A 18/19-18

Legislative Council

Agenda

Wednesday 30 January 2019 at 11:30 am
(or immediately after the meeting for the Chief Executive's Question Time
to be held at 11:00 am that day)

I. Tabling of Papers



Subsidiary Legislation / InstrumentL.N. No.
Waterworks (Amendment) Regulation 201912/2019

Other Papers

1.No. 68-Correctional Services Department Welfare Fund
Report by the Commissioner of Correctional Services of Hong Kong Incorporated on the Administration of the Fund, Financial statements and Report of the Director of Audit for the year ended 31 March 2018
(to be presented by Secretary for Security)

2.No. 69-The Government Minute in response to the Report of the Public Accounts Committee No. 70A of November 2018
(to be presented by Chief Secretary for Administration, who will address the Council)

3.Report No. 10/18-19 of the House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments
(to be presented by Hon Starry LEE, Chairman of the House Committee)

4.Report of the Bills Committee on Financial Reporting Council (Amendment) Bill 2018
(to be presented by Hon WONG Ting-kwong, Chairman of the Bills Committee)

5.Report of the Bills Committee on Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 6) Bill 2018
(to be presented by Hon Kenneth LEUNG, Chairman of the Bills Committee)

II. Questions



1. Hon IP Kin-yuen to ask: (Translation)


Last year, the Education Bureau ("EDB") resumed the Primary 3 Territory-wide System Assessment ("TSA"), which was administered by the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority ("HKEAA"). Approximately 10% of Primary 3 students from each public sector and Direct Subsidy Scheme ("DSS") primary school are sampled to participate in TSA. In addition, schools may on their own apply to HKEAA for all their Primary 3 students to participate in TSA ("full participation in TSA"), and may request for their TSA school reports under such circumstances. The Secretary for Education indicated in March last year that EDB would not ask about the relevant information. It has been reported that in variance with the practice adopted last year, HKEAA refuses in this year to disclose the number of schools which applied for full participation in TSA. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
  • (1)of the respective numbers of schools that applied for full participation in TSA last year and this year to date, and the total number of students involved, together with a breakdown by school type (i.e. aided, DSS, government and private primary schools);

    (2)as the Chief Executive ("CE") told the media on the 8th of this month that she would "request the various policy bureaux to be more proactive and positive when making arrangements for giving an account of important issues to the media" and that she was "very respectful of the media's function of overseeing the Government for the public", and there are views that the number of schools applying for full participation in TSA provides important reference information for formulating primary schools' curriculum, teaching arrangements and assessment system, whether CE will require EDB to gain an understanding from HKEAA of the reasons for its refusal to disclose the relevant information, so that EDB can give a full account of the implementation of the policy to the public; and

    (3)whether it will require schools to consult all of their teachers and all of the parents of their students before they apply for full participation in TSA, so as to implement the policy objectives of "Led by Professionals" and "Listening to Views Directly" in the field of education, as advocated by CE?
Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Education

2. Hon Tanya CHAN to ask: (Translation)


On the 10th of last month, the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") commenced the work to open up the concrete according to the holistic assessment strategy regarding the platform slabs and diaphragm walls of the Hung Hom Station Extension under the Shatin to Central Link Project ("the assessment strategy"), so as to verify the works quality of the coupler connections. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
  • (1)whether the contractor concerned was required under the law to obtain prior approval from the authorities for deviating, during construction, from the requirements for proper installation of couplers specified by the coupler supplier; if so, of the relevant procedure and stipulations, and whether the authorities have received such applications; if there were deviations but no application has been received, of the authorities' follow-up actions;

    (2)given that Table 6.3 of the assessment strategy merely sets out the maximum percentages of the coupler population with improper connections corresponding to the scenarios in which the 0 to 5 failures are found in the 84 samples (estimated under a 95% confidence level), whether the Government can set out one by one the relevant percentages corresponding to the scenarios in which 0 to 84 failures are found in the samples; of the respective test results under which the Government will require MTRCL to carry out reinforcement works, demolish and rebuild the relevant structures, and reduce the project management fee charged; and

    (3)given that Remark 2 in the coupler test results as at the 7th of this month, published on a Highways Department webpage, read as follows: "On the testing location at the bottom of Area C3 of the East West Line slab near the western diaphragm wall, one re-bar and a coupler were found to be unconnected on 4 January 2019 and could not be tested. Details are being investigated", but the sentence "Details are being investigated" was no longer included in Remark 2 published on the webpage updated two days later, whether the relevant investigation had been completed during the interim; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons why that sentence was no longer included?
Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Transport and Housing

3. Hon YIU Si-wing to ask: (Translation)


The boundary control point ("BCP") at Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai ("the new BCP") connecting Hong Kong and Shenzhen East is expected to be completed and commissioned within this year. By then, it will be more convenient for residents of Guangdong and Hong Kong to visit each other and cross-boundary freight transport. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
  • (1)of the latest progress of the construction works for and the expected commissioning date of the new BCP; the respective maximum daily numbers of cross-boundary vehicle trips and passenger trips that can be handled by the new BCP, as well as the expected impact of the commissioning of this BCP on the utilization rates of the various existing land BCPs;

    (2)whether it will set different restrictions for different classes of vehicles on using the new BCP; if so, of the details; and

    (3)whether it has assessed the changes in the volume of vehicular flow and pedestrian flow as well as the demand for public transport services (e.g. feeder bus services) in the nearby areas after the commissioning of the new BCP; if so, of the outcome; if not, the reasons for that?
Public Officers to reply:Secretary for Development
Under Secretary for Transport and Housing

4. Dr Hon Fernando CHEUNG to ask: (Translation)


On the 7th of this month, the Government announced that starting from the 1st of next month, the eligible age for elderly Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") would be changed from 60 to 65. As that measure has aroused grave concerns in the community and among Members of this Council, this Council passed on the 17th of this month an amendment proposed by me to a related motion, urging the Government to "shelve the tightening of eligibility age for elderly CSSA to 65". The Government announced on the 18th of this month that starting from the 1st of next month, an Employment Support Supplement ("ESS") of $1,060 would be provided monthly to able-bodied adult CSSA recipients aged between 60 and 64. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
  • (1)of the total amount of CSSA payments granted to elderly CSSA recipients aged between 60 and 64 in each of the past five years, and a breakdown of the number of such recipients by the following characteristics: educational attainment, years of stay on CSSA, the trades and positions in which they were previously employed, whether or not they had any record of work injuries, and current employability (including health conditions and types of jobs which are suitable for them to take up); whether it has assessed the reasons for the number of elderly CSSA recipients dropping continuously in the past five years;

    (2)of the anticipated number of able-bodied adult CSSA recipients aged between 60 and 64 in the current year and each of the coming five years, and the total amount of ESS they will receive; given that the objective of ESS is to encourage the recipients to join the labour market, of the reasons for not granting the supplement to able-bodied adult CSSA recipients aged below 60; and

    (3)of the respective names of the various supplements and special grants (e.g. grants covering costs of dental treatment and glasses) for which elderly CSSA recipients are eligible but able bodied adult CSSA recipients are ineligible; in respect of each of those items, the number of recipients and expenditure in each of the past five years; the Government's justifications for deciding that starting from the 1st of next month, all of those elderly persons aged between 60 and 64 who cannot receive elderly CSSA may not receive such supplements and special grants?
Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Labour and Welfare

5. Hon CHAN Han-pan to ask: (Translation)


In recent years, more and more members of the public have moved to reside in remote rural areas in the New Territories. Owing to a lack of public transport services in such areas, they need to commute, by private cars, to and from the nearby town centres for meeting their daily needs, or to and from the urban areas for work. In order to relieve the pressure generated by the growing number of private cars on the road networks in the urban areas, the Government has over the years implemented park-and-ride ("PnR") schemes, which offer concessionary parking fees to encourage members of the public to park their private cars near public transport hubs or railway stations and then take public transport to go to the urban areas. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
  • (1)of the public transport hubs and railway stations at which a PnR scheme is currently implemented; the number of parking spaces, their utilization rates during peak and non-peak hours, the percentage of time when such parking spaces were fully occupied, the levels of parking fees charged and the concessions offered, at each of such locations in each of the past three years;

    (2)given that the problem of road congestion in the urban areas is worsening, whether the Government will increase substantially the number of parking spaces and parking fee concessions provided under PnR schemes; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

    (3)as there have all along been suggestions from members of the public for implementing an extensive PnR scheme at the Tuen Mun Road Bus-Bus Interchange and the Tai Lam Tunnel Bus-Bus Interchange as well as increasing the number of parking spaces provided under the PnR schemes near Kam Sheung Road Station of the West Rail Line and Sheung Shui Station of the East Rail Line, whether the Government has followed up those suggestions; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Transport and Housing

6. Hon CHU Hoi-dick to ask: (Translation)


Earlier on, the Environment Bureau ("ENB") recommended to the Air Quality Objectives Review Working Group that the average 24-hour concentration limit stipulated for fine suspended particulates (i.e. PM 2.5) in the Air Quality Objectives ("AQOs") be tightened from 75 µg/m³ at present to 50 µg/m³, but the number of exceedances allowed be relaxed from the current level of "not more than 9 days" to "not more than 35 days" per calendar year. On the other hand, some environmentalists have pointed out that it is anticipated that during the period from 2020 to 2025, there will be a high concentration of air pollutants over the waters around Kau Yi Chau, i.e. the reclamation area under the Lantau Tomorrow Vision. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
  • (1)given that under the World Health Organization's "Interim Target-2", the number of exceedances allowed in respect of PM 2.5 is no more than three days per calendar year, of the justifications for ENB's recommendation to relax that number to 35 days;

    (2)whether it has assessed if the recommendation has run counter to the aim of reviewing AQOs as set out in section 7A of the Air Pollution Control Ordinance, which is to ensure that AQOs are the objectives that should be achieved and maintained in order to promote the conservation and the best use of air in the air control zone in the public interest; if it has assessed and the outcome is in the affirmative, whether ENB will shelve the recommendation; and

    (3)given that some members of the public suspect that the recommendation was made to make it easier for the environmental impact assessment reports for the reclamation and related infrastructure works projects under the Lantau Tomorrow Vision to get approval, whether ENB will shelve the recommendation so as to allay public concerns?
Public Officer to reply : Secretary for the Environment

*7. Hon Michael TIEN to ask: (Translation)


It is learnt that some road sections are unsuitable for installing speed enforcement cameras ("SECs"). Even at those road sections installed with SECs, speeding drivers can get away without punishment by driving in such a way that makes their vehicles slow down before, and accelerate after, passing an SEC. As a result, SECs have lost deterrent effects on speeding and are virtually useless. Speeding vehicles not only pose danger to other road users, but also generate noise (which is particularly serious when a vehicle is driven at the aforesaid uneven speeds as a vehicle generates greater noise when accelerating), thereby causing great nuisance to nearby residents. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council whether it will conduct a study on adopting the approach of detecting the average vehicular speed (i.e. calculating the average speed of a vehicle when it passes through a road section) to combat speeding, so as to provide greater flexibility in the locations for installing SECs and to eliminate drivers' circumvention of speed limits by driving in the aforesaid manner; if so, of the details and the implementation timetable; if not, the reasons for that?

Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Transport and Housing

*8. Hon HUI Chi-fung to ask: (Translation)


Regarding the establishment of and the manpower deployment for Traffic Wardens, will the Government inform this Council:
  • (1)of the establishment of Traffic Wardens in various police districts across the territory, as well as the mechanism and criteria adopted for formulating such establishment;

    (2)of the reasons why it has not set up a mechanism for reviewing the establishment of and manpower deployment for Traffic Wardens;

    (3)whether it received in the past five years any request from members of the local communities and District Councils for deploying additional Traffic Wardens to carry out duties in their districts; if so, of the respective reasons for accepting and rejecting such requests;

    (4)how the pay scales of the two ranks of Traffic Wardens as well as the time and costs involved in the induction training for Traffic Wardens at present compare with those of police officers; and

    (5)in which years of the past decade the authorities increased or reduced the manpower of Traffic Wardens, and the reasons for that?
Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Transport and Housing

*9. Hon Dennis KWOK to ask: (Translation)


The Government announced by a notice published in the Gazette on 29 December 2017 that the Chief Executive ("CE") had, on the same date, appointed a Principal Government Counsel of the Department of Justice ("DoJ") as the Director of Public Prosecutions ("DPP") (with the following remark in the notice: Acting as Law Officer). Later on, the Government announced by a notice published in the Gazette on 11 January 2019 that CE had appointed the said person as DPP on 29 June 2018. Regarding the appointment of DPP, will the Government inform this Council:
  • (1)of the criteria and procedure for the selection of DPP by DoJ;

    (2)as the aforesaid person was officially promoted to DPP on 29 June 2018, of the reasons why not until more than half a year later (i.e. 11 January 2019) did the Government publish the appointment concerned in the Gazette; and

    (3)of the respective durations of the acting appointments (if any) in respective of the successive DPPs since 1 July 1997?
Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Justice

*10. Hon Mrs Regina IP to ask: (Translation)


On 17 December 2013, the Court of Final Appeal ruled that the requirement for seven-year residence in Hong Kong ("residence requirement") stipulated by the Government for the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") Scheme was unconstitutional, and the residence requirement was therefore restored from seven years to one year, which was the requirement before 1 January 2004. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council of the following, since the judgment was handed down:
  • (1)the respective numbers of CSSA applications received and approved each year which were made by persons with less than seven years' residence in Hong Kong, as well as the respective percentages of such numbers in the total number of applications for the same year; and

    (2)the total amount of CSSA payment made each year to persons with less than seven years' residence in Hong Kong and its percentage in the total expenditure on CSSA payments for the same year?
Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Labour and Welfare

*11. Hon Claudia MO to ask: (Translation)


Some media workers have relayed that in recent years, the Government's approach for disseminating press information and arranging media coverage, and even the performance of government officials in responding to the public, have all fallen short of public expectations and have time and again aroused criticisms, causing a far-reaching impact on the freedom of the press as the "fourth estate". The examples given by them include that: (a) the Government did not invite the media to report the handover of the Mainland Port Area of the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link on 3 September last year, (b) the Government, on several occasions, did not release until late at night the coupler inspection results obtained after opening up the platform slabs and diaphragm walls of the Hung Hom Station Extension under the Shatin to Central Link project, and (c) the Secretary for Justice displayed a poor attitude when responding to media enquiries about the case concerning the allegations of corruption and misconduct in public office against the Chief Executive of the last term. In this connection , will the Government inform this Council:
  • (1)of the current policies on and strategies for disseminating press information, liaising with the media, gauging public sentiments and measuring the pulse of society;

    (2)of the specific measures in place to improve the immediacy of disseminating press information, media coverage arrangements, and the attitude of government officials in responding to the public; and

    (3)whether it will, on an annual basis, conduct reviews of and make improvements to the Government's work on public relations and dissemination of press information, and submit the relevant reports to this Council, so as to manifest an open and transparent style of governance; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Home Affairs

*12. Hon LUK Chung-hung to ask: (Translation)


Some trade union representatives have relayed to me that due to design deficiencies of the external walls of over 150 buildings completed between 2003 and 2016, strong and stable truss-out bamboo scaffolds cannot be erected onto such external walls. As a result, it is difficult for workers to carry out repair and maintenance work for installations on such external walls and the workers' occupational safety is jeopardized. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
  • (1)whether it will enhance the contents on how to erect strong and stable truss-out bamboo scaffolds in the Code of Practice for Bamboo Scaffolding Safety, including how workers can fasten scaffolds onto the external walls using three expansion anchor bolts in a situation where there is not enough space to do so or where the external walls are made of materials which cannot provide the necessary support; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

    (2)whether it will comprehensively update the Code of Practice for Safe Use and Operation of Suspended Working Platforms to set out clearly (i) the uses of the suspended working platforms (e.g. whether, in addition to carrying workers, heavy weights can be carried on the platform at the same time), and (ii) the circumstances under which the employers' provision of a suspended working platform cannot be regarded as their having provided a safe means of access for workers; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

    (3)given that currently there are many buildings with deficiencies in the designs of their external walls, making it difficult for workers to carry out repair and maintenance work for installations on their external walls, of the authorities' remedial measures to ensure the occupational safety of such workers; and

    (4)whether it will, by drawing reference from the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations of the United Kingdom, enact legislation to stipulate that developers, contractors, and the relevant professionals must take into account the needs of future repair and maintenance work for installations on external walls when designing new buildings, so as to ensure that the risk of the relevant work is reduced to a minimum; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Labour and Welfare

*13. Hon Charles Peter MOK to ask: (Translation)


In recent years, the authorities of quite a number of cities (such as Singapore) have permitted, through a registration or licensing system, newly emerged electric personal mobility devices (e.g. mini-motor cycles, pedelecs, electric scooters and electric unicycles) to be used on roads legally, and regulated matters such as the sizes, horsepower, maximum speeds and safety equipment of such mobility devices. However, under the laws of Hong Kong, all such devices are prohibited from being used on roads. On the other hand, one of the study items of the "Consultancy Study on Enhancing Walkability in Hong Kong", commenced by the Transport Department in 2017, is to explore whether such mobility devices are suitable for use in Hong Kong. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
  • (1)whether the scope of the aforesaid study includes an assessment of (i) the demand of members of the public for electric personal mobility devices, and (ii) the roles that can be played by such devices in Hong Kong's transport infrastructure (e.g. serving as short-haul feeder transport means in districts where public transport services are inadequate); if so, of the progress of the assessment and the timetable for putting forward preliminary recommendations; if not, the reasons for that;

    (2)whether it will, by making reference to the practices in other cities, establish a registration and licensing system for electric personal mobility devices to the effect that such devices may be used on designated roads legally; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

    (3)whether it will explore launching a trial scheme under which electric personal mobility devices are permitted to be used at designated places (e.g. roads with relatively low vehicular flow as well as designated public spaces, cycle tracks and footpaths), so as to assess the feasibility of legalizing the use of such devices; if not, of the reasons for that?
Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Transport and Housing

*14. Hon LEUNG Yiu-chung to ask: (Translation)


Under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance (Cap. 282), if injury is caused to an employee by accident arising out of and in the course of his/her employment ("injury at work"), his/her employer shall pay the medical expenses for the medical treatment in respect of such injury, subject to a ceiling of $300 per day (where an employee is given medical treatment as an in-patient in a hospital or where an employee is given medical treatment other than as an in-patient in a hospital) or $370 per day (where an employee is given medical treatment on the same day both as an in-patient in a hospital and other than as an in-patient in a hospital). Some employees have relayed that as the charges for private medical services are generally higher than such ceilings, employees injured at work usually choose to receive public medical services. However, due to the long waiting time for public medical services (especially for specialist outpatient and rehabilitation treatment services), the injured employees may miss the prime time for receiving treatment and cannot return to work as early as possible. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
  • (1)of the number of cases in which employees were temporarily incapacitated by work injuries for three months or longer and, among such cases, the number of those in which the employees were hospitalized for one month or less, in each of the past five years;

    (2)of the measures put in place to expedite the recovery of employees injured at work, and the details of such measures; whether it will allocate additional resources to the Labour Department ("LD"), so that LD's Occupational Health Clinics can provide employees injured at work with medical treatment and occupational health counselling more comprehensively; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

    (3)whether it will (i) subsidize community groups to establish rehabilitation centres for employees injured at work, and (ii) set up a rehabilitation fund for work injuries and occupational diseases to be administered by LD, with a view to enabling employees injured at work and those suffering from occupational diseases to expeditiously receive the medical treatment and rehabilitation services they need; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

    (4)as the Chief Executive mentioned in last year's Policy Address that the Government was studying the provision of timely treatment and rehabilitation services for injured employees in need through private medical services, of the progress of the study, as well as the specific direction of the proposed measures and the implementation timetable?
Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Labour and Welfare

*15. Hon Paul TSE to ask: (Translation)


Some members of the public have relayed that the emergence of various problems in a number of major infrastructure projects in recent years has greatly undermined their confidence in the Government's proper implementation of infrastructure projects. For instances, the proposals for the Redevelopment of Hong Kong Stadium as well as the construction of the Kai Tak Sports Park and the Hong Kong Palace Museum had been the subjects of incessant controversies before final decisions were made; the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link and the Shatin to Central Link projects experienced situations of serious cost overruns, delays or poor workmanship during the construction stage; the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal has remained practically deserted since its commissioning and failed to bring about the expected benefits; it is doubtful if the recently commissioned Central-Wan Chai Bypass, which cost $36 billion and took nine years to construct, is effective in alleviating the traffic congestion on the northern part of Hong Kong Island. Some members of the public have queried that the projects introduced by the Government are "good for nothing" and they are even worried that the same mistakes will be made to the projects under the Lantau Tomorrow Vision. As such, they have made it clear that they will object to the implementation of any new major infrastructure project. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
  • (1)when it will make public (i) the findings of the detailed feasibility study on and (ii) the way forward for the Environmentally Friendly Linkage System for Kowloon East ("EFLS");

    (2)whether the Government, when studying EFLS in the past years, concurrently conducted studies on reclamation at Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter, with a view to increasing land supply in Kowloon East and resolving the problem of insufficient ancillary transport facilities for the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal;

    (3)given that the first batch of residential flats built under the Lantau Tomorrow Vision will not be completed for intake until 2032 the earliest, but some studies have pointed out that by conducting reclamation along the waters between the Kai Tak Approach Channel located on the north-eastern part of the Kai Tak runway and Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter, more than 85 hectares of land can be provided from 2024 to 2027, which will be sufficient for the construction of 70 000 residential flats, whether, before taking forward the reclamation plans relating to the Lantau Tomorrow Vision, the Government will "take the short cut" by proceeding with the reclamation works at Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter which are smaller in scale, faster to complete and less costly, so as to demonstrate the Government's ability to implement highly efficient and cost-effective infrastructure projects, thereby restoring the confidence of the public in the Government's proper implementation of infrastructure projects; and

    (4)whether it has assessed if conducting reclamation works at Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter will breach the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance (Cap. 531); if it has assessed and the outcome is in the affirmative, and given some experts' criticisms that the Ordinance was enacted without prior detailed analysis and public consultation, comprises unclear provisions and has gravely hindered the development of Hong Kong, whether the Government will consider amending the Ordinance with a view to commencing the works concerned as soon as possible to provide more residential sites?
Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Development

*16. Hon Andrew WAN to ask: (Translation)


The period for the public consultation conducted by the Property Management Services Authority on proposals regarding the licensing regime for property management companies and property management practitioners under the Property Management Services Ordinance (Cap. 626) ended on the 18th of this month. Regarding the licensing regime, will the Government inform this Council:
  • (1)as it is provided in section 7(5) and (8) of Cap. 626 that where a property contains 1 500 or more than 1 500 flats as defined by section 2 of the Building Management Ordinance (Cap. 344), and the property is managed by an owners' organization of the property on its own (i.e. without engaging any property management company or property management practitioner), the owners' organization concerned is required to obtain a licence under Cap. 626, whether the Government knows the current number of this type of properties, with a breakdown by type of owners' organizations (i.e. owners' corporations ("OCs"), owners' committees and other forms of organizations) managing the property;

    (2)whether those contractors currently providing cleansing and horticultural services for properties will be required to obtain a licence upon implementation of the licensing regime;

    (3)whether it will, by making reference to the Contractors' Performance Rating scheme for registered lift and escalator contractors implemented by the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department, introduce a similar performance rating scheme for licensed property management companies/practitioners; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

    (4)whether it will consult the property management services sector, OCs and the Panel on Home Affairs of this Council on the proposed subsidiary legislation on the licencing regime before commencing the relevant legislative procedure?
Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Home Affairs

*17. Dr Hon CHIANG Lai-wan to ask: (Translation)


Having considered the findings of a consultancy study carried out by two universities, the Government has agreed to enhance the means test mechanism for the Samaritan Fund and Community Care Fund Medical Assistance Programmes ("the two Programmes"). The enhancement measures include: (1) taking into account only 50% (previously 100%) of the net disposable capital when calculating the annual disposable financial resources ("ADFR") of the household to which a drug subsidy applicant belongs, and (2) amending the definition of "household" adopted for financial assessment. According to the new definition of "household", (i) for a married non-dependent patient, the assets of his/her parents living under the same roof will not be counted, and (ii) for an unmarried non-dependent patient, the patient will be treated as a single-person household. Regarding the two Programmes, will the Government inform this Council:
  • (1)whether it knows the average, longest and shortest time taken by the authorities in the past three years on vetting and approval of the applications under the two Programmes;

    (2)whether it knows, in respect of each category of drugs (categorized by type of illness), (i) the total number of patients receiving subsidies under the two Programmes and, among them, the respective numbers of those receiving full and partial subsidies, (ii) the average amount of subsidy received by each subsidized patient, (iii) the average amount of drug cost contributions made by each subsidized patient, and (iv) the total subsidy amount for each category of drugs, in each of the past three years;

    (3)whether it knows the respective numbers of applications for subsidies for (i) drug items and (ii) non-drug items which were rejected in each of the past three years;

    (4)given that the school fees of children at secondary level or below are allowable deductions in determining the ADFR of the households to which the applicants under the two Programmes belong, whether the authorities will treat school fees of children at post-secondary level as allowable deductions; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

    (5)whether it will set a retrospective period for the two Programmes so as to provide subsidies for covering the expenses incurred by the medical procedures carried out, medical supplies/devices procured or medical treatments commenced within a certain period of time prior to the approval of applications, in order to avoid delays in the treatment of patients with financial needs as their applications for subsidy are pending; if so, of the details; if not, whether it will streamline the application procedure and shorten the processing time; and

    (6)whether it will regularly review the two Programmes in terms of their scope of subsidies, eligibility criteria and issues relating to vetting and approval of applications, so that the subsidies may better meet the needs of patients; if so, of the timetable; if not, the reasons for that?
Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Food and Health

*18. Dr Hon Elizabeth QUAT to ask: (Translation)


Children with special educational needs ("SEN") refer to children with the following conditions: specific learning difficulties, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorders, speech and language impairment, intellectual disability, hearing impairment, physical disability, visual impairment and mental illness. Regarding the support for children with SEN, will the Government inform this Council:
  • (1)of the respective numbers of children referred to the Child Assessment Centres ("CACs") under the Department of Health ("DH") for assessments in each of the past five years by (i) clinics under DH, (ii) the Hospital Authority ("HA"), (iii) the Social Welfare Department ("SWD") and (iv) the Education Bureau ("EDB");

    (2)given that at present, children with physical, developmental, behavioural or learning problems are first referred to the Maternal and Child Health Centres of their respective districts for assessment, are then referred, on a need basis, to CACs for assessment, and are subsequently referred, on a need basis, to HA for specialty consultation, whether the Government has assessed if the process is too complicated and can be streamlined so as to facilitate early identification of children with SEN and follow up their needs; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

    (3)given that the "On-site Pre-school Rehabilitation Services" and the "Training Subsidy Programme for Children on the Waiting List of Subvented Pre-school Rehabilitation Services" target at children with SEN who are aged below six, whether the Government will relax the age ceiling so that such children can continue to receive support upon admission to Primary One; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

    (4)given that starting from the current school year, pre-school rehabilitation service units will, before school year begins, forward to EDB through SWD the progress reports of children with SEN who are of the right age for admission to Primary One, so that EDB can transfer the relevant information to the primary schools concerned before the commencement of the school year, whether the Government has (i) received complaints about this arrangement, and (ii) assessed the effectiveness of the arrangement; if so, of the details;

    (5)given that under the integrated education policy, children with SEN will attend mainstream schools, and schools will support students facing varying degrees of learning difficulties according to the "3-Tier Support Model", but there are views that school-based support measures cannot provide support according to the actual situation of individual students, whether the Government will introduce measures which better cater for the individual needs of students; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

    (6)whether it will consider afresh (i) compiling statistics on the number of children waiting for SEN assessment each year as well as their waiting time, and (ii) setting up a central database for children with SEN to facilitate stakeholders to grasp the demand for services to support children with SEN; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Education

*19. Hon CHAN Hak-kan to ask: (Translation)


The Government put forward in the 2017 Policy Address a Subsidy Scheme to Extend Fibre-based Networks to Villages in Remote Areas ("Subsidy Scheme"). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
  • (1)of the latest progress of the tendering exercise conducted for selecting fixed network operators ("FNOs") to participate in the Subsidy Scheme, and the respective expected dates for commencement and completion of the works on laying fibre-based networks;

    (2)of the villages which are now covered by the Subsidy Scheme at present and their respective populations (set out by District Council ("DC") district);

    (3)as some DC members have relayed that some villages (e.g. Hilltop Garden, Sha Po Tsai and Chung Tsai Yuen Garden in Tai Po, and Ki Lun Tsuen in the North District) are not covered by the Subsidy Scheme, whether the Government has completed consulting the relevant DCs and rural committees; whether it will let the Subsidy Scheme cover more villages; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

    (4)as some DC members have pointed out that based on a conservative estimation, about 200 000 households are currently living in surveyed squatter structures across the territory, and that the broadband services in some squatter areas have rather low Internet access speeds, whether the Government will let the Subsidy Scheme cover squatter areas; if not, how the Government assists the residents of squatter structures in accessing high-speed broadband services;

    (5)given that if villagers currently have access to broadband services with an Internet access speed of 25 megabits per second ("Mbps") or above, the villages concerned will not be covered by the Subsidy Scheme, of the Government's justifications for setting the threshold at that Internet access speed; in view of the Government's ongoing initiatives of promoting the development of Hong Kong into a smart city as well as cost-effectiveness considerations, whether the Government will raise the threshold to 50 Mbps or higher so as to obviate the need to re-launch the Subsidy Scheme several years later in order to meet the actual needs of the villagers; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

    (6)whether it will formulate performance indicators for the Subsidy Scheme, such as (i) in respect of the villages for which the works under the Subsidy Scheme have been completed, the percentage of villagers who subscribe to the high-speed broadband services provided by the relevant FNOs, and (ii) the Internet access speed and the stability of the broadband services provided by FNOs under the Subsidy Scheme; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

    (7)as some villagers have indicated that they do not have a clear idea about the implementation of the Subsidy Scheme, of the existing means through which the Government disseminates the relevant information; whether it will consider strengthening its liaison with the villagers so as to answer their queries on the Subsidy Scheme; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

    (8)as some members of the public have pointed out that in tandem with technological advancement, broadband services have become a daily necessity, whether the Government will amend the relevant licensing conditions to stipulate that FNOs must provide their customers with broadband services with an Internet access speed not lower than 50 Mbps; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development

*20. Hon James TO to ask: (Translation)


Some members of the local communities have relayed that the problem of illegal parking in various districts across the territory has been worsening. Besides, in locations where schools, tutorial schools and interest class studios stand in great numbers, the problem of illegal stopping and waiting of private cars at bus stops or in other restricted zones for picking up and setting down students is serious, thus causing traffic congestion. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
  • (1)of the respective numbers of vehicles (i) newly registered and (ii) deregistered in each of the past 10 years, with a tabulated breakdown by class of vehicles; whether it will take measures to suppress the growth rate and number of vehicles;

    (2)of the respective numbers of (i) publicly and (ii) privately operated public parking spaces across the territory in each of the past five years; the estimated additional numbers of those two types of parking spaces in each of the coming five years (with a tabulated breakdown by District Council ("DC") district and class of vehicles);

    (3)of the number of parking spaces needed to be provided in Hong Kong, as calculated using the relevant standards in the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines, as well as the actual number of parking spaces and the ratio of such number to the number of vehicles at present; whether it has plans to amend the relevant standards to raise the number of parking spaces needed to be provided for various types of facilities; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

    (4)given that some residents in the Kai Tak Development Area have relayed that they are forced to park illegally due to a shortage of parking spaces in the area, whether the Government, when planning for the area, had planned for the number of parking spaces to be provided in the light of the expected demographic characteristics of the area (including residents' income levels); if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; whether it will include this factor in its planning considerations when planning for new development areas and urban renewal projects in future; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

    (5)whether the number of fixed penalty notices ("FPNs") issued last year by the Police for illegal parking varied greatly among various districts; if so, of the reasons for that;

    (6)as it has been reported that illegal parking has been rampant round the clock (a) in the vicinity of Hing Wah Street, Sham Shui Po and (b) at the roads near the "Four-Little-Dragon" private housing estates in Lai Chi Kok, blocking one to two traffic lanes, of (i) the number of patrol operations conducted and the average number of illegally parked vehicles found during each operation, and (ii) the number of FPNs issued by the Police in each of the past six months for illegal parking in these two locations; of the measures, other than taking law enforcement actions, put in place to combat illegal parking in these two locations;

    (7)of the current number of illegal parking black spots in Hong Kong (with a tabulated breakdown by DC district);

    (8)of the number of FPNs issued in each of the past 12 months by the Police to those drivers who had caused traffic congestion, with a tabulated breakdown by DC district and traffic offence;

    (9)as it is learnt that at the section of Sham Mong Road outside Habour Green in the Yau Tsim Mong District, the section of Larch Street outside the centre of the Hong Kong Children's Choir in Tai Kok Tsui, and the section of Wai Tsui Crescent outside the entrance of Hong Kong Shue Yan University in Island East, the problem of illegally stopping and waiting of private cars at bus stops or in restricted zones is serious during the hours of going to and finishing classes each day, of (i) the number of patrol operations conducted and the average number of vehicles involving illegal stopping and waiting found during each operation, and (ii) the number of FPNs issued by the Police, in each of the past six months for illegal stopping and waiting of vehicles in these three locations; apart from stepping up patrol operations, of the Police's other measures to strengthen their efforts in combating illegal stopping and waiting of vehicles in the three locations;

    (10)of the current number of black spots for illegal stopping and waiting of vehicles in Hong Kong (with a tabulated breakdown by DC district); and

    (11)whether it will consider introducing a system of tiered penalty levels (i.e. the more severe the problem of illegal parking and illegal stopping and waiting of vehicles at a road section is, the higher the penalty imposed in respect of such traffic offences at the road section will be) so as to enhance the deterrent effect; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; whether it will study the introduction of a points system for these two types of offences so as to enhance the deterrent effect; if so, of the details; if not, the other measures put in place to combat such offences?
Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Transport and Housing

*21. Hon Holden CHOW to ask: (Translation)


Section 45 of the Race Discrimination Ordinance (Cap. 602) ("the Ordinance"), which came into operation in 2008, provides that any act that incites, by any activity in public, hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of a person on the ground of the race of that person, is an unlawful act of racial vilification. Section 46 provides that any act of racist incitement that involves threats of physical harm towards persons of a targeted race or their property constitutes an offence of serious vilification. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
  • (1)of the respective numbers of prosecutions and convictions involving the offence referred to in section 46 since the Ordinance came into operation; whether it has assessed if such figures are on the low side and (if this is the case) the reasons for that;

    (2)whether it will compile statistics on the number of claims in tort, since the Ordinance came into operation, which were lodged under civil proceedings in respect of the unlawful acts referred to in section 45; and

    (3)whether it will step up law enforcement efforts to combat acts of racial vilification; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
Public Officer to reply : Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs

*22. Hon Kenneth LEUNG to ask: (Translation)


According to a paper of the Environment Bureau, it is forecast that in 2025, the concentrations of ozone ("O3") in air in most areas of Hong Kong will exceed the relevant level of the Air Quality Objectives ("AQOs") and be higher than the existing level. Under the prevailing AQOs, the number of days on which the maximum daily 8-hour mean concentration of O3 in air exceeds 160 µg/m3 ("number of exceedances") should not be more that nine per calendar year, whereas the number of exceedance allowed under the guidelines of the World Health Organization ("WHO") is zero. In addition, the findings of a study conducted by the University of Hong Kong has indicated that increasing the numbers of exceedances allowed for air pollutant concentration levels will cause the annual mean concentrations of air pollutants to exceed the WHO's standards, and lead to adverse health effects. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
  • (1)of the (i) highest maximum daily 8-hour mean concentration and the number of exceedances in respect of O3, and (ii) the annual mean and long-term changes of O3 concentration, as recorded by each air quality monitoring station in Hong Kong in each of the past five years;

    (2)whether it will tighten the prevailing AQOs in relation to O3 concentration, and reduce the number of exceedances allowed in respect of O3 concentration to zero as prescribed in WHO's guidelines, as well as formulate a more stringent emission reduction policy to reduce the concentration of O3 in air; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

    (3)whether it knows the O3 emission trend as recorded by the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Pearl River Delta Regional Air Quality Monitoring Network in each of the past five years, and the annual mean concentration level of O3 last year; a list of the air quality monitoring stations of the Network, with the locations of such monitoring stations marked on a map;

    (4)given that O3 is formed by the chemical reactions of nitrogen oxides ("NOx") and volatile organic compounds ("VOC") in air under sunlight, of the respective emissions of NOx and VOC, their major contributors and emission trends in Hong Kong, in each of the past five years;

    (5)whether it will expand the existing air quality monitoring network, with a view to monitoring the air quality of Hong Kong more effectively; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

    (6)of the existing air pollution control measures targeted at O3, VOC and NOx respectively (including the schemes undertaken solely by the Hong Kong Government and those in collaboration with the Guangdong Provincial Government); whether it has assessed the effectiveness of such measures on a regular basis; if so, of the details?
Public Officer to reply : Secretary for the Environment

* For written reply

III. Government Bills



Second Reading (Debate to resume), Consideration by Committee of the Whole Council and Third Reading

1.Financial Reporting Council (Amendment) Bill 2018:Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury

(i)Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury to move amendments

(The amendments were issued on 23 January 2019
under LC Paper No. CB(3) 347/18-19)

(ii)Hon Kenneth LEUNG to move amendments

(The amendments were issued on 24 January 2019
under LC Paper No. CB(3) 351/18-19)

(Debate and voting arrangements for the above Bill under LC Paper No. CB(3) 369/18-19(01) issued on 29 January 2019)

2.Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 6) Bill 2018:Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury

IV. Members' Motions



1.Motion under Rule 49E(2) of the Rules of Procedure

Hon Starry LEE to move the following motion:

That this Council takes note of Report No. 10/18-19 of the House Committee laid on the Table of the Council on 30 January 2019 in relation to the subsidiary legislation and instrument(s) as listed below:

Item NumberTitle of Subsidiary Legislation or Instrument

(3)Declaration of Constituencies (District Councils) Order 2018 (L.N. 263/2018).

Public Officers to attend:Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs
Under Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs

2.Motion on "Promoting the development of a financial technology hub to reinforce Hong Kong's position as an international financial centre"

Hon CHAN Chun-ying to move the following motion: (Translation)

That it is stated in the Chief Executive's 2017 Policy Address that '[a]s an international financial centre with a highly-developed information and communication technology sector, Hong Kong is an ideal place for the development of financial technologies'; in this connection, this Council urges the Government to adopt effective measures to entice financial technology ('Fintech') enterprises and talents to establish their bases in Hong Kong, and encourage local tertiary institutions to offer professional Fintech courses, so as to increase the Fintech adoption rate in society.

Hon CHAN Kin-por, Hon Charles Peter MOK, Hon Dennis KWOK, Hon WONG Ting-kwong and Hon Christopher CHEUNG to move amendments to the motion

(The amendments were issued on 24 January 2019
under LC Paper No. CB(3) 353/18-19)

Public Officers to attend:Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury
Under Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury

3.Motion on "Implementing diversified education to alleviate the pressure on students and parents"

Hon Starry LEE to move the following motion: (Translation)

That for purposes of catering for the development of an innovative and knowledge-based society, this Council urges the Government to implement a diversified education approach to inspire students' creativity and cultivate diverse interests and skills in them, and eliminate the 'examination-oriented culture' and the malady of excessive drills on examination questions of students, in order to alleviate the pressure on students and parents; specific measures include:

(1)incentivizing more subsidized schools to introduce a suitable proportion of international curriculum, so as to give parents and students more choices;

(2)expanding the scope of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) education with the inclusion of elements such as arts and artificial intelligence, and allocating additional resources to schools for training teachers and supporting schools in promoting the relevant education;

(3)reviewing the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination system to reduce unnecessary examination pressure on students;

(4)increasing the numbers of subsidized university places and subsidized top-up places for the second year in universities, so as to give students more choices in pursuing further studies;

(5)increasing the opportunities for students to participate in Mainland and overseas exchange and internship programmes, so as to broaden the global outlook of the younger generation; and

(6)enhancing parental education to equip parents with greater capabilities in handling issues concerning their children's growth, studies, and so on.

Hon Claudia MO, Hon IP Kin-yuen, Hon Charles Peter MOK, Hon HO Kai-ming, Hon HUI Chi-fung, Dr Hon Fernando CHEUNG, Hon SHIU Ka-chun and Hon Tanya CHAN to move amendments to the motion

(The amendments were issued on 24 January 2019
under LC Paper No. CB(3) 354/18-19)

Public Officers to attend:Secretary for Education
Under Secretary for Education

V. Request for Special Leave of the Council to Give Evidence of Council Proceedings



Request made under section 7 of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap. 382) and Rule 90 of the Rules of Procedure for special leave of the Council to give evidence of Council proceedings

Department of Justice's request is in the Appendix (also issued under LC ‍Paper No. CB(3) 355/18-19 on 24 January 2019).

Clerk to the Legislative Council