Confirmation of the Minutes of Last Meeting

(LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 1375/95-96)

The minutes of the last meeting held on 2 May 1996 were confirmed.

Action

Meeting with the Administration

(LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 1337/95-96)

Briefing by the Administration

2. Ms Ingrid HO and Mr Ambrose LEE briefed members on the Administration's written response to the points raised by members at the last meeting.

Discussion on the Administration's written response

Item A - Detention facilities and manpower resources

3. Members noted that the Immigration Department (ID) was exploring the possibility of setting up its own detention centre but it would take a few years to finalize the project. In response to Mr IP Kwok-him's enquiry, Ms Ingrid HO advised that the Administration was trying to identify suitable premises for the purpose. If suitable premises and the required financial resources were available, the construction work would take about two to three years to complete.

4. Meanwhile, the Administration would use the vacated premises at Ma Tau Kok Road Government Offices following the closure of the Chinese Extension Section to accommodate up to 90 immigration offenders. In response to Mr Howard YOUNG's enquiry, Mr Ambrose LEE advised that the closure of the Chinese Extension Section resulted in the deletion of 60 posts. Part of the staff savings would be used to create a total of 46 posts for this temporary detention centre. In response to Mr IP Kwok-him's enquiry, Ms Ingrid HO advised that the remaining resources saved would be redeployed within the ID to meet other operational needs.

5. Mr Bruce LIU was concerned whether the establishment of this temporary detention centre at Ma Tau Kok Road Government Offices would cause any nuisances to the nearby residents, such as the noise nuisance when opening or closing the gate at the entrance. Mr Ambrose LEE acknowledged members' concern.

Adm

6. As it was proposed under the Bill to give members of the Immigration Service additional power and responsibilities, the Chairman was concerned whether they would be provided with any training, such as management of the detention centre, and whether there was any redress system for the public to lodge complaints against their abuse of power, if any. Mr Ambrose LEE advised that all along, members of the Immigration Service had been provided with training on investigation. With the establishment of its own detention centre, the ID would liaise with the Police and the Correctional Services Department for providing relevant training to members of the Immigration Service. Guidelines on the management of the detention centre would also be issued. Mr LEE added that the public could lodge complaints against abuse of power of members of the Immigration Service with the ID. Nevertheless, such complaints were few. The number of complaint cases in 1993, 1994 and 1995 were 2, 0 and 2 respectively.

7. The Chairman considered that as it would take about 12 months to convert the vacated premises at Ma Tau Kok Road Government Offices into a temporary detention centre, the Administration should plan in advance for the timely provision of the relevant training and guidelines to members of the Immigration Service and also, the provision of a redress system for the public to lodge complaints against their abuse of power. At the Chairman's request, the Administration agreed to provide an information paper to brief the LegCo Panel on Security in due course on the provision of training, guidelines and redress system.

Adm

Item B- Extension of custodial time from 12 to 48 hours

8. Mr IP Kwok-him wondered whether there would be a situation where a person was detained by the ID for 48 hours and then by the Police for another 48 hours. Ms Sherman CHAN advised that under the proposed new section 13A(1), a person who was arrested by a member of the Immigration Service might be taken to an office of the Service (whereupon the proposed new section 13A(7) would apply) or to a police station. Hence, the situation quoted by Mr IP should not occur.

9. Miss Margaret NG noted that under the Bill, members of the Immigration Service had various detention powers. She wondered what was the maximum time limit for the Service to detain a person after arrest. Ms Sherman CHAN pointed out that under the proposed new section 13A(7), no person should be detained at an office of the Immigration Service for more than 48 hours from the time of arrest under section 12 or under the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, without being charged and brought before a magistrate unless he was released or was otherwise detained, removed or deported under the Immigration Ordinance.

10. Miss Margaret NG further asked what was the time limit for the Immigration Service to detain a person for inquiry before formal arrest. Ms Sherman CHAN advised that under the proposed section 12(1)(b), a member of the Immigration Service might detain any person whom he might reasonably suspect of being guilty of a Part I offence for a reasonable period for inquiry and that there was also a reference to "detain" in the proposed section 12(1)(d). In response to the Chairman's enquiry, Ms CHAN advised that the length of "a reasonable period" would be dependent upon circumstances and in such practices would not normally referred to what was more than a short period of time. Mr Ambrose LEE supplemented that normally, the detention period for inquiry would last from a few minutes to less than 20 minutes. The Chairman wondered whether this short period of time was sufficient if the person concerned objected to being searched in a public place under the proposed section 12(5).

11. Mr Bruce LIU sought clarification on whether members of the Immigration Service had the same power here to detain for inquiry as the Police. Mr Ambrose LEE confirmed that they might detain any person whom they might reasonably suspect of being guilty of a Part I offence. Mr Bruce LIU considered it important for members of the Immigration Service to be provided with the relevant training so that they could exercise their power to detain and to arrest properly.

Adm

Item C(1) - The proposed section 12(3)

12. Members noted from the Administration's written response that the proposed section 12(3) was modelled on section 17B of the Customs and Excise Service Ordinance, Cap. 342. However, they still had reservations about the drafting of the proposed section 12(3) where any person assisting a member of the Immigration Service would have the same power as the latter to search a person and the place in which the person was arrested without warrant, and to seize, remove and detain any thing found on the person or in the place. Mr Bruce LIU pointed out that under section 17B of the Customs and Excise Service Ordinance, any person assisting a member of the Customs and Excise Service did not have such great powers and in fact, his role was only "to facilitate the search".

13. In brief, members considered the phrase "any person acting in his aid" too broad. The Chairman was concerned that members of the Immigration Service could call upon any person to assist them and that person would have the same power of the Immigration Service. Mr Ambrose LEE advised that normally, the Immigration Service would only call upon a person whose assistance would be required in a particular action, such as a fingerprint examiner of the Police.

14. Mr Howard YOUNG and Mr Ambrose LAU were concerned that any person who volunteered to assist would also be covered by the phrase "any person acting in his aid". In fact, the person might not know how to assist and might even cause trouble to the Immigration Service. To address members' concern, ALA4 suggested to add "on his request" after the phrase. Miss Margaret NG suggested to use "acting together" which implied a joint action with both parties' consent and cooperation. Ms Sherman CHAN suggested that other alternatives might also be considered such as to replace the phrase by "any person reasonably required". However, she pointed out that whether such an amendment was to be made would depend on its impact on the actual operation.

15. The Chairman proposed and Ms Sherman CHAN agreed that the Administration would further look into the wordings of the proposed section 12(3). The Chairman also pointed out that as the proposed section 12(3) was modelled on section 17B of the Customs and Excise Service Ordinance, any amendment to the former might have implications on the latter.

Adm

Item C(2) - The proposed section 12(5)

16. Members noted that under the proposed section 12(5), members of the public could raise objection to be searched by the Immigration Service in a public place. In response to Miss Margaret NG's enquiry on the practice of the Police, Mr Ambrose LEE advised that it was only an internal guideline of the Police, not a legislative provision, that a person who objected to be searched by the Police in a public place should be taken to a police station to effect the search.

17. The Chairman and Mr Bruce LIU were concerned whether members of the public would be made aware of their rights under the proposed section 12(5). Mr Ambrose LEE advised that in actual operation, the Immigration Service would not inform the person concerned that he had the right to choose to be searched at the spot (a public place) or in an office of the Immigration Service. Mr LEE pointed out that in certain situations, there would be operational need to conduct the search right at the spot, such as when the person concerned was in possession of a large quantity of forged travel documents. The Chairman therefore queried why the Administration had introduced the provision of the proposed section 12(5) if it was not applicable in certain situations. She requested the Administration to consider informing the person to be searched of his right under the proposed section 12(5) before the search was conducted.

Adm

18. Mr Ambrose LEE undertook to further look into the provision of the proposed section 12(5), in particular its implication on the operational aspect.

Adm

Item D - The proposed new Schedule 2

19. Mr Ambrose LAU did not support the drafting of the proposed new Schedule 2 which empowered members of the Immigration Service to investigate a wide variety of offences under the Crimes Ordinance. He noted from the Administration's written response that the ID would issue Standing Orders to prevent abuse of power of the Immigration Service. However, he considered it undesirable to limit powers conferred by the law by departmental orders. Instead, he considered it more appropriate to state expressly in the law that the Immigration Service could only investigate immigration-related offences.

20. Ms Sherman CHAN pointed out that the Administration had considered the proposal of adding such words as "immigration-related"

Adm

Next Step

21. The Administration would provide a written response to address the points raised by members at the meeting.

Adm

Date of Next Meeting

22. The next meeting would be held on Tuesday, 11 June 1996 at 10:45 a.m. in Conference Room B of the Legislative Council Building.

Close of Meeting

23. The meeting ended at 3:35 p.m.

LegCo Secretariat

6 June 1996