures; (2) whether it knows the situation of crime syndicates' operation of illegal football betting through taking bets via channels other than the Internet (such as the telephone), including the total amount of bets, in the past four years; whether it has assessed if such activities have become more rampant during this year's World Cup; if it has assessed, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; of the measures taken to step up efforts to combat such activities, as well as the effectiveness of such measures; (3) whether it has assessed if there are connections between local crime syndicates and their counterparts outside Hong Kong (e.g. in the Pearl River Delta); if it has assessed, of the details; whether it has joined hands with the law enforcement agencies of other regions to combat the illegal operation of cross-boundary football betting; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (4) whether it knows the number of problem and pathological gamblers who received in the past four years counselling, treatment and other support services offered by organizations financed by the Ping Wo Fund; the age profile of the recipients of assistance; whether the authorities have compiled statistics on recipients of assistance who had quitted gambling relapsing into the habit; if they have, of the findings; if not, the reasons for that; (5) of the financial position of the Ping Wo Fund since its establishment, including details on its income (including the fund injection by the authorities) and expenditure in each year; whether the authorities have conducted any review of the operation (including fund-injection matters) of the Fund; if they have; of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (6) whether the authorities have any other measures, beside those financed by the Ping Wo Fund, to reduce public participation in illegal gambling and alleviate problems related to gambling; if they have; of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*21. Hon LEUNG Kwok-hung to ask: (Translation)
It has been reported that some former employees of We Channel, a web radio station ("the station") formerly known as the Hong Kong New Power Media Limited ("New Power"), complained to the Labour Department ("LD") on the 3rd of this month that the station had defaulted on payments for their wages of more than $20,000. They also alleged that at the end of August last year, the operator of the station, who was the President of the Parents' Association of Hong Kong ("PAHK") cum President of the Federation of Parent-Teacher Associations of Yau, Tsim and Mongkok Districts Limited, had arranged them to work for the Police and Citizens Music Concert organized by the Hong Kong Retired Police Officers Betterment Association ("RPOBA"), but had not paid them the wages for such work. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether the Government provided any funding to PAHK and RPOBA in the past five years; if it did, of the projects it funded and the amounts of the funding involved; (2) of the number of persons who complained to LD in this month about the aforesaid station defaulting on wage payments; how LD has followed up such complaints, and whether it will help such persons to file claims with the Labour Tribunal for arrears of wages; (3) whether LD received any complaint in the past five years about New Power, PAHK or RPOBA defaulting on wage payments; if it did, of the details; (4) whether LD handles complaints about arrears of wages in different ways based on the backgrounds of the employers concerned; if it does, of the reasons for that; (5) whether it will step up efforts to clamp down on employers repeatedly defaulting on wage payments, so as to protect the interests of employees; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (6) whether it will consider raising the penalties for defaults on wage payments (e.g. raising the maximum length of imprisonment), so as to increase the deterrent effect for the protection of employees' interests; if it will, of the implementation time; if not, the reasons for that, and whether the Government is condoning unscrupulous employers defaulting on wage payments?
*22. Hon Charles Peter MOK to ask: (Translation)
The sound broadcasting licences ("the licences") held by the Hong Kong Commercial Broadcasting Company Limited and Metro Broadcast Corporation Limited will expire on 25 August 2016. The Telecommunications Ordinance ("TO") (Cap. 106) provides that applications for licence renewal must be submitted to the Communications Authority ("CA"). CA is required to submit its recommendations to the Chief Executive in Council ("CE in Council") on the renewal of the licences and the imposition of terms and conditions (such as the periods of validity of the licences), for consideration and decision by the latter. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the factors considered by CA in deciding how recommendations should be made in respect of the aforesaid issue; where such factors include the licensees' past performance in providing broadcasting services, of the assessment criteria and methods to be adopted by CA; whether CA will engage a consultant to study the assessment criteria and methods that should be adopted; if CA will, of the details and timetable, and whether CA will make its recommendations in line with the contents of the consultancy report; (2) whether it will expeditiously release the matters which CE in Council will take into account in exercising the discretion whether to grant a licence (other than those factors to be taken into account as specified in TO), so as to avoid the aforesaid two licensees facing an uncertain business environment; (3) whether it has assessed the penetration rate of digital audio broadcasting ("DAB") since it granted three sound broadcasting licences for the provision of DAB services in 2011; if it has, of the details; and (4) whether it will encourage the aforesaid two licensees to develop DAB services by means such as imposing additional conditions for renewal of their licences; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
* For written reply
III. Bill
| First Reading
| ||
| Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014
| ||
| Second Reading (Debate to be adjourned)
| ||
| Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014 | : | Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development |