Bills Committee on Railways Bill

5. Members enquired about the discrepancy in schedule of the legal requirements proposed by consultants of KCRC on WCR with those of the Administration. In reply, DS for T and the Principal Assistant Secretary for Transport (Transport Infrastructure)4 advised that the Administration had considered options proposed by the KCRC’s consultants including the introduction of a new legal framework for WCR. The scheme proposed in the Bill was similar to that proposed by the KCRC’s consultants. The target completion date of 2001 however had been postponed due to foreseeable complications with land resumption. The Direction by the Governor in Council effective in February 1996 had empowered KCRC to undertake planning activities for WCR, and the legal empowerment for the necessary investigative works and land resumption and related matters would be covered by the Bill. To address members’ concerns, the Administration undertook to provide a table comparing the purpose and time schedule of the legal requirement proposed by consultants of KCRC on WCR with those of the Administration. As regards the Tseung Kwan O Extension project the scheduled completion date of which had been revised to 2002, DS for T advised that the impact of the Bill had been taken into account in arriving at this target.

7. Some members advocated open hearings for objection cases as had been proposed in the Town Planning White Bill; they also suggested that public consultation should be conducted prior to the publication of schemes. A member expressed worries that the Governor in Council might be inclined to side with the Administration and not deal with objections fairly, and enquired if the Governor in Council would be the appropriate party to consider objections. In response, DS for T and PAS for PEL advised that it was normal practice for the Governor in Council to deal with objections from the public to schemes. As opposed to the Town Planning Board which focused on only planning aspect, the Executive Council dealt with a wide spectrum of public issues. PAS for PEL supplemented that all objections were dealt with seriously. The Administration would first deal with objections by meeting with the objectors to clarify their concerns. If the objections could not be resolved, their written representations would be tabled at the meeting of the Executive Council, and the Governor in Council would have regard to the views of all parties to arrive at an informed judgement. The objectors’ right for hearing provided for under the Town Planning White Bill was a different mechanism and was considered inappropriate for the case in question. Hearings on railway projects were also inadvisable in view of the complexity of railway schemes and the time involved. The existing mechanism under the Roads Ordinance had been working well since its enactment in the 1970s, and provisions in the Bill were considered to be an adequate base for establishing the legal framework for railway schemes. DS for T also emphasized that implementation of new railway schemes would be in the public interest. To facilitate comparison with arrangements under the Roads Ordinance and the Town Planning White Bill, DS for T undertook to provide a flow-chart on the steps and time required, both statutory and estimated, for completing a land resumption project in accordance with the scheme proposed in the Bill.

8. Some members noted that negotiations with objectors under the existing mechanism was a time consuming process and some projects had been delayed for more than two years owing to non-resolution of objections. They considered that a statutory period defining the time required for the Administration to deal with objections might be useful. A member was however concerned that this might result in over-delegation of power to the Administration if the existing mechanism was not refined simultaneously. DS for T advised that the Bill had proposed a period of 60 days after the first publication of the notice for objections to be made. PAS for PEL supplemented that neither the Roads Ordinance nor the Bill stipulated a time limit for negotiations and this was illustrative of the Administration’s sincerity in striking a right balance in implementing schemes on time with the private interests of the objectors. At members’ request, he undertook to provide the Committee with examples of the time spent in processing objections to land resumption for such projects as construction of Route 5 on the basis of existing provisions in the Roads Ordinance. He also referred members to Part II 2(a) and 4 of the Schedule in the Bill as regards compensation due to the creation of easements and road closures.