A 14/15-10
Legislative Council
Agenda
Wednesday 17 December 2014 at 11:00 am
I. Tabling of Papers
| Subsidiary Legislation / Instruments | L.N. No. | |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Designation of Libraries (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2014 | 152/2014 |
| 2. | Intercountry Adoption (Contracting States) (Amendment) Order 2014 | 153/2014 |
| 3. | Waste Disposal (Designated Waste Disposal Facility) (Amendment) Regulation 2013 (Commencement) Notice 2014 | 154/2014 |
| 4. | Waste Disposal (Refuse Transfer Station) (Amendment) Regulation 2013 (Commencement) Notice | 155/2014 |
Other Papers
II. Questions
1. Hon Andrew LEUNG to ask: (Translation)
In 2013, the Government introduced the "Interim Scheme to Extend the Home Ownership Scheme Secondary Market to White Form Buyers" ("the Interim Scheme") with a quota of 5 000 for persons meeting the eligibility criteria for the Home Ownership Scheme ("HOS") White Form applicants to purchase second-hand HOS flats without payment of land premium. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective numbers of persons aged 35 or below among the Interim Scheme applicants, the persons who were issued Certificates of Eligibility to Purchase and those who have purchased second-hand HOS flats under the Scheme; (2) whether it has studied the changes in the prices of HOS flats since the introduction of the Interim Scheme, and how this situation compares with the relevant situation in the private housing market; if there are differences between the two, of the reasons for that; and (3) of the authorities' measures, apart from the new round of Interim Scheme to be rolled out in the middle of next year, to assist members of the public aged 35 or below who aspire, and have the ability, to purchase second-hand HOS flats in buying their own homes?
2. Hon CHAN Hak-kan to ask: (Translation)
It has been more than two months since the occurrence of the illegal road occupation movement. It has been reported that in the occupied areas, the occupiers put up a lot of publicity materials, generated large quantities of garbage, drew graffiti everywhere and used without permission large quantities of government properties, including mills barriers, water barriers and traffic cones, etc. Some of them even damaged lamp posts and illuminated bollards, removed paving blocks and planter blocks, dismantled the central dividers on roads and vandalized police cars. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has assessed the public expenditure involved in and the number of working hours spent by civil servants on cleaning up the occupied areas and repairing the facilities concerned since the occurrence of the occupation movement, as well as the manpower and expenditure needed for completely restoring the occupied areas to their original form; if it has assessed, of the details; (2) whether it has compiled statistics on the quantity of government properties that were used without permission or vandalized, and on the costs of purchase and the reprovisioning costs of such properties; if it has, of the details; whether it will recover such losses from the people or groups concerned; if it will, of the details; if it has not compiled such statistics, the reasons for that; and (3) of the criminal liabilities to be borne by the people who have used government properties without permission or vandalized them; whether it will commence criminal investigations into the use without permission and vandalism of government properties by the occupiers and make arrests accordingly?
3. Hon Tony TSE to ask: (Translation)
The MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") announced last month that the West Island Line ("WIL"), which is an extension of the MTR Island Line to Kennedy Town, would be partially commissioned at the end of this month, and that the Sai Ying Pun Station of WIL was expected to be ready for use in the first quarter of next year. Some members of the public have expressed the concern that as the train compartments are already very crowded at present, the commissioning of WIL may worsen the situation. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows, during the period from the beginning of the road occupation on 28 September this year to 15th of this month, the daily average patronage, the respective daily average patronages during the morning and the afternoon peak hours in respect of each railway line (except for the Disneyland Resort Line, and the same exception applies below), as well as the daily average passenger flow at each interchange station; how such figures compare with those for the period from 1 to 27 September this year; whether MTRCL has formulated any measure to alleviate the pressure on its passenger services in the event of occurrences of similar road occupation incidents in future; (2) whether it knows if MTRCL has assessed the impacts of the commissioning of WIL on the patronage of the various railway lines and the passenger flow at various interchange stations before the end of the road occupation; if MTRCL has assessed, of the outcome and what corresponding measures it has put in place; if MTRCL has not assessed, the reasons for that, and how MTRCL ensures that its passenger services, railway station facilities and manpower resources, etc., are adequate to cope with the increase in patronage; and (3) given that the road occupation in Admiralty is one of the causes for the delay in the Admiralty Station extension works, whether it knows if MTRCL has assessed how the passenger flow at the Admiralty Station upon the commissioning of WIL at the end of this month will compare with the current figure and with the original estimate for the initial operation stage of WIL respectively; if MTRCL has assessed, of the outcome and the measures to alleviate the crowdedness at the Admiralty Station (especially at the train platforms) before the completion of the extension works for the Station; whether MTRCL has assessed the impacts of offering fare concessions to passengers travelling from the Sheung Wan Station or WIL's HKU Station on the railway patronage and passenger flow (particularly at the Admiralty Station); if MTRCL has not assessed, the reasons for that?
4. Hon YIU Si-wing to ask: (Translation)
Some members of the public have relayed to me that among the public museums which the Government has deployed considerable resources to build and operate, some of them have recorded low attendances. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective attendances of the various museums under the Leisure and Cultural Services Department in each of the past three years; (2) of the respective incomes and general expenses of the museums mentioned in (1) in each of the past three years; and (3) of the museums that have recorded distinctly low attendances or the attendances of which have shown a relatively significant downward trend; whether the authorities have analyzed the causes for such situations and explored ways to increase attendance; if they have explored, of the details, including whether they will consider partnering with commercial organizations in operating the museums; if they have not explored, the reasons for that?
5. Hon LEE Cheuk-yan to ask: (Translation)
It has been reported that in July this year, the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom ("UK") launched an inquiry into the UK's relations with Hong Kong 30 years after the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong ("Joint Declaration"), and planned to send a delegation to Hong Kong this month. However, the Chinese Embassy in UK told the chairman of the Committee last month that should members of the Committee attempt to visit Hong Kong, they would be denied entry. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) given that Article 154 of the Basic Law stipulates that "[t]he Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may apply immigration controls on entry into, stay in and departure from the Region by persons from foreign states and regions", whether the authorities know the legal basis for the Chinese Embassy in UK to state that members of the aforesaid Committee would be denied entry to Hong Kong, as well as the number of occasions since 1 July 1997 on which the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China denied entry of members of parliaments ("MPs") of foreign countries to Hong Kong and the number of such MPs involved; (2) whether it has approached the Central People's Government ("CPG") to gain an understanding on whether UK, as one of the signatories to the Joint Declaration, has any role in respect of the implementation, on and after 1 July 1997, of the basic policies of China regarding Hong Kong as set out in the Joint Declaration; if it has, of the details; and (3) whether it has approached CPG to gain an understanding on the purpose of the Chinese and UK governments registering the Joint Declaration with the United Nations in June 1985, and whether the United Nations or the organizations under it may monitor the implementation of the Joint Declaration?
6. Ir Dr Hon LO Wai-kwok to ask: (Translation)
According to the findings of a survey conducted by the Hong Kong Construction Association at the end of last year, there was a shortfall of more than 15% of workers, i.e. over 10 000, in the construction industry. On the other hand, the Labour Advisory Board ("LAB") endorsed on 26th March this year a proposal to expedite the labour importation processes for public works projects, including railway projects. The authorities have set up a dedicated task force to help examine the applications for importing labour of 26 designated trades prior to their submission to LAB for vetting and approval ("the enhancement measure"). Regarding the importation of workers of the construction industry, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has assessed the effectiveness of the enhancement measure, including the extent to which the time for vetting and approval of applications for importing labour has been shortened and the percentage of successful applications has increased; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (2) as the enhancement measure is only aimed at expediting the labour importation processes and is only applicable to public works projects and the 26 trades, whereas the manpower shortage in the construction industry remains serious, whether the authorities will expeditiously review the Supplementary Labour Scheme and relax the various restrictions on labour importation, in order to meet the demand for construction workers when the infrastructure construction is in full swing; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (3) whether it will expeditiously work out a list of infrastructural projects prioritized according to their degree of urgency and conduct an comprehensive human resources survey in collaboration with the construction sector to facilitate a comprehensive review of the policy on importation of construction workers; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
| Public Officers to reply | : | Secretary for Development Secretary for Labour and Welfare |
*7. Hon Albert HO to ask: (Translation)
Regarding the implementation of family-friendly policies by various policy bureaux/government departments ("B/Ds") for their employees, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the overtime work arrangements and compensation methods currently adopted by various B/Ds for their employees, as well as the situations of their employees performing overtime work (with a breakdown by B/D); (2) which B/Ds have currently implemented the arrangements for flexible working hours, and whether such arrangements are applicable to both civil servants and non-civil service contract staff; (3) how the Government promotes the implementation of family-friendly policies (including the arrangements for flexible working hours and the provision of reasonable compensations to employees who have performed overtime work) among various B/Ds; and (4) whether the Government will comprehensively implement family-friendly policies in various B/Ds so as to take the lead in this respect; if it will not, of the reasons for that?
*8. Dr Hon Fernando CHEUNG to ask: (Translation)
According to the existing policy of the Education Bureau, when Tropical Cyclone Warning Signal No. 3 ("Signal No. 3") issued by the Hong Kong Observatory is in force, classes of schools for children with physical disabilities and schools for children with intellectual disabilities are to be suspended ("the class suspension policy"), but classes in mainstream primary and secondary schools will be as usual during such period. As such, students with disabilities studying in the former will not have classes, while those studying in the latter under the integrated education can go to school as usual. Some parents of students of special schools consider that the class suspension policy has caused inconvenience to them as well as deprived the students of their right to go to school and, therefore, the authorities should explore feasible ways to assist these students in going to school. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the purposes of the class suspension policy; whether it has assessed how far such purposes have now been served, and whether the impacts of class suspension on students' studies are proportionate to the risks to which they will otherwise be exposed; (2) when the class suspension policy was formulated, the changes made to it so far, and the date on which it was last reviewed; whether stakeholders (including parents) and the Equal Opportunities Commission had been consulted when this policy was formulated and revised; if so, of the details, including the date on which the last consultation was conducted; whether the authorities will expeditiously review the policy and consult various stakeholders; if they will, when the review will commence and the time required to complete it; (3) of the numbers of students with disabilities studying in mainstream primary and secondary schools who were injured or died in the course of their travelling to and from schools when Signal No. 3 was in force, in each of the past five years, and whether insurance compensations were provided to them as a result; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that, and whether it will review the coverage of the insurance policies procured by schools; whether it has assessed the differences in respect of the risks for students with disabilities who study in mainstream schools and for those who study in special schools in travelling to and from schools when Signal No. 3 is in force; (4) of the number of days on which classes of special schools were suspended in each of the past five years because Signal No. 3 was in force; whether the authorities have currently put in place any measure (such as temporary day nursery service) to assist parents of special school students, who need to go to work as usual, in taking care of their children during class suspension; (5) as teachers of special schools are required to work as usual when Signal No. 3 is in force, whether the parents of students of such schools have the right to choose bringing their children to school or otherwise; if so, whether the authorities have notified the schools and the parents accordingly; if they have not notified, whether they will expeditiously issue such notice; (6) whether it knows the current respective numbers of special schools which have expressly discouraged parents to bring their children to school when Signal No. 3 is in force, those which have advised parents not to bring their children to school and those which have refused to let parents to leave their children at the schools who had already gone there; and (7) whether it has assessed if the class suspension policy, under which students of special schools cannot have classes as those students in the mainstream schools do when Signal No. 3 is in force, has violated Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights relating to all persons being equal, Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights regarding the right of everyone to education, Article 23 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child about taking care of children with disabilities and offering assistance to their parents in caring for such children, as well as Articles 7 and 24 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities relating to persons with disabilities having the right to education on an equal opportunity basis?
*9. Dr Hon Helena WONG to ask: (Translation)
The Consumer Council earlier referred to educational experts for evaluation 13 revised senior secondary textbooks which were chosen and used by more schools in this school year, nine of which are on Liberal Studies ("LS") subject. According to the evaluation results announced last month, of the nine LS textbooks, revision of five was considered to be somewhat necessary while revision of the other four was entirely unwarranted. The Consumer Council has pointed out that publishers revising textbooks at will add to the burden of parents. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of secondary schools using LS textbooks in each of the past three school years; if such statistics are unavailable, of the reasons for that; (2) whether it has advised LS textbook publishers directly, or through the trade associations concerned, to publish the supplementary or revised contents of the textbooks in the form of appendices as far as possible to reduce the need for revising textbooks for this subject; if it has, of the outcome; if not, the reasons for that; and (3) given that publishers may submit their textbooks to the Education Bureau ("EDB") for review for inclusion in the Recommended Textbook List ("RTL"), and that EDB has stipulated that the textbooks included in RTL are subject to the "five-year rule of no revision", whether EDB has considered accepting publishers' applications for review of LS textbooks so that when LS textbooks are included in RTL, the publishers may not revise such textbooks at will; if EDB has, when it will be implemented; if not, the reasons for that?
*10. Hon LEUNG Kwok-hung to ask: (Translation)
Quite a number of members of the public have complained to me that the burial services currently provided by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") are in short supply. They have encountered many problems when booking cremation sessions and waiting for niches, etc. They have also pointed out that with an ageing population in Hong Kong, the existing burial services cannot meet the increasing demand. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the current number of cremators across the territory; (2) whether it will increase the numbers of crematoria and cremators; if it will, of the following information on the new crematoria and cremators to be provided in the coming five years: (i) the numbers, (ii) the completion dates and (iii) the locations (set out one by one in a table); (3) of the number of new niches to be provided by FEHD in each of the coming five years and the completion dates; (4) given that at present, when members of the public book online the cremation service provided by FEHD, they can only choose from the cremation sessions available within the next 15 days, whether the authorities will consider extending the number of days available for booking to 30 days, so as to make available more sessions for members of the public to choose; if they will, of the implementation date; if not, the reasons for that; (5) whether it will consider increasing the amount of the burial grant provided for recipients of the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Scheme, so that the amount can cover the costs for religious (especially the Taoist and the Buddhist) funeral services; if it will, of the amount to be increased and the implementation date; if not, the reasons for that; (6) whether it will plan the use of more lands in the North East New Territories New Development Areas for the construction of funeral parlours, crematoria and columbaria; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (7) whether it will expand the existing public columbaria by converting them to buildings of not lower than 20 storeys, so as to meet the demand for niches; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (8) of the respective numbers of cases in which members of the public used the services of scattering cremated ashes in Gardens of Remembrance and at sea in each year since 2013; and (9) whether it collaborated with non-profit-making or charitable organizations in promoting green funeral services in the past five years; if it did not, the reasons for that; if it did, of the details and whether it will increase such services?
*11. Hon Michael TIEN to ask: (Translation)
Some public light bus ("PLB") operators have relayed to me that the current policy of treating railways as the backbone of Hong Kong's public transport system has led to the continued expansion of the areas covered by railway services. Moreover, while other public transport services are also developing continuously, only PLB service remains stagnant, resulting in a continued decline in PLBs' patronage. On the other hand, the Government has, since 1 August 2004, required all newly registered PLBs be fitted with passenger seat belts. However, currently quite a number of old PLBs are not yet fitted with seat belts to strengthen the protection for passengers' safety. Regarding the improvement of the business environment for and facilities of PLBs, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) as some PLB associations have proposed that the statutory ceiling for passenger seating capacity of PLBs be raised from 16 to 20 seats in view of the fact that currently many minibuses of new models are already fitted with 20 seats when they were manufactured, so that under the premise of no increase in the number of PLBs (thereby not generating additional road traffic load), PLBs' carrying capacity will be increased and the use of roads will be more effective, whether the Government will consider afresh adopting the proposal; if it will, of the details and implementation timetable; if not, the reasons for that; (2) as the existing legislation provides that PLBs may not operate on new expressways (such as Tsing Ma Bridge) or in new towns (such as Tung Chung) and new housing developments where adequate public transport services are planned, and the new towns have been well developed in recent years, whether the Government will review if such restrictions are outdated, and consider relaxing them; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (3) given that new railway lines have been completed and commissioned one after another in recent years, including the West Island Line which will be partially commissioned at the end of this month, and the businesses of PLBs running to and fro Hong Kong Island West and other districts will thus be affected, whether the Government has consulted the green minibus operators prior to the commissioning of the West Island Line regarding the arrangements for rationalization of their service routes; whether it has plans to expeditiously cancel the "no stopping" zones for PLBs on Hong Kong Island, so as to give PLBs more business opportunities, thereby protecting the livelihood of PLB drivers; and (4) given that the requirement for PLB passengers to wear seat belts has been implemented for a decade, whether it has evaluated the effectiveness of the requirement; if it has, of the details; whether the Government will consider introducing measures to encourage PLB operators to replace their buses with new ones, so as to ensure that all passenger seats of PLBs be fitted with seat belts?
*12. Hon Albert CHAN to ask: (Translation)
Recently, some members of the public have relayed to me that some artworks once exhibited at the ArtAlive@Park 2014 large-scale public art project ("ArtAlive exhibition") were dismantled and discarded as rubbish after the exhibition. These members of the public are of the view that such an action is an utter disrespect for the creators of the artworks concerned. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the number of artworks which were discarded after the ArtAlive exhibition in each of the past five years, and the reasons for that; among them, the number of artworks which ended up in landfills; and (2) whether it will consider, in future ArtAlive exhibitions, discussing with the creators of the artworks to be exhibited to work out better ways to dispose of the artworks after the exhibitions, e.g. donating them to social welfare organizations, putting them up for charity auctions, etc.; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*13. Hon Christopher CHEUNG to ask: (Translation)
It has been reported that recently some lawbreakers have engaged in the sale of dragon and phoenix bangles which are electroplated with genuine gold and of a design copying that of the gold ornaments sold at famous goldsmith shops. Quite a number of Mainlanders visiting Hong Kong as well as Hong Kong people planning to get married have purchased such imitation gold ornaments. Some members in the goldsmith industry have pointed out that since such imitation gold ornaments look almost the same as the authentic ones, such ornaments may be sold as genuine goods. Furthermore, such imitation gold ornaments may have allegedly infringed upon intellectual property rights and contravened the Trade Descriptions Ordinance (Cap. 362). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of cases involving imitation of gold ornaments that were cracked down on by the Customs and Excise Department in the past three years and the total value of the goods involved; whether any person was arrested or convicted for selling imitation gold ornaments; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (2) as it has been reported that the sale of imitation gold ornaments via channels such as social networking web sites, auction web sites, online shops and matrimonial web sites is very rampant, whether the authorities have strengthened cyber patrols to curb such activities; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (3) whether it will step up its publicity efforts to alert members of the public and tourists, so that they will not unknowingly purchase imitation gold ornaments and suffer losses as a result?
*14. Dr Hon LAU Wong-fat to ask: (Translation)
As the patronage of MTR has continuously increased in recent years, some members of the public are concerned about the adequacy of fire service facilities at railway stations. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows what fire service equipment has been installed at railway stations both the concourses and platforms of which are situated below the ground level; (2) whether it knows the current number of railway stations which are not equipped with automatic water sprinkler systems (together with a detailed list of the names of such stations), and the reasons for not installing such a system; (3) whether it has set a ceiling on the number of passengers that each of the platforms at railway stations may accommodate, and required the MTR Corporation Limited to suspend the entry of passengers to a platform when the number of passengers there has reached the ceiling, so as to forestall the occurrence, in the event of fire, of trampling accident because the escape route is overcrowded; and (4) whether it will consider limiting the number of shops in the concourses of railway stations, so as to avoid an excessive number of people congregating and staying inside railway stations?
*15. Hon WONG Yuk-man to ask: (Translation)
According to the statistics published by the Hong Kong Council of Social Service in April this year, as at the end of last year, there were 457 social enterprises ("SEs") in Hong Kong, representing an increase of 13% over the previous year. In addition, it has been reported that a survey in 2011 found that consumers are willing to pay 16% more, on average, for purchasing products in support of SEs, but only 18% of the respondents have patronized SEs. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) as some members of the public have pointed out that SEs are mainly engaged in the catering and retail industries and they have difficulties in competing with the business organizations operating in the same industries, of the measures put in place by the Home Affairs Department ("HAD") to help SEs develop in the direction of diversification and innovation; and (2) as a consultant of SEs estimated that only half of the SEs have recorded operating profits, of the new and concrete measures, apart from stepping up publicity efforts and participating in the SE summit, put in place by HAD to help improve the business situation of SEs?
*16. Hon Frederick FUNG to ask: (Translation)
The Hong Kong Housing Authority ("HA"), in collaboration with three environmental groups, implemented a food waste recycling trial scheme ("trial scheme") in 14 public housing estates from November 2012 to July this year. It has been reported that HA no longer carries out food waste recycling in such housing estates after the trial scheme was ended. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) in respect of each of the aforesaid housing estates, of (i) the number of households which participated in the trial scheme, (ii) the method adopted for the recycling of food waste, (iii) the quantity of food waste collected each month on average during the relevant period, and (iv) the way adopted for disposal of the food waste; (2) of the outcome of the review of the trial scheme, including the problems encountered in respect of the modes and workflows adopted for the recycling, adequacy of the promotional and educational efforts, cost-effectiveness of the trial scheme, cultivation of the habit of waste separation and recycling among members of the public, etc.; and (3) whether it has formulated any plan for implementing food waste recycling in public housing estates; whether it will formally implement a food waste recycling scheme in all public housing estates and adopt different modes of food waste recycling in various housing estates with regard to the constraints therein; if it will not, of the reasons for that?
*17. Hon CHAN Han-pan to ask: (Translation)
It has been reported that some members of the public are dissatisfied that recently the Hong Kong Disneyland ("HKD") not only increased its admission ticket prices but also reduced the offers under various concession schemes. For instance, starting from the New Year's Day of 2015, the dining and merchandise concessions offered under the Magic Access Platinum and Gold Membership Cards will be reduced to a level similar to those under the Silver Membership Cards. On the other hand, the Ocean Park has rolled out various exclusive offers for Hong Kong people to express gratitude for their support, which include a 20% discount offered to Hong Kong people who produced their Hong Kong Identity Cards when they purchased admission tickets during the period from the 24th of last month to the 12th of this month, as well as concession offers totalling as high as $4,700 for Ocean Park's annual pass members. In connection with HKD's setting of prices for admission tickets and concessions, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has proposed to HKD the offering of concessions on admission tickets exclusively to Hong Kong people as a reward for their support; if it has, of the details; (2) whether it has assessed if the reduction in concessions by HKD will result in a drop in attendances of Hong Kong people; if the assessment outcome is in the affirmative, of the relevant figures, and whether it knows if HKD intends to receive more visitors from places outside Hong Kong to make up for the drop; (3) whether the Government, being the majority shareholder of HKD, has established any mechanism to monitor HKD's setting of prices for admission tickets and concessions; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (4) given that the reduction in concessions by HKD has aroused discontent among some members of the public, whether the authorities have assessed the resultant impact on the future development of HKD; if they have, of the outcome; if not, the reasons for that?
*18. Hon Emily LAU to ask: (Translation)
In June this year, the Board of the Airport Authority Hong Kong ("AA") announced the appointment of the new Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") for a term of three years with effect from 1 October 2014. It has been reported that the remuneration package of the new CEO is very generous, with his salary plus bonus totalling nearly $10 million a year. In this connection, will the executive authorities inform this Council whether they know:
(1) the criteria adopted by AA for determining the remuneration package of the new CEO; (2) how the annual salary of the new CEO compares with (i) that of his predecessor and (ii) those of the top executives of other statutory bodies such as the Urban Renewal Authority and the Hong Kong Trade Development Council; if the former is higher, the reasons for that; and (3) whether AA has included Chinese nationality as one of the recruitment criteria for its CEO; if so, the justifications, and whether this criterion was adopted in previous recruitment exercises for this post?
*19. Hon Mrs Regina IP to ask: (Translation)
Prior to the commencement of the construction of the To Kwa Wan Station of the MTR Shatin to Central Link, an archaeological survey was carried out by archaeologists at the sites concerned, and quite a number of archaeological relics and remnants dating back to Song, Yuan, late Qing and up to Republican periods were excavated. Subsequently, the Secretary for Development pointed out at a media session held on the 20th of last month that the archaeological discoveries included some remnants such as ancient wells, building foundations and relevant structures dating back to the Song and Yuan dynasties. Such archaeological discoveries were significant ones in Hong Kong in recent years and of great historical, archaeological and heritage value, reflecting the historical and social development of Hong Kong. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has assessed if the coverage on the history of Hong Kong under the existing curriculum of the subject of Chinese History at junior secondary level is sufficient to enable secondary students to appreciate the significance of the aforesaid and other archaeological discoveries for understanding Hong Kong's historical and social development; if it has, of the assessment outcome; if not, the reasons for that and whether it will conduct such an assessment; (2) whether it has assessed if the low number of senior secondary students studying the subject of Chinese History at present will give rise to a situation where young people generally do not have sufficient knowledge base to appreciate the significance of the aforesaid and other archaeological discoveries for understanding Hong Kong's historical and social development; if it has, of the assessment outcome; if not, the reasons for that and whether it will conduct such an assessment; and (3) whether it knows the trend in the number of undergraduates studying history (including Chinese history and world history) in various tertiary institutions in the past decade; whether it has assessed if the tertiary institutions have provided sufficient resources for the departments concerned to nurture undergraduates in knowing Hong Kong's archaeological work and its heritage conservation?
*20. Hon James TO to ask: (Translation)
It is learnt that the discoveries of antiquities and monuments one after another at the works site of the To Kwa Wan Station on the MTR Shatin to Central Link ("SCL") have caused delays in the railway construction works and incurred additional expenditure. The Government and the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") have to make a decision within a short period of time on the approach to preserve the antiquities and monuments unearthed and the need to revise the station design, etc. There are comments that in as early as 2008, the Civil Engineering and Development Department ("CEDD") carried out an archaeological survey-cum-excavation on that site. Subsequently, the Water Supplies Department also discovered antiquities on that site during the construction of a sewage pump house in 2009. Therefore, the Government knew long time ago the possible presence of important antiquities and monuments there. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) as MTRCL currently undertakes an archaeological excavation only within the works site of the To Kwa Wan Station on SCL but the distribution area of the relevant antiquities and monuments may fall outside the site, whether the Government has considered dealing with the archaeological work which falls outside the works site; if it has, of its plans; if not, the reasons for that; (2) given that some members of the public have pointed out that the archaeological and excavation work at the works site of the To Kwa Wan Station on SCL was carried out in a very hasty manner and they did not have adequate information and channels for participating in the discussion on how to preserve the antiquities and monuments, and that there are queries of whether the authorities have made their best efforts in preserving antiquities and monuments, whether the Government will enhance public participation in the archaeological work concerned in future; if it will, in what way; if not, the reasons for that; (3) given that some members of the public have pointed out that the area of the site where relics were excavated is more than twice of that estimated in the environmental impact assessment report on SCL, whether the Government has assessed if the report had seriously underestimated the presence of antiquities and monuments in the works site concerned; if the assessment outcome is in the affirmative, of the estimated resultant increase in the project cost for SCL; and (4) given that the construction works of a number of infrastructural projects and railway projects will commence one after another in the coming few years, whether the Government has considered engaging archaeologists itself to conduct archaeological and excavation work at the locations within the works site where antiquities and monuments may be present before handing over such works sites to the contractors, instead of leaving the contractors to make arrangements for such work after they have taken over the works sites, so as not to affect the progress of the works; if it has, of its plans; if not, the reasons for that?
*21. Dr Hon LAM Tai-fai to ask: (Translation)
To address the overheated property market, the Government has introduced one after another several demand-side management measures ("measures"), including Special Stamp Duty ("SSD"), Buyer's Stamp Duty ("BSD") and doubled ad valorem stamp duty ("DSD"). Some members of the public have criticized that these measures can only slow down the rise in, but not lower property prices, and they have caused the number of transactions to shrink significantly. With a severe shortage of housing and land supply, these measures not only fail to help members of the public (particularly young people) purchase homes, but have also created grievances in society. They even damage the business environment, hampering the desire of overseas investors to invest in Hong Kong. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective amounts of revenue brought to the Treasury by the aforesaid measures since their implementation, as well as the respective numbers of transactions involved (broken down into categories of residential and non-residential property in the table below); Revenue for the Treasury Number of transaction Residential property Non-residential property Residential property Non-residential property SSD BSD (not applicable) (not applicable) DSD
(2) whether it has plans to return the revenue mentioned in (1) above to members of the public; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (3) of the respective numbers of monthly transactions of newly completed building units and second-hand building units since the implementation of the aforesaid measures; whether it has assessed if such measures have fulfilled the objectives of promoting the healthy development of the property market and meeting the home ownership needs of members of the public; (4) given that the Government has said that it would continue to boost land supply in the short, medium and long terms, and has identified about 80 additional sites in various districts with the potential to be rezoned for residential use, which could be made available in the next five years to provide 89 000 units, of the progress of the construction of such units, and whether it has assessed if these units can be put up for sale on schedule; (5) apart from the provision of 2 160 Home Ownership Scheme ("HOS") units in 2016-2017, whether the authorities will provide more HOS units in the coming few years in response to market demand; (6) whether it has reviewed if the aforesaid measures have dampened the desire of overseas investors to purchase properties in Hong Kong; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (7) whether it has reviewed if the aforesaid measures have weakened Hong Kong's competitiveness and prompted investors to invest in other places; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (8) given that the authorities have said that they would monitor the situation of the property market and reviewed the measures in a timely manner, to what level the properties prices have dropped will the authorities consider withdrawing or adjusting the aforesaid measures; and (9) of the progress of the Youth Hostel Scheme implemented by the Government; the respective districts in which each project under the Scheme is located and the respective numbers of units to be provided by each project; whether the Government has any specific measures, apart from implementing the Scheme, to help young people purchase their homes; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*22. Hon Paul TSE to ask: (Translation)
In each of the past several years, I received requests for assistance from quite a number of members of the public who said that some staff members of financial intermediaries, impersonating staff members of banks or financial institutions, tricked them into applying for high interest rate loans from finance companies and charged them expensive intermediary fees. If the victims subsequently refused to sign or wanted to cancel the loan agreements, the staff members of such intermediaries often resorted to threatening means or even detaining them unlawfully in order to make them give in. The press has reported a case in which a victim, who originally had three outstanding debts, namely a first mortgage loan of $1.87 million and a second mortgage loan of $200,000 secured on a self-owned residential property, as well as a credit card debt of $200,000, was persuaded by a financial intermediary selling a "pay-off-debt-and-save-interest plan" to take out a $2.5 million refinancing package from another bank to repay the aforesaid three outstanding debts totalling $2.27 million, and was charged a consultation fee of as high as $100,000 while the refinancing plan was still being processed. The victim ended up with more loss than gain. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the current number of financial intermediaries, their modes of operation and the sources of client information; (2) of the authorities' current policies on regulating the operation of financial intermediaries, and the channels available for members of the public to seek assistance and lodge their complaints about the fees and services of such intermediaries; and (3) whether it knows the respective numbers of complaints involving the collection of fees by financial intermediaries received by the Police, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, the Consumer Council and the relevant regulators in each of the past three years; the follow-up actions taken for such complaints; the number and type of convicted cases; and among such complaints, whether there were any cases involving collaborations between financial intermediaries and accountancy firms or law firms in touting loan-takers for subsequent profit-sharing; if there were, of the details?
* For written reply
III. Bills
| First Reading
Stamp Duty (Amendment) Bill 2014 Second Reading (Debate to be adjourned) | |||||||||||||
| Stamp Duty (Amendment) Bill 2014 | : | Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury
| |||||||||||
|
Second Reading (Debate to resume), Committee Stage and Third Reading
| |||||||||||||
| 1. | Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2014 | : | The Chief Secretary for Administration
| ||||||||||
|
The Chief Secretary for Administration to move
Committee stage amendments (The amendments were issued on 9 December 2014 under LC Paper No. CB(3) 267/14-15) | |||||||||||||
| (Debate and voting arrangements for Committee stage amendments to the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2014 (issued on 16 December 2014 under LC Paper No. CB(3) 292/14-15(01))
| |||||||||||||
| 2. | Employment (Amendment) Bill 2014 | : | Secretary for Labour and Welfare
| ||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| 3. | Construction Workers Registration (Amendment) Bill 2014 | : | Secretary for Development
| ||||||||||
|
Secretary for Development to move Committee stage amendments
(The amendments were issued on 10 December 2014 under LC Paper No. CB(3) 271/14-15) | |||||||||||||
| (Debate and voting arrangements for Committee stage amendments to the Construction Workers Registration (Amendment) Bill 2014 (issued on 16 December 2014 under LC Paper No. CB(3) 293/14-15(01)) | |||||||||||||