A 16/17-8
Legislative Council
Agenda
Wednesday 30 November 2016 at 11:00 am
I. Tabling of Papers
| Subsidiary Legislation / Instruments | L.N. No. | |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Pharmacy and Poisons (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulation 2016 | 172/2016 |
| 2. | Solicitors (Professional Indemnity) (Amendment) Rules 2016 | 173/2016 |
| 3. | Solicitors' Practice (Amendment) Rules 2016 | 174/2016 |
| 4. | Dutiable Commodities (Amendment) Regulation 2014 (Commencement) Notice | 175/2016 |
| 5. | Public Health (Animals and Birds) (Animal Traders) (Amendment) Regulation 2016 (Commencement) Notice | 176/2016
|
II. Questions
1. Hon HO Kai-ming to ask: (Translation)
Some working persons have pointed out that in recent years, cases of employees suffering from overexertion at work and even cases of sudden deaths suspected to be caused by overexertion are not uncommon. Nevertheless, the existing labour laws offer grossly inadequate protection for such employees and neglect the physical and psychological impacts of long working hours and exceedingly heavy workload on employees. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the respective criteria currently adopted by public hospital doctors for diagnosing whether or not a patient has suffered from overexertion and died of this; of the respective numbers of cases in the past three years in which employees were hospitalized for treatment due to overexertion and cases in which employees died suddenly at work or on their way to and from work due to overexertion; among those employees who were hospitalized, the respective numbers of those who were discharged after recovery and those who could not be cured and died; (2) whether it has plans to formulate new and targeted measures, including expeditiously legislating on standard working hours, so as to guard against injuries or deaths of employees due to overexertion; if it does, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (3) whether it knows the countries and regions where employees' overexertion and sudden deaths caused by overexertion are currently regarded as occupational injuries and deaths in respect of which employees' compensation may be claimed; whether the authorities will follow such practices and amend existing legislation so as to enhance protection for employees; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
2. Hon Kenneth LEUNG to ask: (Translation)
In September this year, the Shenzhen Stock Exchange released eight sets of rules governing the Shenzhen-Hong Kong Stock Connect, including the Mandatory Provisions for the Risk Disclosure Statement for Hong Kong Connect Trading. It is mentioned in the Provisions that some poor-performing and low-priced companies with small market capitalization listed on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong ("SEHK") have engaged in frequent share splits and consolidations and deeply discounted rights issues or placements, which may substantially dilute investors' rights and interests. Investors should pay attention to the risks that may arise. This kind of stocks is commonly referred to as "cheating shares" by local and mainland media. Besides, in an article published in September this year, the Chief Executive of SEHK said that acts involving fraudulent financial reports, insider trading, market manipulation, etc. are stringently combated by various major stock market regulators worldwide. In Hong Kong, the regulatory authorities adopt a practice which "assumes that the majority of people have good intentions and will follow the rules of market". In other words, "the regulator does not intervene in the free market as far as possible" and it focuses on "imposing mandatory disclosure requirements, ensuring shareholders' participation in the vetting and approval process as well as stepping up prosecutions after contraventions, thereby combating contraventions by way of penalties". In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of announcements made in the past five years by companies listed on SEHK in respect of "unusual share price and trading volume movements" and the number of listed companies involved; (2) whether the authorities have assessed if the existing mechanisms for regulating the market, vetting and approving listings, as well as investigating misconduct can effectively curb those acts of listed companies which jeopardize the interests of shareholders; if they have assessed, of the details and outcome; if not, the reasons for that; and (3) whether the authorities have conducted investigations into or studies on the characteristics of cheating shares and the listed companies involved; if they have, of the outcome; if not, the reasons for that; whether they have assessed the impacts of the existence of cheating shares on the reputation of Hong Kong as a major financial centre and on the rights and interests of investors; if they have, of the details and outcome; if not, the reasons for that?
3. Dr Hon Priscilla LEUNG to ask: (Translation)
Earlier on, a chain fitness centre closed down its business after a winding-up petition had been filed with the court against it, causing substantial financial losses to its members who could not find ways to seek compensation. Prior to this, quite a number of members of the public had complained to me that the fitness centre adopted various high-pressure and unscrupulous tactics to promote memberships and fitness courses. In addition, the provisional liquidator of the fitness centre has recently sent short messages to members of the centre to enquire whether they agree to sell their personal data to potential buyers for use in direct marketing. On the other hand, the Consumer Council received more than 1 500 complaints against fitness centres between January and September this year. At present, the Consumer Council normally handles various types of disputes by way of mediation, which has no legal effect. Although the Consumer Council has set up the Consumer Legal Action Fund ("the Fund") to give consumers access to legal remedies by providing financial support and legal assistance, there are comments that the Fund's vetting and approval procedures are cumbersome and litigation proceedings are time-consuming. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows if the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data ("OPCPD") has received any complaint regarding the provisional liquidator's attempt to sell personal data of members of the fitness centre for use in direct marketing; if OPCPD has, of the details; whether the Government has taken any timely measures to curb such an act, and whether it has considered stepping up law enforcement actions to curb the unscrupulous sales practices of fitness centres; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (2) whether it will adopt the Consumer Council's earlier recommendation to establish a Consumer Dispute Resolution Centre to provide free service of "Mediation First, Arbitration Next" for consumers and businesses so as to speed up the handling of consumer disputes, and whether it will empower the Consumer Council to step up efforts to combat unscrupulous sales practices in order to protect the rights and interests of consumers; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (3) whether it will make reference to the practices of other jurisdictions, such as the United States and Australia, and review the existing legislation to see if the regulation of pre-payment mode of consumption transactions is adequate, and to ascertain if the relevant regulation can effectively combat various unscrupulous sales practices; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
4. Hon Claudia MO to ask: (Translation)
At its Twenty-fourth Session on the 7th of this month, the Standing Committee of the Twelfth National People's Congress made an interpretation of Article 104 of the Basic Law ("BL") ("the NPCSC Interpretation"). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) as Article 104 stipulates that when assuming office, the public officers specified in the Article (namely the Chief Executive, principal officials, members of the Executive Council and of the Legislative Council, judges of the courts at all levels and other members of the judiciary) must, in accordance with law, swear allegiance to the "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" ("SAR") (i.e. the only party to whom they swear allegiance is SAR), but the NPCSC Interpretation states that "[t]he taking of the oath stipulated by Article 104…is a legal pledge made by the public officers specified in the Article to the People's Republic of China and its Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" (i.e. there are two parties to whom they make the legal pledge, namely the People's Republic of China ("China") and SAR), whether China, apart from SAR, is also a party to whom the aforesaid public officers swear allegiance when they take the oath upon assumption of office; if so, whether the authorities have assessed if Members' expression of support for "vindicating the 4 June incident" or "putting an end to the one-party dictatorship of the Communist Party" when they address this Council at its meetings will fall within the meaning of "engag[ing] in conduct in breach of the oath" in the NPCSC Interpretation and they therefore must "bear legal responsibility in accordance with law"; if they have assessed, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (2) given that Article 67 of BL stipulates that permanent residents of SAR who are not of Chinese nationality may also be elected members of the Legislative Council and Article 92 of BL stipulates that judges and other members of the judiciary may be recruited from other common law jurisdictions, whether the authorities have assessed if the public officers who are not of Chinese nationality must also swear allegiance to China when they take the oath pursuant to Article 104 upon assumption of office; if they have assessed and the outcome is in the affirmative, of the justifications; if not, the reasons for that?
5. Dr Hon CHENG Chung-tai to ask: (Translation)
Article 22 of the Basic Law provides that "[f]or entry into the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, people from other parts of China must apply for approval. Among them, the number of persons who enter the Region for the purpose of settlement shall be determined by the competent authorities of the Central People's Government after consulting the government of the Region." Mainland residents who wish to settle in Hong Kong must apply for Permits for Proceeding to Hong Kong and Macao (commonly known as One-way Permits ("OWPs")) from the Exit and Entry Administration Offices of the Public Security Bureau of the Mainland at the places of their household registration. At present, the daily quota for OWPs is 150, and the application, vetting, approval and issuance of OWPs fall within the remit of the Mainland authorities. Since 1 July 1997, a total of 830 000 Mainland residents have come to settle in Hong Kong on OWPs. It is estimated that 1.93 million new immigrants will settle in Hong Kong in the next five decades, with most of them coming from the Mainland. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the present role of the Immigration Department in the vetting and approval process for OWPs, and whether it has requested the Mainland authorities, when vetting and approving OWP applications, to consider the applicants' qualifications such as their ages, academic qualifications and language proficiency; (2) whether it has assessed, given the situation that the Government has no control over the quota and eligibility for OWPs, how it can formulate housing, healthcare, education and social welfare policies that dovetail with the demographic characteristics of Hong Kong; and (3) whether it will propose to the Central Authorities that Article 22 of the Basic Law be amended to stipulate that the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is responsible for vetting and approving Mainland residents' applications for settlement in Hong Kong?
6. Hon Jimmy NG to ask: (Translation)
Some members of the innovation and technology ("I&T") industry have relayed to me that since the Lands Department ("LandsD") interprets the definition of "industrial use" in the land leases of industrial buildings too narrowly, owners of industrial building units have refused to lease the units to them, lest the land leases may be breached. The definition of "industrial use" adopted by LandsD follows the definition of "factory" under the Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance enacted in the sixties of the last century, which refers to any premises or place, in which articles are manufactured, altered, cleansed, repaired, ornamented, finished, adapted for sale, broken up or demolished or in which materials are transformed. Notwithstanding that the definition of "industrial use", among the planning terms used by the Town Planning Board ("TPB") in interpreting statutory plans, is broadly in line with that adopted by LandsD, TPB has amended the definition for many times to cover processes such as research, design and development. Moreover, TPB has widened the scope of uses that are permitted under the "industrial" zone so that uses falling outside the definition of "industrial uses" (e.g. uses for information and technology as well as telecommunications industries) are allowed in buildings in the industrial zone. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of cases in the past five years in which LandsD took enforcement actions against lease breaches involving industrial buildings; among such cases, the number of those involving breaching of the lease for I&T industry use; whether LandsD will consider amending the guidelines on enforcement actions to deem those permitted uses in the land leases of new industrial buildings applicable to the land leases of old industrial buildings; if LandsD will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (2) given that owners of industrial building units may apply to LandsD for a temporary waiver concerning changes in the use of such units, of the reasons why LandsD has not regularly compiled statistics on the relevant information of such cases; regarding the owners whose ownership of their industrial building units had been re-entered by LandsD on grounds of lease breaches, of the number of cases in the past five years in which such owners petitioned, under section 8 of the Government Rights (Re-Entry and Vesting Remedies) Ordinance, the Chief Executive to grant them relief against the re-entry and, among such cases, the number of those in which relief was granted, with a breakdown by lease-breaching use; and (3) of the reasons why LandsD has not followed TPB's practice in amending the definition of the term "industrial use" over the years; whether the authorities will align the definitions adopted by TPB and LandsD for the term; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*7. Prof Hon Joseph LEE to ask: (Translation)
There are views that the mechanism of the Hospital Authority ("HA") for handling complaints lodged by members of the public about the medical services of and the medical incidents in public hospitals and HA's criteria for determining the punishments to be imposed on the healthcare personnel proved to have made mistakes lack transparency. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council if it knows:
(1) the number of complaints, received by each public hospital in each of the past three years, about its medical services and medical incidents, and the respective average and longest time taken to handle such complaints; (2) whether HA has currently classified or graded the complaints according to their severity; if HA has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (3) whether HA has currently provided legal assistance for the healthcare personnel under complaint; if HA has, of the details; whether HA has assessed the adequacy of the assistance provided to its healthcare personnel; if HA has not assessed, of the reasons for that; and (4) the criteria adopted by HA for determining the punishments to be imposed on the healthcare personnel proved to have made mistakes; whether the various public hospitals, upon completion of the handling of the complaints, will inform the complainants of the punishments to be imposed on the healthcare personnel proved to have made mistakes and the improvement measures to be implemented by the hospitals in the light of the outcome of the complaints; whether HA will conduct a review on ways to ensure that (i) such criteria and (ii) its complaint handling mechanism are fair?
*8. Hon Mrs Regina IP to ask: (Translation)
Under the Central Co-ordinating Referral Mechanism jointly managed by the Education Bureau ("EDB") and the Social Welfare Department, ordinary schools may, upon obtaining the consent of the parents of students with emotional and behavioural difficulties, apply to the Vetting Committee under the Mechanism for referring the students to study in schools for social development ("SSDs") (mostly with residential homes). Currently, there are five SSDs for boys of Primary 2 or above and two for girls of Primary 6 or above. On the other hand, some teachers of a primary school have relayed to me that due to the recent admission of a Primary 4 girl with emotional and behavioural difficulties to their school, the teachers have put a lot of efforts on that girl, thus affecting the progress of teaching and learning of all students in the class. However, as SSDs do not provide Primary 1 to 5 places for girls, the Vetting Committee is unable to make a referral. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective numbers of teachers, staff members, social workers and students in each SSD in each of the school years from 2013-2014 to 2015-2016; (2) of the respective numbers of applications for referral received and approved by the Vetting Committee in each of the school years from 2013-2014 to 2015-2016; (3) of the number of students with emotional and behavioural difficulties, in each of the school years from 2013-2014 to 2015-2016, who needed to continue to study in ordinary schools owing to the unavailability of SSDs suitable for admitting them; the assistance provided by EDB for such ordinary schools so as to ensure that the learning progress of other students will not be affected by their handling of students with emotional and behavioral difficulties; and (4) whether EDB has plans to provide additional SSD places for Primary 1 boys and Primary 1 to 5 girls; if EDB does, of the details; if not, the reasons for that, and whether EDB will conduct a review in this regard?
*9. Dr Hon Helena WONG to ask: (Translation)
Last year, the Housing Department and the Water Supplies Department ("WSD") conducted water sampling tests for the public rental housing ("PRH") developments completed in or after 2015, and found that the samples of drinking water taken from 11 PRH developments ("affected PRH developments") had a lead content exceeding the provisional guideline value set out in the World Health Organization's "Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality" ("excess lead in water"). To minimize the inconvenience to the affected tenants in gaining access to safe drinking water, the authorities took a series of measures, including the installation of water filters by the contractors concerned for the tenants free of charge. In order to fully rectify the problem of excess lead in water, the contractors concerned are replacing the water pipes in the common areas and those inside tenants' flats of the affected PRH developments. On the other hand, the Commission of Inquiry into Excess Lead Found in Drinking Water ("the Commission") has recommended the Government to arrange testing of the drinking water of all PRH estates again using an appropriate sampling protocol (including the testing of stagnant water samples). In response to this recommendation, the Development Bureau set up an international expert panel on drinking water safety ("the expert panel") in June this year to provide advice on, inter alia, the establishment of a water sampling protocol suitable for Hong Kong. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of (i) the latest progress of the works to replace the water pipes in the common areas, and (ii) the expected works completion date, in respect of each affected PRH development; (2) of (i) the timetable for works commencement on replacement of water pipes inside tenants' flats, and (ii) the expected works completion date, in respect of each affected PRH development; (3) whether it knows the latest date on which the contractor concerned cleaned and replaced the filter cartridges for tenants in each affected PRH development; (4) whether it knows the details and the latest progress of the work of the expert panel; (5) of the time that it has planned to conduct testing of the drinking water of all PRH estates again, including conducting sampling tests on stagnant water, in accordance with the Commission's recommendation; and (6) as the Task Force on Investigation of Excessive Lead Content in Drinking Water led by WSD has found out that the brands and models of some valves and taps dismantled from the three water supply chains in Kai Ching Estate and Kwai Luen Estate Phase 2 did not tally with the information submitted to the Water Authority before works commencement, of the follow-up actions taken by the authorities, and whether they will institute prosecutions against the contractors concerned; if they will not, of the reasons for that ?
*10. Hon SHIU Ka-fai to ask: (Translation)
Recently, a group of newspaper hawkers have relayed to me that their business environment has become increasingly difficult, and pointed out that the number of newspaper stalls in Hong Kong has dropped persistently from over 2 000 in the 1990s to the present level of about 380. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the current number of licensed newspaper hawkers; whether new hawker licences (newspapers) were issued in the past five years; if so, of the number issued each year; if not, the reasons for that; (2) given that, as mentioned in the report of the Subcommittee on Hawker Policy formed under the Panel on Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene of the previous term of Legislative Council, a member made the following suggestions for consideration by the Government: (i) relaxing the requirement for elderly licence holders to operate the hawker stalls in person, and (ii) allowing newspaper hawkers to sell more varieties of goods, whether the authorities will implement such suggestions; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (3) whether it will consider providing ex-gratia compensation for licensed newspaper hawkers who opt to surrender the licence; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (4) whether it will draw reference from overseas experience and study the introduction of a revitalization scheme for newspaper stalls to improve their business environment, so as to preserve such kind of hawking activities with characteristics of local culture and heritage, and to help newspaper hawkers maintain their livelihood?
*11. Hon LEUNG Yiu-chung to ask: (Translation)
In May this year, the Government rolled out the Low-income Working Family Allowance Scheme ("LIFA Scheme") with an aim to relieve the financial burden of working-poor families. Some members of the public have relayed to me that the application threshold for LIFA Scheme is too high, resulting in quite a number of low-income families not submitting applications as they are ineligible, or their applications being rejected. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council of the following since the launch of LIFA Scheme:
(1) the number of applications rejected by the authorities, and set out in the table below a breakdown by reason for rejection; Reasons for rejection Number of applications Family members' days of absence from Hong Kong have exceeded the limit The applicant has worked less than the required hours per month The applicant has failed to provide the necessary information (e.g. income proof) The family income has exceeded the limit Other reasons Total (2) the number of applications received by the authorities from non-single-parent families, as well as the respective numbers of such applications for which (i) full-rate Higher Allowance and (ii) full-rate Basic Allowance have been granted; (3) the number of applications received by the authorities from single-parent families, as well as the respective numbers of such applications for which (i) half-rate Higher Allowance and (ii) half-rate Basic Allowance have been granted; (4) the number of applications received by the authorities from ethnic minority families, as well as the respective numbers of such applications for which (i) full-rate Higher Allowance and (ii) half-rate Basic Allowance have been granted; (5) the number of applications received by the authorities from self-employed persons, as well as the number of such applications for which allowance has been granted; the reasons for some of the applications being rejected; and (6) the number of applications approved by the authorities, together with a tabulated breakdown by (i) District Council district in which the applicant resides, and (ii) whether the applicant has any family member aged below 15 or aged between 15 and 21 receiving full-time education?
*12. Hon Steven HO to ask: (Translation)
The legislation banning trawling activities in Hong Kong waters ("the trawling ban") came into operation on 31 December 2012. In this connection, the Government has introduced a one-off assistance scheme for the affected fishermen, including granting them ex-gratia payments. Between the commencement of the scheme and October 2015, there were 858 appeals lodged by owners of trawler vessels against the amount of ex-gratia payments granted to them. As at August 2016, the Fishermen Claims Appeal Board ("FCAB") made decisions on and completed hearings for only 40 and 47 cases respectively, and there is no timetable for completion of the processing of all other cases. Besides, some fishermen have pointed out that there are quite a number of fisheries-related industries that have also been affected by the trawling ban, such as ice-making industry, fresh water supply vessels, fishing gears industry and wholesale fish markets. All such industries have not received any compensation from the Government. The Aquatic Products and Crustacean Merchants' Association, which has been providing sales and loans platforms for the fisheries industry for some 70 years, has indicated that the aggregate value of sales of seafood, as affected by the trawling ban, has dropped by more than 10% in the past two years as compared with those of several years ago. Nevertheless, the Government has not provided any assistance to the affected persons concerned. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the employment or operating conditions in the past three years of the fishermen who have been affected by the trawling ban, including the respective numbers of those who have switched to work in (i) other capture fishery industries, (ii) marine fish culture industry, (iii) fisheries industries other than (i) and (ii), and (iv) fisheries-related industries; (2) when FCAB is expected to complete the processing of all of the aforesaid appeal cases; the measures in place to improve FCAB's arrangement for and progress in processing the appeals, so as to avoid fishermen waiting for an indefinite period of time; of a breakdown, by type of fishing vessels, of (i) the Decisions made and (ii) the number, of such cases; whether it will consider improving the existing way of displaying information on FCAB's website, including setting out the relevant information according to the aforesaid categorization; (3) of the justifications for the Government to claim, at the time when the assistance scheme for the trawling ban was introduced, that the ban would not have significant impacts on other fisheries-related industries; whether it has assessed (i) the impacts of the trawling ban on fishermen and fisheries-related industries so far, and (ii) the operating conditions in recent years of the affected persons who engaged in fisheries-related industries; if it has, of the details; if not, when it will conduct such an assessment; and (4) whether the Government has plans to provide assistance to those fisheries-related industries that, albeit confirmed to have been affected by the trawling ban, have not received any compensation, so as to reduce the losses suffered by them; if it does, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*13. Hon Holden CHOW to ask: (Translation)
It is learnt that a number of non-Chinese speaking ("NCS") students are unable to master the Chinese language for various reasons, and hence their opportunities for further studies, employment as well as upward mobility are limited. Also, this situation has posed difficulties for them to integrate into the community and is a cause of inter-generational poverty. On the other hand, the Education Bureau has, since the 2014-2015 school year, implemented the "Chinese Language Curriculum Second Language Learning Framework" to step up the support for NCS students in learning the Chinese language. However, some members of the education sector have pointed out that most of the schools which admit a small number of NCS students neither operate separate Chinese language learning classes (commonly known as "pull-out Chinese language classes") nor provide adapted Chinese language textbooks and teaching materials for NCS students, resulting in such students being unable to master the Chinese language. Moreover, it is learnt that most Chinese language teachers have not studied in-service training programmes on teaching Chinese language to NCS students. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective numbers of secondary and primary schools operating pull-out Chinese language classes for NCS students in the 2016-2017 school year, and the percentage of the number of NCS students participating in such pull-out Chinese language classes in the NCS student population across the territory; the authorities' specific policies and measures to assist schools in operating pull-out Chinese language classes; (2) whether it will allocate resources for the establishment of an education subsidy scheme to encourage Chinese language teachers to study in-service training programmes on teaching Chinese language to NCS students; and (3) of the present situation of NCS students acquiring Chinese language qualifications; given that the Chinese Language curriculum of the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination is too difficult for a number of NCS students, whether the authorities will consider setting up a separate mechanism for assessment of the Chinese language qualifications of those students in order to provide them with more pathways to further studies and employment?
*14. Hon LEUNG Che-cheung to ask: (Translation)
Regarding Hong Kong elderly people (i.e. persons aged 65 or above) residing on the Mainland, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the number of Hong Kong elderly people residing on the Mainland in each of the past three years and its percentage in the elderly population in the respective year; (2) of the respective numbers of Hong Kong elderly people residing on the Mainland who received (i) Old Age Allowance under the Guangdong Scheme and (ii) Comprehensive Social Security Assistance payments under the Portable Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Scheme, in each of the past three years, and the respective total amounts of money involved; (3) whether it knows the social service agencies that are providing social services on the Mainland for Hong Kong elderly people residing on the Mainland; if it knows, of the names of the agencies concerned and the details of the services provided by them; and (4) whether it has assessed and analysed the reasons for and the trend of elderly people opting to reside on the Mainland; if it has, of the details; whether it has any plan to implement a comprehensive cross-boundary welfare policy for Hong Kong elderly people residing on the Mainland; if it does, of the contents of the relevant policy?
*15. Hon LUK Chung-hung to ask: (Translation)
At present, 15 public housing estates under the Hong Kong Housing Authority ("HKHA") are installed with centralized liquefied petroleum gas ("LPG") (i.e. piped LPG) supply system. The Competition Commission ("the Commission") pointed out in its advisory bulletin released in September this year that the arrangements for renewal of piped LPG supply contracts for those estates lacked competition, resulting in the residents being unable to enjoy better terms and services that competition might bring. The authorities responded that they would study and consider the Commission's recommendations and other relevant information in detail, and would review the current policies and arrangements. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether the authorities have completed the study on the various recommendations made by the Commission; if so, whether they will revise the relevant policies to introduce competition with a view to obtaining better terms and services for the residents; if they will, of the details, and when the relevant work is expected to be completed; if they will not, the reasons for that; (2) given that as indicated in a paper submitted to this Council by the authorities in July this year, the piped LPG supply contracts for three public housing estates would expire within this year, whether any of these contracts have already been renewed prior to the completion of the aforesaid policy review by the authorities; if so, of the details and the reasons for that; and (3) given that the Commission has recommended that "HKHA should consider forgoing the practice of treating premium [paid by LPG suppliers] as the key criterion for awarding subsequent contracts and in its place, use LPG prices to be charged to residents to determine the award", whether the authorities will adopt such recommendation with a view to lowering LPG prices, thereby alleviating the burden on the residents; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*16. Hon CHAN Chi-chuen to ask: (Translation)
I have recently received complaints from a number of members of the public that some telecommunications service operators ("TSOs") overcharged them, and even charged them for telecommunications services that they did not subscribe for, causing them to suffer financial losses. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the respective numbers of complaints, received in the past 12 months by the Office of the Communications Authority and the Consumer Council, about overcharging by TSOs; if so, of a breakdown by type of telecommunications services (e.g. fixed-line phones, mobile phones, external telecommunications and broadband Internet access) involved in the complaints; (2) whether it knows, among the cases in (1), the number of those in which the complainants were offered a reduction in the relevant fees by the TSOs concerned, and whether there were any TSOs prosecuted for overcharging; if there were, of the number of such cases; and (3) apart from continuing to implement the Code of Practice in Relation to Billing Information and Payment Collection for Telecommunications Services and the Industry Code of Practice for Telecommunications Service Contracts, whether the authorities will adopt new regulatory measures to enhance the protection for consumers' rights and interests; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*17. Hon Alice MAK to ask: (Translation)
In its Report on Online Retail - A Study on Hong Kong Consumer Attitudes, Business Practices and Legal Protection ("the Report") published in November this year, the Consumer Council indicated that it had received 3 000 to 5 000-odd complaints about online shopping in each of the past three years. The Report also pointed out that the online shopping marketplace had evolved rapidly in recent years, and an effective legal framework would be conducive to the protection of consumers' rights and interests. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether the Customs and Excise Department conducted investigations into complaints about the unfair trade practices of online retailers and instituted prosecutions against the relevant retailers, in the past three years pursuant to the Trade Descriptions Ordinance (Cap. 362); if so, of the respective numbers of such cases; (2) whether it has considered amending the legislation to make it mandatory for online retailers to, in the course of selling goods or services, fully disclose to customers specified information (e.g. (i) the total price of the goods or services inclusive of delivery charges and taxes, (ii) details about the arrangements for cancelling transactions, and (iii) the policy on handling customers' complaints); if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (3) as the Report has recommended that the Government conduct studies on the merits and demerits of imposing mandatory cooling-off periods for different types of consumer contracts, whether the authorities will consider making reference to the experience of other jurisdictions, and launching a public consultation exercise on legislating for mandatory implementation of cooling-off periods (particularly targeting pre-payment mode of consumption); if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (4) whether it knows if the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data ("OPCPD"), adopted measures (including following up complaints and conducting regular inspections) in the past three years to monitor whether online retailers had fully acted in accordance with the law in collecting, retaining and using the personal data of customers; if OPCPD did, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*18. Hon Charles Peter MOK to ask: (Translation)
Recently, following a spate of incidents in which smart phones of a newly launched model burst into flames or exploded allegedly caused by overheating of the lithium batteries inside, the manufacturer concerned decided to globally recall the phones of that model and stop selling them. Given that electronic products such as notebook computers, smartphones, tablets, unmanned aircraft systems and power banks (collectively known as "smart products") invariably use lithium batteries, the aforesaid incidents have aroused public concern about the safety of such kind of products. While the Electrical Products (Safety) Regulation (Cap. 406 sub. leg. G) provides that electrical products for household purposes must have a certificate of safety compliance and comply with the applicable safety requirements for them to be supplied in Hong Kong, the Regulation is not applicable to smart products. The Consumer Goods Safety Ordinance (Cap. 456) provides that the authorities may order the persons concerned to (i) publish a warning regarding the safety use of consumer goods, (ii) suspend the supply of consumer goods, and (iii) recall consumer goods with a significant risk. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of complaints about the safety of smart products received by the Customs and Excise Department ("C&E") in each of the past three years, together with the respective numbers of cases in which C&E conducted on its own initiative sampling tests of the products or investigations in response to (i) complaints received, (ii) media reports and (iii) referrals from the Consumer Council (with a breakdown by product type); (2) given that the Compliance Test Specification - Safety and Electrical Protection Requirements for Subscriber Telecommunications Equipment issued by the Communications Authority ("CA") only stipulates the compliance specification for lithium batteries in regard to electrical protection, how CA ensures that smart products on the List of Mobile Communications Devices which Comply with the Electrical and Radiation Safety Requirements Prescribed by the Communications Authority are safe to use; (3) whether the authorities will regularly conduct sampling tests on the safety of such kind of products pursuant to the Consumer Goods Safety Ordinance; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (4) given that the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department has implemented a voluntary scheme for registration of certificates of safety compliance in respect of electrical products, whether the authorities will include smart products in the Electrical Products (Safety) Regulation so that such products may participate in the registration scheme; and (5) whether it will review the existing legislation with a view to strengthening regulation of the safety of smart products, such as empowering the authorities to order the persons concerned to (i) publish a warning regarding the safety use of such kind of products and (ii) recall such kind of products; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*19. Hon Nathan LAW to ask: (Translation)
With the policy support of the Home Affairs Bureau ("HAB"), the support of the Sha Tin District Council and the sponsorship from the Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust, the Kitchee Foundation Limited ("Kitchee") was granted a piece of 15 000-square-metre vacant government land in Shek Mun, Sha Tin under a short term tenancy ("STT") of four years by the Lands Department ("LandsD") in 2013. Kitchee spent $84 million for construction of the Jockey Club Kitchee Centre ("JCKC") on that site for use as a football training venue. It has been reported that earlier on, the Housing Department proposed not to continue to lease out that site upon expiry of the existing lease, so as to make use of that site for the Subsidized Sale Flats Development at On Sum Street. The Chief Executive has subsequently indicated that the site will continue to be leased out on STT until Kitchee has found a new site for reprovisioning JCKC. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of public housing development projects currently under planning that involve government lands which have been leased out on STT, and set out in a table the name of the current lessee and the land use in respect of each site; (2) given that the Guidelines for Application for Use of Vacant Government Land that is available for Community, Institutional or Non-Profit Making Purposes on Short Term Basis stipulates that "the application for STT must have the support of the relevant policy bureau", whether the authorities, before deciding whether or not to continue to lease out a site to the lessee on STT, will consult the lessee, LandsD and the policy bureau which gave support for the granting of the existing lease; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (3) as Kitchee has put in an enormous amount of resources for JCKC and opens the centre to the public during certain time periods to alleviate the shortage of football venues both in Sha Tin District and across the territory, whether the authorities will consider continuing to lease out that site to Kitchee on a tenancy of a longer term so as to promote football development in Hong Kong; (4) as some members of the public have pointed out that the importance of retaining JCKC at the existing site is shown by the facts that Kitchee has made it clear that it does not have sufficient capital to reprovision at another site a football training centre of the same grade as that of JCKC, and Kitchee is currently implementing a number of programmes to promote football in Sha Tin District (e.g. the Professional Footballer Preparatory Program co-implemented with Yan Chai Hospital Tung Chi Ying Memorial Secondary School and the Sports Science Clinic co-established with The Chinese University of Hong Kong), whether the authorities will consider abolishing their plan of resuming that site for the construction of subsidized sale flats; and (5) as HAB set up last year the Working Group on Sports Facilities under the Sports Commission to review the levels of demand for various types of sports facilities, of the current work progress of the Working Group; whether the Government will take into account the supply of and demand for sports facilities in the relevant districts when planning for public housing development projects?
*20. Hon Kenneth LAU to ask: (Translation)
The second ever imported case of Zika Virus Infection in Hong Kong was confirmed on the 15th of this month. The patient went back to his residence in San Tin, Yuen Long after returning to Hong Kong from overseas on the 10th of this month, and was not admitted for isolation and management until the 12th. It is learnt that the patient started to have persistent fever when he was staying overseas, but the Temperature Check Points at the airport failed to detect his abnormal body temperature when he entered Hong Kong. In addition, it has been reported that although the ovitrap indices for Aedes albopictus in various districts were not on the high side in the last winter season, serious mosquito infestation was observed in quite a number of districts (particularly in rural areas). Quite a number of residents of villages are worried that the imported Zika Virus would spread in the community. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has assessed if the aforesaid case has revealed that there are inadequacies in the temperature checks conducted by the authorities at the boundary control points; if it has assessed, of the outcome; (2) whether territory-wide mosquito control operations are continuously carried out at present with the aim of reducing the risk of Zika Virus spreading across Hong Kong; (3) given that oviposition traps are mainly placed in urban areas or new towns at present, whether the Government has considered placing oviposition traps in rural areas; whether it will review the effectiveness of the current practice of adopting the ovitrap indices as an indicator of the seriousness of mosquito infestation; and (4) of the details of the mosquito prevention and control strategies currently adopted for rural areas; whether the authorities will adjust such strategies in the light of the emergence of imported cases of Zika Virus Infection in Hong Kong; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*21. Hon Tanya CHAN to ask: (Translation)
It has been reported that the Hong Kong Army Cadets Association ("HKACA"), established in January last year, was granted, prevailing over two uniformed groups with long histories in the relevant application process, a vacant school premises on 21 June this year by the Government for use as a training venue after renovation. The renovation cost needed stands at $66 million, with $30 million of it to be met by a donation from the Board of Management of the Chinese Permanent Cemeteries ("BMCPC"). HKACA submitted its application for donation to BMCPC immediately on the same day after it was granted the school premises, and BMCPC approved the application in the form of a special approval at its meeting held on the 27th of the same month. Some members of the public have queried that the approval of an application for donation not within the category of "annual charity donation" by BMCPC within such a short time has aroused concerns over the role of the Secretary for Home Affairs ("SHA") in this matter, given that he is both an Honorary Advisor to HKACA and the Chairman of BMCPC. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the total amount of donations to charities approved, the number of projects subsidized and the average time taken to vet and approve an application, by BMCPC in each of the past three years; (2) of the number of cases in which a donation not within the category of annual charity donation was approved by BMCPC in the form of a special approval in the past 10 years, as well as the details (including the nature of the project subsidized, the date of receipt of the application, the date of approval of the donation, and the amount of the donation approved) of each case; and (3) whether SHA, in view of his role as an Honorary Advisor to HKACA, withdrew from the meeting at which the application for donation from HKACA was considered by BMCPC so as to avoid any conflict of roles; if he did not, of the reasons for that?
*22. Hon Andrew WAN to ask: (Translation)
Under the Employment Ordinance (Cap. 57) ("EO"), the employer of an employee employed under a continuous contract must pay sickness allowance to the employee who has met the following three conditions: (1) has taken the sick leave for not less than four consecutive days, (2) can tender an appropriate medical certificate, and (3) has accumulated sufficient number of paid sickness days. The daily rate of sickness allowance is a sum equivalent to four-fifths of the average daily wages ("daily wages") earned by the employee during the 12-month period preceding the sickness day or the first sickness day. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) in respect of civil service agreement officers and non-civil service contract staff currently employed by the Government, of the respective percentages of such employees whose contracts have provided that where the employee has taken less than four consecutive days of sick leave but satisfied the other two conditions, the employee is (i) not entitled to sickness allowance, (ii) entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to a certain percentage of his/her daily wages, and (iii) entitled to sickness allowance paid at full rate; if such information is not available, of the reasons for that; (2) whether the Government, being the largest employer in Hong Kong, will consider taking the lead in offering conditions of service that are more favourable than those provided under the law to civil service agreement officers and non-civil service contract staff, namely to grant sickness allowance at full rate to such employees who have taken less than four consecutive days of sick leave but satisfied the other two conditions; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (3) whether the Government will consider amending EO to improve employees' benefits relating to sickness allowance; if it will, of the details, including whether it will conduct public consultation on this issue in the current legislative session; if it will not consider, the reasons for that?
* For written reply
III. Government Bills
| First Reading
Fire Services (Amendment) Bill 2016 Second Reading (Debate to be adjourned) | ||
| Fire Services (Amendment) Bill 2016 | : | Secretary for Security
|
| Second Reading (Debate to resume), Committee Stage and Third Reading
| ||
| Supplementary Appropriation (2015-2016) Bill | : | Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury
|
IV. Members' Motions
V. Request for Special Leave of the Council to Give Evidence of Council Proceedings
Request made under section 7 of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap. 382) and Rule 90 of the Rules of Procedure for special leave of the Council to give evidence of Council proceedings
The Department of Justice's request is in the Appendix and was also issued on 28 November 2016 under LC Paper No. CB(3) 166/16-17.
Clerk to the Legislative Council