A 17/18-17
Legislative Council
Agenda
Wednesday 31 January 2018 at 11:30 am
(or immediately after the meeting for the Chief Executive's Question Time
to be held at 11:00 am on the same day)
I. Tabling of Papers
| Subsidiary Legislation / Instruments | L.N. No. | |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Antibiotics (Amendment) Regulation 2018 | 9/2018 |
| 2. | Pharmacy and Poisons (Amendment) Regulation 2018 | 10/2018 |
| 3. | Statutes of the University of Hong Kong (Amendment) Statute 2018 | 11/2018 |
Other Papers
| 1. | Report of the Bills Committee on Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants (Amendment) Bill 2017 |
| (to be presented by Hon Kenneth LEUNG, Chairman of the Bills Committee) | |
| 2. | Report of the Bills Committee on Employment (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2017 |
| (to be presented by Hon KWOK Wai-keung, Chairman of the Bills Committee) | |
II. Questions
1. Hon Andrew WAN to ask: (Translation)
The Government has leased dozens of pieces of land under private recreational leases ("PRLs") to private clubs for them to develop sports and recreational facilities for use by their members. Fanling Golf Course ("FGC") is one of them. According to the results of an opinion survey conducted by the Democratic Party from the end of last year to early this year, among the some 1 000 respondents, about 70% of them considered that the land resources occupied by FGC was excessive. Moreover, 90% of the respondents opined that the Government should rezone FGC for other uses. Among them, the percentages of those who held the views that the site should be used for developing public housing, government or community facilities, and private housing were 55%, 17% and 12% respectively. On the other hand, it was reported in the press early this month that, as pointed out in the report of a study conducted by the Planning Department, it was technically feasible to use a 16-hectare site in the eastern part of FGC, which was close to the major infrastructure in the district, for building 5 000 to 6 000 residential units. Although there were old trees and graves on the site, they would not affect the building of such units. Regarding sites leased under PRLs, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it will make reference to the aforesaid survey results and decline to renew the PRL for FGC upon its expiry in August 2020, in order to make the site available for housing development; (2) whether it knows how the situation of FGC's facilities being opened up to outsiders in each of the past five years compares to the undertaking made by the lessee; whether the Government will require the lessee to step up publicity on the arrangements for opening up FGC's facilities to outsiders; and (3) of the number of PRLs not renewed upon expiry (with a breakdown of the reasons and site areas by name of lessee), and the number of cases in which the Government continued, upon expiry of PRLs, to lease the sites concerned to the lessees by way of short term tenancy or private treaty instead, in the past 10 years, and set out the term of the new leases by name of lessee?
2. Hon CHAN Han-pan to ask: (Translation)
The Government implements the Government Vaccination Programme and the Vaccination Subsidy Scheme annually to provide free or subsidized seasonal influenza vaccination to groups which are at a higher risk of infection (e.g. children and the elderly). It has been reported that Hong Kong is now in the peak season of influenza and there have been sporadic outbreaks of influenza in the community and schools, resulting in the bed occupancy rates of many public and private hospitals reaching or even going beyond their capacities. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the number of people diagnosed with influenza and, among them, the number of those who had received influenza vaccinations within six months before contracting the disease, in each of the past five years; whether the Government has examined the reasons for some members of the public contracting influenza even after they had received vaccinations; if so, of the outcome; (2) of the percentage of the number of people who received influenza vaccination in the population in each of the past five years; whether the Government has reviewed the effectiveness of the aforesaid programme and scheme in preventing or reducing influenza outbreaks in the community and schools; if so, of the outcome; and (3) as it has been reported that as of the middle of this month, the paediatric inpatient bed occupancy rates of most of the public and private hospitals have reached or even gone beyond their capacities, e.g. the relevant occupancy rate of Tuen Mun Hospital was once as high as 225%, and since the overcrowdedness of wards will increase the risk of cross-infection among inpatient children, of the Government's immediate counter-measures to address the shortage of hospital beds in paediatric wards?
3. Hon Charles Peter MOK to ask: (Translation)
According to the latest quarterly figures of complaints on public transport services, about half of the complaints were those made against taxi service, reflecting that the quality of taxi service is in need of improvement. The Consumer Council published a report in November last year, recommending to the Government the introduction of a parallel regime consisting of both taxis and e-hailing services, so as to enhance the quality of point-to-point transport services through increased market competition. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether the Government will, by drawing reference from the recommendation of the Consumer Council and using the existing system of issuing Hire Car Permits to private cars as a blueprint, introduce in phases and on a pilot basis, a regulatory regime for vehicles, drivers and platforms for e-hailing services, with a view to increasing the market competition for point-to-point transport services, enhancing their service quality and facilitating the transition of in-service drivers to a new economic model; if so, of the implementation timetable and details; if not, the reasons for that; (2) given that promoting car-pooling and car-sharing was one of the recommendations in the Report of Consultancy Study on Smart City Blueprint for Hong Kong published in June last year, but the Government decided not to incorporate this recommendation into the Hong Kong Smart City Blueprint, which was based on the Report and published at the end of last year, of the process through which the decision was made as well as the relevant considerations and justifications; and (3) as the Chief Executive stated in the Policy Address she delivered in October last year that in response to the emergence of new economic models (such as the sharing economy) arising from advancement in technology, the Government would review the existing legislation and regulations and remove the red tape, in order to foster the development of a new economy, whether the Steering Committee on Innovation and Technology and the Committee on Taxi Service Quality will, from the perspective of fostering the development of a new economy, jointly examine the introduction of a regulatory regime for e-hailing services as well as consult the public and the stakeholders on the relevant proposals; if so, of the details of the work plan and timetable; if not, the reasons for that?
4. Dr Hon Elizabeth QUAT to ask: (Translation)
It was reported that near the peak hours in the morning of the 11th of this month, signalling system faults of the East Rail Line ("ERL") caused suspension of train service of the entire ERL for more than two hours, which affected hundreds of thousands of passengers. As several passengers had made their way on their own onto the railway tracks by opening the emergency exits of the trains, staff of the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") had to escort these passengers to leave at the nearby stations and inspect the railway tracks to ensure that all passengers had been cleared before the train service could be resumed. Such work lengthened the service disruption. Despite the efforts made by MTRCL to relieve the crowding of passengers according to its contingency plans, a great number of passengers were stranded at the various ERL stations and on the trains. Also, free shuttle bus service was seriously inadequate and directions were unclear, causing chaos and uproars. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether the Government will urge MTRCL to enhance its contingency plans for implementation during railway service disruptions, including (1) improving the crowd control measures, (2) stepping up broadcasting at stations and on trains, (3) improving the communication channels among the staff, (4) strengthening staff training on crisis handling skills and providing staff with clear guidelines, and (5) stepping up public education on the rules for passengers to use the emergency exits of trains; (2) as it is stipulated in the current Service Performance Arrangement that MTRCL must pay a fine for any railway service disruption lasting 31 minutes or above, whether the Government will review the calculation method for and raise the levels of the fine, with a view to reducing the occurrence of service disruptions through the implementation of more effective measures by the company's management; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (3) whether the Government will conduct a comprehensive review on its policy of designating railway as the backbone of the public transport system, so as to avoid the recurrence of the situation that the traffic of an extensive area is paralyzed during a railway service disruption; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
5. Hon Kenneth LEUNG to ask: (Translation)
The Government has, since 2011, granted gross floor area ("GFA") concessions to encourage developers to put in place electric vehicle charging infrastructure in the private car parks of new buildings. According to the relevant technical guidelines, developers are required to install fixed electrical installations and socket outlets in every parking space in the car parks, install circuits up to the socket outlets, and engage registered professional engineers for the certification if they are to be granted the concessions. However, it has been reported that in respect of some development projects which have benefited from the aforesaid measure, all of the parking spaces have been installed with charging socket outlets but such installations are useless as all of the socket outlets are not connected to the power supply. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of development projects to date which have been granted GFA concessions, together with the floor area for which concessions were granted, the number of parking spaces provided, and the charging speed of the charging facilities concerned, broken down by the name of building or housing court; (2) of the existing procedure for as well as the government departments involved in vetting and approval of applications for GFA concessions; whether such procedure covers vetting and approval of building plans of car parks, site inspections and tests on charging facilities, and of the division of work among the relevant government departments; and (3) in relation to the development projects which have been granted GFA concessions, whether the authorities have put in place any mechanism to ensure that the property management companies or the owners' corporations concerned provide functioning charging facilities at the parking spaces concerned on an on-going basis, and keep such facilities under proper repair and maintenance; if so, of the details, including the penalties which may be imposed on the parties who fail to provide such facilities; if not, the reasons for that?
| Public Officers to reply | : | Secretary for the Environment Under Secretary for Development |
6. Hon Paul TSE to ask: (Translation)
The Court of Final Appeal ("CFA") handed down a judgment in May 2015 that the Chinachem Charitable Foundation Limited was to hold as a trustee the late Ms Nina KUNG's estate of tens of billions of dollars which was dedicated to charitable purposes. In response to the relevant questions I raised in June 2015 and February 2016, the former Secretary for Justice ("SJ") said that as the protector of charities, he would actively follow up the arrangements for and the details of the implementation of Ms KUNG's will and would eventually, as directed by CFA, submit a scheme on using the estate for charitable purposes ("the Scheme") to the Court for approval. He expected the Department of Justice ("DoJ") to complete the formulation of the Scheme by around mid-2016. Before that, the estate would continue to be administered by the independent interim administrators appointed by the Court. However, DoJ has not published the Scheme so far. Moreover, since the inauguration of the current-term Government, the former SJ resigned after serving for only six months; and his successor is embroiled in a scandal involving unauthorized building works found in her residence, and she has also been granted exceptional approval by the Chief Executive to continue with her handling of six ongoing arbitration cases and her teaching commitments concurrently, raising public concern whether she can handle official matters wholeheartedly in the near future. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether DoJ has completed the formulation of the Scheme and submitted it to the Court; if so, when DoJ submitted the Scheme; if not, of the reasons for that, and how much additional time DoJ will need to finish the formulation of the Scheme, which commenced two and a half years ago; if the work cannot be finished shortly, whether the authorities have studied if SJ's performance in exercising the function as the protector of charities has highlighted DoJ's lack of operational efficiency, falling short of public expectations and failure in fulfilling the last wish of Ms KUNG; (2) given that the estate has all along been under the administration of accountants serving as the interim administrators since the aforesaid judgment was handed down by CFA in May 2015, whether the authorities have assessed if the management fees charged by the accountants are reasonable and if Ms KUNG's estate has been gnawed by the relevant expenses; and (3) whether it has assessed if public confidence in the Government's implementation of policies will be affected by the fact that Ms KUNG's estate of tens of billions of dollars has not been put to charitable uses for a number of years?
*7. Hon WONG Ting-kwong to ask: (Translation)
Under section 4(17)(ii) of the Summary Offences Ordinance (Cap. 228), any person who, without lawful authority or excuse, carries out money collection activities in a public place for non-charitable purposes, shall be liable to a fine of $500 or to imprisonment for three months, except with a permit issued by the Secretary for Home Affairs. It has been reported that in recent years, quite a number of political organizations, such as political parties, have carried out illegal money collection activities along the routes of public processions. Some members of the public are of the view that the Government should step up law enforcement efforts to stop such an undesirable trend from spreading. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the number of money collection activities carried out by various political organizations along public procession routes and the total amount of donations collected in each of the past five years, together with a breakdown by (i) whether a permit in respect of the activity had been issued, and (ii) the name of the political organization that organized the activity; (2) whether it took law enforcement actions against the aforesaid illegal money collection activities in the past five years; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; whether it will step up law enforcement efforts; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (3) whether, in the past five years, the authorities (i) publicized among members of the public that they should, before making donations, enquire if the money collection activities concerned are legal, and (ii) publicized among various political organizations that they should obtain a permit before carrying out money collection activities; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*8. Hon LAM Cheuk-ting to ask: (Translation)
It was reported in the press in August 2016 that a government officer, being a Senior Land Executive ("SLE") of the Lands Department ("LandsD") at the relevant time, had bought an entire block of small house from an indigenous villager in 2014. As the father of the said SLE (i) had worked as a SLE in LandsD before his retirement, (ii) sold, upon his retirement and before the aforesaid small house was constructed, the land on which the small house was situated to the said indigenous villager and (iii) had signed on the seller's behalf the sale and purchase agreement in respect of the aforesaid property transaction, coupled with the fact that the transaction price of the property was unreasonably low, suspicion had arisen that the said small house was actually a property developed upon the acquisition of small house concessionary rights. In response to subsequent media enquiries, LandsD stated that any case suspected of involving acts of misconduct or deception in the applications for small houses, regardless of the identities and backgrounds of the parties concerned, would be referred to the law enforcement agencies for investigation as necessary, and it would offer cooperation in the investigation. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council, since the publication of the aforesaid press report, whether:
(1) LandsD has referred the aforesaid case to law enforcement agencies to investigate if anyone has committed any unlawful acts; if so, of the details of the referral and the outcome of the investigations; if not, the reasons for that; (2) the Civil Service Bureau has initiated a disciplinary hearing against the SLE who bought the small house; if so, of the details and outcome; if not, the reasons for that; and (3) LandsD has arranged transfer of the SLE who bought the small house to a position whose duties are unrelated to the vetting and approval of small house applications; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*9. Dr Hon CHIANG Lai-wan to ask: (Translation)
To answer a call of a social movement on the social media, quite a number of people, who came from the political, education, sports sectors, etc. around the world, broke their silence in recent months to disclose their experiences of being sexually harassed or assaulted many years ago and even before their adulthood. On protecting children from sexual assaults and implementing sex education at schools, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of reports received in each of the past three years by the authorities about children being sexually assaulted, broken down by the occupation of the suspects (if known); (2) whether it has required all schools to formulate policies on and measures for protecting children from sexual assaults, and assisted them in this respect; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (3) of the measures to raise the alertness and response capabilities of children to sexual assaults, and whether it will enhance the provision of psychological counselling and support for children who have been sexually assaulted and their family members, so as to help them recover from their traumas and resume a normal living; and (4) whether the Education Bureau will review and amend the Guidelines on Sex Education in Schools (1997 edition), including requiring all schools to (i) develop sex education programmes in accordance with the Guidelines, and (ii) establish a mechanism to review the learning effectiveness of such programmes; if so, of the details and the timetable; if not, the reasons for that?
*10. Hon Kenneth LAU to ask: (Translation)
Some members of the finance industry have relayed that financial technologies ("Fintech") are becoming new engines of economic growth. Among such technologies, electronic payment services have become the major development projects around the world. The emergence of cashless cities is no longer a fiction. However, since the issuance of the first batch of stored value facilities ("SVF") licences by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority ("HKMA") in 2016, the development of electronic payment services in Hong Kong has progressed at a slow pace. According to HKMA's information, the total value of SVF transactions in the second quarter of 2017 was HK$31.8 billion, representing an increase of only $2.1 billion and a rate of increase of only 7% over that of $29.7 billion in the fourth quarter of the year before. Such members have also pointed out that although a number of mobile payment services are currently available on the market (e.g. TNG Wallet, Alipay, Apple Pay), quite a number of Hong Kong people are hesitant to use newly emerged electronic payment services. A Report on the Applications and Security of 10 Mobile Payment Services released by the Consumer Council last year also indicated that some mobile payment service providers had retained the particulars of their clients for as long as seven years, which has aroused concerns about the protection of consumers' privacy. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) as the Government has indicated in the Policy Agenda published in October last year that the Government will set up an interdepartmental platform to promote e-commerce and proactively encourage the development of mobile payment channels, apart from HKMA's efforts in establishing a Faster Payment System, how the Government will further promote the development of electronic payment services; (2) given that Singapore has taken a step towards building a cashless city by launching in July last year an inter-bank fund transfer service named PayNow, under which payers can transfer funds through mobile phones simply by inputting the identity card numbers or the mobile phone numbers of the payees, whether the Government has drawn reference from the experience of various places around the world in developing electronic payment services, including local and cross-boundary electronic payment services, so as to formulate a work plan for the development of such services in Hong Kong; and (3) how the Government currently regulates the electronic payment services provided by the operators concerned to ensure that such services comply with the requirements under the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486); how HKMA and relevant organizations such as the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data will cooperate to ensure that electronic payment services can provide convenience to consumers' lives on the one hand, and fully protect their privacy on the other?
*11. Hon Jeremy TAM to ask: (Translation)
It has been reported that the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge ("HZMB") is expected to be commissioned in the second quarter of this year. However, due to construction difficulties, the Tuen Mun-Chek Lap Kok Link ("TM-CLKL") cannot be completed on schedule within this year in tandem with the commissioning of HZMB. The project is anticipated to be completed in 2020 at the earliest. The Lantau Link (comprising the Tsing Ma Bridge, the Ma Wan Viaduct and the Kap Shui Mun Bridge), which is currently the only vehicular access to the Lantau Island, will have to bear the additional vehicular flow brought by the commissioning of HZMB in the coming years, and traffic congestion is expected to deteriorate. It has also been reported that some of the steel cells of the steel cellular seawalls on the artificial island for HZMB Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities have recently settled at an unusually quick pace, and that they may break the subsea tunnel of TM-CLKL underneath the steel cells in a worst-case scenario. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the design capacity of the Tsing Ma Bridge; (2) of the respective average hourly (i) traffic volumes and (ii) volume/capacity ratios of the Tsing Ma Bridge during the morning peak hours (eastbound), the morning peak hours (westbound), the evening peak hours (eastbound) and the evening peak hours (westbound) in the past three years (set out in a table); (3) of the respective average hourly (i) traffic volumes and (ii) volume/capacity ratios of the Tsing Ma Bridge during the morning peak hours (eastbound), the morning peak hours (westbound), the evening peak hours (eastbound) and the evening peak hours (westbound) during the period between the commissioning of HZMB and that of TM-CLKL, as estimated by the Government (set out in a table); and (4) whether it has assessed if the aforesaid settlement problem will further delay the completion of the TM-CLKL project; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*12. Hon CHAN Chun-ying to ask: (Translation)
To combat the malpractices of financial intermediaries ("intermediaries"), the Government implemented in 2016 measures in four major areas, namely enhancement of law enforcement, enhancement of public education and publicity, enhancement of advisory services to the public, and the imposition of more stringent licensing conditions on money lender licences. On the other hand, some intermediaries' persons-in-charge have relayed to me that the varying quality of the practitioners in the trade has cast a negative image of the trade among members of the public and resulted in an ever-shrinking room for survival for the trade. They therefore hope that the Government will introduce a licensing system for intermediaries to separate the wheat from the chaff, with a view to regaining public confidence in intermediaries. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) (i) of the number of complaints involving unscrupulous intermediaries received by the Government since the implementation of the aforesaid measures and, among them, the number and details of those with contraventions substantiated and the penalties imposed on the offenders; (ii) whether the Licensing Office of the Hong Kong Police Force has, since the implementation of the aforesaid measures, initiated investigations into cases of money lenders suspected of having breached the licensing conditions; if so, of the number of such cases and, among them, the number and details of those found substantiated as well as the penalties imposed on the persons concerned; and (iii) whether the Police and the Companies Registry have held exchange meetings with the Hong Kong Monetary Authority and other financial regulators in respect of the business operations of money lenders and intermediaries; if so, whether such meetings are held regularly; if not, of the reasons for that; (2) as the Government indicated earlier on that it would conduct a review on the aforesaid measures in the third quarter of last year, whether the review has been completed; if so, of the outcome; if not, the expected completion date; and (3) whether the Government will consider enacting legislation to introduce a licensing system for intermediaries; if so, of the details and the implementation timetable; if not, the reasons for that?
*13. Hon Jimmy NG to ask: (Translation)
The Chief Executive of the last term announced in the Policy Address, which he delivered in January last year, that to further foster the development of the innovation and technology ecosystem in Hong Kong, the Government supported the construction by the Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation ("HKSTPC") of an "InnoCell" adjacent to the Hong Kong Science Park ("HKSP") to provide 500 residential units with flexible design and such facilities as shared working spaces for leasing to the persons-in-charge of the tenants/incubatees in HKSP, as well as their overseas or Mainland employees and visiting scientists/researchers. In addition, the Government anticipates that the monthly rental of a furnished InnoCell unit in 2020 will be in the range of $8,000 to $10,000, which is about 60% of the market rent of the properties of similar quality in nearby areas. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council if it knows:
(1) given that while the InnoCell will provide 500 residential units upon commissioning in 2020, it has been projected in a relevant consultancy study that the demand for such residential units will be around 580 units in 2020-2021, representing a shortfall of 80 residential units, whether HKSTPC has plans to provide more such residential facilities; if HKSTPC does, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (2) as local employees do not meet the preliminary criteria proposed by HKSTPC for admission to the InnoCell, whether HKSTPC will consider providing residential facilities for local talents in the Park; if HKSTPC will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (3) as the findings of the study conducted by the consultant concerned have shown that the InnoCell is estimated to generate a direct value added of around $110 million, as well as an indirect and induced value added of $56 million per year (at 2014 prices), the methods and assumptions adopted by the consultant for computing such amounts; and (4) the mechanism and criteria based on which HKSTPC determines (i) the rental level at the time of launch of the InnoCell units and (ii) the rate of rental adjustment in future?
*14. Hon Alice MAK to ask: (Translation)
At present, the Medical Council of Hong Kong ("MCHK") is responsible for handling complaints about the professional conduct of registered medical practitioners in Hong Kong. The mechanism for handling such complaints is as follows: (1) initial consideration by the chairman and the deputy chairman of the Preliminary Investigation Committee ("PIC") in consultation with a lay member of that committee to decide whether the complaint is groundless, frivolous or not pursuable, or that it should be referred to PIC for full consideration, (2) PIC to decide whether there is a prima-facie case such that the complaint should be referred to MCHK for an inquiry, and (3) MCHK to conduct an inquiry. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether the aforesaid mechanism has specified: (i) the circumstances under which the chairman and the deputy chairman of PIC are required to seek assistance from external experts; whether channels are currently available for the complainants to gain access to or knowledge of the views and opinions submitted by such experts; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (ii) the matters to be considered and the procedure to be followed by PIC when deciding whether to refer a case to MCHK for an inquiry; if so, of the details; (iii) that the defendant must submit to PIC a written explanation for or testimony of his conduct or of any matter alleged in the complaint, and the circumstances under which the complainant may have access to such explanation or testimony; (2) given that under the existing legislation, if PIC decides that no inquiry is to be held in respect of a case, the complainant does not have any right of access to any information or document relating to the case submitted to PIC by any other person, resulting in the complainant having no way of knowing all of the information relating to the decision, and thus having difficulty in deciding whether to continue to pursue the complaint, whether the authorities will consider reviewing that provision, with a view to enhancing the transparency of the complaint handling mechanism and strengthening the protection of the rights of complainants; and (3) whether it knows the number of cases in which complainants applied to MCHK in the past five years for access to the information or documents relating to their cases after an inquiry by MCHK was completed; and among them, the respective numbers of applications approved and rejected; of the criteria adopted by MCHK for deciding whether or not to grant approval?
*15. Hon CHAN Hak-kan to ask: (Translation)
It has been reported that in recent years, there have been from time to time people displaying large vertical banners on prominent cliff faces within country parks to express their appeals. As a result, the authorities have to deploy public money and manpower to remove such items. For example, in December last year, a huge vertical banner measuring 25 metres tall and 3 metres wide was displayed on the cliff face of the Lion Rock within the Lion Rock Country Park. It took about one hour for three firemen to reach the hilltop by a helicopter of the Government Flying Service and abseil down the cliff face to remove the vertical banner. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of reports on unauthorized display of items such as vertical banners within country parks received by the authorities in each of the past three years; in respect of the operations to remove the items in each case, (i) the government departments and equipment involved, (ii) the manpower deployed, (iii) the time spent, (iii) the amount of public expenditure incurred, and (v) whether any staff member was injured during the operation; and (2) given that section 10 of the Country Parks and Special Areas Regulations (Cap. 208 sub. leg. A) provides that no person shall, within a country park or special area except in accordance with a permit in writing granted by the Country and Marine Parks Authority, display any sign, notice, poster, banner or advertisement, whether the authorities, in the past three years, (i) invoked the provision to institute prosecution against those persons who displayed items within country parks, and (ii) recovered from them the public expenditure incurred in removing such items; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*16. Hon WU Chi-wai to ask: (Translation)
The Government indicated last year that the Energizing Kowloon East Office under the Development Bureau was considering the development of an underground car park in the district open space at Sze Mei Street, San Po Kong. In addition, the Government proposes to provide more combinations of interchange routes with fare concessions at the bus stops in San Po Kong outside the Latitude in order to strengthen the transport linkage between Kowloon East and places such as the Kai Tak Development Area. On the other hand, the Government completed an interim public consultation exercise for the Detailed Feasibility Study for an Environmentally Friendly Linkage System ("EFLS") for Kowloon East in the middle of last year. Regarding the transport planning for Kowloon East, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) as there are views that, upon the commissioning of the general hospital in Kai Tak, the roads in the San Po Kong Industrial Area and its vicinity as well as Kai San Road will become the main access roads for ambulances travelling from Wong Tai Sin to the hospital, whether, in respect of the aforesaid car park development proposal, it has assessed (i) the impact of the proposal on the traffic flow of the area, (ii) if the proposal will worsen the existing traffic congestion problem in the area, and (iii) if the proposal will lengthen the time taken by ambulances for travelling from Wong Tai Sin to the hospital; if it has assessed, of the outcome; if not, whether it will conduct such an assessment immediately; of the measures to relieve the traffic congestion in the area; (2) as there is a suggestion that the aforesaid bus stops for bus-bus interchange should be relocated to somewhere outside the Regal Oriental Hotel on Prince Edward Road East so that those bus routes via the Choi Hung Road Flyover can be included in the combinations of interchange routes with fare concessions, whether the Government has studied the feasibility of this suggestion; if so, of the outcome; if not, the reasons for that; and (3) as the EFLS alignment currently proposed by the Government is to connect EFLS with the MTR Kwun Tong Station via Hoi Yuen Road or King Yip Street, whether the Government will consider changing the connecting point to the Yau Tong Station, so as to avoid exacerbating the existing problems of (i) frequent traffic congestion in the vicinity of Hoi Yuen Road, Kwun Tong, and (ii) passenger patronage at the Kwun Tong Station being over the capacity during peak hours; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
*17. Hon Paul TSE to ask: (Translation)
Major infrastructure projects have experienced serious cost overruns one after another in recent years. After checking the relevant information over the past few years and comparing the initial cost estimates of a number of major infrastructure projects with their final or latest project costs, an economist has found that all such works projects have experienced serious cost overruns. He has also indicated that just counting the projects of Sha Tin to Central Link, the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link, the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, the Central-Wan Chai Bypass, the Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System and the West Kowloon Cultural District, the cost overruns involved have totalled "$80 billion, if not $100 billion". According to calculations made on the basis that the current average construction cost of a public rental housing ("PRH") unit stands at around $700,000, such a sum of cost overruns is sufficient to fund the construction of 110 000 to 140 000 PRH units. He considers that the aforesaid situation has reflected that the Government's cost estimation work is blatantly flawed, and it is therefore not surprising that members of the public have criticized that major infrastructure projects are mostly "white elephant" projects. Some members of the public have pointed out that major infrastructure projects experiencing serious cost overruns has not only undermined their confidence in the Government's management of public finances, but also become the pretext used by some Members of this Council to filibuster or procrastinate the vetting and approval of funding proposals at meetings of the Finance Committee ("FC"), thereby hindering the normal funding allocation procedure. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has assessed the reasons why a number of infrastructure projects have repeatedly experienced cost overruns in recent years, and how projects experiencing cost overruns has undermined public confidence in the Government's management of public finances and the negative impact thus caused; (2) of the number of works projects the cost estimates of which have been reviewed by the Project Cost Management Office ("PCMO") since its establishment by the Development Bureau in 2016, and the total expenditure thus reduced; whether the Government will broaden the functions of PCMO to cover the vetting and monitoring of the cost estimation work of works projects that are implemented under the concession approach; and (3) as the aforesaid economist has pointed out that the causes for a number of major infrastructure projects experiencing cost overruns in the past might involve deliberate underestimation of the initial costs of works projects by government officials in an attempt to push up the rates of return of the works projects, thereby making it easier to obtain FC's approval for the funding proposals concerned, whether the Government has conducted/will conduct an investigation to see if there was deliberate underestimation of the costs of infrastructure projects?
*18. Hon Charles Peter MOK to ask: (Translation)
It has been reported that quite a number of advanced countries/regions have enacted laws to regulate the access to residents' electronic communication records and personal data by law enforcement agencies. Such laws include the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 of the United Kingdom, the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 of Australia and the Communication Security and Surveillance Act of Taiwan. Those countries/regions also require law enforcement agencies to proactively make public, on a regular basis, statistics and reports on access to such information, so as to ensure that there is a certain degree of transparency in law enforcement actions. On the other hand, the Interception of Communications and Surveillance Ordinance (Cap. 589) of Hong Kong regulates only matters such as "postal interception" and "telecommunications interception", and does not regulate the interception of communication records and personal data stored in media such as web servers. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the following details of the requests for information disclosure made by the Government respectively in the first and the second halves of 2017 to information and communication technology ("ICT") companies (set out the information in a table, broken down by government department): (i) total number of ICT companies involved, (ii) names and types of ICT companies involved (e.g. Internet service providers, device producers, social media and search engines), (iii) total number of requests made, (iv) total number of user accounts involved, (v) types of information requested for disclosure (e.g. user names, Internet Protocol addresses and contact methods) and the respective numbers of the requests concerned, (vi) nature of information requested for disclosure (i.e. metadata and/or content of communication) and the respective numbers of the requests concerned, (vii) reasons for making the requests concerned (e.g. investigation of cases, law enforcement and other reasons) and the respective numbers of the requests concerned, (viii) number of requests made under court orders, (ix) number of requests acceded to, and (x) reasons why some requests were not acceded to (e.g. the request not made under a court order, failure to provide appropriate legal documents, insufficient justifications, not in compliance with the policies of ICT companies, and other reasons) and the respective numbers of the requests concerned; if such information cannot be provided, of the reasons for that; (2) of the following details of the requests for information removal made by the Government respectively in the first and the second halves of 2017 to ICT companies (set out the information in a table, broken down by government department): (i) total number of ICT companies involved, (ii) names and types of ICT companies involved, (iii) total number of requests made, (iv) volume of information requested for removal, (v) types of information involved (e.g. videos, text, images) and the respective numbers of the requests concerned, (vi) nature of information involved (e.g. indecent content, illegal advertisements, copyright infringement and false information) and the respective numbers of the requests concerned, (vii) reasons for making the requests concerned (e.g. for investigation of complaints, law enforcement and other reasons), (viii) number of requests made under a court order, (ix) number of requests acceded to, and (x) reasons why some requests were not acceded to and the respective numbers of the requests concerned; if such information cannot be provided, of the reasons for that; (3) given that information technology is advancing and changing rapidly and the methods adopted by law enforcement agencies for collecting evidence have also changed, whether it has plans to review and amend the relevant laws such as Cap. 589, so as to ensure that members of the public in Hong Kong continue to fully enjoy the rights to freedom of speech and privacy of communication, etc., as safeguarded under Articles 27 to 30 of the Basic Law; and (4) whether the Government has plans to amend its internal guidelines and codes of practice, so as to regulate the making of requests by various law enforcement agencies for information disclosure and removal (including the aspect of enhancing transparency); if not, of the reasons for that?
*19. Hon Kenneth LEUNG to ask: (Translation)
One of the energy-saving targets set out in the Energy Saving Plan for Hong Kong's Built Environment 2015~2025+ published by the Government in May 2015 was a 5% reduction in electricity consumption in government buildings within the period from 2015 to 2020. Furthermore, the Government stated in the Hong Kong's Climate Action Plan 2030+ published in January last year that the public sector would take the lead in applying renewable energy ("RE") on a wider and larger scale in the immediate years ahead, and that consideration would be given to implementing a trial scheme as soon as practicable in the public sector and participation of the private sector would be encouraged. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the total electricity consumption of various government buildings in each of the past five years, together with a breakdown by the major type of services (e.g. water supply and waste water treatment, municipal services, disciplinary forces, government offices and quarters, street lighting, and other government services) provided therein; (2) of the government buildings and infrastructures (including buildings newly built and existing buildings in which major retrofitting works have been completed) that have been installed with RE power generation installations, and in respect of each installation, (i) the RE type, (ii) the year in which the installation works were carried out and (iii) the power generating capacity; (3) regarding the power generation installations mentioned in (2), of (i) the percentage that the annual total electricity generated represents in the total electricity consumption of the buildings concerned in the same period in each of the past five years, and (ii) the usage of the electricity generated in the past five years; whether it has placed at prominent positions near such installations display panels indicating the quantity of electricity generated, in order to promote the concept of RE to members of the public; (4) whether it now regularly (i) carries out routine maintenance on the power generation installations mentioned in (2) to ensure that aged and damaged installations will be timely replaced and fixed, and (ii) makes improvements to the power generation efficiency of those installations; if so, of the details (including the relevant expenses incurred in respect of the various installations in each of the past five years); if not, the reasons for that; and (5) given that the Government issued a technical circular on "Adoption of Energy Efficient Features and Renewable Energy Technologies in Government Projects and Installations" in as early as 2005, requiring various government departments to consider adopting RE technologies when undertaking major retrofitting works in government buildings, whether the Government has plans to update the relevant requirements or guidelines in light of the latest development of RE technologies and the annual electricity consumption of the Government; if not, of the reasons for that; if so, the details, including whether the updating will cover the four technical aspects of safety, equipment protection, reliability and power quality?
*20. Dr Hon Elizabeth QUAT to ask: (Translation)
At present, there are four categories of drugs in the Hospital Authority Drug Formulary ("HADF"), i.e. General Drugs, Special Drugs, Self-Financed Items ("SFIs") with Safety Net ("Safety Net drugs") and SFIs without Safety Net. Some patient groups have relayed that it takes up to 10 years for a new drug to go through the process from application for its registration in Hong Kong, approval given for its registration, its being listed on HADF as a Safety Net drug by the Hospital Authority ("HA"), to its being reclassified as a General or Special Drug. During such period, there may be quite a number of patients (especially those with cancers) who have missed the golden opportunity for receiving treatments with the new drugs. On the other hand, the Government advised at a meeting with a concern group in November last year that a mechanism would be established to support patients with uncommon diseases. Regarding the provision of diagnoses and treatments for patients with cancers, uncommon diseases and terminal illnesses, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) given that at present, an application for registration of a pharmaceutical product containing a new chemical or biological entity must be accompanied by official evidence of registration approval of the product in two or more specified countries, whether the Government has made a comparison to see if (i) the relevant requirements in neighbouring countries/regions (e.g. Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Korea and Thailand) are less stringent than those in Hong Kong and (ii) the time taken for registration of pharmaceutical products in those countries/regions is shorter than that in Hong Kong; if it has compared and the outcome is in the affirmative, of the details, and whether it will expeditiously study the relaxation of the relevant registration requirements in order to expedite the registration process for pharmaceutical products; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (2) given that the Drug Advisory Committee ("DAC") under HA currently meets once every three months to vet and approve applications for listing of new drugs on HADF, but the health conditions of some cancer patients may deteriorate rapidly within a short period of time, whether the Government knows if HA will (i) request DAC to meet more frequently and provide it with the necessary manpower and resources, so as to expedite the vetting and approval of applications for listing of new drugs on HADF, and (ii) introduce a fast-track mechanism for vetting and approval of applications for listing of drugs for treating cancers on HADF; if HA will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (3) as the main reason for the applications for listing of drugs for treating cancers on HADF being rejected in the past two years was that the justification of the treatments' cost of the drugs in relation to their benefits was insufficient, but the listing of such drugs as SFIs without Safety Net (i) will not increase HA's expenditure, (ii) will provide more treatment options for patients to choose, and (iii) will help HA accumulate clinical data, whether the Government knows if HA will consider afresh the applications for the listing of such category of drugs on HADF as SFIs without Safety Net; (4) of the details of the mechanism to be established by the Government for supporting patients with uncommon diseases, including the government department responsible for and the progress of its coordination work; whether it knows if HA will establish specialties to provide treatments to such patients; if HA will, of the specific arrangements; (5) given that most uncommon diseases are hereditary diseases, whether the Government will step up publicity on premarital health check-up, so as to enable newly-wed couples to know the chances of their next generation having such diseases before reproduction; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (6) whether it knows (i) the current number of public hospitals with palliative care specialty; if so, of the types of terminally-ill patients receiving palliative care and the service quotas, with a breakdown of such information by name of hospital, and (ii) if HA has adopted the Quality of Death Index in reviewing the services provided by such specialty; and (7) given that according to the Quality of Death Index published by a think tank in 2015, Hong Kong was ranked 22nd among 80 countries and regions, whether the Government will review and improve palliative and healthcare in terms of the environment, human resources, affordability of the services, quality of the services and community engagement, so as to raise the ranking of Hong Kong in that index?
*21. Hon POON Siu-ping to ask: (Translation)
The Employees Retraining Board ("ERB") has implemented the "First-Hire-Then-Train" Pilot Programme ("the Pilot Programme") since 2015-2016 to assist people who are unemployed and aged 40 or above (mainly homemakers) in being appointed as care workers for elderly homes. ERB has indicated that under the Pilot Scheme, work arrangements (including working hours and leave schedule) may be modified to cater for the family commitments of trainees, and on-the-job training and other related support measures are provided for trainees during their employment to encourage them to stay in employment. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council if it knows:
(1) in each year since the introduction of the Pilot Programme, (i) the number of participants in the Pilot Programme, (ii) the number of participants who completed the relevant training courses and became care workers for elderly homes and, among them, the number of those who still stayed in employment after the completion of the six-month placement follow-up period, as well as (iii) the number of participants in the Pilot Programme who dropped out before completing the training courses, and whether ERB has assessed the reasons for their dropping out; and (2) whether ERB will review if the remuneration and fringe benefits provided for the jobs under the Pilot Programme at present are generous enough to attract people who are unemployed and aged 40 or above to work in the care industry on a long-term basis?
*22. Hon KWONG Chun-yu to ask:
Under section 3(i) of the Import and Export (Registration) Regulations (Cap. 60 sub. leg. E), marine fish (including edible crustaceans, molluscs and other similar edible products derived from the sea) arriving in Hong Kong direct from fishing grounds on fishing craft registered or licensed in Hong Kong are exempted from the requirements to make import and export declarations. However, under sections 4 and 5 of the above Regulations, vessels licensed as Class III vessel - fish carriers under the Merchant Shipping (Local Vessels) (Certification and Licensing) Regulation (Cap. 548 sub. leg. D) ("local fish carriers"), are not exempted as they are not fishing craft, and must make import and export declarations to the Customs and Excise Department ("C&ED") for all live marine fish they carry. Also, it is learnt that local fish carriers have been exempted by the Director of Marine from complying with the requirements to obtain arrival and port clearances. Some conservationists have relayed to me that local fish carriers collect all or most of the live marine fish they import to Hong Kong from a collection point in the waters outside Hong Kong and convey the marine fish to Hong Kong. These conservationists are concerned that due to the aforesaid exemptions and the lack of regulation and oversight by the Government, local fish carriers may easily become accomplices in the illegal fishing activities conducted in the waters of other jurisdictions where the live marine fish originated. In addition, there is evidence that some local fish carriers have not made declarations of their live marine cargos on entry to the Hong Kong waters and that some of them have smuggled their cargos into the waters of Mainland China. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the existing number of local fish carriers; the number of law enforcement actions taken by C&ED in 2017 against the smuggling of live marine fish by local fish carriers into and out of Hong Kong; (2) of the number of local fish carriers which made import and re-export declarations for live marine fish in each month in 2017, and the total quantity of live marine fish so declared by such carriers in 2017; (3) of the measures currently put in place by the Government to regulate and monitor the imports and re-exports of live marine fish by local fish carriers to curb illegal fishing and live marine fish trade activities in Hong Kong and across the boundary; (4) why local fish carriers have been exempted from complying with the requirement to obtain arrival and port clearances, which may render it difficult for C&ED to check if local fish carriers have complied with the import and re-export declaration requirements in respect of non-exempted live marine fish; (5) whether, to guard against local fish carriers' conveying into Hong Kong live marine fish obtained from illegal fishing in the waters outside Hong Kong and then re-exporting to Mainland China, the Government will step up law enforcement actions on the requirement for local fish carriers to make declarations on their imports and re-exports of live marine fish; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; (6) given that under the Marine Fish (Marketing) Ordinance (Cap. 291), except for live marine fish, all fresh marine fish are required to be landed and sold wholesale at the wholesale fish markets operated by the Fish Marketing Organization, of the reasons for the authorities to exclude live marine fish from the Ordinance and whether it will enact legislation to abolish the exclusion; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (7) of the current number of fish carriers of 300 gross tonnage or above fitted with an automatic identification system ("AIS"); whether the Government will enact legislation to require that fish carriers must be fitted with an AIS and that the AIS must at all times be switched on, to facilitate the authorities' monitoring of the sea trips made by such vessels?
* For written reply
III. Government Bills
| First Reading and Second Reading (Debate to be adjourned)
| |||||||||||
| Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill | : | Secretary for Transport and Housing
| |||||||||
| Second Reading (Debate to resume), Consideration by Committee of the Whole Council and Third Reading
| |||||||||||
| 1. | Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants (Amendment) Bill 2017 | : | Secretary for the Environment
| ||||||||
| 2. | Employment (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2017 | : | Secretary for Labour and Welfare
| ||||||||
| |||||||||||
IV. Government Motions
| 1. | Proposed resolution under the Legal Aid Ordinance
Secretary for Home Affairs to move the motion in Appendix 1. |
| (The motion was issued on 18 January 2018
under LC Paper No. CB(3) 282/17-18) | |
| 2. | Proposed resolution under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance
Secretary for Labour and Welfare to move the motion in Appendix 2. |
| (The motion was issued on 15 January 2018
under LC Paper No. CB(3) 264/17-18) | |
| 3. | Proposed resolution under the Pneumoconiosis and Mesothelioma (Compensation) Ordinance
Secretary for Labour and Welfare to move the motion in Appendix 3. |
| (The motion was issued on 15 January 2018
under LC Paper No. CB(3) 264/17-18) | |
V. Members' Motions
| 1. | Proposed resolution under section 34(4) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance
Hon Starry LEE to move the following motion: Resolved that in relation to the Energy Efficiency (Labelling of Products) Ordinance (Amendment of Schedules) Order 2018, published in the Gazette as Legal Notice No. 4 of 2018, and laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 24 January 2018, the period for amending subsidiary legislation referred to in section 34(2) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) be extended under section 34(4) of that Ordinance to the meeting of 21 March 2018. | ||||
| Stand-over items: Members' motions nos. 2 and 3 (since the meeting of 13 December 2017)
| |||||
| 2. | Motion under Articles 73(5) and 73(10) of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China
Hon CHU Hoi-dick to move the motion in Appendix 4. | ||||
| (The motion was issued on 5 December 2017
under LC Paper No. CB(3) 193/17-18) | |||||
| |||||
| 3. | Motion under Articles 73(5) and 73(10) of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China
Hon CHU Hoi-dick to move the motion in Appendix 5. | ||||
| (The motion was issued on 5 December 2017
under LC Paper No. CB(3) 193/17-18) | |||||
| |||||
| 4. | Motion under Article 73(5) and (10) of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China
Hon Charles Peter MOK to move the motion in Appendix 6. | ||||
| (The motion was issued on 19 January 2018
under LC Paper No. CB(3) 286/17-18) | |||||
| Public Officer to attend : Chief Secretary for Administration
| |||||
| Stand-over items: Members' motions nos. 5 and 6 (since the meeting of 12 July 2017)
| |||||
| 5. | Establishing a comprehensive 're-industrialization' policy regime
Hon Jimmy NG to move the following motion: (Translation) That given the new opportunities brought about by global reforms in industrial technologies, many countries or places are proactively developing high value-added advanced manufacturing industries, and Hong Kong is no exception; the Government has already made it clear that re-industrialization is a potential new area of economic growth for Hong Kong, and announced the establishment of a committee on innovation, technology and re-industrialization; in this connection, this Council urges the Government to conduct a timely review and elevate the positioning of the 're-industrialization' policy, with a view to upgrading the existing industrial policy regime led by innovation and technology to a comprehensive industrial policy regime which is more independent, forward-looking and systematic; the Government should also examine the role of industries in the local economic structure and societal development, and study the 'external development' feature of Hong Kong's industries, with the aim of providing tax support for those offshore Hong Kong manufacturers engaging in manufacturing and production industries, thereby consolidating the economic foundation of Hong Kong and promoting the diversification of industries. Hon HO Kai-ming, Hon Kenneth LEUNG, Dr Hon CHIANG Lai-wan, Hon WU Chi-wai, Ir Dr Hon LO Wai-kwok, Hon Charles Peter MOK and Hon Jeremy TAM to move amendments to the motion | ||||
| (The amendments were issued on 29 June 2017
under LC Paper No. CB(3) 760/16-17) | |||||
| Public Officer to attend : Secretary for Innovation and Technology
| |||||
| 6. | Conducting a comprehensive review of labour legislation to improve labour rights and interests
Hon HO Kai-ming to move the following motion: (Translation) That this Council urges the Government to make safeguarding labour rights and interests its priority task and expeditiously conduct a comprehensive review of and make amendments to the various legislation relating to labour matters, so as to ensure that such legislation keeps pace with the times. Hon LUK Chung-hung, Dr Hon KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Hon Helena WONG and Hon Andrew WAN to move amendments to the motion | ||||
| (The amendments were issued on 29 June 2017
under LC Paper No. CB(3) 759/16-17) | |||||
| Public Officer to attend : Secretary for Labour and Welfare
| |||||