OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 16 July 1997
The Council met at half-past Two o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

THE PRESIDENT

THE HONOURABLE MRS RITA FAN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE WONG SIU-YEE

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE DAVID CHU YU-LIN

THE HONOURABLE HO SAI-CHU, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE EDWARD HO SING-TIN, J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE RAYMOND HO CHUNG-TAI, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE NG LEUNG-SING

PROF THE HONOURABLE NG CHING-FAI

THE HONOURABLE ERIC LI KA-CHEUNG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE LEE KAI-MING

THE HONOURABLE ALLEN LEE, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE MRS ELSIE TU, G.B.M.

THE HONOURABLE MRS SELINA CHOW, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE MRS PEGGY LAM, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE HENRY WU

THE HONOURABLE NGAI SHIU-KIT, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE HENRY TANG YING-YEN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE YUEN MO

THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG HON-CHUNG

DR THE HONOURABLE MRS TSO WONG MAN-YIN

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHUN-YING, J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE LEONG CHE-HUNG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE MRS SOPHIE LEUNG LAU YAU-FAN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE HUI YIN-FAT, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHOI-HI

THE HONOURABLE CHAN YUEN-HAN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN WING-CHAN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM

THE HONOURABLE TSANG YOK-SING

THE HONOURABLE CHENG KAI-NAM

THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE

THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WONG WANG-FAT, J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE PHILIP WONG YU-HONG

THE HONOURABLE KENNEDY WONG YING-HO

THE HONOURABLE HOWARD YOUNG, J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE CHARLES YEUNG CHUN-KAM

THE HONOURABLE YEUNG YIU-CHUNG

THE HONOURABLE IP KWOK-HIM

THE HONOURABLE CHIM PUI-CHUNG

THE HONOURABLE LAU KONG-WAH

THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE MRS MIRIAM LAU KIN-YEE, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE AMBROSE LAU HON-CHUEN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHOY KAN-PUI, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHENG YIU-TONG

DR THE HONOURABLE TANG SIU-TONG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE TIMOTHY FOK TSUN-TING

THE HONOURABLE KAN FOOK-YEE

THE HONOURABLE NGAN KAM-CHUEN

THE HONOURABLE LO SUK-CHING

DR THE HONOURABLE LAW CHEUNG-KWOK

THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHOY SO-YUK

MEMBERS ABSENT:

DR THE HONOURABLE DAVID LI KWOK-PO, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE RONALD ARCULLI, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE MOK YING-FAN

THE HONOURABLE BRUCE LIU SING-LEE

THE HONOURABLE PAUL CHENG MING-FUN, J.P.

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

THE HONOURABLE MRS ANSON CHAN, J.P.

CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

THE HONOURABLE DONALD TSANG YAM-KUEN, J.P.

THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY

THE HONOURABLE ELSIE LEUNG OI-SIE, J.P.

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

MR MICHAEL SUEN MING-YEUNG, J.P.

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS

MR CHAU TAK-HAY, J.P.

SECRETARY FOR BROADCASTING, CULTURE AND SPORT

MR NICHOLAS NG WING-FUI, J.P.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

MRS KATHERINE FOK LO SHIU-CHING, J.P.

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE

MR RAFAEL HUI SI-YAN, J.P.

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES

MR JOSEPH WONG WING-PING, J.P.

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER

MR BOWEN LEUNG PO-WING, J.P.

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS

MISS DENISE YUE CHUNG-YEE, J.P.

SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY

MR LAM WOON-KWONG, J.P.

SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE

MISS CARRIE YAU TSANG KAI-LAI, J.P.

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

MR RICKY FUNG CHOI-CHEUNG, J.P., SECRETARY GENERAL

MR LAW KAM-SANG, J.P., DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL

MR RAY CHAN YUM-MOU, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

SWEARING IN

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Would Members please remain standing for the swearing-in? Miss CHOY So-yuk.

MISS CHOY SO-YUK (in Cantonese): I, CHOY So-yuk, do swear that, being a Member of the Provisional Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, I will uphold the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, bear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and serve the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region conscientiously, dutifully, in full accordance with the law, honestly and with integrity.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): On behalf of Members, I would like to welcome Miss CHOY So-yuk to this Council.

PAPERS

The following papers were laid on the table pursuant to Rule 21(2) of the Rules of Procedure:

Subject

Subsidiary Legislation	L.N. No.
Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (Amendment of Second Schedule) (No. 2) Order 1997	388/97
Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Public Pleasure Grounds) (Amendment of Fourth Schedule) (No. 3) Order 1997	389/97
Railways Ordinance (59 of 1997) (Commencement) Notice 1997	390/97
Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance (96 of 1997) (Commencement) Notice 1997	391/97
Shipping and Port Control (Amendment) Regulation 1997 (L.N. 228 of 1997) (Commencement)Notice 1997	392/97
Women and Young Persons (Industry) (Amendment) Regulation 1997 (L.N. 229 of 1997) (Commencement) Notice 1997	393/97

REPORT

REPORT OF THE BILLS COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS (SUSPENSION OF OPERATION) BILL 1997

Address

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kwok-him will address the Council on the Report of the Bills Committee on the Legislative Provisions (Suspension of Operation) Bill 1997.

In accordance with Rule 21(5) of the Rules of Procedure, no debate may arise on the address, but I may allow short questions seeking elucidation on the matters raised in the address. Mr IP Kwok-him.

MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Madam President, in my capacity as Chairman of the Bills Committee, I present to this Council the report of the Bills Committee on the Legislative Provisions (Suspension of Operation) Bill 1997. I will also report to Honourable Members the key areas of the deliberations of the Bills Committee.

The Bills Committee has held two lengthy meetings with the Administration to study the content of each of the seven Ordinances the operation of which is being proposed to be suspended, the rationale for suspending their operation, as well as the implications of such suspension.

Some members of the Bills Committee disapproved of the Administration's approach of dealing with seven different ordinances together under one single bill. They opined that different bills should be introduced so that Honourable Members could consider each ordinance on an individual basis. Besides, some members were of the opinion that the Bill should set out the specific time by which the suspension of operation shall cease to have effect. In response, the Government stressed the appropriateness of the current approach and undertook to submit specific proposals to the Provisional Legislative Council by the end of September. However, after considering the concerns of the Bills Committee, the Administration later agreed to introduce amendments and set out in the Bill that the suspension of operation shall cease to have effect on 31 October, and that the suspension period may be extended, where necessary, with the approval of the Provisional Legislative Council. In addition, the Administration has also clarified to the Bills Committee that even if the Bill was passed, it would not have any retrospective effect.

The Bills Committee was divided on whether they should support the suspension of operation of the seven ordinances. With regard to the five ordinances involving labour interests, some members had no objection to the suspension of operation of the ordinances to enable the Government and the Labour Advisory Board (LAB) to examine the ordinances further. These members attached great importance to a LAB consensus. However, members from the labour sector and some other members of the Bills Committee who attended the meeting had reservations about suspending the operation of all the ordinances. They also questioned the rationale offered by the Government. Some members opined that the operation of the Employment (Amendment) (No. 4) Ordinance 1997 and the Occupational Deafness (Compensation) (Amendment) Ordinance 1997 should not be suspended because the relevant viewpoints have already been discussed in the then Bills Committee and the then Panel on Manpower. In fact, the implementation of the latter Ordinance can match improvement proposals to be put forward by the Government. After some negotiation, the majority of the members who were present at the meetings agreed that the operation of the Occupational Deafness (Compensation) (Amendment) Ordinance 1997 should not be suspended. As such, I will be moving a relevant amendment on behalf of the Bills Committee. On the other hand, the Bills Committee is inclined to support suspending the operation of the Employee's Rights to Representation, Consultation and Collective Bargaining Ordinance, which is rather controversial, to facilitate further study and consultation at the LAB. The Bills Committee could not agree on a unanimous stance in respect of the suspension of operation of the other three labour-related ordinances. Nevertheless, it has raised that clause 7 of the Bill should not deal with the Employment (Amendment) (No. 4) and (No. 5) 1997 Ordinances at the same time. The Government has agreed to put forward technical amendments to the Bill's drafting. I hope Honourable Members can support the amendments moved by the Government in this respect in the first place and then vote according to their own wishes on the (No. 4) and (No. 5) Ordinances.

In considering the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance, the Bills Committee has also received representations from the Society for the Protection of the Harbour, which believes the Administration need not suspend the operation of the Ordinance. The Government, however, maintained that the Ordinance has established a public law principle of presumption against reclamation in the central harbour and a duty requiring all public officers and public bodies to observe that principle for guidance in the exercise of their powers. However, the Ordinance has not set out any detailed guidelines for implementation. The Legal Adviser to the Bills Committee pointed out that the court, in dealing with litigations, may rule on individual cases by interpreting the provisions of the Ordinance with reference to the legislative intent. The Administration has also stressed that the Ordinance would create uncertainties to the four large-scale reclamation projects under planning. The Bills Committee could not reach any agreement regarding the suspension of operation of the Ordinance. Nevertheless, the Government did promise that even if the operation of the Ordinance was suspended, it still would not launch any large-scale reclamation projects during the suspension period.

As regards the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (Amendment) Ordinance 1997, the Administration is of the view that the amendment Ordinance brings about confusion to the interpretation of sections 3 and 7 of the principal Ordinance and may render the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance applicable to litigations between private persons. Furthermore, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress has decided to reject section 3 aforesaid. This may render the new provisions totally meaningless. The opinion of the Legal Adviser is that whether or not the new section 3(3) will make the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance applicable to litigations between private persons should be left to the judgement of the courts in relevant cases.

Some members of the Bills Committee questioned the Administration should have considered repealing this amendment Ordinance if it is not its policy or legislative intent to render the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance applicable to litigations between private persons. In response, the Government pointed out that the purposes of suspending the operation of the Ordinances is to allow time for experts to carry out detailed studies on the relevant legal aspects. In the end, the Bills Committee failed to reach a consensus on the suspension of the operation of the Ordinance.

Honourable Members, these are the views of the Bills Committee. Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Before questions are put to the public officers, I would like to remind Members that question time is normally limited to one hour. So the supplementaries to be asked by Members, especially the preambles, should be as concise as possible in order that more supplementaries may be asked by Members. Long preambles, if any, will be regarded as argumentative statements made in the guise of questions, hence not in compliance with the Rules of Procedure.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Passports

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): First question. Mr Howard YOUNG.

1. MR HOWARD YOUNG (in Cantonese): Will the Government inform this Council of the approximate number of applications for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) passports which have been received up to the end of the first week for receiving such applications and, out of these applications, the estimated number of such applications which have been identified as having been made by persons who have no other valid travel documents and/or whose travel documents will expire within 12 months?

President (in Cantonese): Secretary for Security.

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Immigration Department started accepting applications for SAR passports submitted by post since 10 June 1997. In the first week (10 to 16 June 1997) the Department received a total of 24 369 applications.

By 14 July 1997, the total number of applications received by the Immigration Department was 125 660. Of the 47 472 applications which had been assessed, 24 369 applications (that is, 51%) were determined as having been submitted by persons who claimed to have no travel documents or whose travel documents would expire within 12 months.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Howard YOUNG.

MR HOWARD YOUNG : Madam President, according to the figures given by the Government, those who deserve some sort of priority will take at least two weeks to have their passports issued according to current practice. Will the Government inform this Council, in view of the circumstances, whether there might be a case for a grading of different priorities, in other words, separating them into those who have no travel document, those whose travel documents expire within six months and then those with documents expiring within 12 months?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Security.

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Madam President, given our current capacity, it is our intention that we should treat or accord priority to those applications first. Given the large number of applications, in particular urgent ones, I regret that we are not able to sometimes acknowledge all applications within the performance pledge time. However, we have in mind the plan to eventually clear all the urgent case load by the end of September, following which our computer and supporting system should be fully geared up to issuing some 4 000 passports daily. We shall then in a position to process both urgent and routine applications. As regards further refinement to the grading of priority cases, I shall certainly take into account of this and relate this to Director of Immigration.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TAM Yiu-chung.

Mr TAM Yiu-chung (in Cantonese): Madam President, should there be an urgent case, what is the shortest time that a passport could be issued to the applicant concerned? As the Administration expects that some 4 000 applications could be processed daily once the new computer system is installed, would any additional manpower be required in this respect?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Security.

Secretary for Security (in Cantonese): Madam President, we will not just gear up merely our computer system, we will, as a matter of fact, gear up our manpower deployment as well. Additional resources, technical and human alike, will certainly be employed to achieve the target that I have mentioned just now.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW.

Mrs Selina CHOW (in Cantonese): Madam President, in the past, should members of the public have urgent needs, they could request the Director of Immigration to issue them the travel documents they apply for on a certain date. Of the applications the Secretary mentioned just now, how many are urgent cases in which the applicants have made special request for priority treatment since they need to have their travel documents ready for use on a certain date? Has the Immigration Department been able, so far, to issue in time the travel documents to such applicants so as not to delay their travelling plans?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Security.

Secretary for Security (in Cantonese): Madam President, as far as I understand it, we can still handle all urgent applications in the same way. The cases that the Honourable Howard YOUNG and I referred to just now were processed within two weeks, which is the average processing time. As far as I know, in some extremely urgent cases, the Immigration Department has actually issued travel documents to needy applicants within one day to ensure that their overseas tours or business trips would not be delayed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Edward HO.

Mr Edward HO (in Cantonese): Madam President, with regard to the SAR passports issued so far, could the Secretary for Security inform this Council of the respective number of documents issued to applicants with and without sufficient grounds for priority processing?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Security.

Secretary for Security (in Cantonese): According to the figures that I have received, a total of 700 000 applications meet the requirement of "urgent need". As for the rest, they are either sent back to the applicants or still under assessment due to unclear procedures or the need to reconfirm the information submitted.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Peggy LAM.

Mrs Peggy LAM (in Cantonese): Madam President, could the Secretary inform this Council of the number of countries that grant holders of SAR passport visa-free entry, that permit us to stay without an entry visa for a period not more than seven days, and that require us to obtain an entry visa respectively? Does the Secretary have such figures?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Security, this supplementary has strayed beyond the scope of the original question, so it is up to you to reply or not, or you may choose to reply in writing.

Secretary for Security (in Cantonese): Madam President, at present, 36 countries have granted holders of SAR passport visa-free entry. In addition, seven other countries have also indicated that they will grant holders of SAR passport the same treatment as that have been granted to holders of British National (Overseas) passport.

MR HOWARD YOUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, the following line is printed on the application form for the SAR passport: "after receiving your application, an acknowledgement will be sent to you within five working days". However, just now the Secretary said that among the 120 000-odd applications received, only 40 000-odd have been assessed. Does it imply that more than half of the applications received have not been opened and acknowledgements could therefore not be sent to the applicants concerned within five working days?

president (in Cantonese): Secretary for Security.

Secretary for Security (in Cantonese): The answer is yes, Madam President. As I have explained, we have received a large number of applications and it is true that we have not opened some of them for examination.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If no more Members wish to raise supplementaries, the Council will proceed to the second question.

Improvement to Air Quality

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Second question. Mr CHAN Choi-hi.

2. MR CHAN CHOI-HI (in Cantonese): Will the Government inform this Council of the improvement measures in place to tackle the existing air pollution problems in the territory?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands.

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Administration has implemented a comprehensive programme to abate air pollution within the statutory framework provided by the Air Pollution Control Ordinance. The programme comprises four key elements for dealing with different air pollution sources respectively.

(1) Control of Industrial Processes ─ 30 types of polluting industrial processes such as concrete batching plants, power stations, steel works and chemical plants are subject to rigorous licensing controls. Their operators are required to comply with stringent emission standards and to adopt emission control measures based on the best practicable means. The construction of chimneys and furnaces also requires prior approval on their design to minimize their air quality impacts on the neighbourhood.

(2) Clean Fuel Strategy ─ Our objective is to require the use of the cleanest practicable fuel to minimize emissions of air pollutants from combustion processes. We banned the use of high sulphur industrial fuel oil in 1990 and have progressively reduced the sulphur content of motor diesel from 0.5% to 0.2% in 1995 and further to 0.05% in April 1997. We introduced unleaded petrol in 1991. We are now examining the feasibility of introducing liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) as a clean fuel alternative to motor diesel.

(3) Control on Construction Dust ─ Regulatory control to require contractors to implement specified dust suppression measures came into effect in June 1997. We aim to reduce dust emissions from individual construction sites by up to 80%.

(4) Control on Vehicle Emissions ─ Our established policy is to adopt the most stringent vehicle emission standards once they are technologically and practically feasible. The requirements that new petrol vehicles registered after 1992 have to be fitted with a catalytic converter and use unleaded petrol for first registration have effectively reduced tailpipe emissions from these vehicles by about 90%. The standards for diesel vehicles were upgraded in 1995 and were further tightened in 1997 for large diesel vehicles in line with technological advancement. We aim to introduce the more stringent Euro Phase II standards to small diesel vehicles in early 1998. In addition, we will also strengthen the annual inspection of commercial vehicles and the enforcement arrangements against smoky vehicles to minimize unnecessary smoke emissions from diesel vehicles.

Despite these measures, high concentrations of harmful pollutants emitted from diesel vehicles remain a cause for concern. We expect to launch a trial of LPG taxis in late 1997 to ascertain their technical reliability and to gauge the operating cost data for devising a viable motor fuel strategy to improve air quality.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr chan Choi-hi.

Mr chan Choi-hi (in Cantonese): Madam President, since there was no reference to electric-powered vehicles in the Government's main reply, could the Secretary inform this Council whether the Government would put greater efforts into bringing in more electric-powered vehicles? As far as I know, the Government has only a few such vehicles at the moment.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands.

Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands (in Cantonese): Madam President, as a measure to encourage using electric-powered vehicles, we started granting such vehicles exemption from First Registration Tax since 1994. In addition, while the China Light and Power Company Limited has brought in 16 electric-powered vehicles, the Government has also launched since 1994 a pilot scheme with two electric-powered light goods van. The results we have got so far indicate that the design of these electric-powered vehicles is not yet mature. Besides, a lot of problems have also been identified during the trial runs. For instances, these electric-powered vehicles need to be recharged very frequently, could only travel a very short distance, and would easily break down when running on the roads in Hong Kong. Therefore we think that it is still not the right time to bring in a large number of electric-powered vehicles to replace the existing vehicles.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Philip WONG.

Dr Philip WONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, could the Secretary inform this Council whether the Administration expects the general air quality in Hong Kong five years later to be better or worse than that at present; and whether there is any plan to further improve the air quality?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands.

Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands (in Cantonese): Madam President, the air quality in the territority is assessed with reference to the content standard of seven types of air pollutants. With regard to the contents of sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide and lead, the air quality in Hong Kong is better than that in many developing or even developed cities. The sources of these three types of air pollutants are mainly industrial emissions or tailpipe emissions from petrol vehicles, and measures are already in place to effectively control the situation in these respects.

Total suspended particulates and respirable suspended particulates are another two types of air pollutants. The high content of these pollutants in air is mainly due to the situation I referred to earlier on, that is, a large number of vehicles in the territority are still using diesel fuel. As diesel vehicles make up only about one third of the existing vehicles in Hong Kong but cover two thirds of the total mileage travelled, a lot of pollution problems are therefore created. The last two types of pollutants are nitrogen dioxide and ozone. The current situation in these two aspects is still satisfactory, but the content of such pollutants might have exceeded their relevant standard levels once or twice in the whole year.

All in all, tailpipe emissions from diesel vehicles is the crux of the problem that we need to tackle with concerted effort. With regard to the total number of vehicles and the total mileage travelled, I have already referred to the share taken up by diesel vehicles just now. As to the air pollution problems, about 60% plus can be attributed to diesel vehicles. in this respect, the Administration has conducted an assessment study and concluded that air quality would be improved only if small diesel vehicles such as taxis and light goods vans could be encouraged to use other clean fuel alternatives; otherwise the two problems would continue to exist in the territority.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr James TIEN.

Mr James TIEN (in Cantonese): Madam President, in his reply just now, the Secretary pointed out that the crux of the problem still lies in diesel vehicles, and we of course understand that a long-term review might be required before LPG or electricity could be used as fuel alternatives to motor diesel. As such, I would like to ask the Secretary if there are any measures that could be adopted expeditiously. With regard to the problem of tailpipe emissions from moving diesel vehicles such as taxis, goods vehicles and coaches, we do not have any effective method to stop that at the moment. However, we have also noticed that quite a number of stationary coaches and goods vehicles still keep their engines running and produce a lot of emission. In this respect, could the Secretary inform this Council whether the Administration would enact laws requiring coaches to switch off their engines during the hour when they are waiting for tourists to do their shopping; and goods vehicles to switch off their engines during the 30 minutes when loading and unloading of goods are taking place? Could the Administration implement similar measures shortly?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands.

Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands (in Cantonese): Madam President, we do hope very much that we could achieve this goal. We are now implementing a publicity drive to encourage drivers of such vehicles to switch off their engines while waiting or when they are not carrying any passengers. However, it has been brought to our attention that such a proposal would be difficult to put into practice. The major problem is that most of these vehicles in Hong Kong are air-conditioned, when the engines are switched off, the air-conditioning system would also be switched off. Air-conditioned buses also face the same problem. As such, these vehicles would find themselves in a difficult position if we require them to switich off their engines. In this respect, we have studied the experience of cities or countries which are similar to Hong Kong and noticed that most of these places also have practical problems when they tried to introduce similar laws. Many countries are either granting these vehicles many exemptions or set down different rules and regulations for different situations. In addition, problems are also bound to arise in respect of law enforcement. For instance, how are we going to determine that vehicles which have remained stationary for more than three minutes must switch off their engines; and when do we start counting those three minutes? While some countries would set the qualifying time at five minutes, some would set it at 12 minutes; as for Hong Kong, the local situations might also differ. Having said that, we do believe that certain vehicles (such as goods vehicles) do not have to keep their engines running while loading and unloading goods; besides, goods vehicles are rarely air-conditioned. Nevertheless, the major problem still lies in those air-conditioned vehicles and buses, or even taxis and public light buses, all of which would have practical difficulties switching off their engines while waiting. The Environmental Protection Department (EPD) has started to examine this issue with a view to identifying a solution which could encourage drivers of such vehicles to switch off the engines on one hand, and ensure that the enacted legislation could be effectively enforced on the other.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Miriam LAU.

Mrs Miriam LAU (in Cantonese): Madam President, since the repair and maintenance work of a vehicle has direct impact on its tailpipe emissions, could the Secretary inform this Council of the measures that the Administration has taken to ensure that the vehicles concerned (diesel vehicles in particular) are properly maintained?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands.

Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands (in Cantonese): Madam President, the maintenance of a vehicle is certainly the responsibility of the vehicle owner or its driver. I have referred to a prosecution scheme earlier on. Under this scheme, we will institute prosecution against any vehicles found producing excessive tailpipe emissions on one hand, and encourage citizens with a sense of social responsibility to participate as inspectors in a vehicle emission contol scheme. they would be given necessary training to make records of vehicles found emitting smoke to enable the EPD to require the vehicles concerned to undergo an examination. Under the existing system, all vehicles undergoing an examination are required to take the "free acceleration smoke test". Since vehicles applying for renewal of vehicle licence must also take this test, vehicle owners will certainly have their vehicles repaired before filing the application. However, since it is our hope that vehicle owners could be encouraged to upgrade their requirements in this respect as far as possible, the standards of this test would be tightened in September this year. While a new emission level meter will be employed to measure the quantity of the smoke emitted, the revolutions of the engine as well as the performance of the air filter will be put to tests as well.

In addition, we have also introduced a pilot scheme under which any light diesel vehicles found emitting smoke are required to take a "dynamometer test" within six months. As for large diesel vehicles, we expect to launch a similar scheme next year. Apart from the schemes and prosecution work I referred to just now, the Administration would also consider raising the levels of fines. We hope that all these measures could help to make diesel vehicle drivers pay more attention to the repair and maintenance of their vehicles.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Siu-yee.

Mr WONG Siu-yee (in Cantonese): Madam President, I would like to follow up on the vehicle emission control scheme that the Secretary referred to earlier on. Since this scheme has been implemented for years, could the Secretary inform this Council whether or not this scheme has been of any substantive help to alleviating air pollution; whether there are any figures concerning the prosecutions in this respect, that is, the number of prosecutions instituted with the help of the enthusiastic members of the public; and whether this scheme has any positive impact on the measures taken to remedy the air pollution problem as a whole?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands.

Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands (in Cantonese): Madam President, perhaps I could provide Honourable Members with the figures over the past three years. In 1995, the Administration initiated 86 prosecutions, of which 84 cases led to conviction; in 1996, prosecutions were brought in 80 cases of smoke emission and 77 offenders were convicted; and so far this year, we have initiated 19 prosecutions and the offenders in these 19 cases were all convicted. However, we will not assess our rate of success by the number of prosecutions instituted. Rather, our major concern is how many smoky vehicles we could identify and how many of them have been instructed to carry out repair work or take the smoke test. We hope to press the vehicle owners concerned to upgrade the standard of their vehicles by requiring them to have their smoky vehicles repaired before taking the test.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHOY Kan-pui.

Mr CHOY Kan-pui (in Cantonese): Madam President, could the Secretary inform this Council whether the Administration has sought co-operation from various kinds of units in alleviating the air pollution problems, in particular with units in the southern China areas? I have raised this supplementary question because I notice that our vehicles and container trucks have to travel between Hong Kong and the Mainland frequently, and that the standard in respect of motor diesel differs a lot between Hong Kong and the Mainland.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands.

Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands (in Cantonese): Madam President, our major task is to tackle the air pollution problems in Hong Kong. While it is true that the volume of cross-border traffic is rather considerable in size, the vehicles are all from Hong Kong. As such, the problems could be resolved if efforts targeted at local vehicles are successful. As regards fuel, almost more than 90% of the vehicles involved are diesel vehicles. Moreover, concern about this issue has also been aroused in the Mainland where measures have already been taken to reduce the sulphur content in motor diesel available there. Perhaps the standards adopted by certain regions are not as stringent as those adopted in Hong Kong, the mainland authorities have indeed started to be very much concerned about this issue. As a matter of fact, the problem of tailpipe emissions caused by heavy diesel vehicles in Hong Kong is not as serious as that caused by small diesel vehicles.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Kennedy WONG.

Mr Kennedy WONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, would the Secretary inform this Council whether the Administration has any data on atmospheric radioactivity in Hong Kong, for example, if any trend of increase has been noticed over the past three years?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands.

Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands (in Cantonese): Madam President, I am sorry to say that I cannot quite understand the thrust of this supplementary question. Generally speaking, atmospheric radiation comprises more than a dozen to 20 types of radioactive rays. I really do not know how to reply the Honourable Member.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Kennedy WONG.

Mr Kennedy WONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, could the Secrertary inform this Council whether any trend of increase has been identified over the past three years in respect of such radioactive rays that are harmful to us as nuclear radiation?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands.

Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands (in Cantonese): Madam President, I am afraid I could not answer this question. Atmospheric radiation and air pollution are two different issues, I do not have any information concerning the former.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, I do agree with the Secretary that your supplementary has wandered beyond the scope of the main question. At first I thought the Secretary was as well-equipped with detailed information as the Secretary for Security was and could answer the question likewise.

President (in Cantonese): Mr Howard YOUNG.

MR HOWARD YOUNG: Madam President, I would like to follow up on the Secretary's answer to the Honourable James TIEN's question on switching off engines. In a previous incarnation not too long ago, the Secretary was explaining to Members that vehicles running their engines while stopping did not cause more pollution than vehicles which were moving. Could the Government tell us whether or not it has assessed if switching off engines while vehicles are stationary will really have any material effect on Hong Kong's pollution, or that is merely a public relation exercise that is unlikely to produce any great result in the level of pollution?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands.

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Madam President, I think the Honourable Howard YOUNG is right. Mechanically speaking, a vehicle produces more emission while running on the road than staying at a place and idling its engine. That is a pure mechanical product of combustion. By the same token, if a vehicle is standing on a spot, it only affects pedestrians or people close to it before such people can be affected by the pollution from a tailpipe. Taking into account the hourly running total, for example you take a stretch of road and, say, 200 vehicles run across it, compare with 10 vehicles staying on a certain spot idly, the vehicles actually running on the road or moving along produce more emission than the idling engines. But having said that, if people have to be very close to an idling engine, for example outside schools or in enclosed areas such as bus stops, they would experience quite a large amount of nuisance or be affected by the vehicle emission concerned. So, that is not purely a public relation exercise, that would certainly help to clean up or reduce the pollution in a very small and particular spot. That would usually be on that score. But if you are talking about the general pollution emission in the atmosphere of Hong Kong, then certainly vehicles running or moving along cause a bigger problem.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHENG Kai-nam.

Mr CHENG Kai-nam (in Cantonese): Madam President, it has been pointed out by many scholars that the existing measures to tackle air pollution at source seem to have over-emphasized the need to control airborne dust, that is, actions are targeted principally towards such direction as explained in the Secretary's main reply. As to the question of whether air pollution problems cover also other non-dust elements such as toxic gas or unidentifiable gases, it seems to me that the Secretary has rarely referred to measures in this respect when giving replies just now. Could the Secretary enlighten this Council in this respect?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands.

Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands (in Cantonese): Madam President, it is true that four other types of substances could be found in air, but we do not regard them as air pollutants. they are referred to as possible toxic substances in air.

The first type is asbestos. The ordinance on control of asbestos has been effective since June this year. This ordinance requires that all supervisors, contractors, consultants or laboratories responsible for the disposal of asbestos should be registered and comply with all the requirements set out in the ordinance.

The second type is benzene. We are now in the process of making a regulatory law in this respect, and will discuss with the trades concerned as to how the law should be implemented and enforced. The respective legislation would require all fuel oil suppliers, such as petrol filling stations, be equipped with gas recovery facilities to help control and reduce the level of benzene discharged into the neighbourhood.

As to the third type, I am afraid I have to refer to a chemical term, which is "perchloroethylene". This substance is mainly found in chemicals used by the dry-cleaning industry. As we are now drafting legislation for control of this substance, we will need to discuss with the trades concerned to find out how the shop layout and the raw materials used could facilitate the control and reduction of the levels of "perchloroethylene" accumulation and discharge.

Last but not least, there are still dozens of toxic substances in the atmosphere. In this respect, work has been commenced by the EPD to measure the ambient air quality with a view to identifying the so-called toxic substances. Once sufficient information has been collected, we could then proceed to draft relevant legislation for control on each and every type of substance identified.

Construction Workers Required to Meet the Increase in Housing Production

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Third question. Mr CHENG Yiu-tong.

3. MR CHENG YIU-TONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, in view of the concern by the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region about the housing problem in Hong Kong and his statement that the Government will be planning to achieve the goal of having 70% of the people in Hong Kong becoming home owners within the next 10 years, the housing production is expected to increase. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) whether it has any plans to provide training to local construction workers, so as to meet the expected increase in housing production; if so, what the details are;

(b) apart from the existing Supplementary Labour Scheme, whether the Government has any other plans to import construction workers into Hong Kong; if so, how it ensures that such plans will not affect the priority given to local workers in employment; and

(c) whether the Government will issue visas for the importation of construction workers to meet the expected huge demand for housing production prior to conducting a review on the Supplementary Labour Scheme?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Education and Manpower.

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Madam President,

(a) In line with our policy objective of providing a well-trained workforce equipped to meet the needs of a dynamic economy, the Government will meet the demand for local construction workers arising from the expected increase in housing production mainly by providing vocational training and retraining through the Construction Industry Training Authority (CITA), Vocational Training Council (VTC), and the Employees Retraining Board (ERB).

The CITA expects that 1 144 and 424 trainees will be graduating this summer from its Basic Craft Course and the Construction Supervisor/Technician Training Programme respectively. Both are one-year full-time courses. In addition, as at 10 July 1997, a total of 1 244 and 15 756 participants have been trained by the CITA under its various full-time short and regular part-time courses in the current 96-97 training year.

To support the Government's effort in increasing housing supply, the CITA is expanding its training provision to meet the associated increase in labour demand for the construction industry. In the coming training year, that is, 1997-98, the total training capacity of construction craftsmen, operators and technicians will increase by about 1 000.

Looking further ahead, the CITA plans to further expand its training programme to meet the future requirements of the construction industry. For example, the number of graduates from its short courses is expected to increase at an average rate of 10% per annum. Together with the full-time course graduates, the CITA will have trained over 15 000 construction workers over the next five years.

Turning to the VTC, this summer, some 323 and 1 281 trainees respectively will be graduating from their various craft and technician level training courses in the construction field, as well as the closely related electrical and mechanical trades.

To cope with the increasing requirements of the industry, the VTC will be offering a total of 380 and 1 552 training places for the various courses in the construction field and for the electrical and mechanical trades in 1997-98. Furthermore, the VTC has plans to:

(i) review the relevant higher diploma and diploma courses in relation to such aspects as course plans, curricula and progression routes;

(ii) consider the introduction of diploma and certificate courses in structural engineering; and

(iii) seek to offer in 1998-99 a new Technician Foundation Course and a new Craft Foundation Course in Building Services with annual intakes of 16 and 108 students respectively.

In keeping with the recently announced recommendations of the Strategic and Organizational review of the VTC, the Council will aim to be more market-responsive and flexible in adjusting its training capacity to meet Hong Kong's needs.

The ERB provided retraining for 332 retrainees for the construction industry in 1996-97. In terms of work types, 124 retrainees graduated from assistant electrician training courses, 172 graduated from training courses for decoration and 36 were trained to be site administrators. Two hundred and forty retraining places for assistant mechanics and assistant electricians will be produced by the end of this year. Given the flexible and market-driven approach of the ERB, additional retraining courses can be provided promptly through the retraining bodies to cope with any identified demand from employers in the construction industry.

It is noteworthy that as a result of the recently announced recommendations of the review of the Employees Retraining Scheme, the Scheme is better placed to meet the retraining needs of the economy. The outcome of this review and that of the Strategic and Organizational review of the VTC have provided a coherent basis for the Government to map out a strategy to meet Hong Kong's manpower training and retraining needs. The Government will continue to liaise closely with the relevant training bodies to ensure that any training needs of the industry can be met in an effective and timely manner.

(b) Apart from the Supplementary Labour Scheme (SLS), the Special Labour Importation Scheme for the New Airport and Related Projects (SLIS) is the only other labour importation scheme whereby contractors were allowed to bring in imported construction workers into Hong Kong. The objective of the SLIS is to facilitate the timely completion of the new airport and related projects by allowing contractors of such projects to import workers for job vacancies which they are genuinely unable to fill by local workers within a specified works timeframe. In other words, only contractors who have been awarded contracts for the new airport and related projects are eligible to apply for imported workers under the Scheme.

To ensure that local workers are given priority in employment, and that local workers will not be displaced by imported workers, several measures are in place under the Scheme. They include the requirements that imported workers are paid no less than the median monthly wages of local workers at comparable positions, that employers have to go through a four-week mandatory local recruitment period for the vacancies to be filled by imported workers, that imported workers are permitted to remain only under the direct employment by the same employer under the standard Employment Contract throughout their period of stay in Hong Kong, and that in the event of retrenchment, imported workers should be retrenched first. Employers who have either been convicted of offences under the labour laws or breached the conditions of the Scheme will be liable to sanctions under the Scheme, which include withdrawal of quotas and/or refusal of future quota applications.

(c) The SLS operates on the twin cardinal policy principles on importation of labour ─ that local workers must be given priority in filling job vacancies available in the job market; and that employers who are genuinely unable to recruit local workers to fill their job vacancies should be allowed to bring in imported workers for such vacancies. Since it is not operating on an industry quota basis, it is open to applications from any industry sector including the building and construction contractors who are awarded housing construction contracts and each of their applications will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

As at 10 July, applications for a total of 3 310 imported workers were approved under the SLS. Of these, 1 020 were for construction workers, and 486 visas were approved for these workers on 30 June. Any employers whose applications for imported workers (including construction workers) have been approved under the SLS are given a period of three months to arrange for the workers to submit their visa applications to the Immigration Department, and they can apply for imported workers including construction workers in accordance with the procedures of the SLS as and when their need arise. There is therefore no question of issuing visas for imported construction workers to meet any anticipated demand for housing production at this stage.

President (in Cantonese): Mr CHENG Yiu-tong.

Mr CHENG Yiu-tong (in Cantonese): Madam President, in its main reply to my question, the Administration has mentioned that the CITA, the VTC, and the ERB have plans for training construction workers in large numbers. I think these efforts are commendable. Moreover, has the Administration made any assessment concerning the number of construction workers required to meet the expected increase in housing production; and is it aware of the fact that importation of labour is not required as 30 000-odd workers would be available for employment upon the completion of the Airport Core Programme (ACP) projects within the first six months of 1998, thereby meeting the future labour demand of the construction industry?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Education and Manpower.

Secretary for Education and Manpower (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Education and Manpower Bureau has set up in March this year an internal working group comprising representatives from the Housing Bureau and the Works Bureau, Economic Advisors to the Government, as well as officers from relevant government departments. This working group is principally tasked to conduct a specific study on the possible manpower demands of the construction industry in the next three to five years. The purpose of this study is to assess the future supply and demand situation of construction workers, thereby facilitating the formulation of appropriate measures in respect of employment counselling, vocational training and so on. The study is expected to complete by the end of the year. By then, we will have a more accurate estimation as to whether an equilibrium in the supply and demand situation of construction workers could be achieved in the coming few years. If it proves to be in the negative, we will then be able to find out the right channels and measures to remedy the disequilibrium.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Kam-lam.

MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Madam President, judging from the reply Secretary's just now, it seems that the Administration has not conducted any assessment on the number of construction workers required to meet the future target for housing production. However, according to the Secretary's main reply, training would still be the focus with regard to manpower supply in future; while coming next would be importation of labour. But it is also reflected in his main reply that the number of construction workers trained each year is very small. Would the Secretary tell us whether the Administration will assess also the CITA and other training institutions in respect of their future needs, courses offered, trainee intake and so on in its assessment of the relevant level of demands?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Education and Manpower.

Secretary for Education and Manpower (in Cantonese): Madam President, the assessment concerned is a comprehensive assessment. Of course, should we believe that more construction workers will be required, we would basically consider the possible measures in two aspects. one of such is of course vocational training or retraining. the other consideration is to permit contractors to bring in imported workers, when such needs arise, in accordance with the importation of labour policy which ensures that local workers are given priority in employment.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEE Kai-ming.

Mr LEE Kai-ming (in Cantonese): Madam President, it is mentioned in part (b) of the main reply that contractors could bring in imported construction workers under the SLIS. In my understanding, the ACP Job Centre will be closed in August, or in other words, the SLIS will become free of control by then. Could the Secretary inform this Council whether any authority will take up the responsibility to monitor the importation of construction workers in future?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Education and Manpower.

Secretary for Education and Manpower (in Cantonese): Madam President, I am afraid I did not catch the last sentence. Could the Honourable LEE Kai-ming repeat it please?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEE Kai-ming.

Mr LEE Kai-ming (in Cantonese): Madam President, part (b) of the main reply has mentioned about the SLIS although the construction projects of the new airport have already been completed. In respect of the importation of construction workers, I would like to ask the Secretary whether, apart from the SLS, there will be any new monitoring authority or new special labour importation scheme?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Education and Manpower.

Secretary for Education and Manpower (in Cantonese): Madam President, as I have said in the main reply, any employers, including construction contractors, could apply under the SLS for imported workers when such needs arise. Their applications for imported workers will be approved if they could meet the requirements concerned and ensure that local workers are given priority in employment. I have also provided some relevant data in my main reply. In fact, a considerable number of imported construction workers have been permitted to work in Hong Kong by way of the SLS. We are now reviewing the SLS, in particular, the possible means to better fulfil our twin policy principles ─ that local workers must be given priority in employment; and that employers be allowed to bring in imported workers.

On the question of whether a new special labour importation scheme tailor-made for the needs of the construction industry is required, the Administration so far has not made any specific plans. Why do we not have a specific plan at this stage? It is because we intend to defer all decisions until the comprehensive review (including the review of the SLS) is completed. After the completion of the review, we would then decide on the specific measures to be adopted to remedy any tilted balance in the construction industry, as well as to decide on whether the existing SLS should be maintained or a more appropriate scheme be introduced to address the situation. As specific information in this respect is not yet available to us, we would not make any speculation as to whether a labour importation scheme would be tailored for the construction industry.

President (in Cantonese): Mr LEE Kai-ming.

Mr LEE Kai-ming (in Cantonese): Madam President, I am very much concerned about the SLIS which is not subject to any monitoring. Since, the ACP projects have already been completed, does that mean the SLIS will be terminated?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Education and Manpower.

Secretary for Education and Manpower (in Cantonese): Madam President, first of all, I must clarify that the SLIS is subject to Government supervision. The Government will certainly monitor its operation, and it is by no means supervision free. Besides, the SLIS is also required to operate according to our twin policy principles, that is, procedures must be taken to ensure that local workers are given priority in employment; and that imported workers are only brought in when the need arises. Since Mr LEE has referred to the SLIS twice, I think some clarification must be made here.

Secondly, it is certainly the case that the SLIS will no longer be needed after the completion of the new aiport, and it would therefore be terminated. As to whether a new scheme should be introduced for the construction industry, Madam President, as I have mentioned before, any decision in this respect could only be made after the forthcoming comprehensive assessment (including the review of the SLS) has been completed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Miss CHAN Yuen-han.

Miss CHAN Yuen-han (in Cantonese): Madam President, I agree that the Administration should conduct an assessment and set up a special task force to prepare for the forthcoming peak period of the construction industry. However, Madam President, I have heard this all too many times. The current situation is most obvious. While in the past, the Government used to produce only 20 000-odd flats in a year, and sometimes the figure would just be over 10 000, the new Government now pledges to produce more than 80 000 housing units every year, the demand for construction workers would certainly increase by many folds. Regrettably, the Secretary just now told us that the assessment would not be completed until the end of the year. The Government has already made the relevant land grant yesterday, and immediately the construction contractors are talking about the need to bring in imported workers. In view of the pace of the Government, I am very much worried that we would repeat the new airport project mistake. At that time when Hong Kong was undergoing econmic transformation, many local workers wished to make good use of that golden opportunity to shift to the construction industry. However, the Government did not give them the opportunity but introduced the importation of labour policy instead. With hindsight, it has proved that the imported workers were all cheap labourers. The Government still keeps talking about assessment when the actual situation is all very obvious: How could the existing workforce cope with the increase in housing production from 20 000-odd units a year to 80 000-odd units a year? The Administration should get well prepared beforehand. If the number of graduated trainees increase by 10% as planned, and 15 000 workers need to be trained in the next five years......

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Miss CHAN Yuen-han, please come to your question.

Miss CHAN Yuen-han (in Cantonese): Madam President, I just could not believe in what the Administration says. In my opinion, the major concern of the Administration is not the twin policy principles, Madam President, that is, according to the Secretary, to ensure that local workers are given priority in employment and the importation of labour. However, judging from what the Secretary has said just now, I reckon that the Administration is only setting the scene for the importation of labour. Since Mr LEE Kai-ming has referred to the existing mechanism, I would like to ask the Secretary whether the existing mechanism, including the ACP Job Centre and the 2 000-quota SLS, would continue to exist? I hope that nothing would be changed after the completion of the assessment, but I am afraid that changes would be introduced by the Administration. Madam President, I just wish to raise this simple question.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Education and Manpower.

Secretary for Education and Manpower (in Cantonese): Madam President, that I have made part (a) of my main reply so lengthy is because I wish Honourable Members could understand that the Administration would carry out a lot of preparatory work in respect of vocational training and retraining, and that such work is also one of our major initiatives to cope with future demands. On importation of labour, as I mentioned in my main reply, any employers, including construction contractors, could apply for importation of workers in accordance with the SLS when such needs arise. We have an effective mechanism in place to ensure that local workers are given priority in employment. The effective mechanism that I refer to is the Labour Advisory Board, comprising representatives from the workers, the employers, and the Government, which will monitor the operation of the Scheme. In addition, I have also mentioned, in the first place, training programmes; and in the second place, the mechanism for the importation of labour. We certainly should not decide hastily whether an additional labour importation scheme is required before the assessment is conducted. Madam President, I believe I have given a detailed reply.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TAM Yiu-chung.

Mr TAM Yiu-chung (in Cantonese): Madam President, could the Secretary inform this Council whether the CITA has encountered any difficulties in its admission exercises; and of the percentage of graduated trainees who have actually joined the industry?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Education and Manpower.

Secretary for Education and Manpower (in Cantonese): Madam President, the admission rate of the CITA has been on the increase in recent years, but I do not have exact figures at hand. As to the employment situation of graduated trainees, we understand that the employment rate is 100%. In other words, trainees graduating from courses offered by the CITA will have no problems in securing jobs. I would be happy to provide Honourable Members with the specific information and figures at the next meeting of the Panel on Manpower.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAU Kong-wah.

Mr LAU Kong-wah (in Cantonese): Madam President, I am not quite convinced that the Administration has not conducted any assessment. the response made by the Secretary just now has given me an impression that no working groups would be set up by the Administration to review the situation until problems surface, and that it is only after then that the Administration would know how to resolve the problems. The Government of the Special Administrative Region has already been established, though with "old personnel", could we have some "new practices"? I hope that the Government would never relapse into the endless cycles as in the past, but would propose expeditiously solutions to the problems instead.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Education and Manpower.

Secretary for Education and Manpower (in Cantonese): Madam President, I am afraid I could not grasp the thrust of this supplementary. As to the question of whether "old personnel" could introduce "new practices", the answer is certainly yes. In fact, my main reply has also referred to many initiatives that the Administration is now proceeding with. With regard to the working group set up in March under the Secretary for Education and Manpower of the former Government, should the Secretary for Education and Manpower of the present Government introduce any changes to it? I do not think so, because the task at hand has yet to be completed. I wish to stress once again that the Administration intends to conduct a comprehensive review to help assess the future demands for manpower within the next three to five years. Our current policy is to increase the number of places for retraining courses on the one hand and to implement the SLS on the other, thereby ensuring that employers can apply for imported workers when such needs arise. Indeed, relevant measures have already been prepared to cope with the situation for the short term as well as the long term.

PRESIDENT: Mrs Elsie TU.

MRS ELSIE TU: Madam President, I would like to ask the Secretary for Education and Manpower whether all those who have applied to enter the courses have been accepted and what is being done to encourage more people to apply for these courses?

PRESIDENT: Secretary for Education and Manpower.

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Madam President, on the first part of the question, if you would allow me, I would prefer to provide the answer in writing because it involves certain detailed information which I do not have at hand without checking with the CITA.

On the second question, I think it has always been the policy of CITA to encourage as many people to be trained as construction workers as possible, but it is also a fact, according to CITA, that there has not been a lot of enthusiasm for the younger members of our community to join the construction industry as compared with say, 10 or 20 years ago, because apart from requiring certain specific skills, it also requires quite a lot of physical work which has deterred a number of applicants. But again, as I said, Madam President, I would be happy to take this matter up with CITA and provide the Honourable Member with information perhaps at the next manpower panel meeting if you do decide to set one up in due course. (Annex I)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HO Sai-chu.

Mr HO Sai-chu (in Cantonese): Madam President, past experience tells us that employers whose applications for imported workers have been approved by the Government still have to wait a long period of time before the imported workers are actually brought in. In view of the forecast tremendous increase in housing production, it is highly probable that, in addition to training more construction workers and according local workers priority in employment, imported workers would still be required to cope with the increased demand for labour. If decisions are not made quickly at this stage, I am afraid that it would again take much time to bring in the imported workers should such needs arise. In this respect, could the Secretary inform this Council, apart from implementing the existing SLS, whether the Administration would consider expeditiously introducing new importation of labour schemes like that for the new airport and related projects?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Education and Manpower.

Secretary for Education and Manpower (in Cantonese): Madam President, I venture to respond mainly from two aspects. Firstly, regarding the review of the SLS to which I referred just now, one of the areas to be reviewed is scheduled in response to employers' comment that the existing eight-week mandatory local recruitment period is too long when compared with the four-week requirement under the SLIS.

Secondly, the Administration may, in future, give consideration to any possible measures that could be employed to meet the forthcoming continuous increase in labour demand of the construction industry. However, I do not think this is the right time to decide whether a importation of labour scheme tailored for the construction industry should be introduced. I hope that Honourable Members would at least allow us more time to consider and review the issue as a whole.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr James Tien.

Mr James Tien (in Cantonese): Madam President, as the number of construction workers available at present is around 60 000 to 70 000 only, it would be impossible for the housing plan announced by the Administration yesterday to be completed within the next few years. As to the SLS referred to by the Administration, it is a widely known fact that the total number of workers brought in by all industry sectors over the past two years amounts to 2 000 only. Should the number of imported workers be increased to more than 10 000, heaven knows when all the workers would eventually be brought in. As the construction of the new airport is now near completion, the number of imported workers still working in Hong Kong amounts to just a few thousand, and all of them are skilled workers well adapted to the local environment. Would the Administration consider first allocating these workers to the construction industry before studying in detail any other proposals?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Education and Manpower.

Secretary for Education and Manpower (in Cantonese): Madam President, all our importation of labour schemes have to operate on the twin policy principles. If the Honourable Member could present to the Government the proposal he made just now with more concrete details, in particular how it could meet our twin policy principles, we would be very happy to take his proposal into due consideration.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I am glad that the Honourable Member who was prepared to raise a supplementary question just now does not wish to do so now, so we could now go to the fourth question.

Residential Care Homes (Elderly Persons) Financial Assistance Scheme

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Last question seeking an oral reply. Mr CHAN Wing-chan.

4. MR CHAN WING-CHAN (in Cantonese): Since June 1995, the Government has implemented a subvention scheme to assist self-financing or private residential care homes in carrying out improvement works in compliance with the requirements of the Residential Care Homes (Elderly Persons) Ordinance (the Ordinance), so as to enable these institutions to continue their operation. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the number of self-financing and private residential care homes issued with licences or certificates of exemption since the commencement of the Ordinance, and the proportion of these institutions to the total number of residential care homes in Hong Kong;

(b) of the number of residential care homes which have applied for financial assistance under the above subvention scheme; whether any of these applications have been rejected and, if so, what the reasons are; and

(c) whether there are any residential care homes the applications of which for renewal of the certificate of exemption have been approved on the ground that they need time to find new premises to continue their operation; if so, of the respective numbers of such applications and those which have been approved, as well as the longest period of renewal granted?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Health and Welfare.

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Madam President,

(a) The Residential Care Homes (Elderly Persons) Ordinance was fully implemented on 1 June 1996. As at the end of June this year, a total of 444 self-financing or private residential care homes were issued with licences or certificates of exemption, 19 of which being issued with licences while 425 being issued with certificates of exemption. These institutions account for about 80% of the residential care homes in the territory. If in terms of residential place, the figure would be 60%.

(b) As at the end of June 1997, a total of 138 residential care homes have applied for the Financial Assistance Scheme. As one of the residential care homes started operation at its present location after the introduction of the Ordinance, it became ineligible for the Financial Assistance Scheme. As a result, the application was rejected. Twenty-one were withdrawn voluntarily for various reasons, for example, some residential care homes have decided to self-finance their own improvement projects or relocate their premises. A total of 26 applications have been approved so far, others are still under consideration.

(c) The Social Welfare Department would not approve applications for the renewal of certificates of exemption purely on the ground that the residential homes need time to find new premises. Figures on such applications are therefore not available.

President (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Wing-chan.

Mr CHAN Wing-chan (in Cantonese): Madam President, in answering part (b) of my question, the Secretary pointed out that as at the end of June 1997, a total of 138 residential care homes have applied for the Financial Assistance Scheme. Could the Secretary inform this Council of the total expenditure of the Financial Assistance Scheme; of the total number of residential places offered to the Government as "bought places" by private residential care homes that have carried out improvement projects under the Financial Assistance Scheme; and whether the Government has introduced any mechanism to help those elderly persons who are affected by the closure of residential care homes?

President (in Cantonese): Secretary for Health and Welfare.

Secretary for Health and Welfare (in Cantonese): Madam President, this supplementary question could largely be divided into three parts.

The first part is on the total expenditure of the Financial Assistance Scheme. In this respect, the Government has so far expended $2 million.

The second part enquires whether more "bought places" have become available to the Government since this subvention scheme enables the residential care homes to carry out improvement projects. As the criteria set out under the Bought Place Scheme do not have any direct correlation with the Financial Assistance Scheme, the two schemes should not be lumped together. With regard to such criteria, they are also dependent on the state of operation, service standard, manpower resources, quality of services, as well as the quality of the nursing staff and the like of the residential care homes concerned.

The third part is about the residential placement arranged for those elderly persons who are affected by the closure of residential care homes. According to our record, many residential care homes would close down or move to other places owing to operational or financial difficulties. In this respect, no elderly persons have been reported to have encountered any problems. Should there be any problems, the Social Welfare Department would make arrangement for them to move to other residential care homes.

President (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Yin-fat.

Mr HUI Yin-fat (in Cantonese): Madam President, in view of the present situation where the majority of private residential care homes still fall short of the licensing requirements, can the Secretary tell us whether the Government has any plans to resolve the problem, and whether any schedule has been drawn up for the ultimate abolition of the existing certificates of exemption so that all private residential care homes will be issued with licences; if not, why not?

President (in Cantonese): Secretary for Health and Welfare.

Secretary for Health and Welfare (in Cantonese): Madam President, the certificates of exemption are issued to address the current situation where a large number of the existing private residential care homes fail to meet the licensing requirements. We hope that these private residential care homes could, through their continuous hardwork and this subvention scheme, gradually be upgraded to the standard that is in line with the licensing requirements. However, in view of the fact that it takes time for some of these private residential care homes to install fire prevention and building safety facilities, and for others to rectify illegal building works, we have not drawn up any rigid schedule. Nevertheless, I still hope very much that those private residential care homes that are regarded as substandard by us would upgrade their standard as soon as possible.

President (in Cantonese): Dr TANG Siu-tong.

Dr TANG Siu-tong (in Cantonese): Madam President, in paragraph (c) of the main reply, the Administration pointed out that the Social Welfare Department would not approve applications for renewal of certificate of exemption purely on the groud that the residential homes need time to find new premises. Of all the successful applications, what is the most common ground on which approval for the renewal of certificates of exemption has been granted?

President (in Cantonese): Secretary for Health and Welfare.

Secretary for Health and Welfare (in Cantonese): Madam President, those successful applications for renewal of certificate of exemption are mainly approved on the ground that they need to carry out alteration works or other additional works necessitated by the rectification of illegal building works. In addition, many are also approved on the ground that works have to be carried out on their fire prevention systems or fire escapes. These situations are most commonly found among private residential care homes.

President (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Kam-lam.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam (in Cantonese): Madam President, it has come to my knowledge that the waiting time for a place in private residential care homes would normally take two to three years. In this respect, could the Government inform this council of the shortfall in the number of residential places, and whether it would adopt any measures to encourage the establishment of more private residential care homes? In addition, as the Government disclosed to us in about late April to early May the arrangement to rent out the quarters of the Prince of Wales Hospital in Shatin as residential care homes for the elderly, could this Council be informed of the progress since then?

President (in Cantonese): Secretary for Health and Welfare.

Secretary for Health and Welfare (in Cantonese): Madam President, this supplementary could be divided into two parts, with the first part asking about the waiting time. There is in fact no waiting time for a place in private residential care homes. These institutions are run as commercial operations and, therefore, do not require any waiting time. Only those subsidized residential care homes have waiting times, and the actual waiting time would vary with the location or type of the residential care homes preferred by the individual elderly person concerned.

The second part is encouragement to private residential care homes to upgrade their facilities. In this respect, we do have plans to launch initiatives in different districts to encourage more private institutions to operate private residential care homes. As to the former quarters of the Prince of Wales Hospital, we also consider the location an appropriate choice and has made arrangements to invite tenders.

PRESIDENT: Mrs Elsie TU.

MRS ELSIE TU: Madam President, having heard of one of such homes has to close down, I am sure there were others. I would like to ask the Secretary whether the Social Welfare Department has done any follow-up work as to find out what has happened to the residents who did not want to move out but were forced to. If they have not done any follow-up work, could they do so?

President (in Cantonese): Secretary for Health and Welfare.

Secretary for Health and Welfare (in Cantonese): Madam President, I mentioned in my earlier reply that one residential care home had been rejected. By that I only meant its application for the Financial Assistance Scheme had been rejected; it did not have to close down.

President (in Cantonese): Mr TAM Yiu-chung.

Mr TAM Yiu-chung (in Cantonese): Madam President, as places in subsidized residential care homes are in acute shortage, private residential care homes play a very important role as sevice providers. The present situation is that about 80% of these private residential care homes are still unable to meet the licensing requirements, but the operators of these private residential care homes, on the other hand, are claiming that the requirements imposed by the Government are so harsh that they are still unable to meet even after they have increased their operational costs by many folds. Could the Secretary inform this Council whether the Government would review its policies in this respect? In view of the genuine needs of our society, I hope that the Government would allow the private residential care homes to continue their operation and to enhance the quality of the services they provide.

President (in Cantonese): Secretary for Health and Welfare.

Secretary for Health and Welfare (in Cantonese): Madam President, many of the problems confronting the private residential care homes have been pointed out to us during our contacts with these institutions, and the lack of suitable premises is one example. Since many operators have very strict requirements in their choice of locations, there are very few suitable premises in the urban areas.

The second problem confronting them is staff. the operators pointed out to us that the major problem with their operational cost is high wages because they could not hire any helping hands if the wages were too low. Besides, they have also reflected to us their strong wish that the quota for imported workers under the Supplementary Labour Scheme could be expanded as far as possible.

The Administration will study in detail the suggestions they made in respect of the problems mentioned just now.

President (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Yin-fat.

Mr HUI Yin-fat (in Cantonese): Madam President, in reply to my supplementary question on the abolition of the existing certificates of exemption just now, the Secretary mentioned that the Administration did not have any schedule. Besides, the Secretary has also explained to us that these certificates of exemption are mainly introduced to tackle the existing situation where the majority of the private residential care homes still fall short of the licensing requirements. However, I wish to point out that as referred to in the main reply provided by the Administration, the Residential Care homes (Elderly Persons) Ordinance was put into full implementation on 1 June 1997. Would the Secretary agree that drawing up a schedule will make the private residential care homes aware of the pressing need to reach the required standard as soon as possible on the one hand, and spur the public officers concerned on to follow up more closely on the relevant actions on the other?

President (in Cantonese): Secretary for Health and Welfare.

Secretary for Health and Welfare (in Cantonese): Madam President, I am afraid we may not be able to achieve our objective of improving the quality of private residential care homes if a rigid schedule is drawn up. However, I do share Mr HUI Yin-fat's view and hope that the co-operation between the private residential care homes and the Administration would be enhanced expeditiously, so that the quality of those institutions could be improved as far as possible. In this respect, the Financial Assistance Scheme is an effective means. All private residential care homes are very much welcome to apply for this subvention scheme, and the number of applications received has been increasing gradually. We have allocated $50 million as funding for this Financial Assistance Scheme, and since only a small proportion of the funds has been used so far, more applications could still be accepted.

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Guest List for the Cocktail Reception Celebrating the Establishment of the Special Administrative Region

5. MR DAVID CHU (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council:

(a) which government department was responsible for compiling the guest list for the reception celebrating the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) on 1 July 1997; and

(b) whether all members of the three-tier system of assembly of the last term before the establishment of the SAR had been invited; if not, what criteria were adopted when deciding on the list of guests to be invited?

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Chinese): Madam President,

(a) The guest list for the cocktail reception celebrating the establishment of the SAR on 1 July 1997 was compiled by the SAR Chief Executive's Office.

(b) As the reception was to be held after the establishment of the SAR, the SAR Chief Executive's Office had invited members of the three-tier councils basing on the membership lists of the three-tier provisional councils after the establishment of the SAR. All members of the three-tier provisional councils were invited to the reception. Other guests, including members of the three-tier councils before the establishment of the SAR, were invited having regard, inter alia, to the other public offices that they were holding.

Traffic Problem in Northwest New Territories

6. DR RAYMOND HO (in Chinese): As a result of the recent torrential rains, traffic in the Northwest New Territories has again come to a standstill. As the population of the Northwest New Territories is expected to increase to 1.43 million by 2011, the traffic problem in the district will be further aggravated by then. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) whether, in order to alleviate the current traffic congestion problem in the Northwest New Territories, the Government will adopt any transitional measures prior to the completion of Route 3, the Western Corridor Railway and the extension of Tuen Mun Highway, such as stepping up police patrols on highways and prosecution actions to ensure compliance with traffic regulations by motorists and reduce congestion caused by traffic accidents, as well as shortening the time needed to clear traffic accident sites so as to minimize the effect on traffic; and

(b) of the measures adopted by the departments concerned to ensure the early completion of urgent maintenance works on slopes on the highways in the Northwest New Territories, so as to prevent traffic congestion caused by landslides?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT (in Chinese): Madam President, before the opening of Route 3 (Country Park Section) in mid-1998, the following measures will be introduced to relieve traffic congestion in the Northwest New Territories:

(i) a 1-km long climbing lane along the Tuen Mun Highway (Kowloon bound) near Ting Kau will be completed and opened to traffic in October 1997. This will increase road capacity and reduce congestion caused by slow-moving vehicles.

(ii) seven new traffic incident indicator signs will be installed by October 1997 in Yuen Long and Kwai Tsing Districts, on top of the three existing signs in Tuen Mun District. This will help alert motorists to the occurrence of serious incidents on the Tuen Mun Highway which have disrupted traffic flow, so that they can make early decisions in choosing alternative routes to their destinations.

(iii) Ting Kau Bridge and its approach slip roads will be partially opened to traffic in early 1998. It will connect Tsing Yi Island to the Tuen Mun Highway at Ting Kau. Should the section of Tuen Mun Highway between Ting Kau and Tsuen Wan be blocked, the new road/bridge system will serve as an alternative route connecting the Tuen Mun Highway to west Kowloon via Cheung Ching Tunnel, Rambler Channel Bridge, Kwai Chung Viaduct and West Kowloon Expressway.

(iv) In order to maintain smooth traffic flow in Tuen Mun Highway, the police has accorded high priority in the deployment of regular police patrols and enforcement patrol resources to ensure compliance with the Road Traffic Ordinance, in particular, safe driving within the speed limit. In the last three years, traffic police resources in the New Territories have increased 20% so that police operations can be more speedily mobilized.

(v) In cases of accidents or other incidents which affect traffic flow or require road closures, the police have their own contingent of tow trucks for removal of vehicles and clear the road so that normal traffic can resume as soon as possible. In addition, they have a contract with a private operator to provide speedy recovery service for the Tuen Mun Highway.

(vi) During emergency situations such as landslip of roadside slopes, the Highways Department (HyD) will mobilize emergency teams to clear the roads and keep the roads open as far as possible. At the same time, joint inspections with geotechnical engineers from the Geotechnical Engineering Office on the failed slopes will be carried out to identify urgent repair and stabilization works, which are carried out immediately and round-the-clock for major routes. The progress of such urgent repair works is monitored on a daily basis to ensure completion and re-opening of the roads within the shortest time-span possible.

As regards the closure of the Tuen Mun Highway on 3 July 1997, the sequence of events was as follows. After persistent rain during the night on 2 July 97, some sections of the catchwaters above the Tuen Mun Highway were blocked, resulting in an extraordinarily large quantity of water running down the natural stream course and overspilling onto the Tuen Mun Highway, thereby causing damage to the road surface of the carriageway with deep potholes and rubbles scattering all over the road surface. Emergency clearance of the debris and repairs to the road surface were immediately undertaken during the early hours of 3 July.

The HyD has stepped up the inspection and cleansing works to road drains along the Tuen Mun Highway to prevent flooding. The Department has also been carrying out daily inspection to the road drains and arranging urgent cleansing works if necessary. Because of the seriousness of the incident on 2 to 3 July, the HyD is now urgently looking into appropriate measures to avoid recurrence of the incident.

As regards the slopes along the Tuen Mun Highway, the HyD employed a consultant in 1994 to carry out engineer inspection on roadside slopes in the territory including those on the Tuen Mun Highway. The study concluded that no section of the roadside slopes along the Tuen Mun Highway was classified as having a high risk of landslides. Except for the rockfall incident in August 1995 which was related to the works of the Tuen Mun Highway Improvement project, no major landslides along the Tuen Mun Highway have occurred in recent years.

Notwithstanding this, the HyD carries out routine inspection on all roadside slopes maintained by the HyD at least once a year to identify defects in accordance with the requirements of the Geotechnical Engineering Office. Inspections on major routes have been increased to twice a year in the last few years. To ensure that defects identified in the inspections are rectified speedily, the HyD will immediately issue works orders to contractors for the necessary works, most of which are completed within two to four weeks' time. Between January and June this year, the HyD issued 1 600 works orders totalling $63 million to carry out maintenance and improvement works to roadside slopes in the whole of the New Territories. Priority has been given to the roadside slopes of major routes such as the Tuen Mun Highway, Castle Peak Road, Route Twisk, and so on.

Furthermore, Phase 2 of the Engineer Inspection which is conducted once every five years for about 1 300 roadside slopes commenced in March 1997 for completion by September 1998.

A consultancy for the investigation of underground services affecting the safety of fill slopes and retaining walls has also commenced in September 1996 and works for CCTV inspections of services will commence in a few months' time for completion by end 1998. The investigations for underground services in cut slopes are also underway and the consultancy is now scheduled to commence by end 1997.

Supplementary Labour Scheme

7. MR LEE KAI-MING (in Chinese): It is learnt that the Immigration Department has issued more than 2 000 visas under the Supplementary Labour Scheme (SLS). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) in relation to the above visas issued, of the breakdown by industry and type of work; and

(b) whether a review of the SLS has been conducted; if so, what the details are; if not, why not?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Chinese): Madam President,

(a) As of 30 June 1997, 2 009 visa applications were approved for imported workers under the SLS. The breakdown of these approved visa applications by industry and by job titles are at Annexes A and B respectively.

(b) When the SLS was launched in February 1996, the Government undertook to conduct a review of the Scheme when 2 000 visa applications have been approved. As this trigger point has already been reached, we have now embarked on this review. This will be a comprehensive exercise, which seeks to assess whether the SLS has achieved its twin cardinal policy objectives, that is:

(a) local workers must be given priority in filling job vacancies available in the job market; and

(b) employers who are genuinely unable to recruit local workers to fill their job vacancies should be allowed to bring in imported workers for such vacancies.

The review will cover all the operational aspects of the Scheme, including the application procedures, eligibility criteria, the vetting and approval mechanism, as well as the conditions and requirements of employment of imported workers.

Annex A

Supplementary Labour Scheme

No. of Approved Visa Breakdown by Industry Category

(Status Date = 30 June 1997)

Industry	No. of Visa Approved
Automobile Repairing Catering Clothing Construction Work Sites Electrical Electronics Furniture Jewellery Machine Shop Plastics Printing Shipbuilding and Repairing Textiles Tourism Transport and Physical Distribution Wholesale, Retail and I/E Trades Others*	5 115 134 486 3 13 11 2 206 2 19 12 46 1 46 194 　 714
Total	2 009

(*Others : FARMS, CARE HOMES, SECURITY, and so on)

Annex B

The Supplementary Labour Scheme
Statistical Breakdown by Posts on Visa Approved
(as at 30 June 1997)

Job Post	No. of Visa Approved
AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN	77
ALIGNER / TESTER	1
ARCHITECTURAL DRAUGHTSMAN	3
ASSISTANT CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE	1
BAKER	2
BAKER COOK	3
BAKER/PASTRY COOK	9
BAR SUPERVISOR	5
BARBECUE COOK	13
BARTENDER/BARMAN/SODA FOUNTAIN CAPTAIN	14
BEAN CURD / SOYA BEAN PROCESSING WORKER	29
BEAN SPROUT PROCESSING WORKER	4
BRICKLAYER	1
CAPTAIN	16
CARE HOME ATTENDANT	117
CARPENTER ( FORMWORK )	33
CHINESE TYPESETTER	4
CLAIMS SUPERVISOR	2
CLASSICAL CHINESE ROOF TILER	8
CLASSICAL CHINESE STONE ARTS CARVING TECHNICIAN	5
CLEANING FOREMAN	1
CLEANING SUPERVISOR	1
CLEANING WORKER	5
CLOTHING MACHINE MECHANIC	1
CO-ORDINATOR (PURCHASING)	1
Job Post	No. of Visa Approved
COLOUR MATCHER	4
COLOUR MIXING TECHNICIAN	2
COLOUR SCANNER OPERATOR	2
COMPUTER PATTERN DESIGN OPERATOR	2
CONSTRUCTION PLANT MECHANIC	8
CONTINUOUS DYEING MACHINE LEADER	11
COOK	15
COOK ( OYSTER )	1
CRANE OPERATOR	4
DESPATCH / LOAD PLANNER ( ADMINISTRATOR )	2
DIE - CASTING MACHINE OPERATOR	1
DIE CUTTER	2
DIM SUM COOK	6
DIM SUM COOK ( CHIU CHOW MEAT BALL )	3
DIM SUM COOK ( FISH BALL )	2
DIM SUM FRYER	2
DISPLAY SUPERVISOR	3
DIVER	1
DOUBLE-SIDED MACHINE OPERATOR	1
DRILLER / BORER	74
ELECTRIC - RESISTANCE WELDER	3
ELECTRIC ARC AND GAS WELDER	36
ELECTRIC MOTOR TECHNICIAN	3
ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES SERVICE MECHANIC	4
ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN	1
ELECTRICAL TECHNICIAN	1
ELECTRICAL TECHNICIAN ( PLANT )	1
ELECTRICAL TECHNICIAN ( TUG BOAT )	1
ELECTRICIAN	17
ELECTRICIAN (BUILDING CONTRACTOR)	10
ELECTROPLATING AND METAL COATING WORKER	11
ELECTROPLATING QUALITY CONTROLLER	1
ENGINEERING DRAUGHTSMAN	2
Job Post	No. of Visa Approved
ENGLISH COMPUTER-AIDED TYPESETTER	1
FABRIC MENDER	9
FARM HAND	3
FETTLER	8
FISH CULTIVATION SUPERVISOR	2
FISH FARM WORKER	2
FOREMAN ( TUNNEL )	1
FOREMAN (CONTRACTOR)	10
FOREMAN / CHARGEHAND	1
FORK LIFT TRUCK DRIVER	24
FURNITURE MAKING MACHINE OPERATOR	1
FURNITURE PACKER	2
GARDENING WORKER	15
GENERAL COOK	2
GENERAL SEWING MACHINE OPERATOR	83
GLAZIER	1
GROUTING PUMP OPERATOR	6
HAIR WASHER	20
HAND STITCHER	19
HANDBAG MAKER / MAKE-THROUGH CRAFTSMAN	1
INBOUND TOUR GUIDE	1
INJECTION MOULDING MACHINE OPERATOR	1
INSTRUMENT MAKER / REPAIRER	1
KNITTING MECHANIC	1
KNITWEAR MENDER	15
KNITWEAR TECHNICIAN	2
LABOURER	17
LASER AND OPTO- ELECTRONIC PRODUCT ENGINEER	1
LEATHER CRAFTSMAN	1
LEATHER POLISHER	1
LEVELLER	66
LEVELLER ASSISTANT	3
LEVELLING OPERATIVE	12
Job Post	No. of Visa Approved
MACHINE OPERATOR	83
MACHINE OPERATOR ( NOODLES MAKING )	3
MACHINE OPERATOR ( PLASTICS )	2
MACHINE OPERATOR ( RICE GRINDING )	3
MACHINE OPERATOR ( RICE MIXING )	4
MACHINIST	10
MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR	4
MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIPMENT OPERATOR	5
MECHANIC OPERATIVE	28
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN	14
MECHANICAL FITTER	4
MECHANICS	6
MERCHANDISER / BUYER	40
MERCHANDISER / BUYER ( CHINESE HERB )	2
MERCHANDISER / BUYER (CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL)	1
METAL FURNITURE MAKER	5
METAL SCAFFOLDER	10
METAL WORKER	2
MINER	5
MOULD MAKER	2
MUSICAL INSTRUCTOR	1
NO. 2 COOKS	7
NO. 3 COOKS	11
PAINT SPRAYING GUN OPERATOR	15
PAINTER	2
PAINTER / DECORATOR ( FURNITURE )	5
PANTRY CAPTAIN	6
PANTRY COOK / SAUCIER	2
PAPER JOSS STICK CRAFTMAN	1
PASTRY COOK	3
PATTERN DESIGN TECHNICIAN	2
PIG FARM WORKER	226
PLANT AND EQUIPMENT OPERATOR	13
PLANT MECHANICS	3
Job Post	No. of Visa Approved
POLISHING WORKER	3
POULTRY WORKER	3
POULTRY WORKERS ( FEEDING )	1
POULTRY WORKERS ( HATCHING )	1
PRECASE SEGMENT ERECTOR	1
PRECAST ERECTION OPERATOR	1
PRESS OPERATOR	2
PRINTER ESTIMATOR	1
PRINTING MACHINE OPERATOR ( LETTERPRESS )	2
PRODUCT SCHEDULE CO-ORDINATOR	1
PRODUCTION ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN	1
PRODUCTION SECTION SUPERVISOR	1
PRODUCTION SUPERVISOR	2
PRODUCTION TECHNICIAN / OPERATOR	8
PROGRAMMER	2
PROJECT ASSISTANT	29
PROOF PRESS OPERATOR	2
PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICER	4
PUPPET CONTROLLING PERFORMER	1
QUALITY ASSURANCE TECHNICIAN	2
QUALITY CONTROL	2
QUALITY CONTROL OPERATOR	3
QUALITY CONTROL TECHNICIAN / OPERATOR	2
QUALITY CONTROLLER	6
QUALITY CONTROLLER FOR MICROSCOPES	1
QUALITY INSPECTOR	14
RADIO / TV MECHANIC	3
REPAIRING CRAFTSMAN	3
REPAIRMAN ( ELECTRONICS )	5
ROLLER SHUTTER	5
ROLLING MILL / EXTRUSION PRESS CRAFTMAN	18
SALES CLERK / SALES ASSISTANT	1
Job Post	No. of Visa Approved
SALES SUPERVISOR	33
SALES SUPERVISOR ( SEAFOOD )	2
SAMPLE MAKER	4
SCOURING AND BLEACHING MACHINE LEADER	9
SCREEN PROCESS PRINTER	2
SECURITY GUARD	189
SENIOR CLASSICAL CHINESE STONE ARTS CARVING TECH.	1
SENIOR TIMBER COMPONENTS ASSEMBLY TECHNICIAN	23
SHIFT OPERATOR	1
SONAR OPERATOR	4
SPECIAL SEWING MACHINE OPERATOR	1
STEAMER	2
STOCK SUPERVISOR	2
STONE SELECTOR	1
STORE/GODOWN SUPERVISOR	11
STRUCTURAL STEEL ERECTOR	20
TEA MIXING OPERATOR	3
TEXTILE WORKER ( DRYING )	2
TEXTILE WORKER ( SPINNING )	5
TIMBER COMPONENTS ASSEMBLY TECHNICIAN	55
TOOL AND DIE MAKER	1
TRANSFORMER DESIGN TECHNICIAN	2
TUNNEL BORING MACHINE OPERATOR	5
TYPIST	1
TYRE TECHNICIAN	1
VEGETABLE COOK	11
VEHICLE BODY REPAIRER	7
VEHICLE ELECTRICIAN	7
VEHICLE MECHANIC	3
VEHICLE PAINTER	3
VEHICLE TYRE REPAIRER	2
VEHICLE UPHOLSTERER	1
Job Post	No. of Visa Approved
WASTE COLLECTING WORKER	2
WASTE PAPER BALING	3
WASTE PAPER MACHINE OPERATOR	6
WAX PATTERN MOUNTER / MAKER	2
WELDER	5
WOOD FURNITURE CARVER	3
WOOD FURNITURE MAKER	2
ZIPPER PROCESSING WORKER	3
Total	2 027*

*Note : Out of 2 027 visas approved, 2 009 are for workers imported under SLS, whereas 18 were subsequent replacements for workers who left before expiry of employment contracts.

Additional Requirement for Fire Insurance on Mortgaged Properties

8. DR LAW CHEUNG-KWOK (in Chinese): It is learnt that in providing home mortgage loans, the banks in Hong Kong currently impose an additional condition requiring mortgagors to take out fire insurance with coverage equivalent to the amounts of the loans offered, and to designate the lending banks as the beneficiaries so as to safeguard the banks' interests. As the average construction costs of residential units will not exceed 20% of property prices, the imposition of such a requirement on mortgagors far exceeds the actual need. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the specific details of the above additional condition imposed by the major banks in Hong Kong (including the Bank of China, the Hongkong Bank, the Hang Seng Bank, the Bank of East Asia, the Bank of America, the First Pacific Bank, and so on) when providing home mortgage loans;

(b) of the policy adopted to monitor the imposition of the above additional condition by these banks;

(c) of the total amount of fire insurance premiums paid by residential property owners, as well as the corresponding amount of related insurance claims paid, in each year from 1992 to 1996; and

(d) whether the Government will ask these banks to review the above additional condition; if so, what the details are; if not, why not?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES (in Chinese): Madam President,

(a) We understand that all major banks require mortgagors to take out fire insurance policies on the mortgaged property as a collateral. This is to protect banks against the credit risks associated with these loans. At present, the loan value is commonly taken as the sum insured. Some individual banks allow customers to use the reinstatement cost as the sum insured. In the latter case, customers have to pay for the valuation fee to ascertain the reinstatement cost.

(b) The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) supports the requirement for fire insurance on mortgaged properties as one of the prudent lending criteria for property loans. It does not seek to dictate how the insured amount should be calculated, but believes that customers should be given a choice in this respect (see (d) below).

(c) The statistical information on premiums submitted to the Insurance Authority by authorized insurance companies under the Insurance Companies Ordinance relating to fire insurance are subsumed under the category of "Property Damage". This category covers all types of property, whether landed property or otherwise, and whether caused by fire or other perils such as storm or theft. No separate statistics specifically on fire insurance premiums are therefore available.

(d) The practice of requiring customers to purchase a fire insurance policy for the mortgaged property is addressed in the Code of Banking Practice (Code) recently issued by the two industry associations, namely, the Hong Kong Association of Banks and the Deposit-taking Companies Association. According to the Code, the amount and the nature of risks to be insured should be reasonable and should be a matter of mutual agreement between institutions and their customers. Institutions should also provide an option for the customers to choose whether the insured amount should be based on the loan value or the reinstatement value. The Code has become effective since 14 July 1997. Members of the Associations are expected to comply with the Code and the HKMA will monitor compliance as part of its regular supervision.

Landslide along Tuen Mun Road

9. MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Chinese): The recent rainstorms have caused landslides in many parts of the territory. A section of the Tuen Mun Highway was closed temporarily due to landslides, causing serious traffic congestion. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council whether:

(a) it will conduct a review to ascertain if the recent arrangements to divert the traffic following the partial closure of the Tuen Mun Highway were adequate;

(b) it has assessed the impact on the Tuen Mun Highway in the event of a landslide occurring on the Highway; if so, of the specific details of such an assessment and the sections of the Tuen Mun Highway which have been assessed as having a high risk of landslides; and

(c) it has adopted measures to prevent the occurrence of serious traffic congestion on the Tuen Mun Highway during heavy rains?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT (in Chinese): Madam President, on the night of 2 July 1997, due to the persistent rainfall, the catchwaters above the Ting Kau and Yau Kom Tau section of the Tuen Mun Highway were blocked resulting in an extraordinarily large quantity of water running down the natural stream course and overspilling onto the Tuen Mun Highway. This caused damage to the surface of the carriageway with deep potholes and rubbles scattering all over the road surface. This section of the road was then closed. Emergency clearance of the debris and repairs to the road surface were immediately arranged. By 5.30 am on 3 July 1997, the Tuen Mun bound carriageway was reopened to traffic. One lane of the Kowloon bound carriageway was reopened at 7.45 am and the remaining two lanes were reopened at 3.30 pm on the same day.

As soon as the Transport Department was informed of the need to close a section of the Tuen Mun Highway, it immediately activated the Emergency Transport Co-ordination Centre at 1.00 am on 3 July 1997 and made the following emergency public transport arrangements:

(a) Ferry service

(1) Ferry services between Central and Tuen Mun improved from seven-minute interval to five minutes. Those between Central and Tsing Lung Tau were strengthened by advancing commencement of the services from 7.00 am to 6.45 am.

(2) A special service plying between Tsuen Wan and Tuen Mun was introduced to operate from 7.00 am to 8.00 pm at a frequency of 15-minute interval.

(b) Bus service

(1) All bus services between Tuen Mun and the urban area were rerouted to go via the Tolo Highway before one lane of the Kowloon bound carriageway of the Tuen Mun Highway was reopened to buses at 7.45 am.

(2) A special bus service was arranged to run between Tuen Mun town centre and Sheung Shui Kowloon-Canton Railway (KCR) Station from 6.30 am to 8.00 pm at 20-minute interval.

(3) Another special bus service operated between Tsuen Wan ferry and Tsuen Wan Mass Transit Railway (MTR) Station from 7.00 am to 8.00 pm at 10-minute interval.

(4) When one lane of the Kowloon bound carriageway of the Tuen Mun Highway was reopened at 7.45 am, it was designated as a bus-only-lane so as to facilitate bus movements.

(c) Mini-buses

As Castle Peak Road near Ting Kau was also closed, mini-buses were rediverted to use the Tuen Mun Highway. A special shuttle bus was arranged between Sham Tseng and Ting Kau.

(d) Strengthening KCRC/MTRC/LRT

The services of the Mass Transit Railway Corporation (MTRC), Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation (KCRC) and Light Rail Transit (LRT) were also strengthened. The number of train services on the KCR during the morning peak increased from 39 to 48. The capacity of the LRT was increased by 20% by adding cars to existing trains.

The Transport Department has reviewed the emergency transport arrangements. Given the condition of the road and the availability of buses, the enhancement of ferry services was effective in conveying passengers from Tuen Mun to the urban area. During the morning peak before 9.30 am, instead of the normal 32 ferry trips provided, a total of 66 trips were operated carrying 14 000 passengers, compared with the normal 2 000. Throughout the day, a total of 31 000 passengers used the ferry service, compared with a daily average of 6 500 passengers on a normal working day.

In the review, the Transport Department has concluded that if there are similar incidents in future, improvement in the transport arrangements could be made in the following areas:

(a) Berthing facilities at Tuen Mun Ferry Pier should be increased. Although ferries were available to be deployed on this occasion, the embarking and disembarking capacity was constrained by the number of ferry berths. There are four existing berths in Tuen Mun. The Transport Department is now pursuing the provision of standby temporary berthing facilities close to the existing Ferry Pier. This will increase embarking and disembarking capacity and enable more passengers to be carried by ferries from Tuen Mun.

(b) With additional berthing facilities, it would be possible to consider providing a special ferry service, if necessary, to Tung Chung, where commuters could continue their journey to the urban area via the North Lantau Expressway/Lantau Link, or the airport railway in due course.

(c) Before the opening of one Kowloon bound lane at 7.45 am on the Tuen Mun Highway, express bus services from Tuen Mun to the urban area were diverted to the Tolo Highway, but they were also held up by the congestion along Tolo Highway. The Transport Department will review the appropriateness of this arrangement versus feeding passengers to KCR stations.

(d) The ferry service between Tuen Mun and Central started operation from 6.30 am. They could have been advanced to 6.00 am.

Since the onset of this rainy season, to prevent flooding, the Highways Department has stepped up inspection of the road drains along Tuen Mun Highway on a daily basis and arranges urgent cleansing works if necessary. In view of the seriousness of the incident on 3 July, the Department is now urgently looking into appropriate measures to avoid recurrence of the incident.

As regards the slopes along Tuen Mun Highway, an Engineer Inspection (EI) conducted by a consultant in 1994 concluded that no section of the slope along the Tuen Mun Highway would be classified as having a high risk of landslide. Except for the rock incident in August 1995, no major landslide along the Tuen Mun Highway has occurred in recent years. Phase II of the EI of road side slopes commenced in March 1997 for completion by September 1998. Apart from EI which is conducted once every five years, the Highways Department also carries out routine inspection on all road side slopes at least once a year. Inspection on major routes are more frequent at twice a year in the last few years. Works Orders are immediately issued to contractors for rectification of any defects identified and the works are mostly completed within two to four weeks' time. Priority has been given to road side slope of major carriageways including the Tuen Mun Highway.

When Route 3 (Country Park Section) is completed and opened to traffic in mid-1998, it will provide a relief carriageway to the Tuen Mun Highway if there is any incident on the Tuen Mun Highway. Before Route 3 (Country Park Section) is in place, the following measures will be introduced to relieve traffic congestion on the Tuen Mun Highway:

(i) A 1 km climbing lane of 3.3 m wide on the Kowloon bound side Tuen Mun Highway near Ting Kau will be completed and opened to traffic in October 1997. This will improve road capacity and reduce traffic congestion during vehicle breakdown or emergency.

(ii) Seven new traffic incident indicator signs will be installed by October 1997 in Yuen Long and Kwai Tsing Districts, on top of the three existing signs in Tuen Mun District. This will help alert motorists to the occurrence of serious incidents on the Tuen Mun Highway which have disrupted traffic flow, so that they can make early decisions in choosing alternative routes to their destinations.

(iii) Ting Kau Bridge and its approach slip roads will be partially opened to traffic in early 1998. It will connect Tsing Yi Island to Tuen Mun Highway at Ting Kau. Should the section of Tuen Mun Highway between Ting Kau and Tsuen Wan be blocked, this new road/bridge will serve as an alternative route connecting the Tuen Mun Highway to West Kowloon via the completed Cheung Ching Tunnel, Rambler Channel Bridge, Kwai Chung Viaduct and West Kowloon Expressway.

(iv) In order to maintain smooth traffic flow in the Tuen Mun Highway, the police has accorded high priority in the deployment of regular police patrols and enforcement patrol resources to ensure compliance with the Road Traffic Ordinance, in particular, safe driving within the speed limit. In the last three years, traffic police resources in the New Territories have increased 20% so that police operations can be more speedily mobilized.

(v) In cases of accidents or other incidents which affect traffic flow or require road closures, the police have their own contingent of tow trucks for removal of vehicles and clear the road so that normal traffic can resume as soon as possible. In addition, they have a contract with a private operator to provide speedy recovery service at the Tuen Mun Highway.

Landslip Prevention

10. DR RAYMOND HO (in Chinese): In late May of this year, the Slope Safety Technical Review Board appointed by the Civil Engineering Department declared that after years of efforts made by the Administration, the overall safety condition of slopes in Hong Kong had improved and that there were no signs indicating that any large-scale landslides would occur in this rainy season. However, there have been over 100 cases of landslides and floodings resulting in casualties following the continuous torrential rains in recent days. In view of this, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) whether it will review the existing criteria for the appointment of geotechnical experts; whether priority will be given to appointing local experts who are more familiar with the situation in Hong Kong; and

(b) whether the Government has formulated a set of short-term, medium-term as well as long-term measures to prevent the occurrence of landslides; if not, why not?

SECRETARY FOR WORKS (in Chinese): Madam President,

(a) The current Slope Safety Technical Review Board (the Board) was appointed in 1995 for a term of three years. Besides the selection criteria requiring professional competence relating to slope safety and a high international standing in the geotechnical field, it was considered that the appointed member should have no involvement with commercial projects in Hong Kong in order to avoid any conflict of interest. We have placed suitable weight on the candidates' knowledge of Hong Kong's environment by requiring that the candidates should have previous working knowledge of slope stability problems in Hong Kong.

All three appointed members met our selection criteria. Two out of the three experts appointed were in fact members of the 1976 Independent Review Panel on Fill Slopes in Hong Kong following the second tragic Sau Mau Ping landslide.

We are reviewing the appointment criteria for the next term. Regarding the candidate's familiarity with the local situation, it is already part of our requirement that one should have relevant local knowledge and experience, and appointment will always be made on such basis. It is however also important that Board members are truly experts in the geotechnical field, who possess sound knowledge of relevant international practice and standards, so that they can assist us to keep abreast of developments elsewhere. I am confident that any advice from the Board will be carefully considered and taken forward by our professional staff with due regard to the local situation.

(b) We have a series of measures which are being implemented or planned to further reduce the risk from landslides.

As short-term measures to minimize damage and casualties when landslides occur, we will continue to liaise among relevant departments and policy bureaux to ensure that proper and effective co-ordination is in place, and to maintain efficient operation of the various rescue and support service provided by our departments.

For the medium-to-long-term, preventive measures include the following:

(i) continue to check the design and construction of all newly formed slopes to the required safety standards;

(ii) continue to implement the Landslip Preventive Measures (LPM) programme;

(iii) improve the geotechnical control of private developments through the Buildings Ordinance and step up the enforcement of Dangerous Hillside orders issued on private slope owners;

(iv) continue to work on the project for the Systematic Identification of Maintenance Responsibility (SIMAR) which will clarify the maintenance responsibility for each slope feature;

(v) step up the maintenance of all government slopes to ensure their continued stability;

(vi) continue our work on the inspection of all buried pipes and drains which may affect slopes, and to take action where necessary to repair and rectify any damage that exists;

(vii) continue to inspect squatter structures and arrange for clearance on slope safety grounds as necessary;

(viii) consider to introduce legislation to put in place mandatory slope safety inspection schemes for private owners;

(ix) continue to publish professional guidance documents and provide education and assistance to the general public through information services, safety campaigns and issue of landslip warnings;

(x) conduct research and improve the methods of slope stability assessment and site characterization; and

(xi) assess the risk posed by natural hillsides and arrange for preventive measures where necessary.

All the above measures have been depicted in our Information Paper submitted to the Panel on Planning, Lands and Works of the former Legislative Council in May 1997.

In order to support our long-term landslip risk reduction strategy, and to speed up progress of the LPM programme, we are seeking to increase our resources. We are considering the possibility of converting the 160 temporary posts in the Geotechnical Engineering Office and the Buildings Department for implementing the five-year accelerated LPM programme into permanent posts for launching a new 10-year LPM programme. We are also considering to create more posts in various works departments to step up the maintenance of government slopes.

Protection of the Harbour Ordinance

11. DR LAW CHEUNG-KWOK (in Chinese): With regard to the Protection of the Harbour Bill which was introduced by Miss Christine LOH Kung-wai and passed by the former Legislative Council at its last meeting held at the end of June this year, will the Government inform this Council of:

(a) the specific impact which the Bill may have on the Government's long-term planning on land development;

(b) the specific effects which the Bill may have on the decision-making process of the Town Planning Board; and

(c) the concrete plans at present for the implementation of reclamation projects in the Victoria Harbour?

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Chinese): Madam President,

(a) The Protection of the Harbour Ordinance severely constrains the Government's ability both to plan and undertake projects to provide land and infrastructure in the central harbour area. The Ordinance establishes a principle of presumption against reclamation in the central harbour and a public law duty requiring all public officers and public bodies to have regard to that principle for guidance in the exercise of their powers. The scope of the Ordinance is such that it is likely that any actions (including the planning and proposal process) for projects or plans above, within and underneath the central harbour area will be affected, instead of merely the filling in of the sea by reclamations. The Ordinance is also silent on implementation and enforcement, as well as the criteria and process by which the "presumption against" principle can be alleviated or met. Issues such as who should and how to judge whether the principle is applied or not, and what the sanctions are are extremely unclear. Such ambiguities create unacceptable uncertainty to the operation of public officers and public bodies. They may also give rise to numerous disputes in the courts if a public officer or public body is challenged by way of judicial review that he or it has disregarded or not adhered to the principle. This could cause serious uncertainties, disruptions and delays to almost any projects in the central harbour area such as Central Reclamation Phase 3, Wan Chai Reclamation Phase 2, Central and Wan Chai Bypass, and other projects or proposals which may take place in the geographical area.

(b) The Ordinance establishes a "presumption against" principle covering the acts of all public officers and public bodies. The Town Planning Board is therefore also affected by the Ordinance. Since the Ordinance is silent on how it can be implemented, such as who and how to judge whether the principle is applied or not, the Town Planning Board will face great uncertainty in its consideration of and decisions on issues and projects which involve the central harbour area, including the preparation of town plans.

(c) The Ordinance will affect three projects which are in various stages of proposal formation, study or planning, namely, Kowloon Point Development, Central Reclamation Phase 3, Wan Chai Reclamation Phase 2, as well as the infrastructural projects to be provided in association with these proposals or plans. As there is a significant extent of uncertainty on how and whether the Ordinance will affect these plans, it is doubtful as to how much and what further actions should be taken on them.

BILLS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Second Reading of Bills.

Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Bills

united nations sanctions bill

Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 9 July 1997

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak? Secretary for Trade and Industry, do you wish to speak?

Secretary for Trade and Industry (in Cantonese): Madam President, I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to the House Committee for agreeing to exempting the united nations sanctions bill from the required period of notice for the resumption of Second reading debate.

We certainly need to set up expeditiously the necessary legal structure for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) to implement united nations sanctions. To begin with, the People's Republic of China, as a member of the Security Council of the United Nations, must ensure that its responsibilities shall be fulfilled. Besides, our trade partners also need assurance that Hong Kong will not be involved in activities in breach of or in avoidance of united nations sanctions.

The Central People's Government has given instruction to the Chief Executive to implement in the SAR several types of united nations sanctions. The objective that the united nations sanctions bill has to achieve is to provide the Chief Executive with the legislative tool to effect the instruction given to him, and the Central People's Government has indicated its approval to the Bill. Upon the passage of the Bill, the Chief Executive shall make the necessary regulations to give effect to the specific instruction given to him in respect of any particular united nations sanction.

Madam President, I will move later an amendment relating to the translation of the text at the Committee stage of the Bill. I hereby recommend this Council to support the Bill.

Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the united nations sanctions bill be read the Second time.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".

(No Member responded)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the "ayes" have it. The "ayes" have it.

CLERK (in Cantonese): United Nations Sanctions Bill.

Legislative Provisions (Suspension of Operation) Bill 1997

Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 9 July 1997

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kwok-him.

MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Legislative Provisions (Suspension of Operation) Bill 1997 was presented to this Council because the Administration deemed it urgently necessary to suspend the operation of the seven controversial Ordinances which, it believes, would cause confusion and difficulty in the course of law enforcement. In fact, this is an extraordinary measure. Certainly, Hong Kong is now at an extraordinary juncture where the transfer of government has just taken place, and it must be with good reason that the Administration has adopted such a measure. However, I do not think the measure should by any means be abused, or disrespect and similar effect will be caused to existing laws.

on behalf of the Bills Committee, I will therefore be moving amendments to the relevant provisions. I will state in detail the reasons for the amendments and their details at the Committee stage.

I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HO Sai-chu.

MR HO SAI-CHU (in Cantonese): Madam President, with regard to the suspension of operation of the seven Ordinances, I think that we are here to discuss the suspension of operation of the Ordinances and not to determine whether they are suitable or proper. It is only under special circumstances that the Government has asked us to discuss the Bill it put forward to suspend the operation of the seven Ordinances.

Mr James TIEN pointed out that the timer had not been started.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Thank you very much, Mr TIEN.

MR HO SAI-CHU (in Cantonese): Does that mean I have more time to speak? (Laughter)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The time you have used will be counted.

MR HO SAI-CHU (in Cantonese): In particular, I would like to speak on several of the Ordinances that are related to labour interests. I very much agree with what Mr IP Kwok-him said just now. Under normal circumstances, Ordinances passed by the legislature should not be arbitrarily suspended or amended. However, undoubtedly, these Ordinances, especially the five labour-related Ordinances, will directly affect employers after passage. The Ordinances were passed in a hurry by the former Council without consultation. In particular, there had not been any consultation with the Labour Advisory Board (LAB) where tripartite negotiations will normally be held among representatives from employers, employees and the Government. Let us not forget that the implementation of these Ordinances, now passed, will be the responsibilities of the employers. The employers are required to comply with the Ordinances but have never been consulted at all, nor have they been requested to express their views or to discuss the provisions. This is grossly unfair.

I must speak more about the LAB for the sake of those Members who are comparatively new to this Council. The LAB is a mechanism with a long history. Under the auspices of the Government, employers and employees will meet for negotiations. While employers are represented by major commercial and industrial associations, labour representatives are elected from among labour organizations. There are six representatives on each side. On the labour side, five representatives are elected from among themselves and one is appointed by the Government; likewise, five representatives on the employer side are nominated by five major business associations while one is appointed by the Government.

During the several years when I participated in the work of the LAB, I have never seen any major labour legislation made by the Government and passed by the legislature without being carefully studied and agreed to by the LAB beforehand. Certainly, we cannot deny that the legislature has the full powers to enact laws or to make amendments after listening to the views of the LAB, yet no single law has been put forward without consultating the LAB at all.

Everything is fair in the LAB because there is an equal number of representatives on both sides. Each side will reason and voice out opinions, and at best reach a consensus. If that is not possible, the Government will normally assess the views of both sides and then try to convince either one of them to accept the other's certain views.

One good point about the LAB as a place for negotiation is that it carries no heavy political flavour. negotiations are conducted in a fair manner because there is an equal number of representatives for both the employees' and the employers' sides. The LAB discusses issues of concern to both parties. As I have said earlier, the demands made by the employees have to be, in most cases, catered for by the employers. So, without the employers' consent, how can the proposals be realized and agreed upon by all?

Indeed, this is not a practice unique to Hong Kong. There are numerous successful examples in the world. Last year, the International Labour Organization held a forum on this practice and resolved that all nations should be encouraged to adopt the practice to resolve problems concerning labour relations.

With regard to the suspension of operation of the Ordinances, we must not mistake the issue for repealing the same. That is absolutely not the case. Nevertheless, we have to be careful. In addition to detailed discussions, we should conduct careful consultation, especially consultation with professionals and organizations specialized in dealing with issues in this respect. On completion of the consultation, I am sure the Government will bring the matter to this Council for final decision. In such circumstances, I can see no reason why we cannot accept the Government's proposal of suspending the operation of the Ordinances, especially the five labour-related Ordinances (or suspend until a certain date, to this I will also agree), so that detailed consultation on the Ordinances could be held with the LAB and other relevant organizations before the same are submitted to us for final decision.

Some people say the operation of one or two of the Ordinances need not be suspended. However, I think a major principle should be upheld and that is any law passed without discussion by the LAB or without in-depth consultation should be frozen. Exemption for one or two Ordinances is tantamount to a violation of this principle. Yesterday, I heard Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung said during an interview that they would surely oppose the suspension of operation of other Ordinances because the most important original intent would be defeated if one Ordinance escaped from such suspension. Then, why bother to suspend the operation of other Ordinances?

For these reasons, I hope Honourable colleagues will support the BiIl. The five labour-related Ordinances were passed without any consultation at all. We should deal with the matter prudently and allow the Government to temporarily suspend the operation of the Ordinances so that we can have a chance to discuss the same in detail before re-submitting them to this Council.

I repeat, I will not go into detail the aspects of the Ordinances that we think cannnot be implemented. I will not speak on that. Instead, I would adopt a comparatively rather open mind and examine the Ordinances in great details when the same are dealt with at the LAB in future.

Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHENG Yiu-tong.

MR CHENG YIU-TONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Provisional Legislative Council debates today the suspension of operation of seven Ordinances, in this respect, I and Honourable Members from the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) will oppose the indiscriminate suspension of the operation of all of the seven Ordinances. We opine that each of the Ordinances should be handled and dealt with separately, with reference to the urgency and implications involved. Undoubtedly, five of the Ordinances, which relate to labour, were passed in a hurry during the last session of the former Legislative Council. We note with regrets that some of them had not been scrutinized by the Bills Committee. However, certain Ordinances, such as the Occupational Deafness (Compensation) (Amendment) Ordinance 1997 and the Employment (Amendment) (No. 4) Ordinance 1997, are relatively plain and clear and comparatively non-controversial. The former of the two extends the scope of coverage to enable more deafened workers to become qualified for compensation and at a higher rate. After its passage, the Ordinance has benefited a number of workers. the Government has made an undertaking to conduct a comprehensive review, but I do not think the bill to be presented by the Government would contradict the Ordinance. As such, the operation of this particular Ordinance should not be arbitrarily suspended.

In my view, the latter Ordinance, that is, the Employment (Amendment) (No. 4) Ordinance 1997, was enacted to protect employees from discrimination or dismissal by their employers for taking part in trade union activities, as well as to allow employees to make civil claims and to protect their rights to reinstatement. This gives lawful trade unions reasonable space for existence and development ─ a goal which the labour sector has long been striving for. Members of the former Legislative Council who belong to the FTU voted for the two Ordinances because they were the result of numerous discussions and lengthy struggles by the labour sector. The Ordinances are in the interests of the labour sector and do not cause any undue adverse impact on the community. suspending the operation of these Ordinances altogether is indeed unacceptable. Hence, Members from the FTU will oppose the Government's proposed suspension of these two Ordinances.

As regards the other two more controversial Ordinances, namely, the Trade Unions (Amendment) (No. 2) Ordinance 1997 and the Employees Rights to Representation, Consultation and Collective Bargaining Ordinance, Members from the FTU have reservations about the provisions of these two Ordinances. The former allows trade unions to use their funds for other purposes, including political purposes, as well as to donate funds to trade unions or bodies outside Hong Kong in furtherance of any purposes. Members from the FTU think the Ordinance is dangerous in that it empowers some persons to apply funds in furtherance of other purposes, thereby internationalizing and politicizing trade unions, and turning them into politcal parties. This will drag the local trade union movement into the turmoil of international political struggles, in definance of the wishes and interests of workers who join the unions in the first place. As regards the latter Ordinance which deals with employees' rights to representation, consultation and collective bargaining, it is not only a matter of immediate concern to all trade unions in Hong Kong, but also has far-reaching impact on the development of the local community as a whole and on labour relatons. Members from the FTU ─ a trade union with a sense of responsibility ─ opine that extensive consultation with trade unions as well as members of the public in respect of the Ordinance is warranted in addition to rigorous scrutiny of the same. The Ordinance, if implemented, will give rise to polarization or even disintegration within trade unions, while labour relations will develop towards confrontation ─ the last things unionists would like to see. For these reasons, Members from the FTU in the former Legislative Council voted against the passage of this Ordinance. Today, we will support the suspension of operation of the above two Ordinances to enable the same to be dealt with prudently.

Madam President, I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW.

MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Liberal Party believes the SAR Government has put forth the Bill with the sole purpose of buying time to look carefully into the possible far-reaching effects the various Ordinances have on Hong Kong. We should not blame a newly established government like the SAR Government for this.

Certainly, in addition to digesting the possible effects of the Ordinances, we also need to find out whether the policy considerations these Ordinances exhibit are consistent with those policies of the executive authorities.

Some people criticize the Government of being undemocratic in seeking to suspend the operation of the Ordinances passed by the former Legislative Council, while some others criticize it for nullifying the decision of the former Legislative Council. To me, both criticisms are unfair.

In is indisputable that the transfer of administration of Hong Kong from the British Hong Kong Government to the present SAR Government is very much the same as a change of government in any other places in the world. Even if the amendment Ordinances passed by the former Legislative Council were not basically contrary to the intentions of the British Hong Kong Government but were in line with the policies of the then Government, the present Government could still amend them on the ground that they are not consistent with its policy. Substantial changes in policy passed on the eve of the transfer of government are comparable to putting words into the mouth of the successor. To request the new Government to swallow everything untouched and intact without even allowing time for it to think things over is outright unreasonable and unfair.

A certain political commentator opines that the SAR Government could not and should not repeal the laws passed, for he asserted that the Basic Law states that laws previously in force in Hong Kong shall be adopted except for those in contravention of the Basic Law.

It is exactly because we do not wish the SAR Government to revoke laws arbitrarily that we should give it reasonable time to do its best to carefully consider and analyse the issues before making any decision. As to the final decisions regarding the laws which it finds problematic, that is, maintaining, amending or revoking them, a responsible Government should make them clear to the public. Should the Government decide to revoke the laws it finds unacceptable, it is fully empowered to do so. But it has nothing to do whatsoever with Article 160 of the Basic Law.

Madam President, the Liberal Party thinks that we can lend our support to the proposal to allow three months for the Government to study the laws not of its initiation that have far-reaching effects on Hong Kong. Therefore, we find the principle of the Bill acceptable. However, we must clearly define the period during which the operation of the laws are to be officially suspended. Suspended though they may be, it must be the shortest time possible. In other words, the Government should not be allowed to stall. It has to make an early decision.

On the basis of these reasons, we have prepared an amendment to introduce 30 September as the time limit. The amendment also contains provisions for the Government to extend the time limit to the first meeting of the Legislative Council in 1998. In this way, decisions on the Bill will not be postponed indefinitely.

Meanwhile, we have received notice to the effect that the Government appears to have accepted the Liberal Party's notion of setting a time limit. But it has stated it needs an extra month for the drafting of consequential laws or other work. It has also promised to make some of its decisions as early as possible, or even well before the deadline. In addition, the Government has even promised to be as flexible and swift as possible if extensions need to be requested. The Liberal Party thinks our intended target has been achieved and so we will support the government amendments in this aspect. We urge Honourable colleagues to do the same.

Nevertheless, I want to make it crystal clear that that the Liberal Party supports the principle of the Bill does not necessarily mean that we take the same position in respect of all the Ordinances. For example, we are against suspending the operation of the Occupational Deafness (Compensation) (Amendment) Ordinance 1997 as the suspension is not fair to the needy workers. We therefore opine that the Ordinance should be allowed to continue to operate until amendments are put forward by the Government for consideration. We are agianst the suspension of operation of the Ordinance which makes the first day of May a statutory holiday for workers. Yet it does not mean that we agree to the Ordinance. Rather, our point is that since the Government has ample time to amend or revoke the Ordinance before the relevant provision takes effect, that is, before May next year, it is totally unnecessary to suspend the operation of the same.

Madam President, the Liberal Party will explain its position for each Ordinance at the Committee of the whole Council.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TSANG Yok-sing.

MR TSANG YOK-SING (in Cantonese): Madam President, at the last sitting of the former Legislative Council, a number of Members' Bills were passed as Ordinances in high speed, among which were the seven Ordinances the operation of which the Government is now trying to suspend by way of this Bill.

public opinion in general regards such legislative exercises as "perfunctory", "hasty", "irresponsible" and "inappropriately done by a council of its kind". Five of the Ordinances relating to labour interests have even provoked a barrage of criticisms. Major newspapers published editorials one after another to denounce the legislations as "time-bombs", "social disasters" or "detrimental to our society" and that "not even the Government would know how to implement them".

Regarding the reasons why such a batch of "irresponsible" Bills that are "detrimental to our society" could be passed by the legislature, a number of commentaries have offered their results of analysis. For example, there are views which hold that the crux of the matter lies in the fact that Members of the former Legislative Council were "given the power to act but not held responsible for their actions". While this issue merits in-depth study, it is not relevant to the Bill currently under discussion in this Council.

With regards to those Bills put forward in the guise of "protecting labour interests" but have caused great controversies in society and devoid of appropriate consultation, Members from the Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB) have voted against their passage in the former Legislative Council.

Nevertheless, Madam President, irrespective how hastily the Ordinances were formulated and what reactions they had triggered off in our society, they are laws passed in accordance with the specified procedures under the then existing system and have thus become laws previously in force in Hong Kong before the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR). They will continue to be in force in the SAR in accordance with Article 160 of the Basic Law.

Any law should be abided by by the public and the Government alike no matter under what circumstances they were formulated unless and until they are amended or revoked through proper procedures. We must uphold this spirit of the rule of law.

I agree with the opinions of Mrs Selina CHOW in that the Government and the legislature have full powers to amend or revoke any previously enacted laws. However, it is very unusual to suspend the operation of laws newly passed. To "freeze" a batch of newly passed laws is an even rarer step to take. I think this Council should handle the matter with great care.

Madam President, the DAB opines that only under the following conditions should we consider suspending the operation of a certain law:

1. We have sufficient reasons to believe that the operation of the law may immediately prejudice the interests of the public; and

2. The Government has a genuine need to conduct further consultation or studies before coming to a decision as to how best the law could be amended or whether the same should be revoked.

In the light of the aforementioned requirements, the DAB considers that among the seven Ordinances covered in the Bill, the operation of the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance, the Occupational Deafness (Compensation) (Amendmen) Ordinance 1997, the Employment (Amendment) (No. 4) Ordinance 1997 and the Employment (Amendment) (No. 5) Ordinance 1997 does not need to be suspended at all.

Madam President, I have made these remarks on behalf of the DAB. Thank you.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Eric LI.

MR ERIC LI (in Cantonese): Madam President, this Council has been given a Hobson's choice today and last Wednesday. On both occasions, we are asked to consider a Bill submitted by the Government; and in both cases, very controversial legislative principles are involved. We might have set precedents of imprudent actions during the course. Last week, this Council had to enact retrospective laws to impact on the rights conferred upon certain individuals; today, we have to suspend the operation of certain Ordinances which were passed by the former Legislative Council through normal processes of scrutiny and which were completely in line with legislative procedures (the so-called Rules of Procedures), before a review is conducted on the same. Even the Chief Secretary for Administration has admitted that this kind of legislative processes is rare or unusual. I am convinced that this kind of legislative processes should not be readily approved of by a council that is mature enough and well-experienced in discharging its responsibility of monitoring the administrative powers of a government.

I think everyone in Hong Kong has rejoiced in the smooth transfer of government. The success was due in part to the efforts put in by the SAR Government and in part to its ability to accept people and things of diverse nature. It is all the more worth rejoicing that the people of Hong Kong have changed from being worried to being "receptive" as the transfer came and went. the change of government is a commonplace event in many countries when a new political party wins an election or loses one. However, when the newly established government takes over, it usually respects the laws and policies already passed and would rarely treat them in a drastic or extraordinary manner. At worst, it will only use a mild and smooth method to adapt or amend those laws and policies which have far-reaching effect on people's livelihood. I think this best fits the principle of a smooth transition.

Just imagine this scenario: After the 1998 election of the Legislative Council or the election of a new Chief Executive for the SAR five years later, the new Government again moves to "suspend the operation" of laws it does not agree to and then "conduct a review" before it starts to slowly amend them; or perhaps it may be "more agressive" and tries to make new laws with retrospective effect tracing back some 10 to eight days to the very day it takes over. Would all this give the public a "lose-hit, win-take" impression of the Government? On the international level, would this give people the impression that a power without reason is ruling the place or the rule of man instead of the rule of law is being upheld there?

I fully agree that the seven Ordinances in question were passed by the former Legislative Council without any administrative support, including proper consultation or due consideration. Besides, some Members might even be suspected of having abused their powers as members of the Legislative Council. The focus of the debate today, however, should not be whether these Ordinances are good or bad ones. They are Ordinances I would object to and I fully identify with and understand the mentality of some Members who feel rectifying them is beneficial to society or fits their expectations. Nevertheless, I think the thrust of the debate today lies in whether we should employ unusual measures to rectify certain laws. Are such measures appropriate? In their deliberations, Honourable Members should have one criterion: two wrongs do not make a right. Should we try to put some defective laws right through unjustified means, we are only "turning bad into worse and worse into the worst".

Each legislative amendment exercise is governed by proper procedures. Effective amendments can clarify legislative intents, minimize legal disputes, enhance administrative feasibility, improve the effective distribution of public resources, or even strike better balances among the various interests in society. On the other hand, unusual measures should only be adopted when lives are at risk or when the laws in question would cause "irreversible" structural damages to social order if they were allowed to operate for even a short time. Only when such circumstances arise can we say the measures are "absolutely necessary". Now, among the seven Ordinances, only two meet my criterion for suspension of operation. One of them is the Ordinance relating to the right to collective bargaining, and the other to the application of funds by trade unions for political purposes. I will use the criterion to vote selectively.

That the Bill was submitted without warning and this Council is then expected to pass it within a short time highlights the "executive-led" feature of the Hong Kong Government under the prevailing political system here. The Government possesses a very effective and powerful civil service team, abundant resources, and a structure which facilitates smooth operation and effective propaganda. Hence, it is not difficult at all for it to act as if it were a despot or supreme power. This is a characteristic of our political system. On the other hand, the Government would need to be sensitive to public opinion, able to accept divergent views readily, or willing to accept positively monitoring by the legislature to demonstrate its courage and tolerance. If only the powerful side of government is displayed, it is against the spirit of checks and balances among the executive authorities, the legislature and the judiciary; and it may also base the prestige of the Government on the "limited ability" of the Provisional Legislative Council. As such, I think this Council should consider carefully whether we should uppold the ability and respect of this Council to monitor the executive authorities. But in so doing, we are not trying to antagonize anybody.

Indeed, a number of Members often liken politics to football games. This time, I think this Council and the SAR Government are team-mates instead of rivals. We all have one clear goal: to amend the Ordinances, to score a goal. We do not want to lose out to the other side and hence "lose face". The dispute today may arise from the fact that the other side "fouled" or some players resorted to "foul play" and scored a first goal. So our outlook is not bad. As a member of the team, I think we should work harder to score an equalizer with good skills and will-power. I do not buy the SAR Government's idea of removing the goal posts altogether!

With these remarks, Madam President, I oppose the Second Reading of the Bill.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr LEONG Che-hung.

DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Madam President, I rise to speak against the Bill.

In speaking against this Bill, I must declare I am not a unionist, nor have I been actively lobbied by them. I am objecting the Bill because I believe that the principle is not right.

Let me state from the onset that I am not saying that any bill passed must be set in concrete. No, I do believe that laws are flexible, they could and should be changed in relation to time and societal needs. In this context I would be happy to consider and even accept amendments to these seven Bills if they are within good reasons. But I would be objecting to the way that these seven Bills are now being dealt with by the Administration. In short, it is not the "end" that I am debating, rather it is the "means" that I am against!

Madam President, I will be speaking strongly against this Bill on my personal capacity and not because I had been representing the House of the Legislative Council that had passed these Bills, and I am currently representing the House of this Provisional Legislative Council to whose the responsibility this Bill is placed. I am speaking in my personal capacity.

Madam President, these seven Bills were passed into law through a proper legislative process by the then properly constituted legislature to which the Administration then and I would presume even the Administration now do respect and condone. The incumbent Chief Secretary for Administration who was then the Chief Secretary had said in relation to the then Legislative Council: "We will not undermine the authority and credibility of the Legislative Council".

Yet, Madam President, months down the line, with one sweeping Bill, this Administration attempt to undo all the lawful decisions that the former body decides. What messages are we sending to the public? What confidence are we issuing to the public of this Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in its early days?

Madam President, as I have been saying, I object to the way the Administration attempted to pressurize this Provisional Legislative Council to pass Bills in haste for the Government's own administration expedience and I could say that I say this representing the current House. As we understand, it was the initial wish of the Administration to have the current Bill pass all the three Readings in one meeting.

Let me assure the Administration that whilst this Council fully realizes that as a new government there are many areas that need to be urgently dealt with, the role of this Council and its Members should not be ignored. It is the duty of this Council and its Members to scrutinize any bill not only to our own satisfaction but to see to it that it is acceptable to the public and to the best interest of the public. The role of this body should never be compromised nor should we ever be made to act nor seen to act as a rubber stamp.

Madam President, I object to this sweeping Bill because I am not convinced with the explanation of the need for this Bill. The Administration has repeatedly said that the Bills have not been studied properly. Let us look at the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance. It went through some seven full sessions of proper Bills Committee scrutiny, meeting some 15 organizations and analyzing many public presentations. How can the Administration say there was no proper scrutiny?

Let us look at the Occupational Deafness (Compensation) (Amendment) Ordinance. The parent Bill was passed in this very Chamber in April 1995. When the parent Bill was passed, the same problems as pointed out in the amendment Bill were brought forward. The Secretary for Health and Welfare then promised the Legislative Council then that it would review the whole issue in one year. Now over two years down the line, nothing was forthcoming. Could the Administration blame Members who bring forward a private bill? Now when faced with a crisis, the Administration inform this Council it will have an answer by the end of September ─ some two months later. How ironic!

Madam President, I would like to stress again that I am not against amendments to the law if they have flaws. Yet amend them if they are needed; but to freeze everything approved by a democratic process is a wrong means to attain an end.

Thank you.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Miss CHAN Yuen-han.

MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): Madam President, I consider the Government's proposal to suspend the operation of seven Ordinances passed by the former Legislative Council outrageous and unreasonable. We can all see that each of the seven Ordinances was passed under different circumstances in the process. The Ordinances were passed in the former Legislative Council and the Government is proposing to have them all frozen. So what strong and convincing justifications does the Government have? I do not think it has any. As such, I think it is wrong for the Government to claim that all of the seven Ordinances are problematic and require further study.

I come from the labour sector, for this reason, I have always been concerned about those five labour-related ones among the seven Ordinances. Just now Dr LEONG Che-hung mentioned the Occupational Deafness (Compensation) (Amendment) Ordinance 1997. It is ture that no Bills Committee was formed for that particular Bill in the former Legislative Council. However, the corresponding panel had conducted detailed discussions on the matter already and the corresponding advisory body of the Government had also conducted an assessment. In fact, the assessment points in the same direction which the Government is lobbying for our support today, that is, workers suffering from a 40% hearing loss are eligible compensation. Why should the Government target at this Ordinance? Although it is said the Ordinance has not been subject to any scrutiny, the simple fact remains: the criteria has been lowered from 50% to 40%. Why bother to spend time to re-fix the percentage? I cannot see any reason for doing this. If the Government said this is absolutely necessary or it must do so, then it must give us a reason. As Dr LEONG said just now, being a legislature, we can amend laws. For example, in the last Session, the Honourable CHAN Wing-chan, who is sitting next to me, amended the Watchmen Ordinance which was passed in the Session before last. It was because he considered the original Ordinance unfair to those persons then employed as watchmen. He had the right to do so. But the question is there must be a strong reason to justify any amendment.

Madam President, irony is also found in another Ordinance. I was the chairman of the relevant Bills Committee on the Bill relating to discrimination against trade unions. Although only one meeting was called for scrutiny of the Bill, I can tell Honourable colleagues that it was a two-hour exercise and it completed ahead of time. The most controversial part of that Bill was the jail sentence for convicted employers. In the course of our scrutiny of the Bill, the colleague who put forward the Bill took this part away, thus making the right to reinstatement and onus of proof the only issues for scrutiny. These were simple issues and we deliberated on them expeditiously. We then made a report to the House Committee of the former Legislative Council. As such, why then should the Ordinance be frozen? Why is it necessary to study it again? I do not agree to the proposal.

Madam President, I agree that a legislature has the powers to amend laws, but there must be a reason for any amendment. The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions opposes the Government's proposal to indiscriminately freeze the seven Ordinances. I did intend to propose an amendment. However, as the House Committee will be moving amendments while the other amendment I intended to move is barred by procedural problems, I may not be moving them at all. In any case, the Government has promised me that the Ordinance will be dealt with separately.

Madam President, I would like to say a little more as there is still time. Apart from the two Ordinances I have mentioned, we would also be opposing the Government for freezing the Ordinances. If either of the two Ordinances was not spared, we will be opposing the suspension of all Ordinances at the Third Reading of the Bill. Moreover, as to the Ordinance on occupational deafness compensation, just as Honourable colleagues have said and which came out quite obvious from the two scrutiny meetings, it is not right to freeze the Ordinance. As regards the Employment (Amendment) (No. 4) Ordinance 1997, I do not think it should be frozen and I would say a few words about it here.

Some of our friends from the commercial sector will surely object to the Employment (Amendment) (No. 4) Ordinance 1997 but they may change their minds and object to the Government's suspension proposal after listening to my stories. The matter is not very complicated. The dispute has been there for decades. Madam President, in around the fifties or the sixties, workers in the Tai Koo Dockyard had to fight for their benefits and representatives of the union had to negotiate with the management. It turned out that whoever went to negotiate on behalf of the workers would be immediately dismissed. Later, Tai Koo and Jardine's merged to form the United Dockyard. Workers wanted to negotiate again. The same thing happened. Eventually, nobody dared to speak for the union because whoever spoke for the workers would be dismissed.

The labour sector have long regarded this kind of dismissal unreasonable. Now, even if the court rules that certain decisions are unreasonable, the employee concerned cannot be reinstated. Madam President, the said Ordinance seeks to give union representatives the right to be reinstated when the court rules the dismissal is unreasonable. I think this is very important. Many would say that reinstatement should be negotiate upon by both workers and employers. However, I must say that this is not a technical matter, but a matter of principle. A person who stands up for the workers is doing what he should do, but then he is dismissed without reason. Take the Cathay Pacific incident as an example. Why could workers not be reinstated even though the court has ruled in the workers' favour? Why must there be agreement by both sides? Some say that even if the workers concerned are reinstated, there will be bad feelings between the workers and the employer. But this is not what I am concerned about. The important thing is if in the process justice has been done to the unonists, the court should rule that they be reinstated.

The second point about the Ordinance is the onus of proof. The Government has been hoping to prosecute employers who dismiss employees out of discrimination. However, for more than a hundred years, there has not been a single successful prosecution. About four years ago, the Labour Department for the first time prosecuted a plastic toys factory because a worker was dismissed for conducting activities for the benefit of the union. However, in the end, the prosecution failed. At that time, the Labour Department thought there was sufficient corroborated evidence to prove that the employer had dismissed the worker out of discrimination but no other reasons. Why was the prosecution unsuccessful? It was because the onus of proof was on the worker who had to produce a written note by the employer stating the dismissal was due to union activities he was engaged in. Madam President, I do not think any employer would be so foolish to write down a note like this knowing that there is provision in the law prohibiting the act. As such, the onus of proof should be on the employer rather than the employee.

Honourable colleagues, I urge you to support the two Ordinances which protect the fundamental interests of workers if we agree that there should be fairness and justice in society. Do not let the Government freeze the Ordinances simply because it is doing so for fear that the commercial sector may disagree. I do not think the Ordinances should be frozen. Therefore, I urge you to support us and the amendments put forward by other colleagues.

Thank you, Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, DR LEONG CHE-HUNG, took the Chair.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr James TIEN.

MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, I will speak on the two labour Ordinances covered by the Bill, that is, the two Ordinances in relation to the right to collective bargaining and trade unions' affiliation outside Hong Kong.

Mr Deputy, Hong Kong's economic development over the years has been made possible by one kind of resources ─ human resources ─ for we have only little land and natural resources (by that I mean there is neither gold nor oil). Among the six million people, discounting children and the elderly, we have three million employees, and the rest are their employers. This is the only resources we have.

Why have we been able to deal with our labour relations properly over the years? I think the major reason is that we are doing well economically and that our economic growth can be maintained at the present level. In addition, unemployment rate has all along been kept at a low level. For a decade or so, it has remained at nearly 3% or below. This can be regarded as full employment by world standards.

Moreover, Hong Kong is not a polarized society. Why are there trade unions in other countries? The reason is very simple. Racial discrimination is the major factor. If there is a 10% unemployment rate in the United States, about 30% of the American black women may be out of jobs while the same figure for white American males may only be 6%. As such, the situation in other countries is different from that in Hong Kong. Furthermore, some countries also have religious problems and Ireland is one good example as there is conflict between the Protestants and the Catholics. Some countries in the Middle East also have religious problems and many employers simply refuse to employ certain people out of religious considerations. Hong Kong has had none of these problems.

In Hong Kong's situation, most of the employers are small entrepreneurs while most of the enterprises are small or medium-sized ones. Due to the good economic growth in Hong Kong and low unemployment rate, as I said just now, most employees can find another job if they do not get along well with their employers, and it is actually not difficult for them to find a better job. Indeed, I believe most Hong Kong employers must have this notion in their minds: the number of resignation letters received over the years must well exceed that of the letters of dismissal they have given out. As such, I think a balance has been struck between employers and employees. Many cases happen only in the peculiar environment of Hong Kong and so we do not need to learn from other countries.

Certainly, we have foreign capital coming from overseas and foreign banks launching their operations in the territory. It therefore seems that there are a lot of good things to learn from foreign countries. However, there are bad practices in other countries which are not good examples to follow. We have made the United States as our model in many areas. Truly, the United States is a good place, and I like this country very much too. Yet if we take a good look at the United States, we will find that it is a vast country. A portion of it is almost equivalent to a nation. Cities in the middle part of the country may have a population of 30 000 or 50 000 only. One single employer in the city may have employed nearly 10 000 people. For instance, the workforce of a city may be entirely employed by the Ford Automobile Company. Restaurants, barber shops and so on in the city may become service providers for the 10 000 Ford employees. Hence, a big enterprise would dominate in a small city. A person would find it difficult to find a job unless he becomes an employee of the enterprise. Under such circumstances, trade unions are necessary in the United States.

In other places such as Europe, employers may do whatever they want while the employees can do nothing about this because of the high unemployment rate. Under such circumstances, they have good reasons to form trade unions. However, neither of these applies to Hong Kong.

Mr Deputy, these days most foreigners gauge their decisions to invest on two factors and I think the Financial Secretary may want to know what they are. Firstly, investors worry about taxes. If taxable items are many and the rates high, they will pause to think before investing. Secondly, wages and the existence of trade unions also come into their consideration.

Many investors are circumspect about trade unions. Why? It is because we find it difficult to do business in most places where trade union influence is strong. In these places, more often than not, collective bargaining are conducted not for the benefit of the workers but for the sake of the trade unions. In most cases, trade unions act reasonably during the early days of their establishment. But after some years, in order to out-perform other trade unions, they will propose to amend the law.

Mr Deputy, whereas before I often quoted examples from Southeast Asian countries, today, I would quote an example from Spain. Over a hundred years ago, which was around the same time when the British came to Hong Kong, Spain was a powerful nation in the world. The Philippines and the South America belonged entirely to Spain which was then a powerful regime. I do not intend to give a lecture on history. Since the eighties, the country has started democratic elections and the labour party representing the workers has risen to power. What laws have they passed? Exactly those similar to collective bargaining, which is what we are now looking into. Initially, companies were required to consult trade unions as provided in the laws. But it later developed into requiring the companies to seek the approval of trade unions. One of the laws prohibits companies from "winding up" unless it "loses all the money". That means if a chemical plant invests US$100 million and then finds its business not doing good after several years, the plant cannot scale down or relocate to another city in Spain to continue its operation or even leave Spain. By "losing all the money", it means that the plant must sell all its assets to compensate workers. On the face of it, workers seem to have been benefited because although the company has ceased its operation, workers get paid for some time without having to work. The company must "lose all its money" before it can pull out. Under such circumstances, we find American companies are either not interested or reluctant to invest in Spain.

How is the situation in Spain today? While the unemployment rate is 20%, half of the remaining 80% employed workforce are casual workers because casual workers are not controlled by trade unions. In other words, the Spanish Government needs to pay out an enormous sum as unemployment benefits, hence undermining the economy. From these examples, we can see that a strong trade union may not be beneficial. As regards collective bargaining, we understand that the large-scale strike by drivers in France early this year has triggered off a mass strike and caused the people to suffer. So, what is good for the workers may not be good for society or the economy.

Mr Deputy, about the right to collective bargaining under discussion, we mean when over 15% of the workers have joined trade unions, a company must consult the trade unions when it plans to re-structure, obtain finance, move offices or dismiss workers. Now we are talking about consultation, and it seems fine. However, in Spain's case we can see that gradually consultation will be deemed inadequate. After some time, the law will be amended to require companies to seek consent from the trade unions first. This will lead us to the kind of situation in which Spain finds itself today.

At present, trade unions in Hong Kong are divided into the leftist, the rightist and the neutral. If each has an 15% share of the workforce on their membership, they will make up a total of 45%. In order to expand their influence, I think even if workers regard a $1 pay rise reasonable, the leftist may ask for $1.1, the neutral $1.2 and the rightist $1.3. Who should the employer negotiate with? In addition, employers must agree to the results of negotiations but workers need only follow what they think is to their advantage. They can disregard what is not to their disadvantage. This is unfair.

Mr Deputy, I believe Honourable colleagues among us who are unionists will be very unhappy about my lengthy speech. As such, I need to praise them now. (Laughter) Over the last couple of years, I think what Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Miss CHAN Yuen-han and Mr LEE Kai-ming have put forward were rather reasonable. Mr LAU Chin-shek, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan and Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, who are not in this Council now, are, I think, upright people. They are all good people. What they have been doing is really for the benefit of the workers. The problem is that the mechanism they are proposing will not be manned by the same people I have mentioned or the present core members of the unionists, or operate under their direction for the next few decades. Experience from foreign countries tells us the initiators are very good people. They are very much respected by the people and the workers. However, pretty soon they will be replaced by some other people one way or the other. At the moment, a lot of the union leaders in other countries are corrupted. They manipulate power for personal ends, collect commission, embezzle funds or even come under the control of gangsters. Certainly, I am not saying that this sort of things will surely happen in Hong Kong; however, if the Ordinances do come into effect, the mechanism established will form a centre for power or money. It is possible that similar things would happen to our trade unions.

Finally, Mr Deputy, I would like to talk about the "revocation" of laws ─ an issue which has been mentioned by many Honourable Members. In my view, the two labour laws passed on 26 June represented the views of one of the camps of the trade unions. Other camps did not give too much support. Nor did the commercial sector. There was no relevant discussion at the Labour Advisory Board and the Government did not agree to them either. Only one person gave his support. Who was this person? Mr Chris PATTEN, who has left on a ship. He made a speech and then endorsed the laws by signing on them. I think this is collusion by the Administration and the labour sector. The official side has just one man: Mr Chris PATTEN. The laws were the result of collusion between him and those members from the labour sector. This is a piece of "draconian law". Unlike what Mr Eric LI has referred to: we first lost nil to one and we need an equalizer. I think after losing nil to one, we need to find another referee, change the result to nil to nil and start all over again.

I do not agree that the "draconian laws" should be allowed to exist. I do not agree that we spend another three or five months to consult and allow time for foreign trade unions to arrive in Hong Kong and the funds of all funded trade unions are ready and wait till collective bargaining has begun before we slowly conduct a study and amend the laws.

In conclusion, Mr Deputy, I think labour relations is a concern for many people and the employers alike. As I said at the beginning, the only resources in Hong Kong is its people. Without people, employers cannot do any business. Without employers, workers will have no jobs. We do not have racial discrimination or religious problems. We have these people. I hope the SAR Government can do a better job of retaining foreign and local capitals to do business in Hong Kong, so that Hong Kong workers can share the fruits of economic development. I am expecting better labour relations.

With these remarks, Mr Deputy, I support the freezing of the relevant laws by the Government.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Siu-yee.

MR WONG SIU-YEE (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, at its last meeting the former Legislative Council hastily passed seven Members' Bills which greatly affect people's livelihood. The public has different reactions towards the Government's proposal to suspend the operation of the seven Ordinances. The Hong Kong Progressive Alliance (HKPA) made representations to the Secretary for Home Affairs in respect of the Bill. The HKPA does not want the Government to be mistaken for planning to revoke the laws under the guise of its proposal to suspend their operation. Since the legislature has a duty to monitor the operation of the Government, we propose that a time limit for the suspension should be stated in the Bill. We are now happy to note that the Government has accepted our advice by setting a limit for the suspension at 31 October. With public interests in mind, we will however still exercise our discretion in dealing with the matter, depending on the individual circumstances of each of the Ordinances.

After full discussion, the HKPA has decided not to support the government proposal to suspend the operation of the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance, but agrees to the suspension of the operation of the other six Ordinances.

The HKPA must stress that by supporting the suspension of the six Ordinances, it does not mean that we are trying to take light of livelihood issues such as labour interests and environmental protection. Neither are we trying to object to the spirit contained in the Ordinances, nor have we any prejudice or preconceptions towards the Ordinances. The fact remains that while some of the Ordinances mentioned above have not undergone proper legislative or consultative processes, some may destroy the existing effective consultation mechanism. Besides, some Ordinances lack clarity in a number of places and need to be improved. As such, if we accept these Ordinances which were passed hastily and allow them to come into operation, they may not do any good to the image of the SAR.

The HKPA is of the view that consideration on the suspension of the operation of the six Ordinances must meet the following principles. Firstly, have the Ordinances gone through sufficient consultation and due consideration must have been given to views expressed by experts in the trade and the public? Secondly, have the Ordinances been properly handled from consultation through to their enactment? Thirdly, are the provisions of the Ordinances clear and concise? Would hurried implementation lead to unnecessary litigations which will seriously affect people's livelihood?

In the light of the above principles, although the Employment (Amendment) (No. 4) Ordinance 1997 had been discussed by the Labour Advisory Board (LAB), a consensus was not reached. As a result, the consultative function of the LAB had not been allowed to come into full play before legislation was proposed. As such, the HKPA supports the suspension of operation of the Ordinance.

The Employment (Amendment) (No. 5) Ordinance 1997 makes 1 May a statutory holiday. The HKPA basically does not object to making the first day of May a statutory holiday, but since "making a piece of legislation for a holiday" is not in line with the past legislative practice of scheduling statutory holidays on an annual basis, we think the Ordinance should be suspended.

The HKPA also supports the suspension of operation of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (Amendment) Ordinance 1997 because it has not gone through proper legislative and consultative procedures. More importantly, the principal spirit of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance was originally targeted at dealing with the powers of the Government and those of public authorities but has now been amended to intervene in legal relations between private persons. Hence it has deviated from the original intent of the law as well as the consistent policy of the Government. Thus it naturally needs to be suspended.

Of the six Ordinances the operation of which the HKPA agrees should be suspended, the most controversial one is perhaps the Occupational Deafness (Compensation) (Amendment) Ordinance 1997. Workers who suffer from hearing loss and who should have been able to claim compensation under the new law may not do so now because of the suspension. The HKPA sympathizes with their worries. However, as the Government has promised to submit new proposals shortly for compensation schemes in connection with hearing loss and the new schemes may be more comprehensive than those contained in the law just passed, the HKPA proposes that the legislature and the workers affected should try to understand the plans of the Government first. In fact, the Ordinance on occupational deafness passed by the former Legislative Council contains no transitional provisions to deal with the issue of convergence with the Government's new plans in the future. If the relevant law is hastily implemented, confusion may be caused to future compensation applications. At the end of the day, workers will be at a loss as to what to do. Therefore, after balancing the pros and cons, the HKPA has decided to support the suspension of this Ordinance.

Mr Deputy, since the focus of the debate in this Council today is on whether the operation of certain Ordinances should be suspended, the HKPA will only briefly talk about its basic position for suspension. We hope that the Administration would clearly explain to this Council before 31 October the actual impact each and every Ordinance has on the Government as well as society, and provide clearer statements on those possible areas of uncertainty.

Mr Deputy, the Honourable Mrs TSO WONG Man-yin and the Honourable Miss Choy So-yuk from the HKPA will later explain why we do not support the suspension of operation of the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance. Dr the Honourable Charles YEUNG will explicate the necessity to freeze the operation of the Trade Unions (Amendment) (No. 2) Ordinance 1997, and the Honourable Ambrose LAU will explain the views of the HKPA in support of freezing the Employees Rights to Representation, Consultation and Collective Bargaining Ordinance.

Mr Deputy, I so submit.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Raymond HO.

DR RAYMOND HO (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, the Government has chosen an extremely sensitive moment to put forward the Legislation Provisions (Suspension of Operation) Bill 1997. In less than one month after the reunification, almost immediately following the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, we are required to make a very important decision, that is, to suspend the operation of some laws passed by the former Legislative Council. we must therefore handle the matter with great care, or the credibility of this Council will be undermined.

When the Ordinances were passed in June, there have been great dispute. However, since the attention of the whole community was focussed on the reunification and there were so many arrangements and discussions on other issues that the relevant reports did not arouse as much attention as they do today.

As the relevant Ordinances were passed hastily without consultation, they may have some adverse effects on society. A number of Honourable colleagues have talked a lot about the labour-related laws but not the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance. Perhaps I should say a few words on it.

The Government's explanation is that most of what is contained in the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance and the explanations as well as definitions in it are not clear. Although it is said that the ambit of the Ordinance covers only the central harbour, the relevant government departments have repeatedly claimed that they thought there would be great difficulties in execution.

On the other hand, while we need to protect our harbour, we also need to cater for the importance of development. If we simply apply rules to the letter in executing the Ordinance, the other developments would be adversely affected. For instance, we understand that traffic in the northern part of Hong Kong Island faces great problems and we need to implement some major projects which are still in its planning stage at the moment, so that new routes are built to ease traffic;or perhaps we have to do maintenance work at sea. Yet because of this Ordinance, we are not sure whether we can carry out such projects. For example, can we carry out maintenance projects to repair submerged cables damaged by ships, restore piers damaged by berthing boats, rebuild bridge piers accidentally damaged by ships, or repair cross-harbour tunnels damaged by anchors? From what I can gather, we may not be able to do so. In this connection, I think we have to re-consider the provisions carefully. If the Government could identify provisions requiring amendment in a couple of weeks, that is, before 31 October, for us to discuss without affecting projects that need to be proceeded with, not necessarily big ones but only those urgent ones, then I think suspending the operation of the Ordinance is justified.

As regards the Ordinance relating to occupational deafness compensation, while there were detailed discussions in the former Legislative Council, a working group is now conducting investigation in this respect as well. It seems that there is no problem in allowing the Ordinance to continue to be in force. I do not think the Ordinance should be suspended.

As regards the Employment (Amendment) (No. 5) Ordinance 1997 which adds the first day of May as a statutory holiday, it appears that there is no great urgency involved. I therefore do not think we need to freeze it now.

As regards other Ordinances, I think the Government must use the shortest possible time to suspend their operation and then conduct a review expeditiously. It should not use this opportunity to delay the operation of these very important laws or to revoke them. I think this matter has to be dealt with carefully.

Mr Deputy, I so submit.

PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY (in Cantonese): Dr TSO WONG Man-yin.

DR TSO WONG MAN-YIN (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, as Members of the Provisional Legislative Council, our duty is to deal with laws which are absolutely essential and extremely important during the initial stage after the establishment of the SAR, and we should deal with them in order of urgency and importance. Just before the reunification, the former Legislative Council hastily passed a number of Ordinances, thereby causing a great impact on the Hong Kong community. Having heard the speeches made by several of our Honourable colleagues, I am glad to know for sure that this Council will not adopt a "tit for tat" attitude by supporting without hesitation the Government proposal to suspend the operation of seven Ordinances with one sweeping Bill. I firmly believe that this Council will give due consideration to every Ordinance and to their influences before deciding on whether or not support should be lent to the government proposal. We will see whether the Ordinances are fair and reasonable and whether the Government's request to freeze the Ordinances are made on grounds that can satisfy this Council.

I would now like to speak on the views of some Honourable colleagues from the Hong Kong Progressive Alliance (HKPA) about the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance. The arguments offered by the Government in support of the Bill have failed to convince us that this particular Ordinance must be suspended in its operation. At the same time, during the last couple of days, we have had undertakings from the Government to the effect that it would not carry out large-scale reclamation projects during the consultation period. Given that projects will not be carried out for the time being, why is it necessary to suspend the operation of the Ordinance at all? From this, we can see that the "urgency" argument as offered by the Government does not hold water.

Moreover, the Government claims that the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance only establishes a principle of presumption against reclamation in the central harbour without provisions for the execution, thereby making it impossible for public officers to carry out necessary works projects. We think that since the Government has promised not to carry out reclamation projects within three months, ambiguities in the Ordinance should not have any substantial impact on the operation of the Government or on the economy either, nor will there be any difficulty in enforcement. Moreover, under the Ordinance, the protected part is only the central harbour. The reclamation projects involved in maintenance as mentioned by Dr Raymond HO though might bring about some administrative difficulties for the relevant government departments, we do not think they would cause any substantial impact on the economy.

Finally, I would like to stress that the HKPA has been very much concerned about the issue of reclamation and environmental protection. We think all reclamation projects should be done with great care, with due consideration to their environmental impact. We should refrain from carrying out reclamation projects unless they are extremely beneficial and necessary to the people's livelihood. Reclamation in the central harbour, in particular, should be carried out with great care. If in future the Government has suficient grounds and the genuine need to carry out reclamation work, we think that a mechanism should be established as soon as possible to gather opinions from all parties to remedy the loophole of an absence of provisions regarding enforcement in the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance, and that an amendment should be proposed to this Council. We do not think it is adisable for the Government to tackle the problem by suspending the operation of the Ordinance.

Mr Deputy, on the basis of these reasons, we do not think it is necessary to suspend the operation of the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance mentioned in the Legislation Provisions (Suspension of Operation) Bill 1997.

I so submit. Thank you, Mr Deputy

THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG.

MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, on behalf of the Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood (HKADPL), I oppose to the Legislation Provisions (Suspension of Operation) Bill 1997.

I will try to explain our views from three aspects:

Firstly, the Government has given some reasons in submitting the Bill. Many of these are administrative or technical reasons, such as the hasty passage of the Bills and the absence of Bills Committees on some of the Bills. If this is a truly important reason in principle, then in theory, the suspension of any Ordinances among the seven should be restricted to only those that have not been considered by any Bills Committees. However, in fact, three of the Ordinances have been subject to scrutiny by Bills Committees and the relevant Bills Committees have also spent three months to more than a year to discuss the clauses contained therein. During the process, both the Government and the non-governmental organizations took part in the discussion. Therefore, seen in this angle, the principle is not applicable to all of the seven Ordinances. In other words, the absence or otherwise of Bills Committees does not feature very strongly in the Government's consideration of suspending the operation of these Ordinances.

The second reason given by the Government was that the Labour Advisory Board (LAB) has not been consulted in respect of the five labour-related laws, and that no consensus has been reached between the workers and the employers. For this reason, the Government opines that the Ordinances should be suspended. I find it indeed regretful that the topic is raised for discussion again today. The issue is not new, by that I mean the dispute and conflict between the LAB and the Legislative Council as well as the absence of a bridge for dealing with labour issues by both sides. But the legislature is the institution that has the final say in law making.

I recall in 1994, when we were discussing a labour law, Mr LAU Chin-shek resigned because the Government adopted a "lose-hit,win-take" position by withdrawing a bill after having lost at Second Reading stage. Indeed, in the former Legislative Council, there were a lot of discussions and debates. The kind of relationship between the LAB and the former Legislative Council is anybody else's guess. I can recall there were at the time a lot of suggestions from political parties and Members alike.

The LAB is a consultative body of the executive arm of the Government. The Government can certainly propose policies or bills after consulting the LAB. This is a right course for the Government to take. However, the LAB is not a consultative body for the former Legislative Council, because the latter has its own Panel on Manpower for labour issues, and I think that should be the place for the former Legislative Council to discuss labour policies and labour-related laws. The LAB and the Panel conduct independent discussions and researches on labour policies. As they work separately, they may reach a consensus or they may have conflicting views. In the process, as an executive body, the Government needs to consider this question: How can it help two independent bodies, each of which is capable of holding its own discussions, to reach a consensus so as to achieve the best results?

We did advise the Government then and said that it had to act as a bridge. Nevertheless, over the past couple of years, the Government failed to do so. It insisted that the LAB should take on an important or a supreme position to prevent or stop the legislature from enacting the labour laws or to undermine the effort of the legislature to do so. Yet, I would like to tell the Government that the ultimate power to enact laws is vested in the legislature which may or may not accept the advice of the LAB. It may accept the advice of the Members of the legislature who are from the commercial sector, or it may accept the advice from the labour sector and the lower class. The legislature has the final say in law making.

Therefore, I think it is not right in terms of jurisprudence or procedure and it is not acceptable when the Government mentions time and again that the LAB must be consulted first before bills can go to the legislature for discussion. I hope that the current incident can serve to remind the Government again that if it is still reluctant to set up a mechanism or provide a basis for the consultative bodies in the executive arm and the relevant policy panels to hold talks together on the issues, similar situations, having appeared in 1994 and 1977 will, I believe, arise in 1998, 1999 and every year hereafter.

My second point is about the response of the public and the international community. I have personally talked to the kaifongs, unionists and reporters who came to Hong Kong from all over the world for their opinions on the matter. Most of them hold negative views on the way in which the Government has handled the issue. They think the Government has acted carelessly and adopted a "lose-hit, win-take" position politically. In fact, the Ordinances were passed after going through lawful procedures. However, since the Government is reluctant to see them into operation, it has resorted to using administrative means to stop the operation of these passed Ordinances.

Furthermore, if these Ordinances should not in theory form part of the law, then unless they are inconsistent with the Basic Law they cannot be revoked and if they need to be revoked, it must only be done by the National People's Congress after deliberation. But up to now nobody has told us that the seven Ordinances are in contravention of the Basic Law. Hence, the Government is obviously trying to suspend the operation of the Ordinances not because they are in contravention of the Basic Law.

The Government's hasty proposal to suspend the operation of the seven Ordinances with a sweeping Bill denies the Ordinances of their due respect. That is the kind of impression its current act gives people. On the other hand, it is a bit imprudent of the Government to do what it is doing. If the Government thinks the legislature has carelessly passed the laws, it should not act likewise to stop their operation. What the Government should do is to deal with the relelvant laws or provisions through normal, reasonable and fair means, taking into consideration the respect due to the law, rather than freezing them at one go.

Another point is also related to politics. The term of office of Members of the Provisional Legislative Council terminates at 30 June by the latest and it may as well terminate on 24 May. According to the terms of reference for the seven work items of this Council as laid down by the Preparatory Committee, one very important item is the enactment of laws which are absolutely necessary. Here, it clearly refers to laws, not consultations or verbal questions directed at the Government. The legal functions and duties of this Council are thus stated. We are now talking about the freezing of the seven Ordinances. Is that absolutely necessary? Or must we freeze them? Just now many Members from different political parties said they thought some Ordinances were fine and did not see why they should be frozen.

If everyone agrees today that the Ordinances should be suspended, then according to the amendments to be proposed later by the Secretary for Justice, she will be tabling amendment Bills before 31 October this year. In other words, if the seven Ordinances were frozen today, the Government would be proposing bills between September and October this year to deal with or otherwise amend the seven Ordinances the operation of which is now being suspended. I cannot help asking the question: Is the work then to submit proposals to amend, repeal or suspend the operation of the seven Ordinances absolutely necessary? If not, this Council should not entertain the request at all. So, the proposed Committee stage amendment to set a time limit later is probably going to be a problem, for setting a date is tantamount to allowing the Secretary for Education and Manpower or the Secretary for Justice to submit proposals to amend or repeal the seven Ordinances in October. This may contradict one of the functions and duties defined by the Preparatory Committee for this Council, that is, the enactment of laws which are absolutely necessary.

My third point is that I would like to voice out or stress two main ideas shown by the seven Ordinances. Firstly, is it a good thing for laws passed by the former Legislative Council to enhance the functions of the trade union? Is it a good thing to have trade unions and strong trade unions? This is a controversial subject and may make a good topic for a Ph D thesis. As everyone knows, workers are like loose sand. Is this a good thing? Is it good to have no trade unions? Is it a good thing not to have representative trade unions? I think it is a good thing to have trade unions, and to have representative trade unions. The reason is that if there are trade unions which can represent workers, workers' opinions can be gathered. In the process of gathering opinions, ideas can be integrated to form the unions' ideas which may in turn transform into requests of the mass. This could facilitate negotiations with the business sector and employers. Secondly, a trade union the membership of which comprises 15% of the employees employed by the employer in that undertaking has the right to consulation, and if the membership amounts to 50% of the employees, the tade union would be entitled to the right to collective bargaining. Thus the representativeness of trade unions is obvious to the eye.

Just now Mr James TIEN said that basically the commercial sector has to be held responsible for the proposals put forward by trade unions, and that the commercial sector has to do what it has promised but the trade unions do not. This is a subjective assertion and even an insult to Honourable Members in this Chamber with unionist backgrounds. When a representative is sent by a trade union to make requests and the requests are agreed upon by the employer, I believe the trade union will accept the agreed terms. This was the case, and I believe will be the case in future.

Moreover, a suspension of the operation of the five labour laws strips workers of the benefits given to them by the laws. Before 30 June, there should be workers who were benefited by the laws out of their dismissal, or the fact that 1 May was made a holiday, or the change of 50% to 40% hearing loss for entitlement to compensation for occupational deafness. I think it is unfair to take away their benefits by freezing the Ordinances.

Finally, what will happen if the Government suspends the operation of the laws? The Basic Law has conferred upon the executive authorities the power to lead. So, by law the executive authorities have been given the power to lead. The entire Basic Law gives a considerably small amount of power to the legislature. One may say that the amount of power is smaller than before. In the circumstances, I think that as a government, what the Hong Kong Government should do now is to avoid forcing its way through, using legislative power to give other people or the victims of the suspension of the operation of the laws the impression that it is being unreasonable. I think, after the transfer of government in 1997, what the Government needs to do most is to win people over and to convince people with deeds. It should deal with what it regards incorrect through conventional and normal means that everyone is used to. It should not use abrupt means that are never heard of or done or tried before by popularly elected Members. I think radical means are unpopular. So, I do not think the Government should use such means to deal with the seven Ordinances.

Madam President, on behalf of the HKADPL, I oppose the freezing of the seven Ordinances by the Government.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr NGAI Shiu-kit.

MR NGAI SHIU-KIT (in Cantonese): Madam President, it is a duty of each and every Member of the Provisional Legislative Council to ensure that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) can begin its operation successfully, that the free social and economic systems in Hong Kong remain unchanged and continue to further develop, that any potential shock to society is minimized, and that the well-being of the entire SAR is maintained. In the light of such principles, it was obviously irresponsible of the former Hong Kong Government to have passed and endorsed a number of Members' Bills within a couple of days and without adequate consultation beforehand. Today, the SAR Government put forward the Bill to make up for the shortcomings and errors committed by the sunset Government which rushed the passing of the said Bills, and therefore I think we should support the present Bill.

Madam President, it is said that the Bill amounts to a revocation of the laws. This is not true. The Bill proposed is meant to suspend the operation of the Ordinances, which, in effect, gives the Government more time to collect opinions from across the community to achieve a better implementation of the Ordinances which have far-reaching effects. This is a manifestation of what a democratic and responsible government should do. Indeed, it is unreasonable to ask the SAR Government to deal with the possible consequences of these "sunset" laws. Certainly, I fully agree that the Occupational Deafness (Compensation) (Amendment) Ordinance 1997 can protect the interest of the workers, but we should not lose sight of the principle whereby initiative should lie with the SAR Government. A consequence of relaxing the Ordinance is that the Occupational Deafness Compensation Fund could diminish greatly or even go bankrupt. This would affect the prestige of the SAR Government, hence the operation of the Ordinance should therefore be suspended. The suspension would make it possible for the Ordinance to be studied in detail and to be improved before being brought into operation on the one hand, and safeguard the executive-led principle of the existing SAR Government on the other.

Madam President, as a representative from the industrial sector, I am deeply troubled by the possible impact on society brought about by the operation of the Employees Rights to Representation, Consultation, and Collective Bargaining Ordinance as well as the Trade Unions (Amendment) Ordinance 1997. As evident in the history of trade union movements all over the world, with collective bargaining, the interests of union members would prevail over those of non-members. This is particularly obvious in matters involving severance pay. As such, to introduce employees' rights to collective bargaining will certainly result in unionization of the workforce and keen competitions among trade unions, and would bring about nothing but uncertainty to the labour market. The manufacturing sector in Hong Kong will then be highly politicized. There will be abrupt changes in labour relations and even within the labour sector. Segregation, jealousy, and conflict will follow. We can see that there are such possibilities among trade unions in Hong Kong. In addition, such consequences may also affect the administrative structure of the Government which has so far been effective and the executive-led government principle will then vanish. As such, the destructive impact could in fact be quite tremendous. The investment environment of Hong Kong and its competitive edge on an international level will be severely compromised. How then could Hong Kong maintain its leading position as a centre for trade and finance in the world?

Madam President, as we all know, labour relations in Hong Kong have all along been good. It is mainly due to the fact that the co-operation between employers and the workers is built upon a contractual relationship which comprises the principles of a free economy, equality, mutual dependency and mutual trust. If the Government sets a precedent of allowing such laws to come into operation, employees would then have the rights to representation (which is not a bad thing but detailed studies should be conducted), consultation and collective bargaining. Under such circumstances, how could the Government refuse employers to exercise their rights to collective bargaining through the formation of labour federations or organizations? What situation would then arise in Hong Kong? It could be projected that tension would grow in the uninterrupted labour relations which has previously been existing in Hong Kong, while unionized political struggles would emerge. Would that be a blessing to our society? In terms of economics, such developments would mean increased "transaction levy" in the labour market since matters could be settled only through consultation and negotiations while productive resources would be wasted on political actions. Eventually, economic growth would be hampered and the quality of life deteriorate. These are my heart-felt worries. I hope Honourable colleagues, including those from the labour sector, would think twice about the matter and be cautious in their deliberations.

Madam President, I also oppose the Trade Unions (Amendment) Ordinance 1997 for simple and clear reasons. The fundamental purpose of forming trade unions is to further the interests of members of the trade. This is right, but if unionists deem it necessary to further the interests of their members through political actions, then the logical step should be to register as a political party instead of seeking space for their activities within the bounds of the proven Trade Unions Ordinance. To politicize the activities of trade unions under the guise of protection for workers' interests is a lose-lose strategy. The interests of workers and that of employers, and even that of the entire society would be greatly jeopardized.

Madam President, a number of Honourable Members have cited a lot of live examples in their speeches. I do not intend to respond to them here. What I want to say is that what happened in the Swire (Taikoo) company in the sixties would not take place today. We are now in the nineties. Society has progressed, and so should we. However, in making progresses, we must cater for the interests of the people of Hong Kong as a whole; that is also the interests of both the employers and employees. Only by so doing can we bring about continuous prosperity and stability. I think it would be very unfortunate to replace general situations with extreme ones. I very much hope that while we strive to improve the livelihood of workers, we would also take care of social stability and order.

The proposal to suspend the operation of the Ordinances is not an attempt to act against the welfare of workers. The business sector has all along been speaking highly of the harmonious labour relations over the years, as well as the mutual dependence and mutual trust between employers and employees maintained so far. Under this principle, I believe no Member would intend to prejudice against the welfare of workers. As such, I make it a point now by asking my Honourable colleagues from the labour sector to note that they should not rejoice over the passing of the Ordinances I mentioned, nor should they regard it a victory. To me, it was nothing but an "Ah Q" type of victory (self-deciving victory ) which would compromise the interests of several parties, including that of my friends from the labour sector, of workers and of employers as well. This was what I meant when I referred to the interests of the people of Hong Kong as a whole just now. Some workers want the business sector to take note of this matter, indeed, I would also like to urge earnestly my unionist friends that they be aware of the same as well. We are now part of the legislature of the 1997 SAR. Thank you.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Charles YEUNG.

DR CHARLES YEUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, the former Legislative Council acting under Letters Patent hastily passed a series of laws before its term of office ended on 30 June. Among these laws were some labour-related laws with far-reachng effects. Yet they were passed without having going thorough consultation or scrutiny procedures. This was a very irresponsible act because the laws were related to the entire society, not just a social group or a social stratum. Without adequately preparing the public for the laws or soliciting public opinions for them, the advocates were prone to making mistakes in rushing the legislation through.

Five of the Members' Bills are related to labour matters. Some of the contents of these Bills obviously do not fit into making Hong Kong a good place for doing business or providing job opportunities. After their passage into laws, the Bills would increase operating costs for businesses, ruin labour relations and would finally scare away prospective investors. This would adversely affect the economic development of Hong Kong and eventually hurt the workers.

Madam President, I would now put forward my views on the Trade Unions (Amendment) Ordinance 1997 as follows.

The Trade Unions (Amendment) Ordinance 1997 principally aims at protecting trade unions, allowing them to use their funds for political purpose, as well as obviating the necessity of the approval of the Chief Executive in their acceptance of donations and joining as members of trade unions outside Hong Kong. Before the Ordinance was enacted, trade unions were prohibited from setting up cross-trade federations; no trade unions could become a member of any trade union established outside Hong Kong or accept donations without the consent of the Governor; besides, trade unions were also prohibited from applying funds to political activities other than elections.

Under clause 6 of the relevant Bill as amended, trade unions can form "associations" and accept donations for political purpose without any restriction. The Bill stressed that the amendments did not seek to encourage trade unions to apply funds to political purpose, and unions were left to their own decisions. Despite this, the Bill admits that in reality, as members of society, trade unions would inevitably involve themselves in social affairs outside the interests of labour.

In my opinion, in order to protect the interests and welfare of workers, the said Bill should specify that trade union funds must be used to enhance the welfare and benefit of workers.

Madam President, labour interests must be protected, and nobody would object to this. The success of Hong Kong is inseparable from the high quality of our human resources with an intelligent, adaptive, and hardworking workforce which has demonstrated good professional ethics. Under many other systems in the world, employers and employees play conflicting roles, yet in Hong Kong, we have always been trying to balance the interests of both sides. That is why we have set up the Labour Advisory Board (LAB) with six representatives for employers' side, six representatives for employees' side, and with the Commissioner for Labour as the ex officio chairman. Labour relations in Hong Kong has been good so far. Yet with the relevant Ordinance passed in the absence of any consensus reached in the LAB, the conflict between employers and employees will grow and more trade disputes are anticipated.

Madam President, I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Choi-hi.

MR CHAN CHOI-HI (in Cantonese): Madam President, I must protest against the way in which the Government attempts to suspend the operation of the seven Ordinances.

I really wonder if the Government has any regard to our legal system. If it thinks that there are flaws in the Ordinances, why does it not amend them or simply tell us that it wants to revoke them? Why can the Government not be open and aboveboard? Why must it invent all sorts of names and say that all it is doing is to "suspend the operation of the Ordinances"? I think the Government will have set a very bad precedent by suspending the operation of whatever laws passed by the former Legislative Council that are not to the liking of the Executive Council or the Government. One cannot help worrying about whether the constitution of Hong Kong can be maintained. Does the best resolution lie in reversing the "reversed history"? To suspend the operation of the seven Ordinances is just like somebody who has prepared seven bowls of rice and then tell others, "I am not stopping you from eating the rice. I am suspending the meal for I want to test whether there is poison in the rice and whether its temperature is right." Is this argument really tenable?

It is not a big deal to have labour laws about employee's rights to collective bargaining or protection for office-bearers of trade unions from dismissal by employers. Such laws are already in place in many civilized and advanced countries or some of our Asian neighbours. Why does the business sector in Hong Kong take them to be scourges which must be eliminated? Why are the laws not given a chance to prove their practicality? Why should conflict be stirred up between the business and labour sectors? Why does the Government act in such a way as to make the public think that it favours the business sector and protects the interests of businessmen but suppresses the rights and interests of workers? I think all these would create a negative image for the SAR Government. This would make the work of the SAR Government, which only started just over ten days ago, more difficult.

One cannot help laughing at the preposterous theory put forward by the Government and some other people. They clamined that if the operation of the Ordinances were not suspended, the investment environment of Hong Kong would be undermined and foreign investors would be affected. All these are rubbish! The Government is using foreign investors as a "pretext". The truth is that local businessmen are afraid of giving trade unions the right to collective bargaining being. Indeed, in the hometown of foreign investors, there is the right to collective bargaining. If you asked them whether they would refrain from coming to invest in Hong Kong because of these labour laws, I think their answer would be "no".

In fact, I think the Government is being too overly wary of these labour laws. Just now, many Honourable colleagues mentioned the role of the Labour Advisoty Board (LAB). I must stress that the LAB is just a consultative body. We would not force the Government to act according to whatever decision made by the LAB. The LAB is only a consultative body and the Government cannot use it as a "shield". Miss CHAN Yuen-han said in her speech that if their amendment was not adopted, they would be opposing the suspension of operation of all of the seven Ordinances. I think that position held by the Federation of Trade Unions is very much adorable. In a way, that shows "we are not alone".

I urge the labour sector not to treat this debate as an end but a beginning of a struggle even if the operation of some of the Ordinances were suspended today. I call on trade unions, be they leftist or neutral ones, to join hands and even to take some joint actions to resist or even to go on strike. The freedom to stage a strike is one of the rights given to us by the Basic Law. If we do not safeguard the rights and interests of our workers now, the exploitation by the Administration will escalate.

With these remarks, I oppose the Bill proposed by the Government.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Edward HO.

MR EDWARD HO (in Cantonese): Madam President, originally I did not intend to speak on this Bill because my colleagues, Mrs Selina CHOW and Mr James TIEN, have already explained our position clearly; and because I will also speak on certain provisions of this Bill at the Committee stage. However, after hearing the speeches made by some Members, especially those by Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Eric LI, Mr Frederick FUNG, and Mr CHAN Choi-hi just now, I would like to make a response.

I missed an opportunity earlier because Dr LEONG was the Deputy President a moment ago and he only resumed his seat now. I am very surprised at what he said. He said that he would accept amendments to these Ordinances, but that was not a "proper legislative process" for the Government to suspend the operation of the Ordinances. I think it is a rather surprising conclusion. It is because we have in fact a Bill put forward to this Council while the House Committee has also committed it to a Bills Committee for consideration, and we already have had a report earlier on today. In other words, we have already gone through the proper scrutiny processes. Furthermore, today every Honourable Member has the opportunity to debate for or against this Bill and I will pay due respect to all their views. Some Honourable colleagues are of the opinion that certain Ordinances should be frozen and some should not. Everyone has his own viewpoint, stance or interests, and the Liberal Party is also against freezing all the seven Ordinances. We will discuss this point later. However, I would like to comment on some Members' opinions; for example, Mr Eric LI has said that this approach is an unreasonable means, and one of Dr LEONG's comments is "to undermine the authority of the Provisional Legislative Council", can be translated as eroding the power of this Council.

PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): Dr LEONG Che-hung.

DR LEONG CHE-HUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, point of order. I think Mr Edward HO might have misinterpreted my meaning.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Edward HO, will you give way to Dr LEONG?

MR EDWARD HO (in Cantonese): I would like to finish my speech first.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I am sorry, Dr LEONG.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Edward HO.

MR EDWARD HO (in Cantonese): Madam President, I think we do have this power, that means we still have this power today. So long as we have not cast our votes, we still have the power to choose between supporting or opposing these Ordinances. Therefore I do not think that it is the Government who has undermined our authority. One Member has used another word, that is "pressurize". Frankly speaking, I do not know whether the Government has exerted any pressure on certain Members, or whether the Government can have any power to impose pressure on us. But I do not think I have been subject to any pressure. Perhaps the Government hopes to lobby me or other Members to support the Administration, but I do not think the Government can have any means to exert pressure on this Council to lend it support. Besides, Mr Frederick FUNG is also against this Bill because the Administration has adopted an administrative procedure. However, is this really an administrative procedure? It is in fact a legislative procedure.

I have risen to make some clarifications, that is, while the Government is entitled to the administrative and executive powers, this Council has the right to support or oppose it. We are law-makers. We must be responsible for our work. The former Legislative Council has passed all these Ordinances, so they should be held responsible. As regards this Council at present, if we make any amendments or give support to this Legislative Provisions (Suspension of Operation) Bill 1997, we should also be held answerable for our decisions.

Concerning Mr CHAN Choi-hi's question of "the Government wants to try whether the rice has been poisoned", actually the Government had already stated its opposition to the passage of these Members' Bills. Just now Mr James TIEN has made a very good point by saying that the one who has given support to the Ordinances at that time has already left on a ship. He is our former Governor, Mr Chris PATTEN. However, there is no doubt that the government officials then were against these Ordinances because they thought that those Ordinances would cause problems to the Hong Kong society under certain circumstances. Borrowing example quoted by Mr CHAN Choi-hi, they may think that there is something wrong with the rice, and they need time to find out whether it is edible before passing it to you. Although I think that the Government may have taken great political risks and made itself open to all sorts of flak, we cannot criticize this procedure. It is because this is a proper and legal procedure. The power in the end is vested with this Council, and it is we who make the decision on whether to support or to oppose it.

Thank you.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr LEONG Che-hung, do you wish to clarify what you have just said? Please only make clarification on your speech just now. Dr LEONG Che-hung.

DR LEONG CHE-HUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, I would like to clarify two sentences which Mr Edward HO has quoted from my speech. Perhaps he has got the message wrong. The first point is I definitely have not said that I am against the scrutiny process of this Bill. I only said that I am against the ways in which these seven Ordinances are being dealt with.

The second point is the word "undermine". In fact, I have quoted it direct from the word of the Chief Secretary then, and that sentence is, "We will not undermine the authority and credibility of the Legislative Council". I have looked up my script and I am sure I have used the word "undermine" only once.

PRESIDENT: Mrs Elsie TU.

MRS ELSIE TU: Madam President, I was so deeply upset to hear Dr LEONG Che-hung emotionally opposing this Bill apparently because it looks bad to the public. Yes, it does look bad, but I do not believe in chickening out of a responsibility because of a misunderstanding by the public. It is not a matter of whether or not the public will give us brownie points but whether or not it is right, whether it is wrong. It is unfortunate that the previous Government did not veto some of these Bills for lack of consultation and for the fear of industrial confrontation. I agree that the Harbour Protection Bill seemed to be properly scrutinized and is supported by the public. It is unfortunate that the Government itself did not set up an expert advisory team to protect the Harbour. The Harbour is becoming not only ugly but also dangerous as I discovered myself 10 days ago when I took some visitors on a cruise and the waves came over the top of our heads. We were told by the pilot that it was because of the reclamation and the rest of the sea was calm. If that is what it is like on a calm day, I would not like to see it in a storm. I think it is necessary to reconsider this Bill to see if the Government can set up a proper procedure, however I think it is unnecessary to suspend the Bill.

The Bill on Industrial Deafness Compensation concerns me because I worked on that Bill which first began compensating the workers. However, the Bill of June 1997 assists only a very small number of those who are deaf. It does nothing to improve the Scheme for all the others. The 1997 Bill pre-empted the branch's review of the scheme which offers far more benefits than the one they now request us to suspend, that is the 1997 Bill. I understand that the Department will tell us today what they intend to do, what the package consists of and I think you will find it is much better than the one passed in June.

Since all the other Bills were enacted with little or no consultation, I do not see how any Members can claim that they can not be suspended legitimately so that proper consultations may be carried out. I am not willing to please the public when I know that the public has been misinformed and emotionally stirred up for political purposes. These Bills are not being repealed as the press and the politicians have been telling the public. I am sure that other Members, like myself, are determined to improve most of the Bills and prevent confrontation between employers and workers by consulting both sides and balancing the issues. I hope that this Council will show itself more responsible than the previous one of which some of whose members appear to have aimed at changing the administrative led Government like into a political party pressure group Government.

The Honourable Frederick FUNG seems to suggest that we are undermining these trade unions, I would strongly deny that, but I would warn that in some countries radical trade unions have forced workers into action which damaged the workers and the economy. We need to guard against the radical elements in the trade unions which seek their own political ends regardless of the damage they do to the workers. They may push the workers into committing employment suicide by demanding more than the economy can bear. Madam President, I agree that the labour Bills should be re-examined and where possible improved. Thank you.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Sophie LEUNG.

MRS SOPHIE LEUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, today I will speak only on the five labour Ordinances.

I can be regarded as an employer, but previously I had been an employee or frontline employee for many years. I therefore have direct experiences in both of these roles.

The SAR Government clearly understands that the duty of the Provisional Legislative Council is restricted to the enactment of indispensable legislation. Under such circumstances, the Government still proposes this Bill to us and hopes that we can agree to the suspension of the Ordinances concerned. In this regard, we have tried our very best to understand the way of thinking and the intention of the Government. The Government has also put forward many reasons to prove that the passing of those Ordinances at that time was in a haste and that they had not been put through sufficient consultation. In addition, because of some very important and urgent factors, the Government therefore hoped that we can consider passing this Legislative Provisions (Suspension of Operation) Bill 1997. On the other hand, we (especially the new comers to the legislature) really need to seriously consider the respect due to the legislative spirit.

Regarding the balance between these two aspects, we understand that in relation to these five labour Ordinances, while the labour representatives opine that the Ordinances can serve to improve the rights of the employees, some Honourable Members have questioned why we should listen to the views of the LAB.

I remember a minister from the British Department of Trade and Industry of came to my office two months ago and invited me to invest in the industries of Britain. I asked him bluntly why I should invest in Britain? Is it not true that Britain is well-known for its various labour Acts and powerful trade unions? He said, "No, it is not so now. Everything has changed." His answer has led me to some thoughts. I have been putting much emphasis on manpower training over the past decade and I have done a lot of work at different levels. I am quite worried that under the guise of improving the employees' rights, something evil is done out of good intentions. As one Honourable Member has mentioned just now, Hong Kong does not possess any resources like gold, silver or diamond, we only have manpower which is the most important resources. Therefore, we have to attach more importance to manpower training. Here I should remind Members that not only the Government has the responsibility to provide training, the employees should also be encouraged to look for more training opportunities so as to learn more about themselves with regard to self-improvement. At the same time, the employers should also attach more importance to this aspect, so that both parties can work together in harmony for the development of our economy and the future of the employees.

Let us give a second thought to this issue. Will those so-called "frontline workers" wish to stay in the "frontline" or "grassroot level" for the rest of their lives? Not necessarily so. They are also very eager to put on suits like the Honourable CHAN Choi-hi and speak on behalf of their class, or even to promote to the management level some day.

The existing five Ordinances relating to labour interests or employment matters have in fact imposed heavy pressure on the "blue collar" workers. I hope that the representatives of the labour sector can take note of this point, and refrain from thinking that people from the grassroot level should remain in the same level for the rest of their lives. We have a totally different picture now.

On the other hand, Mr CHAN Choi-hi just now mentioned about the issue of eating rice, and I would like to offer a better analogy with hot Coke and lemon. Some people say that this drink can cure a cold. I treat my workers just like treating my children and I am very concerned about their health. If my children have inherited stomach troubles from me, then they should not take Coke anymore. Therefore, we have to make it clear that we are not discussing whether or not we should eat rice, the issue should be a cup of hot Coke with lemon. We may have to think twice in this respect.

In addition, I would also like to talk about the legislative spirit. As new comers to the legislature, we have to be very careful in this respect and must handle with great care the legislative power conferred upon us by this Council. Since the Government has said that these five Ordinances have been passed in haste, and that the present situation is so urgent that we are required to consider the suspension of those Ordinances, and since we do not have enough time to examine each and every Ordinance; in order to reflect our legislative spirit and exercise our power, I agree to the passage of this Bill as a gesture of our respect for the legislative spirit. As a result, we can then have sufficient time to study and examine those Ordinances. We will not act like many other people who are actually doing evil out of good intentions and eventually do harm to our workers.

I so submit. Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT: (in Cantonese): Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung.

MR YEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, today we have to examine the Bill on the suspension of the operation of seven Ordinances. We are put in a dilemma again because all these Ordinances were the trouble left behind and passed in haste by the former Legislative Council. We all understand that it is not a nice task or even a thankless job at all to clear up all the mess.

Some opinions say that the Provisional Legislative Council cannot freeze the Ordinances passed by the former Legislative Council because the latter was an elected one but this Council is only an appointed one. This is not only a blind remark or arbitrary conclusion, but also a confusion of the right with the wrong. Moreover, the Honourable Members of this Council are not appointed. They are returned by another form of election only. Would the views of the elected Members of the former Legislative Council necessarily be correct? Why can we not rectify and amend those Ordinances in question which were passed by the former Legislative Council in haste?

In fact, this same group of people also admit that there are problems with the Ordinances and they should be suspended or revised. However, they just think that it had better be left for the first Legislative Council, and not this Council, to make the rectification.

As the legislature of the SAR, this Council certainly has absolute power to handle those Ordinances; besides, we are now just suspending rather than revoking or amending the Ordinances. As such, it is really no big deal. Frankly speaking, who would like to clear up such a mess?

All these seven Ordinances are wraught with different problems. The most controversial one is the Employee's Rights to Representation, Consultation and Collective Bargaining Ordinance. This piece of legislation has great impact on the education sector, too. Yet very regrettably, it has not been put through sufficient consultation. Given a school with 50 staff members, a union with only eight members can already require the school to consult them. The union can represent the employees of the school to bargain collectively with the school authority if it has eight union members on authorization by half of the staff members. If the school authority cannot meet the requirements set down in the Ordinance, it will have to make compensation payment to the employees and the amount of such payment has no upper limit. Schools at present already have consultative advisory councils, albeit I cannot say that there is nothing wrong with this consultative mechanism or no improvement is required. If only 15% of the total number of employees can already form a union with statutory consultative power, the management and the normal operation of the school will be seriously affected. Should the operation of a school be decided by professionals or the trade unions? The Mainland has witnessed such kind of democracy during the Cultural Revolution when every one could air his views freely, everyone was the leader but no one had to be held responsible for anything, and at last there was anarchy. Are we going to repeat all these mistakes? These Ordinances will also hasten the formation of more trade unions and lead to conflict among them. This will not be beneficial to the operation or the development of a school. Schools will no longer have peace, our education will become increasingly politicized, and no one can gain anything in the end.

Some colleagues from the education sector have expressed their concern to me. They think that at present the "labour relations" is basically good and in harmony. However, after the implementation of these Ordinances, more and more conflicts will break out among the staff members, among trade unions, as well as between the staff members and the school authority. It may also bring about unpredictable adverse effects on the development of our education sector. As such, it is necessary for us to give serious consideration to this matter.

I am totally in support of fighting for labour interests, but I hope that great care can be exercised during the process, with particular attention to balanced labour relations, as well as to the maintenance of the competitiveness and capitalist nature of Hong Kong. If we are so short-sighted as to focus only on the short-term return at the expense of harmonious labour relations, in the end, the victim will still be the employees themselves.

The rights to consultation, collective bargaining and the expansion of the functions of the trade unions are no doubt attractive to the workers; but we have to handle these issues with care, otherwise they will become a "time bomb" detrimental to the future development of Hong Kong. The foreign investors will be suspicious of the capitalist system of Hong Kong, thinking that our workers are very radical. How damaging is such a message to Hong Kong! We can see that radical unionism will bring nothing but harm to our prosperity and stability.

Article 5 of the Basic Law has stipulated that, "The socialist system and policies shall not be practised in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and the previous capitalist system and way of life shall remain unchanged for 50 years". It is also written down in Article 6 that, "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall protect the right of private ownership of property in accordance with law". If an employer is required to consult the employees' views through a trade union with only 15% of the employees as members on sensitive business decisions such as the transfer of ownership and the restructuring of organizations, the protection of the right of private ownership may then be infringed.

Regarding the Bill on the freezing of the seven Ordinances as proposed by the Government, I think we should not accept it totally. Careful analysis should be made on the realistic situation. If the Ordinances are not so urgent to be dealt with or could be exempted from being frozen, then we should try our best not to do so. Our Chairman of the Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB), Mr TSANG Yok-sing, has already stated the position of the DAB clearly. This is a prudent and practical approach because it can minimize the unnecessary repercussion. Also, the cautious, realistic and responsible manner of this Council has refuted the allegation that it is a "rubber stamp".

Madam President, whenever this Council scrutinizes Bills, there are people milling rumors. For instance, before the passing of the Public Order Ordinance and the Societies Ordinance, some people demonstrated, protested and petitioned that there would be no freedom and human rights after 1 July. But now we still have demonstrations and petitions as usual, and just now I also met a group of people petitioning on my way in. All these phenomena can prove those people wrong!

History tends to repeat itself. Some people say that the suspension of the operation of these Ordinances is a great retrogression on labour rights, democracy and the rule of law. They have incited the labour sector to fight against the Government. I believe all these rumors will be refuted in the near future.

I so submit. Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEE Kai-ming.

MR LEE KAI-MING (in Cantonese): Madam President, I did not intend to speak originally, so I do not have any written speech with me. I have only a statement of my organization, the Federation of Hong Kong and Kowloon Labour Unions, and it reads like this:

"The Federation of Hong Kong and Kowloon Labour Unions is deeply concerned and sorry to learn that the Government is going to present a Bill to the Provisional Legislative Council today to freeze immediately five of the private member's ordinances on the rights and interests of employees and trade unions.

"We are of the opinion that since the Government has criticized that Members of the former legislature should not enact the Ordinances in haste, why then does it now freeze the Ordinances so hastily? We should adopt an objective and rational attitude to see how the Ordinances are received in society after they have been implemented for some time, so that we can review on their shortcomings and make proper amendments. Why do we have to freeze the Ordinances so hastily? We should not be overworried at such an early stage or making evaluations which are all speculative and negative in nature. We think that the Government should look at the crux of the problem with social conscience and a rational mind, otherwise it will only worsen the conflict between the employers and the employees, as well as endanger the interests of the society and the public. The Federation is against the freezing of those five Ordinances which are related to the interests of employees and trade unions."

Having read out our statement, I would like to express my views concerning the speeches of some Honourable Members on trade unions, collective bargaining and labour relations. Mr James TIEN quoted the example of Spain, but why does he not mention Japan and Germany? Since China is a socialist country, no union rights will be exercised, I therefore will not ask him to quote China as an example. Let us take West Germany (Germany was still divided into East and West Germany at that time) as an example. An automobile manufacturer had to lay off its employees in order to compete with Japan, but after collective bargaining, no workers were laid off at the end. But the working hours were cut from 38 hours to 35 hours. However, they could not have wage increases even there would be inflation every year. Both parties had given way to each other's demands, so that the automobiles manufactured could be able to compete with Japan. Another example is Japan. In the past, the trade unions in Japan had spring and autumn strikes which were a popular movement. After the unification, they began to bargain with the Government and the enterprises, and now their spring and autumn strikes are very much a gesture only. Collective bargaining therefore does not always lead to the deterioration of economy or labour relations. It can in fact enhance the competitiveness and productivity of the enterprises, evident in the German, Japanese and United States cases.

We should not labour under the misapprehension that Hong Kong does not need collective bargaining because we have good labour relations. In fact, collective bargaining is required even if we already have good labour relations as this kind of relations is actually conducive to the promotion of collective bargaining. Harmonious labour relations is healthy, and so the bargaining results will also be healthy ones. Both parties participating in collective bargaining are on equal footing in the process, neither the union nor the employees will have the greater bargaining power. If the figures presented by the employer show that it is really a losing business, how could the employees ask for an increase in wages? If the employer is making huge profits, then it is reasonable to increase the employees' wages. Regarding trade unions, will their expansion endanger the position of the employers and also the economy of Hong Kong? How did the trade union come about? During the Industrial Revolution in Britain, workers were not allowed to form any organizations. They therefore destroyed the factories and machines so as to make the whole Industrial Revolution a failure. Finally, the Government succumbed to the pressure and recognized the trade unions. There were then no more "wildcat" strikes after the establishment of trade unions. The industries of Britain developed rapidly through collective bargaining. How come people always say that Britain's industries were destroyed by their trade unions. But no one has ever mentioned that the success of the Industrial Revolution in Britain was in fact dependent upon the trade unions which enable it to become the leading light of industrial development among the western countries.

Another issue is that an Honourable Member just gave praise to the leaders of the trade unions, claiming that the present union leaders are rational but their future successors will not be so. If the actions launched by the unions are not accepted by society, we can introduce amendment legislation to make them acceptable. Also, if the leaders of the trade unions are irrational, they cannot secure support from the workers. I urge Honourable colleagues to take a look at the nature of the union which has the largest number of members in Hong Kong and think about why some trade unions cannot survive in the end and what are the reasons behind their failure.

I still have one more point to go. In the last Session of the former Legislative Council, I voted against some Bills on employment issues. The reason is that I have reached an understanding with the Government and the employers that the Labour Department as well as the Education and Manpower Branch will undertake to present 23 Bills on employment matters. It was the first time that then Legislative Council has passed so many government Bills. I voted against the private Bills because, as the representative in the bargaining, I have promised the employers that only Bills proposed by the government will be acepted. However, these private Bills were passed by the Members of the former Legislative Council and what they emphasized was the kind of parliamentary democracy that the majority's voice should be heard, that means the minority has to obey the majority. As such, although I am against these Ordinances, I have to accept them because they were passed by the majority. Moreover, collective bargaining is a kind of industrial democracy in a modern industrial society where democratic ways are used to promote the development of the whole industry and to boost productivity. We therefore should not regard it as a dreadful monster.

Lastly, many Members just mentioned that we should not be so nervous because we are now only asking for the suspension of the Ordinances to allow the Government to have more time to consider the issue. However, all their comments have been focused in fact on these Ordinances, saying that they are not proper at all. In other words, originally, the reason for the suspension of these Ordinances is to allow more time for further consideration, but now it is said that all these Ordinances are damaging in nature. So how can I accept such a change? In view of this, I will vote against the suspension of these seven Ordinances.

Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr NG Leung-sing.

MR NG LEUNG-SING (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Bill that we debate today has reflected a fact which is beyond dispute, that is, the hasty enactment of the Ordinances has imposed a great burden on the new Government, and that such a hasty action has also led to a even more sudden suspension. It is really an irony to such an efficient society like Hong Kong. Not only an enormous amount of public funds is wasted, it has also posed a very difficult problem to the present legislature.

In face of such a problem and reality, I made a proposal when I first received this Bill. I think the best course of action is to study those Ordinances one by one, so as to decide whether it is necessary to suspend their operation or whether there are any advantages and disadvantages. So doing we can give a second thought to this question and will not rush into another conclusion. However, all these Ordinances have now been grouped together under one Bill for Second Reading, and they will only be voted on separately at the Committee stage. Just like other Honourable Members, I also think that this arrangement can balance the effects brought by each Ordinance. No matter these Ordinances are suspended or not, we will only make a decision after serious consideration in the light of the overall interests of Hong Kong.

As a Member of the Provisional Legislative Council, I would like to raise another point. It is related to the question of whether all these Ordinances should be suspended or the operation of some Ordinances should be continued but not suspended. We have a very heated debate just now. Some Honourable colleagues even suggested staging a strike. I am of the opinion that impulsive acts will do no good to the interests of Hong Kong as a whole. Will actions such as strike do any good for Hong Kong? I think we should have second thoughts about this question. Therefore, the proposal to put some of the Ordinances through consultation prior to making any amendments before 31 October may be a ourse of action that worths our consideration. Regarding the five controversial labour-related Ordinances, I think that while employers and employees are two indispensable elements of society, both parties should have more communication with each other and make use of the existing effective mechanism to earn more time for carrying out the practical work.

I have every reason to believe that the endorsement of this new amendment Bill is beneficial to both the new Government and the public. I therefore support the Government Bill in principle, but I would like to advise Honourable colleagues to think twice when deciding on lending their support to which part of the Bill at the Committee stage.

Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Ambrose LAU.

MR AMBROSE LAU (in Cantonese): Madam President, Ordinances such as the Employee's Rights to Representation, Consultation and Collective Bargaining Ordinance 1997 were passed as private bills presented by the Members of the former Legislative Council and were not drafted on the basis of the consensus reached at the Labour Advisory Board (LAB). If these Ordinances are not frozen, they will certainly affect the normal co-operation between employers and employees, undermine the role and position of the LAB, and thus affecting the smooth operation of the LAB in future. The LAB has already mentioned in May that it would not support the Bills and asked for more time for examination.

After the enactment of the above-mentioned Bills, many voices of objection have been heard. People were all saying that the Bills would jeopardize labour relations since they were passed in such haste. More importantly, these Ordinances will affect not only the 18 000 organizations and 1.33 million employees, but will also seriously impact on the existing labour relations in Hong Kong. One of the Ordinances requires that sensitive business decisions can only be made after the employer has sought the employees' views through a representative trade union. This change will make foreign investors hesitant to invest, as a result, the competitiveness of Hong Kong will be weakened. In fact, many employers have already mentioned that if this Ordinance is really implemented, they will consider moving their investment to other areas. Under such circumstances, our employers have to suffer loss, and their employees also have to bear the price.

Since the consultative and legislative processes of these Ordinances have evoked much controversy, their continuous implementation will certainly bring about serious and adverse effects. Therefore, the Hong Kong Progressive Alliance agrees that the Government should suspend the operation of these Ordinances so as to allow the Government and members of the public time to give a second thought to the issue.

Madam President, I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG.

MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, the seven Ordinances which are going to be frozen were passed in the last sitting when I was the President of the former Legislative Council. It is actually a bit embarrassing for me to speak on those Ordinances, but I think I must express my views on this issue.

After the conclusion of the last sitting of the former Legislative Council on 28 June, the press in the Chamber asked me, "Why were all the Ordinances passed so hastily?" It seems that not only the Government and the Chief Executive will ask whether it is proper to pass the Ordinances so hastily, even the public also shares the same view. I therefore have to reiterate what I have said at that time. Members certainly have the power to move a bill and this Bill has been presented to the Legislative Council for the First and Second Readings before circularizing to Honourable Members. The fixing of a date for the Bills Committee to examine the Bill in detail would be dependent on the workload and the priority then. Owing to the priority fixed by the Government, many Members' Bills cannot have the chance to queue up for examination by a Bills Committee. However, the absence of any Bills Committee does not mean that Members do not have the responsibility to examine the relevant Bills. Under such a prerequisite, every Member who has introduced a Members' Bill would like his Bill to be examined before 30 June. No matter a Bill is presented to this Council after scrutiny by of a Bills Committee, or it is put forward to this Council direct, at least a decision can be reached. The relevant Bills may not pass the Second reading, but there may be exceptions. Some Bills may be amended drastically at the Committee stage, in fact this is really the case. At last, there is still the possibility that the relevant Bills will be negatived in the Third Reading, but they may also be passed. After all, all these were the collective decisions of the then Legislative Council.

Under such circumstances, can I say that Members were not serious at that time, and that they just passed those Ordinances in haste? The Government was not in support of those Bills, it certainly would think that they were passed in haste. However, all these reasons are only excuses. If the Government really thought that the Bills were passed hastily, why did it not propose to the mover of the Bills to make some amendments which were acceptable to all? If it was impossible to make any amendments and the movers of the Bills insisted not to make any changes, had the Government lobbied the other Members to oppose the Bills? In fact, the Government had done quite a lot of lobbying work, therefore, some Bills were negatived, or at least some of them failed partly.

I think the whole legislative procedure was right and proper at the time. Regarding whether the decisions were correct, I would not make any conclusions because some parts might not be agreeable to me while some might. I do not want to talk here about whether I am in support of those Bills or not because it is not relevant to the thrust of today's debate.

I find it regrettable to hear Mr Edward HO's criticisms against Dr LEONG Che-hung of not understanding the whole issue. In fact, the speeches of Dr LEONG Che-hung and Mr Eric LI are all about the Ordinances passed by the last or previous Legislative Council through proper procedures. If the new Government has to amend the Ordinances, like the case when Mr PATTEN sought to amend certain Ordinances when replacing Sir David WILSON at that time, what should be done? If we want to repeal some Ordinances, what is the proper way to do it? The answer is very obvious, that is, to handle the Ordinances one by one. If the Administration thinks that a certain Ordinance is not proper, or there is serious problems, even we may not agree with its views, at least the Administration has to point it out openly. For example, you may say that the Ordinance on employee's rights to representation, consultation and collective bargaining is improper, so it should be repealed; or there are something improper in some Ordinances, so amendments are warranted.

Also, the word "freeze" may be a bit better than the "suspension of operation", but I do not quite understand what it means actually. The Honourable Mrs Sophie LEUNG has just mentioned the term "suspension of operation", it may be a more proper expression but "freeze" may be the most expressive term. If we just "freeze" the seven Ordinances through a Bill, the scope of this Bill will be too narrow and it will be impossible to consider other conditions. If it is just the "freezing" of one Ordinance, under such a premise, we can still say that it is necessary to "freeze" the relevant Ordinance temporarily since the past policy have to be reconsidered in detail. As a result, we can have the opportunity to study each and every Ordinance and put forward other views. For example, we can just amend a particular part of the original Ordinance to serve the purpose. I think this is the correct attitude in handling legal problems. It is not a matter of procedure, but one of mentality.

Of course, the Chief Executive has the prerogative to introduce a Bill, and it is not at all improper but an act complying with the procedure. However, is this an "appropriate act"? Just now Dr LEONG Che-hung has used the word "proper" albeit it may be too strong. However, is the Government's current approach the most appropriate one? Is it possible to pacify other people's anger? It is not a question of whether we are afraid of the public's voice, the problem is that other people and the public, especially those people who have political views which are different from the consensus of the majority, are of the opinion that the Government is not observing the rules of the game. Why must we handle matters this way then?

I just heard many speeches saying that the passing of the five labour-related Ordinances would bring about very serious problems. This is a substantive debate, then why did we not bring up those Ordinances and hold a debate on say, whether the rights to representation, consultation and collective bargaining should be repealed? Why has the Government not the guts? Why does the Government have to use the "freezing" of the Ordinances as an excuse? Frankly speaking, I can state all my views on each and every Ordinance now, but I will only express my opinions at the Committee stage later. I will give my support to some Ordinances, but some I will object. No matter I am in support or against those Ordinances, I still oppose putting them all under this Bill. It is because I am totally against the way in which the whole matter is being handled. I oppose the Second Reading of the Bill and I am also against the inclusion of each of the seven Ordinances into this Bill. I also oppose the Third Reading of this Bill, and I think this time my image of "making political capital", or as the Honourable Mrs Elsie TU has just said, "gaining brownie points" can be changed.

In fact, the present approach has given people an impression that there is a change of government. It is not only an executive-led government, it is also an "all-powerful administration". We are willing to give way, but the Government has to make a good start in order to establish its authority. There are now many mumblings in society, questioning whether this arrangement is a good beginning for the SAR? I really have doubts about it. I therefore hope that Honourable Members can think about the crux of the whole problem, and stop arguing over the substances of the Ordinances on labour, the protection of the harbour and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance. If there really are problems, the Government should bring them up as soon as possible, for example, we can propose to repeal the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance. Regarding my own opinions, I will offer them later at the Committee stage, not in later days. Members can also propose to repeal and amend Ordinances pertaining to employee's rights to representation, consultation and collective bargaining. I cannot see any problem at all if we do it this way. But what I do not understand is why we cannot face up squarely to the consequences to be brought upon by these Ordinances? If the consequences are so great that they must be repealed, then go ahead; if not, we should not touch those Ordinances because some of them can still wait. And when we come to a stage where we cannot wait, we can delete or amend those uncertainties when they begin to surface. What is the problem of this arrangement? When this Bill was first introduced to this Council, I have already declared openly that I did not agree with this approach. It is a separate issue from supporting the passing of these seven Bills at that time. In fact, the former Legislative Council had passed a total of 12 Bills as well as many government Bills at that time. If it is said that the passing of these Bills in the last sitting has caused uncertainties and contradiction, then another even more serious Bill, and I believe it is well-known to you all, is the one on the legal services (miscellaneous provisions). Why do we not freeze that particular one? On the one hand, the lawyers can set down the scale fees on conveyancing, while on the other, they are allowed to negotiate the fees with their clients. I really do not understand, and I would like to urge Honourable colleagues to give a second thought to this matter. We are not striving for a better labour Ordinance here. The problem is with the approach we have adopted to handle this matter, and it is entirely wrong.

I so submit

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHIM Pui-chung.

MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, I have joined the Legislative Council for six years, and this is the seventh year, and for one I am a Member of the Provisional Legislative Council. I have participated in many debates on the legislative process, but I seldom joined the Bills Committees because of objective circumstances. During the past six years, what I felt most regretted was a Member's Bill on Cheung Chau Wong Wai Tsak Tong put forward by the last President of the former Legislative Council, the Honourable Andrew WONG. Why is it so? It is because the majority of the then Legislative Council had voted to rob certain people of their rights by an Ordinance. Why do I say so? This right has caused losses to some people, and it is stipulated in the Ordinance that compensation should be made to them. However, we later learned from a ruling by the court that there was a similar case in Causeway Bay, and the relevant landlords' rights could even be better protected than the landlords of the Wong Wai Tsak Tong in Cheung Chau.

Madam President, that I have cited so many examples and said so many things is meant to bring out a message that an Ordinance which is passed by the majority of this Council will be the "winner", and this is our parliamentary culture. Also, in the previous Session of the Legislative Council, which is also the last term of the former Legislative Council, the Bills were passed by the majority, therefore, the fact was they were also the "winners". It will make many people happy if the Ordinances can be passed successfully, but we should not be worried if they cannot be passed. The Government has to move this Bill today because the Bills moved by some Members at that time have been passed. However, the Government at first was not sure whether it would lose or win. If the movers of the Bills failed, the Government would not have to follow up on the issues, but if they won, it was necessary for the Government to make evaluations. The Government has to ask itself whether it can comply with Members' requests and when will the work commence? If today the Bill put forward by the Government is to shelve the Ordinances permanently or to suspend them for an indefinite period, I personally will oppose this proposal. However, since the present proposal of the Government does have a time limit, why do we not give it some allowances? I also have doubts on whether one or two of these Ordinances should be suspended immediately. Nevertheless, even if the Government has made any mistake in this Bill, the effect will only last for one or two months.

Just now, the President of the former Legislative Council has given us many arguments to prove that his decisions are all correct. However, I think all his decisions on those Bills at that time are considered wrong under the present sovereignty of Hong Kong. I certainly have the right to express my own feelings, and I wholly support this Bill proposed by the Government to suspend the operation of the Ordinances so as to gain time for further consideration. The result of the study may reveal that the parties concerned maybe over-sensitive to these seven Ordinances, and that they actually do not have any problems and are suitable for implementation. Today's debate is to allow both Members from the former Legislative Council and the newly elected Members to express their ideas, as a result, the Government may have to amend or even repeal all these seven Ordinances. Anyhow, it is a fact that the Government has to weigh the pros and cons and consider all the factors involved. On the other hand, we should not criticize this Bill too much because the former Legislative Council has in fact passed all those Bills. We should not drag on the question of whether the Bills were passed in haste or without thorough understanding. The fact remains that they have already been passed. If the Government intends to put forward a Bill to amend or repeal them in future, we should not say that the Government is totally wrong. Regarding the attitude of "lose-hit, win-take" which I have just mentioned, if the Government wins, it will celebrate; if it loses, it will oppose, and this appears to be too domineering. The working class may not be willing to support a government like this. We therefore have to separate the procedures and deal with them step by step.

In addition, I hope the working class can remember that the success of Hong Kong depends on the co-operation between employees and employers. I have no intention to stress on the hard work of the employers, but the success of Hong Kong in fact hinges on the co-operation between the working class and the employers, and the fact that each party has taken what it needs. If you are not so well-off, it is very normal that you will not offer assistance to other people. I therefore hope that no one would be affected by the political parties and political participants. The future of Hong Kong depends on the weighing up of each and every one's interests, so that better co-ordination and co-operation can be achieved.

We should not be affected by other people and accept their opinions blindly. Yet it is all the more improper if we encourage other people to do something outside their scope of power. Our debate today is on whether or not we should agree with the Government on the suspension of the operation of these seven Ordinances. The explanation of the Government may not be so clear, but we should give it a chance. Afterwards, we can put forward our views on the details of each of the seven Ordinances, and this a more pragmatic attitude. Now is not the proper time to study the substances of the Bills in such great details. However, the Bills may have to be studied separately later, and there will be no more excuses to avoid speaking on each and every one of them then. Madam President, I therefore hope that we can separate the issue into different stages since we are not "omniscient" and we also do not possess any outstanding ability. I hope that we can be more pragmatic because just now I have heard some Members called upon workers to strike. I think it is inappropriate to do such a thing, especially when we are Members of this Council. Maybe we have the power to speak like that at the meeting, but I would like to ask those people who are listening to the broadcast outside this Chamber to give second thoughts to this issue.

I so submit

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG.

MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, in accordance with Rule 39(b) of the Rules of Procedure, I would like the Honourable CHIM Pui-chung to clarify on certain points.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Yes, please.

MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): I would like Mr CHIM Pui-chung to clarify that the name of the Bill which I then put forward and later became an Ordinance is the Block Crown Lease (Cheung Chau) Bill instead of Wong Wai Tsak Tong. Secondly, I was not the President of the Legislative Council at that time. Thirdly, after the passage of the Bill, the Government did not propose to freeze the Bill, and Mr CHIM also did not propose to freeze the Bill either.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHIM Pui-chung.

MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, first of all, the name of the Bill does not matter as long as Mr Andrew WONG understands the content of the Bill. Secondly, indeed, he was not the President in that session. He was sitting right here and he was even drunk that night. He was not the President, and he only assumed the office of presidency in the past two years. Thirdly, the Government did not move any amendment to suspend the operation, and to my understanding, it has not made any formal compensation until now. Also, I am not so clear whether there are any changes now. I so clarify.

MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, I have omitted one point.

PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): Are you seeking further elucidation? Please go ahead.

MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): He just said that there are provisions on compensation in the Bill, in fact that is not the case. It is because Members cannot put forward any Bills that have provisions on compensation. Would you please confirm this point?

MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, under the proposal of the Honourable Mrs Miriam LAU at that time, we are of the opinion that the Government should pay the compensation. Perhaps we can ask the then Director of Buildings and Lands to confirm this point.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If I have not mistaken the case, this is in fact the result of the negotiation between the Government and Members. I personally think that elucidation should step here and there is no point to continue with the argument. Does any other Member wish to speak?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Kennedy WONG.

MR KENNEDY WONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, this Council is debating whether the Legislative Provisions (Suspension of Operation) Bill 1997 should be read the Second time and do pass.

Just now I have listened to the speeches made by many Honourable colleagues on this issue, but most of them were actually debating or expressing their views on the seven Ordinances mentioned in the Bill which have already been passed. As to whether this Bill should be read the Second time or whether the operation of the Ordinances concerned should be suspended, the explanation given by the Honourable Andrew WONG was the clearest.

What I want to say is, the Government tabled last week to this Council a sweeping Bill which covers those seven Ordinances which have already been passed. The scope involved was very wide. There were laws about harbour protection, the Bill of Rights, as well as labour interests. As soon as the Bill was tabled, this Council immediately set up a Bills Committee to scrutinize it and I am one of the members. At the Bills Committee meetings, other colleagues and I have pointed out that the seven Ordinances cover a very large range and have very different meanings. While some of them, such the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance, were scrutinized in detail, there were some that have never been studied by a Bills Committees. Therefore, I said then that I hoped the Government could consider committing the seven Ordinances to this Council for examination separately, so that we can study if their operation should be suspended, repealed or amended. Yet regrettably, the Government does not think this is the appropriate approach. So what this Council has to face now is one single Bill which covers a very vast extent and influences some Ordinances which have already been passed.

I reckon that this act of the Government makes the public feel that they are caught unaware. The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region has now been established and most of the civil servants (including all the principal officers) have had a smooth transition. However, they have failed to meet the contingencies in time. The Bill about the Bill of Rights that I proposed has in fact only one part, one section, but the Government thinks that there are ambiguities. The SAR has been established for 15 days now, whereas the related Members' Bills have actually been put forward a long time ago. So I find it puzzling why the officers of the policy branches concerned do not have a contingency plan? When the Members of the former Legislative Council moved these Members' Bills, the then Members and public officers were well aware of the contents. Why would they be caught so unaware and have to use this unprecedented procedure to suspend the operation of these Ordinances after they have already been passed?

I very much agree to the viewpoints raised just now by Mr Andrew WONG, Mr Eric LI and Dr LEONG Che-hung, in that, these Bills were in fact passed into law through a proper legislative process. Although I do not subscribe to certain parts of these Ordinances, I am unable to accept the process and the method used now to suspend the operation of them. I believe that a more appropriate way for the Government to deal with them is to repeal or to amend those parts of the Ordinances which have very serious impact.

As such, I cannot support the Second reading of the Legislative Provisions (Suspension of Operation) Bill 1997.

Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TAM Yiu-chung.

MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, last Wednesday, the Government proposed to go through the three Readings of the Legislative Provisions (Suspension of Operation) Bill 1997 in one single meeting. At that time, some Members of this Council did not agree to the request and a Bills Committee was immediately set up to discuss the Administration's proposal. They reviewed and studied the seven Ordinances individually and requested that the vote on each Ordinance be put separately. I think all this has reflected the serious and responsible attitude of Honourable Members.

Among the seven Ordinances the Government proposed to suspend temporarily, five involve labour interests. As we all know, I have all along been participating in union work and had served in the Legislative Council as a labour representative for 10 years, I would of course support legislating for the reasonable interests of the labour sector. However, as to whether these five Ordinances concerning labour interests will bring chaos or unnecessary disputes after implementation as alleged by the Government, we really have to consider carefully.

When the labour side and the employers' side start negotiating over labour interests, they should do it in a rational and responsible manner. Only in this way can the greatest interests of a more long-term nature be earned for both parties. Yes indeed, labour-employers negotiations are often circuitous; sometimes they may be smoother, while sometimes they may be more difficult. However, on the whole, the two parties can still maintain a relatively harmonious relationship. Take the long service payments as an example. Since 1985, by way of repeated negotiations between the representatives from the labour side and the employers' side at the Labour Advisory Board, the long service payments have grown out of nothing and started improving incessantly since then. This is an example of how success can be achieved through continuous negotiation and consultation. The most important thing is to set up a mechanism recognized by both the labour side and the employers' side so that they can return to the conference table at any time and try to resolve their differences through dialogue. If one of the parties only attends to immediate interests and rashly destroy this mutual trust mechanism, the loss will probably outweigh the gain.

Madam President, as a member of the Executive Council, I have to comply with the principle of collective responsibility. To this end, I support the Government's temporary suspension of the operation of the seven Ordinances.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Chief Secretary for Administration, do you wish to reply?

Chief Secretary for Administration (in Cantonese): Madam President, first of all, I would like to thank the Chairman as well as the members of the Bills Committee on the the Legislative Provisions (Suspension of Operation) Bill 1997. They have efficiently examined the Bill with prudence and raised a number of invaluable opinions. After careful consideration, we have decided to accept the opinion of the Bills Committee and rewrite clause 7, which is related to the Employment (Amendment) (No. 4) Ordinance 1997 and the Employment (Amendment) (No. 5) Ordinance 1997, into two separate clauses to render the composition of the Bill more complete.

In addition, we will also set out in the Bill the date on which the suspension of operation cease to have effect as proof of our determination and sincerity in carrying out the review expeditiously. during the Second Reading debate and at the meetings of the Bills Committee, we have undertaken to consult the Executive Council and the Provisional Legislative Council immediately after we have completed the review on an Ordinance. The reviews in respect of all the Ordinances will be completed by the end of September the latest. we will then put forward relevant proposals after the completion of the reviews, and if so required, we would also draft necessary Bills to realize the result of the reviews. As such, our relevant amendments will set out clearly that the the suspension of operation of the Ordinances will cease to have effect on or before 31 October. Should there be any need to extend the suspension period, we have to seek the approval of this Council by way of a resolution. I hope honourable Members will lend their support to these practical and reasonable amendments.

As to the comments and questions raised by the Bills Committee as well as the Honourable Members who have spoken just now, I would like to respond as follows. Some people criticize the presention of the Bill by the Administration as a retrogressive and undemocratic move, an example of "lose-hit, win-take", and disrespect towards the laws passed by the former Legislative Council. All these allegations are unfounded. I must point out that many of the Members' Bills passed at the last sitting of the former Legislative Council were passed in a hurry. They were not presented by the Government and most of them had not been examined by a relevant Bills Committee, and consultation in respect of the same was not comprehensive either. To us, a hasty implementation of the Ordinances is an irresponsible act inconsistent with the interests of Hong Kong as a whole. The presentation of the Legislative Provisions (Suspension of Operation) Bill 1997 to this Council is a practical and prudent move made by the Administration, completely in line with the process of legislation and as clear as day. We are not going to revoke the Ordinances because we consider it arbitrary and inappropriate to propose without detailed study the revocation of the same. We only seek to suspend the operation of these Ordinances, so as to allow us time to consult the relevant bodies and to assess the impact of the Ordinances. Decision with regard to the next step will not be made until we have completed the studies, and we will also consult this Council on the results of the studies. As such, I must stress once again that the presentation of the Bill is neither a means to revoke the Ordinances nor an undemocratic move by the Administration. All we want is more time to scrutinize and assess each and every of the Ordinances in great detail, so as to ensure that all the laws to be implemented are appropriate, enforceable, and capable of catering for the interests of the people of Hong Kong.

Some Honourable Members consider it unreasonable and hasty of the Administration to ask them to decide within one week whether the operation of the seven Ordinances should be suspended, and that this Council has been taken as a rubber stamp by the Administration. I could assure Honourable Members that we do not have the least intention of such kind. We have, in the first place, conceded to the demands of Honourable Members and postponed the resumption of Second Reading debate until today. In addition, detailed explanations have also been made to Honourable Members at the Bills Committee that, as I have pointed out at moving the Second Reading debate held last week, suspending the operation of the seven Ordinances is by no means a normal practice adopted of the Administration, and that we would never make such a proposal unless we are well supported by ample reasons. Moreover, we have explained to Honourable Members time and again that it is an irresponsible act to implement the Ordinances without full consultation or prior examination. Honourable Members are here to decide on whether the operation of the seven Ordinances should be suspended, and not whether these Ordinances should be revoked or amended. In view of this, I urge Honourable Members to lend their support to the Bill. I understand that certain Members might hold views contrary to that of the Administration in respect of individual Ordinances, and that some Members would move Committee stage admendments to repeal the provisions relating to the suspension of operation of two Ordinances, namely, the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance and the Occupational Deafness (Compensation) (Amendment) Ordinance 1997. As to the five Ordinances relating to labour matters, both the labour side and the employers have indicated clearly at the Labour Advisory Board (LAB) meeting that they are not in favour of passing the Ordinances hastily, and that they need more time to discuss the same. Therefore, the passage and implementation of the Ordinances is in fact a blow to the LAB, which is a long existing advisory body comprising representatives from the employees, the employers and the Government, and would cause adverse effect to both the generally harmonious labour relaions in Hong Kong and the local economy as a whole. In the light of public interests, the operation of all those five Ordinances should be suspended.

The Protection of the Harbour Ordinance carries many ambiguities, and to implement the same would cause uncertainties to the major reclamation projects planned for or to be carried out along the central harbour. As to the concern expressed by an Honourable Member that the Administration would make use of the period during which the operation of the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance is suspended to carry out extensive reclamation projects, I can assure the Honourable Member that the Administration will absolutely refrain from so doing. We just want to be given time to study in detail the impact of the Ordinance so that we could decide on how we are going to handle the issue. I must also point out that if the operation of the Ordinance could not be suspended in time, other infrastructure-related projects, such as public facilities and maintanence work, might perhaps be affected as well.

We will explain in detail the reasons why we oppose the amendments moved by Honourable Members during the forthcoming Committee stage of the whole Council. I hereby urge Honourable Members to lend their support to the Bill for the interests of Hong Kong as a whole.

Thank you, Madam President.

6.59 pm

Some people staged a protest in the public gallery.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Honourable Members, the meeting will now be suspended.

7.03 pm

Council then resumed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the Legislative Provisions (Suspension of Operation) Bill 1997 be read the Second time.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".

(No Member responded)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the "ayes" have it.

Mr Frederick FUNG rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for three minutes.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Miss CHOY So-yuk, do you understand the voting process? Perhaps I should take this opportunity to speak on the voting process again. First of all, Honourable Members please be reminded that the question put before this Council is that the Legislative Provisions (Suspension of Operation) Bill 1997 be read the Second time.

Will Members please register their presence by pressing the top button and then proceed to vote by pressing one of the three buttons below?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Before I declare the result, are there any queries? The result will now be displayed.

Mr WONG Siu-yee, Mr James TIEN, Mr David CHU, Mr HO Sai-chu, Mr Edward HO, Dr Raymond HO, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Elsie TU, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr Henry WU, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr YUEN Mo, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TSANG Yok-sing, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr LAU Kong-wah, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Dr TANG Siu-tong, Mr Timothy FOK, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr TAM Yiu-chung and Miss CHOY So-yuk voted for the motion.

Mr Eric LI, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr HUI Yin-fat, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Andrew WONG, Mr Kennedy WONG and Dr LAW Cheung-kwok voted against the motion.

Mr MA Fung-kwok abstained.

THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 40 Members in favour of the motion, nine against and one abstaining. She therefore declared that the "ayes" had it and the motion was carried.

Committee Stage of Bills

Chairman (in Cantonese): Bills: Committee stage. Council is now in Committee.

UNITED NATIONS SANCTIONS BILL

Chairman (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the following clauses stand part of the Bill.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clauses 1 and 3.

Chairman (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

Chairman (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".

(No Member responded)

Chairman (in Cantonese): I think the "ayes" have it. The "ayes" have it.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clause 2.

Chairman (in Cantonese): Secretary for Trade and Industry.

Secretary for Trade and Industry (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that clause 2 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members. This is a textual amendment to ensure effectively that the Chinese and English versions of the Bill are consistent with each other. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Proposed amendment

Clause 2 (see Annex II)

Chairman (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

Chairman (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by the Secretary for Trade and Industry be approved.

Chairman (in Cantonese): Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

Chairman (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".

(No Member responded)

Chairman (in Cantonese): I think the "ayes" have it. The "ayes" have it.

Clerk (in Cantonese): Clause 2 as amended.

Chairman (in Cantonese): Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

Chairman (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".

(No Member responded)

Chairman (in Cantonese): I think the "ayes" have it. The "ayes" have it.

legislative provisions (suspension of operation) bill 1997

Chairman (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the following clauses stand part of the Bill.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clause 1.

Chairman (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

Chairman (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".

(Members responded)

Chairman (in Cantonese): I think the "ayes" have it. The "ayes" have it.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clause 2.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Both Mr IP Kwok-him and the Chief Secretary for Administration have separately given notices to move amendments to clause 2. Mr IP's proposed amendment seeks to delete the clause, whereas the Chief Secretary for Administration's amendment mainly seeks to include a time limit on the period of suspension of the operation of the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance in the clause. If Members later vote in favour of Mr IP's amendment, that means that the Committee has not agreed to the suspension of the operation of the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance.

I propose that the amendments to clause 2 proposed separately by Mr IP Kwok-him and the Chief Secretary for Administration, be debated together in a joint debate.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee shall debate the amendments to clause 2, proposed separately by Mr IP Kwok-him and the Chief Secretary for Administration, in a joint debate. I will first call upon Mr IP Kwok-him to move his amendment in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Rules of Procedure. Mr IP Kwok-him.

MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that clause 2 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

Madam Chairman, the purpose of the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance is to provide a public channel for the supervision of reclamation procedures which are not transparent enough and not subject to any supervision mechanism at present. The Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB) accepted the Ordinance in principle. When it was scrutinized by the Bills Committee of the former Legislative Council, Mr Edward HO proposed to assign the whole of the harbour as a statutory plan so that the Town Planning Board would have the power to examine and approve reclamation projects while the public will be able to express their opinions through the consultation channels stipulated in the Town Planning Ordinance. Since the proposal has already included the objective of the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance, the Government promised to replace the Ordinance with Mr HO's proposal at that time. As a result, the DAB accepted Mr HO's proposal then and objected to this Ordinance which has just been passed in the last Session of the former Legislative Council.

However, after the Ordinance was passed by the former Legislative Council, the now Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government criticizes anew section 3 of the Ordinance which raised a presumption against reclamation in the harbour, saying that there are neither details of implementation nor provisions stipulating who will be responsible for and how to invoke this presumption of law. In fact, the then Bills Committee has already discussed the issue in detail, but the Government has all along failed to adduce any concrete evidence to show the impact of the Ordinance on government operations. Similarly, the SAR Government cannot furnish adequate explanations and reasons in this respect. When the DAB considers whether the operation of the Ordinance should be suspended, the decisive factors would be whether the suspension will have immediate and serious influences. First of all, we do not see any urgent projects that require instant large-scale reclamation in the harbour. Besides, the Government has also pledged that if the Ordinance were suspended, large-scale reclamation projects still would not be carried out in the harbour. Since there will not be reclamation projects in the harbour in a short time no matter the Ordinance is suspended or not, the DAB does not see why there is an urgency to suspend the Ordinance. If the Government finds inadequacies in the Ordinance, it can well undertake studies and move amendments in the mean time. When the time comes, the DAB will definitely take the Government SIZE=4>‘s relevant proposals into very careful consideration.

With these remarks, Madam Chairman, I move the amendment.

Proposed amendment

Clause 2 (see Annex III)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I will call upon the Chief Secretary for Administration to speak on the amendment proposed by Mr IP Kwok-him as well as her own proposed amendment, but will not ask the Chief Secretary for Administration to move her amendment unless Mr IP Kwok-him's amendment has been negatived. Chief Secretary for Administration.

CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to respond to the proposal that certain Honourable Members put forward in the Bills Committee, which is to include in the Bill a time limit for the period of suspension of the operation of the seven Ordinances. We propose to set the time limit at the end of October. I understand that some Members think that the time limit should be set at September, but this proposal is not realistic at all. It is because we have to follow up on the review, for example, to consult the Executive Council and the Provisional Legislative Council. We also have to prepare an amendment Bill, if necessary, to implement the proposals of the review, therefore, we have proposed to set the time limit at the end of October. Furthermore, it is impossible for us to have an exact date on which this Council will finish the scrutiny of the amendment Bill. As such, we propose that the time limit on the period of suspension of the operation of the Ordinances can be extended, if necessary, with the consent of this Council.

Madam Chairman, I urge Honourable Members to support our amendment.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Members may now debate the amendment moved by Mr Ip Kwok-him as well as the amendment proposed by the Chief Secretary for Administration.

Does any Member wish to speak?

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG.

MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I speak in support of the amendment moved by Mr IP Kwok-him because the passage of his amendment would mean opposing the suspension of the Ordinance, that is, the operation of the original Ordinance will not be suspended and it will continue to be in force.

The first reason is that the Victoria Harbour of Hong Kong has already been narrowed and shrunken seriously, while the current becomes more rapid and swift. If the Government keeps on reclaiming it, we are indeed worried that the ecology and current velocity will be badly affected.

Secondly, in answering Members' questions, the Government always said that there would not be any reclamation projects in the near future or in the coming three to four months. If the Government really thinks that the Ordinance is problematic and there is a need to revoke or amend the same, it has all the time in the world to deal with these problems and needs not resort to a suspension of operation.

The last reason for my objection is that (I would also like to remind the Chief Secretary for Administration of this, and hope that she will answer if she has the opportunity to respond or speak later), just as I mentioned a moment ago, according to the terms of reference given to the Provisional Legislative Council when it was set up by the Preparatory Committee, this Council has seven functions and powers. Among them, one stipulates that we are only here to enact indispensable laws. If the Ordinance is suspended today, when the Government reviews it before 30 October this year and feels that there is a need to amend or even revoke the same, and then tables those amendments to this Council, will such legislation be regarded as indispensable? If it is not indispensable, should we handle it or not? In my opinion, it is definitely not indispensable. It will be all right to leave the Ordinance as it is, we do not have to do one more legislative job again in the coming 10 months, be it amendment, revocation, reinforcement or improvement. Therefore, I think that it may violate the Preparatory Committee's stipulation that this Council should only deal with indispensable legislations.

I hope that the public officers would later answer the questions in this respect.

Thank you, Madam President.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Miss CHOY So-yuk.

MISS CHOY SO-YUK (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, the Government has put forward two reasons to suspend the operation of the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance. Firstly, certain provisions of the Ordinance are not clear enough; and secondly, the Government has already promised that no reclamation projects will be undertaken within the harbour areas as specified in the Ordinance. I think both of them are not the reasons for the suspension of the operation of the Ordinance.

I think that the definition of "reclamation" in the Ordinance is clear enough. Also, the Chief Secretary for Administration just now has promised that no reclamation projects will be implemented within the harbour areas specified in the Ordinance before 31 October this year. Actually, that leaves the Government without any reason to press for the freezing of this Ordinance. In fact, the Government can still continue its study on reclamation because the implementation of the Ordinance will not bring any immediate or adverse effects to the operation of the Government.

Environmental protection has all along been the concern of the Hong Kong Progressive Alliance. I am particularly concerned about the damage which reclamation projects have done to the Victoria Harbour. I have staged many protests and collected many signatures from the public to support the protection of the Victoria Harbour.

I have to emphasize that the protection of the Victoria Harbour is of great importance because it is the most important natural assets of Hong Kong. If the Victoria Harbour got filled in, it could never be reverted. I have to reiterate that once this unique and beautiful harbour is damaged, it will be our loss forever. No matter how much money and time we spend, we just cannot buy it back. Therefore, all the reclamation projects implemented within the Victoria Harbour should first solicit the public's views through extensive consultation. As a truly responsible legislature, we have an unshirkable duty to handle such a livelihood issue which has far-reaching consequences. I therefore support the amendment of Mr IP Kwok-him to repeal the provisions on freezing the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Edward HO.

MR EDWARD HO (in Cantonese): Madam chairman, my stance is very clear in relation to the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance. Since I have spoken on the Ordinance when it was passed, I will not repeat my points here.

First of all, I agree very much that our harbour must be protected, and those Members who are against the freezing of this Ordinance today also share the same view. I have to say thank you to Mr IP Kwok-him for reminding us, and some of our new colleagues who do not know what had happened, that we actually had raised another proposal in the past. The proposal was that we can have another alternative instead of legislating on the protection of our harbour. The Victoria Harbour can be designated to fall under the ambit of the Town Planning Board (TPB), so that the same can be deemed as a district when the TPB prepares the outline zoning plan. The use of the harbour will then be treated like other green belts or country parks, and the TPB can then take proper measures to protect the harbour. I thought then that neither legislation nor the use of presumption were proper ways. Moreover, the Government had also pointed out that there were many problems with the Bill.

Today, we just see a leaflet on the table distributed to us by the Citizens Party, and I do not know whether it has been published in the newspapers. The last sentence in the leaflet reads like this: "This Bill on the suspension of the Ordinances is a violation of the whole legislative process." I have to clarify that I am not debating a Bill on the revocation of Ordinances but only on the suspension of operation of the same. Many Members are also against this proposal. They think that the Government should not freeze but revoke the Ordinances. Some Members even said that if no reclamation project is going to be carried out in the harbour immediately, why do we have to freeze the Ordinance in a hurry? We can wait for several months, so that the Government can think it over before amending or even revoking this Ordinance.

I personally think that this Ordinance is actually very simple. In fact, it only boils down to one important sentence, which is the clause relating to the presumption. It is said that all public officers shall have regard to the principle of the protection of the harbour in the exercise of any powers vested in them. However, the scope of their powers is not mentioned in the Ordinance. For example, when the government officials appoint some consultants to carry out feasibility studies on reclamation projects, they are already exercising their powers. Even if they are not really carrying out reclamation projects, some people may still take the Administration to court. Therefore I think that the Government's present proposal to freeze the Ordinances for further consideration is worth supporting, because we can then consider three months later whether any amendment should be made or any action should be taken.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LAU Kong-wah.

MR LAU KONG-WAH (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, yesterday I was asked of my reasons for opposing the proposal of freezing the Ordinances put forward by the Government. My reason is very simple. It is because the Government has got no grounds. After the two meetings, we have a clear picture and thorough understanding of the whole process, as well as the position of the Government. The Government has distributed to us a three-page document which contains only two points. Firstly, this Ordinance has been passed hastily and is full of ambiguities. However, when I check with the records, I find that the Ordinance has in fact discussed and examined, and that it has passed through proper legislative procedures. So how could the Government say that it was passed in haste?

We all understand that the Ordinance's concept was started two years ago and had four simple provisions in it only. If we say that this Ordinance has been passed in haste, then we should look back at our discussion in respect of the Hong Kong Reunification Bill before 1 July. If we could manage to finish the scrutiny of 40 provisions in two months, so why is it not possible to finish the scrutiny of the four provisions in two years? If the Government had acted responsibly in face of the matter and did find that there was something wrong with this Ordinance, it probably could have ample time to present relevant amendments to this Council. Besides, the Government should have informed us that actually every ordinance can be uncertain and imperfect. How can one say that there are entirely perfect and clear statue books? Impossible. It is for this reason that we need to have a proper procedure to put forward amendments.

The second reason put forward by the Government is that if this Ordinance is not frozen, there will be grave consequences in the coming few months. At first, I really thought that the consequences would be very serious because it was said that "a large number" of projects would be affected. However, after studying and probing into this question further, we found that basically only four large projects had ever been mentioned, and all of them were just at the study stage. The Ordinance itself will not affect these studies. If we do not freeze this Ordinance, the Government can still go on with these four large projects. During the course of deliberation, some Members asked the Government whether there were any other projects except those four? The reply given by the Government was that there might be a few minor projects, if not none at all. As such, do we still have to freeze this Ordinance in such a haste? Certainly not. If we find out a newly-built building has leakage problems, should we pull it down? Actually, we can just fill in the holes in order to solve the problem.

Although the Government has proposed to set a deadline yesterday or today, and some Members have also raised this suggestion, I still think that the Government is indeed adopting a delaying tactic irrespective of its original suggestion to complete all the procedures by the end of September or the current one by the end of October. On the contrary, if this Ordinance is not frozen and remains in force, I cannot see there will be any serious problems in these few months. All in all, I think that there is no justification for suspending the operation of this Ordinance.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG.

MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance had been subject to substantial amendment before it was passed by the former Legislative Council. It was said that all reclamation proposals had to obtain prior approval from the Legislation Council before implementation. However, this amendment was defeated at that time, so finally there are only four provisions. It is stipulated in section 3(1) that ─ this is what Mr Edward HO just now has tried to read out ─ "The central harbour is to be protected and preserved as a special public asset and a natural heritage of Hong Kong people, and for that purpose there shall be a presumption against reclamation in the central harbour." In subsection (2), it is said that, "All public officers and public bodies shall have regard to the principle stated in subsection (1) for guidance in the exercise of any powers vested in them." This is actually a guideline, requiring public officers to consider this principle when exercising their power. If this Ordinance is not frozen, the effect will only be requiring public officers and public bodies to have regard to this principle, while reclamation projects of great urgency will not be affected at all.

I do not quite understand why the Government has to freeze this Ordinance. Does it fear that litigation will be brought about under section 3? If we are worried that employing a consultancy firm to look into the feasibility of reclamation is tantamount to violating section 3, I think we have to look at the legal advice which I have already sought. A friend of mine has consulted Professor Raymond WECKS, who teaches law and legal theory in the Law Faculty of the University of Hong Kong, and he is of the opinion that this section does not have such effect. Members can be rest assured that I will not read the whole note out since it is already very late now and there are still many provisions waiting for examination. If we all think that certain laws are needed in order to protect the harbour, this Ordinance in fact cannot serve such purpose but is just paying lip-service in this respect only. There is nothing to worry about if this Ordinance is not frozen because it is meaningless to do so. If we really care about our harbour, we should neither suspend this Ordinance nor retain it in this Bill.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mrs Miriam LAU.

MRS MIRIAM LAU (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, the major problem with the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance is that it has established a presumption against reclamation in the central harbour. Theoretically, this Ordinance does not prohibit us from carrying out reclamation projects because the presumption can be rebutted. However, it is extremely difficult to rebut a statutory presumption. When we look at the outline zoning plans prepared by the Town Planning Board (TPB), we will find that if an area is designated as a green belt, a presumption against development in that area will immediately be established. Past experiences have shown that it is actually very difficult to be successful in rebutting an presumption. If the relevant application is not accepted by the TPB, the applicant can appeal to the Appeal Board of the TPB.

The Protection of the Harbour Ordinance has not specified any channels for rebutting the presumption, nor has it establsihed any appeals mechanism. Certainly, some people will think that no problem would be created even if there is no appeals mechanism as the matter can be taken to court for adjudication. However, what will the consequence be then? If we do not have a statutory procedure to process the applications and scrutinize the reclamation proposals, the Government may have to face legal challenges anytime when planning or even implementing the reclamation works. It is because all those who oppose the reclamation projects can petition the court for a ruling on whether the Government has sufficient grounds to rebut the presumption against reclamation.

Mr Andrew WONG has just mentioned the views of a legal expert, Professor Raymond WECKS, who is of the opinion that no one is given any power to take the Government to court, albeit it cannot prevent any person to take the case to court under this Ordinance after all. I think the views from an academic may not be able to remove my doubts. In other countries, some infrastructure developments have been stopped owing to the opposition of environmental groups. They take the Government to court, and at the end, the developments have to be aborted. I have also witnessed many projects and road constructions being stopped half-way because of the opposition of the environmental groups and the prospective litigations. I do not want to see such things happen in Hong Kong.

Undoubtedly, our harbour has been diminishing in size because of reclamation works. The Government therefore has to examine the reclamation proposals with great care, and no approval should be given to any projects except those absolutely necessary. However, I am aware that many necessary and important infrastructures are going to be built within the central harbour area, including the Central-Wanchai Bypass and the Eastern Corridor Link, both of which are my area of concern. This east-west trunk transport route is of great importance and urgency as it helps to relieve the traffic congestion problem along the northern shore of Hong Kong Island. The two trunk roads should have to be completed by the end of 1990s, but we cannot see any progress now. The main reason for the delay is probably the problem of reclamation. In fact, we have to reclaim the harbour before these construction projects can be commenced. I am worried that with the implementation of the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance, all these important development works will not be able to commence, or even all the relevant plannings have to be halted. I therefore agree to suspend this Ordinance to allow the Government an opportunity to study the matter in detail and assess whether this Ordinance will really hinder or affect the development of those important transport infrastructures. If this is the case, the Government should consider taking some remedial measures such as exempting the infrastructures from the scope of the Ordinance. If there are no such measures, the Government should consider other road projects as replacement. In this aspect, I sincerely hope that the Government can give this Council a clear picture after this Ordinance is defrosted three months later.

With these remarks, I oppose the amendment of Mr IP Kwok-him and support the amendment of the Chief Secretary for Administration. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Raymond HO.

DR RAYMOND HO (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I have spoken on the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance many times in the Bills Committee and the debate today. Why do I have to speak on this Ordinance so many times? We are now in the sixth hour of our meeting, it seems that we have already had a clear and balanced debate on many Ordinances. However, I think that Members are biased towards this Ordinance in that they have talked about the broad principles instead of considering the practical situation. I have to reiterate my views in relation to this aspect, but I will not repeat the arguments which I have mentioned earlier on today. I have to go back to my arguments stated a few days ago because some Members were not present at that Bills Committee meeting or some of them have not signed up for that Bills Committee.

I am returned from the engineering sector which includes several trades that are connected with environmental protection; as such, I do have some knowledge in this respect. I have worked in foreign countries for many years, and from my overseas working experiences, I realize that environmental protection has become a vulnerable target for building political capital. Many projects which the Government has decided to implement for improving the livelihood and living standard of the people are time and again amended and eventually aborted owing to the opposition of the environmentalists.

environmental protection is badly needed in Hong Kong. I am very much concerned about our harbour, which is the third best harbour in the world. However, we should not give up our work or the projects to raise our standard of living because of the principle of environmental protection.

The Government has already raised the reasons why it has to suspend the operation of the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance, and it has also referred to several large projects at the outset. We have just heard from the Chief Secretary for Administration that there will not be any major projects to be implemented in the coming few months, albeit the relevant planning work may go on. What I referred to earlier is that it is impossible to implement certain repair works under such situation. For example, under this Ordinance, it is impossible to repair the Cross Harbour Tunnel if it is damaged by the anchor of a vessel; it is impossible to carry out repair works if a vessel has collided with a pier or damaged the tower leg of a bridge when berthing; besides, we are also prohibited from carrying out urgent maintenance works to repair or relay submarine cables. It is all because the interpretation of "reclamation" includes any work over and upon any foreshore and sea-bed.

I have received from Professor Raymond WECKS of the Law Faculty of the University of Hong Kong a letter and his views. I earlier on said to the environmentalists that in relation to this point of mine, the Ordinance has only got one sentence or a few words, and I am not satisfied with that. It is because legal advice can always solicit several different or opposing views. As to the survey on the public's views regarding reclamation, 1 002 members of the public have been interviewed. I do not know how these 1 002 persons are distributed among the strata, but I just think that the questionnaire is too simple. The respondents are only asked whether they are in support of reclamation works; certainly, the majority would answer in the negative. If the public is asked whether they should be consulted before carrying out reclamation, the answer will definitely be "yes" and the percentage will be over 90%. I have seen many surveys of this kind, but I think they are all not objective enough.

Back to the discussion, we have no intention to revoke this Ordinance, perhaps we may adopt the proposal suggested by Mr Edward HO. At present, we can just freeze this Ordinance for several weeks, but because of further deliberation and amendments, the actual time needed may be six months. During this period, many urgent maintenance works could not be carried out owing to this Ordinance. I hope Honourable Members can consider this point. I understand that sometimes it will give the public a good impression if Members are against the freezing of some Ordinances. However, I hope Honourable Members can consider supporting the Government's proposal to suspend the operation of the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance from a practical point of view.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Chairman (in Cantonese): Mr YUEN Mo.

MR YUEN MO (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, Hong Kong does not have a lot of precious resources, but we do have a very good deep water harbour. Hong Kong relies a lot on this deep water harbour to develop its shipping industry, and this in turn has also led to the development of our industry, trade, financial activities and tourist industry. This is why Hong Kong has become one of the most remarkable shipping centre in the world. Since we have such a good harbour, we have every reason to treasure our Victoria Harbour. Owing to the geographical location, our beautiful Victoria Harbour has helped Hong Kong stand out as the Pearl of the Orient. for this reason, the Administration must be extremely cautious with any major reclamation projects in the Victoria Harbour. No matter it is from the angle of harbour protection or economic development, or from the angle of environmental protection thereby improving the outlook of our city, I think that we should treasure highly our Victoria Harbour instead of damaging the beautiful scenery it presents.

Nevertheless, a few Members have just mentioned that this Protection of the Harbour Ordinance indeed has some areas that are less than perfect. Certainly, this Ordinance is not enacted in a hasty manner for it has already gone through extensive consultations albeit there is still room for improvement. As Dr Raymond HO and other Honourable Members have already mentioned about these areas, and I am not going to repeat them here.

I am therefore speaking from the shipping industry's point of view. I do treasure this harbour very much and I think we should not carry out any major reclamation works because that would affect our position as a shipping centre. However, the Ordinance should be more perfect. The Administration has already undertaken that no major reclamation projects will be carried out before the end of September, and it has also promised that it will put forward amendments as soon as possible. Under such circumstances, I think I can support the Government's proposal to suspend the operation of this Ordinance.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Honourable Members, according to Rule 38(1)(a) of the Rules of Procedure, Members could speak more than once. Therefore, I now call upon Mr Andrew WONG to speak.

MR ANDREW WONG: Madam Chairman, I do not wish to detain the Committee any longer but I have to respond since Mr Raymond HO and Mrs Miriam LAU referred to legal points, in particular to Professor Raymond WECKS. I have to read out the note from Professor Raymond WECKS, I just read three paragraphs out. He says, "I have studied section 3 carefully and it seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable and appropriate mechanism by which to regulate future reclamation of the Harbour. In particular, presumption strikes a fair and rational balance between the interests of the people of Hong Kong on the one hand, and the future development of the Harbour on the other. Nor do I believe that since the Ordinance specifies no sanction nor civil liability, it imposes an unreasonable burden on public officials and on the whole this legislation represents a constructive and positive means by which the law (if necessary through the exercise of judiciary review) can afford protection to one of our most important natural assets."

Now this may not sound very legal, but I have another opinion from a most respected Senior Counsel in Hong Kong, Richard MILLS OWENS, QC. I will not read out the whole note, but for the record I think it is important that these words ought to be in the Hansard. "Section 3", this is paragraph 6, "Section 3 does not impose any prohibition against reclamation. It only raises a presumption, albeit rebuttable, against reclamation for the stated purpose of protecting and preserving the central Harbour." Paragraph 7, "Section 3(2) imposes a duty on all public officers and public bodies to have regard to the principle stated in subsection (1) "for guidance in the exercise of any powers vested in them."" Paragraph 8, "Nowhere in the Ordinance is there created any civil or criminal liability on the part of any person including any public officer or public body for exercising any power vested in them in a manner which may be deemed to be contrary to the principles stated in section 3 of the Ordinance." Paragraph 9, "Any person dissatisfied with the exercise of power by a public officer or public body can apply for judicial review of the exercise of such powers." Paragraph 10, "This is a very heavy burden to discharge. First, the court must be satisfied that there has been a wrongful exercise of discretion. Second, the burden of proof will be on the applicant. Third, under administrative law this will be a heavy burden." Paragraph 11, "The Government can discharge the burden of rebutting the presumption afforded by section 3(1) of the Ordinance by showing that in making a decision in the manner it did it had to regard to the principle enunciated by section 3(1). The Government will not need to show that every possibility has been exhausted as in normal exercise of Government's discretion, the Government only needs to show that it had acted in a reasonable manner."

I think reasonable Members could be persuaded, but I particularly hope that Members of the Liberal Party could be persuaded, but they are nowhere to be found except Mrs Miriam LAU who has returned. I hope that we can have the support of Members of the Liberal Party in deleting the relevant clause from the Bill.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mrs Miriam LAU.

MRS MIRIAM LAU: Madam Chairman, I should like to thank Mr Andrew WONG for reading out extracts from the opinion of Mr Raymond WECKS and Mr Richard MILLS OWENS, QC. I do respect very much the legal opinion expressed by these learned persons, but nonetheless the extracts that Mr Andrew WONG has read out actually confirm two points. Firstly, litigation cannot be avoided, and secondly, the matter remains to be adjudicated by the Court. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Raymond HO.

DR RAYMOND HO (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, all of us here have just heard the legal advice from two legal experts as read out by Mr Andrew WONG. It is very clear that the first problem does not specifically address the issue we mentioned earlier. The second problem has already been mentioned by Mrs Miriam LAU and I have also noted that. In fact, I have also read that letter which said that nowhere in the Ordinance has created any possibility for litigation. However, that it is not so easy to win a case does not mean that no prosecution could be instituted. Fortunately, Mrs Miriam LAU is also a member of the legal profession; as such, I am sure that we are all aware of the situation where the solution to these problems is just like opening a gate, whether you can succeed would depend on your ability. Therefore, it is possible that you can win or lose the case. I hope Honourable Members can understand that this legal advice is after all just an advice. We should consider the issue in the light of the actual situation. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak? If not, I will ask the Chief Secretary for Administration if she would like to speak?

CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I wish to invite the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands to explain the reasons for the suspension of the operation of the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands.

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, let me first start with the background of this Ordinance. The Protection of the Harbour Ordinance is a Members' Bill introduced by a Member of the former Legislative Council. It is true that this Bill has been scrutinized by the Bills Committee set up under the former Legislative Council, but no consensus has been reached. The Ordinance as it stands is actually an amended version after deliberation at the Committee stage, and the amendment was tabled only 10 or 11 days before the relevant Sitting. If we say that this Ordinance has been discussed for years and a thorough study has been carried out, that was actually just a draft version which did not pass. The enacted version was only studied during the amendment debate in the former Legislative Council. I have to point out that the former Legislative Council in fact could not reach a very clear consensus regarding this amendment, and the amended Ordinance was passed by a thin margin.

I should also suggest to Members that in considering the proposal to suspend the operation of this Ordinance put forward by the Government, they not only have to bear in mind or consider whether some urgent projects may be affected, but also whether the Ordinance itself has such serious legal problems that it cannot be implemented at all. We have studied this Ordinance and found many inadequacies and irregularities which may create difficulties in implementation and may also give rise to a lot of legal problems.

To begin with, in the preamble of the Ordinance, it is said that, "To protect and preserve the harbour by establishing a presumption against reclamation in the harbour and by requiring such reclamation to be approved by the Legislative Council, and to make consequential amendments to other Ordinances." Madam Chairman, apart from the first sentence, the rest of the Bill to which the remaining part of the preamble referred in fact has been deleted during the last amendment debate by the former Legislative Council. They are already not applicable, but the preamble has failed to make a corresponding deletion. Some people may say that this is not something important, and we also agree with this point. However, it can reflect that this Ordinance was passed in a very hasty manner, or we cannot find this loophole.

As Members have just pointed out, section 3 is the only substantive provision in the Ordinance. Section 3 establishes a public law principle of presumption against reclamation in the central harbour and creates a public duty requiring public officers and public bodies to have regard to the principle for guidance in the exercise of their powers. However, the Ordinance is silent on how this principle is to be implemented. It is also silent on the details for implementing section 3. For example, what proof should the Government produce before getting approval for reclamation? Before putting forward the reclamation proposal, the Government has to consider which plan, which person or which mechanism will be in compliance with the principle. The Ordinance is also silent on what the public officers or public organizations should do in order to meet this principle. I have in hand a pamphlet prepared by an Honourable Member, and it claims that the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance does not completely prohibit reclamation, and that the Government can carry out reclamation only when there are no other alternatives. However, I would like to know where can we find this interpretation and these wordings in the Ordinance? The Ordinance only states that there is a presumption against reclamation, where does it say that the Government can only undertake reclamation when there are no other alternatives?

Section 3 has also established this presumption. I have just said that reclamation is presumed a wrong doing, therefore, unless all public officers and public bodies can prove the contrary, otherwise, they cannot or should not undertake reclamation projects. However, I have also said that the Ordinance is silent on what public officers and public bodies should do to constitute this contrary situation, and on the issue regarding who can decide whether these contrary circumstances are genuine? The Ordinance has created a very serious consequence which some Members have just mentioned, that is, any member of the public can challenge public officers and public bodies by way of judicial review on the non-compliance of the presumption.

Owing to the above ambiguities, apart from the public law duty such as what is meant by acting reasonably, fairly, justly and in good faith, where can we find the guidelines for making decisions according to the legal point of view or relevant reasons, and the relevance, unimportance or inappropriateness of these same reasons? Do public officers and public bodies have to comply with other duties in order to meet the presumption of the Ordinance? The Ordinance is very ambiguous in these areas. Owing to the shortcomings and the many grey areas of this Ordinance, all public officers and public bodies responsible for reclamation projects in the central harbour will have to face the possibility of being questioned for failing or neglecting to comply with the presumption, and the consequences are very difficult to anticipate when they face litigations in court.

It has also been mentioned that some Members may be misled by the word "reclamation" to think that only works project which actually dump soil into the sea will be controlled. In fact, this is not the case. The term "reclamation" in this Ordinance means, and Dr Raymond HO has also mentioned, that "any work over and upon any foreshore and sea-bed". In other words, any works on the water surface, in the water or at the bottom of the sea in the central harbour will be affected and covered by this Ordinance. If this is the case, it will not just be the reclamation works. It is because in the planning process of these central harbour projects, not only dumping soil into the sea will be regarded as projects, some consultancy studies will also be included. So, what projects are going on at present? Firstly, the Central Reclamation Phase III. The purpose of this project is to provide land to construct the Central to Wanchai Bypass, to expand the commercial area in Central and provide other community facilities, for example, the sitting-out areas and the waterfront promenade. Secondly, the Wanchai Reclamation Phase II. This is also part of the project of the Central to Wanchai Bypass. Apart from providing land to build this Bypass, reclamation can also provide land for many community facilities in Wanchai. Thirdly, the section of the Central to Wanchai Bypass. This project can relieve the traffic congestion in the central business district. Fourthly, the development of the Kowloon Point. We expect that this reclamation project can provide land for a road linking Tsim Sha Tsui and West Kowloon Reclamation, and also a railway linking the east and west railway of the Kowloon-Canton Railway, as well as for other commercial, community and tourism facilities.

Madam Chairman, I would like to emphasize that many of these projects are still in the planning process, but our consultancy studies have already approved some of the projects. So, is this Ordinance telling us that we have to stop these studies immediately? It is because if we continue to carry out these studies, we do not know when will we have to face litigation for breaching this legal principle against reclamation. Also, there are many other routine works such as the projects in relation to roads and piers, the reprovisioning of public utilities, and the regular maintenance works of the cross-harbour tunnels, cables, communication cables and thoroughfares. We are not sure whether we should freeze or give up all these projects. The scope of this Ordinance is so extensive that it affects not only the actual reclamation work of dumping soil into the sea, but also other issues.

This Ordinance has been passed for over 10 days. We should allocate more time to study its impact so as to see whether we can cope with these problems and what the consequences are. An Honourable Member has just referred to a piece of legal advice, saying that this Ordinance will not have any impact on the operation of the Government and the public bodies. However, we may have divergent legal views, and recently we have received a different legal opinion saying that the drafting manner of this Ordinance is very rare under the common law system. The wordings used is "alien to the spirit of common law drafting". In other words, since there are so many different legal experts offering different legal interpretations of this Ordinance, is it reasonable that the Administration be given more time to study the consequences and the related factors in detail? We are not asking for the commencement of reclamation projects immediately, nor are we saying that we will revoke the Ordinance. We are just asking for more time to consider the consequences.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kwok-him, do you wish to speak? Excuse me, a moment please.

Mr Andrew WONG, are you seeking clarification?

MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I hope you would let me have the floor. According to the rule, the Secretary will be the last one to speak on the debate and then followed by the final reply, however, this debate is not over yet. Therefore, I hope you would allow me to make a few points to rebut the speech by the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands. Another reason is I have expressed my legal point of view but the Secretary has not yet told me his.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, would you please hold on? Honourable Members, if Mr WONG wishes to respond to the speech given by the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands just now, I will allow him to take the floor. If the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands thinks that it is necessary to respond to Mr WONG, I will also let him reply. Mr WONG.

MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam Chairman. Indeed, I would like to ask the Secretary to make a response. I have just stated two pieces of legal advice, albeit the one from Professor Raymond WECKS could not be regarded as a piece of legal advice but only a statement of his stance; the other piece of advice is from Mr Richard MILLS OWEN. The Secretary has said that they also have their legal advice and I hope he can read that out to us.

Furthermore, the Secretary has quoted that the drafting of the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance is alien to common law drafting. I totally agree with this point. In fact, this was a Members' Bill when it was presented to me at that time and it was written in the American style. Although I did not like it, it was not appropriate for the President to bring up such matter.

What we are now considering is an Ordinance that had already been passed by the former Legislative Council. Would that be the case that the Ordinance has so many uncertainties according to the legal advice of the Government that it is impossible to continue with the study?

The most powerful argument of the Government is that the Ordinance is not enforceable. Let me ask one more question. If the consultancy report is ready after the freezing of the Ordinance, can we start to carry out the projects immediately, since the Ordinance is not in operation in the eyes of the Government? This is indeed a very serious problem. I hope Honourable Members would pay more attention to it. If we can wait for a longer period, why can we not wait until the Ordinance has been in operation for three months and the review is finished before proposing amendments?

As such, I hope that apart from the point on drafting manner, the Secretary can also read out his legal advice. Although the drafting manner of this Ordinance is different from our usual practice, there are still certain parts that are the same as ours, for example, there are similar types of presumptions in the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance. In view of such, the way of drafting is not totally unacceptable.

I hope the Secretary would respond to this question direct. I also hope that Honourable Members would lend me their support and understand that if this Ordinance continues to operate and is not frozen, the only impact would be the suspension of some projects.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, please be concise. I think you have already gone over some points, so, would you please be more concise? You are just requesting the Secretary to make an elucidation.

MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): Finally, Madam Chairman, I wish to urge Honourable Members to think over whether they have to declare any interest in accordance with Rule 84(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Raymond HO.

DR RAYMOND HO (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, my speech will be very brief. First of all, I am not involved in any harbour projects at this point in time. I just hope Honourable Members will not deliberate during or after this discussion on whether the Government has planned any major projects and whether that will be implemented. I urge Honourable colleagues to bear in mind that the implementation of maintenance works is very important, and many of them are very urgent in nature. Also, there is one point which I have never mentioned before, and that is, if we look at those information, we could find that some professional organizations are very much against this Ordinance. Mr Andrew WONG has also raised two points. Firstly, he has said that he himself does not like this Ordinance very much; secondly, he has said that many amendments have been proposed in June. As a result, this Ordinance is no longer a true reflection of the original draft because it has been distorted by the amendments.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands, do you wish to speak?

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I do not wish to argue with Mr Andrew WONG on the views of the legal experts. Our problem is we need more time to study clearly the discussions on this Ordinance by different parties. Maybe we will agree with them after completing this study, yet the point is we need time to do all these. For example, should a sewerage burst tomorrow in an area which is under the scope of this Ordinance, and the engineer is of the opinion that reclamation work is required on top of the sewerage to prevent further leakage, is it possible for us to carry out the reclamation work? It is difficult to tell, maybe we have to build a cement block that is 50 m long. The problem is we do not have any idea as to how we should handle this situation, but the fact is that this Ordinance does have such effect. We are therefore of the opinion that this Ordinance should be suspended, so as to enable us to have more time for deliberation. Perhaps we may agree with the substance of this Ordinance if there are no more ambiguities after deliberation. However, the crux of the problem at the moment is that we need time, if we continue to dwell on the advice of different legal experts at this meeting, it is unlikely that we can reach any conclusion.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kwok-him, do you wish to reply?

MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I have just heard the views of the Government and Honourable Members, and I would like to make some responses. Indeed, the former Legislative Council had a quite lengthy discussion on this Ordinance, and the amendment to the central harbour mentioned by the Secretary just now was only put forward later on the 15th day of the month. Therefore, it is true that this point has not gone through thorough discussion. In fact, generally speaking, we have already discussed and studied the idea of presuming our harbour as part of the natural assets. To be fair, I think that the picture has been studied and subsequently the scope has been narrowed down to a smaller part. Although the Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB) supported the proposal of the Honourable Edward HO in the voting of the former Legislative Council, we have already stated in our speeches just now that we have to protect our harbour, and we have made this point very clear.

Earlier many Honourable Members entered into a very concrete discussion on the details of this Ordinance. For example, they mentioned that it is impossible to carry our urgent maintenance works, or that it may not be possible to undertake repair works should a sewerage burst. I believe this is not the legislative intent of this Ordinance because its original intention is to protect the harbour. As such, I urge that there must be consultations on major reclamation works to allow the public to express their views. In the past, obviously, the public is very dissatisfied with the major reclamation works in the Victoria Harbour and the central harbour, and it has also aroused considerable discussion in society. As what the Members from the Hong Kong Progressive Alliance have just mentioned, we are also very concerned that the Victoria Harbour might turn into the Victoria River. We certainly do not want this to happen.

Although this Ordinance has raised a legal presumption, if there is an urgent need to undertake maintenance works in the harbour, the case will be referred to the court for adjudication. We do have such a mechanism enshrined in the Ordinance. Just now, it was mentioned that public officers would be at a loss as to whether the reclamation projects could be carried out, and whether there be a potential legal responsibility on the part of the public officers if reclamation work is carried out.

I cannot see any such problems from the example cited by the Secretary just now. It is because obviously no reclamation projects will be carried out in the Victoria Harbour except for those emergency works to maintain the standard and integrity of a facility. I think that this point fails to hold an argument. I therefore think that the crucial point now is whether there will be any immediate serious impact. This is in fact the crux of our discussion. Having listened to all the speeches, I think there is no single argument that can convince me that we are now facing a crisis. By that I refer to a crisis that the operation of this Ordinance will pose serious hindrance to government projects in relation to the harbour, and causing them to be aborted eventually. However, we are not convinced. I therefore hope that Members can support my amendment to delete the clause relating to the suspension of operation of the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment to clause 2 moved by Mr IP Kwok-him be approved.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".

(Members responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think that the voices of the "ayes" and the "noes" are more or less the same. (Laughter) Does any Member wish to claim a division?

Miss CHAN Yuen-han and Mr IP Kwok-him rose to has claim a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Miss CHAN Yuen-han has claimed a division. Committee will now proceed to a division. The division bell will ring for three minutes.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Honourable Members, the question now put is: That the amendment to clause 2 moved by Mr IP Kwok-him be approved. Will Members please proceed to vote now?

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Before I declare the result, Members may wish to check their votes. Are there any queries? The result will now be displayed.

Mr WONG Siu-yee, Mr David CHU, Prof NG Ching-fai, Mr Eric LI, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr Henry WU, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr HUI Yin-fat, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TSANG Yok-sing, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Andrew WONG, Mr Kennedy WONG, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr LAU Kong-wah, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Dr TANG Siu-tong, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok and Miss CHOY So-yuk voted for the amendment.

Mr James TIEN, Mr HO Sai-chu, Mr Edward HO, Dr Raymond HO, Dr David LI, Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Elsie TU, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mrs Peggy LAM, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr Henry TANG, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mr YUEN Mo, Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr Timothy FOK, Mr KAN Fook-yee, Mr LO Suk-ching and Mr TAM Yiu-chung voted against the amendment.

Mr NG Leung-sing abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 31 Members in favour of the amendment, 20 against and one abstaining. She therefore declared that the amendment was carried.

DR LEONG CHE-HUNG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, in accordance with Rule 49(3) of the Rules of Procedure, I move that in the event of further divisions being claimed at this meeting in respect of the Legislative Provisions (Suspension of Operation) Bill 1997, the Committee of the whole council should proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has rung for one minute.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That in the event of further divisions on different motions being claimed at this Meeting in respect of the Legislative Provisions (Suspension of Operation) Bill 1997, the Committee of the whole Council should proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has rung for one minute.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".

(No Member responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the "ayes" have it. The "ayes" have it.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): As Mr IP Kwok-him's amendment to clause 2 has been agreed, clause 2 has been deleted from the Bill. Chief Secretary for Administration, you may not therefore move your proposed amendment.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clause 3.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Both Mr IP Kwok-him and the Chief Secretary for Administration have separately given notices to move amendments to clause 3. Mr IP's proposed amendment seeks to delete the clause, whereas the Chief Secretary for Administration's amendment mainly seeks to include a time limit on the period of suspension of the operation of the Occupational Deafness (Compensation) (Amendment) Ordinance 1997 in the clause. If Members later vote in favour of Mr IP's amendment, that means that the Committee has not agreed to the suspension of the operation of the Occupational Deafness (Compensation) (Amendment) Ordinance 1997.

I propose that the amendments to clause 3 proposed separately by Mr IP Kwok-him and the Chief Secretary for Administration, be debated together in a joint debate.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee shall debate the amendments, proposed separately by Mr IP Kwok-him and the Chief Secretary for Administration, in a joint debate. I will first call upon Mr IP Kwok-him to move his amendment in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Rules of Procedure. Mr IP Kwok-him.

MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, on behalf of the Bills Committee on the Legislative Provisions (Suspension of Operation) Bill 1997, I move the amendment set out under my name in the paper circularized to Members.

The purpose of this amendment is to delete clauses 3 and 8(b) of the Bill, so that the Occupational Deafness (Compensation) (Amendment) Ordinance 1997 will not be among the Ordinances that are going to be suspended. This amendment is supported by the majority of the Bills Committee. Members who support the amendment pointed out that this amendment Ordinance has relaxed the restrictions on application for compensation in relation to the seriousness of deafness and has also increased the amount of compensation. This will immediately improve the benefits workers who suffer occupational deafness as a result of noise. This Ordinance may impact on the operation of the Administration, but in the course of our scrutiny of the Bill, the Government pointed out that the study had already been finished, and it would be presented to the Labour Advisory Board (LAB) in the near future. It was said that the proposals of the study were even more comprehensive than the amendment and the workers who suffered from occupational deafness could even receive more protection. As a result, the proposals are supported by most of the members of the Bills Committee.

In addition, some Members have also pointed out that although this Ordinance has not been scrutinized by a bills committee formed under the former Legislative Council, its main proposals have in fact been discussed by the Manpower Panel of the then Legislative Council. Besides, before its passage, the Ordinance has also been debated vigorously by the members of the former Legislative Council. As such, there is no point to suspend the operation of the present Ordinance. However, some Members are of the opinion that since the Government has already completed a comprehensive review on the compensation for occupational deafness and will soon present the relevant proposals to the LAB, it would therefore be more appropriate to freeze the relevant legislation so that the Administration can put forward further proposals before implementing the improvement measures. For this reason, some Members are in support of the proposal put forward by the Government to suspend the operation of this Ordinance.

I hereby bring forward the views of the Bills Committee. With these remarks, I propose the amendment on behalf of the Bills Committee and urge Honourable colleagues to lend their support to the amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Proposed amendment

Clause 3 (see Annex III)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I will call upon the Chief Secretary for Administration to speak on the amendment proposed by Mr IP Kwok-him as well as her own proposed amendment, but will not ask the Chief Secretary for Administration to move her amendment unless Mr IP Kwok-him's amendment has been negatived. If Mr IP Kwok-him's amendment is agreed, that by implication means that the Chief Secretary for Administration's proposed amendment is not approved. Chief Secretary for Administration.

CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I have already explained the reason why we appoint the last day of October as the date on which the suspension of the operation of the Ordinances ceases to have effect, I do not have any points to add here.

The Secretary for Education and Manpower will explain later on to Honourable Members the reason why we should suspend the operation of the Occupational Deafness (Compensation) (Amendment) Ordinance.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Members can now debate the amendment moved by Mr IP Kwok-him as well as the amendment proposed by the Chief Secretary for Administration. Mr HO Sai-chu.

MR HO SAI-CHU (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I think I have the responsibility to speak to Members, especially we do not have such a chance to do so in the Bills Committee. The reason is that we did not have the information concerning certain situation at that time, albeit we can have a clearer picture now. I have tried my best not to go into the content of the Bill itself, but still I would like to raise several main points for Members' reference and consideration before casting their votes.

First of all, we have received the LAB report and I have gone through it once. Regrettably, if we accept the report's proposal, it will be a totally different picture when compared with the proposal on the improvement of compensation as offered by the Ordinance. To put it in a simple way, the existing Ordinance offers to increase each eligible person's amount of compensation while the recommendation of the expert group is to make more people eligible for compensation. In other words, even some members in the Bills Committee suggested that since the amendment was on the improvement of compensation, it would be better not to freeze the operation of this Ordinance, so that new provision can be added if there is any change in the future. However, the actual situation is not like this, and there are some obvious differences.

Secondly, I also have to take into consideration the merits of the LAB report for it offers more detailed information and an overall view. I can inform friends from the industrial and business sectors that in the next few months, apart from the implementation of this Ordinance to increase the amount of compensation at present or in the future, there will also be three other meaningful initiatives, by that I am referring to the Occupational Health and Safety Council, the Vocational Training Council and the Protection of Wages on Insolvency Fund, all of which will increase their funding. I do not mean to raise a false alarm, but under such circumstances, if the profit of the business sector is 10% and they need to contribute 1% for each eligible person, their earnings will have to be cut by half when every initiative has to increase its funding. This will be an enormous sum of money. Therefore, in our decision to contribute more effort on certain adjustments or compensation, if the source of funding comes mainly from heavy tax levied on the employers or capitalists and there is no careful planning beforehand, the amount added up will be an enormous figure. Thus I think that we have to be very cautious when dealing with these circumstances. As such, I am in favour of suspending the operation of this Ordinance, so that we can have an opportunity to consider this issue from different aspects.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Miss CHAN Yuen-han.

Miss CHAN Yuen-han (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, since the implementation of the Occupational Deafness (Compensation) Ordinance, the Federation of Trade Unions has been receiving complaints incessantly. Many of the complaints are made by workers in the noisy trades. They complain that although their problem of hearing loss is very serious, their claims for compensation have all been rejected. It is crystal clear to us that the existing requirement of 50% hearing loss is too harsh, because we are aware that many workers are suffering from serious hearing problems; some of them cannot hear the car horn in the street, others could not hear voice of waiters selling dim sum in restaurants. Despite all these, the Ordinance still stipulates the requirement for compensation at the level of 50% hearing loss. As such, the labour sector as well as some concern groups have all along been urging the Government to amend this Ordinance. As a matter of fact, the Government has already made certain assessments in this respect and a major direction has also been set upon the completion of such assessments. One important conclusion is that the requirement should be adjusted to 40% hearing loss. In addition, as what Mr HO has just said, the potential compensation recipients may not be confined to those currently concerned trades only, the scope covered might be larger in future. I believe that all these are in line with our direction. The problem therefore may lies with timing. I think the Government has also decided to introduce the similar changes, it is just not happy that they have been raised by Members of this Council first.

Some Members has opined that the amendments should be raised by the Government to avoid any administrative confusion. In this connection, I wish to point out that many of our laws enforceable have been assessed by different institutions. For instance, we have issues that are related to the Vocational training Council or the Employees Retraining Board, and we also need to make assessment in respect of the issue of importation of labour. Should any law be suspended just because we need to make some assessment? Well, I do not think so. I think the relevant law should be allowed to continue operate to. In that case, if there is a law which we all wish to amend while an amendment Bill has also been drafted in this repect by the Administration, then why do we still suspend the same which has been endorsed by the former Legislative Council? This I cannot accept.

On the other hand, Mr Ho has also said that more workers could be benefited if the proposal made by the Administration is adopted, yet he went on to say that if more people are eligible for compensation, then the Administration may not have enough money to make the payment in this respect. I think the Honourable Member has mixed up the means with the ends. Why do I say so? It is because if we all agree that the hearing ability of some workers has been hampered due to their long-term engagement in a noise producing trade, we would then agree to have an Ordinance to protect their interests. I think this should be the major premise. Madam Chairman, I have been working in this area for quite some time. Before the Ordinance came into being, people who are concerned about workers suffering from occupational deafness have been doing a lot of work at the community level. I can remember that in the mid-80s, I was working with people from the Labour Depatment and the Extra-murral section of the Chinese University of Hong Kong in this respect. During that period of time, we realized that the Administration needs to legislate to protect those who had been made deaf by their engagement in the noise producing industries. I think Honourable collegaues will all agree to this point. As such, I think a council or board has to be established with funds to offer help to those people. The important point is that if more people are made to suffer from hearing loss to a certain level, we should try our best to award them compensation. We should not stop improving the existing Ordinance simply because we have to inject more money, otherwise we are putting the cart before the horse.

Why did the industrial and commercial sectors, the Government, the education sector, as well as the labour sector participated in the promotion of the work in this respect at the beginning? Yet when more people are in need of such protection, why then have they become so mean about their money? If we all agree that there is such a need, we should take the whole thing into consideration again. If we are not saying that we will not award compensation to workers in noise producing industries who have been made to suffer hearing loss, then why do we have to reassess an endorsed Ordinance at the time when we, including the Government, the trade unions, the local society, as well as the industrial and commercial sectors in particluar, all agree that we should award compensation payment to those sufferers?

Madam Chairman, I wish to reinterate that with respect to the seven Ordinances, a large number of workers are now waiting eagerly for the implementation of this particular one, and they are still waiting. They have not received any compensation so far albeit they are eligible for compensation since they are at least suffering from a 40% hearing loss. If the amendment is not carried, their hope for compensation would vanish immediately, or at least they have to wait until the assessment is completed. Perhaps some would say that it is just a matter of several months, but if we are to compensate them in future, why do we have to make them wait a few months more?

For the above reasons, I urge Honourable colleagues to lend their support to the the amendment proposed by the Bills Committee. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW.

Mrs Selina CHOW (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, when the Ordinance was debated and put to a vote in the former Legislative Council, we, the Liberal Party, voted against it. It was not because we did not agree to improving the compensation in this respect, but because we could not accept the way the Bill had been introduced that we voted against its passage. At that time, we all knew that the Government had already completed some preparatory work, and that a Bill could be presented to the former Legislative Council after discussion by the LAB. However, prior to the completion of these proper procedures, somebody had skipped steps and introduced his own Bill. Out of our respect to the proper and correct steps and procedures, we voted against the queue-jumping Bill. Nevertheless, the Bill was passed. Besides, workers who need help have also submitted their application for compensation in accordance with the new Ordinance. Rightly as the Honourable Miss CHAN Yuen-han has pointed out, as a humane society, we could find no ground to stop everything that is in progress. In fact, the Government could still conduct the study when the Ordinance is in operation. The result of the study would be discussed by the LAB while the Government could introduce amendments after a consensus has been reached. The Liberal Party believes that it is not necessary to suspend the operation of the Ordinance and therefore supports the amendment moved by Mr IP Kwok-him.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG.

Mr Frederick FUNG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, on behalf of the Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood (HKADPL), I speak in support of the amendment proposed by the Bills Committee.

When the Ordinance was put to a vote then, I voted in favour of it. My rationale was that as there were workers suffering from occupational deafness, there was a need to enlarge step by step the scope of coverage of the occupational deafness Compensation Fund. I have of course heard of such comments like "a certain Member had jumped the queue" or that "he had got wind from somewhere and therefore skipped steps to present the Bill." The HKADPL certainly would not encourage such kind of actions. However, when the Ordinance was under discussion in the former Legislative Council, our major consideration was whether the Ordinance, as amended, would suit the sufferers of occupational deafness and benefit them. Our conclusion then was that it would do good to the sufferers.

By now the deadline is passed and applications for compensation have also been received, and yet we are now talking about suspending or freezing the operation of the Ordinance so that the Administration could review it a few months later ─ in fact, we all know that such a review is near completion and the result is very similar or even identical to the Ordinance. If another amendment is submitted by the Administration three to four months later and followed by payment of compensation to the affected workers, the whole process would become: compensation, suspension, and then compensation again. In my opinion, it would make things all the more complicated. In that case, I would rather not suspend the operation of the Ordinance but let it remain in force.

As regards other arguments, I am in full support of those put forth by the chairman of the Bills Committee, Mr Honourable IP Kwok-him, as well as those put forth by Mr Miss CHAN Yuen-han who represents the interests of the labour sector. I therefore support the amendment.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr HO Sai-chu.

Mr HO Sai-chu (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I must thank you for allowing me to speak again. I would like to clarify one point here. Just now Mr Miss CHAN Yuen-han said that the money was supplied by the Government, but I could tell her that the money is not supplied by the Government. Every dollar and cent is supplied by the commercial sector. It is true that the Government has provided the compensation fund with a loan, and this loan is provided on the ground that most of the compensation recipients are made deaf because of their work in the past. It is quite unlikely that they are those people who are made deaf by their present work because much improvement has been made in respect of the standard of occupational safety and health. Although it could not be said that no one would become deaf, the number of workers who are made deaf by their occupation nowadays is far less than that in the past. The government loan provided for the compensation fund has to be repaid to the Government, and it will be repaid by the employers. Since it is the employers who will foot the Bill, it would be quite unfair to them if negotiations have never been held with the employers or they have never been convinced to pay. As such, I think the whole matter has to be reviewed in detail again.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr James TIEN.

Mr James TIEN(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, when this Council discussed the Occupational Deafness (Compensation) Ordinace on 26 June last year, the Liberal Party voted against it. It is because the Bill then was based on the proposal made by Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung. Another reason is that the Government then had claimed that a study was being conducted by a working group comprising medical professionals and experts in hearing problems. It was for all these reasons that we did not support the passage of the Bill concerned.

Recently, we have learnt that the report on the study is near completion, and that the content, with the exception of sections 1 and 2 ─ the one about lowering the requirement from 50 dB to 40 dB as well as the compensation in respect of the percentage of remaining working ability ─ for which the proposal made by Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung is better than that of the Administration, the latter has in fact conducted six to seven types of other studies which are more comprehensive than that made by Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung. When we compared what both parties have done, we think that Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung has made the Administration lose face by what he has done. To the sufferers of occupational deafness, they can see the changes in two ways. The existing ordinance makes it possible for the sufferers to receive more compensation but less services in other areas; whereas the proposal made by the working group would award comparatively less compensation payment, more services in other areas such as those helpful hearing tests would be provided for the benefit of the workers. For these reasons, the Liberal Party has considered the stakes for quite some time. Yet, how is the rate of levy determined? The existing rate is 1% of the premium, but according to the Government, the premium would also need to be raised. According to the existing Ordinance, that is the one proposed by Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, the employers still have to pay more. To us members of the industrial and commercial sectors, both proposal would require us to pay more. That the workers would get more compensation from the existing one or receive less compensation but more of other services as promised by the government proposal makes little difference to us. However, we find that many of the existing compensation recipients seem to supports the existing measure. It seems to us that they are in favour of receiving more compensation. For this reason, the Liberal Party supports the amendment moved by Mr Mr IP Kwok-him.

Thank you, Madam Chariman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? If not, I will invite the Chief Secretary for Administration to speak for the second time.

CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I wish to invite the Secretary for Education and Manpower to make further elaborations.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Education and Manpower.

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, the Government opposes the amendment moved by Mr IP Kwok-him to delete clause 3 of the Bill because it removes the proposal to suspend the operation of the Occupational Deafness (Compensation) (Amendment) Ordinance 1997 and is therefore in contravention of the original intention of this Bill.

The reasons why the Government is against this amendment or why it requests this Council to suspend the operation of this Ordinance, as well as other labour-related Ordinances, are in fact the same, and I would like to highlight them here, especially for the benefit of new Members who may not be fully aware of the rationale behind it. I remember when I was the Secretary for Education and Manpower of the former Government, I have said that we would not give undue favour to the labour sector. Having become the Secretary for the Education and Manpower of the new Government, I have also said that I would not give undue favour to the business sector. However, it is meaningless if we are just paying lip service. people may change and so may offices. While the remarks which I made in my former capacity did have credibility, I hope that the SAR Government can have the same credibility when making different remarks in future. It is because our remarks regarding the rights and welfare of workers are made with reference to the established system, not to what a person has said.

Mr LEE Kai-ming has just reminded Members that in the former Legislative Council, the Government has put forward 23 legislative proposals regarding improvment to the welfare of the labour sector, and that was really a record. Members who were the representatives of the labour sector at that time also recognized this move of the Government. Why then had nobody criticized the Government for being favourable to the labour sector at that time? Certainly, individual Members had criticized that the Government had colluded with the labour sector. However, we actually could not find any single business organization in the business sector that was in opposition to this arrangement. Also, we have never heard of comments like, "The Legislative Council has passed 23 proposals, the consequences of which are so serious that the environment for investment has changed, and we therefore will not invest in Hong Kong anymore." We did not see such things happened at that time. Why? It is because we have always had a long-established tripartite negotiation mechanism comprising represantatives from the employees, the employers and the Government.

I have to emphasize that many Members have made similar remarks today and in the former Legislative Council, to them I have already made relevant elucidation many times. The Labour Advisory Board (LAB) is an advisory body, and the consensus reached by the LAB will have to be acceptable to the Government. When the Government accepts the recommendations, they will be submitted to the legislature. Then it will be up to the legislature to decide whether or not to accept them. So there is no question of the LAB overriding the legislature. As such, it is pointless to criticize the Government for using the LAB as an excuse or a shield, and a tool to impose pressure on the legislature. By the same token, it is very, very important to have a tripartite negotiation mechanism. I cannot imagine the situation in which the interests and welfare of our workers in future being totally dependent upon the legislature then. If it so happened that there were more Members representing the labour sector in one meeting, then a proposal which was in favour of the labour sector would be passed. If there were more representatives from the business or professional sector at one particular time, a proposal which was in favour of the business sector would be passed. Of course, this act is entirely legal. If the Government has to implement these enacted Ordinances, would they be the long-term and concrete solutions to the labour problems?

I have to emphasize again that the LAB has not overridden the authority of the legislature. We urge the legislature to seriously consider the recommendations of the LAB. I think this is a reasonable and responsible move for the legislature. As I have already mentioned, the former Legislative Council has passed 23 Bills on improvement to the labour interests and nobody has said anything as to criticize the former Legislative Council for being in favour of the labour sector. Why? It is because the 23 legislative items have already got the tripartite consensus. I have to reiterate this important point because this is the main reason for us to request the Provisional Legislative Council to suspend the operation of the five labour Ordinances. We are not asking Members to revoke all these Ordinances. All we are asking is to allow the LAB to complete its discussion, and the Government will put forward a Bill in accordance with the result of the discussion by the LAB. It will be up to this Council to make the final decision on whether the Ordinance has to be amended, retained or revoked. We should not think that the tripartite negotiation mechanism is not important. It is not a body that will override the legislature but it is indeed a very important mechanism.

The LAB had strongly urged the then legislature not to rush these labour-related Ordinances through at that time. Apart from being criticized by the Government, the former Legislative Council was also criticized by 11 editorials from seven newspapers for being irresponsible and passing these Ordinances in a hurry. Their wordings were far more critical than what I had said in the former Legislative Council. I hope Members will all understand that we are not being disrespectful of this Council. The fact is we are being so respectful that we hope Members can give us more time to take a look at the Ordinances that have been enacted in haste, and to let the LAB to have a chance to study the Ordinances as well. Whatever conclusion the LAB reaches, at the end of the day, Members still have many opportunities to study these Ordinances in detail and decide whether to retain, amend or revoke these Ordinances or not.

I would like to mention several specific reasons why we oppose the amendment put forward by Mr IP.

First of all, I must stress that the Occupational Deafness (Compensation) (Amendment) Ordinance 1997 was indeed passed in haste by the former Legislative Council. The important provisions of the Ordinance were put forward in the form of Committee stage amendments by the mover before the resumption of the Second Reading debate. Obviously, they were neither discussed by the LAB, nor scrutinized by the then Bills Committee. Owing to the time constraint, the former Legislative Council did not even have any Bills Committee formed specifically for that Bill. I have to emphasize that the passage of the Bill is entirely legal, nobody will cast any doubt on the legitimacy of the Ordinance. Indeed the Ordinance is being enforced. In fact, we have doubts only about the way it was enacted, and we think that this is not a proper way at all. The views of the public at that time, including the editorials which were against the hasty passage of these labour-related Ordinances, were mostly not in support of but in opposition to the implementation of this Ordinance. On the basis of this principle, the Government thinks that there is a need to suspend the operation of this Ordinance, so that the LAB can have time to discuss it in detail. The Government can then put forward the proposals to this Council for careful examination and final decision.

Furthermore, there is no corresponding financial arrangement in this Ordinance. If this Ordinance continues to operate, there will be far-reaching consequences for the whole compensation scheme. I mentioned in the Bills Committee that the Government had just completed a comprehensive and detailed review on the Occupational Deafness Compensation Scheme and would soon put forward 13 proposals for improvement to this Scheme. During the resumption of the Bill's Second Reading debate, Dr LEONG Che-hung mentioned that a Member had moved this Member's Bill in the former Legislative Council simply because the Government had not done much work. I would like to make use of this opportunity to clarify. This Scheme was first implemented in July 1995, and we had undertaken to carry out a comprehensive review after one year. In fact, a working group was already formed in April 1996, comprising representatives from the employees, the employers, the Government and the medical sector. The Government cannot control the progress of this working group since the review is a comprehensive and in-depth one, and will therefore take quite a bit of time to complete. Owing to this reason, the review is just completed. As such, I do not think it is a fair comment to say that the reason for some Members to put forward Member's Bills was because the Government had not taken any action in time.

We now go back to the improvement package. The improvement package is going to be far more comprehensive than what is included in this Ordinance. However, I would like to elucidate one point. One of the recommendations, like that made in this particular Ordinance, is to reduce the hearing loss level from the minimum 50 dB to 40 dB. However, I have to emphasize that our proposed compensation will not be on a par with this Ordinance. Another recommendation is to make workers of eight more high noise-pollution industries eligible for compensation. As a result, more people will be benefited from this proposal.

Owing to the limited resources of the Occupational Deafness Compensation Fund, the continuous operation of this Ordinance will hinder the Government or the Occupational Deafness Compensation Board from implementing other proposed improvements. It will then be very unfair to those who may receive those benefits. Some Members suggested that since the Government's proposed improvements have already included the amendments to this Ordinance－ although I have just mentioned that our compensation amount is not as high as that provided for this Ordinance ─ the Government can still implement the provisions of this section, so that an injection of capital can be made into the Fund when necessary. However, the problem is not as simple as that.

I have to point out that the funding source of the Occupational Deafness Compensation Scheme is not mainly from taxpayers' money. It derives its fund from imposing a levy an insurance premium for employee's compensation on the employers. If we have to increase the amount of funding, we have no alternative but to increase the levy. However, the provisions of this Ordinance are not based on the consensus reached between the employers and the employees. It is for this reason that we find it necessary to suspend the operation of this Ordinance, so that the representatives from the employees, the employers and the Government can have the opportunity to discuss the Scheme in detail, especially on the question of how we can make comprehensive, let me emphasize it is comprehensive, improvements. I have to stress that such improvements also include proper financial arrangements.

Madam Chairman, owing to the above reasons, the Government opposes this amendment and urges Honourable Members to do likewise. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kwok-him, I am sorry that whenever I call upon you to speak, you are interrupted by Mr Andrew WONG. (Laughter) Mr Andrew WONG.

Mr Andrew WONG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I feel that I must speak up for Dr LEONG Che-hung as he was wronged by the Secretary when the latter was delivering his speech. We have worked together before because when I was the President of the former Legislative Council, Dr LEONG was the then House Committee Chairman. I am not referring to our stance as to whether we support the content or not. I am talking about the procedure. Dr LEONG has mentioned that the original Ordinance was passed in 1995, and that many people were looking forward to possible improvements after it had been in operation for a year. As such, the Member's Bill should be regarded as a measure to make improvement. The Amendment Bill was moved by Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung ─ whom many people thought that I was not on good terms with, but that really did not matter at all. I would just deal with the facts, and what I am talking about are nothing but facts.

The original Ordinance was first implemented in July 1995 while a review was commenced thereupon in April 1996. Since results of the review are available, why then did the Government not present any Bill to improve the Occupational Deafness(Compensation) Ordinance which started operation since July 1995? The fact that there is a Member's Bill does not hinder the Administration from introducing its own Bill. Why did the Administration not introduce one then? Alright, perhaps it was too close to the reunification date then and it made it difficult for the then Government to do so. Yet the existing Government does not need to suspend the Ordinance either. All it needs to do is to put forward new proposals. Why could we not obtain as early as possible the mutual consent of the employees and the employers to make a better arrangement? All this explains my scepticism.

What the Secretary has just said is certainly very reasonable and convincing. But if one does not know the background, one would very easily be misled by him. I am not saying that I am in favour or against the the content of the Ordinance. As a matter of fact, I do think a little amendment would do some good, but that must be done with the consent of both the labour side and the employers' side. While I agree to the two arguments put forward, I still think it improper to include it as one of the seven Ordinances the operation of which will be suspended. I hope that Dr LEONG would make a clarification as well since Honourable colleagues are now aware of the background. I hereby urge Honourable Members to lend their support to the amendment moved by Mr IP Kwok-him to delete the Ordinance from the Bill.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr LEONG Che-hung.

Dr LEONG Che-hung (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, although some officials blamed me just now, I really did not want to mind about that too much. It is because I regard it too late at night for me to rebut them. However, since Mr Andrew WONG has said good words for me, I think I should also respond from two aspects.

Firstly, we all know that the principal Ordinance was passed in April 1995. The then Government had stated very clearly that there were indeed a lot of problems with the Ordinance, and that it would certainly conduct a review one year later. In terms of calender day, one year later would be April 1996. In other words, a review should be conducted in April 1996. No doubt, the Administration should review the development of each and every item covered in the Ordinance, and then propose some amendments, and I was then expecting to see some proposed amendments in early 1997. However, as we did not see any of such at the former Legislative Council nor at the then House Committee, it would be quite natural for us to doubt if what had been promised by the then Administration could really work out, or would really work out; and if not, should we submit a Members' Bill to push the Administration to take action. It is for this reason that I threw a question to the Government.

Secondly, the Members' Bill of the Honourable LEUNG Yiu-chung, perhaps I should say Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung now, contains two main points only and one of them is generally agreed to by the Government. In fact, I have all along been wanting to make some clarification as some of the Honourable Members have also criticized my speech. My stance has all along been that while the Ordinance as it stands may have problems, is it appropriate to suspend the operation of the same by a sweeping Bill have to allow the Administration time to look into the matter in detail; or are there any better alternatives? This has been my argument so far, and I am in opposition to the approach adopted by the Government currently. This Occupational Deafness (Compensation) Ordinance is one good example.

Since the Administration does agree to one of the points set out in the existing Ordinace but opposes the other one, why did it not introduce amendments to resolve the problem? Why must it use a sweeping Bill to deal with seven totally different and utterly unrelated Ordinances together? This is what I have been opposed to in principle so far.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr James TIEN.

Mr James TIEN (in Cantonese): Madam President, just now the Liberal Party has already expressed our support for Mr IP Kwok-him's amendment. We are very practical and look fact in the face. In our opinion, for the existing beneficiaries, they could get better terms of compensation should the proposal put forth by Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung be adopted; if the Administration's proposal is adopted, they might have to put in a lot more effort. However, if Mr Andrew WONG and Dr LEONG Che-hung are to keep talking about principles, I am afraid I might wish to withdraw from this Chamber.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Education and Manpower.

Secretary for Education and Manpower (in Cantonese): With your leave, Madam Chairman, I would like to respond very briefly to the questions raised by Mr Andrew WONG just now. He questioned why did the Administration not submit the result of the review to the former Legislative Council then. The reason is very simple. Just like any other labour relations issues, there were so many disputes and arguments coming up after the establishment of the working group that we could not arrive at any conclusion even after lengthy discussions. It was for this reason that the result of the review had not been submitted to the LAB for discussion. As I have pointed out earlier on, the proposals that we submit to this Council, generally speaking, are made with reference to the consensus reached at the LAB after discussions. I would like to clarify one point here. It was because the result of the review had neither been discussed by nor had the time been available for submitting the same for discussion by the LAB then that it could not be presented to the former Legislative Council. As to other comments, I do not wish to repeat my points.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? I will now invite Mr IP Kwok-him to speak, this time it is for real. Mr IP Kwok-him.

Mr IP Kwok-him (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, at last I could make a little response in this Council again. To begin with, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB) voted against this Ordinance in the former Legislative Council. The major reasons that led us to vote against the passage of this Ordinance are, in fact, quite similar to that of the Liberal Party's. Firstly, the LAB had not discussed any of the proposed provisions set out in the Bill. Secondly, the Ordinance has not been scrutinized by any Bills Committee of the former Legislative Council. Moreover, the content of the Ordinance is not just full of loopholes but also fault and flaw. In view of all these inadequacies, we found it unacceptable to support the passing of the Bill so hastily.

Nevertheless, the Bill was passed. We think that since the Ordinance has been passed, the SAR Government, as a responsible Government, should introduce amendments or take other actions to rectify the unsatisfactory parts of the Ordinance as soon as possible. Why then the DAB is not in support of the Administration's proposal to suspend the operation of this Ordinance? The major reason is that the Government, as it mentioned just now and at the meetings of the Bills Committee, has already completed a study on the Ordinance and will present the findings to the LAB very soon. Since work has already been done, should we not present the result of the study as soon as possible instead of suspending the operation of the Ordinance? One of the arguments put forth by the Government is that if compensation payment is to be made in accordance with the provisions as set out in the Ordinance passed by the former Legislative Council, the amount of payment will be so great that the Occupational Deafness Compensation Fund may not be able to settle them all in three years. In fact, it may not take us three years. We could settle everything shortly, perhaps 15 days or a month would be enough. The Ordinance has already been in operation and certain parts of it are being enforced. As we have completed the preparatory work, why should we not expedite our actions?

The DAB hopes that the Government would submit as soon as possible a draft Bill to this Council to enable us to proceed with the necessary procedures in the earliest possible time. As a matter of fact, just now I have heard very clearly the Secretary mentioned that the proposal made by the Administration would have a much wider coverage and more people would be benefited. Should the Administration offer a proposal more comprehensive and better then the existing one, I am sure it will be most welcomed by our workers who are suffering from or prone to occupational deafness. I hereby call upon Honourable Members to lend their support to my amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment to clause 3 moved by Mr IP Kwok-him be approved.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".

(Members responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the "ayes" have it.

Mr Andrew WONG rose to claim a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG has claimed a division. The division bell will now ring for one minute.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Members, the question now put is: That the amendment to clause 3 moved by Mr IP Kwok-him be approved.

Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Before I declare the result, are there any queries? The result will now be displayed.

Mr James TIEN, Mr Edward HO, Mr Eric LI, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr HUI Yin-fat, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TSANG Yok-sing, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Andrew WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen and Dr LAW Cheung-kwok voted for the amendment.

Mr WONG Siu-yee, Mr David CHU, Mr HO Sai-chu, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Henry WU, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr Henry TANG, Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Dr Philip WONG, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Dr TANG Siu-tong, Mr Timothy FOK, Mr KAN Fook-yee, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr TAM Yiu-chung and Miss CHOY So-yuk voted against the amendment.

Prof NG Ching-fai, Mrs Elsie TU, Mr YUEN Mo and Mr Kennedy WONG abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 25 Members in favour of the amendment, 20 against and four abstaining. She therefore declared that the amendment was carried.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clause 4.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Chief Secretary for Administration.

Chief Secretary for Administration (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that clause 4 be amended as set out in the paper.

Madam Chairman, I have already explained the reason why we appoint the last day of October as the date on which the suspension of operation of the Ordinance cease to have effect, I do not have anything to add here. The Secretary for Home Affairs will explain later on to Honourable Members why we should suspend the operation of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (Amendment) Ordinance 1997.

Proposed amendment

Clause 4 (see Annex III)

THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, DR LEONG CHE-HUNG, took the Chair.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak? Mrs Selina CHOW.

Mrs Selina CHOW (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, when the Bill of Rights Bill was under scrutiny in the former Legislative Council, I was the Convenor of the Bills Committee. As such, I could understand very clearly the core issue of this debate. The Bill of Rights Bill, when it was first introduced by the Hong Kong Government, was intended for application to actions between private parties as well as between private parties and the Government. However, as a result of the strong opposition from the legal profession and from the commercial sector, the Government finally agreed to limit the scope of application of the Bill to actions between private parties and the Government. The rationale put forth then was that the Bill of Rights was introduced to protect members of the public should there be any unfairness caused to them by the Government as a large institution, or by its policies and actions. In view of the fact that the Bill of Rights is a rather new aspect in the field of law, to avoid any legal dispute, it is appropriate to follow the practice of many countries and limit the scope of application of the Bill of Rights to control over any improper actions by the Government. This is undeniably an advisable change.

As a matter of fact, section 7 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (BORO) sets out very clearly that proceedings between private parties will not be bound by the Ordinance. Moreover, the Government has also admitted in the Bills Committee that it had no intention to change this policy. As such, I do not think it is necessary to suspend the operation of the amended Ordinance. What the Government should do is to revoke any amendment that is contrary to the spirit of the Ordinance and not in line with the interests of society as a whole. However, it seems to me that the Government is neither far-sighted nor decisive enough as far as this matter is concerned. On the other hand, if the operation of the Ordinance is not suspended, private parties may cite the BORO as their grounds for litization. Should that happen, it would exactly be contrary to what is provided in section 7.

As such, we have no alternative but to agree to the suspension of the operation of the provisions concerned. However, I am now urging strongly the government officials in attendance to submit as expeditiously as possible to this Council a Bill to amend this Ordinance which is unfavourable to Hong Kong, thereby ending the suspension of operation in question.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG.

Mr Andrew Wong (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, in connection with the history of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (Amendment) Ordinance 1997, two Members of the former Legislative Council has submitted two different Bills relating to discrimination and equal opportunities respectively, and there were several clauses that are common in the two bills while such clauses are the same as those in this Ordinance. In the past, I have passed rulings saying that certain of the aforementioned clauses were not in line with the objectives of the relevant Bills concerned and therefore should not be incorporated therein. As a result, a new Bill was drafted and then passed evenutally; it has passed into the Ordinance we are now discussing.

At that time, when the two Members' Bills were submitted to the former Legislative Council, the Administration then did not raised any objection in relation to clause 58, nor did it point out that the clause might have charging effect. However, when the relevant clause was later removed from the Bill to form another separate Bill, the Government began to say that the same might have charging effect.

I wish to put the following facts on record. Since the relevant clause did not have any charging effect in the past, I began to wonder if charging effect is dependent on the passage of the Bill concerned, and if so, what would the legal effect be. The legal advice I have received pointed out that since section 7 of the BORO does not have any effect at all, the same should not have any charging effect either and should therefore proceed with the necessary legislative processes.

To cut a long story short and in simple terms, the SAR Government claims that the clause concerned has the legal effect which affects not only proceedings between the Government and private parties, but also proceedings between private parties. If that be the case, the Government should have ample reasons to amend or revoke the Ordinance, instead of suspending it. As such, I hope very much to hear the legal point of view of the Government in respect of the clause concerned, just as what had happened before, for I would like to know if the clause has any legal effect, and whether it could override the provisons set out in section 7 of the BORO, thereby pointing out that the Ordinance is applicable to proceedings between the Administration and private parties, but not to proceedings between private parties.

When the BORO was still in the making, provisions have already been drafted to the effect that the Ordinance would only apply to proceedings between the Government and private parties, while other areas covered in the Ordinance would be governed by specific legislation. It is for this reason that we have after the BORO the Equal Opportunities Ordinance as well as the ordinance concerning discrimination. I really would like to ask the government officials concerned about the actual legal effect involved. It seems to me that we do not have any legal professionals in attendance today, nor do we have any legal advisers to the Government here. In my opinion, if the clause concerned does not have any effect, we should not be so frightened; even if it has legal effect, we still should not freeze it but have it revoked instead. Any other measures are irresponsible acts which the Government should avoid taking. As such, I cannot agree that clause 4 should stand part of the Bill.

The amendment we are now debating seeks to appoint 31 October 1997 as the expiry date as well as to stipulate that such a date can be extended by this Council by way of a resoultion, and that we could extend the same incessantly. In my opinion, if 31 October is to be appointed as the expiry date, no extension should be allowed, especially when the matter is of such an urgent nature. As such, we should not suspend the Ordinance at all but have all those shortcomings remedied. In is totally inappropriate to freeze the Ordinance until 31 October to remedy the shortcomings, and it is all the more inappropriate to extend the freezing period if no remedies could be found then.

I hope the Government would take my words into consideration. Should the Government withdraw its proposal to freeze the Ordinance, I will urge Honourable Members to agree to the withdrawal of the amendment.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr James TIEN.

Mr James TIEN (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, we thought that the BORO only concerned the Administration's view towards the lower strata or the general public and its impact. It was for this reason that we expressed our support at that time. However, if it involves the interaction among members of the public, we would have much reservation in this respect. It is because the interaction among members of the public may, in many cases, evolve into problems between employers and employees, or problems between persons who are in possession of something and persons who are not. For instance, if a landlord lets his flat out to a certain tenant, other tenants might sue him for not letting out that property to them. As the Government proposes to suspend the operation of the Ordinance, we could certainly conduct in-depth discussions and detailed consideration again.

The industrial and commercial sectors are of the opinion that the Ordinance should be revoked but the Government refuses to revoke it immediately. Instead, the Government proposes that the operation of the Ordinance should first be suspended before any decision on revocation is made. We find this proposal acceptable.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Home Affairs, do you wish to speak?

Secretary for Home Affairs (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, first of all, I would like to thank the three Honourable Members for the speeches they have made just now. I could indeed agree to the points raised in their speeches. I wish to assure Honourable Members here that section 7 of the Hong Kong Bill of BORO has set out very clearly that the Ordinance is intended to be binding on the proceedings between the Government and private parties. It is not applicable to proceedings between private parties.

However, Mr Andrew WONG likes to provide answers to questions he himself has raised, and he has done so again just now. (Laughter) It is now being pointed out by some that the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (Amendment) Ordinance 1997 had not been scrutinized by any Bills Committee, nor had the impact of the same been discussed in detail by Honourable Members. As to the points raised by Mr WONG with regard to section 7, I think we should make some clarifications. As many Honourable Members pointed out just now, no matter we support it or not, the Ordinance has indeed formally passed through the necessary legislative process. If we are to discuss the revocation of the same, we must take the issue into prudent consideration.

The Administration is now requesting this Council to allow us time for prudent considerations to be made, thereby making clear to members of the public that we are following the proper and appropriate procedures to deal with the issue. Indeed, our major intention is clarify the suspicions among the public that we have a lot of ulterior motives behind the exercise.

We hope that we could have enough time to complete the necessary procedures expeditiously and submit, before 31 October, the results to this Council for Members' consideration.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW.

Mrs Selina CHOW (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, I would like very much to thank the Secretary for Home Affairs for not attempting any more to answer the question raised by Mr Andrew WONG. It is precisely because the Secretary needs time to think over carefully before giving a reply that we should freeze the Ordinance.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG.

Mr Andrew WONG (in Cantonese): Although I raised the question and then provided the answer myself, all I wanted to point out is that suspension of operation is not the best way to handle the matter. The Administration knew where the problems lie and has sought legal advice, but it would never make public the legal advice it has received. As such, I have to seek legal advice myself. After taking the legal advice, I decided to proceed with the then Hong Kong Bill of Rights (Amendment) Bill. If the provisions have any effect at all, the whole situation would be very different. I therefore hope that, in future, the Secretary for Home Affairs would be more careful when he speaks. Although the Secretary and I were former schoolmates, I still would like to point out to him that to face the reality is of utmost importance, and the reality is that problems must be resolved immediately.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Chief Secretary for Administration, do you wish to reply?

The Chief Secretary for Administration indicated that she did not wish to reply.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by the Chief Secretary for Administration be approved.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".

(Members responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think we should proceed to a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I would like to remind Members that the question now put is: that the amendment moved by the Chief Secretary for Administration be approved.

Will Members please register their presence by pressing the top button in the voting units and then proceed to vote by pressing one of the three buttons below?

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Before I declare the result, Members may wish to check their votes. Are there any queries? The result will now be displayed.

Mr WONG Siu-yee, Mr James TIEN, Mr David CHU, Mr HO Sai-chu, Dr HO Chung-tai, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mrs Elsie TU, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr Henry WU, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr Henry TANG, Mr YUEN Mo, Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TSANG Yok-sing, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Dr TANG Siu-tong, Mr Timothy FOK, Mr KAN Fook-yee, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr TAM Yiu-chung and Miss CHOY So-yuk voted for the amendment.

Mr Eric LI, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr HUI Yin-fat, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Andrew WONG, Mr Kennedy WONG and Dr LAW Cheung-kwok voted against the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 35 Members in favour of the amendment and eight against. She therefore declared that the amendment was carried.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clause 4 as amended.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That clause 4 as amended stand part of the Bill.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".

(Members responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the "ayes" have it.

Mr Andrew WONG rose to claim a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG has claimed a division. Committee will now proceed to a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I would like to remind Members that the question now put is: That clause 4 as amended stand part of the Bill.

Will Members please register their presence by pressing the top button in the voting units and then proceed to vote by pressing one of the three buttons below?

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Before I declare the result, Members may wish to check their votes. Are there any queries? If not, the result will now be displayed.

Mr WONG Siu-yee, Mr James TIEN, Mr David CHU, Mr HO Sai-chu, Dr HO Chung-tai, Mr NG Leung-sing, Prof NG Ching-fai, Mrs Elsie TU, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr Henry WU, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr Henry TANG, Mr YUEN Mo, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Mr HUI Yin-fat, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TSANG Yok-sing, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Dr TANG Siu-tong, Mr Timothy FOK, Mr KAN Fook-yee, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr TAM Yiu-chung and Miss CHOY So-yuk voted for the motion.

Mr Eric LI, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Andrew WONG, Mr Kennedy WONG and Dr LAW Cheung-kwok voted against the motion.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 39 Members in favour of the motion and seven against. She therefore declared that the motion was carried.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clause 5.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Chief Secretary for Administration.

Chief Secretary for Administration (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, I move that clause 5 be amended as set out in the paper.

Mr Chairman, I have already explained the reason why we appoint the last day of October as the date on which the suspension of operation of the Ordinance ceases to have effect. I do not have anything to add here. The Secretary for Education and Manpower will explain later on to Honourable Members why we should suspend the operation of the amendment Ordinance concerning trade unions.

proposed amendment

Clause 5 (see Annex iii)

Chairman (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak? Mr Frederick FUNG.

Mr Frederick FUNG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, in respect of the Trade Unions (Amendment) (No. 2) Ordinance 1997, when the bill was put to the vote, as one of the cluases which the Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood (HKADPL) did not agreed to was passed, we voted against its passage, albeit we did agree to the majority of the clauses. If trade unions are allowed a greater terms of reference and a larger ambit, it would certainly do a lot of help to the trade union movement, and our society would also be less afraid of trade unions. Just now when I talked about trade unions, Mr James TIEN was not in his seat, yet I did have answered his question concerning trade unions.

Firstly, when the workers are like a sheet of loose sand, if there are 100 workers and you are required to dicuss the trade union issues with these workers, you would have to discuss with all these 100 workers; but if they are grouped under and represented by a trade union, you only have to discuss with three workers at the most. The latter situation should be much better than discussing with 100 workers.

Secondly, my attitude is not the same as that of Mr James TIEN. Until now, I still have confidence in trade unions, be they the leftists, the rightists, or the neutrals. After they have made their demands and discussed with "the boss" concerned, they observe and comply with the results of the negotiations. The fact that the Ordinance in question has been endorsed does not give us any reason to have it suspended. The last provision that was passed then is that trade unions are allowed to establish connection with and become a member of international institutions, as well as to collect donations overseas. However, since the provision against participating in political activities has been deleted then, trade unions are therefore allowed to participate in all sorts of activities, including political ones. With regard to this point, I do have some reservations, and the HKADPL is also in opposition to the same. If trade unions are allowed to establish connection with foreign countries, collect donation overseas, as well as organize political activities, I am afraid that some might exploit the trade Unions Ordinance and organize work as a labour party under the name of trade unions. In that case, the provisions in Article 23 of the Basic Law might be breached.

Although we do not agree to the clause, the same was passed anyway; the whole Bill was subsequently passed as well. Nevertheless, I still think that the Administration would not have difficulty in resolving this problem. By introducing some minor amendments, the Administration could alter those worrying situations that I have just mentioned and become worry free. As such, I do not agree to resorting to suspension of operation in order to deal with the Ordinance. Besides, I think we should be particularly careful as this Ordinance is targeted at trade unions. Trade unions thenselves are very sensitive organizations since they are tools targeted at balancing the interests of the industrial and commercial sector with that of the workers. Besides, they are also required to handle issues concering the interests of both parties. If the Ordinance is suspended by the Executive Council and the Provisional Legislative Council immediately, the workers might very probably feel that the Government is using high-handed measures to curb the development of trade unions, to prevent workers from joining trade unions, as well as to hinder the trade unions from discussing labour interests with the "bosses" in the industrial and commercial sectors. Perhaps the Government does not have such intentions in mind, and Honourable Members here do not have such ideas either, but the suspension proposal would very easily carry a message to that effect. As such, I believe it is not appropriate to suspend the operation of the Trade Unions (Amendment) (No. 2) Ordinance 1997.

We need to stress that trade unions are associations with high organizing power. Hong Kong has just been reunitied with its motherland and one of its important task in hand is to win people's confidence; more importantly, to win people's confidence through groups and associations that are able to organize and mobilize the people of Hong Kong, because that would be of dierct help to the stabilization of society. In view of such, I cannot agree to the suspension proposal, albeit I have mentioned that the HKADPL is in opposition to the clause relating to the permission given to trade unions to use the donations they have collected for political purposes. I still think that the Government could have resolved the problems by introducing some minor amendments. As such, I do not agree to the suspension of operation of this Ordinance.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Do you have a point of order?

mr james tien (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, he should address his observations to you, not to me. (Laughter)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Thank you, Mr TIEN. Yes, Mr FUNG, you should address your observations to me.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr James TIEN.

mr james tien (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, at first I thought I had already stated my case during the Second Reading debate of the Bill. However, I now wish to make two points in respect of this Ordinance which concerns the employees.

The relations between employers and employees in Hong Kong have all along been well maintained. The trade unions certainly have made their contributions as they always take part in negotiations. If we are to realize the concept of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy", should not the local employees be represented by local trade unions? The matters of Hong Kong should be handled by the people of Hong Kong. Why do the local trade unions have to establish connection with foreign trade unions and to learn from foreigners? Here I would like to mention the Ordinance relating to the employees' rights to collective bargaining introduced by Mr LEE Cheuk-yan. Both Mr LEE and I were Members of the former Legislative Council. Perhaps it is because of this reason that we know that in Britain, the relevant laws are in fact drafted by the lawyers of the trade unions, and that the lawyers there are all well connected. The picture would be quite different if the lawyers in Hong Kong could draft such laws instead of applying fully the foreign theories to the local society. Should all things imported necessarily be the best?

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Do you have a point of order, Mr Andrew WONG?

mr andrew wong (in Cantonese): He has strayed beyond the scope of the question. His comments should have been reserved for the next clause.

MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): In my opinion, it is improper for local trade unions to follow the actions of their foreign counterparts or to learn from them how to organize strikes and processions. I believe that the local trade unions are capable of organizing such activities. They need not learn from foreigners. likewise, the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce does not need to learn from the General Chamber of Commerce in the United States the way to deal with the local trade unions.

The second point I want to talk about is fund-raising. If the local workers are willing to pay subscription fees, the trade unions will certainly speak for them. Why do the local trade unions have to appeal to the trade unions in New York or London for fund-raising? Having received donations from foreign trade unions, if the metro workers in Paris go on strike, do the employees of the Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway have to stage a strike to show their support? Once you have received money from others, you have to work for them. Why then should we take the local issues to the international arena and have the foreign trade unions involved?

Mr Chairman, I am therefore against this Ordinance. Once its operation is suspended, I hope the Government would repeal it as soon as possible.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG, you have my leave to speak again. However, please do not repeat the arguments that you have already raised. Any arguments that you put forth must be new ones.

Mr Frederick FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, thank you for granting me a second chance to speak. I would like to speak on the opinion that foreign experience is sought solely to tackle the "bosses" or that chamber of commerce will certainly act against the workers. Is it necessarily so? To begin with, although the trade union movements reported in the newspapers are mainly activities like petitions and protests, there are in fact serious negotiations held among all parties concerned but have not been covered by the press. These negotiations may perhaps be part of the foreign experience that local trade unions are seeking. In many western countries, trade unions are the channel through which workers and "bosses" could come together to sort things out. I understand that some Members would think that this mechanism may have its own problems. But such problems are not related to the principles but to the technical aspects only.

Besides, should there be a general strike in Paris, I am sure the workers there will not seek help from the trade unions in Hong Kong because even a sympathy strike staged by the workers here would have no impact on the decisions to be made in Paris. If workers in Europe would join in the strike, the situation might be more favourable to the workers. As such, there may not be any problem at all.

Last but not least, I would like to speak a few words on the development of trade unions. In fact, the development of the trade union movement will vary with the global situation as well as time. I do not have any trade union background, but I did gain some knowledge on trade union activities during my school days. Perhaps I could share it with Honourable colleagues here. In the western countries, trade union movement has reached a stage at which collective actions are no longer in use. As the operation of plants and factories has become more technology based, a large number of workers are in fact professionals and intellectuals. It is for this reason that the trade unions in western countries have been employing less and less negative actions like radical petitions, protests and confrontations. The trade unions there are now joining hands with the "bosses" or chambers of commerce to resolve problems. Why would this happen in the west? Should not our industrial and commercial sectors as well as trade unions study the experience of these countries to see how they could have such development? The most important point is to make sure that the trade unions are just trade unions and that the activities they organize are trade union oriented and have nothing to do with politics.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Howard YOUNG.

Mr Howard YOUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, I was also among the members of the Bills Committee when the former Legislative Council was discussing the legislation. When the question of connection between local trade unions and trade unions outside Hong Kong was raised, I asked the trade unionists who were present at the Bills Committee meeting why they insisted that the trade unions in Hong Kong should be allowed to raise funds or rally support at an international level. Their reply was that since some employers might have established plants in three different regions, should there be labour dispute in a certain region, the workers would certainly call upon the plants overseas to join in their strike to strive for their interest, otherwise the employers might shift the production line to the other regions so as to avoid any possible adverse effects from the strikes. I think this is a very dangerous move as the whole issue is not the problem of one single enterprise. Nowadays, many trades are multi-national industries; aviation services is one example. There has already been a precedent in the international community in which a certain airline company had dispute with a travel agency. As the trade union involved was not only multi-national but also multi-industrial, it urged all ports and different places all over the world to boycott that company. As a result, a local labour dispute had also affected the relations that company had with other international companies.

I therefore think that if local labour disputes were tolerated to develop into an international dispute, it would not do any good to neither places in the world, and Hong Kong is no exception. As such, I am in favour of suspending the operation of the Ordinance and revoking it in future.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Raymond HO.

Dr Raymond HO (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I do have the feeling that sometimes "too much" is no better than "too little". Quite a number of years earlier, the labour movement in Hong Kong was only at its infancy stage and was comparatively primitive. However, as time passes, its has perhaps become very well developed. Indeed, I have also had active contacts with many local trade unions. During the days when I was still working in Britain, I had once been in charge of a project in London which was most probably one of the biggest projects at that time. However, as a result of the strike then, the whole project was turned into a mess.

Just now an Honourable colleague mentioned that some of the strikes are staged in support to others, and such kind of strikes are known as sympathy strikes. Certain trade unions might join with other trades, construction sites or organizations to stage a strike together. The trade unions that have received help from others will later on help other trade unions out when required. We may not need to learn the examples of the foreign countries. In my opinion, instead of learning from foreign experience, I would rather invite the foreign countries to come and learn from Hong Kong. We have a lot of labour disputes here in Hong Kong, yet the two parties involved could always resolve their problems expeditiously, efficiently and harmoniously. There are indeed ample examples of such kind. We should handle trade union movements in an appropriate, proper, reasonable and cordial manner; foreign experience may not necessarily have what we need.

The point raised by Mr James TIEN just now is very true. Once we have received any kind of assistance from others, they will certainly be waiting for us to help them in return because we owe them one. To me, absolute confrontation is not a must in the proper development of labour movement, nor is learning from the experience of foreign countries the best way for us.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG.

Mr Andrew WONG (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, during the Second Reading debate I have already expressed that I am against the Trade Unions (Amendment) Ordinance. However, it has nothing to do with the involvement of the international community. Trade unions are trade unions. They are by no means political organizations; this is a very important point. I object fully to the arrangement that the money of a trade union could be put to any use, including political use, if a relevant resolution has been passed by more than half of the members of that trade union. Once it has become a political organization, a trade union would lose all its functions as a trade union. Although I cited this as a example, I still could not agree to include the Ordinance among those the operation of which would be suspended. If we are to tackle the problems, we have to hit the right nail on the head. We shall never allow the trade unions to spend their funds on any use. Once their funds have been spent on political purposes, they have become political parties. They are no longer trade unions and could not help the workers to fight for their interests any more. Nevertheless, I am still against the inclusion of the clause into the Bill. I understand that I would not have enough votes to support me, so I will support the amendment, that is, to set out 31 October of this year as the deadline and to add in the provision that the period could be extended by resolution if necessary.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRMAN: Mrs Elsie TU.

MRS ELSIE TU: Mr Deputy, first of all, let me say that I do agree with genuine trade unions and I would claim that most schools were probably the first ones to have a teachers union illegally because we were not supposed to have unions. But when the miners in Britain ─ talking about Britain and Mr Fung has referred to Britain, and he wants to learn from Britain, I am British myself ─ and when the miners went on strike after World War II everyone agreed with them because they were badly treated. But later on they got connected with other countries, they got funds from other countries, and they just went on strike at the instructions of their leaders and their leaders became like dictators to them and therefore I think they did a great deal of damage to the workers. I think you will probably remember the strike in which everyone suffered, including the ordinary people. So I do not agree that we should introduce this kind of thing into Hong Kong and have any influence from foreign trade unions. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Miss CHAN Yuen-han.

Miss CHAN Yuen-han (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, I just wish to respond to the comments made by Honourable Members in respect of trade unions. Any institutions in the '90s, or Honourable Members here when they touched on the issue of trade unions, could not deny the fact that the Hong Kong community as a whole has changed. One of the important changes that are clear to all is that everyone would be viewing trade unions with a positive attitude. However, I feel a bit sorry today after hearing the many speeches made by Honourable Members. It is because many of them still regard trade unions as a scourges. If they also see the trade union movement this way, I would feel all the more sorry.

The development of trade unions in Hong Kong, in fact, as Mr James TIEN has pointed out just now, has been so far so good. As a matter of fact, the trade unions have all along been striving for the enhancement of labour interests. I believe many of the Honourable colleagues here would agree that during the course of economic development, the fruits of our economic success should be shared by all. During the process, different strata of society should be represented by their own members. This is especially so in the '90s. Should the workers wish to strive for their interests, they must have their own representative bodies. They will then fight for the interests of their members through lawful means. I think this point is very important. Therefore, when we talk about Hong Kong, we have to emphasize the long history of our trade union movement, and to emphasize that trade unions are playing a role in the development of Hong kong, so that the interests of the grassroot strata as well as the working class are not being taken light of nowadays. Without the work done by the local trade unionists over the last few decades to change the unfair situations of the past, Hong Kong will not have the achievements we are enjoying today. Regrettably, perhaps our work is not comprehensive enough to change the adverse attitude which some of the Honourable Members still have. I could not help but feel very much disappointed.

I wish to stress again that every society in this world is formed by organizations representing different strata. And yet reasonable social development is made possible only by mutual respect among the different strata or organizations. If we are described as scourges or unreasonable persons who ruin the economic development of Hong Kong or cause the society to stop moving forward, it would be very unfair to us. I need to reinterate one point, and that is as trade unionists, we would certainly join hands with other members of society to help Hong Kong move forward. The contribution made by trade unionists and the labour sector to our society is also an important factor leading to Hong Kong's success today.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Siu-yee.

Mr WONG Siu-yee (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, we still respect very much the trades unions and the functions they perform. However, the Trade Unions (Amendment) Ordinance has in effect indirectly permitted the trade unions to use their funds for political purposes. This is in breach of the purpose of forming trade unions and has ignored the provision of Article 23 of the Basic Law which prohibits local political organizations or bodies from establishing ties with foreign political organizations or bodies. Despite the fact that trade unions are not political organizations, the Ordinance still permits trade unions to use their funds for political purposes. We believe that this Ordinance is not only "crying up wine and selling vinegar" but also in breach of the spirit of the Basic Law. It should therefore be frozen.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG.

Mr Frederick FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, firstly, I have never talked about borrowing indiscriminately from the British example. I just want to point out that the economies in the western world are developing faster than us in Hong Kong.

Secondly, the past trade unions in Britain have evolved into today's Labour Party, and the trade unions today have given a new birth to the Labour Party, therby making it the ruling party in Britain. As a matter of fact, the Labour Party today is significantly different from the Labour Party 10 years ago. Its political platform may have also undergone some changes. It is because the economic development in the western world has caused changes to the nature of the trade unions and even to the nature of the Labour Party. This is something that merits our consideration.

Thirdly, I fully agree with Miss CHAN Yuen-han that when we look at trade unions, we should not restrict our perspective to those reinforced confrontations, petitions and protests. The trade unions also do a lot of delicate work that may not be so noticeable, such as the settlement of disputes through negotiations. Honourable colleagues who are concerned about trade unions might have perhaps learned from the press that in some western countries, the workers are willing to accept a pay cut after their trade unions have negotiated with the employers.

Lastly, I would like to make it clear to Honourable Members that international connection may not necessarily be a bad thing that warrant objection. Under the Ordinance before amendment, local trade unions could establish contact with the trade unions or certain general unions in the western world provided they have obtained an approval from the Governor of Hong Kong. As far as I understand it, the Governors have never rejected any application for approval. In other words, each and every trade union that wished to establish contact with those trade unions in the west was granted with the approval. Western connection should not be a problem that the people of Hong Kong or the Hong Kong Government need to worry about. I am grateful to my teacher, the Honourable Andrew WONG, for sharing my view that the crux of the matter is that trade union funds should not be used for political purposes. In my opinion, this problem could easily be resolved by some minor amendments. Those are the points that I want to clarify.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Education and Manpower, do you wish to speak?

Secretary for Education and Manpower (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, I should better speak more cautiously. I could recall an Honourable Member accusing me of misleading right after I had delivered my speech at a Bills Committee meeting, and then just now after I have spoken, I was again accused of misleading by an Honourable Member. I hope this time I would not invite any even more creative comments. These incidents, on the other hand, also tell us that the Honourable Members of this Council are highly responsible councillors.

regarding the Trade Unions (Amendment) (No. 2) Ordinance 1997, since the points raised by the Honourable Member who spoke just now only touched upon individual provisions, they are certainly not very much related to our proposal to suspend the operation of the Ordinance. Nevertheless, they are not totally irrelevant either. the Honourable Member has reflected fully to us the fact that all matters relating to labour rights and interests ─ as well as the rights and interests of trade unions ─ are highly sensitive and controversial in nature, and that a labour-management-government consensus in this respect must be reached through tripartite talks and negotiations. This is exactly the major reason why we urge the Provisional Legislative Council to suspend the operation of the Ordinance. The Labour Advisory Board (LAB) held a meeting on 28 May this year to discuss the relevant proposals. Some of the LAB members, like some Honourable Members did just now, expressed the reservations they have with regard to certain clauses. As such, members of the LAB unanimously requested that more time be allowed for them to study the issue. An example has been cited by an Honourable Member just now to point out that one of the important provisions of the Amendment Ordinance is to permit trade unions to use their funds for any purposes, including political purposes. If the Amendment Ordinance were allowed to remain in operation, more and more trade unions would put this legal provision into practice, thereby making it more difficult for the future circumatances to be put under control. Just like the way we handle any other labour-related ordinances, all we request for is more time be allowed for the LAB to discuss the issue thoroughly. After then, we would submit our finalized proposal to this Council for decision, irrespective of whether it is to amend or revoke the Ordinance, or to amend, revoke or retain part of the Ordinance.

Mr Chairman, I hereby urge Honourable Members to vote in favour of the clause to stand part of the Bill. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

The President resumed the Chair.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Chief Secretary for Administration, do you wish to reply?

The Chief Secretary for Administration indicated that she did not wish to reply.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by the Chief Secretary for Administration be approved.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".

(Members responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the "ayes" have it.

Mr Frederick FUNG rose to claim a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG has claimed a division. Committee will now proceed to a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Honourable Members, the question now put is: That the amendment moved by the Chief Secretary for Administration be approved.

Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Before I declare the result, are there any queries? The result will now be displayed.

Mr WONG Siu-yee, Mr James TIEN, Mr David CHU, Mr HO Sai-chu, Dr Raymond HO, Mr NG Leung-sing, Prof NG Ching-fai, Mr Eric LI, Mrs Elsie TU, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr Henry WU, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr Henry TANG, Mr YUEN Mo, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Mr HUI Yin-fat, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TSANG Yok-sing, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Mr Howard YOUNG, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Dr TANG Siu-tong, Mr Timothy FOK, Mr KAN Fook-yee, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr TAM Yiu-chung and Miss CHOY So-yuk voted for the amendment.

Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Mr Frederick FUNG and Dr LAW Cheung-kwok voted against the amendment.

Dr LEONG Che-hung abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 39 Members in favour of the amendment, four against and one abstaining. She therefore declared that the amendment was carried.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clause 5 as amended.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That clause 5 as amended stand part of the Bill.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".

(Members responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the "ayes" have it. The "ayes" have it.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clause 6.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Chief Secretary for Administration.

Chief Secretary for Administration (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that clause 6 be amended as set out in the paper.

Madam Chairman, I have already explained the reason why we appoint the last day of October as the date on which the suspension of operation of the Ordinance ceases to have effect. I have nothing to add here. The Secretary for Education and Manpower will explain later on to Honourable Members why we should suspend the operation of the Employee's Rights to Representation, Consultation and Collective Bargaining Ordinance.

proposed amendment

Clause 6 (see Annex iii)

Chairman (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG.

Mr Frederick FUNG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, the Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood (HKADPL) is in favour of this Ordinance. We therefore oppose the suspension of its operation.

As our society develops to the present stage, I think it is necessary for us to have certain types of organization acting as representatives of certain groups of people to negotiate with those counterparts with whom they might have conflict in interests or with whom they could co-operate to attain mutual benefits. For the purpose of negotiation, a mechanism which allows the representatives of the employees and the employers to sit down and talk must first be established. In this connection, the employers' side should find it very easy to handle; but for the labour side, since small institutions might have at least three to four employees while large enterprises would have hired at least dozens to hundreds of employees, it is necessary for them to have the right to collective bargaining before they could sit down and negotiate with the employers. However, in a modernized city like Honk Kong, such a mechanism is still missing. I cannot help but say we have lagged too far behind.

The right to collective bargaining is nothing new, nor is it a a topic that pops up from nowhere and requires immediate discussion. During the '70s when I was still a student, I had already participated in discussions on this issue. I also participated in discussions on the subject at the local community level when I first started my career. When the Basic Law was in the making, representatives from trade unions and local communities have also submitted their views, indicating their wish to have clauses concerning the right to collective bargaining incorporated in the Basic Law. Even when the Basic Law was finalized, some representatives from trade unions and local communities went to the meeting place of the Basic Law Drafting Committee to present their petition. As a matter of fact, this issue has existed in our society for about two decades. It is by no means a novelty. Nevertheless, over the past two decades, the Administration has never taken the initiative to introduce a collective bargaining mechanism for the employers and the employees. Therefore, Members of the former Legislative Council had to submit a proposal in this respect by way of a Member's Bill. Should anyone regard this proposal problematic in principle, then they have indeed lagged very far behind the modern society; should anyone find any technical problem with this proposal, they should have raised that out for discussion and amendment at that time.

Many Members of the former Legislative Council did find the Bill concerning this issue one of the best written Members' Bills. As such, I urge Honourable colleagues to reconsider the Ordinance.

Last but not least, with respect to labour relations, the labour side need to have a body to present proposals and negotiate with the employers' side on their behalf. That body would be similar to the Labour Advisory Board, although the latter would put its emphasis on policies instead of on certain trade or any individual company.

For the above reasons, I think the Ordinance should continue to be in operation rather than being suspended. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Chairman (in Cantonese): Secretary for Education and Manpower.

Secretary for Education and Manpower (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I shall be brief. The Provisional Legislative Counil is requested to suspend the operation of the Employee's Rights to Representation, Consultation, and Collective Bargaining Ordinance, and detailed explanations in this respect have already been given by the Administration at the Bills Committee meeting. As confirmed by Mr IP Kwok-him who spoke just now, the position of the Administration was largely accepted by the Bills Committee at that time.

Here I would like to add two points. Firstly, a well-written Ordinance, like a piece of stylish writing, may not necessarily be substantiated by good contents. as far as I understand it, this Ordinance is so well written simply because it is written by a well-known British professor. According to its provisions, where an employer employs not less than 20 employees of whom not less than 15% are members of trade unions, the right to consultation shall apply; where an employer employs not less than 50 employees of whom not less than 15% are members of trade unions, a trade union or group of unions representing more than 50% of the employees could request for collective bargaining. Are these well written provisions? To me, they are very poorly written. Since such provisions would affect the 20 000-plus institutions and the 1.3 million-plus employers in Hong Kong and the Ordinance would certainly have the most far-reaching impact on the existing labour relations, I strongly urge Honourable Members to lend their support to the suspension of the operation of this Ordinance.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Chairman (in Cantonese): Chief Secretary for Administration, do you wish to reply?

The Chief Secretary for Administration indicated that she did not wish to reply.

Chairman (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by the Chief Secretary for Administration be approved.

Chairman (in Cantonese): Will those agree please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

Chairman (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".

(Members responded)

Chairman (in Cantonese): I think the "ayes" have it.

Mr Frederick FUNG rose to claim a division.

Chairman (in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG has claimed a division. The division bell will now ring for one minute.

Chairman (in Cantonese): Honourable Members, the question put to you is that: That the amendment moved by the Chief Secretary for Administration be approved. Would Members please proceed to vote?

Chairman (in Cantonese): If Members do not have any queries, the result will now be displayed.

Mr WONG Siu-yee, Mr James TIEN, Mr David CHU, Mr HO Sai-chu, Dr Raymond HO, Mr NG Leung-sing, Prof NG Ching-fai, Mr Eric LI, Mrs Elsie TU, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr Henry WU, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr Henry TANG, Mr YUEN Mo, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Mr HUI Yin-fat, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TSANG Yok-sing, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Mr Howard YOUNG, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Dr TANG Siu-tong, Mr Timothy FOK, Mr KAN Fook-yee, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr TAM Yiu-chung and Miss CHOY So-yuk voted for the amendment.

Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Mr Frederick FUNG and Dr LAW Cheung-kwok voted against the amendment.

Dr LEONG Che-hung abstained.

the chairman announced that there were 39 Members in favour of the amendment, four against and one abstaining. She therefore declared that the amendment was carried.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clause 6 as amended.

Chairman (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That clause 6 as amended stand part of the Bill.

Chairman (in Cantonese): Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

Chairman (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".

(Members responded)

Chairman (in Cantonese): I think the "ayes" have it.

Mr Andrew WONG rose to claim a division.

Chairman (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG has claimed a division. The division bell will now ring for one minute.

Chairman (in Cantonese): Members, the question now put is: That clause 6 as amended stand part of the Bill.

Will Members please proceed to vote.

Chairman (in Cantonese): If Members do not have any queries, the result will now be displayed.

Mr WONG Siu-yee, Mr James TIEN, Mr David CHU, Mr HO Sai-chu, Dr Raymond HO, Mr NG Leung-sing, Prof NG Ching-fai, Mr Eric LI, Mrs Elsie TU, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr Henry WU, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr Henry TANG, Mr YUEN Mo, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Mr HUI Yin-fat, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TSANG Yok-sing, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Mr Howard YOUNG, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Dr TANG Siu-tong, Mr Timothy FOK, Mr KAN Fook-yee, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr TAM Yiu-chung and Miss CHOY So-yuk voted for the motion.

Mr LEE Kai-ming, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Andrew WONG and Dr LAW Cheung-kwok voted against the motion.

the chairman announced that there were 39 Members in favour of the motion and six against. She therefore declared that the motion was carried.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clause 7.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr LAU Kong-wah and Mr IP Kwok-him have separately given notices to move amendments to clause 7. The purpose of Miss CHAN Yuen-han's amendment is to enable the operation of the Employment (Amendment) (No. 4) Ordinance 1997, which prevents discrimination on the ground of trade union membership, to continue but to suspend the operation of the Employment (Amendment) (No. 5) Ordinance 1997 which makes the first day of May as a statutory holiday. The purpose of Mr LAU Kong-wah's and Mr IP Kwok-him's amendment is to enable the operation of the Employment (Amendment) (No. 5) Ordinance 1997 to continue but to suspend the operation of the Employment (Amendment) (No. 4) Ordinance 1997.

The Chief Secretary for Administration has also given notice to move an amendment to clause 7 and propose new clause 7A. The purpose is to enable the two Ordinances in clause 7 to be dealt with separately.

As there are a total of four amendments which are repetitive and mutually exclusive, the moving of the amendments in accordance with the Rules of Procedure is likely to result in the proceedings of the Committee becoming complicated and is also likely to cause confusion to the public. I have consulted the three Members concerned this morning about the relevant procedures to be adopted. The Members concerned have decided to withdraw their amendments to facilitate the Chief Secretary for Administration to move her amendment in order that the meeting can proceed smoothly and that the public can understand the situation more fully.

I wish to thank the three Members concerned for withdrawing their amendments in order that the meeting can proceed smoothly. I also wish to point out that the purpose which the Members concerned originally wished to achieve can be achieved under the arrangements now adopted. I now invite the Chief Secretary for Administration to move her amendments.

CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that clause 7 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members. The amendment is made in response to the request of the Bills Committee to split clause 7, which relates to the Employment (Amendment) (No. 4) Ordinance and the Employment (Amendment) (No. 5) Ordinance, into clauses 7 and 7A. In addition, the amendment also sets out that the operation of the two Ordinances shall be suspended until the end of October. I would urge Honourable Members to support the amendment.

Proposed amendment

Clause 7 (see Annex III)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Miss CHAN Yuen-han.

Miss CHAN Yuen-han (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I have been working as a trade unionist for more than 20 years. Over these 20-odd years, I have seen a lot of things. Just now when we were discussing the Ordinances which the Government seeks to suspend, I have heard many Honourable colleagues mentioned about trade unions. As I have said before, with reference to my own experience in the field as well as the history of development of Hong Kong, we can see the importance of trade unions in the different stages of Hong Kong's development. From the Canton-Hong Kong general strike, the seaman strike, the tram workers strike in the '50s, as well as many other examples, we can see that there were a lot of complicated social problems and labour relations problems that forced the workers to group together to fight for themselves. Had there not been such struggles which have imposed positive impact on society, I am afraid the then Government might not have realized what was wrong with it. The situation maintained throughout the '60s.

If we are to study the course of social movement, we will all see trade union movements and the above events from a positive perspective. In the '70s, we have the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance, the 10 year Long Term Housing Strategy, as well as a series of other social welfare policies. Many a time, when sociologists assess the local community as in the '50s and '60s, they would find many cases in which the Administration was forced to formulate policies to counter off, and eradicate later, the discrmination against the grassroot strata as well as the working class of society then. All that were positive measures taken by the Administration. As such, I wish Honourable colleagues will take a look at the role played by trade unions in the course of Hong Kong's development when thay talk about trade union or trade union movement.

Madam Chairman, I have also seen many similar cases when I took part in trade union movement in the '70s, somw of those cases might not be welcomed by employers but were later given positive assessment by members of our society. Let me cite the DaDa Department Store incident as an example. Is the DaDa incident a case of labour dispute? Surely it is. Yet in the same incident, there were situations in which employers helped employees. If we view this incident positively, we will find that those negative situations which I have referred to earlier on seem to be missing here. Perhaps some of my Honourable colleagues have been scared by certain trade union movements in the west or by some partial presentation of such campaigns through the cameras of the media before. Why do I have to say all these? My purpose is to bring out the fact that if our society would accept the trade unions, as well as our labour relations, we would also accept the Labour Advisory Board (LAB) to which we have referred just now. Honourable Members have been talking about the need to have the discussions by the LAB, in other words, Honourable Members have recognized the need to establish proper labour relations.

The Honourable Member who will move an amendment later will also touch on labour relations. If we say we are viewing the matters in a positive perspective, then, when some people are dismissed by their unscrupulous employers simply because they have attempted to safeguard the interests of certain trades or certain strata in society, should we give these people the right to reinstatement after the court has reuled that the dismissal was unreasonable? In the '70s, because the Swire dockyard kept on dismissing the worker representatives, no one dared to take part in trade union activities, after Swire has merged with Whampoa dockyard to form the United Dockyard, the same situation dragged on. Some of the Honourable Members have asked me not to cite examples from the '60s and '70s. Well, there are still similar examples from the '80s. The Cathay Pacific incident is one good example. There are also similar cases in the '90s.

Now I would like to tell another story. The year before last, because of the tremendous rise in rent from $6 million to more than $13 million per month, the operator of the Mitzuokoshi Department Store found it very difficult to keep business going in Tsim Sha Tsui and therefore asked the employees to elect their own representatives to discuss the matter. At that time, we were surprised to find that the representatives were always facing their Japanese boss sideways when they took part in the negotiation. We really did not understand why. Well, later on they told us their worry. They were afraid that after they have fought for the interest of the workers, they would be dismissed by their boss, or perhaps not be employed by other employers in the trade any more. Frankly speaking, in the '90s, the salespersons working for the Mitzuokoshi Department Store are the top class salespersons in Hong Kong, yet why do they still have such worries? Many people think that such situation should not happen in the '90s. As such, I hope Honourable Members will lend me their support and oppose the Government's proposal to suspend the Ordinance.

The story I have just told is about the original reinstatement-related clause. In the former legislative Council, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan proposed to subject those employers who have breached the Ordinance to a fine of $10,000 to $20,000. However, after some deliberation, the clause was deleted and renders the Ordinance a very lenient and simple one. I therefore hope that Honourable colleagues would view this simple Ordinance positively, as well as take into consideration the fact that such unfair situation should not be allowed to exist in the '90s. Besides, as the Ordinance concerned is not controversial at all and has been scrutinized by the former Legislative Council, it should not be suspended. I herby urge Honourable Members to support my recommendation.

Madam Chairman, I so submit.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kwok-him.

Mr IP Kwok-him (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, adopting the recommendations made by the Bills Committee, the Administration has proposed an amendment, thereby seperating the clause in relation to the Employment (Amendment) (No. 4) Ordinance 1997 from that in relation to the Employment (Amendment) (No. 5) Ordinance 1997 so that they can be put to the vote separately. This accomodating attitude does worth our appreciation. When I was speaking on behalf of the Bills Committee, I had urged Honourable Members to support the amendment made by the Administration first, and then cast vote in accordance with their own wishes. However, since the Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB) has decided to oppose the suspension of the two Ordinances, we would vote against the amendment moved by the Administration. The reasons behind our decision as well as the stance and views of the DAB have already been expressed by Mr TSANG Yok-sing.

Madam Chairman, I will now speak on the our proposed amendment. the Employment (Amendment) (No. 5) Ordinance 1997 stipulates that the first day of May be made a statutory holiday so as to allow workers one extra day of holiday. The DAB has already made clear our stance in this respect. Since the Preparatory Committee has already decided on the public holiday arrangement for 1998 and the first day of May is not on the list, the DAB has voted agains the amendment by the Honourable MOK Ying-fan when this Council was dealing with the Holidays (1997 and 1998) Ordinance. With regard to stipulating the first day of May a statutory holiday, the DAB is thinks that we should give it very careful consideration. Since the date is not included among the holidays in 1998, confusion would easily be created. Moreover, one extra day of holiday would affect the production plan and schedule of many trades, thereby affecting their costs of operation. Therefore, we should first study in detail the issue of stipulating the first day of May a statutory holiday. When the former Legislative Council passed the legislation, we had voiced our opposition, but the Ordinance was passed anyway.

Madam Chairman, with regard to the proposal to suspend the operation of the Ordinance, the DAB thinks it is an unnecssary move for the Government could revoke any Ordinance that it considers undesirable or might create social unrest. There is no need for it to resort to suspension. Viewing it from another perspective, there is no urgent need for suspension becuse the date is 1 May 1998. Even if the Ordinance is not suspended now, it would not cause any significant effect on society for the time being. However, if after detailed and careful examination, the Administration deems it necessary to stipulate the first day of May a statutory holiday, it could complete the drafting procedures within a short time and submit the Bill to this Council for scrutiny as long as it feels the urgency. The DAB is sure that the Administration is capable of doing so as we judge from the past performance of the Administration with regard to its efficiency in handling the Public Holidays (1997 Special Holidays) Ordinance. As such, the DAB finds in unnecessary to suspend the Ordinance at this stage. The DAB urges Honourable Members to share our view and lent their support to our proposal to delete the Employment (Amendment) (No. 5) Ordinance 1997 from the Bill. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LAU Kong-wah, do you wish to speak?

Mr LAU Kong-wah (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, perhaps Mr IP Kwok-him and I have the same great minds that think alike, so I am not going to repeat my points here. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG.

Mr Frederick FUNG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, on behalf of the Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood (HKADPL), I express our support for these two clauses. We object to freezing these two ordinances.

Firstly, concerning the first day of May which is the International Labour Day, this is an issue which Hong Kong has been discussing for quite a long time. In my opinion, the only consequence is that we will have one more statutory holiday. Would that additional holiday have any significant impact on the expenditure of employers? One more statutory holiday is in fact no big deal.

As to the other clause which concerns discrimination against employees because of their participation in trade union activities, it also has the support of the HKADPL. We have already forwarded our arguments in the past, so I do not repeat them here. I hope Honourable colleagues would look up the records. I oppose the freezing of the two ordinances.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Education and Manpower.

Secretary for Education and Manpower (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, having listened to the persuasive speech made by the Honourable Miss CHAN Yuen-han in respect of the Employment (Amendment) (No. 4) Ordinance 1997, I wish to raise two practical reasons to support our proposal to suspend the operation of the Employment (Amendment) (No. 4) Ordinance 1997.

To begin with, the Labour Advisory Board (LAB) has discussed at its meeting on 28 May the then Employment (Amendment) (No. 4) Bill 1997 and subsequently decided not to lend support to the it. The major reason is that the then Government had already accepted the proposal to amend the labour-related laws as submitted by the former Legislative Council, and that the Employment (Amendment) (No. 3) Ordinance 1997 passed on 17 June had already enhanced the employment protection which protect employees against any unreasonable and unlawful dismissals by the employers.

In respect of the prevention against unlawful dismissals, the Employment (Amendment) (No. 3) Ordinance 1997 has provided that employees who are dismissed on the ground of exercising their trade union rights are entitled to compensation; and that the Labour tribunal could, with the agreement of both the employee and the employer concerned, decide on the reinstatement arrangements, or determine the award of termination payments as well as the award of an one-off compensation not exceeding $150,000.

If the operation of the Employment (Amendment) (No. 4) Ordinance 1997 was not suspended, the Employment Ordinance would contain two sections providing protection for employees against dismissal resulting from their employers' discrimination against trade unions. Although both are dealing with the same issue, the compensation claims provided for by the two clauses are different. As such, confusion arise actual enforcement, thereby rendering the employers, employees, or even the court handling the relevant cases at a loss as to which section should apply. For instance, when an employee is dismissed unfairly on the ground of exercising his trade union rights, this employee could make two separate claims for compensation in accordance with the two sections, thereby requiring the employer concerned to appear twice at the Labour Tribunal to state his case. This is not only unfair to employers but would also cause a lot of inconvenience.

Besides, if an employee makes a claim in accordance with the Employment (Amendment) (No. 4) Ordinance 1997, could the employer concerned cite the five proper reasons as set out in the existing Employment Ordinance to support his dismissal decision? The Ordinance does not provide any clear instruction in this respect. Therefore we must suspend the operation of the Employment (Amendment) (No. 4) Ordinance 1997 to avoid any confusion in enforcement. We will also review the relevant provisions as soon as possible.

Secondly, the major difference between this Ordinance and the Employment (Amendment) (No. 3) Ordinance 1997 in respect of the provisions preventing trade unions from being discriminated against lies in the right to reinstatement. The Ordinance provides for the Labour Tribunal to order the employers concerned to reinstate, re-employ or promote the employees concerned in the absence of any consent by both the labour side and the employers' side. In this respect, the representatives from both the labour side and the employers' side to the LAB have already agreed to reconsider in greater detail the issue of reinstatement in the light of the experience gained through the implementation of the Employment (Amendment) (No. 3) Ordinance 1997. As such, the Administration will conduct a review on the protection relating to the right to reinstatement during the period when the operation of the Ordinance is suspended.

Madam Chairman, I hope very much that Members of the former Legislative Council as well as Honourable colleagues who were not Members of the former Legislative Council can understand clearly the background of the issue. As I have pointed out earlier on, the Government has indeed put in a lot of effort in the former Legislative Council to safeguard and enhance labour interests. The Employment (Amendment) (No. 3) Ordinance 1997 could be regarded as another milestone in employment protection as it protects employees from unfair or wrongful dismissal. In this connection, we had taken a long period of time to do the preparation work and to conduct extensive consultations. When the Employment (Amendment) (No. 3) Ordinance 1997 was passed, some of the Members then opined that this (No. 3) Ordinance could still be improved further as it was somewhat handicapped as far as protection for trade unions was concerned. A Member's Bill was therefore introduced with a view to enhancing the protection in this respect. As I have said before, extensive consultation with both the labour side and the employers' side is very important. We should not allow any labour representatives or Members of this Council who are not satisfied with the negotiation results of both parties to attain the so-called benefits through a majority vote by Members representing the labour or the grassroot strata at a single sitting.

In respect of labour relations, I think an old saying is very true, it goes like this: "hard pressing is never the way to attain felicity, nor is it the way to stay felicitous". Therefore, I hope Honourable Members would understand clearly that we do have ample reasons to support our proposal to suspend the operation of this Ordinance so as to allow us time to study further and in greater depths the issue of the right to reinstatement at the LAB.

For the above reasons, we believe that the operation of the Employment (Amendment) (No. 4) Ordinance 1997 should be suspended. I hereby urge Honourable Members to vote in support of including this Ordinance in the Bill.

Madam Chairman, Members referred to the Employment (Amendment) (No. 5) Ordinance 1997 just now and I would like to respond in this respect.

Regarding the suspension of operation of the Employment (Amendment) (No. 5) Ordinance 1997, the Administration has two major reasons.

Firstly, with regard to stipulating the first day of May as a statutory holiday, I would like to respond to the views put forth by Mr IP Kwok-him as well as to make some clarifications. This (No. 5) Ordinance makes the first day of May a statutory holiday with effect from 1998. This decision affects not only all employees of private institutions as well as the production plans and work scheducles of all kinds of trade, but will also cause employers to increase their cost of operation. Since the consequences involved have not been studied by a Bills Committee under the former Legislative Council, we think we should carfully examine the same before deciding on whether or not to implement the Ordinance.

Secondly, the LAB has agreed to discuss in 1998 the issue of whether the first day of May should be stipulated as a statutory holiday and it has also raised that any proposals should not be implemented before 1999. now that Hong Kong has become a Special Administrative Region, the sections concerning statutory holidays in the Employment Ordinance would need to be amended accordingly. The Labour Department is now reviewing the statutory holidays. Results will be submitted to the LAB later. We think that the review should cover also the issue of whether the first day of May should be stipulated as a statutory holiday, so as to ensure that the proposed amendments will be both comprehensive and reasonable, as well as free from any unnecessary confusion in implementation.

For these reasons, the Administration also urges Honourable Members to lend their support to the suspension of operation of the Employment (Amendment) (No. 5) Ordinance 1997.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Chief Secretary for Administration, do you wish to speak?

The Chief Secretary for Administration indicated that she did not wish to speak.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Before I put the question to the Committee for a vote, I would like to explain that the purpose of the amendment proposed by the Chief Secretary for Administration is to keep the suspension of the operation of the Employment (Amendment) (No. 4) Ordinance 1997, which prevents discrimination on the ground of trade union membership, in clause 7 of the Bill. As regards the Employment (Amendment) (No. 5) Ordinance 1997 relating to making the first day of May as a statutory holiday, this will be stipulated in the new clause 7A to be proposed by the Chief Secretary for Administration later.

10.35 pm

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I order that the meeting be suspended for 15 minutes to allow time for Members to consider what decision they should make on the amendment.

10.55 pm

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Council now resumes.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment proposed by the Chief Secretary for Administration be approved.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".

(Members responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the "ayes" have it.

Miss CHAN Yuen-han rose to claim a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Miss CHAN Yuen-han has claimed a division. The division bell will now ring for one minute.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Members please be reminded that the question now put is: That the amendments proposed by the Chief Secretary for Administration be approved. Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): If Members do not have any queries, the result will now be displayed.

Mr WONG Siu-yee, Mr David CHU, Mr HO Sai-chu, Mr Edward HO, Dr Raymond HO, Mr NG Leung-sing, Prof NG Ching-fai, Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Elsie TU, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr Henry WU, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Dr TANG Siu-tong, Mr Timothy FOK, Mr KAN Fook-yee, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr TAM Yiu-chung and Miss CHOY So-yuk voted for the amendment.

Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr HUI Yin-fat, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TSANG Yok-sing, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen and Dr LAW Cheung-kwok voted against the amendment.

Mr YUEN Mo, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Kennedy WONG and Mr LAU Kong-wah abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 27 Members in favour of the amendment, 15 against and four abstaining. She therefore declared that the amendment was carried.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clause 7 as amended.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The effect of clause 7 as amended is to suspend the operation of the Employment (Amendment) (No. 4) Ordinance 1997 which prevents discrimination on the ground of trade union membership.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".

(Members responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the voices of the two are more or less the same, does any Member wish to claim a division?

Mr CHENG Kai-nam rose to claim a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHENG Kai-nam has claimed a division. The division bell will now ring for one minute.

Mrs Selina Chow (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, are we going to vote on the question that clause 7 as amended stand part of the Bill?

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Yes, clause 7 as amended.

Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): If Members do not have any queries, I will now ......

at this juncture, Dr Philip WONG entered the Chamber.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): We will wait for you, Dr Philip WONG. (Laughter) If Members do not have any queries, the result will now be displayed.

Mr WONG Siu-yee, Mr David CHU, Mr HO Sai-chu, Mr Edward HO, Dr Raymond HO, Mr NG Leung-sing, Prof NG Ching-fai, Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Elsie TU, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr Henry WU, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Dr TANG Siu-tong, Mr Timothy FOK, Mr KAN Fook-yee, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr TAM Yiu-chung and Miss CHOY So-yuk voted for the motion.

Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr HUI Yin-fat, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TSANG Yok-sing, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Andrew WONG, Mr Kennedy WONG, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen and Dr LAW Cheung-kwok voted against the motion.

Mr YUEN Mo and Mr LAU Kong-wah abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 27 Members in favour of the motion, 19 against and two abstaining. She therefore declared that the motion was carried.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Chief Secretary for Administration.

CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, since the Rules of Procedure stipulate that any proposed new clause shall be considered after the clauses of a bill have been disposed of, may I seek your consent to move under Rule 89 of the Rules of Procedure that Rule 58(5) of the Rules of Procedure be suspended in order that my proposed new clause 7A may be considered ahead of clause 8 of the Bill.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Chief Secretary for Administration, as only the President may give consent for a motion to be moved, without notice, to suspend the Rules of Procedure, your request cannot be dealt with in Committee. I therefore order that Council shall now resume.

Council then resumed

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Chief Secretary for Administration, you have my consent.

Chief Secretary foR Administration (in Cantonese): Madam President, I move that Rule 58(5) of the Rules of Procedure be suspended to enable the Committee of the whole Council to consider my proposed new clause 7A ahead of clause 8.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Rule 58(5) be suspended to enable the Committee of the whole Council to consider the Chief Secretary for Administration's proposed new clause 7A ahead of clause 8.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".

(No Member responded)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the "ayes" have it. The "ayes" have it.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Council is now in Committee.

CLERK (in Cantonese): New clause 7A. Suspension of operation of Employment (Amendment) (No. 5) Ordinance 1997.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Chief Secretary for Administration.

CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that new clause 7A as set out in the paper circularized to Members be read the second time.

Proposed addition

New clause 7A (see Annex III)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That new clause 7A be read the second time.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):I now put the question to you as stated.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".

(Members responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the "noes" have it. The "noes" have it.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clause 8.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): In the light of the decisions already taken by the Committee, I order that the related paragraphs (a), (b) and (g) in clause 8 be deleted from the bill. I now propose the question to you and that is: That clause 8 as amended, and that is with paragraphs (a), (b) and (g) in clause 8 deleted, stand part of the bill.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):I now put the question to you as stated.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".

(No Member responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the "ayes" have it. The "ayes" have it.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Council will now resume.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Bills: Third Reading. Secretary for Trade and Industry.

SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY (in Cantonese): Madam President, the

UNITED NATIONS SANCTION BILL

has passed through Committee with amendments. I move that this bill be read the third time and do pass.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is :That the

UNITED NATIONS SANCTION BILL

be read the third time and do pass.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".

(Members responded)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the "ayes" have it. The "ayes" have it.

CLERK (in Cantonese): united nations sanctions bill.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Chief Secretary for Administration.

CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Cantonese): Madam President, the

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS (SUSPENSION OF OPERATION) BILL 1997

has passed through Committee with amendments. I move that this bill be read the third time and do pass.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS (SUSPENSION OF OPERATION) BILL 1997

be read the third time and do pass.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese):I now put the question to you as stated.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".

(Members responded)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the "ayes" have it.

Mr Frederick FUNG and Miss CHAN Yuen-han claimed a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG and Miss Chan Yuen-han have claimed a division. The division bell will now ring for three minutes.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members, please be reminded that the question now put is: That the Legislative Provisions (Suspension of Operation) Bill 1997 be read the third time and do pass.

Will Members please proceed to vote now.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): are there any queries? If not, the result will now be displayed.

Mr WONG Siu-yee, Mr David CHU, Mr HO Sai-chu, Mr Edward HO, Dr Raymond HO, Mr NG Leung-sing, Prof NG Ching-fai, Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Elsie TU, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr Henry WU, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr YUEN Mo, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Mr HUI Yin-fat, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TSANG Yok-sing, Mr CHENG Kai-lam, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr LAU Kong-wah, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Dr TANG Siu-tong, Mr Timothy FOK, Mr KAN Fook-yee, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr TAM Yiu-chung and Miss CHOY So-yuk voted for the motion.

Mr LEE Kai-ming, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Andrew WONG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong and Dr LAW Cheung-kwok voted against the motion.

Mr Kennedy WONG abstained.

THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 38 Members in favour of the motion, nine against and one abstaining. She therefore declared that the motion was carried.

CLERK (in Cantonese): legislative provisions (suspension of operation) bill 1997.

MEMBERS' MOTIONS

AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE PROVISIONAL LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members' Motions.

The first motion: amendments to the rules of procedure of the provisional legislative council of the hong kong special administrative region. Mrs Selina CHOW.

Mrs Selina CHOW (in Cantonese): Madam President, I move the motion standing in my name on the Revised Agenda. I am very confident that this motion would not be as controversial as the previous one which concerns the amendment to another Rule.

The objective of this motion is to amend Rule 77 of the Rules of Procedure in relation to Panels of this Council. The original Rule 77(1) provides that: There shall be such number of committees, to be called Panels, as the House Committee considers appropriate. Subrule (2) provides that: The terms of reference of a Panel shall be determined by the House Committee. Subrule (3) provides that: A Panel shall monitor and examine, to the extent it considers necessary, policy matters referred to it by a member of the Panel or by the House Committee. Subrule (14) provides that: A Panel may, where requested by the House Committee and where it considers appropriate, or on its own motion, make reports in writing to the House Committee for the purpose of informing Members of the progress of its deliberations.

The Working Group on Rules of Procedure (Working Group) has studied in detail these clauses in its review of the structure of the committees of the Provisional Legislative Council. Members of the Working Group agreed unanimously that Panels should be formed under this Council to assist the Council in performing the duty of monitoring the operation of the Government. Nevertheless, one member of the Working Group has expressed different points of view in respect of whether the House Committee has the authority to form and supervise such Panels as well as to determine the terms of reference for the Panels.

Some members were of the opinion that as the House Committee plays the role of a co-ordinator, it should be appropriate for the House Committee to co-ordinate the formation as well as supervision of the Panels. However, the majority of the members opined that as the Panels would to assist the Council in performing its monitoring duties, the Panels should be directly responsible to the Council and should report to as well as receive orders from the Council. In other words, the Panels should be formed and supervised by the Council. If we look at it from the structural point of view, the Panels should be of the same level as the House Committee. The difference between these two types of committees is their respective scope of work. The Panels still depend on the House Committee to act as a channel of communication among Members and among different Panels, as well as to co-ordinate certain particular matters.

After discussion, the Working Group decided that the Panels should be formed by the Council and should report to the Council. The House Committee could make recommendation on terms of reference for the consideration of the Council and may request the Panels to prepare reports on particular matters. This proposal has already received support from the House Committee.

The amendment to Rule 75 is a consequential amendment upon the amendments made to Rule 77.

I hope Honourable Members would support my motion so that the Panels, the function of which is to assist this Council in monitoring the Government's work, could have a more precise and clearly defined structure and accountability under this Council.

Thank you, Madam President.

Mrs Selina CHOW moved the following motion:

Appendix I

　

"That the Chinese and English versions of the Rules of Procedure of the Provisional Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region made by this Council be amended respectively as follows ─

(a) in the Chinese version ─

(1) in Rule 75(12), by deleting "該等事宜的研究工作為事務委員會訂定職權範圍，亦可要求該事務委員會就該等事宜提交報告及聽取其報告" and substituting "研究該等事宜的職權範圍諮詢事務委員會，並作出建議，亦可要求及聽取該事務員會就有關事宜提交報告，及視乎需要，再向臨時立法會提交報告";

(2) in Rule 77 ─

(a) in subrule (1), by deleting "按情況決定" and substituting "所認為是適當的而定及由臨時立法會通過";

(b) in subrule (2), by deleting "訂定" and substituting "建議，並由臨時立法會通過";

(c) in subrule (3), by deleting "交" and substituting "建議";

(d) in subrule (14) ─

(i) by deleting "可" and substituting "在其認為適當的情況下，可向臨時立法會提交報告，但在會期內需最少報告一次。";

(ii) by deleting "並在事務委員會認為適當的情況" and "，知會議員其商議進展情況";

(iii) by adding "亦可就特定的有關事宜" after "主動，";

(B) in the English Version ─

(1) in Rule 75(2), by deleting "determine the terms of reference for the such consideration of such matter and may request and receive reports on such matter from the Panel" and substituting "make recommendation on the terms of reference for the consideration of such matter after consultation with the Panel and may request and receive report on the policy matter from the Panel and then report further to the Council as appropriate";

(2) in Rule 77 ─

(a) in subrule (1), by adding "and as the Council may approve" after "appropriate";

(b) in subrule (2), by deleting "determined by the House Committee" and substituting "recommended by the House Committee and approved by the Council";

(c) in subrule (14) ─

(i) by deleting "may", and substituting "may make such reports as it considers appropriate to the Council provided that there shall be at least one report during the session and";

(ii) by deleting "and where it considers appropriate,";

(iii) by deleting "reports in writing to the House Committee for the purpose of informing Members of the progress of its deliberations", and substituting "a report in writing to the House Committee on a particular matter"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mrs Selina CHOW as set out in Appendix I to the Agenda be approved.

Council will now proceed to a debate. Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Members responded)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Will those in favour of the motion please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".

(No Member responded)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the "ayes" have it. The "ayes" have it.

FORMATION OF PANELS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Second Motion: Motion on Formation of Panels. Mrs Selina CHOW.

Mrs Selina CHOW (in Cantonese): Madam President, I move the motion standing in my name on the Revised Agenda. The objective of this motion is to form 18 Panels and to set their terms of reference pursuant to Rule 77(1) and (2) of the Rules of Procedure of this Council.

The Working Group on Rules of Procedure (Working Group) has consulted Honourable Members on matters related to the formation of Panels and noted the consensus reached among Members. Members agree that the Provisional Legislative Council has to monitor the work of the Government within the scopes specified by the Preparatory Committee of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. In this respect, Members also agree that Panels should be formed to assist this Council in performing its various functions. In the light of this principle, the Working Group recommends that the terms of reference of the Panels should be as follows:

(a) to deliberate on the issues relating to the relevant policy area(s) dealt with in the policy address of the Chief Executive and to formulate views on such other issues relating to the same policy area(s) which have not been given adequate attention in the policy address;

(b) to receive briefings and to formulate views on any major legislative or financial proposals in the relevant policy area(s) prior to their formal introduction to the Council or Finance Committee; and

(c) to examine and to report on any major issues of wide public concern in the relevant policy area(s) as referred by the Council or House Committee or as raised by the Panel itself.

In considering the number of Panels to be formed, the Working Group has made reference to the structure of the Panels under the former Hong Kong Legislative Council. The Working Group is of the opinion that the Provisional Legislative Council should also form the same number of Panels as the former Hong Kong Legislative Council, that means 18 Panels should be formed. As regards the number of members of each Panel, the provision as set out in Rule 77(8) of the Rules of Procedure should be observed (that is, each Panel shall consist of not less than six members including the chairman). If a Panel cannot be formed due to insufficient membership, the issue that needs to be examined may, depends on the circumstances concerned, be handled by other established Panels or, on recommendation by the House Committee, be referred to the House Committee for decision as to whether another Panel or a sub-committee be formed to take up the issue.

The Working Group wishes to point out that as the Panels are to be formed by this Council, their terms of office should be the same as those committees under this Council and end with the conclusion of the Session of this Council.

I hope Honourable Members would support this motion and agree to the formation of the 18 Panels with the proposed terms of reference thereby assisting this Council in monitoring the work of the Government.

Thank you, Madam President.

Mrs Selina CHOW moved the following motion:

Appendix II

　

"That pursuant to Rule 77(1) and (2) of the Rules of Procedure of this Council, 18 Panels may be formed in respect of the specified policy areas of the corresponding bureaux and other Government bodies in accordance with the Schedule with the following terms of reference ─

(a) to deliberate on the issues relating to the relevant policy area(s) dealt with in the Policy Address of the Chief Executive and to formulate views on such other issues relating to the same policy area(s) which have not been given adequate attention in the Policy Address;

(b) to receive briefings and to formulate views on any major legislative or financial proposals in the relevant policy area(s) prior to their formal introduction to the Council or Financial Committee; and

(c) to examine and to report on any major issues of wide public concern in the relevant policy area(s) as referred by the Council or House Committee or as raised by the Panel itself.

SCHEDULE

Panel	Corresponding Bureau/Body	Policy Area
1. Administration of Justice and Legal Services	(a) Judiciary (b) Department of Justice	Matters relating to the administration of justice and legal services
2. Broadcasting, Culture and Sport	Broadcasting, Culture and Sport Bureau	Recreationandsport, culture, heritage, broadcasting and entertainment matters
3. Consitutional Affairs	Constitutional Affairs Bureau	Electoral matters
Panel	Corresponding Bureau/Body	Policy Area
4. Economic Services	Economic Services Bureau	Matters relating toair and port services, postal services, telecommunications, energy, food supply and public utilities
5. Education	Education and Manpower Bureau	Education matters
6. Environmental Affairs	Planning,Environment and Lands Bureau	Environmental and conservation affairs
7. Financial Affairs	(a) Finance Bureau (b) Financial Services Bureau	Banking,monetary,companies, securities, taxation, insurance and general finance matters
8. Health Services	Health and Welfare Bureau	Medical and health matters
9. Home Affairs	Home Affairs Branch	District, community and rural matters, civic education, human rights, youth and women matters.
10. Housing	Housing Bureau	Private and public housing matters
11. Information Policy	Home Affairs Bureau	Dissemination and protection of information, press and public relations matters
12. Manpower	Education and Manpower Bureau	Labour and manpower planning matters
Panel	Corresponding Bureau/Body	Policy Area
13. Planning, Landsand Works	(a) Planning,Environment and Lands Bureau (b) Works Bureau	Lands, buildings and planning matters, works and water supply and public Works Programme
14. Public Service	Civil Service Bureau	Matters relating to the civil service and Government-funded public bodies
15. Security	(a) Security Bureau (b) Independent Commission Against Corruption	Security, public order, corruption-related issues, and nationality and immigration matters
16. Trade and Industry	Trade and Industry Bureau	Trade and industry matters
17. Transport	Transport Bureau	Transport matters
18. Welfare Services	Health and Welfare Bureau	Welfare and rehabilitation services matters"

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mrs Selina CHOW as set out in Appendix II to the Agenda be approved.

Council will now proceed to a debate. Does any Member wish to speak?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Choi-hi.

Mr CHAN Choi-hi (in Cantonese): Madam President, I am in favour of the formation of Panels. However, I have learnt from the media that the three major political parties would divide up among themselves the chairman posts of all the Panels. I do not know if this report is true or not, but I will certainly be very disappointed and indignant if it is.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW, do you wish to reply?

(Mrs Selina CHOW shook her head to indicate that she did not wish to reply.)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Will those in favour of the motion please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".

(Members responded)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the "ayes" have it. The "ayes" have it.

RESOLVING THE PROBLEMS LEFT BY THE BRITISH HONG KONG GOVERNMENT WHICH AFFECT THE LIVELIHOOD OF THE POPULACE

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Two Members have given notices to move two motions today, both of which have no legal effect. I have just received notice from the Honourable NGAN Kam-chuen to withdraw his motion as it is getting late. His motion will be submitted to the House Committee for debate at a scheduled date. As regards the other motion, we will now start our debate on it. Before the debate starts, I want to state the time limits on speeches. I have accepted the recommendations of the House Committee as to the time limits on speeches for motion debates and Members were informed by circular on 14 July. Let me repeat the time limits. The movers of the motions will each have 15 minutes for their speeches including their replies, and another five minutes to speak on the proposed amendment. Other Members, including the mover of the amendment, will each have seven minutes for their speeches. Under Rule 37 of the Rules of Procedure, I am obliged to direct any Member speaking in excess of the specified time to discontinue.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): First motion. Resolving the problems left by the British Hong Kong Government which affect the livelihood of the populace. Miss CHAN Yuen-han.

MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government has been set up, thereby marking clearly an end to colonial rule in Hong Kong and the emergence of a new Hong Kong with a new government. For the first time we have a Chief Executive who comes from among the people of Hong Kong. This brings hope for new life to the grassroots in Hong Kong.

On 1 July, the day when the SAR Government was established, a lot of people expressed by various means their views about the dawning of a new era. On a radio phone-in programme, a caller heartily thanked all those who worked hard for the transfer of sovereignty ceremony as well as the celebration activities. What touched me most was he said he had been jobless for some time and was staying at home; and yet he was anticipating the establishment of the SAR. I was excited for quite some time by what he had said.

Madam President, before I point out the problems that had existed in Hong Kong under British rule, I would like to mention that although Hong Kong people have high expectations of the SAR Government, they are not trying to criticize "whatever is British" or have blind faith in the SAR Government. On the contrary, of theSAR Government, which belongs to them, they expect more. If the SAR could not meet their demands, their emotions stemming from disappointment would be more bitter than in the old days.

In fact, there had been some improvement in the livelihood of our workers during the economic boom when Hong Kong was under British rule. Hong Kong people had experienced times of plenty then. In the past 10 years or so, however, those were just memories as economic transformation took place in Hong Kong. The standard of living of thousands of our workers had been falling due to the absence of timely and appropriate retraining. Many of these workers have been living below the poverty line, and more and graver social problems have emerged.

Madam President, we can see in general a deterioration in the quality of life of our people. Their employment prospects have greatly worsened. We can also see a number of the elderly resigned to living in misery without protection after retirement. In addition, we can see school fees of our children rising and the cost of housing becoming less and less affordable for the grassroots. All these problems point to one thing: the former Government has failed to address the problems squarely. Or one can put it this way: those in power then only made some make-shift remedies and perform their duties in a perfunctory manner. This aggravates social problems. The grassroots were more and more resentful.

Madam President, with regard to the numerous social and livelihood problems affecting the populace, my colleagues, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong and Mr CHAN Wing-chan, will speak on the economy/employment and social security respectively. I will make further elucidations when I talk about housing. As regards other specific problems, I will talk about them when I speak again later.

Madam President, the Chief Executive, Mr TUNG Chee-hwa, showed his concern about housing policy on 1 July, the day when the SAR Government was established. Mr TUNG reiterated the importance of housing supply. He said housing supply should be increased at a target of 85 000 flats a year and the waiting time for public rental housing should be reduced from six and a half years to three years. He also wanted to raise the home ownership rate from 50% or so to 70%. I was glad to hear all that. I was glad to hear the undertakings given by Mr TUNG with a view to resolving the housing problem, which has remained unsolved for decades under the administration of the British Hong Kong Government.

Glad as I was, Madam President, I could not help wondering whether the undertakings could come true. When would the targets be met? Yesterday, the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands, Mr Bowen LEUNG, announced the amount of land supply in the coming five years. This I welcome. Indeed, in the former Legislative Council I had requested more transparency in our Government and the announcement came as a fruition of the Government's promise.

Nevertheless, can Mr TUNG's undertaking yesterday to increase land supply for private buildings when he talked about housing be implemented? I feel that housing is still a problem. Does the SAR Government have a complete set of plans? Have the plans recognized the idea that housing is a necessity for the people? I fail to see clear affirmative answers to these questions yet. For instance, although the Government has forecast the supply of land in the coming five years, the supply forecast is only for land for private use, including home ownership flats. The Government still has to build a certain number of flats after supplying the land. Moreover, 85 000 flats a year do not appear to be sufficient. We have to expedite the change of land use and so on to meet the needs of housing construction. We have greater concern for public housing. What is the position of land supply for public housing? Can the Government supply large masses of land in time for overall construction of public rental housing and home ownership scheme flats? The Government was silent on these points in its announcement yesterday. We would like the SAR Government to deal with these issues in a practical manner. It should submit the entire plan for consideration. Failing that, I am afraid the present Government, like the former British Hong Kong Government, would be severely criticized by the public in the implementation of its Long Term Housing Strategy.

Madam President, the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) has maintained that housing to people is like the shell to a snail. It is a necessity. To help the people settle comfortably in their homes requires the Government to have a complete plan. The FTU believes that a majority of the housing should come from public rental housing, while home ownership flats should come second, with the rest supplemented by private flats. In the past, the British Hong Kong Government treacherously changed its promise for public housing every ten years, shirking much of its responsibility in a rather irresponsible manner. In concrete terms, public housing was regarded as social welfare in the seventies and became a service with a commercial orientation in the eighties. And in the latest long term housing policy, I seem to find the Government trying to compel the people to buy flats, thinking that so doing can complete its historical task

I must stress that we need a long-term strategy that bears fruit. What the Government needs to have is not only long term plans for land supply but also complete plans for the construction of flats in the long term. It should not play around with numbers decade after decade.

We suggest that long-term housing plans be made to cover every 20 years instead of 10 years. Hong Kong people may then understand that the SAR Government is determined to solve the problem of housing in the long term rather than just taking short-term and irresponsible measures. The SAR Government must seriously formulate a system for comprehensive and complete planning to enable plans for building, housing and transport to integrate. We make it a point that we do not want to hear housing officials say that the people must share such and such responsibilities. The Government must say what its fair share of responsibility towards the people it should take up.

Madam President, about the recent property market, Mr TUNG once said property prices had gone out of control. They should be controlled when necessary. I think property prices now are outrageous. The Government should find ways to curb any rise in property prices. Yesterday, the Government made public a plan for land supply. This was an important first step to curb the rise in property prices. However, I think the Government needs a multifarious plan to cope with the situation.

The FTU has been thinking that a capital gains tax, appropriately levied, may contribute to the stabilization of property prices. In the former Legislative Council, I repeatedly suggested the idea of capital gains tax for properties. It is one of the important ways to check the rise in property prices. I hope the Government can reconsider it.

Some people worry that undue interference in property transactions may adversely affect the economy. I understand these worries. But in view of the over-inflated property prices, the general public cannot afford to buy flats any more. High property prices also greatly affect people doing business. In addition, high rents and indulgence in property speculation have caused problems to many industries. For example, a large scale department store in Hong Kong will close down at the end of this month, not because of poor business but because of inflated property prices and some other factors. This is an unhealthy situation. We may let it continue or we do something about it. If we do not act today, sooner or later the entire economy of Hong Kong will be destroyed by it. Therefore, I hope Mr TUNG can announce further measures to bring property prices down.

Madam President, for many years, Hong Kong has observed the rule of law. In particular after a democratic election system has been put in place, the general public has become more aware of their right to monitor the work of the Government. Previously, the Governor of Hong Kong was sent from the United Kingdom and was not subject to monitoring by the people of Hong Kong. Although Mr TUNG was returned by the Selection Committee of 400 people, almost everyone in Hong Kong paid a lot of attention to the open activities Mr TUNG took part in in the selection process. Even though the people of Hong Kong did not take part in the voting, they placed great emphasis on the acceptability of the Chief Executive. Therefore, in formulating Government policies, it is now not practical to use a paternalistic style of administration by asking the people to "talk less about rights and more about duties". On the contrary, the Government should talk more about the rights of the people and the duties of the Government. This then is the foundation stone for the building of Hong Kong in a new era.

Madam President, in a nutshell, Hong Kong is now reunited with its motherland. At last, the people of Hong Kong can administer Hong Kong on their own to realize the principle of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy". Mr TUNG must find ways to resolve the problems left by the British Hong Kong Government which affect the livelihood of the populace. In the past, livelihood policies of the British Hong Kong Government were in general short-sighted ones. Some of them were of low cost-effectiveness or even out-dated. In recent years in particular, the Government lacked forward-looking policies.

The SAR Governnment in the new era is one which is rooted. It should work better than the last one. We have expectations of Mr TUNG. What he said and did and promised openly since swearing in as the Chief Executive will be borne in mind. We will take note of future developments in Hong Kong. We hope Hong Kong to do better than before and the people can better share the achievements of Hong Kong.

With these remarks, Madam President, I beg to move. Thank you.

MISS CHAN Yuen-han moved the following motion:

"That this Council urges Mr TUNG Chee-hwa, the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, to honour the pledges made at his election campaign by formulating fair and reasonable policies so that those problems left behind by the British Hong Kong Government which affect the livelihood of the populace, in areas such as housing, employment, retirement protection, education and disparity between the rich and the poor in society, could be resolved in earnest."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That this Council urges Mr TUNG Chee-hwa, the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, to honour the pledges made at his election campaign by formulating fair and reasonable policies so that those problems left behind by the British Hong Kong Government which affect the livelihood of the populace, in areas such as housing, employment, retirement protection, education and disparity between the rich and the poor in society, could be resolved in earnest.

Mr KAN Fook-yee has given notice to move an amendment to this motion. His amendment has been printed on the Agenda and circularized to Members. I propose that the motion and the amendment be debated together in a joint debate.

Council shall debate the motion and the amendment together in a joint debate. I now call on Mr KAN Fook-yee to speak and to move his amendment. After I have proposed the question on the amendment, Members may express their views on the motion and the amendment. Mr KAN Fook-yee.

MR KAN FOOK-YEE (in Cantonese): Madam President, I move that Miss CHAN Yuen-han's motion be amended as set out on the Agenda.

Everyone may see from my amendment that I agree with Miss CHAN in urging the Chief Executive to formulate fair and reasonable policies to resolve problems such as housing, employment, retirement protection and education. The purpose of my amendment is to keep away from the issue of disparity between the rich and the poor. To me, the series of Employment Ordinances with far-reaching effects on labour relations that were passed by the former Legislative Council only a few days before it was disbanded is more worthy of the attention of the SAR Government.

Regarding the issue of disparity between the rich and the poor, Article 5 of the Basic Law provides that: "The socialist system and policies shall not be practised in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and the previous capitalist system and way of life shall remain unchanged for 50 years." Under such circumstances, the problem of disparity between the rich and the poor will inevitably continue to exist. The same also happens in the United States, the number one capitalist country. In other countries, such as the G7 countries and the countries in Scandinavia, the problem of disparity between the rich and the poor is not so acute as in the United States because they have adopted some socialist policies. In view of the said provision in the Basic Law, it is very much arguable whether Hong Kong should follow in their footsteps.

Today, we are fortunate enough to have undergone a smooth transition to a new era. To maintain the capitalist system and to keep the existing way of life remain unchanged for 50 years is the presiding principle, in accordance with which shall we continue to maintain our stability. On the basis of stability, we shall then further develop. Problems left behind by the British Hong Kong Governent need to be dealt with in order of urgency and importance, and I am afraid that an issue like the problem of disparity between the rich and the poor, which is difficult to resolve, would not be on our priority list.

With these remarks, I urge Honourable Members to support my amendment.

MR KAN Fook-yee moved the following amendment:

"To delete "honour the pledges made at his election campaign by formulating" and substitute with "formulate"; to delete "the livelihood of" before "the populace"; to delete "in areas such as" and substitute with "that is, those involving"; to add "labour relations and" before "education"; and to delete "and disparity between the rich and the poor in society"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr KAN Fook-yee be made to Miss CHAN Yuen-han's motion.

Council shall now proceed to a debate. Dr LEONG Che-hung.

DR LEONG CHE-HUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the original motion. While expressing my support for the original motion proposed by Miss CHAN Yuen-han, I urge the Chief Executive and the SAR Government not only to try to resolve as soon as possible the problems which affect the livelihood of the populace mentioned in Miss CHAN's motion but also to conduct a quick review on the medical system and medical policy in Hong Kong as a whole.

In fact, what disappoints me is that before and after the election of Mr TUNG, he has not included the medical issue in his priority list for consideration or action. In this connection, the medical sector is extremely disappointed.

Madam President, undoubtedly, Hong Kong has promising health data and health indices but its medical and health system cannot be said to be perfect. One may even say it is far from being able to cope with the changes and demands in of society.

The public medical care system of Hong Kong has long been operating on two principles. Principle one: over 97% of the medical services should be subsidized by public funds. Any Hong Kong resident, rich or poor, has access to public medical service which is virtually free of charge. Principle two: no one should be deprived of proper medical care due to a lack of means. In other words, all Hong Kong residents, be they rich or poor, can receive high standard public medical service at almost no charge.

The system appeared to have worked well in past years. This is because in the past the population was relatively young. People seldom fell sick. Developments in medical technology was slow then. Demands of the people for medical care were relatively low. Medical expenses were relatively inexpensive. Market forces therefore could play its full part. Those who can afford but do not want to wait in the queue or the relatively less decent environment in public hospitals can use private medical services. Otherwise, they can enjoy medical services at almost no charge.

Nowadays, all sorts of problems in our medical system emerge. As the population ages, medical technology advances by leaps and bounds, and demands of the people increases, we can see an obvious and steep rise in medical expenses.

At present, our medical system is trying to satisfy unlimited demands with limited resourses. We will never succeed. Perhaps some will say that one of the aims of setting up the Hospital Authority (HA) is to resolve this problem. Yes, there is an upside as well as a downside to setting up the HA. The upside is that the HA employs ways to manage public hospitals with high cost-effectiveness. In addition, the economy of Hong Kong has improved a lot. So, more money can be allocated to the HA. More and quicker improvements can be seen in the services and facilities of our hospitals. But for all the good work the HA has done, it becomes the victim of its own success. A lot of the people who used to patron private medical services turned to use public medical services. As a result, the waiting time in public medical institutions becomes longer. The real cause of the problem is we do not have an updated and long-term medical and health policy. We may have heard a number of times that the last White Paper on health care policy was published 23 years ago, that is, almost a quarter of a century ago. We are being swamped with problems in our medical system. We must take positive steps to solve the basic problems without delay. We urgently need a set of new medical and health care policies, new means to save money and obtain funds and new policies on medical financing and fees charging. I think in addition to ensuring those who cannot pay can obtain suitable medical care, Hong Kong still needs to ask "those who can afford to pay more".

Madam President, the British Hong Kong Government before 1 July may be a sunset Government which lacked the political courage and foresight to resolve problems in the medical system. As a result, the problems were left to be dealt with by the SAR Government. But I believe the present Government should have the drive and wisdom to turn over a new page for Hong Kong. I urge the Administration to diagnose the troubles of the medical policies and system in Hong Kong and make the right prescriptions.

Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Yin-fat.

MR HUI YIN-FAT (in Cantonese): Madam President, the first two motion debates of this Council after the reunification are on livelihood issues. I think this shows that Members of this Council are very much concerned about livelihood issues, and that it is necessary for the Government to tackle with urgency a number of social issues facing us.

I do agree with the underlying principle of Miss CHAN Yuen-han's motion, that is, the formulation of fair and reasonable policies to resolve various livelihood problems in a practical manner. However, I think the wording of the motion implies an element of declaration of political stance. She takes the opportunity to reprimand the former British Hong Kong Government for leaving behind a whole host of livelihood problems. I do not think it is necessary.

Although the determination of the people in power to resolve livelihood problems and the relevant policies they adopt directly affects the effectiveness of eliminating the plight of the people, it does not mean that livelihood problems will automatically disappear once the people in power came up with a comprehensive policy on the livelihood of the people.

I think one principal way to resolve livelihood issues is to adopt a matter-of-fact attitude and aim at doing what is best for the interest of the grassroots. It is unnecessary to investigate the success and failure of the former Government or mingle the discussion with declaration of political stance.

Moreover, I think the original motion lacks clear thinking in terms of protection for the interests of the grassroots, especially when its scope is slightly biased towards housing and labour. There is little mention of medical and social welfare issues. I think all of these issues are equally important. Do we not agree that the bill this Council deals with about "child illegal immigrants", the debate on comprehensive social secutity assistance (CSSA) for the elderly, or even assistance given to new immigrants to help them integrate into the community, as well as the severely inadequate number of residential places for the elderly and the disabled and so on are livelihood issues of urgency?

Madam President, I want to continue my speech by giving my comments on the amendment by Mr KAN Fook-yee. I find it regrettable for Mr KAN to delete the issue of "disparity between the rich and the poor" from the whole host of issues Hong Kong needs to resolve. Indeed, while everyone is celebrating the reunification and is singing and dancing to extol the good times, why do we not care about the one tenth of the population who are living under the poverty line?

The previous government was reluctant to draw a definition for poverty line because it wanted to avoid the issue of poverty. The Government's explanation for the CSSA Scheme was that it wanted to provide a "safety net" for those who needed help, but it never made any attempt to pull the needy out of poverty.

We may refer to the number of cases in the CSSA Scheme. It doubled in the past four years, that is, from 80 000-odd in 1992 to 160 000 at the end of 1996. It is estimated that the number will rise to 200 000 at the end of this year. This shows that the poverty problem in Hong Kong has reached an acute or even dangerous level.

Therefore, I urge Honourable colleagues not to lose sight of the "low-income" or even "no-income" new immigrants, the elderly and the poor when they fight for the "with income" for such interests as housing, employment protection and retirement protection and so on.

Madam President, I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HO Sai-chu.

MR HO SAI-CHU (in Cantonese): Madam President, talking about resolving livelihood problems affecting the populace, I entirely agree with all the suggestions put forward by Miss CHAN Yuen-han. But in her motion, Miss CHAN includes a point on resolving the disparity between the rich and the poor. We need to understand that with the "one country, two systems" principle applied in Hong Kong, Hong Kong practices capitalism. In a capitalist society, free competition is advocated. Naturally, some people get rich faster than others. I hope everyone gets very rich. In the course of economic development, disparity between the rich and the poor is inevitable. This is the rule of development in free competition. If we need a quick solution to eliminate the disparity betweeen the rich and the poor, the simplest way is to rob the rich to relieve the poor, but then this is no capitalism.

Some may say that the Government can levy heavy taxes on the rich in order to check their growth in assets. However, please remember that low tax is one of the contributory factors for Hong Kong's success. Article 108 of the Basic Law clearly states that Hong Kong is a low tax region. If a high tax policy is pursued, investors will be reluctant to come and capital will flow out of Hong Kong; as a result, Hong Kong cannot continue to prosper. So, I think the Government should encourage everybody to create wealth rather than "stop people from getting rich". On the other hand, when the Government has a handsome sum in its reserves, it should provide the poor and those who have lost their capabilities with more social welfare to enable them to have sufficient food and clothing so that they can live on with dignity, and share the fruits of economic success. Social stability can then be achieved.

In view of the above reasons, I support the amendment by Mr KAN Fook-yee.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW.

MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Madam President, the motion before us apparently aims at resolving the problems left behind by the former Government that affect the livelihood of the populace. Due to the wide scope it covers, it practically provides an opportunity for political parties and independent Members to voice their views on future government policies before the debate on the October policy address takes place. Is this jumping-the-queue type of motion "absolutely necessary"? I am afraid I might trigger off another debate for this.

Of course, as a political party with some sense of responsibility, it is indeed "absolutely necessary" to make clear to the people of Hong Kong our suggestions for the administration of Hong Kong. For this reason, at the beginning of this year, the Liberal Party took the lead to submit to the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region a proposal on the administration of Hong Kong. It contains practical recommendations for policies on different areas. As regards the problems mentioned in the present motion, we also have some practical ideas.

As far as housing is concerned, the Liberal Party thinks that to resolve the problem of supply in private and public housing, the Government needs to approach the matter from three aspects, namely, increasing land supply, speeding up infrastructure construction and enhancing the efficiency of the scrutiny of building applications. However, the Liberal Party objects to the use of administrative measures to check prices of property in the private sector in the attempt to solve the housing problem. It is because this will upset the system of free economy and the basics of supply and demand. Such measures are neither correct nor beneficial to the community as a whole. We had the bitter experience of similar measures adopted by the Government in 1994. Trades affected include not only the property industry but also those businesses marginally connected to the property market and those not connected to it, such as the retail trade, of which I was then representative, which was also affected to a certain extent. Therefore we have great reservations about the use of administartive measures to check property prices.

We think the Government should study with the Housing Authority and private developers issues concerning the co-ordination between land, financial resources and human resources in the light of public housing development. They should also consider joining hands with private developers in developing public housing, with the requirement that private developers be charged with the responsibility of building some public housing as one of the terms and conditions of land grant. As regards the sale of public housing flats, the Liberal Party had submitted a number of proposals in the former Legislative Council, and I will not repeat our views here. We think the Government should come up with a feasible plan for the sale of public housing flats to make the dreams of public housing tenants of having their own flats come true.

As regards employment, the Liberal Party thinks that the Government should review the Labour Importation Schemes against the needs of local industries and the practical situation of the economic development in Hong Kong. It should improve, simplify and be flexible with the timetable and procedures for the scrutiny of applications. We believe the service industry alone cannot provide sufficient employment opportunities for the working population now and in the future. Therefore the Government must create a favourable environment to enable industries with high added value and medium to high technology to start to grow in Hong Kong. Most importantly, the Government should conduct a systematic survey on human resources to facilitate an accurate and comprehensive understanding of the unemployment situation in various social strata and among workers in different trades so that suitable remedies can be formulated.

The Liberal Party has made proposals on retirement protection a number of times in the past. We hope the Government can keep an open mind when it comes to finalizing the details of the plan for retirement protection to obtain more support from the community. In launching the mandatory provident funds system, the Government should at the same time provide assistance to those elderly who have reached retirement age but are not able to live at a subsistence level.

The Liberal Party submitted a proposal on education earlier to the Honourable Anthony LEUNG, who is the Executive Council Member responsible for studying education policy. So, I will not repeat the proposal here. But there are several principles which we hope Mr TUNG will refer to. The Liberal Party opines that total expenditure on education should increase from 2.7% to 4% of Gross Domestic Product to bring our investment in this area to more or less the same level as other Asian countries. In addition to raising the qualifications of our teachers, we have to consider also enhancing the leadership and management abilities of our school principals to ensure a balanced development in the profession.

We know the Honourable David CHU will propose a debate on education. I hope to speak again then. The Honourable James TIEN hoped to be able to speak on Miss CHAN's original motion and Mr KAN's amendment, but he is on a flight now. Well, he has asked me to say a few words. The Liberal Party never really agrees to the notion that there is disparity between the rich and the poor. In fact, given the overall development in our economy and the free market, we very much support providing incentives to everybody for self-development and creation of wealth. We think both employers and employees should always work together if Hong Kong is to prosper. We agree entirely with Mr KAN's view about focussing our attention on fostering a close relationship between both parties.

With these remarks, I support Mr KAN's amendment.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Sophie LEUNG.

MRS SOPHIE LEUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, I want to tell everybody that I am inclined to support the amendment proposed by Mr KAN Fook-yee. As regards Miss CHAN Yuen-han's motion, I very much agree with its spirit. I do appreciate and respect Miss CHAN's work in this Council. But I feel that to leave all the problems to Mr TUNG Chee-hwa or the SAR Government is not practical. It is especially so when Mr TUNG is requested to fulfil what he has promised in his campaign for the Chief Executive office. I mention that because I recall Miss CHAN saying a short while ago that the Government should not direct what the people should do, but it should think about what it can do for its people.

There was mention of European and American countries when we debated about another motion. Everyone consider the United States a very democratic country with a high degree of freedom. A lot of people adore the country. I recall President John F. KENNEDY once had a well-known phrase. In English it is: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." It means we should ask ourselves what we can do for the community or our country.

Under the wide-ranging topic we are discussing, I hope that when this Council considers the motion and the amendment, everyone, as one of the 6 million people in Hong Kong, can consider carefully the examples given by Miss CHAN. People have high expectations of the SAR Government. How do we accept the responsibilities brought on us? We are also members of the SAR Government, members of the SAR, representatives of the people. How are we going to act? As Miss CHAN said, we should be practical. When motions or other issues are tabled at this Council for consideration, I hope everyone can be practical. The only factor we should consider is the interest of the 6 million-odd population and nothing else. They have given us respect and entrusted upon us the responsibility of dealing with all the issues for them. What kind of mentality should we have? I think we should do "what is required" not "what we can safely do", or act in order to please some groups. I hope we can give some thought on how we can make progress with the SAR Government.

With these remarks, I support Mr KAN's amendment.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TSANG Yok-sing.

MR TSANG YOK-SING (in Cantonese): Madam President, at the establishment ceremony of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), the Chief Executive, Mr TUNG Chee-hwa, announced his blueprint for the administration of Hong Kong. In his blueprint, he systematically described the policy directions and objectives of the SAR Government on education, housing, and welfare for the elderly.

The Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB) supports these directions and objectives in general because we think they can address the problems the SAR Government needs urgently to deal with after its establishment. But we have not heard of the concrete measures to realize all these objectives. Many people adopt a wait-and-see attitude as regards whether the objectives can be realized. When the Chief Executive announces his first policy address three months later, we will see if he will put forward convincing measures in respect of these problems.

Madam President, I do not intend to follow the footsteps of Mrs Selina CHOW, for I will not read out an election platform of the DAB. But as several Members have responded to the issue of the disparity between the rich and the poor, I would like to say something about this too.

Madam President, to those who will never be threatened by poverty, the disparity between the rich and the poor may only be an interesting academic question. Scholars may write theses to discuss whether an 0.02 increase in the Gini coefficient should mean a change for the better or for the worse in people's living. They may quote empirical references in their search for an exact definition of "poverty".

But in Hong Kong, at present an affluent society, there are still a number of people living off Comprehensive Social Security Assistance, elderly people living alone, single-parent families, bedspace lodgers, workers who have lost their jobs, and new immigrant families. To these people, wealth is not a coefficient, a pile of statistics or an academic term. They do not need experts to tell them what "poverty" means; it is a fact they have to face day-in, day-out. They need to bear the burden of living from hand to mouth, unpleasant living environment, an old age without security. They do not have the very basic living facilities or hobbies. Nor do they have the chance to improve their lives by hard work. To them, poverty is an endless dark tunnel, a darkest night with no hope for dawn, and a cold winter with spring beyond reach.

The disparity between the rich and the poor we are talking about does not mean there are some people who live more comfortably than others, feed better than others or dress more fashionably than others. It is a natural phenomenon of the social and economic systems. As Mr KAN and Mr HO said just now, in a capitalist society, we do not expect to eliminate the disparity between the rich and the poor. We do not advocate robbing the rich and relieving the poor or practicing welfarism. But the fact remains there are people in society who cannot share the fruits of economic development, who are deserted by the prosperous city they once took part in building. Is this what should happen in a community with achievements we are proud of? During the colonial rule, we might have tolerated this kind of injustice. Now that "Hong Kong people start to rule Hong Kong", they should have higher expectations in terms of social justice. We may not be able to eradicate the disparity between the rich and the poor, but the grassroots surely do not want to see it widening.

Madam President, while campaigning for the office of Chief Executive, Mr TUNG promised to review social welfare policies. He vowed to build a "stable, equitable, free, democratic, compassionate society". With Mr TUNG's words in mind, we naturally have certain expectations of the SAR Government about the issue of the disparity between the rich and the poor.

With these remarks, Madam President, I support Miss CHAN's original motion.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Wing-chan.

MR CHAN WING-CHAN (in Cantonese): Madam President, following the establishment of the SAR, Hong Kong enters into a new era. The SAR Govrnment is its own master now. We are practising the "one country, two systems; Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy" principle.

We do not seem to have seen any significant changes yet. In Hong Kong, people can still dance and go to race meetings, although the horses are having their summer break now. A number of Hong Kong people had been worrying before the reunification that the freedoms in their lives and the freedom of speech would be restricted. The facts show us that Hong Kong people are leading normal lives. They can do all sorts of things they have been doing: holding processions and demonstrations, going on hunger strikes, scolding at people at will, and voicing all sorts of opinons and political views. Whereas before they could bring in coffins, now they can play funeral music as a form of expression. Tonight, somebody even intruded into the Chamber of the Provisional Legislative Council and caused some disturbance. These people would of course argue they just came to protest and express their opinion; they were not displaying disorderly behaviour. But what they did had caused the Council meeting to be suspended. Was what they did appropriate? In the past, people had the freedom of expression; today they still have it and exercise it in forms galore. Madam President, there is one thing that has not changed: behind all the singing and dancing to extol the good times, there are still a lot of people living in poverty.

These poor people have high expectations of the SAR Government. They want the SAR Government to do even better than the British Hong Kong Government. They want it to help them out of their difficulties. I would now like to speak on the disparity between the rich and the poor and about retirement protection.

In the fifties and sixties, life was difficult for Hong Kong people who commonly needed relief. Today, Hong Kong has become prosperous and rich, but poverty still exists. The lower class have not had their fair share of the fruits of economic success and they have not been able to better their living conditions. Furthermore, for a long time Hong Kong has been lacking a retirement protection system, resulting in a number of elderly people without support. In addition to the elderly who live alone, there are also other people who lead miserable lives: jobless workers, single-parent families and huge numbers of new immigrants. In the past, with the absence of any long-term policies by the Government, the plight of these people has been aggravating.

Faced with pressing issues of poverty, the SAR Government should formulate strategies to help the poor. It needs not only to help them but also help them out of their poverty. The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) is of the view that select committees should be set up to draw up plans to help the poor, to review the existing welfare policies, to create more job opportunities, and to decide on the future direction of development.

In the past, the Government did nothing for retirement protection, not to mention a comprehensive system for retirement protection. As a result, a number of those from the lower class find themselves living in misery in their old age after toiling for a number of years. The FTU thinks that a complete retirement protection system should include mandatory provident fund schemes and social security schemes to complement each other if the problems of the elderly are to be solved.

Hong Kong is no longer a British colony. It is not under the rule of foreigners any more. An insult has been avenged. Chinese all over the world should rejoice over this. Hong Kong should work hard to progress with the times. If Hong Kong changes for the worse or grows much worse than before in its economy and people"s livelihood, the compatriots who lend their heartiest support to the reunification of Hong Kong with its motherland will be very disappointed.

The SAR Government has to do even better than before. It is the responsibility of the Chief Executive. The SAR Government must improve the livelihood of the people, help the needy, and pay special attention to the problems left behind by the previous Government which affect the livelihood of the populace and make an effort to solve them. It should assign top priority to solving the poverty problem. In addition to helping the very poor out of their plight, the Government also has to provide more employment opportunities to workers. In this way everyone can have a fair share of the fruits of economic development and deterioration in the conflict between the rich and the poor can thus be avoided. The stability of Hong Kong will then not be affected. By so doing, the Government can implement the policies and fulfil its promises in entering into a new era.

With these remarks, Madam President, I support Miss CHAN Yuen-han's motion. Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHENG Yiu-tong.

MR CHENG YIU-TONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, Hong Kong has entered into a new era after its reunification with the motherland. As a labour organization with 250 000 members, the FTU heartily supports the reunification. It does so as a manifestation of national pride. It does so because the grassroots have high expectations of the newly-formed SAR Government. In the SAR, where "Hong Kong people are ruling Hong Kong", they expect to see the labour sector and the grassroots joining hands with other sectors to take part, as masters, in the building of Hong Kong and in sharing the fruits of prosperity.

In the past, when Hong Kong was ruled by the British Hong Kong Government, when Hong Kong was regarded as a borrowed place in borrowed time, government policies were short-term ones. They lacked long-term planning. In the guise of laissez-faire and non-interventionism, the Government often neglected the interests of the workers and grassroots.

Try to imagine this: If the British Hong Kong Government had started a retirement protection system in the community more than 10 years ago, by now the tens of thousands elderly would have been living more happily and with much greater dignity and our Chief Executive would not have to rack his brains to think of solutions to the problem of the elderly. Similarly, if the Government had had long-term policies on industry and human resources training, we would not have thousands of low-literacy, low-skilled workers who now find themselves rendered obsolete, jobless, under-employed or unable to change jobs in the process of Hong Kong's economic transformation. They have become victims of the economic development of Hong Kong.

In recent years, there has been promising growth in Hong Kong's economy as evidenced by statistics. There is a now fiscal reserve of more than $300 billion. On the list of the 10 richest people in the world, we can find the names of Hong Kong tycoons. But in recent years, life for our workers, especially those in the lower class, has been very hard. Small enterprises have been laying off their employees or cutting the salaries of their staff. Big enterprises let their staff go voluntarily. Work pressures have been mounting while salary and welfare diminishing.

In the past, when Hong Kong was under British rule, livelihood issues were put aside. In consequence, industries shrank, technology could not catch up with the times, the supply and demand in the labour market was out of balance, and imported labour swamped the territory. Tens of thousands of workers encountered great difficulties in finding jobs or changing jobs. The Government then, unlike countries with similar unemplyment rates, was never really determined to look into the matter, formulate policies or make plans to assist workers to find jobs or create job opportunities, or develop projects.

Today, we have a new SAR Government with Hong Kong people as the ruling party. Our grassroots very much hope the SAR Government, after taking office, can have the ambition, the determination and the foresight to enhance the overall economic development of Hong Kong, while at the same time, formulate a full set of policies that can cater to the actual interests of local workers, improve employment, and better the people's livelihood.

We pray the SAR Government would not, immediately after its coming into power, hasten to import labour in large numbers using the "one vacancy for one imported labour" method, or import labour from the mainland in the guise of making some areas "processing areas at the border".

Madam President, the FTU hopes the SAR Government will do some real good for the overall long-term interest of Hong Kong. We hope it will lay down a long-term industrial policy, develop local industries and local service industries. We hope it will set up an employment committee to overhaul the policy on human resources and lead, co-ordinate and monitor all training systems in training organizations to effectively train local workers and sharpen their competitive edge. In addition, the SAR Government should consider setting up an unemployment fund to help workers who have lost their jobs to pull through their difficulty so that they can re-enter the labour market. The SAR Government should not desert them, driving whoever becomes unemployed to seek Comprehensive Social Security Assistance from the very start and making them a heavy burden of the Government because they need to live on government assistance for a considerable period of time.

Madam President, the SAR Government has just come into existence. It has a lot of work to do and it is not easy to get started. It is not easy to resolve the problems left behind by the former Government which affect the livelihood of the populace. However, I believe if we can look after and balance the interests of different social strata, in particular, if we can care more about the lower class, give them more protection and enable more people to live and work in peace and contentment, the morale of the people will be boosted and their solidarity enhanced. They will then work untiringly for Hong Kong.

Madam President, I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAU Kong-wah.

MR LAU KONG-WAH (in Cantonese): Madam President, in reading Miss CHAN Yuen-han's motion and then Mr KAN Fook-yee's amendment, I made a comparison between the two. I can tell two obvious differences between Mr KAN's amendment and the original motion.

The first difference relates to urging the Chief Executive to honour the pledges made during his election campaign; and the second to Mr KAN's changing "the disparity between the rich and the poor" to "labour relations". I did not understand why there was the second difference, but I was very much surprised after hearing Mr KAN's speech. Mr KAN quoted from the Basic Law. He went on to talk about the difference between capitalism and socialism. He gave me the feeling that he equated the disparity between the rich and the poor to capitalism. Is there not any disparity between the rich and the poor in a communist society? In fact, there is.

The discussion reminds me of a debate in mainland China more than 10 years ago: Does market economy mean the same thing as capitalism? Is there market economy in socialism? At that time, in the Mainland, people could already master economic rules under a socialist system. I was surprised to note that in our open society there is still this rather closed concept which says in Hong Kong there is no such thing as disparity between the rich and the poor. I think if we do not admit there is this disparity, it would be very unlikely we could narrow the gap between the rich and the poor.

I believe the original intention of Miss CHAN Yuen-han in putting forward the motion is not to make the poor and the rich equal or to practise equalitarianism. The fact is the gap between the rich and the poor is great. This is not a phenomenon that started just several years ago. It started more than 10 years ago.

As the Secretary for Housing is here, I want to change the subject to the purchase of public housing units by tenants living in public housing. Some may think paying $600,000 for a 500 sq ft flat is very expensive. Some Members in this Chamber may not understand why this is so. For some, $600,000 is a very small amount. They may spend the sum in horse-betting in one race. But for others, they do not understand why some people can spend such a large sum just in one horse race. When the two groups do not undersatnd each other, there is reason for instability in the community. I have not, in the foregoing discussion, mentioned the poorer ones who have next to nothing! Therefore, Madam President, there is a disparity between the rich and the poor. The question is: Are we determined to do something about it? The former Financial Secretary mentioned a few years ago the idea of the so-called consensus capitalism. He meant to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor and give the poor some loving care.

The second difference arising from Mr KAN's amendment is the deletion of words like "honour the pledges made at his election campaign." This also took me by surprise. I think a most important difference between the election of the Chief Executive of the SAR and of that of the former government is the change from "appointment" to "election". With "election" come "pledges", and with "pledges" comes the process of honouring the pledges. This is a process of democracy. Although the term of office of the first Chief Executive is five years, I think his work may influence what is going to take place in the next 50 years. I do believe the Chief Executive has to be accountable to the 400 Selection Committee members and to report to the 6 million people. So, it is necessary for him honour the pledges made at his election campaign.

I have looked up the pledges made by Mr TUNG in his election campaign to build Hong Kong for the 21st Century. There were 11 pledges related to smooth transition, and 24 pledges to improve people's livelihood. I do hope he could honour his pledges, but I do not expect him to achieve all these within a short time. No one can achieve all goals with a magic wand. Probably, the goals cannot be achieved within the term of office of Members of the Provisional Legislative Council, but I expect the Chief Executive and the Secretaries to work together to try to solve the problems.

I do not intend to raise specific demands, but I would like to point out "it is necessary to have effective tools to do good work." I think Mr TUNG needs to deal with five relationships: Firstly, the relationship between himself and the Secretaries; secondly, the relationship between the Secretaries and members of the Executive Council. In the recent discussion about capital gains tax, some Members of the Executive Council said it was a "possible alternative" while other Members said it was "out of the question". How to reconcile such differences in opinions? Thirdly, the relationship among Members of the Executive Council. On the issue of child illegal immigrants, I have read and heard about different and even conflicting views held by Members of the Executive Council. Fourthly, the relationship between the Executive Council and the Provisional Legislative Council. Can we not see clearly what kind of relationship exists between the two? How can we deal with the relationship? Finally, the relationship between the public and the Chief Executive. It is even a more important relationship. In addition to "redeeming his debt", the Chief Executive even needs to face the public. The five relationships make up a public administration network, which is different from the kind of network found in private organizations. I hope the Chief Executive can deal with them properly.

I support Miss CHAN Yuen-han's motion. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR IP KWOK-HIM, took the chair.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG.

MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, the Honourable LAU Kong-wah pointed out exactly those differences between the two motions, and I wish to speak on the same. I agree with Mr LAU's analysis of the differences between the them.

The SAR has just been established. I trust a lot of Hong Kong people will feel that everyone in Hong Kong, especially the needy, should be given the chance, and are entitled, to share the fruits of the prosperity of Hong Kong. At present, Hong Kong is devoid of any social security and lacks a decent system to provide proper social security. We can see a widening gap between the rich and the poor, compared with the previous years.

The Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood (ADPL) investigated the matter and sent a 30-page proposal to Mr TUNG Chee-hwa. While he was campaigning for the office of Chief Executive and making home visits, we presented the proposal to him. We find there are four categories of people whose lives are particularly difficult. They are the elderly, the disabled, single-parent families and new immigrants. Their economic conditions are getting worse. Let me illustrate this with an example. The conditions of the elderly, in particular, can help us see the aggravating poverty problem, where disparity between the rich and the poor is concerned.

The Hong Kong population is aging and the problem is getting worse. In 1995, the elderly accounted for 14.3% (that is 0.84 million) of the total population. It is estimated that by 2011, the percentage will rise to 18.1% (that is 1.17 million). In other words, the percenatge and the actual number of elderly people will rise. At present, the elderly are getting 70% of the average wage. In 1991, the median wage in Hong Kong is $5,100. So, the wage of the elderly aged above 60 is $3,600.

Housing. At present, the elderly normally will have to wait two to three years before they can be allocated public housing, without any choice for the area in which the accommodation is situated. The elderly living in urban areas will have to move to Tuen Mun or Sheung Shui, away from their friends, if they want to be allocated public housing in two to three years.

In 1996, we had a shortfall of 10 360 places in care and attention homes. In other words, there were 10 360 elderly people who needed to live in such homes but were unable to. This state of affairs tells us the situation of the poor and the elderly.

I think Mr TUNG brought some real hope for Hong Kong people, or made them have some expectations while campaigning during the election. This is due to the clear indications in his election platform that if elected he would help the people to solve housing problems, and problems relating to the aging population and education. In fact, there are lots of problems in Hong Kong waiting to be solved, but since today's debate focuses on livelihood issues, I temporarily withhold the discussion on issues relating to the economy, democracy and human rights here. The above three questions truly highlight those problems Hong Kong people regard as most acute and urgent. Mr TUNG talked about the housing problem while campaigning and stressed it repeatedly after being elected and mentioned it in his speech on the day the SAR was established. All these reinforce Hong Kong people's expections of him and their demands in these areas. Therefore, I think Miss CHAN Yuen-han's motion serves as a reminder to us, and more importantly to Mr TUNG, to implement what he promised in his election platform.

The second thing I can see is that if the Government said it could not solve the housing problem, Hong Kong people would not believe it is true. This is because Hong Kong is itself a rich person, in addition to those tycoons Mr CHENG Yiu-tong referred to. Hong Kong is among the top ten in the world in terms of foreign exchange reserve. Hong Kong tops the list of the 10 biggest container ports, biggest watch exporters, and toy exporters. We are among the top ten in a number of areas. Hong Kong has now a surplus of $350 billion. We are so affluent and sound in economic terms. If the Government says there are some materialistic problems that cannot be solved, this is unbelievable. Are we unable to solve the problems or are we not minded to solve them? Given all the money, resources, skills and technological support it possesses, we do not see there is anything the Government is incapable of doing.

I know more about housing issues and in the past 20 years or so I have been working on housing matters. Therefore, I would focus my discussion on the housing policies recently put forward by the Financial Secretary and the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands. I will also comment on the three aspects and some figures mentioned by Mr TUNG at the establishment ceremony.

Firstly, Mr TUNG mentioned that he hoped to supply 85 000 flats per year. Secondly, he hoped to produce more home ownership flats and counted on them as a major solution to the housing problem. Thirdly, he hoped to achieve a home ownership rate of 70% in about 10 years. From the TV news a short while ago, I understand the Financial Secretary was telling the public that in the next five years there would be a supply of some 70 000 flats annually on average. This was due to an insufficient supply of land in the past. But between the sixth year and the tenth year, there would be an annual supply of some 100 000 flats. In other words, the average will still be 85 000 flats.

Moreover, the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands in his announcement yesterday said he hoped to supply 433 hectares of land for building 146 000 flats. So, there would be 29 000 units from the private sector, of which 15 000 units would be low-density residential flats. He hopes to be able to curb speculation on low-density flats through the supply of these flats.

The foregoing are information I have obtained from the newspapers, which may not be complete. My comments on the information are: First, I do not think the Government has found the right target. I still hold that it should cater mainly to the needy. Therefore, the Government should focus its attention on public rental housing, not home ownership flats.

Second, Government efforts should be directed against speculators of medium to low-priced flats or high-density flats, not those well-off speculators on flats valued at $10 million or $20 million.

Third, the completion dates of 10% to 20% of the number of flats forecast to be completed by the Housing Authority (HA) for our reference are usually delayed. So, when the HA tells us there would be a supply of 85 000 flats, we need to multiply the number by 0.9 or 0.8. If we multiply it the number by 0.9, the actual number would be 76 000 ; and if we multiply it by 0.8, it would be 68 000. So, if the HA does want to supply 85 000 flats, it must multiply the number by 110%. In other words, the HA may actually have to build 93 000 flats; otherwise it would not be able to meet the target of 85 000 flats.

In conclusion, reforms in several aspects about building construction are due. These include the granting of land and the approval procedure for housing construction. In addition, if there is an insufficient supply of construction manpower, especially professionals, we can consider recruiting expatriates.

With these brief comments, I support Miss CHAN Yuen-han's motion. Thank you.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr TSO WONG Man-yin.

DR TSO WONG MAN-YIN (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, it is getting late now, and I did not intend to speak originally. Nevertheless, I think education is an area that can provide a complete solution to social problems and various problems affecting the livelihood of the populace. I am not saying the issues mentioned by other colleagues are not important. However, since I work in the education sector, I want to spend a little bit of time to talk about the educational issues confronting Hong Kong.

As we all know, Hong Kong is confronted with serious and complicated educational problems. We must find proper solutions to these problems, otherwise there will be serious consequences. Perhaps all of us will agree that education is the key to maintaining Hong Kong's status as an international financial centre and enhancing its competitive edge. It can also completely solve the social problems affecting the livelihood of the populace and those relating to the disparity between the rich and the poor.

As regards a complete review and adjustment of the development of education in Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Progressive Alliance (HKPA) thinks that there are four problems that must be tackled. Firstly, as an Honourable colleague said, expenditure on education in Hong Kong is extremely inadequate. In the financial year 1997-98, expenditure on education accounts for only 2.8% of Gross Domestic Product. White we need to compete with the four dragons, we are beginning to face competition from newly-developed regions as well. At present, government investment in education is obviously incompatible with policies to maintain the competitive edge of Hong Kong. The HKPA urges the SAR Government to increase the expenditure on education.

Secondly, as regards quality education, many scholars have come to the view that the quality of our students are deteriorating because of fallacies in the Government's education policy. One of the issues is the quality of teachers. Mr TUNG Chee-hwa proposes that professional qualifications of teachers be raised and new teachers for primary and secondary schools should all have a university degree and have had teacher training. We agree to this basic direction. In addition, we find it necessary to raise the status of the Hong Kong Institute of Education to a university, and to put in more resources to ensure better promotion prospects for teachers. Hence teaching will become a profession with prospects that will attract the best graduates. I do not want to hear graduates say it is rotten to go into teaching. The quality of our teachers is the key element to the provision of quality education and the catalyst for an early materialization of quality education.

Thirdly, the cultivation of the sense of the nation. Under the educational system of the former colonial government, the Administration has not only failed to instil in students the sense of the nation but also purposedly watered down any identification with our motherland. Even as at today, according to a number of surveys on the younger generation's sense of the nation, only a few of them regard themselves as Chinese. This shows the younger generation have only a weak sense of the nation. Our young people lack national pride. So, I very much hope that the SAR Government, especially the education authorities, should review the curriculum for our primary and secondary schools, and instil in the young people a sense of the nation. They should be made to be aware of their national identity and be proud of it. They should be brought up to be confident. They should be brought up knowing their roots, their country. They should be able to love Hong Kong as a start and love their motherland as well, having the whole world in mind.

The fourth point is also the last issue I want to talk about. We should attach great imortance to the cognitive and intellectual developments of our students. The HKPA is of the view that in addition to increasing the number of school social workers in needy schools, we should also increase the number of teachers to improve the student-teacher ratio in every class so that teachers may spare more time to improve the quality of education. In this way, we can bring up quality citizens with training in these aspects: moral, intellectual, physical, social and aesthetical. To enhance the competitive edge and to maintain the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong, we need quality citizens.

I do not think there is any big difference between Miss CHAN's motion and Mr KAN's amendment. As long as we have quality citizens, we can create more wealth. I must stress again we must completely solve the education problem if we are to eradicate problems affecting the livelihood of the populace and those connected to the disparity between the rich and the poor.

I so submit. Thank you, Mr Deputy.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr NGAN Kam-chuen.

MR NGAN KAM-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, the establishment of the SAR Government signifies the end of the colonial era. But some problems affecting the livelihood of the populace still plague Hong Kong people, making it impossible for them to live and work in peace and contentment. The Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB) hopes the SAR can, under the leadership of the Chief Executive, Mr TUNG Chee-hwa, completely solve the problems left behind by the British Hong Kong Government which affect the livehood of the populace.

My speech today will centre around three aspects: housing, land planning and retirement protection. As regards housing, flats have become far from being affordable due to the high land price policy and imbalance between land supply and demand. Earlier, the DAB urged that the SAR Government should, after its establishment, increase significantly the supply of public housing and home ownership flats, expedite the completion of newly developed areas and suitable facilities, announce long-term plans for land grant, and alter land use for some lots from factories to residential flats so that the problem of housing can be solved within a short time.

The Chief Executive, Mr TUNG Chee-hwa, mentioned in his speech at the SAR establishment ceremony that the Government will draw up a 10-year housing plan, including plans to speed up reclamation and land formation, to substantially increase the production of home ownership flats, to actively implement the sale of public rental flats and to increase overall housing supply at a target of 85 000 a year, aiming at achieving home ownership rate of 70%. Mr TUNG also said the Government would expand the mass transit system and infrastructure. The DAB supports these plans and hopes that by October when the Chief Executive makes public his first policy address, there will be specific measures to support the early implementation of these plans.

How can we ensure there is sufficient land to satisfy building needs? This is an old issue. About this issue, the DAB has stressed time and again the importance of putting land in the New Territories to good use, and developing the land resources in the New Territories to ease the pressure on demand for land in urban areas. The DAB considers it more cost-effective and faster in producing results if the Government can focus on developing the northwest New Territories, northeast New Territories, north Lantau and So Kwun Wat, Siu Lam, Sai Kung and Tseung Kwan O than levelling mountains and reclaiming land from the sea. On the other hand, the Government should establish without delay a sub-commercial area as an area for new development, and investigate the possibility of developing the border areas. The Government should also review its agricultural policy and put land not suitable for agricultural use or land with low cost-effectiveness to commercial use.

Moreover, in the past, government departments connected to planning worked quite separately. They were concerned about their own responsibilities but made light of co-ordination with other departments. As a result, unnecessary inconvenience was caused to the people. For instance, operators of the car industry and container yard in northwest New Territories were forced to act in contravention of the Town Planning Ordinance because there was insufficient logistical land. At present, prosecution against violators of land development in the New Territories is the Government's only solution to the problem. But this is just a stopgap rather than a permanent measure and it ignores the contribution of the industry to the economy of Hong Kong.

According to estimates made by operators in the car industry, transactions in the industry amount to $70 billion each year, accounting for 4.5% of the total amount of import trade. There are about 20 000 persons employed in the trade, providing a lot of job opportunities. In addition, operators in the transport industry estimate that some 1 000 truck/trips are made every day to the Lok Ma Chau container yard at Yuen Long alone. Thus the yearly business turnover exceeds $5 billion.

If the Government stifles the develpment of the said trades purely out of environmental considerations, it will affect the economy of Hong Kong adversely. A positive step for the Government is to acknowledge the importance of the trades and redefine land use in the New Territories to allow sufficient land for the trades to operate.

Mr Deputy, apart from the housing problem, the problem of inadequate retirement protection is also deteriorating as the Hong Kong population ages. For the past 30 years, workers have been striving for a good retirement plan. But for years, the British Hong Kong Government "said a lot but did very little". It never actually protected the people when they retired.

While campaigning in the election, the Chief Executive promised that he would actively support the mandatory provident fund scheme and investiagte into how people who were about to retire but could not be benefited by the scheme could be taken care of. In this connection, the DAB is of the view that a "two-tier social security plan" should be implemented to take care of this category of people. The DAB actively put forward the proposal of "two-tier social security plan" in as early as 1995. The scheme uses old age pension as the first tier of protection and the central provident fund or private provident fund as a second tier.

Some people may ask why it is necessary to set up an old age pension scheme when the mandatory provident fund scheme is already in full swing. These people forget that a social security scheme must benefit all, including the retired, the soon-to-retire, and people with disability. The present mandatory provident fund scheme fails to benefit all. If an employee is aged 55 when the scheme is launched, then when he reaches the retirement age at 65 he can only get from his provident fund an amount about 10% of his salary, irrespective of the prevailing economic conditions. That amount is about $1,000, basing on calculations from the 1996 median wage. With such an amount of money, how can the elderly pass their old age in dignity in future?

Housing and retirement protection are closely related to whether Hong Kong people can live and work in peace and contentment. The DAB sincerely hopes that the SAR Government can quickly solve with foresight and determination the long-time problems.

With these remarks, Mr Deputy, I support Miss CHAN Yuen-han's motion.

THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Choi-hi.

MR CHAN CHOI-HI (in Cantonese): Madam President, I rise to support the original motion moved by Miss CHAN Yuen-han who sits next to me. However, I find Mr KAN Fook-yee's amendment very strange, for he has completely changed the meaning of Miss CHAN's original motion. The original motion urges Mr TUNG Chee-hwa to honour the pledges made during his election campaign, while Mr KAN has deleted all those wordings in his amendment. Does it imply that Mr TUNG needs not honour his pledges anymore?

If the original motion of Miss CHAN Yuen-han is passed, I believe Mr TUNG will be very pleased. He will be more than willing to honour the pledges made during his election campaign to resolve the livelihood problems of the populace. If these positive wordings were to be deleted, I should find it very annoying. Even more surprising is Mr KAN seems to turn a blind eye to Hong Kong people's livelihood problems and the great disparity between the rich and the poor in Hong Kong.

In fact, Mr TUNG Chee-hwa has been very busy and working very hard in these few months to resolve the livelihood problems of the populace, so as to make up for the inadequacy of the past Government which has put too much emphasis on the political issues. The policies of Mr TUNG are to establish harmony and consensus in society and to take care of the interests of different parties.

I think that our livelihood problems, for example, those on housing, the elderly and disparity between the rich and the poor just mentioned by Members, are already quite serious. As regards housing, Mr TUNG undertook in his inaugural speech that an additional 85 000 flats would be provided annually and more land would be allocated. Also, 70% of the Hong Kong population can have their own homes in ten years' time. These pledges are really very encouraging, but very difficult to materialize.

When the ex-Governor, Mr Chris PATTEN, assumed office in 1992, he also promised to increase the production of housing, speed up the implementation of the Sandwich Class Housing Scheme, as well as the relocation of the temporary housing tenants. However, in his five years' office, the supply of private housing never did reach his target of 35 000 to 40 000 flats. When he left Hong Kong, the temporary housing areas still existed. During his terms of office, the property prices spiralled twice in 1993-94 and 1996-97 in five years, such that it is impossible for first-time home buyers to purchase their own homes. The ex-Governor therefore has not fulfilled his promise before leaving.

Regarding the housing problem, I think we must prescribe the right remedy for it. More public housing units should be provided for the low income group. For the first-time home buyers, they should be provided with more benefits, so that they can purchase their own homes. For the middle class, more Home Ownership Scheme flats and loans should be provided to them. The Government should have different prescriptions for different classes. I hope that in future, all the government departments can put their heads together to speed up the procedures for land grant, give priority to the housing problem, and also overcome bureaucracy among them, so as to help the Chief Executive to achieve his goals.

Last Wednesday, we had a debate here on the elderly problem. I think that the extra $300 Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) payment is already a bottomline. Any increase in the CSSA payment for the elderly should be decided in accordance with their actual needs. In order to ensure that the elderly people can lead a decent life, an increase in the CSSA payment is a must.

Regarding the disparity between the rich and the poor, I have attended a debate in Shenzhen two months ago and I do not want to repeat the points here in detail. However, I would like to point out that this problem is just like a time bomb for the SAR and we must address it. If we do not handle it properly and in a timely manner, this bomb will explode one day.

Lastly, I think that all these livelihood problems should not be shouldered by only one person because it will be unfair to some Members and public officers present.

Let us concentrate on what should be done next and let bygones be bygones. I herely urge Members to exercise our function of monitoring our SAR Government closely.

With these remarks, I support Miss CHAN Yuen-han's motion.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr LAW Cheung-kwok.

Dr LAW Cheung-kwok (in Cantonese): Madam President, as public transport service is closely related to the people's livelihood, it has all along been a major concern to the Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood (HKADPL). Although Miss CHAN Yuen-han has not directly mentioned traffic and transport problems in her motion, I would still like to express ADPL's views as to how the SAR Government should monitor public transport services.

The Kowloon Motor Bus Company has just been granted a new franchise until the year 2007. Apart from revoking the Profit Control Scheme, the Administration has added the condition that it reserves the right to grant operational franchise to new companies, with a view to enhancing the quality of public bus services through competition. This new policy, though largely agrees with the demands made by the former Legislative Council and the public in respect of improvement in bus services, has created a new problem for the Government. Under the new mechanism, how is the Government going to monitor the pricing system and service standard of bus companies?

The Mass Transit Railway, the Kowloon-Canton Railway, as well as the Light Rail Transit have just applied, one after another, for fare increases. Under the existing relevant ordinances, the three railway companies are only required to give a brief presentation on their application for fare increase at the Legislative Council and the Transport Advisory Committee. However, as these two bodies do not have the authority to make proposals or examine the fare increase applications, members of the public are very much dissatisfied with this situation. On the other hand, the Government's existing policy on the supervision of public transport services is also rather confusing.

during the last Session of the former Legislative Council, I urged the Administration to set up a public transport management committee to undertake co-ordination work, thereby improving and unifying the supervision over the various policies regarding public transport services. The Administration then promised to take this proposal into serious consideration.

The public transport management committee proposed by the HKADPL shall monitor all public transport services, including the three railways, buses, trams, taxis, public light buses and ferries. The composition of the committee should be widely representative and be composed of members of the three-tier councils, professionals, representatives from academic institutions, as well as representatives from other sectors of society. Besides, the committee should operate with a high degree of transparency and the power to make its own decisions. The specific terms of reference of the committee should include the following four aspects:

(1) to examine and deliberate the adjustment of fares;

(2) to determine and monitor the standard of services;

(3) to give advice on long term transport policies; and

(4) to handle complaints.

In addition, the committee should have its own independent secretariat as a means to ensure its independence and operational efficiency. I am re-introducing this proposal to this Council with the hope that the Chief Executive, Mr TUNG Chee-hwa, will be urged to take up the promise made by the former government and set up as early as possible a public transport management committee, so as to effectively monitor all public transport operators and to safeguard the interests of the people.

Althought just now I said that Miss CHAN Yuen-han's motion did not directly address the issue of transport, the HKADPL is still in support of the spirit and direction of her original motion.

That Mr KAN Fook-yee has moved an amendment is because he is against the empahsis the original motion put on the disparity between the rich and the poor in society. He claimed that resolving the disparity between the rich and the poor is, in effect, introducing socialism into our society. I think he is exaggerating the issue so as to scare members of the public. Moreover, he also mentioned the Basic Law to hint that the Honourable colleagues who are concerned about the problem of disparity between the rich and the poor in society have breached the Basic Law. I think this is a fabricated charge.

Looking around the different advanced economies all over the world, including that of the United States which the Honourable Mr KAN has referred to, each and every one of them does have clearly formulated policies to remedy the problem of disparity between the rich and the poor in society. For example, the United States has adopted an over 40% progressive taxation system. It is true that the tax rates in the United States are very high, but I do not think any learned person would regard it as a socialist country.

I hereby urge Honourable Members who are still unconcerned about the deteriorating problem of disparity between the rich and the poor to think twice and pay more attention to this problem.

I so submit. Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr NG Leung-sing.

MR NG LEUNG-SING (in Cantonese): Madam President, it is time to say good morning to everyone.

I consider the amendment moved by Mr KAN Fook-yee has really made some adjustments to the original motion. Not only does it narrow down the scope but also minimize the chance of stratification. I think the basis of the amendment meets the actual requirement of Hong Kong. Its purpose is basically the same as that of the original motion moved by Miss CHAN Yuen-han, whichthat is, to urge the SAR Government to put emphasis on pay more attention and adopt measures to improve people's livelihood expeditiously so as to solve the problems which are of adverse effect to the economic and social development of Hong Kong. Therefore, on one handI support the amendment on one handon the other hand, and I do not object to the original motion on the other. I would like to borrow the new slogan on the signboard of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong that "achieving an affluent economy and building a better community" as an encouragement to each other. I believe that this is our common wish.

As we all know, under the control of the British Hong Kong (British) Government, everything was focused on the benefits right ahead and thus, no long-term consideration and concrete pledges on the economic and social development in Hong Kong had ever been made. Therefore, even when Hong Kong has such a prosperous economy now, there are still a lot of urgent problems waiting to be solved. Housing, education and elderly's the welfare of the elderly are some of the crucial problemsissues.

We all admit that Hong Kong has developed into an affluent community. However, there are still many places in Hong Kong where living conditions are very poor. Simply the number of families on the waiting list for public housing is said to be as many as 150 000.

As regards education, the Governmentpublic expenditure on education accounts for 21% of the total recurrent expenditure at present. However, the quality of education in Hong Kong is still far from being satisfactory. The three-level education system in Hong Kong, including primary, secondary and tertiary education, carries a very strong tone of colonism. Many of us criticize that as schools use both English and Chinese as media of instruction, students "fail to have satisfactory performance in either areas". As a result, students' language ability is generally poor. Therefore, our education system should also be reviewed promptly.

As regards the elderly's welfare for the elderly, with the improvement of living standard, life is prolonged. , Aageing becomes a definite trend in our society. Therefore, the establishment of a social security system has become an integral part of the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong.

In fact, all the above problems have caught public's concern long time ago. After Mr TUNG has been elected as the Chief Executive of the SAR, these questions should, undoubtedly, catch a great concern. Early before the handover of the sovereignty, Mr TUNG had appointed members of the Executive Council of the SAR to study questions like education, housing, retirement protection for the elderly and so on and strategies had also been proposed. After the set up of the SAR Government, Mr TUNG had also used a fairly long paragraph in his inaugural speech to elaborate that the SAR Government had a strong determination and concrete measures to tackle these problems. It shows that the SAR Government does realize the seriousness and urgency of these problems.

The motion moved in respect of the above problems in this Council today is timely and necessary. It will also push the relevant departments of the SAR Government to adopt effective measures expeditiously so as to solve the financial problems encountered by some of the people in our society mentioned above. I believe that this can promote a more healthy and co-ordinated overall development of Hong Kong.

With these remarks, Madam President, I support the amendment.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now call on Miss CHAN Yuen-han to speak on the amendment to her motion. You have up to five minutes to speak on the amendment, Miss CHAN.

MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese) : Madam President, although it is now midnight, we still have more than 20 Members participating in this debate, may I give them my thanks.

I think the most important purpose of this debate is to draw the attention of Honourable Members and the public to this issue. I think this is a kind of concern but not an indication of your political stance. We are now entering into a new era or a new stage, it is necessary for us to look back and plan for the future.

We need a whole set of guidelines for social development, maybe some Members will ask whether my motion is indispensable? I can tell you, Madam President, this is one of the seven indispensable items. I also hope that Mr TUNG Chee-hwa will include today's motion into his policy address, and also honour the pledges made during his election campaign. I hope our debate will arouse the public's concern, so that we can have the benefit of more people's views.

Having moved his amendment to my motion, Mr KAN Fook-yee put forward his views. Although his speech lasted for about two minutes any, he was able to outline his philosophy. Mr NG Leung-sing just said that my views are the same as Mr KAN, but I think we have completely different ideas, and this difference can also reflect our different positions. With respect to Mr KAN's speech, it seems that he is very idealistic and completely ignorant of the plight of the Hong Kong people. Frankly speaking, I am not talking about socialism and some strengthened classes. I just want to talk about objective realities. If only you would care to go to the slumps to visit the bedspace apartments, stone cottages and squatter huts, you will see that some people are still leading a very poor life in our society today. I once took Mr TUNG Chee-hwa to a squatter area where he found beyond imagination that a narrow alley could have accommodated so many people. I also remember that I once took Mr CHEN Zuoer to visit the bedspace apartments, and he was also very surprised to find dozens of people squeezed in a house in such a prosperous society today. He went particularly to the toilet and found the toiletries and cups of dozens of lodgers. This is a scene which was very common in the '40s or '50s when Hong Kong was still very poor. If we want to rule out the existence of such realities, or if we want to turn a blind eye to these problems today, I think it is very difficult to convince us that we could share the prosperity and stability of society. Why do I say so? The society is having more and more poor people, and this situation is becoming more and more serious. We have figures to prove our case. This is not our imagination, and we are not trying to strengthen the classes. From the Gini coefficient which is calculated every five years, of course it is up to Members to believe it or not, we can see that the disparity is 0.453 in 1986, 0.476 in 1991 and 0.518 in 1996. Just as many Members have mentioned tonight, since we do not have a retirement protection scheme, since we have problems with our housing policy, and since the Government has not provided training and paid due attention to the difficulties of the unemployed and helped them to look for jobs during the economic transformation, the disparity between the rich and the poor as reflected by the Gini coefficient has therefore kept on widening.

Madam President, all these are problems that exist now in our society, and we have no intention to exaggerate the case of the previous or the existing Government. We have not taken any political stances. Instead, we have studied the objective realities existing under the present positive non-intervention system. I do not want to see the placing of a hoax bomb outside the Legislative Council Building again just like a few months ago. I do not approve of this kind of act. But this truly is a reflection of the anger of the public owing to the disparity between the rich and the poor in society. No matter we are pursuing socialism, capitalism or any other ideologies, these problems are already objective realities. We must solve all these problems, before we could maintain stability in society.

Lastly, if we turn a blind eye to all these problems, we are sacrificing the whole society. I think my original motion and the amendment of Mr KAN have been originated from very different concepts. With due respect, I have to say that Mr KAN has the mentality of an ostrich because he has turned a blind eye to the social realities of Hong Kong. I therefore cannot support Mr KAN's amendment.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KAN Fook-yee.

MR KAN FOOK-YEE (in Cantonese): I think some Members have misunderstood my speech.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KAN Fook-yee, I know you want to make a response. However, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, every Member can only speak once. If you think that other people have misinterpreted your speech, you can seek my leave to make an elucidation.

MR KAN FOOK-YEE (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Yin-fat and Miss CHAN Yuen-han has just said that they do not know what kind of life I am leading, and Mr HUI also feels sorry for me......

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): you can make an elucidation, but please be concise. Yes, Mrs Selina CHOW.

MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Madam President, a point of order. If the Mr KAN Fook-yee has to make an elucidation, he can only clarify or correct those main points in his speech just now, and he should not introduce new arguments. Otherwise, we may have to stay here until the morning.

MR KAN FOOK-YEE (in Cantonese): Sorry, Madam Chairman, in fact it is just the preface of my speech, and I have already noted down Members' misinterpretations.

Members think that I do not have much understanding of the livelihood problems of the low-income group, the unemployed, and the elderly from my. In fact, I do have sympathy for their situations, but in my amendment, I think that these livelihood issues are a bit......

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW, point of order?

MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Sorry, Madam President. I hear that Mr KAN Fook-yee is further elaborating his ideas, and I believe he has gone beyond the scope of elucidation.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Sorry, Mr KAN. I rule that the point of order raised by Mrs Selina CHOW is correct. If you have no further elucidation on your speech, I will invite the Chief Secretary for Administration to speak.

CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Cantonese): Madam President, I am extremely grateful to Members for their views on social problems which are the concern of the people.

The SAR Government will take great care in solving the livelihood problems in Hong Kong. In his speech made at the inauguration ceremony and at the establishment of the SAR, Mr TUNG Chee-hwa indicated clearly he completely understood what livelihood issues everyone was concerned about. He outlined a blueprint for work on developments in important matters such as the economy, education, housing, and welfare for the elderly. In formulating policies and allocating resources, we will ensure the policies meet the needs of the long-term development of Hong Kong.

The Chief Executive is fully aware of the one wish of Hong Kong people: to live and work in peace and contentment. We will solve the housing problem with great determination. We will focus our efforts on supplying huge amounts of land. We have started drawing up detailed plans to realize the target set by the Chief Executive in his 10-year housing plan, that is, to achieve the target of supplying not less than 85 000 flats a year to reach a home ownership rate of 70% in 10 years and reducing the average waiting time for public rental housing to three years.

The Secretary for Planning, Environment and Works announced yesterday the five-year forecast on land supply by the Government up to 2002. From now until March 1999, we will be providing 120 hectares of land for private development, including the construction of 30 000 private residential flats. In terms of long-term supply, we will launch projects for the formation of land, including reclamation projects to be launched near the Kai Tak Airport site after its removal, and at Green Island. From now on, each year we will be announcing five-year plans for land grants to make available information on the specific amount of land supply for the first two years and the approximate amount of land supply for the next three years.

The task force led by the Financal Secretary is conducting an overall review on the Government's planning procedure and restrictions such as considerations in terms of environment, transport, building, infrastructure and others which may affect housing and land development. We expect to be able to make our land supply plans more reliable and transparent by streamlining our working procedure. Thus we can maintain an adequate land supply for the continued development of public and private housing.

In respect of issues arising from employment, economic restructuring and the ageing population, the Chief Executive has said that the foremost task is to enhance Hong Kong's economic vitality and sustain economic growth. We have to create a good business environment to boost economic activities, and hence increase job opportunities and provide adequate resources for investment. For training, we will provide appropriate retraining to workers who have difficulty in finding jobs.

Labour relations have been extremely good in Hong Kong. Mass labour movements are rare. One of the main reasons for this is that we have in place a perfect system whereby employers, employees and the Government can discuss labour issues through the Labour Advisory Board (LAB) and other relevant statutory and consultative bodies. In fact, government legislative proposals on labour matters are made out of consensus reached in the LAB. It is the policy of the Government to ensure that, in improving the rights and welfare of employees, changes made can fit developments in the Hong Kong community and its economy and can balance the interests of both employers and employees. The SAR Government undertakes to continue to use this proven system which is helpful to maintaining harmonious labour relations and caters to the interests of the employers, employees and the community.

The implementation of the Mandatory Provident Fund Scheme is an important step in retirement protection. We hope to be able to implement the scheme early. We have completed drafting the necessary subsidiary legislation and are consulting the relevant bodies. We are hoping to submit the subsidiary legislation to the Provisional Legislative Council and obtain priority for its scrutiny.

The Chief Executive has repeatedly reiterated, and Members agree, that education is the key to the future of Hong Kong. The SAR Government will try its best to improve basic education. Plans for this include improving teacher training, realizing full-day schooling to all primary schools and abolishing floating classes in secondary schools as soon as possible, and enhancing the language abilities of our students. We will formulate a series of plans to provide quality education to our students at various stages to prepare them for success so that they can contribute to society.

An area of concern to the people of Hong Kong is speculative activities in property. We will certainly not condone such activities. Property development is an important area in the Hong Kong economy. We must deal with the matter with care and avoid causing any adverse effects to the stable development of the Hong Kong economy. The Chief Executive has indicated that housing is one of the items to be dealt with with priority. We will monitor the market closely, and take resolute action if necessary by adopting effective measures against short-term speculative activities so that the market can operate in a healthy manner.

Madam President, the Chief Executive has laid down certain guidelines for the administration of Hong Kong over the next 10 years. He will in the next few months formulate detailed plans for inclusion in his first policy address to be released in October. The entire Civil Service is ready to work hard to assist him to achieve the policy objectives and to implement his plans. We are determined to solve the livelihood problems. To improve the quality of life, we need the co-operation between the executive authorities and the legislature. I will consider Members' opinions carefully and, in formulating objectives and policies, I will fully reflect these opinions. On the other hand, I hope that when the relevant bills or applications for funds are submitted to this Council, Members, in scrutinizing proposals from the executive authorities with care, can complete all necessary procedures at an early date so that the said plans can be implemented as soon as possible.

Madam President, I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr KAN Fook-yee be made to Miss CHAN Yuen-han's motion.

Will those in favour of the amendment please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".

(Members responded)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the numbers were almost the same. Miss CHAN Yuen-han claims a division. The division bell will ring for three minutes.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members, the question now put is: That the amendment moved by Mr KAN Fook-yee be made to Miss CHAN Yuen-han's motion.

This Council shall proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Are there any queries? If not, the results will now be displayed.

Mr HO Sai-chu, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr Henry WU, Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Dr TANG Siu-ting and Mr KAN Fook-yee voted for the amendment.

Mr HO Chung-tai, Mr Eric LI, Mr YUEN Mo, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr HUI Yin-fat, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TSANG Yok-sing, Dr CHENG Kai-nam, Mr FUNG Kin-kei, Mr Kennedy WONG, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr LAU Kong-wah, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr TAM Yiu-chung and Miss CHOY So-yuk voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT announced that there were nine Members in favour of the amendment and 22 against. She therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Miss CHAN Yuen-han, you may now reply and you have two minutes and 11 seconds out of your original 15 minutes.

MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): Madam President and Honourable colleagues, we all have had a hard day. I had to wait until midnight to start my debate. However, I am very pleased to see that more than 20 Members have spoken on the motion and there are still so many Members here.

Just a moment ago, the Chief Secretary for Administration has mentioned about a series of plans for the SAR Government which will be proceeded with in accordance with the pledges made by the Chief Executive in his election campaign. We will wait and see, hoping that under the principles of "one country, two systems; Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong and a high degree of autonomy", this well-established Government can enhance the overall development of Hong Kong in the future, in particular, solving the existing problems encountered by the grassroots.

Some Members have questioned earlier why I did not list out all the problems in the motion. I think if all the problems are listed out, there would be too many problems. Therefore, I used the term "such as" and the problems which I did list out were very important. If these problems are solved, Hong Kong can, to a certain extent, solve the acute, or even be said as worsening disparity between the rich and the poor over the past 10-odd years.

I believe that with our concerted effort, it is possible to narrow down the disparity between the rich and the poor. Of course, if our Government acts in the same way as the previous government which put emphasis only on non-intervention, I am not optimistic about the issue.

With regard to the speech delivered by the Chief Secretary for Administration just now, I am full of hope. Yesterday, the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands raised a series of measures for land supply. I felt that these were all good messages.

Members have worked untiringly this evening and shown their support to me indirectly through the vote just now. In order to release us home and take a rest, I will not claim a further division. However, I thank all Members for supporting this motion debate as well as supporting me. Thank you.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Miss CHAN Yuen-han as printed on the Agenda be approved.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".

( Members responded)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the "ayes" have it. The "ayes" have it.

NEXT MEETING

PRESIDENT ( in Cantonese ): In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, I now adjourn the Council until 2:30 pm on Wednesday, 23 July 1997.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past One o'clock on 17 July 1997.

　

Annex I

WRITTEN ANSWER

Written answer by the Secretary for Education and Manpower to Mrs Elsie TU's supplementary question to Question 3

The answer to the question is as follows:

Background

At present, pre-employment and upgrading training of manpower for the construction industry are mainly provided by Construction Industry Training Authority (CITA) and the Vocational Training Council (VTC).

Whether all people who have applied to enter training courses of the construction industry have been accepted

In general, any persons who wish to join the construction industry and all in-service construction personnel can enrol for these training courses as long as they can meet the basic entry requirements of CITA and VTC. New arrivals with Permit for Proceeding to Hong Kong and Macau (One-way Exit Permit) and who can meet the basic entry requirements will also be accepted. However, applicants may be rejected because they are not qualified for the course, or because the course is already over-subscribed.

There are different entry requirements for different training courses. The entry requirements of individual training courses of CITA and VTC are summarized in the lists at Annexes 1 and 2 respectively.

What is being done to encourage more people to apply for these courses

The two training bodies have a number of publicity means and promotional strategies to attract more people to apply for the training courses. CITA, firstly, holds different types of publicity activities to publicize the various training courses. Apart from holding open days, school talks, and putting up display boards at schools, social services agencies and housing estates, CITA also actively participates in territory-wide Careers and Education Expos and the annual Summer Recruitment Programme-Solar Project. In addition, secondary school students are invited to visit the training centres and attend the career talks arranged by the Authority. Secondly, a monthly newsletter "CITA News" is published and distributed to all construction-related organizations and companies. Thirdly, "Site Promotion Boards" have been put up at various construction sites to publicize the Authority's current and upcoming training courses and activities. Fourthly, in recent years, CITA also increased the use of TV commercials and radio slots to enhance public's awareness of training courses and to further boost trainees' recruitment results. Lastly, CITA would review the trainee allowance from time to time, as this will attract more applicants and also enable the adult trainees to concentrate better on their training courses. Placement services which help the graduates find a suitable job is also attractive to prospective trainees.

The publicity and promotion of VTC construction industry training courses is carried out as part of the overall publicity programme for VTC courses. The training courses are widely publicized through various means such as exhibitions, school talks or visits, open days and printed materials like prospectus, pamphlets and posters, videos, press releases and advertisements. In addition, the recruitment of the Higher Diploma and Diploma construction courses are done through the Joint Admission Scheme for Post-secondary Institutions' Courses (JASPIC). This is a more direct and active channel to encourage more students to enrol in the training courses. Entrants to construction courses other than these are recruited through respective open recruitment exercises.

Annex 1

as of 20/11/1997

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY TRAINING AUTHORITY

List of Training Courses

				Course Nature	Target Students/ Eligibility	Training Capacity
(I)	One-year Full Time Course
	a)	Basic Craft Course
		1	Bricklaying, Plastering and Tiling	}	}	340
		2	Carpentry and Joinery	}	}	280
		3	Painting, Decorating and Sign-writing	}	}	180
		4	Plumbing and Pipe-fitting	}	}	180
		5	Bamboo Scaffolding	} FT	} Note 1	60
		6	Marble Laying	}	}	60
		7	Construction Plant Maintenance and Repairs	}	}	200
		8	Electrical Installation	}	}	160
		9	Metal Works	}	}	40
					Sub-total:	1 500
	b)	E/T
		1	Bricklaying, Plastering and Tiling E/T	}	}	20
		2	Carpentry and Joinery E/T	} FT	} Note 2	20
		3	Painting, Decorating and Sign-writing E/T	}	}	20
		4	Plumbing and Pipe-fitting E/T	}	}	20
					Sub-total:	80
	c)	Construction Supervisor/Technician Training Programme
		1	Building Construction	}	Note 3	180
		2	Civil Engineering	} FT	Note 3	100
		3	Building Services	}	Note 3	120
		4	Quantity Surveying	}	Note 4	80
					Sub-total:	480
				Course Nature	Target Students/ Eligibility	Training Capacity
(II)	Short Course
		1	Bricklaying	}	Note 5	120
		2	Plastering	}	Note 5	300
		3	Timber Formwork	}	Note 5	190
		4	Drain Laying	}	Note 5	60
		5	Surveying and Setting-out	}	Note 6	460
		6	Site Surveying	}	Note 7	64
		7	Earth Moving Machines Operation	}	Note 5	60
		8	60 days Crawler-mounted Mobile Crane Operation	} }	Note 5	36
		9	60 days Wheeled Telescopic Mobile Crane Operation	} }	Note 5	36
		10	12 days Crawler-mounted Mobile Crane Operation	} }	Note 8	36
		11	12 days Wheeled Telescopic Mobile Crane Operation	} }	Note 8	36
		12	Tower Crane Operation	}	Note 5	60
		13	Bar-bending	} FT	Note 5	288
		14	Truck Mounted Crane Operation	}	Note 9	60
		15	Decorative Painting	}	Note 10	60
		16	Special Course of Crane Operation	}	Note 5	48
		17	Metal Formwork	}	Note 5	60
		18	Painting	}	Note 5	140
		19	Housing Authority Plumbing and Pipe-fitting	}	Note 5	60
		20	Wall and Floor Tiling	}	Note 5	200
		21	Welding	}	Note 5	40
		22	Metal Scaffolding	}	Note 5	30
		23	Decorative Joinery	}	Note 10	30
		24	Assistant Safety Officer Course	}	Note 11	60
		25	Site Administrator Training Course	}	Note 12	40
		26	Measurement Technician Training Course	}	Note 11	100
		27	Construction Purchaser and Storekeeper Course	}	Note 12	60
		28	Bamboo Scaffolding	}	Note 13	24
		29	Construction Supervisor (Adult)	}	Note 14	40
		30	Training Scheme for PRC Construction Managers	}	Note 15	20
					Sub-total:	2 818
				Course Nature	Target Students/ Eligibility	Training Capacity
(III)	Part Time Course
		1	Up-grading Course - Joinery	PTE	}	-
		2	Up-grading Course - Plumbing and Pipe-fitting	PTE	}	-
		3	Window Installation Course	PTD	}	20
		4	Drain-laying Course	PTD	}	-
		5	Evening Surveying and Setting-out Course	PTE	}	40
		6	Evening Plumbing	PTE	}	30
		7	Asbestos Removal Course	PTD	}	10
		8	Construction Management Training Programme (Building)	PTE	} }	25
		9	Construction Management Training Programme (Civil)	PTE	} }	25
		10	Construction Supervisor Certificate Course (Building)	PTE	} }	50
		11	Construction Supervisor Certificate Course (Civil)	PTE	} }	25
		12	Refresher Course for Bamboo Scaffolder Management Training Series for Sub-contractors	PTD	} In-service } construction	20
		13	Construction Planning	PTD	} personnel of	60
		14	Financial Control	PTD	} appropriate	60
		15	Human Resources Management	PTD	} levels	60
		16	Introduction to ISO9000 Quality Assurance Systems	PTD	} }	60
		17	Work and Time Study in Construction	PTD	}	60
		18	Law and Insurance	PTD	}	60
		19	Introduction of the In-service Construction Material Controller Course	PTD	} }	40
		20	ISO9000 Quality Systems Internal Auditing Course for In-service Construction Personnel	PTD	} }	175
		21	Introduction to ISO9000 Quality Systems for In-service Construction Supervisors	PTD/PTE	} }	250
		22	Building Law - Statutory Obligations	PTD	}	25
		23	Roadwork Construction Management	PTD	}	25
				Course Nature	Target Students/ Eligibility	Training Capacity
		24	Construction Dispute Management	PTD	}	50
		25	Financial Management in Construction Projects	PTE	}	25
		26	Management of Insurance for the Construction Industry	PTD	} }	60
		27	Upgrading Supervisory Course for Construction Craftsmen	PTE	} }	50
		28	Communication and Site Supervision	PTE	}	60
		29	Site Administration Officer Training Course	PTE	}	20
		30	Planning for Building Project	PTE	}	50
		31	Contract Management in Construction Projects	PTE	}	50
		32	AutoCAD Basic Drafting Course	PTD	}	100
		33	AutoCAD Advanced Application and Drafting	PTE	}	60
		34	AutoCAD 3D Application and Drafting	PTE	} In-service	40
		35	Intergraph Microstation Basic Application and Drafting	PTE	} construction } personnel of	60
		36	Slope Stability and Slope Maintenance	PTE	} appropriate	50
		37	Fire Prevention and Protection in Building	PTD	} levels	50
		38	Construction of Pre-stressed Concrete Girder Bridge	PTE	} }	25
		39	Construction Work on Reclaimed Land in Hong Kong - Problems Encountered and Engineering Solutions	PTD	} } }	25
		40	Erection of Cable - supported Bridge - Hong Kong Experience	PTD	} }	-
		41	Diaphragm Wall and Deep Basement Construction	PTE	} }	25
		42	Reinforced Concrete - Defect Diagnosis and Remedy	PTE	} }	50
		43	Heavy Steel Structure - Construction and Quality Control	PTD	} }	25
		44	Highways/Tunnel Surveying Method	PTE	}	25
		45	Tunnelling Methods	PTD	}	25
				Course Nature	Target Students/ Eligibility	Training Capacity
		46	Construction Noise - Legislation, Monitoring and Control	PTD	} }	25
		47	Demolition of Building Course for Supervisors/ Foremen	PTD	} }	100
		48	Demolition of Building Course for Plant Operators	PTD	} }	24
		49	Contractual Claims in the Construction Industry	PTE	}	50
		50	Theory Upgrading for In-service Levellers	PTE	}	50
		51	Theory Upgrading for In-service Plumbers	PTE	}	75
		52	Basic Building Services for Quantity Surveying Personnel	PTE	} }	50
		53	Basic Quantity Surveying Principles for Building Services Personnel	PTE	} }	50
		54	Graduate Certificate in Strategic Asset Management	PTD	} }	20
		55	Construction Safety Officer Course	PTD/PTE	} In- service	150
		56	Construction Safety Supervisor Course	PTD/PTE	} construction	270
		57	Construction Safety Supervisor Course for CST trainees	PTD	} personnel of } appropriate	480
		58	Standard First Aid Certificate Course	PTD	} levels	144
		59	Refresher Course for Safety Officers	PTE	}	25
		60	Safety Auditing	PTD	}	50
		61	Off-shore General Shipping for Marine Construction Work	PTE	} }	50
		62	Safety Laws/F and IU Ordinance and New Development	PTE	} }	50
		63	Safety Plan Preparation and Implementation	PTE	}	50
		64	Safety Training Techniques	PTE	}	50
		65	ISO9000 and Safety Management	PTE	}	50
		66	Safety Course for Graduate Engineers (Civil, Structural and Building)	PTD	} }	150
		67	Safety Training for Construction Workers (also known as Construction Workers "Green Card" Course)	PTD	} } }	40 020
				Course Nature	Target Students/ Eligibility	Training Capacity
		68	Advanced Safety Training Course for Construction Workers (also known as Construction Worker's Silver Card Course)	PTD	} } }	1 800
		69	Safety in Site Formation and Quarrying	PTD/PTE	}	-
		70	Safety Management Course for Contractor's Project Managers Certification Course for Plant Operators (Items 71-80)	PTD	} } }	60
		71	Mechanical Maintenance, Repair and Installation of Builder's Lift	PTD	} }	120
		72	Temporary Installation Endless Winder of Suspended Working Platform (Gondola) Worker	PTD	} }	800
		73	One day Refresher's Certification Course for Operators of Builder's Lift	PTD	} }	-
		74	Two days Certification Course for Operators of Builder's Lift	PTD	} In-service } construction	160
		75	One day Refresher's Certification Course for Operators of Tower Working Platform	PTD	} personnel of } appropriate	-
		76	Two days Certification Course for Operators of Tower Working Platform	PTD	} levels }	-
		77	Crawler-mounted Mobile Crane Operation	PTD	}	160
		78	Wheeled Telescopic Mobile Crane Operation	PTD	}	320
		79	Truck-mounted Crane Operation	PTD	}	240
		80	Tower Crane Operation	PTD	}	120
		81	China Familiarization course for the Hong Kong Construction and Real Estate Senior Executive	PTD	} }	20
		82	Refresher Course for Bricklayer	PTD	}	20
		83	Refresher Course for Plasterer	PTD	}	20
		84	Refresher Course for Tiler	PTD	}	20
		85	Refresher Course for Carpenter	PTD	}	20
		86	Refresher Course for Joiner	PTD	}	20
		87	Refresher Course for Painter	PTD	}	20
		88	Refresher Course for Plumber	PTD	}	20
				Course Nature	Target Students/ Eligibility	Training Capacity
		89	Refresher Course for Leveller	PTD	}	20
		90	Refresher Course for General Welder	PTD	}	20
		91	Refresher Course for Metal Work	PTD	}	20
		92	Refresher Course for Bar Bender	PTD	}	20
		93	Refresher Course for Concretor	PTD	}	20
		94	Refresher Course for Marble Worker	PTD	}	20
		95	Safety Training Courses for Certified Workers Working in Confined Space	PTD	} } In-service	240
		96	Safety Training Course for Competent Persons Working with Confined Space	PTD	} construction } personnel of	120
		97	Conditions of Contract - Civil Works	PTE	} appropriate	25
		98	Conditions of Contract - Building Works	PTE	} levels	25
		99	Basic Finance and Accounting Course for Non- financial Executives in the Construction Industry	PTD	} }	25
		100	Estimating Course for Building Construction	PTD	}	20
		101	Interim Certificate Course for Qualifying Site Supervisors as Technically Competent Persons of Grade T1	PTD/PTE	} } }	2 700
		102	Bridge Maintenance and Management Course	PTD	}	25
		103	Certification Course in Spalling Concrete Repair	PTD	}	70
					Sub-total:	51 338
(IV)	Tailor-made Courses			PTD/PTE	} Construction	902
					} personnel of
					} appropriate
					} level
					} recommended
					} by employers
					Grand Total:	57 118

Notes

1. Aged 14 and above with Secondary 3 or above education.

2. Fresh graduates of Basic Craft Courses who are awaiting appropriate employment or on-the-job training opportunities, or who are out of appropriate employment during the first year of service in the construction industry.

3. Completed Secondary 5 and have attended the Certificate of Education Examination; or completed the General Course Certificate (Year 2) or related technician preparatory course at a Technical Institute, or equivalent.

4. In addition to the requirements in (3) above, applicants must have studied English, Mathematics and Physics, with results close to a Pass in the Certificate of Education Examination.

5. Aged 18 and above.

6. Aged 18 and above with Secondary 3 or above education.

7. Aged 18 and above with Secondary 5 or above education.

8. Candidates who failed the Crane Operators Certification Tests.

9. Aged 18 and above, applicants must also possess truck driving licences.

10. Aged 30 to 50, can read and write Chinese.

11. Aged 18 and above with a Pass in English Language (Syllabus B) and Chinese Language in the Certificate of Education Examination.

12. Aged 18 and above with Secondary 4 or above education.

13. Aged 30 to 50, Secondary 4 or above education, can read and write Chinese.

14. Aged 18 and above with relevant qualifications obtained from a Hong Kong, PRC or overseas educational institution.

15. Aged 18 and above, practising construction managers from PRC selected by the Ministry of Construction, PRC.

Annex 2

Construction Courses planned to be provided by

Technical Colleges and Technical Institutes in 1997-98

FT : Full-time

MFT : Mixed Full-time

PTDR : Part-time Day-release

PTE : Part-time Evening

Architectural/Building Studies
Higher Technician/Technician Level
	Course no. and title	Mode	Duration
			(year)
2323	Higher Certificate in Building Studies	PTDR	2
2363	Higher Certificate in Building Studies	PTE	3
0201	Diploma in Building Studies	FT	2
0211	Certificate in Building Studies	PTDR	2
0219	Certificate in Building Studies (Architectural)	PTDR	2
0221	Certificate in Building Studies	PTE	3
0229	Certificate in Building Studies (Architectural)	PTE	3
Civil/Structural Engineering
Higher Technician/Technician Level
	Course no. and title	Mode	Duration
			(year)
2311	Higher Diploma in Civil Engineering	FT	3
2312	Higher Diploma in Structural Engineering	FT	3
2321	Higher Certificate in Civil Engineering	PTDR	2
2361	Higher Certificate in Civil Engineering	PTE	3
0202	Diploma in Civil Engineering	FT	2
0212	Certificate in Civil Engineering	PTDR	2
0222	Certificate in Civil Engineering Studies	PTE	3
0235	Certificate in Civil Engineering Laboratory Techniques	PTE	1
Building Services
Technician Level
	Course no. and title	Mode	Duration
			(year)
0213	Certificate in Building Services	PTDR	2
Quantity Surveying/Estimating
Technician Level
	Course no. and title	Mode	Duration
			(year)
0215	Certificate in Quantity Surveying	PTDR	2
0225	Certificate in Quantity Surveying	PTE	3
0237	Certificate in Building Measurement	PTE	1
Engineering Surveying
Technician Level
	Course no. and title	Mode	Duration
			(year)
0231	Certificate in Engineering Surveying	PTE	1
Management
Technician Level
	Course no. and title	Mode	Duration
			(year)
0218	Certificate in Property Management and Valuation/Housing Services	PTDR	2
0226	Certificate in Property Management and Housing Services	PTE	3
0227	Certificate in Valuation and Property Management	PTE	3
Others
Technician Level
	Course no. and title	Mode	Duration
			(year)
0214	Certificate in Town Planning	PTDR	2
Building Services
Craft Level
	Course no. and title	Mode	Duration
			(year)
2201	CFC in Gas Utilization Fitting	MFT	1
0271	Craft Certificate for Gas Utilization Fitters (Town Gas and LPG)	PTDR	3
0266	Craft Certificate in Plumbing and Pipefitting	PTDR	3
0286	Craft Certificate in Plumbing and Pipefitting	PTE	3
Building Construction/maintenance
Craft Level
	Course no. and title	Mode	Duration
			(year)
0275	Craft Certificate in Trowel Trade	PTDR	1
0277	Craft Certificate in Painting Trade	PTDR	1
0278	Craft Certificate in Scaffolding	PTDR	1
0279	Craft Certificate in Marble-laying and Masonry	PTDR	1
Others
Craft Level
	Course no. and title	Mode	Duration
			(year)
0263	Craft Certificate in Wood Furniture Making (in alt. years)	PTDR	3
0274	Craft Certificate in Wood Trade	PTDR	1
0284	Craft Certificate in Carpentry, Joinery and Cabinetmaking	PTE	3
0292	Craft Certificate in House Re-decoration and Furniture Finishing	PTE	1
0295	Craft Certificate in Site Foremanship Studies	PTE	1

Remark

Courses in electrical engineering/mechanical engineering related to building services are not included in the above list.

Enrolment Qualifications

Mode	Level	General Enrolment Qualifications
FT	Higher Technician	HKCEE with Grade E or above in five subjects including English Language (Syllabus B), Mathematics, Physics/Engineering Science.
PTDR	Higher Technician	Holder of Diploma or Certificate in civil engineering/building studies or construction discipline.
PTE	Higher Technician	Holder of Diploma or Certificate in civil engineering/building studies or construction discipline.
FT	Technician	HKCEE with Grade E or above in four subjects including English Language (Syllabus B), Mathematics and Physics/Engineering Science or pass in TI General Course 0582; or equivalent.
Mode	Level	General Enrolment Qualifications
(1) PTDR	Technician	HKCEE with Grade E or above in four subjects including English Language (Syllabus B) and Mathematics or pass in TI General Course 0582; or equivalent.
(2) PTE	Technician	HKCEE with Grade E or above in four subjects including English Language (Syllabus B) and Mathematics or pass in TI General Course 0582; or equivalent.
MFT	Craft	Completion of Secondary 3 or equivalent.
(3) PTDR	Craft	Completion of Secondary 3 or equivalent.
(4) PTE	Craft	Completion of Secondary 3 or equivalent.

Notes:

(1) Some PTDR(T) courses require HKCEE with Grade E or above in four subjects including English Language (Syllabus B), Mathematics and Physics/Engineering Science or pass in TI General Course 0582; or equivalent.

(2) Some PTE(T) courses require

(a) HKCEE with Grade E or above in four subjects including English Language (Syllabus B), Mathematics and Physics/Engineering Science or pass in TI General Course 0582; or equivalent; OR

(b) Completion of Secondary 5 or TI General Course 0582.

(3) PTDR(C) Courses 0274, 0275, 0277, 0278, 0279 require students to be sponsored by CITA.

(4) PTE(C) Courses 0292 and 0295 require applicants aged 25 or above and have five years work experience.

　

Annex II

UNITED NATIONS SANCTIONS BILL

COMMITTEE STAGE

Amendments to be moved by the Secretary for Trade and Industry

Clause Amendment Proposed

2 In the definition of "制裁"-

(a) by deleting "針對中華人民共和國以外地方實施的" and substituting "由聯合國安全理事會決定針對中華人民共和國以外地方而實施的";

(b) by deleting everything after "以及" and substituting "其他強制性措施.".

　

Annex III

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

(SUSPENSION OF OPERATION) BILL 1997

COMMITTEE STAGE

Amendments to be moved by the Chief Secretary

for Administration

Clause Amendment Proposed

2 (a) By renumbering the clause as subclause (1).

(b) In subclause (1), by deleting "a date to" and substituting "31 October 1997 or such earlier date as may".

(c) By adding -

"(2) The Provisional Legislative Council may by resolution made from time to time extend the period of suspension referred to in subsection (1).".

3 (a) In subclause (2), by deleting "such" and substituting "31 October 1997 or such earlier".

(b) By adding -

"(3) The Provisional Legislative Council may by resolution made from time to time extend the period during which subsection (1) has effect.".

Clause Amendment Proposed

4 (a) In subclause (2), by deleting "such" and substituting "31 October 1997 or such earlier".

(b) By adding -

"(3) The Provisional Legislative Council may by resolution made from time to time extend the period during which subsection (1) has effect.".

5 (a) In subclause (2), by deleting "such" and substituting "31 October 1997 or such earlier".

(b) By adding -

"(3) The Provisional Legislative Council may by resolution made from time to time extend the period during which subsection (1) has effect.".

6 (a) In subclause (3), by deleting "such" and substituting "31 October 1997 or such earlier".

(b) By adding -

"(4) The Provisional Legislative Council may by resolution made from time to time extend the period -

(a) of suspension referred to in subsection (1); and

(b) during which subsection (2) has effect.".

Clause Amendment Proposed

7 (a) In the heading, by deleting "and Employment (Amendment) (No. 5) Ordinance 1997".

(b) In subclause (1), by deleting "or the Employment (Amendment) (No. 5) Ordinance 1997 (100 of 1997)".

(c) In subclause (3), by deleting "such" and substituting "31 October 1997 or such earlier".

(d) By adding -

"(4) The Provisional Legislative Council may by resolution made from time to time extend the period during which subsection (1) or (2) has effect.".

New By adding -

"7A. Suspension of operation of

Employment (Amendment)

(No. 5) Ordinance 1997

(1) On and from the commencement of this Ordinance, the Employment Ordinance (Cap. 57) shall be read as if the amendments effected by the Employment (Amendment) (No. 5) Ordinance 1997 (100 of 1997) had not been enacted.

(2) Subsection (1) shall cease to have effect on 31 October 1997 or such earlier date, as the Secretary for Education and Manpower appoints by notice in the Gazette.

(3) The Provisional Legislative Council may by resolution made from time to time extend the period during which subsection (1) has effect.".

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

(SUSPENSION OF OPERATION) BILL 1997

COMMITTEE STAGE

Amendments to be moved by the Hon IP Kwok-him

Clause Amendment Proposed

2 By deleting the clause.

8(a) By deleting the paragraph.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

(SUSPENSION OF OPERATION) BILL 1997

COMMITTEE STAGE

Amendments to be moved by the Hon IP Kwok-him

Clause Amendment Proposed

3 By deleting the clause.

8(b) By deleting the paragraph.