A 16/17-24
Legislative Council
Agenda
Wednesday 24 May 2017 at 11:00 am
I. Tabling of Papers
Other Papers
| 1. | No. 98 | - | Report of changes made to the approved Estimates of Expenditure during the fourth quarter of 2016-17 Public Finance Ordinance : Section 8 |
| (to be presented by Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury)
| |||
| 2. | No. 99 | - | Government Flying Service Welfare Fund Report by the Controller, Government Flying Service on the Administration of the Fund, Financial Statements and Report of the Director of Audit for the year ended 31 March 2016 |
| (to be presented by Secretary for Security)
| |||
| 3. | No. 100 | - | The Government Minute in response to the Report of the Public Accounts Committee No. 67 and No. 67A of February 2017 and April 2017 |
| (to be presented by Chief Secretary for Administration, who will address the Council)
| |||
| 4. | Report No. 18/16-17 of the House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments | ||
| (to be presented by Hon Starry LEE, Chairman of the House Committee) | |||
II. Questions
1. Hon Starry LEE to ask: (Translation)
The Competition Commission ("the Commission") has earlier on released a Report on Study into Hong Kong's Auto-fuel Market ("the Report"), which points out that while there is no hard evidence of oil companies engaging in the anti-competitive conduct of collusive price-fixing, the auto-fuel market in Hong Kong has a number of highly unusual features that have undermined the effectiveness of competition in the market. Those features include: the sale of petrol of only one single octane number which are more expensive, the offer of discounts in a complex and opaque manner, and the high barriers to market entry and expansion. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) given that the Commission has, in the light of the aforesaid market features, made a number of recommendations in the Report (including an increase of petrol filling station ("PFS") sites and a review of the tendering system concerned, clear display of pump prices and walk-in discounts at prominent locations of PFS, reduction of entry and expansion barriers), whether the authorities have plans to implement such recommendations; if so, of the details and timetable; if not, the reasons for that; whether the Government will conduct a study on setting the sale of petrol of 95 research octane number as one of the lease conditions when PFS sites are re-tendered for leasing, so as to promote the re-introduction of this kind of cheaper petrol; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (2) whether it will examine amending the Competition Ordinance to empower the Commission to obtain more information, including certain commercially sensitive information (e.g. data on the discounts offered to different customers) when conducting market studies; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (3) whether, in the long run, the Government will study the introduction of a mechanism under which new entrants to the auto-fuel market are allowed, subject to certain conditions, to use the existing terminal storage facilities, as well as the import of fuels by constructing a pipeline connecting to the Mainland with a bonded warehouse situated at the boundary, so as to reduce the structural barriers to market entry?
| Public Officers to reply | : | Secretary for the Environment Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development |
2. Dr Hon Fernando CHEUNG to ask: (Translation)
The Hospital Authority currently adopts an evidence-based approach for, and follows the three major principles of safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the drugs, in evaluating applications for inclusion of drugs in its Drug Formulary. At present, as quite a number of drugs for treatment of uncommon disorders have not been included in the Drug Formulary, patients have to purchase those drugs at their own expenses. Recently, the passing away of a female patient with Tuberous Sclerosis Complex who was unable to afford the huge drug expenses has aroused public concern. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) as it is difficult to obtain clinical data to prove the "efficacy" of drugs for treatment of uncommon disorders due to the limited number of cases involving their usage, and it is difficult for such drugs to conform with the principle of "cost-effectiveness" because of their high prices, whether the authorities will, by making reference to the practices of other countries or regions (for example, the setting of criteria for designating a drug as an orphan drug to treat uncommon disorders by the United States through the enactment of the Orphan Drug Act), introduce separate clinical evidence requirements for drugs for treatment of uncommon disorders that are more lenient than those for commonly used drugs, thereby lowering the threshold for the inclusion of such drugs in the Drug Formulary; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (2) as some patient groups have relayed that patients are currently required to pass a household-based means test in order to receive drug subsidies provided under the Community Care Fund ("CCF") or the Samaritan Fund, resulting in quite a number of middle-income families depleting their savings due to payment of millions of dollars a year for the drugs for members with uncommon disorders, leading to a drastic drop in their living standards and discord between family members caused by financial pressure, whether the authorities will consider waiving the requirement that means test must be conducted on a household basis and lowering the maximum contribution to drug expenses payable by patients; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (3) as the Government has proposed in this year's Policy Agenda to invite CCF to consider implementing a pilot scheme to provide drug subsidies for eligible patients with uncommon disorders, whether the authorities will provide a definition for the term "uncommon disorder" to facilitate the provision of subsidies for patients with various types of uncommon disorders under the pilot scheme upon its implementation; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
3. Hon Kenneth LAU to ask: (Translation)
Under the law, any person who enters a frontier closed area ("FCA") must hold a closed area permit ("CAP") issued by the Police and Sha Tau Kok Town is now covered by FCA. Some residents and traders in the area have relayed to me that the CAP requirement not only causes nuisance to the residents concerned but also hinders economic development there, leaving them not being able to see any future, like "prisoners on death row". They therefore urge the authorities to excise Sha Tau Kok Town from FCA gradually or completely. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of various types of crimes that occurred in Sha Tau Kok Town, the year-on-year changes in the number of visitor arrivals and departures through Sha Tau Kok Control Point, and the respective numbers of CAP applications for entering Sha Tau Kok Town received and rejected by the Police (with a breakdown by reason of application), in each of the past five years; (2) given that there are a number of scenic spots with distinctive features in Sha Tau Kok Town, whether the authorities will relax the CAP requirement in order to facilitate clansmen to visit relatives, as well as tourists and members of the public from outside the area to visit there for sight-seeing or to take a boat at the public pier there to go to Lai Chi Wo, which is within the boundary of the Hong Kong Global Geopark of China; whether the authorities will consider relaxing the land sale conditions for the land in that area by allowing those who do not hold a CAP issued for local residents to purchase properties there, so that such persons can have more choices when purchasing properties; and (3) as the authorities indicated in 2015 that the proposal to relax the FCA restriction of Sha Tau Kok Town and its implementation arrangements required a careful examination, whether the authorities have conducted such an examination; if so, of the examination progress, as well as the factors to be considered and the data obtained; if they have not conducted the examination, whether they will consider formulating an implementation timetable for relaxing the FCA restriction?
4. Hon Charles Peter MOK to ask: (Translation)
Some practitioners of the information and communications technology ("ICT") industry have relayed to me that the lack of recognition of their professional status and the absence of a clear prospect of advancement have resulted in persistent shortage and mismatch of manpower in the industry. On the other hand, the Task Force on Information and Communications Technology Professional Development and Recognition ("the Task Force"), set up under the Digital 21 Strategy Advisory Committee, published a report in September 2015 pointing out that there would be great difficulty in implementing a framework for professional recognition as the industry had not reached a general consensus on the implementation details. Regarding the manpower situation of the ICT industry and recognition of the professional status of its practitioners, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has assessed the manpower supply and demand of the ICT industry in the next five and 10 years and, on the basis of that, formulated policies to attract new blood to join the industry and nurture talents for it; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (2) whether it will recruit additional ICT staff in the civil service establishment and designate "ICT profession" to be a professional grade in the civil service; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (3) of the follow-up actions taken in respect of the Task Force's proposal on ICT manpower development; whether it will make reference to international practices and systems for setting up a unified professional recognition system for local ICT practitioners, and consult the industry afresh on the matter?
5. Hon SHIU Ka-chun to ask: (Translation)
According to sections 3(1) and 10 of the Education Ordinance, any institution, organization or establishment which provides for 20 or more persons during any one day or 8 or more persons at any one time, any nursery, kindergarten, primary, secondary or post-secondary education or any other educational course by any means is required to be registered or provisionally registered as a school. On the other hand, section 4 of the Places of Public Entertainment Ordinance ("PPEO") provides that a person who keeps or uses a place of public entertainment without a Places of Public Entertainment Licence ("PPEL") issued by the licensing authority commits an offence, and the definition of "entertainment" under section 2 of PPEO includes "lecture or story-telling". In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective numbers of verbal warnings and written warnings issued by the Education Bureau ("EDB") to establishments which were not registered as schools in respect of their organizing seminars, as well as the prosecutions instituted, in each of the past three years; (2) how EDB interprets the meaning of "educational course" when it enforces the relevant provisions of the Education Ordinance; whether the authorities have studied if seminars, interest classes, workshops, tutorial classes, elderly people's literacy classes and academic exchange activities organized by establishments which are not registered as schools fall within the meaning of "educational course" under the Education Ordinance, as well as whether non-governmental organizations are exempted from registration; and (3) whether the authorities have studied if it is illegal for universities, non-governmental organizations or community groups to organize cultural exchange activities without applying for PPELs, and whether the overseas scholars or cultural workers who have come to Hong Kong to attend such activities on invitation will be regarded as working illegally in Hong Kong?
6. Dr Hon Priscilla LEUNG to ask: (Translation)
It has been reported that between last month and early this month, two cases of on-street armed conflicts involving dozens of men of South Asian descent occurred in the Sham Shui Po ("SSP") District. Some of those men are suspected to have triad background, while some others are people who have lodged torture claims or non-refoulement claims under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ("torture claimants"), and have been granted temporary stay in Hong Kong by virtue of the recognizance forms, which were commonly known as "going-out passes", issued by the Immigration Department. Some residents of the SSP District have expressed worries about their personal safety due to the increasing number of criminal offences committed by people of South Asian descent, which has rendered the law and order situation in the SSP District deteriorating. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of people of South Asian descent who were arrested each year from January 2015 to date, for suspected criminal offences and the number of such cases (broken down by type); among such people arrested each year, of the respective numbers of illegal entrants and torture claimants; (2) whether the Police have uncovered in the past three years any case of illegal entrants or torture claimants of South Asian descent committing criminal offences under the manipulation of local triad gangs; if so, of the details and the measures taken by the authorities to tackle such situation; and (3) as it has been reported that there has been a rising trend in the number of cases in which torture claimants of South Asian descent committed criminal offences such as handling stolen goods and drug trafficking, whether the authorities will consider afresh setting up closed camps for torture claimants, abolishing the issuance of recognizance forms to torture claimants, and reviewing the mechanism and conditions for vetting and approving legal assistance applications, so as to avoid such mechanism being abused by illegal entrants and bogus torture claimants?
*7. Hon Starry LEE to ask: (Translation)
Some members of the public have relayed to me that with the growing popularity of unmanned aircraft systems ("UASs"), the safety and privacy problems arising from UASs have become increasingly serious. For instance, in early January this year, a helicopter of the Government Flying Service about to carry out rescue mission was almost hit by a UAS. Also, during the Formula E Hong Kong e-Prix held in October last year, a person used a number of UASs to conduct aerial photography over the venue. However, UASs are regulated under the existing legislation only to the extent of prohibiting acts of operating UASs recklessly or negligently, and requiring any person using UASs for reward to apply for and obtain a permit from the Civil Aviation Department ("CAD") beforehand. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective numbers of complaints concerning UASs received by CAD, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data and other related organizations in each of the past three years, together with a breakdown by nature of complaint; the follow-up actions taken respectively by such organizations, and whether prosecutions were instituted; (2) whether it studied in the past three years the regimes adopted by foreign governments for regulating UASs; if so, of the outcome; if not, the reasons for that; whether it will revise the relevant safety guidelines to safeguard public safety; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (3) of the latest progress of the consultancy study, commissioned by CAD, on issues relating to the regulation of UASs?
*8. Hon SHIU Ka-fai to ask: (Translation)
I have received quite a number of complaints that the performances staged by various groups at the Mong Kok Pedestrian Precinct ("MKPP") during weekends and public holidays have caused serious nuisance to the residents and staff of the shops in the vicinity. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective numbers of complaints received by the authorities in each of the past five years that noise originating from MKPP had caused nuisance to the residents and staff of the shops in the vicinity, as well as the follow-up actions taken by the authorities; (2) of the number of prosecutions instituted in each of the past five years by the authorities against persons who had generated excessive noise at MKPP, and among those cases, the number of convictions as well as the penalties imposed on the convicted persons; (3) whether it has assessed if the existing penalties for causing noise nuisance have adequate deterrent effect; given that under the current prosecution procedure, prosecutions must be instituted by way of summons and there must be complainants willing to testify at court hearings, whether it has considered amending the legislation with a view to (i) adopting a simpler and easier procedure for imposing penalties (e.g. reference may be made to the practice of issuing fixed penalty notices with a fine in the amount of $1,500 to shop operators for causing obstruction of public places), and (ii) empowering law enforcement officers to institute prosecutions against persons who have caused noise nuisance even if no complaint has been received; (4) whether it has sent its staff to measure regularly the noise levels at MKPP during weekends and public holidays; if so, of the relevant figures in each of the past five years; whether it has assessed the impacts of prolonged exposure to noise of such high levels on the physical and mental health of members of the public; (5) whether the authorities know the numbers of groups and people who often stage performances at MKPP at present; if so, of the relevant figures in each of the past five years; if not, whether the authorities will consider compiling such statistics; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (6) whether the authorities have followed up the obstruction of public places caused by the performances staged at MKPP, and the collection of money rewards by the performers; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (7) given that oil-fired generators are used by some of the groups staging performances in MKPP, whether the authorities have assessed the potential fire hazards so posed to the residents and staff of the shops in the vicinity, as well as the follow-up actions taken; if so, of the details; if not, whether they will take follow-up actions; (8) as there are views that the current use of MKPP has already departed from the original intent of designation of pedestrian precincts, whether the authorities will consider enacting legislation to specify the activities that may be permitted at MKPP; if so, of the details and the timetable; if not, the reasons for that; and (9) whether the authorities will consider conducting an opinion survey, with the residents and staff of the shops in the vicinity of MKPP as the respondents, for deciding if MKPP should continue to operate?
*9. Hon Frankie YICK to ask: (Translation)
The Office of the Ombudsman ("the Office") stated in the Annual Report of the Ombudsman 2016 that the number of prosecutions instituted by the Police in the past few years against illegal carriage of passengers for reward by private cars (commonly known as "white licence cars' service") was low, and urged the Transport Department to closely monitor the figures of such prosecutions and enhance its communication with the Police in their continued efforts to combat such crimes. The Office also pointed out that companies providing booking of white licence cars' services via mobile apps, though not issued with hire car permits, were in effect operating as business operators because such companies recruited drivers, set fares for hiring cars, promoted business, or even collected on behalf of the drivers and then shared the fares paid by passengers. Such companies were of considerable scale of operation and also earned substantial profits. If the Government failed to effectively regulate such operators, more followers would be attracted to join the practice, and the problem would only get worse. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective numbers of prosecutions and convictions in each of the past three years relating to the use of private cars and van-type light goods vehicles ("LGVs") for illegal carriage of passengers for reward, as well as the respective penalties imposed on the persons convicted; (2) whether the prosecution lodged reviews in the past three years against the penalties handed down for convicted cases of illegal carriage of passengers for reward; if so, of the details, including the considerations for lodging reviews; if not, the reasons for that; (3) given that in reply to my question on 1 March this year, the authorities indicated that they would continue to closely monitor the illegal carriage of passengers for reward by private cars and relevant prosecution figures, and that the Police would step up its efforts in combating offences relating to illegal carriage of passengers for reward, of the details of such work; (4) given that the authorities also indicated that they would timely review the penalties for such offences where necessary, of the progress of the work, and whether they will consider introducing a penalty provision that vehicles used for illegal carriage of passengers for reward may be subject to confiscation so as to enhance the deterrent effect; and (5) whether the authorities will regulate companies providing booking of white licence cars services or services of illegal carriage of passengers by LGVs?
*10. Hon Dennis KWOK to ask: (Translation)
The Unsolicited Electronic Messages Ordinance (Cap. 593) implemented since December 2007 and the Do-not-call Registers established under the Ordinance regulate the sending of commercial electronic messages, but the legislation and measure are not applicable to person-to-person ("P2P") telemarketing calls. To further protect the personal privacy of members of the public, the Government implemented in April 2013 the Personal Data (Privacy) (Amendment) Ordinance 2012 (Ordinance No. 18 of 2012), which stipulates that any data user must inform the data subjects and obtain their consent before using their personal data in direct marketing or providing such personal data to another person for use in direct marketing. Regarding the regulation of P2P telemarketing calls, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has assessed the current modus operandi of P2P telemarketing calls, including the industries to which the commercial organizations making such calls belong, the channels through which such organizations obtain the personal data of data subjects, and how far they have obtained the consent of the subjects prior to carrying out marketing activities; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (2) whether it has assessed the effectiveness of the current legislation and measures in regulating P2P telemarketing calls; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (3) whether it has plans to amend the legislation and put in place other measures to strengthen the regulation of P2P telemarketing calls, so as to prevent the problem of nuisance being caused by such calls from worsening; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*11. Prof Hon Joseph LEE to ask: (Translation)
Recently, quite a number of community nurses and community psychiatric nurses who are employed by the Hospital Authority ("HA") have relayed to me that the ageing population of Hong Kong in recent years has led to a rising demand for outreach services, and both the number of cases they handle and the time taken to handle such cases have increased. Given the long-standing manpower shortage of these two types of nurses, it has become increasingly frequent for them to work overtime, thereby affecting both the quality of their services and staff morale. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council if it knows:
(1) the following information regarding each type of the aforesaid nurses in each of the past three years, set out by hospital cluster and service unit: (i) the number of nurses, (ii) the respective numbers of nurses leaving and joining the service, (iii) the number of person-times using their services, (iv) the average number of cases handled by each nurse, (v) the average duration of time taken for each instance of outreach services, and (vi) the average daily number of hours spent on the provision of outreach services by each nurse; (2) the details of the outreach services; (3) whether the aforesaid nurses generally need to work overtime to handle paperwork; if so, whether HA disburses overtime allowances to them; if HA does not, of the reasons for that; and (4) whether HA, in response to the rising demand for outreach services, expanded the staffing establishment of the two types of nurses in the past three years; if so, of the details and the additional manpower that HA plans to provide in next three years; if not, the reasons for that?
*12. Dr Hon Elizabeth QUAT to ask: (Translation)
Regarding teenagers (i.e. persons aged between 10 and 19) who have come from the Mainland to settle in Hong Kong, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of teenagers who came from the Mainland to settle in Hong Kong in each of the past five years; (2) of the current number of such teenagers in Hong Kong; (3) whether various government departments conducted dedicated studies in the past five years on various kinds of adaptation problems (including aspects such as cultural variations, psychological health and sense of belonging) faced by such teenagers; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (4) whether the various government departments currently provide such teenagers with special support, including support that helps them resolve adaptation problems and integrate into Hong Kong society; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*13. Hon Tanya CHAN to ask: (Translation)
In June last year, the media uncovered that the occupants of some surveyed squatter structures in Tung Ah Pui Village, Shek O, had unlawfully built extensions of squatter structures, erected unauthorized structures and unlawfully occupied government lands. On the 22nd of the same month, the Lands Department ("LandsD") confirmed the presence of such irregularities and indicated that in addition to taking enforcement actions in Tung Ah Pui Village, LandsD would also commence checking in other areas of Shek O; if irregularities were found, LandsD would no longer grant discretion to allow for rectification of irregularities but would immediately cancel the survey numbers of the relevant squatter structures. On the other hand, the Director of Audit pointed out in the Report No. 68 of the Director of Audit published last month that the squatter structure monitoring system was ineffective, and hence there was no assurance that surveyed squatter structures had satisfactorily complied with the squatter control policy. Regarding the regulatory control of squatter structures on Hong Kong Island, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the current numbers of surveyed squatter structures and licensed structures in the various districts and villages of Hong Kong Island, as well as their distribution details (set out the relevant information by name of district or village); (2) of the respective numbers of complaints received by LandsD in each of the past three years that the occupants of squatter structures on Hong Kong Island (i) had allegedly built extensions of squatter structures unlawfully, (ii) had rented out squatter structures and (iii) had sold squatter structures (broken down by year and the district or village in which the squatter structures were located); among such complaints, (iv) the number of cases investigated by LandsD, (v) the details of the investigation work (including the procedure, time taken and investigation outcome) and (vi) the details of the enforcement actions; LandsD's reasons for not investigating into some complaint cases (if any); (3) of (i) the number of inspections conducted by LandsD on the squatter structures on Hong Kong Island in each of the past three years, together with (ii) the details of each inspection (including the date, coverage and number of squatter structures involved), (iii) the number of squatter structures in which irregularities were found, and (iv) the details of the follow-up actions taken in respect of such irregularities; (4) of the respective numbers of warning letters and removal orders issued by LandsD in each of the past three years in respect of the irregularities of the squatter structures on Hong Kong Island; the number of cases in which the occupants of squatter structures have not yet rectified the irregularities in compliance with the removal orders; whether prosecutions were instituted in the past three years against the occupants of squatter structures who had not complied with the removal orders; if so, of the details and the penalties imposed on the convicted persons in general; if not, the reasons for that; (5) whether LandsD demolished any squatter structures on Hong Kong Island or cancelled the survey numbers of any squatter structures on Hong Kong Island in the past three years; if so, of the respective numbers each year; if not, the reasons for that; and (6) whether the authorities currently have any plan and timetable to demolish all the squatter structures on Hong Kong Island and replan the lands concerned for other uses; if so, of the details, and whether they will consult the affected squatter occupants on issues relating to clearance (including rehousing); if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*14. Dr Hon Pierre CHAN to ask: (Translation)
Regarding the prescription of steroids and antiviral treatment against hepatitis B ("anti-HBV drugs") to patients by dermatological clinics under the Department of Health, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the quantities of oral steroids prescribed by the aforesaid clinics in each of the past five years; (2) whether the doctors of the aforesaid clinics (i) are required to arrange patients to receive blood tests to ascertain if the patients are HBV carriers when they prescribe oral steroids, and (ii) can prescribe anti-HBV drugs to patients; and (3) whether the Department of Health has formulated guidelines on the prescription of steroids and anti-HBV drugs by the doctors of such clinics; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*15. Hon LEUNG Yiu-chung to ask: (Translation)
In May last year, the Government implemented the Low-income Working Family Allowance Scheme ("LIFA Scheme"). Households with a monthly income not exceeding 50% of the Median Monthly Domestic Household Income ("MMDHI") across the territory are eligible for full-rate allowances, while households with a monthly income higher than 50% but not exceeding 60% of MMDHI across the territory are eligible for half-rate allowances. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council of:
(1) the number of children and youths who have received Child Allowance under LIFA Scheme since its implementation (broken down by the number of times for which the applicants were granted Child Allowance); and (2) the current total number of members aged under 21 in the households with a monthly income not exceeding 60% of MMDHI across the territory?
*16. Hon Alice MAK to ask: (Translation)
Since May 2014, an adult offspring of a tenant of a rental unit under the Hong Kong Housing Society ("HKHS") must, upon the death of the tenant, pass the comprehensive means test ("CMT") (i.e. his/her monthly family income and assets must be below the prescribed limits) before he or she is allowed to take over the tenancy as the new tenant. On the other hand, some tenants have relayed to me that the mechanism used by HKHS to adjust the rents of its rental units lacks transparency, and that HKHS has not offered rent assistance to tenants who are in financial difficulties. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council if it knows:
(1) the number of vacant units under HKHS which were available in the past five years for allocation to eligible applicants; (2) (i) the monthly family income limits and (ii) the family asset limits which were applicable respectively to the flats in Groups A and B rental housing estates under HKHS, as well as (iii) their respective levels of adjustment, in each of the past five years (set out by household size); (3) (i) the number of applications for take-over of tenancy received by HKHS from its tenants, and (ii) the number of applications rejected by HKHS on grounds of the applicants' failure to pass CMT, in the past five years; (4) the details of the mechanisms currently used by HKHS to adjust (i) the monthly family income limits, (ii) the family asset limits and (iii) the rents of its rental units (including the considerations and the formula for calculation); whether HKHS will review such mechanisms expeditiously with a view to increasing their transparency; and (5) whether HKHS will consider making reference to the practice of the Hong Kong Housing Authority and set up a rent assistance scheme to provide rent assistance to tenants who are in financial difficulties but are not receiving Comprehensive Social Security Assistance; if not, of the reasons for that?
*17. Dr Hon YIU Chung-yim to ask: (Translation)
The Government is currently carrying out an updating exercise of "Hong Kong 2030+: Towards a Planning Vision and Strategy Transcending 2030". A relevant paper has pointed out that the total new land requirement in Hong Kong from now into the long term (i.e. beyond 2040) will not be less than about 4 800 hectares. Discounting a supply of about 3 600 hectares of land from the committed and planned projects, there is still a lack of more than 1 200 hectares of land. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council of the specific information on each piece of land among the aforesaid 3 600 hectares of land, including (i) the uses involved and (ii) the respective total areas of land involved in various uses, and set out the information by name of major project (if major projects are not involved, set out by District Council district) and mark on a map the location of each piece of land?
Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Development
*18. Hon Kenneth LEUNG to ask: (Translation)
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ("OECD") promulgated a new international standard for automatic exchange of financial account information in tax matters ("AEOI") in July 2014. In this regard, the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 3) Ordinance 2016 ("the Amendment Ordinance") came into operation on 30 June last year to provide a legislative framework for the conduct of AEOI in Hong Kong. Under that legislative framework, Hong Kong conducts AEOI with its partners in accordance with the comprehensive avoidance of double taxation agreements or tax information exchange agreements (collectively referred to as "bilateral agreements") signed with them. On the other hand, currently over 100 tax jurisdictions have signed the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters ("Multilateral Convention") which serves as the legal basis for the conduct of AEOI. However, Hong Kong has yet to sign the Multilateral Convention. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) given that the Hong Kong Government has signed bilateral agreements with nine tax jurisdictions at present, whether it has any plan to sign more bilateral agreements; if so, of the details and implementation timetable; if not, the reasons for that; (2) why only bilateral agreements are currently used as the legal basis for the conduct of AEOI; whether it has compared the merits and demerits of bilateral agreements and the Multilateral Convention in this regard; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (3) whether it has any plan to sign the Multilateral Convention; if so, of the details and implementation timetable; if not, the reasons for that?
*19. Hon Jimmy NG to ask: (Translation)
Article 27 of the Basic Law provides that Hong Kong residents shall have the freedom of association. According to the existing legislation, a local society shall, upon establishment, apply to the Societies Office for registration under the Societies Ordinance (Cap. 151); and a non-profit making organization may register with the Companies Registry as a company limited by guarantee under the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 622). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective numbers of societies registered/exempted from registration under the Societies Ordinance and non-profit making organizations registered as companies limited by guarantee under the Companies Ordinance (i) at present and (ii) in each of the past 10 years; (2) as the authorities indicated in May last year that the Societies Office did not maintain statistical breakdowns of societies by type of premises (e.g. residential property, commercial building and school) of their addresses, whether the Societies Office maintains statistical breakdowns (including the objects for which they were formed) of societies at present; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (3) among the societies and non-profit making organizations mentioned in (1)(i), of the respective numbers of those whose Chinese names contain the following words: (i) "旅港", (ii) "同鄉", (iii) "鄉親", (iv) "宗親", (v) "校友", (vi) "商會", (vii) "社團總會" and (viii) "社團聯會" ; (4) of the respective numbers of (i) applications for registration as societies refused by the Societies Office under the Societies Ordinance, (ii) registrations of societies cancelled by the Societies Office under the Societies Ordinance of its own motion, and (iii) notifications of dissolution of societies by themselves received by the Societies Office under the Societies Ordinance, in the past 10 years; and (5) as I have learnt that some societies provided false addresses when submitting their registration applications or did not notify the Societies Office of changes of their principal places of business in accordance with the legal requirements, whether the authorities will make reference to the Companies Ordinance and require the persons-in-charge of societies to submit annual returns in order to ensure the accuracy of the material particulars of societies; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*20. Hon CHAN Hak-kan to ask: (Translation)
It has been reported that earlier on, the Security Bureau, based on the number of applications for Certificates of No Criminal Conviction (commonly known as "Good Citizen Certificates") made by Hong Kong people to the Hong Kong Police Force, estimated that 7 600 Hong Kong people had emigrated to foreign countries last year, with the United States, Australia and Canada being the most popular emigration destinations. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of Good Citizen Certificates ("GC Certificates") issued by the Police in each of the past five years; (2) of the number of the applicants for GC Certificates, in each of the past five years, who ticked the option of "emigration" in the column of "purpose of application" on the application form and were issued with GC Certificates; a breakdown of such numbers by: (i) the number of years (i.e. (a) three years or below, (b) four to seven years and (c) over seven years) filled by the applicants in the column of "length of stay in Hong Kong so far (in full year)" on the application form; and (ii) the option ticked by the applicants (i.e. (a) Hong Kong [Special Administrative Region] Passport, (b) Hong Kong Certificate of Identity, (c) Hong Kong Document of Identity, (d) other Hong Kong travelling document, (e) passport of other nationality and (f) other type of travelling document) in the column of "type of travelling document held" on the application form; (3) of the top five countries/regions which were filled by most applicants in the column of "country for which visa application has been made" on the application form for GC Certificates, in each of the past five years; and (4) whether the Government will consider compiling directly statistics on Hong Kong people emigrating, for use as a reference in formulating population policy; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*21. Hon Paul TSE to ask: (Translation)
It has been reported that the Police earlier smashed a loan shark syndicate which had made loans that amounted to about $10 million to as many as 1 200 foreign domestic helpers ("FDHs"), charging them interests at rates as high as 120% per annum for the loans. Moreover, some FDHs said that they had been persuaded by FDH intermediaries ("intermediaries") to borrow money from loan shark syndicates in order to pay fees overcharged by such intermediaries. On the other hand, when FDHs took loans, the residential addresses they provided to the finance companies were usually those of their employers, and some of them listed their employers as loan referees without authorization. As a result, when such FDHs failed to repay the loans, their employers were often subject to the harassment of finance companies' debt collection activities. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of loan shark syndicates which made loans to FDHs, smashed by the Police in each of the past five financial years, as well as the total amount of loans involved and the number of persons arrested; (2) of the number of prosecutions instituted in each of the past five financial years against intermediaries for overcharging and other irregularities and, among such cases, the number of those involving collusion with finance companies in coercing FDHs to take, or tricked them into taking, loans charging high interest rates, together with the details of such cases; (3) given that a recent survey has found out that 70% of the intermediaries charged FDHs commissions of as high as 13 times of the statutory ceiling, whether the authorities have conducted an investigation into this, and a study on the issues arising from such practice of the intermediaries (including FDHs taking loans of high interest rates, stealing properties of their employers or engaging in other unlawful activities due to FDHs' inability to pay the fees); if so, of the outcome of such investigation and study, as well as the follow-up measures; if not, whether they will immediately conduct such an investigation and study; (4) given that the Secretary for Labour and Welfare indicated earlier that the Government planned to introduce an amendment bill to this Council in the second quarter of this year to provide a legal basis for the Code of Practice for Employment Agencies promulgated in January this year and to increase the penalties for employment agencies overcharging commissions, of the work progress in this respect, and whether the bill will include provisions regulating intermediaries' practice of double-charging FDHs (i.e. the intermediary concerned, through a company set up in the country exporting FDHs, charges an FDH a fee before her arrival in Hong Kong and charges that FDH again for another fee upon her arrival in Hong Kong); (5) given that FDHs from Cambodia will soon be introduced into Hong Kong, whether the authorities will take new measures to prevent the intermediaries concerned from overcharging such FDHs and persuading them to take loans of high interest rates; and (6) of the number of cases reported, in each of the past five financial years, by the employers about being harassed by finance companies' activities for collecting debts from their FDHs and the total amount of debts involved; of the measures in place to protect the employers from such harassment?
*22. Hon IP Kin-yuen to ask: (Translation)
According to the prevailing principle of school construction, newly built school premises are mainly allocated for implementation of whole-day primary schooling and for reprovisioning of school premises which require redevelopment or reprovisioning due to sub-standard facilities. I have received complaints from quite a number of principals that the policy on allocation of school premises lacks transparency and is unfair to schools with teaching facilities that are below the current standards. For example, only those vacant school premises which are old and have a small gross floor area are open to these schools for application for allocation. Regarding the allocation of school premises, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective numbers of newly built and vacant school premises made available by the authorities for application for allocation each year since the completion of the School Improvement Programme in 2006, and set out in a table the following information about each of these school premises: (i) whether it was a newly built or vacant one, (ii) its detailed address, (iii) its designated use (if any), (iv) the number of applications for allocation received, (v) the name of the school to which the premises was allocated and whether the school was a newly-operated one, and (vi) (in respect of newly built school premises) the amount of funding approved by the Finance Committee of this Council for construction of the premises; (2) of the number of newly built school premises which has not been allocated in compliance with the aforesaid principle of school construction since 2004 and set out, in respect of each of these school premises, the following information about the school which was allocated with the premises: (i) its name, (ii) whether it was a newly-operated school and (iii) the justifications for it to be allocated the premises; (3) the teaching facilities in "matchbox-style school premises" are obviously not meeting the current standards, whether the authorities had considered, during the latest School Allocation Exercises ("SAE") conducted in March this year, giving priority to allocating newly built school premises to these schools and other schools with teaching facilities that are below the current standards; if so, of the details; if not, whether they have studied if SAE has deviated from the prevailing principle of school construction; (4) as the authorities have indicated that (reprovisioning) applications from schools with a site area of less than 3 000 square metres ("sq m") and premises over 30 years of age which could not be benefited or have only been benefited marginally from the School Improvement Programme ("the application threshold") warranted serious consideration, but a vacant school premises made available by the authorities for application for allocation in March this year had a site area of 2 400 sq m only and was about 49 years of age, whether the authorities have assessed when a school, which marginally meets the application threshold and is allocated a school premises the standards of which are even lower than that threshold, can have its teaching quality enhanced by the allocation; if they have assessed and the outcome is in the affirmative, whether the authorities have considered the conversion and improvement works needed to be carried out, so as to bring the teaching facilities in these school premises up to the current standards; (5) whether the authorities will review the policy on allocation of school premises with a view to giving priority to allocating newly built school premises to schools with teaching facilities that are below standards, thereby bringing the teaching facilities of these schools up to the current standards, so that both teachers and students of aided schools can enjoy basic and reasonable teaching facilities; if so, of the details and timetable; if not, how the authorities will assist some 700 schools in the territory which are currently below standards (in particular those for which a full-scaled in-situ redevelopment of school premises is impossible due to site constraints, and those lacking basic teaching and safety facilities such as libraries, music rooms, medical inspection rooms and fire services equipment) in improving their teaching facilities; and (6) whether the authorities will consider enhancing the transparency of SAE, such as by introducing a points system to enable schools applying for allocation of schools premises to grasp the specific vetting and approval criteria and the reasons for their applications being unsuccessful; if so, of the specific contents and timetable; if not, the reasons for that?
* For written reply
III. Government Bills
| Committee Stage and Third Reading
Stand over item (since the meeting on 12 and 13 April 2017) | ||||||||||
| Private Columbaria Bill | : | Secretary for Food and Health | ||||||||
| ||||||||||
|
(Debate and voting arrangements for Committee stage of the Private Columbaria Bill (issued on 11 April 2017 under LC Paper No. CB(3) 478/16-17(01)) (same as the Appendix to the Script of Council meeting of 12 and 13 April 2017))
| ||||||||||
| Second Reading (Debate to resume), Committee Stage and Third Reading
Stand over item (since the meeting of 17 May 2017) | ||||||||||
| Inland Revenue (Amendment) Bill 2017 | : | Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury
| ||||||||
IV. Government Motions
| Stand over items: Government motions nos. 1 and 2 (since the meeting of 26 April 2017)
| |||
| 1. | Proposed resolution under the Road Traffic Ordinance
Secretary for Transport and Housing to move the following motion: Resolved that the period for which the limit specified in the Road Traffic (Public Light Buses: Limit on Number) Notice 2016 (L.N. 101 of 2016) on the total number of vehicles that may be registered as public light buses remains in force, being 12 months beginning on 21 June 2016, be extended to 20 June 2022. | ||
| 2. | Proposed resolution under the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Ordinance
Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury to move the following motion: Resolved that the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes (Fees) (Amendment) Regulation 2017, made by the Chief Executive in Council on 14 March 2017, be approved. | ||
| (The Regulation is in the Appendix and was also issued on 28 March 2017
under LC Paper No. CB(3) 452/16-17)
| |||
| 3. | Proposed resolution under the Hong Kong Export Credit Insurance Corporation Ordinance
Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development to move the following motion: Resolved that the contingent liability of the Hong Kong Export Credit Insurance Corporation under contracts of insurance must not at any time exceed the sum of 55,000 million dollars. | ||
V. Members' Motions on Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments
VI. Member's Bill
| Stand over item (since the meeting of 17 May 2017)
| ||
| First Reading
Bank of Communications (Hong Kong) Limited (Merger) Bill Second Reading (Debate to be adjourned) Bank of Communications (Hong Kong) Limited (Merger) Bill : Hon CHAN Chun-ying Public Officer to attend : Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury |