Second Reading (debate to resume) (response by public officers)
Other attending public officers
:
Secretary for Food and Health
Secretary for Security
Secretary for Labour and Welfare
Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development
Consideration by committee of the whole Council
16 amendment movers
:
Hon WU Chi-wai, Hon Claudia MO, Hon LAM Cheuk-ting, Hon CHAN Chi-chuen, Hon KWONG Chun-yu, Hon Alvin YEUNG, Hon Dennis KWOK, Hon CHU Hoi-dick, Dr Hon Fernando CHEUNG, Hon James TO, Hon Tanya CHAN, Hon Andrew WAN, Dr Hon Helena WONG, Dr Hon KWOK Ka-ki, Hon Jeremy TAM and Hon HUI Chi-fung
(set out in the order of consideration)
(52 amendments in Appendix 3)
(Debate and voting arrangements set out in LC Paper No. CB(3) 385/19-20 issued on 28 April 2020)
Other attending public officers
:
Chief Secretary for Administration
Secretary for Justice
Secretary for the Environment
Secretary for Labour and Welfare
Secretary for Security
Secretary for Transport and Housing
Secretary for Food and Health
Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development
Secretary for Development
Secretary for Education
Secretary for the Civil Service
Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs
Secretary for Innovation and Technology
Secretary for Home Affairs
Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury
Under Secretary for the Environment
Under Secretary for Security
Under Secretary for Development
Under Secretary for Innovation and Technology
Under Secretary for Education
Under Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development
Under Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs
Under Secretary for Food and Health
Under Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury
Under Secretary for Home Affairs
Under Secretary for Transport and Housing
Only 20 written questions are scheduled for this meeting as 2 Members have given up the written question slots allocated to them.
Question 1
(For written reply)
(Translation)
Assistance for intermediaries for foreign domestic helpers
Hon Starry LEE to ask:
It is learnt that in view of the global spread of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic, the Philippine and Indonesian Governments have recently suspended, one after another, the vetting and approval of their nationals' applications for working abroad as workers. It is estimated that currently, over 10 000 foreign domestic helpers ("FDHs") who have been offered employment are unable to come to Hong Kong to report for duty. For the approximately 3 000 intermediaries in Hong Kong providing placement services for FDHs, not only do they suffer a heavy blow to their business due to the epidemic, but they also need to deal with considerable amount of extra work concerning epidemic prevention and quarantine for FDHs. The approximately 10 000 employees engaged by these intermediaries also face financial difficulties. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1)
whether it will provide a cash subsidy or other assistance to the intermediaries to help them tide over their imminent difficulties; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(2)
as the Government has announced that it will flexibly consider applications from FDHs, whose contracts are terminated or due to expire on or before 31 July this year, for extending their limit of stay in Hong Kong as visitors to facilitate them to find new employers, but the persons-in-charge of some intermediaries have pointed out that providing free board and lodging for FDHs awaiting employment has further increased their financial burden, whether the authorities will offer support to such intermediaries and those FDHs awaiting employment; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(3)
whether the Government will set up a dedicated department to assist the intermediaries, FDHs and their employers in dealing with issues related to epidemic prevention and quarantine for FDHs; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
Question 2
(For written reply)
(Translation)
The Police's operations outside MTR Prince Edward Station
Hon IP Kin-yuen to ask:
During the Police's operation at the MTR Prince Edward Station on 31 August last year, a number of members of the public were injured and there were even rumours that some persons died. Six months later, on the night of 29 February this year, some members of the public conducted memorial activities outside the ground-level B1 Exit of the Prince Edward Station and repeatedly placed fresh flowers, candles and other items ("mourning items") on the nearby railings, and the Police repeatedly removed such mourning items. In mid-March, a representative of the Police told the Traffic and Transport Committee of the Yau Tsim Mong District Council that on that night, the police officers had removed such items in accordance with the Fixed Penalty (Public Cleanliness and Obstruction) Ordinance (Cap. 570). Besides, some members of the public complained that when they were conducting memorial activities outside the ground-level B1 Exit of the Prince Edward Station on 31 March, some police officers ordered five members of the public who did not know each other to stand close side by side, and then ticketed such persons for contravening the Prevention and Control of Disease (Prohibition on Group Gathering) Regulation (Cap. 599 sub. leg. G) (commonly known as "the order to prohibit group gatherings"). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1)
whether the aforesaid location where the mourning items were placed is within the management area of the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL"); if so, whether it has assessed if the removal of such mourning items by police officers without any request for assistance received from MTRCL constituted an infringement on MTRCL's management authority;
(2)
of the details of the aforesaid operations of the Police to remove the mourning items, including (i) the number of such operations, (ii) the quantity of fresh flowers so removed, and (iii) how the flowers removed were disposed of;
(3)
whether the police officers issued, under Cap. 570, fixed penalty notices ("FPNs") to those persons who had placed the mourning items; if so, of the number of FPNs issued;
(4)
of the number of FPNs issued by public officers under Cap. 570 in each of the past three years and, among such FPNs, the number of those issued by police officers at locations under the management of MTRCL;
(5)
given that it has been pointed out in the judgments of some court cases that whether an item should be regarded as "litter" or "waste" depends on whether that item was genuine waste material at the time when the alleged offence was committed, and that some members of the public were conducting memorial activities when the Police removed the mourning items, whether the Government has reviewed if the police officers (i) had the power to remove the mourning items by treating them as litter or waste, and (ii) had unlawfully taken away the private properties of members of the public; and
(6)
whether it has reviewed if the aforesaid law enforcement actions taken by the police officers on 31 March contravened the legislative intent of the order to prohibit group gatherings; if it has reviewed and the outcome is in the affirmative, of the follow-up actions; if the review outcome is in the negative, the justifications for that?
Question 3
(For written reply)
(Translation)
Regulations made in respect of the Coronavirus Disease 2019
Hon Alice MAK to ask:
To curb the spread of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Hong Kong, the Government made the Compulsory Quarantine of Certain Persons Arriving at Hong Kong Regulation (Cap. 599C) and the Compulsory Quarantine of Persons Arriving at Hong Kong from Foreign Places Regulation (Cap. 599E) on 7 February and 18 March this year respectively. Such regulations provide that all persons (except for exempted persons) who have stayed on the Mainland (the scope of application of the former) and in all places outside China (the scope of application of the latter) for any period during the 14 days preceding arrival at Hong Kong, regardless of nationality and travel documents used, are subject to compulsory quarantine for 14 days. In addition, the Prevention and Control of Disease (Disclosure of Information) Regulation (Cap. 599D) made on 7 February this year empowers a health officer to require any person to furnish or disclose information relevant to the handling of a state of the public health emergency, such as travel history. Regarding the implementation of such regulations, will the Government inform this Council:
(1)
of the respective to-date numbers of persons who were suspected and convicted of having contravened the aforesaid regulations, with a breakdown by type of offence; the follow-up actions taken by the relevant government departments in respect of those persons suspected of contravening the regulations;
(2)
of the respective numbers of quarantine orders issued since the aforesaid two compulsory quarantine regulations came into operation, as well as the respective numbers of persons who are currently subject to quarantine at home and at quarantine centres;
(3)
given that the public is gravely concerned about the state of compliance with the quarantine orders, whether the Government will consider raising the penalties for breaching quarantine orders and speeding up the prosecution work to enhance the deterrent effect; and
(4)
given that some compulsory quarantine measures did not come into force until several days after they were announced by the Government, resulting in a large number of persons advancing their trips and entering Hong Kong before the measures came into force so as to avoid being subject to compulsory quarantine, and some of whom were subsequently tested positive for the coronavirus, and such a situation has posed potential threats to the public health, whether the Government will review the relevant arrangements to plug the loopholes?
Question 4
(For written reply)
(Translation)
Public housing sewerage systems
Hon KWOK Wai-keung to ask:
Earlier on, several tenants of Hong Mei House of Cheung Hong Estate and Heng Tai House of Fu Heng Estate were infected with the Coronavirus Disease 2019 one after another, and the causes for their infection might be related to the improper modification of the ventilating pipes of the foul water stacks in public housing units and design problems of the sewerage systems. As the authorities have so far not yet implemented any large-scale inspection and repair programme for the sewerage systems of the various public housing estates, some public housing tenants are worried about being infected with the disease and an outbreak of the epidemic in the community. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1)
whether it has finished the inspection of the sewerage systems of the two aforesaid estates; of the number of units in respect of which follow-up works are needed; as the authorities have pointed out that the height difference between the rooftop parapets of adjacent units in Heng Tai House may be conducive to the occurrence of air turbulence in the re-entrant of top floors, and such air turbulence may bring the virus in the rooftop ventilating pipes of the foul water stacks into the residential units, whether the authorities have conducted relevant improvement works;
(2)
whether the authorities will conduct inspections and repairs for the sewerage systems (including rooftop ventilating pipes) of all those public housing estates having the same block type (i.e. Trident blocks) as the aforesaid estates, and discuss with the owners' corporations of those Tenants Purchase Scheme ("TPS") estates with Trident blocks to expeditiously conduct the relevant inspections and repairs;
(3)
whether the authorities will consider conducting inspections and repairs expeditiously for the various components of the sewerage systems (including U-traps and ventilating pipes) in the common parts and within individual units of all public housing (including subsidized sale housing) estates/courts, so as to minimize public health risks; if so, of the details; if not, the measures in place to deal with the relevant health risks; and
(4)
as some owners of TPS estates have pointed out that such estates are poorly repaired and maintained over the years because of unclear management and repair responsibilities, whether the authorities will take up more repair responsibilities for TPS estates and expedite the relevant repair works, so that health risks will not arise as a result of poor repair and maintenance of such estates?
Question 5
(For written reply)
(Translation)
Functions of and support for District Councils
Dr Hon Helena WONG to ask:
On 21 January this year, the Kowloon City District Council ("KCDC") decided to form a "Committee on Monitoring Law Enforcement of the Police". However, during the election of the Chairman and Vice Chairman for that Committee at the KCDC meeting on 25 February, the District Officer ("DO") of Kowloon City under the Home Affairs Department ("HAD") refused to provide any support for that Committee on the grounds that the Committee's terms of reference fall outside the functions of a District Council ("DC") as specified in the District Councils Ordinance (Cap. 547), and the DO left the venue together with the staff members of the DC secretariat. Regarding the functions of and support for DCs, will the Government inform this Council:
(1)
given that the functions of a DC provided under section 61 of Cap. 547 include advising the Government on the following: "matters affecting the well-being of the people in the District" and "the provision and use of public facilities and services within the District", whether it has assessed if "the law enforcement in various DC Districts by the Police and the related complaints" are outside the scopes of the two aforesaid issues; if it has assessed and the outcome is in the affirmative, of the justifications for that; if the assessment outcome is in the negative, the legal justifications for HAD's refusal to provide support for the aforesaid Committee;
(2)
as KCDC has, in accordance with the powers conferred on DCs under section 71(1) of Cap. 547, appointed the aforesaid Committee in respect of which KCDC holds the view that the terms of reference of the Committee conform with the functions of DCs provided under section 61, while HAD holds the opposite view, whether the Government has any established mechanism and guidelines to deal with the situation in which a DC and HAD hold opposite views on the interpretation of Cap. 547;
(3)
of the circumstances under which HAD may refuse to provide support for DCs and their committees or attend the relevant meetings, and the specific criteria and guidelines adopted for making such decisions;
(4)
whether, since the commencement of the current DC term, there have been incidents, apart from the aforesaid incident, in which HAD refused to provide support for DCs or their committees; if so, of the (i) names of the DCs and committees involved, (ii) number of meetings concerned, (iii) types of support involved in the refusal, as well as (iv) reasons for not providing support; and
(5)
whether a mechanism is currently put in place to impose punishments on those DOs who refuse, without legal justifications, to provide support for DCs and their committees; if so, of the details?
Question 6
(For written reply)
(Translation)
Financial rescue plan for the Ocean Park Corporation
Hon YIU Si-wing to ask:
The Ocean Park Corporation ("OPC") has recorded deficits of over $200 million for successive years since the financial year of 2015-2016. OPC is now unable to repay two commercial loans due in the last and current financial years totalling $2.3 billion, nor will it be able to repay two government loans for which repayment should commence in the next financial year. In January this year, the Government submitted to the Panel on Economic Development of this Council a funding proposal on the financial arrangements for OPC, which includes providing a one-off endowment of $10.64 billion, as well as deferring the commencement date of repayment and waiving the interest of the two government loans. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1)
of the respective projected amounts of (i) income, (ii) expenditure and (iii) deficit of OPC for the first half and the whole of the current financial year; for how long that OPC's current liquidity can sustain its operation;
(2)
in view of the recent rapid deterioration of the global economic situation, whether it has plans to increase the proposed amount of the aforesaid one-off endowment; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(3)
whether it has drawn up fallback options in the event that the Government's funding proposal is not approved by the Finance Committee of this Council, so as to prevent OPC from closing down due to financial difficulties; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
Question 7
(For written reply)
(Translation)
Publication of books by staff members of the Department of Justice
Hon CHEUNG Kwok-kwan to ask:
It has been reported that in September 2019, a Public Prosecutor under the Prosecutions Division of the Department of Justice ("DoJ") co-published with a barrister in private practice a law popularization book, which teaches young readers how to "keep away from legal traps and understand human right protection". Some members of the legal sector have queried whether some parts of the book are overgeneralized. For instance, the explanation in the book on whether a person, who has been found in possession of a fruit knife when stopped and searched by a police officer on the street, will be charged with the offence of "possession of offensive weapon in public place" is oversimplified. They have also queried whether that Public Prosecutor's expounding in the book on the rights of arrestees constitutes serious conflict of interests or roles with his duties in DoJ. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1)
whether staff members of DoJ are currently required to submit applications to their supervisors and obtain approval prior to publishing books pertaining to the law or containing their personal views on the law; if so, of the application procedure, the criteria for vetting and approval and the rank(s) of the approving officer(s), as well as whether an applicant is required to submit, for vetting, parts of the book intended to be published; if so, of the percentage of the content required to be submitted;
(2)
of the current mechanism for dealing with the situation where the content of a book published by a staff member of DoJ may have constituted a conflict of interests or roles with his work in DoJ;
(3)
of the number of books pertaining to the law published by staff members of DoJ in the past decade according to DoJ's records; among those books, the respective numbers of those (i) approved for publication and (ii) published without the necessary approval; whether DoJ has held responsible the relevant staff members in the latter case;
(4)
whether staff members of DoJ who have, without the necessary approval, published books that give rise to conflict of interests or roles with their work will be punished; if so, of the penalties and the number of such incidents in the past decade; and
(5)
as the aforesaid Public Prosecutor had obtained approval from the Director of Public Prosecutions before publishing the book, of the reasons why DoJ transferred the Public Prosecutor out of his current post subsequent to the publication of the aforesaid press report; whether DoJ has learnt a lesson from that incident and will devise a new mechanism under which similar cases will be subject to more stringent vetting and approval procedure; if so, of the details; if not, whether and how DoJ will follow up the matter?
Question 8
(For written reply)
(Translation)
Virtual banks
Hon CHAN Chun-ying to ask:
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority ("HKMA") granted a total of eight virtual bank licences between March and May last year. Up to the middle of April this year, one virtual bank has officially launched services, three others are conducting pilot trials through the Fintech Supervisory Sandbox, and the remaining four are doing preparatory work. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1)
whether the progress of service launch by virtual banks has met the expectations of HKMA; if not, whether HKMA has looked into the specific reasons for that; whether HKMA knows if the four virtual banks that have not yet launched services or commenced pilot trials at present have adjusted their schedules for launching services;
(2)
as there are still quite a number of institutions that have expressed an interest in applying for a virtual bank licence, whether HKMA will grant more licences shortly; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(3)
whether HKMA will review in a timely manner the cybersecurity fortification initiatives implemented by the virtual banks that have launched services, and gather the feedback of customers on virtual banking services; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
Question 9
(For written reply)
(Translation)
Anti-epidemic Fund relief measures
Hon WU Chi-wai to ask:
In February and April this year, the Government injected $30 billion and $137.5 billion respectively into the Anti-epidemic Fund ("the Fund") for launching two rounds of relief measures. However, not all the trades and practitioners (e.g. most of the self-employed persons who have not made any Mandatory Provident Fund contributions and the unemployed) hit by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic and the Government's anti-epidemic measures can benefit from these two rounds of relief measures. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1)
of the respective numbers of companies that (i) closed down and (ii) entered into the winding-up process, in each month since January this year and, among such companies, the respective numbers of those which had previously applied for subsidies under the Fund (with a tabulated breakdown by trade);
(2)
of the latest progress of the implementation of the first-round relief measures, including the (a) respective numbers of applications received and approved, and (b) total amount of subsidy so granted, in respect of each of the subsidy schemes targeting at (i) the retail sector, (ii) food licence holders, (iii) licensed guesthouses and (iv) travel agents; the latest progress of the implementation of the second-round relief measures;
(3)
whether it will consider relaxing the eligibility criteria for the various subsidies and allowances under the two rounds of relief measures, so that more trades and their practitioners may benefit; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(4)
whether it knows (i) the trades in which companies are unable to benefit from the relief measures of either round (apart from the wage subsidies under the Employment Support Scheme ("ESS")) and the number of such companies, as well as (ii) the trades in which the self-employed persons are unable to benefit from the one-off lump-sum subsidy under ESS and the number of such persons; whether it has plans to directly provide such companies and self-employed persons with a cash subsidy;
(5)
given that quite a number of the recently unemployed persons cannot benefit from the measure of relaxing the eligibility criteria of the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Scheme under the second-round relief measures, whether the Government will consider (i) setting up an unemployment financial assistance scheme, or (ii) providing, by drawing reference from ESS, such persons with a monthly subsidy of $9,000 per person for a six-month period; and
(6)
as quite a number of comments have pointed out that, after the implementation of the two rounds of relief measures, quite a number of trades and members of the public hit by the epidemic still have not obtained any targeted assistance from the Government, whether the Government will launch a new round of relief measures; if not, of the reasons for that?
Question 10
(For written reply)
(Translation)
Taking forward the legislative process for bills
Hon Elizabeth QUAT to ask:
From October last year to mid-April this year, the House Committee ("HC") of this Council convened 15 meetings but its chairman and deputy chairman for the new legislative session have yet to be elected, rendering HC being unable to deal with the Legislative Council ("LegCo") business as normal. There are comments that with as many as 14 bills and more than 80 items of subsidiary legislation not being scrutinized and followed up, a substantial amount of legislative work involving the economy, people's livelihood and social development cannot proceed, and the normal operation of Hong Kong society has been seriously impeded as a result. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1)
given that in January this year, this Council passed a motion moved by the Secretary for Labour and Welfare of referring the Employment (Amendment) Bill 2019 to the Panel on Manpower instead of HC, whether the Government has, by drawing reference from such practice, examined how the legislative process for bills can continue to proceed under the circumstances that HC remains unable to deal with LegCo business as normal; if so, of the outcome; if not, the reasons for that;
(2)
regarding those bills the scrutiny of which has been completed by the bills committees and the resumption of the Second Reading debate on which is pending, of the Government's specific measures to facilitate the completion of the legislative process for such bills within the current LegCo term; and
(3)
whether it has assessed the impacts on the overall operation of society to be brought about by the eventuality of the aforesaid 14 bills lapsing because the legislative process for them cannot be completed at the end of the current LegCo term; if so, set out the contents of the bills, the affected groups/sectors and the relevant impacts by name of the bill?
Question 11
(For written reply)
(Translation)
The work of the Joint Office
Hon Paul TSE to ask:
The Joint Office ("JO"), set up by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department and the Buildings Department, is dedicated to handling reports on water seepage in buildings. In August 2013, JO applied infrared thermography and microwave tomography ("new testing technologies") on a pilot basis for identifying the sources of water seepage. Since June 2018, JO has officially applied the new testing technologies to suitable cases in three districts, and it extended the application of the new testing technologies to five other districts in September 2019. Regarding the work of JO, will the Government inform this Council:
(1)
of the number of water seepage reports handled by JO in the 2019-2020 financial year; among them, the respective numbers of cases in which (i) the sources of water seepage were successfully identified, (ii) investigation was underway, and (iii) the sources of water seepage had not been identified but investigation was terminated; the longest and shortest handling time for concluded cases;
(2)
of the respective relevant figures of the three districts of Kwun Tong, Wong Tai Sin and Wan Chai in respect of the items mentioned in (1);
(3)
among the water seepage reports handled by JO in the 2019-2020 financial year, of the respective numbers and percentages of cases in which the new testing technologies and conventional testing methods were applied for identifying the sources of water seepage; how such figures compare with those in the preceding three financial years;
(4)
of the success rate of the new testing technologies in identifying the sources of water seepage;
(5)
whether the success rates in identifying the sources of water seepage in the aforesaid eight districts are generally higher than those in other districts; if so, whether the Government will expeditiously apply the new testing technologies to all cases in various districts across the territory (especially districts such as Kwun Tong and Wong Tai Sin where old buildings abound with a large number of water seepage cases); if so, of the details and timetable; if not, the reasons for that; and
(6)
given that as compared with the new testing technologies, conventional testing methods are more time consuming and less effective in identifying the sources of water seepage, whether members of the public may, when they seek assistance from JO, request JO to apply the new testing technologies for identifying the sources of water seepage, so as to shorten the time required for handling the cases?
Question 12
(For written reply)
(Translation)
Domestic violence
Hon Alvin YEUNG to ask:
In recent months, my office has received a number of cases of assistance being sought which were related to domestic violence. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1)
of the respective numbers of cases of assistance being sought and reports which were related to domestic violence, received by the Government in each month since January 2015, with a breakdown by District Council ("DC") district;
(2)
of the respective numbers of cases in which the batterers of domestic violence were prosecuted and convicted in each of the past five years, with a breakdown by DC district; and
(3)
of the immediate measures put in place to prevent the problem of domestic violence from worsening during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic?
Question 13
(For written reply)
(Translation)
Fuel prices
Hon CHAN Hak-kan to ask:
Although international oil prices plummeted over the past two months, there has not been any significant drop in local retail prices of auto-fuels ("local pump prices"). In view of the business difficulties of the transport trades, the Government has earlier announced the provision of support to the transport trades under the Anti-epidemic Fund, including: offering a $1 discount per litre of liquefied petroleum gas ("LPG") (i.e. approximately a one-third discount) for 12 months for LPG taxis and public light buses ("PLBs"), and reimbursing one-third of the actual fuel cost for 12 months for petrol taxis and diesel PLBs. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1)
as some members of the transport trades have pointed out that local pump prices are often "quick to rise and slow to drop", which has undermined the interests of motorists, of the Government's counter-measures;
(2)
whether it knows if the Competition Commission will commence an investigation again on issues concerning local pump prices;
(3)
as some professional drivers have relayed that since the reduction in local pump prices is much smaller than the drop in international oil prices over the same period, the subsidies on fuel expenses provided by the Government may ultimately be nibbled up by the oil companies, whether the Government had considered ways to prevent such a situation from occurring when it formulated the relevant measures; and
(4)
given that international oil prices are currently on the low side, whether the Government will suggest that the oil companies increase their local oil reserves so as to hedge against part of the future rise in oil prices?
Question 14
(For written reply)
(Translation)
Protection for employees contracting Coronavirus Disease 2019
Dr Hon Pierre CHAN to ask:
Since the outbreak of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19") epidemic in Hong Kong in January this year, some labour groups have been urging the Government to amend the law to include COVID-19 as one of the occupational diseases specified in the Second Schedule to the Employees' Compensation Ordinance (Cap. 282), so as to ensure that employees will be compensated for incapacity or death resulting from COVID-19. The Government indicated on 10 February that it had commenced a study on the proposal to amend the law, but that the law could be amended only when definite medical and epidemiological conclusion on the virus was available and, in such process, it was necessary to discuss the details with the various stakeholders. The Government also pointed out that if an employee contracted COVID-19 arising out of and in the course of his/her employment, he/she should inform the employer immediately so that the employer could notify the Labour Department ("LD"). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1)
of the work progress, since 10 February of this year, of its study on the aforesaid legislative exercise, including:
(i)
the stakeholders it has met and those it has scheduled to meet, and set out in a table the names of such stakeholders, the meeting dates, the views collected, as well as the reasons for not having scheduled meetings with stakeholders (if applicable);
(ii)
whether it has drawn up a preliminary list of relevant trades which it intends to include in the Second Schedule to Cap. 282; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(iii)
the legislative timetable;
(2)
of the progress and the latest outcome of the medical and epidemiological studies conducted on COVID-19; and
(3)
of the number of cases received by LD so far in which the employers took the initiative to notify LD that their employees had contracted COVID-19 arising out of and in the course of their employment; how LD ensures that all employers will take the initiative to notify LD of such type of cases?
Question 15
(For written reply)
(Translation)
Promoting research and development activities
Hon Jimmy NG to ask:
The Chief Executive stated in the 2017 Policy Address that the Government had set a goal to double the gross domestic expenditure on research and development ("R&D") ("GERD") to about $45 billion a year, i.e. to increase the ratio of such expenditure to the Gross Domestic Product ("R&D expenditure ratio") from 0.73% to 1.5%, by the end of the current Government's term of office. According to the Report on Hong Kong Innovation Activities Statistics 2018 ("the Report"), the GERD in 2018 was $24,497 million, and the R&D expenditure ratio was 0.86%, which was still quite a distance from the goal of 1.5% set by the Government. Quite a number of members of the industry have pointed out that to achieve the goal, the Government needs to expeditiously introduce new measures to encourage more enterprises to conduct R&D activities. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1)
whether, in order to achieve the aforesaid goal of R&D expenditure ratio, the Government will (i) introduce new measures to encourage more enterprises to conduct R&D activities, and (ii) set specific indicators in respect of the field of R&D activities, the source of funds (i.e. from the Government, business sector, and parties outside Hong Kong and other local parties) and the number of R&D personnel; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(2)
whether it will examine the setting of a more aggressive long-term goal on the R&D expenditure ratio; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(3)
as the Report pointed out that while small and medium enterprises ("SMEs") accounted for 94.1% of the enterprises which had conducted R&D activities in 2018, their expenditure on in-house R&D activities accounted for less than 50% of the relevant total expenditure incurred by all enterprises, whether the Government will introduce more measures to subsidize SMEs for conducting R&D activities; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(4)
as the Report showed that while enterprises' expenditure on R&D activities contracted out to parties outside Hong Kong was $3,395 million (accounting for 75% of the total expenditure on contracted-out R&D) in 2018, such expenditure was not eligible for the enhanced tax deduction for "qualifying R&D activities" provided by the Government since 1 April 2018, whether the Government will study the inclusion of such expenditure in the scope of application of the tax deduction measures; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
Question 16
(For written reply)
(Translation)
The impacts on freedom of the press in Hong Kong
and on "one country, two systems" of the Mainland Government
expelling journalists of US media
Hon Charles Peter MOK to ask:
On 18 March this year, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement, demanding that "journalists of US citizenship working with the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post whose press credentials are due to expire before the end of 2020 notify the Department of Information of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs within four calendar days starting from today and hand back their press cards within ten calendar days. They will not be allowed to continue working as journalists in the People's Republic of China, including its Hong Kong and Macao Special Administrative Regions". The aforesaid measure imposed by a department of the Central People's Government involves the immigration policy of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("SAR") as well as the freedom of the press and freedom of speech enjoyed by Hong Kong residents under Article 27 of the Basic Law. Some comments have pointed out that the measure has undermined the freedom of the press and freedom of speech in SAR and damaged SAR's image as a free and open international city. In recent years, the SAR Government also rejected new or renewal applications for employment visa from foreign journalists. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1)
of the respective numbers of foreign journalists who were (i) refused entry as visitors, (ii) denied entry as their new or renewal applications for employment visa had been rejected, and (iii) refused entry under other circumstances, by the Immigration Department in the past three years, and set out, by their names, the organizations for which they worked and the reasons for their being refused entry;
(2)
given that under Article 27 of the Basic Law, Hong Kong residents shall enjoy rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press, whether it has assessed if the measure imposed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has contravened the provision of that Article; if it has assessed, of the outcome;
(3)
of the measures in place to ensure that (i) the freedom of the press enjoyed by Hong Kong residents will not be undermined by the aforesaid measure imposed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and (ii) foreign journalists can continue to carry out their news covering work in Hong Kong without interference from the Chinese Government, so as to avoid Hong Kong's status as an international financial centre being affected because of the loss of freedom of the press and free flow of information; and
(4)
as Article 22 of the Basic Law stipulates that no department of the Central People's Government may interfere in the affairs which SAR administers on its own in accordance with the Basic Law, and immigration control is the affair which the SAR Government administers on its own in accordance with Article 154 of the Basic Law, whether it has assessed if the measure imposed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has contravened the provisions of such Articles; if it has assessed, of the outcome?
Question 17
(For written reply)
(Translation)
Compulsory quarantine at home
Hon Kenneth LEUNG to ask:
To tackle the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic, persons arriving in Hong Kong on all flights are currently required to provide their deep throat saliva samples to the authorities for conducting tests for coronavirus, and then undergo a 14-day compulsory quarantine at a designated place (home or other accommodation) pursuant to the requirements of the quarantine orders. Some members of the public have pointed out that while such persons are forbidden to go out during home quarantine, those living with them are not subject to this restriction, giving rise to the possibility of the virus spreading to the community through the latter. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1)
whether the four members of the expert advisory panel ("panel") commissioned by the Chief Executive unanimously agreed to the arrangement that persons living with those under home quarantine are not required to subject to compulsory quarantine; if so, of the panel's justifications, and whether the panel had pointed out the inadequacies of this arrangement; if so, of the details and the remedial measures; and
(2)
given that as at 24 March this year, the Department of Health issued a total of 408 warning letters to persons who had violated the quarantine orders, whether the Government will consider stepping up law enforcement efforts to enhance the deterrent effect; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons and the alternative options for that?
Question 18
(For written reply)
(Translation)
Relief measures implemented by the Government
Hon Holden CHOW to ask:
As Hong Kong's economy has been hard hit by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic, the business of quite a number of enterprises has plummeted, and many employees have been asked to take no pay leave or a pay cut, or have even been dismissed. Although the Government has implemented two rounds of relief measures through the Anti-epidemic Fund, quite a number of trades and employees still have not benefited from them, and are left feeling anxious and helpless. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1)
given that the business of thousands of education centres (including playgroups, music schools and dance schools) has plummeted or even dropped to zero amid the epidemic, and the income of their instructors has reduced substantially, but since these education centres have not been (as they are not required to be) registered under the Education Ordinance (Cap. 279), they are not eligible for the one-off grant of $40,000 offered to each tutorial school in the second round of relief measures, whether the Government will relax the eligibility criteria for the grant to cover such education centres, in order to help them and the instructors concerned ride out the hard times;
(2)
as the 50% wage subsidy to be provided under the Employment Support Scheme in the second round of relief measures by the Government for an employer will be calculated on the basis of the actual wages paid to his employees for any one month from January to March this year to be nominated by the employer, but some employees have relayed that their wages during the said period were reduced substantially due to the epidemic, whether the Government will consider using the employees' average monthly wages for the past 12 months instead as the basis for calculation;
(3)
as some people currently receiving the Working Family Allowance ("WFA") have relayed that they were forced to take no pay leave in the past few months due to the epidemic and, as a result, their monthly working hours have failed to meet the requirements for receiving WFA, whether the Government will consider relaxing the working hour requirements for WFA in the coming 12 months; and
(4)
given that the second round of relief measures include the provision of a monthly subsidy of $6,000 per person for red minibus drivers for a period of six months, but green minibus ("GMB") drivers are not provided with this subsidy, whether the Government will consider treating them equally by providing GMB drivers with a subsidy of the same amount?
Question 19
(For written reply)
(Translation)
Handling data access requests by the Police
Dr Hon KWOK Ka-ki to ask:
Under section 18 of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486), any individual is entitled to make a data access request to a data user (e.g. a government department), i.e. to be informed whether the data user holds the personal data of which the individual is the data subject, and (if the data user holds such data) be provided with a copy of such data. Under sections 19 and 28 of the Ordinance, a data user must comply with such a request within a specified period, and may charge, for complying with the request, a fee that is not excessive. Regarding the Police's handling of data access requests made by members of the public, will the Government inform this Council:
(1)
of (i) the respective numbers of requests received and approved by the Police for providing copies of their video footages, and (ii) the highest, lowest, average and total amounts of fees charged by the Police to the applicants, in each of the past three years; how the Police determine the amount of fees to be charged; if the Police do not possess the above information, whether they will compile such statistics immediately; and
(2)
of the procedure under which the Police provide copies of their video footages to data subjects; whether such procedure involves the step of using software to blur or redact the personal data (such as the facial images) of persons other than the applicants who are captured in the footages, and whether fees are charged for this step; if so, of the details; if such step is not involved, how the Police ensure that they will not, in providing copies of their video footages, disclose the personal data of other persons without such persons' consent?
Question 20
(For written reply)
(Translation)
Expenditure of the Hong Kong Police Force
Hon Alvin YEUNG to ask:
The Commissioner of Police ("CP") is the controlling officer for Head 122 of Government expenditure. Regarding the expenditure of the Hong Kong Police Force in the 2019-2020 financial year, will the Government inform this Council:
(1)
of the number of applications made by the authorities to the Finance Committee ("FC") of this Council for making changes to the approved estimates of expenditure under Head 122 for that year, and set out in a table the (i) subhead(s) involved, (ii) nature of the change(s) (e.g. creation of new subhead(s), supplementary provision in approved or new subhead(s), variation(s) in the establishment(s) of post(s), or increase(s) in the limit to the commitments which might be entered into for non-recurrent expenditure), (iii) purpose(s) of the additional funding (if applicable) and (iv) amount(s) of the additional funding (if applicable);
(2)
of the number of occasions on which the Financial Secretary made, in accordance with the power delegated to him by FC under section 8(3) of the Public Finance Ordinance (Cap. 2), changes to the approved estimates of expenditure under Head 122 for that year, and set out in a table the (i) subhead(s) involved, (ii) nature of the change(s), (iii) purpose(s) of the additional funding (if applicable) and (iv) amount(s) of the additional funding (if applicable);
(3)
of the amount(s) of expenditure that CP was authorized to incur under the subheads of the heads controlled by other controlling officers by way of allocation warrants signed by such officers under section 14(4) of Cap. 2 in that year, and set out in a table the (i) government department(s) and head(s) involved, (ii) subhead(s) involved, (iii) purpose(s) of the the allocation(s) and (iv) amount(s) of the allocation(s), in respect of such allocation warrants;
(4)
whether CP incurred any urgent expenditure under section 15 of Cap. 2 in that year; if so, set out in a table the (i) date(s), (ii) subhead(s), (iii) purpose(s) and (iv) amount(s) in respect of such expenditure; and
(5)
whether CP received any funding through other channels in that year; if so, of the details?