LegCo Panel on Security
Minutes of Meeting

I. Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meetings and Matters Arising

Confirmation of minutes of previous meetings
(LegCo Paper Nos. CB(2) 1108, 1470, 1418 and 1312/95-96)

Action

The minutes of the following meetings were confirmed :

1. Special meeting held on 18 March 1996 ;
2. Special meeting held on 12 April 1996 ;
3. Special meeting held on 17 April 1996 ; and
4. Joint meeting with the LegCo Panel on Health Services held on 15 April 1996.

Matters arising

Research on Emergency Ambulance Service
(Appendix 1 to LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 1491/95-96)

2. As a follow-up to the joint meeting with the LegCo Panel on Health Services held on 15 April 1996, members endorsed the proposed objective and scope of the research on Emergency Ambulance Service to be conducted by the LegCo Secretariat Research and Library Services Division.

Subcommittee on the Police Management Review

3. The Chairman invited non-Subcommittee members to join the following visit/meeting:

1. The Subcommittee's visit to the Police Training School on 18 June 1996 afternoon to see the Police firearms training facilities; and

2. The next meeting of the Subcommittee to be held on 11 July 1996 at 10:45 a.m. to examine four reports.

II. Date of Next Meeting and Items for Discussion

Next meeting on 8 July 1996
(LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 1577/95-96)

4. Members agreed to discuss at the next meeting the following three subjects proposed by Mrs Selina CHOW:

1. Security for passengers' belongings at the Kai Tak Airport;
2. Visa-free facilities for Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Passport holders; and
3. Increase in smuggling activities.

An additional meeting on 15 July 1996

(Appendix 2 to LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 1491/95-96)

5. After discussion, members agreed to hold an additional meeting in July to discuss the following three subjects:

1. The Chairman's proposed amendment to repeal sections 6(a) and 7(2)(b) of the Public Order Ordinance (Cap. 245) regarding the general powers of the Commissioner of Police to regulate public meetings;

2. "Section 18A(1) (Award of Compensation) of the Public Finance Ordinance (Cap. 2)" proposed by Mr Andrew CHENG; and

3. "Staff wastage in the Police Force" proposed by Mrs Selina CHOW.

6. Members agreed to hold the meeting on Monday, 15 July 1996 at 8:30 a.m. Miss Margaret NG proposed to invite members of other LegCo Panels, such as the LegCo Panel on Administration of Justice and Legal Services, to join the discussion on the item at para. 5 (b) above.

Clerk

III. Nuisance Caused by Debt Collection Agencies

(Appendices 3 and 4 to LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 1491/95-96)

Actions taken by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA)

7. Mr Y K CHOI advised that all along, the HKMA had been very concerned about the improper behaviour of some debt collection agencies appointed by authorized institutions. The HKMA considered that authorized institutions should put in place an effective system to monitor the tactics used by their debt collection agencies in the recovery of debts. In this connection, Mr CHOI highlighted the following actions taken by the HKMA in the recent years:

1. In March 1993, it issued a letter to the industry Associations requiring authorized institutions to take adequate steps to monitor and control the manner of operation of the debt collection agencies employed by them. Pursuant to that letter, the Hong Kong Association of Banks issued in May 1993 a guideline to banks on the engagement and management of the relationship with debt collection agencies in the recovery of debts;

2. In January 1996, it issued a letter to the industry Associations reminding authorized institutions that they should satisfy themselves that applicants for personal loans or credit cards had obtained the prior consent of their referees before the latters' names were entered into the application forms;

3. On 18 April 1996, it issued a further letter to the industry Associations stressing that authorized institutions should exercise strict control over their debt collection agencies;

4. On 22 April 1996, it set up a hotline to facilitate the public to lodge complaints against improper behaviour of debt collection agencies of authorized institutions; and

5. On 3 May 1996, it issued a letter advising authorized institutions to instruct their debt collection agencies in writing that the agencies must not resort to intimidation or violence, either verbal or physical, against any person in their debt recovery actions, and that authorized institutions and their debt collection agencies must not try to recover debts from third parties including referees, family members or friends of the debtors if these persons had not entered into a formal contractual agreement with the institutions to guarantee liabilities of the debtors. Furthermore, authorized institutions had been asked not to pass information about referees or third parties other than debtors or guarantors to their debt collection agencies.

8. Mr Y K CHOI advised that from 22 April to 28 May 1996, the HKMA had received 88 complaints through the hotline. However, there were only 12 complaints received from 13 May to 9 June 1996. This significant drop in complaints revealed that the letter issued by the HKMA to all authorized institutions on 3 May 1996 (para. 7(e) above) was effective to a certain extent.

9. In response to the Chairman's enquiry, Mr Y K CHOI confirmed that the letters issued by the HKMA to the industry Associations or authorized institutions were only advisory in nature.

Actions taken by the Police

10. Mr Mike HORNER advised that the Police had conducted a review for the period between November 1994 and October 1995 on the extent of unlawful activities in connection with debt collection. The results of the review were as follows:

1. There were 121 criminal cases confirmed as debt collection related and another 198 criminal cases believed, but not proved, to have been the work of debt collectors; and

2. Among the 319 cases mentioned above, 156 were related to legitimate debts and 96 to loansharks.

11. Mr HORNER assured members that the Police took a very serious view and investigated each and every case of criminal damage or intimidation committed by debt collectors. There were adequate provisions under the general criminal law to deal with the various illegal tactics used by them, such as painting of slogans on corridors.

Present problems

Law enforcement difficulties in criminal cases

12. In respect of the criminal activities committed by debt collectors, Mr HORNER pointed out that there were law enforcement difficulties, particularly in the identification of the offenders, because:

1. these activities were normally conducted late at night; and

2. when debt collectors resorted to illegal tactics, the debtors would normally repay the debt immediately and would then be reluctant to pursue the case further.

Nuisances caused by non-criminal tactics

13. Members were concerned about the nuisances caused by non-criminal tactics used by debt collection agencies, such as repeated phone calls at night or posting of repayment notices near the debtor's home and office. Mr Howard YOUNG considered that debt collection agencies should not resort to these tactics even for the recovery of legitimate debts. He asked whether the Police would take action against these activities. Regarding the posting of repayment notices, for example, Mr YOUNG considered that the Police might be able to trace the debtor based on the information provided in the notice and then solicit his assistance in identifying the offenders.

14. Mr HORNER pointed out that the examples quoted at para. 13 above were grey areas in which it was difficult for the Police to get involved. He advised that the posting of repayment notices by itself might not constitute an offence if the contents of the notices were not intimidatory. Nevertheless, the Police would take any possible action to assist. For example, for nuisance telephone calls, the Police would seek the victim's consent to telephone line tracing which could help to trace the source of such calls.

Harassment of third parties

15. Members noted that most of the complaints received by the HKMA were made by persons other than the debtor, such as referees, family members or friends of the debtor about harassment by debt collection agencies. They urged the Administration to address the issue.

16. Mr Y K CHOI advised that to address the issue, the HKMA had already issued letters in January 1996 and on 3 May 1996 as mentioned at para. 7 (b) and (e) above. Mr CHOI assured members that the HKMA would continue to monitor the situation to see whether it was justified to forbid authorized institutions from employing debt collection agencies to collect outstanding debts.

17. Mr IP Kwok-him considered that the painting of intimidatory wordings on walls would pose serious psychological threats to the debtor and the persons around him and that was unfair for the third parties involved. Mr IP therefore suggested to increase the penalty for this kind of criminal acts to deter debt collection agencies from using such tactics. To facilitate members' consideration on whether the existing penalty provisions were adequate, the Chairman proposed and Mr HORNER agreed to provide information on the penalty for such criminal acts.

RHKPF

Continual disturbances after repayment of debts

18. Mrs Selina CHOW remarked that she had received a lot of complaints about the disturbances by debt collection agencies even after the outstanding debts had been repaid. She asked whether the Administration had taken any action to tackle the problem.

19. Mr Y K CHOI advised that the type of cases referred by Mrs Selina CHOW was likely to be those where the debtors had already repaid the outstanding debts fully, but the debt collection agencies continued to pursue for the fees charged by the agencies for debt collection. The HKMA had so far received 6 complaints of this nature. The HKMA had followed up these complaints with the authorized institutions concerned to ensure that in trying to recover such fees, their debt collection agencies would not resort to intimidation or violence against any person. However, the HKMA was not in a position to forbid the recovery of the relevant fees in these cases as that was stipulated in the agreed terms and conditions of the loans.

Outstanding issues

Liability of authorized institutions for the debt recovery actions of their debt collection agencies

20. The Chairman, Mrs Selina CHOW and Mr Albert HO considered that authorized institutions should be liable to a certain extent for the debt recovery actions of their debt collection agencies. Mr HO considered that those authorized institutions, which had been complained repeatedly for the unscrupulous debt recovery actions (including criminal tactics and non-criminal tactics causing nuisances) of their debt collection agencies, should be reprimanded. He also pointed out that similar measures adopted by the Consumer Council had been very effective.

21. Mr Y K CHOI advised that the HKMA was discussing with those authorized institutions, which had been the subjects of repeated complaints, their procedures for monitoring the actions of debt collection agencies employed by them. The HKMA did not rule out the possibility of stopping them from employing debt collection agencies if there was no improvement. The Chairman suggested and Mr CHOI agreed to look into Mr Albert HO's proposal of openly reprimanding the authorized institutions concerned.

HKMA

22. The Chairman also asked whether the HKMA would, with the complainants' consent, disclose the complaint figures against authorized institutions in respect of debt collection. Mr Y K CHOI advised that he would ascertain whether the HKMA was empowered to do so under the existing legislation. He said that the secrecy provision of the Banking Ordinance would not allow the HKMA to disclose information relating to individual institutions.

HKMA

Recovery of debts by authorized institutions and not by debt collection agencies

23. Mr Andrew CHENG pointed out that most of the banks world-wide had their own accounting departments for recovery of debts. He could not understand why the local banks did not do the same but instead, employed debt collection agencies to recover the debts for them. Mr Y K CHOI advised that banks in Hong Kong normally had their own collection department but in some cases it might be more cost-effective to employ debt collection agencies. The HKMA would base on the information provided by complainants to see whether authorized institutions had been monitoring their debt collection agencies properly.

Regulation of debt collection agencies

24. Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong urged the Administration to set up an independent mechanism to regulate debt collection agencies with reasons as follows:

1. Authorized institutions and debt collection agencies had the common interests of recovery of debts. It was therefore ridiculous to rely on the former to monitor the latters' debt recovery actions. In fact, it was hard to tell whether the former had any involvements in the latters' illegal actions;

2. As mentioned at para. 12 above, there were law enforcement difficulties in the relevant criminal cases; and

3. As mentioned at paras. 13 to 14 above, it was difficult for the Police to take actions against nuisances caused by non-criminal tactics of debt collection agencies.

25. Mr Y K CHOI said that the HKMA was empowered to regulate authorized institutions only. It could therefore monitor the debt recovery actions of debt collection agencies employed by these institutions but was not in a position to monitor the actions of agencies employed by any other institutions. Most of the authorized institutions had requested their debt collection agencies to record their telephone calls. The HKMA believed that its actions listed at para. 7 (a) to (e) above should considerably reduce the scale of the problem caused by debt collection agencies. Mrs Carrie YAU advised that the Administration would monitor the outcome of the actions taken by the HKMA before considering whether further action was required.

26. Mr Andrew CHENG was not convinced by the Administration's replies and suggested the regulation of debt collection agencies through a licensing system. Mrs Carrie YAU advised that the Administration had reservations on the need for and effectiveness of a licensing system in addressing the problem. Moreover, the proposal would have significant resource implications. Nevertheless, the Administration would not rule out the proposal entirely. It would consider the way forward after the outcome of the actions taken by the HKMA was known. Mr Andrew CHENG and Mr Albert HO considered that though with significant resource implications, the proposal should be implemented for the protection of the lives and security of the general public.

27. Mr IP Kwok-him considered the present requirement for debt collection agencies to be registered as a normal business under the Business Registration Ordinance (Cap. 310) too loose. He suggested the Administration to tighten up the requirements.

SB

Legislation on adjudication for small claims

28. Mr CHAN Kam-lam pointed out that the reason why authorized institutions did not recover the outstanding debts through the legal channel might be due to the inadequacy of the relevant legislation and the complicated procedures involved in pursuing small claims. He therefore requested the Administration to review the effectiveness of the relevant legislation. Mrs Carrie YAU undertook to liaise with the relevant policy branch in this respect.

SB

Follow-up actions to be taken by the Administration

29. To facilitate members' consideration of the subject, in particular the need for a licensing system, members proposed and the Administration agreed to provide the following information in respect of the 319 cases mentioned at para. 10 above and the complaints received by the HKMA:

RHKPF

HKMA

1. the number of criminal cases relating to debt collection agencies and the types of offences involved ;
2. the number of nuisance cases caused by non-criminal tactics of debt collection agencies and the types of offences involved ; and
3. the relevant prosecution figures and results of these 319 cases and also for those successful prosecution cases, the penalty imposed by the courts.

30. The Chairman noted from para. 2 of the information paper provided by the Security Branch (Appendix 4 to LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 1491/95-96) that "Many banks, mobile phone companies, and other business enterprises use debt collecting agencies to recover arrears from their customers." He considered that the question of nuisances caused by debt collection agencies of telecommunication companies and commercial companies should also be addressed. In respect of telecommunication companies, Mrs Carrie YAU undertook to refer the matter to the Secretary for Economic Services and to report any developments to the Panel in due course.

SB

31. Mrs Selina CHOW considered that the Administration should formulate a comprehensive strategy to address the whole issue, i.e. nuisances caused by debt collection agencies, irrespective of whether the agencies were employed by authorized institutions or other companies.

SB

IV. Deployment of Mainland Troops in Hong Kong

(Appendix 5 to LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 1491/95-96)

Supplementary information provided by the Administration

32. In connection with para. 6 of the information paper provided by the Security Branch, Mrs Carrie YAU advised that at Joint Liaison Group (JLG) XXXVI, the Chinese side had just agreed to have informal expert talks on the post-1997 legal framework for the People's Liberation Army (PLA) garrison in Hong Kong.

Formal/informal contacts with the Chinese garrison

Military contacts

33. Mr Howard YOUNG noted from para. 7 of the information paper that the Commander British Forces (CBF) had visited Shenzhen in May 1996 to call on Major General LIU Zhenwu, commander of the future Chinese garrison for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). He asked whether the CBF would, in return, invite Major General LIU and other lower rank Chinese military officers to Hong Kong. Mrs Carrie YAU confirmed that the invitation had already been extended to Major General LIU through the JLG. The Administration was also prepared to receive other representatives of the Chinese garrison.

Contacts between the Chinese garrison and local associations

34. Mr Howard YOUNG suggested the Administration to facilitate the contacts between the Chinese garrison and local associations in Hong Kong, such as youth associations. Mr Clement LEUNG advised that the Chinese side had already been briefed on the way British garrison operated in Hong Kong, including their involvements in community activities. The Administration had the impression that the Chinese garrison was pleased to have similar involvements in future. However, due to other competing priorities, such as assisting the PLA in familiarizing themselves with the military sites in Hong Kong, the Administration would consider facilitating such contacts between the PLA and local associations at a later stage.

35. Mr Howard YOUNG suggested the Administration to draw up a list of the relevant local associations by making reference to the previous records of the British garrison. With the consent of these associations, the Administration might then invite the Chinese garrison to visit them. Mrs Carrie YAU undertook to discuss with the British garrison regarding the relevant list.

SB

Contacts between the Chinese garrison and the Legislative Council (LegCo) Members

36. The Chairman suggested the Administration to invite members of the Chinese garrison to Hong Kong for an exchange of views with the LegCo Members. Mr Andrew CHENG proposed an alternative where arrangements would be made by the Administration for the Panel to visit Shenzhen for the same purpose. Mrs Carrie YAU said that the Administration would consider these proposals when an appropriate opportunity arose.

Jurisdiction over the PLA

37. Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong pointed out that under Article 14 of the Basic Law, "In addition to abiding by national laws, members of the garrison shall abide by the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region." Mr CHEUNG considered that this provision did not mean that members of the Chinese garrison, if committed offences in Hong Kong after 1997, would be tried in the Hong Kong courts. According to the recent press reports, such cases would be tried in the Chinese military courts in future and that the relevant arrangements would be provided for in the law governing the garrison. Mr CHEUNG was concerned that such arrangements would ruin the independent judicial system in Hong Kong and would also be against the spirit of Article 2 of the Basic Law under which the HKSAR should enjoy "executive, legislative and independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication,......".

38. Mrs Carrie YAU confirmed that the Administration had no knowledge of the reported arrangements mentioned at para. 37 above. Nevertheless, the Administration would uphold the independent judicial power as provided under Article 2 of the Basic Law and would seek to clarify with the Chinese side their thinking over this subject.

39. Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong requested the Administration to raise the subject formally at the JLG meeting. Mrs Carrie YAU advised that under Article 19 of the Basic Law, "The courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall have jurisdiction over all cases in the Region......." It would therefore appear that the courts of the HKSAR should have jurisdiction over offences committed by members of the garrison in Hong Kong. The Administration was of the view that such cases should preferably be tried at the local courts and would reflect its views to the Chinese side. Mr Clement LEUNG supplemented that the most important thing was for the experts of the British and Chinese sides to exchange their views on the subject. The Administration was prepared to be flexible on the format of such exchanges.

Relationship between the HKSAR and the garrison

40. Mr Andrew CHENG was concerned about Article 14 of the Basic Law under which "The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may, when necessary, ask the Central People's Government for assistance from the garrison in the maintenance of public order and in disaster relief." He asked whether the criteria for invoking this provision had been discussed at JLG meetings. Mrs Carrie YAU advised that the garrison could only provide assistance upon the request of the HKSAR Government. All along, the Administration had conveyed to the Chinese side the message that the Hong Kong Police Force and other law enforcement agencies had adequate capability to maintain law and order in Hong Kong and for disaster relief. Hence, the Administration did not see any need to request the assistance from the garrison.

41. Mr Andrew CHENG considered that as such provision was included in Article 14 of the Basic Law, there were possibilities that it would be invoked and hence, the Administration should discuss with the Chinese side on the relevant criteria. Mr Clement LEUNG said he understood from press reports that the relationship between the HKSAR and the garrison would be covered by the law governing the Chinese garrison. The Administration wished to ascertain the views of the Chinese side through exchange of views at the expert level.

42. Mr Andrew CHENG requested the Administration to provide a written response on the subject. Mrs Carrie YAU undertook to provide the written response, subject to any developments on the relevant discussions with the Chinese side.

SB

Adaptation of laws

43. Mr Bruce LIU requested the Administration to provide an information paper on the following :

1. Jurisdiction over the PLA ;
2. Relationship between the HKSAR and the PLA ; and
3. Adaptation of laws to cater for the change of garrison, i.e. any amendments to be made to the 100 existing ordinances that contained provisions with references to the British garrison.

44. Regarding para. 43(c) above, Mrs Carrie YAU pointed out that the subject had already been covered by the information paper provided by the Security Branch for the Panel meeting held on 2 April 1996. She undertook to ascertain from Mr Bruce LIU after the meeting any additional information that he would like to have in this respect.

SB

45. In this connection, Mr Albert HO requested the Administration to list out the existing ordinances which were relevant to the British garrison at present and the Chinese garrison in future.

SB

The law governing the garrison

46. Mr Albert HO pointed out that under Article 18 of the Basic Law, " National laws shall not be applied in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region except for those listed in Annex III to this Law." As the Chinese garrison law was not included in Annex III to the Basic Law, it could only be applicable to the HKSAR by way of legislation or amendment to the list of laws in Annex III. Mr HO wished that the HKSAR would have its own law under which the role and responsibilities of the garrison and, the relationship between the HKSAR and the garrison after 1997 would be clearly stipulated. Mr Clement LEUNG advised that the Administration would hope to ascertain the views of the Chinese side on the way the Chinese garrison law would operate in Hong Kong.

SB

V. Illegal Hawking and Related Protection Rackets

(Appendices 6, 7, 8 and 9 to LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 1491/95-96)

47. The Chairman reminded members to focus discussion on the subject from a security point of view.

48. Mrs Selina CHOW remarked that she had received various complaints from retailers and licensed hawkers about the problems caused by unlicensed hawkers trading illegally on streets. Mrs CHOW was concerned about the manipulation of these unlicensed hawkers, in particular young people, by triad societies. She urged the Administration to tackle the problem.

49. Mr Mike HORNER advised that the Police was concerned about the following two types of triad activities relating to illegal hawking :

1. extorting money from illegal hawkers ; and
2. triad members acting as illegal hawkers.

50. Regarding para. 49(a) above, Mr HORNER pointed out that tackling the problem of extortion from illegal hawkers had not been easy because the illegal hawkers concerned were normally not prepared to come forward and testify.

51. Regarding para. 49(b) above, Mr HORNER advised that illegal hawking by triad members had been and was the subject of extensive Police investigation. In 1995, 26 operations and raids were conducted with the Customs and Excise Department (C & E D) against syndicates selling counterfeit watches and CDs etc. 20 of these operations were successful with 58 persons arrested. The Police would continue to step up actions against such activities at district levels.

52. Mr IP Kwok-him considered that the problem of triad involvement in legal/illegal hawking activities was quite serious. He asked for the relevant statistics in the previous two years. Mr HORNER advised that in 1994, there were 2631 triad offences with 883 victims, of which only 34 were hawkers. In 1995, there were 2553 triad offences with 719 victims, of which 37 were hawkers. However, these statistics were confined to illegal hawking. The Police would look into the problem of extortion of legal hawkers as and when necessary.

53. Mr IP Kwok-him pointed out that he had received complaints alleging that there were triad members in the Hawker Control Teams (HCTs). He sought clarification on the actions taken by the Administration in this respect. Mr HORNER was not aware of any such complaints reported to the Police. Mr AU Wai-kim advised that the Urban Services Department (USD) was very concerned about the background and discipline of its staff. If there was any indication of triad involvement in the HCTs, the USD would report the case to the Police immediately.

54. In response to Mr IP Kwok-him's enquiry, Mr AU Wai-kim and Mr LAI Kwok-tung confirmed that there had not been any members of the HCTs sacked because of involvement in triad societies.

55. Mrs Selina CHOW noted from para. 1 of the information paper provided by the C & E D (Appendix 9 to LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 1491/95-96) that there were "persistent and vigorous enforcement actions" of the C & E D and of the Police. She requested the Administration to provide the figures on the relevant enforcement actions. Mr Raymond LI advised that the C & E D had prosecuted a total of 1466 and 425 cases against illegal hawkers selling counterfeit watches, leather goods etc. respectively in 1995 and in the first four months of 1996. However, these figures did not include cases relating to counterfeit CD Rom and VCD. In response to the Chairman's enquiry, Mr LI confirmed that enforcement figures on such cases were available.

56. The Chairman proposed and Mrs Carrie YAU agreed to provide regularly the figures on the relevant enforcement actions taken by the Police and the C & ED.

[Post-meeting note: The enforcement statistics relating to street level cases of infringing/counterfeiting activities provided by the Administration after the meeting are attached at Annex.]

Adm

VI. Any Other Business - Briefing by the Administration on Closure of Tai A Chau Detention Centre for Vietnamese Migrants

(LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 1562/95-96)

57. The Chairman remarked that the Administration would like to brief the Panel before its formal announcement that afternoon on the closure of Tai A Chau Detention Centre for Vietnamese migrants (VMs) in September 1996.

58. Mr B J BRESNIHAN briefed members on the press release which was tabled at the meeting. He highlighted that with the declining VM population, it was no longer justified to maintain three camps in the territory, all under capacity. The Tai A Chau VMs, being all southern Vietnamese, would be transferred to Whitehead Detention Centre in September 1996. Before that, northern VMs in Whitehead would be moved to High Island Detention Centre and any remaining southern VMs in High Island would be transferred to Whitehead.

59. Mr Albert HO asked why the Administration chose to close Tai A Chau Detention Centre first and whether the decision was based on security reasons. Mr BRESNIHAN confirmed that Tai A Chau had been peaceful and quiet for the past four years and had not presented any security problems. However, there had been few Tai A Chau VMs volunteered for repatriation, with only about 570 over the past 2 years. In order to achieve the objective of repatriating the VMs as soon as possible, the Administration believed that the best way forward was to transfer the Tai A Chau VMs to a mainland camp.

60. Members did not see how the proposed transfer would speed up the repatriation of VMs. Mr Howard YOUNG considered that whether the VMs were willing to return to Vietnam could possibly be related to their mentality and aspirations and should have nothing to do with the physical location of the camp.

61. In view of the excellent record of Tai A Chau Detention Centre and the high escape rate of Whitehead Detention Centre, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong queried why the Administration did not propose to transfer the Whitehead VMs to Tai A Chau.

62. Mr BRESNIHAN advised that as long as the Tai A Chau VMs remained where they were, few would volunteer to go home. The reason for this was simple. The Tai A Chau population had not been brought within the net of the Orderly Repatriation Programme (ORP). This would be possible once they were moved to the mainland. Mr BRESNIHAN also pointed out that ORP operations in Tai A Chau would present the security forces with enormous difficulties.

63. Mrs Selina CHOW asked between now and the transfer date, what action the Administration would take to persuade the Tai A Chau VMs to join the Voluntary Repatriation Programme. Mr BRESNIHAN advised that first of all, Tai A Chau VMs could apply for joining the Resettlement Scheme offered by the United States (US) Administration. The closing date of the Scheme was 30 June 1996. The Administration believed that there was a substantial number of Tai A Chau VMs who would qualify for resettlement under the criteria set down by the US Administration. In addition, it was anticipated that the UNHCR would step up its efforts to encourage Tai A Chau VMs to join the Voluntary Repatriation Programme.

64. In response to Mr Bruce LIU's enquiry, Mr BRESNIHAN advised that residents in Shatin districts might be unhappy about the transfer of VMs to Whitehead Detention Centre. The Administration would brief the Shatin District Board on the subject that afternoon and maintain close contact with them. However, the Administration did not expect that there would be resistance to the move but would take great care.

65. The Chairman sought clarification on how the manpower resources in Tai A Chau Detention Centre would be redeployed after the transfer. He considered that in anticipation for the transfer, the Administration should provide additional manpower resources and step up security measures for the remaining two detention centres at Whitehead and High Island.

66. Mr BRESNIHAN advised that Tai A Chau Detention Centre was currently administered by a non-Government organization - the Hong Kong Housing Services for Refugees (HKHSR). With the closure of this detention centre, the HKHSR would be wound up. Then the small group of about 30 policemen in Tai A Chau would become available for redeployment within the Police Force. Other than that, there would be no transfer of personnel from Tai A Chau to Whitehead or High Island. The Administration anticipated that by September, the population of northern and southern VMs would be roughly the same. It would monitor the situation to see whether additional staff would be required for Whitehead or High Island.

67. Regarding the additional security measures, Mr BRESNIHAN pointed out that the Secretary for Security had briefed the Panel on 16 May 1996 on the additional security measures to be taken for Whitehead. Moreover, the Administration was also reviewing the security in High Island. All the additional security measures would be in place before the transfer in September.

VII. Close of Meeting

68. The meeting ended at 1:25 p.m.