OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 20 August 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.

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.

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

THE HONOURABLE LEE KAI-MING

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

THE HONOURABLE MRS SELINA CHOW, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE MRS PEGGY LAM, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE NGAI SHIU-KIT, J.P.

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

THE HONOURABLE RONALD ARCULLI, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE YUEN MO

THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK

DR THE HONOURABLE MRS TSO WONG MAN-YIN

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

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

THE HONOURABLE MOK YING-FAN

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

DR THE HONOURABLE PHILIP WONG YU-HONG

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 BRUCE LIU SING-LEE

THE HONOURABLE LAU KONG-WAH

THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, J.P.

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

THE HONOURABLE CHOY KAN-PUI, J.P.

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

THE HONOURABLE CHENG YIU-TONG

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

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:

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

THE HONOURABLE ALLEN LEE, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE HENRY WU

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG HON-CHUNG

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHUN-YING, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE HUI YIN-FAT, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE

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

THE HONOURABLE KENNEDY WONG YING-HO

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

THE HONOURABLE TIMOTHY FOK TSUN-TING

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 CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

MR DOMINIC WONG SHING-WAH, J.P.

SECRETARY FOR HOUSING

MR PETER LAI HING-LING, J.P.

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

MR PATRICK LAU LAI-CHIU, J.P.

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS

MR LAM WOON-KWONG, J.P.

SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

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

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

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.

Prisons (Amendment) Order 1997	400/97
Drug Addiction Treatment Centre (Hei Ling Chau Addiction Treatment Centre) (Amendment) Order 1997	401/97
Patents (General) (Amendment) Rules 1997	402/97
Pleasure Grounds (Urban Council) (Amendment) Bylaw 1997	403/97
Declaration of Change of Titles (Principal Government Town Planner and Government Town Planner) Notice 1997	404/97
Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) (No. 2) Ordinance 1994 (63 of 1994) (Commencement) Notice 1997	405/97
Copyright Ordinance (92 of 1997) (Commencement) Notice 1997	406/97
Import and Export (Fees) (Amendment) Regulation 1997 (L.N. 245 of 1997) (Commencement) Notice 1997	407/97
Banking (Specification of Public Sector Entities in Hong Kong) (Amendment) Notice 1997	408/97
Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486) (Commencement) Notice 1997	409/97
Commodities Trading (Trading Limits and Position Limits) (Amendment) (No. 2) Rules 1997	410/97
Estate Agents Ordinance (48 of 1997) (Commencement) Notice 1997	411/97
Mental Health (Amendment) Ordinance 1997 (81 of 1997) (Commencement) Notice 1997	412/97
Legal Services Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Ordinance 1997 (94 of 1997) (Commencement) Notice 1997	413/97
Official Languages (Alteration of Text Under Section 4D) (No. 22) Order 1997	414/97
Merchant Shipping (Safety) (GMDSS Radio Installations) Regulation (Amendment of Schedule) Notice 1997	415/97

Sessional Paper

No. 3

─

Report by Commissioner of Correctional Services

on the Administration of the Correctional Services

Department Welfare Fund for the year ended 31 March 1996

ADDRESS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We will start the meeting with an address. Mr Ronald ARCULLI will address the Council on the report of the Subcommittee on the Court of Final Appeal Rules and the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Fees Rules. Mr Ronald ARCULLI.

Subcommittee on the Court of Final Appeal Rules and the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Fees Rules

MR RONALD ARCULLI: Madam President, as Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Court of Final Appeal Rules and the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Fees Rules, I am reporting the main deliberations of the Subcommittee.

The two items of subsidiary legislation, published as Legal Notices Nos. 384 and 385 of 1997, were tabled at the Council meeting on 9 July 1997. They were made by the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) Rules Committee to tie in with the coming into operation on 1 July 1997 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. The purpose of the two items is to prescribe the procedures and the fees payable for appeals in the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal.

At the House Committee meeting on 11 July 1997, Members agreed to form a Subcommittee to study the two items. To allow more time for scrutiny of the Rules, the deadline for amending the subsidiary legislation has been extended, under section 34(4) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance, from 23 July 1997 to the date of this meeting.

The Subcommittee met representatives of the CFA Rules Committee and the Judiciary Administrator's Office on 21 July 1997. In general, members were interested in knowing the extent to which the Appeals Rules had preserved the previous rules governing appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the reasons for any departure.

They noted that Part VII of the Appeal Rules requires the appellant to file his case before the respondent while the previous rules did not require the filing of the cases of the appellant and the respondent in any particular order.

In response, the Judiciary Administrator has explained that the CFA Rules Committee was of the view that the new procedure would minimize unnecessary work. The respondent will only need to deal with the points raised by the appellant in his case instead of dealing with all the possible issues that may be raised by the appellant. Sequential exchange will therefore save time and expenses for the respondent.

Members were also concerned about the time limits specified in Rules 32 and 33 of the Appeal Rules, giving 14 days for the filing of Part A of the Record and only seven days for the sending of a proposed index for Part B to the respondent. They were worried that seven days might not be sufficient in certain circumstances. They noted in this regard that the Judicial Committee Rules only require that the appellant shall, without delay, take all necessary steps to have the Record transmitted to the Registrar.

The Judiciary Administrator has pointed out the requirement to submit a proposed index under Rule 33 is new. Members of the CFA Rules Committee have agreed to the time limits taking into account their professional experience. They reckon that in practice this index should be prepared well in advance, when the appellant is drawing up his case. While it is reasonable to say that the content of the respondent's case would have a bearing on the documents to be included in the index, it could be expected that most of these documents would have already been laid before the court below. If there are difficulties in meeting the time periods specified in the Ordinance, a party can apply to the Court under Rule 70 for an extension of time. Moreover, there is always scope for improving the procedures and reviewing the timeframe after the Court of Final Appeal has been in operation for a reasonable period of time.

As the Rules would affect directly all legal practitioners, the Subcommittee also asked for confirmation that both the Hong Kong Bar Association and the Law Society of Hong Kong have been consulted and the Rules are agreeable to them.

In response, the Judiciary Administrator has informed members that representatives of the two professional bodies sitting on the CFA Rules Committee have given their approval of the Rules.

The Subcommittee also queried the lack of provision on the use of languages in both the principal Ordinance and the Appeals Rules.

The Judiciary Administrator has responded that section 5 of the Official Languages Ordinance states that "a judge may use either or both of the official languages in any proceedings......". As "judge" is defined in Cap. 1 to include, inter alia, the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal and a judge of the Court of Final Appeal, there is no restriction on the use of Chinese in the Court of Final Appeal.

The Subcommittee also sought clarification on the need for Rule 3 of the Fees Rules which provides for the application of the Fees Rules to the proceedings by or against the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR). The Judiciary Administrator has drawn members' attention to section 66 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance which, when read in conjunction with the Hong Kong Reunification Ordinance, provides that no ordinance shall be binding on the SAR Government unless it is therein expressly provided or unless it appears by necessary implication that the SAR Government is thereby bound. This rule mirrors Rule 4 of the Supreme Court (High Court) Fees Rules and the Judiciary is not aware of any difficulty arising from the construction of that provision.

The legal adviser to the Subcommittee raised a few drafting points for the Judiciary's consideration. In response, the Chief Secretary for Administration will be moving some technical amendments later on.

Madam President and Members, the report that I have made summarized the main issues considered by the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee recommends that apart from the technical amendments might be moved by the Chief Secretary for Administration, no other amendment is necessary.

Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The time for questions will be around one hour. I would like to remind Members on two points. First, the introductory remarks to supplementaries should be as concise as possible in order that more Members can ask supplementary questions. In case I find a preamble too lengthy, I will have to direct the Member concerned to stop and put the question immediately. Second, in each supplementary, the Member concerned is allowed to ask one single question only. Too many questions will pose difficulties to the replying public officer and reduce the chances for other Members to ask their supplementary questions. A Member wishing to ask more than one supplementary question can raise his hand and I will do my best to accommodate the request.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The first question, Mr CHIM Pui-chung.

Behaviour Concerning the Playing of the National Anthem and the Raising of the National Flag

1. MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, since Hong Kong has become the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, will the Government inform this Council whether it has formulated any regulations stipulating that failing to stand up when the national anthem is played at public venues, or showing disrespect when the national flag is raised, is a criminal offence; if not, whether consideration will be given to introducing legislation in this regard?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Madam President, to uphold the dignity of the national anthem and the national flag, when the national anthem is played at public venues, all those present should stand up; when the national flag is raised, those who are present should stand up and regard the national flag in solemn silence.

There is no existing legislation stipulating that failing to stand up when the national anthem is played, or showing disrespect when the national flag is raised, is an offence. We strongly believe that the people of Hong Kong have great esteem for the national anthem and the national flag, and they fully understand that no disrespect should be shown when the national anthem is played and the national flag is raised. We hope to further foster the national's awareness in this respect through civic education and we would consider introducing legislation if necessary.

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

MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, my aim of asking this question is not to restrict the behaviour or freedom of speech of Hong Kong people. I hope that the media would refrain from giving exaggerated reports in this respect.

Madam President, here comes my supplementary. The main reply of the Secretary sets out many required standards of behaviour. Although "one country, two systems" is practised in Hong Kong, should we also know whether the Central Government has imposed any different requirements in this respect? In other words, as far as the Central Government is concerned, what are its required standards of behaviour during the raising of the national flag and the playing of the national anthem? Will the Secretary please brief the residents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on this, so as to enhance their understanding?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Madam President, Mr CHIM Pui-chung has asked about the required standards of behaviour in the Mainland. However, let me also describe the situation in overseas countries. As far as this issue is concerned, foreign countries in general do not seek to shape the behaviour of their people through any legislation. But, we can still observe that, on many occasions, especially in international sports meets, when national flags are hoisted and national anthems played, all competitors and other people involved do show their due respect. And, the same degree of respect for others' national flags and national anthems can also be observed. This is not the result of any legislative requirements. Hence, as pointed out in my main reply, we will work towards fostering a stronger sense of national awareness among our citizens.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TANG Siu-tong.

MR TANG SIU-TONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, it is pointed out in the main reply that the Government will seek to foster the people's respect for the national flag through civic education. Will the Government please inform this Council whether its has formulated any specific plans for this purpose?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Madam President, in terms of specific actions, we now have a plan at hand to make annual allocations of funds from within the Civic Education Committee for the purpose of cultivating the public's civic awareness. Now that Hong Kong has become part of China after the reunification, we will work out appropriate measures in the coming year to enhance our civic education, especially on the required behaviour for the hoisting of the national flag and the playing of the national anthem, as well as on the understanding of the Basic Law.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Howard YOUNG.

MR HOWARD YOUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, I agree that we should lay emphasis on civic education. The United States is recognized worldwide as one of those countries where the national flag is given a comparatively higher degree of respect. Does the Government have any information indicating, in the United States case, whether it is the result of civic education or of legislative measures?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Madam President, although I do have some information on hand in this respect, I am not sure if it is entirely accurate because we have not had the chance to liaise with these countries during the limited time available. However, having read the relevant literature, we notice that major countries such as the United States and Britain do not in fact seek to foster such a respect through legislation. Actually, in many schools of foreign countries, a national flag hoisting ceremony is held each morning. Of course, in the context of Hong Kong, schools will have to adapt themselves over time before they can copy this practice. That said, we notice that some schools in Hong Kong have already gone ahead with such a ceremony. We will monitor the situation. And, I believe that if such a ceremony is proved to be well-received, other schools will follow suit. But, at this stage, we have no intention of making it compulsory on all schools.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese) Next question, Mrs Selina CHOW.

Management of Canteens in Police Stations

2. MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): It is reported that the existing 80 police canteens are operating without a licence and that they also serve people who do not work in police stations. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the reasons why these canteens are allowed to operate without a licence;

(b) as the contracts for operating police canteens stipulate that such canteens should only serve staff members of police stations, of the reasons for the canteen operators not complying with the stipulation;

(c) whether it will consider requiring these canteens to apply for a Food Business Licence, given that there are already people who do not work in police stations patronizing these canteens; and

(d) whether contracts for operating police canteens are granted by way of an open tender system; and what criteria are adopted by the Police Force to ensure that these contracts are granted in a fair and impartial manner?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese) Secretary for Security.

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Madam President,

(a) Canteens (other than a factory canteen) set up in a work place for the exclusive use of the persons employed in the work place do not fall within the definition of "food business" in the Food Business (Urban Council) By-laws and Food Business (Regional Council) By-laws made under the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap. 132) and are not required to obtain a licence. Since police canteens are intended for the exclusive use by staff of the Hong Kong Police Force, they fall within this category and are therefore not required to obtain a licence. However, Health Inspectors of the Urban Services Department (USD) and the Regional Services Department (RSD) still inspect these canteens monthly to ensure that they comply with the food hygiene standards stipulated in Cap. 132. In addition, the police catering division conducts its own monthly check to ensure the hygiene standards of these canteens are satisfactory.

(b) and (c)

Police canteens are intended for use by staff of the Police Force only. There is no intention to relax this requirement and turn them into licensed food businesses. Some police canteen operators violate this requirement because they want to increase profit by serving more customers. The police management will step up supervision of police canteens to prevent them from serving outsiders. Those found to permit unauthorized persons to dine in for the first time will be given verbal warning. On the second occasion, warning letters will be issued. Subsequent defiance will lead to termination of the contract.

(d) Contracts for running police canteens are granted by open tender. To ensure that these contracts are granted in a fair and impartial manner, the police management have adopted the following procedures and criteria:

(i) inviting tenders from interested parties by placing notice in newspapers. Selection criteria are made known to interested parties before they submit their tenders. The criteria include previous experience of the applicant in running canteens or similar facilities, the applicant's background, proposed menu and prices and the number of staff employed;

(ii) forming an assessment panel by the Welfare Committee of the police formation concerned to consider all tenders received. A Welfare Committee is chaired by a Superintendent and comprises officers of different ranks as members;

(iii) assessing tenders on the basis of the selection criteria by using a standard marking scheme; and

(iv) selecting the contractor by the Welfare Committee on the recommendation of the assessment panel.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW.

MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Madam President, it is pointed out in (b) and (c) of the Secretary's main reply that some police canteen operators have violated the requirement that police canteens should serve staff of the Police Force only. Actually, a great majority of these canteens do not observe this requirement, and the serving of outsiders is a rule rather than an exception. In view of the gravity of the situation, will the Secretary please tell us when the police management will start to take the three steps mentioned in the main reply? And, are there any ways of ensuring that these steps will always be taken?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Security.

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Madam President, if there is any evidence showing that a police canteen has broken the relevant requirement and has served customers who are not the staff of a police station, I believe that the police management will certainly investigate the matter upon the receipt of a report. Part (b) and (c) of my main reply already sets out a number of steps which the police management can take. For example, the first occasion of violation may lead to a verbal warning; the second violation may lead to a written warning; and repeated violations may lead to contract termination. As a matter of fact, this three-step measure has been in operation for several years already. Over the past three years, the police management has terminated the contracts of two police canteens for various reasons, one of which was related to the serving of outsiders in violation of contract stipulations.

PRESIDENT: The Honourable Mr Howard YOUNG.

MR HOWARD YOUNG: Madam President, the first paragraph of the main reply given by the Secretary for Security states that although these canteens do not require licence, the Urban Services Department (USD) does have monthly inspections. Since there is no licensing requirement, can the Secretary tell us whether the USD is able to enforce any measures to make the canteens comply with the public health regulations, or does it depend entirely on the goodwill of the Police Department and the management of the canteens; and whether such is adequate to protect the health and food hygiene for our police officers?

PRESIDENT: Secretary for Security.

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Madam President, obviously because no license under the Public Health and Urban Services Ordinance is required, it is not for the officers of the USD or the officers of the RSD to exercise control over these police canteens. Having said that, of course, the USD and the RSD conduct monthly checks on all police canteens. In addition, the Police Catering Division of the Police Headquarters also conducts its own monthly checks, all irregularities discovered will be properly recorded and dealt with. On a daily basis, all police canteens are supervised by their respective Division Commanders and their welfare committees. I have mentioned earlier that two police canteens had their contracts terminated over the last three years, one of them was, of course, for the reason that the standard of hygiene was unacceptable.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Peggy LAM.

MRS PEGGY LAM (in Cantonese): Madam President, as pointed out by the Secretary in his main reply, a police canteen found to have violated the requirement concerned for the first time will be given a verbal warning; on the second occasion of violation, a written warning will be issued; and subsequent defiance will lead to contract termination. I would like to know the number of contract termination and warnings issued to canteen operators over the years. Are there any relevant figures; and are these canteens required to pay any taxes? Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Security.

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Madam President, when I answered the questions raised by two other Members just now, I already pointed out that there were two cases of contract termination in the past three years, one of which was caused by the fact that the operator had served outsiders in breach of contract stipulations. As for verbal warnings, because they are given verbally, the police do not keep any records. But, in regard to written warnings, records are kept, and in the past three years, eight written warnings were issued. Regarding the tax liability or otherwise of police canteen operators, let me point out that all operators who provide services or supply goods to the police or other government departments will not enjoy any privilege of tax exemption. In other words, if the nature of the business concerned is taxable under the Inland Revenue Ordinance, the operator must of course pay the relevant taxes.

PRESIDENT: The Honourable Mrs Elsie TU.

MRS ELSIE TU: Madam President, I have seen photographs that indicate that some of these canteens are open to the general public. As food premises create a high fire risk, what protection is there for the public in case of fire when they are permitted to dine in these unlicensed restaurants?

PRESIDENT: Secretary for Security.

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Madam President, the public is not allowed to dine in these canteens except in very exceptional circumstances when they have been permitted by the Police Division Commander to do so. I believe that insofar as the fire safety of all police stations (you can remember that most of these canteens are inside police stations) is concerned, they are of a standard which satisfies the necessary fire service requirements, and that covers of course not just canteens but also the entire police station as well. I am sure that the Commissioner of Police will be very conscious of the fact that he wants his police stations to be safe insofar as fire risks are concerned.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr James TIEN.

MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): Madam President, in answering Mrs Selina CHOW's question, the Secretary said that the police would carry out investigation only upon the receipt of a complaint. In contrast, under the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance, in the case of a factory canteen, the factory proprietor is not supposed to wait until a complaint arises, and he must carry out proactive inspections to check whether the factory canteen is patronized by any customers who are not staff members of his factory. That being the case, may I ask the Secretary whether police canteens should be treated differently? What I am trying to say is that even before receiving any complaints, the police management should be required to carry out proactive inspections to check whether police canteens are patronized by any outsiders. If outsiders are found, it should take immediate actions, instead of withholding its investigation until complaints are received. May I ask the Secretary whether the current situation is like this?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Security.

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Madam President, I hope that there is no misunderstanding, because when Mrs Selina CHOW asked her supplementary question just now, she said that she had noticed many such cases. No doubt, I have said that the police will certainly carry out investigation when a complaint is received. But, I must also affirm that it is not the practice of the police to wait until complaints are received. As I already pointed out a moment ago, the police catering division does conduct its own monthly checks.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Howard YOUNG.

MR HOWARD YOUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, with reference to the inspections carried out by the police catering division or the USD, may I ask the Secretary whether the standards and procedures adopted for these inspections are identical to those relatively stringent ones adopted by the Urban Council itself?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Security.

SECURITY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Madam President, the police catering division of course conducts its own checks, and the scope of such checks covers adherence to contract provisions, menus and quality of food provided, and the attainment or otherwise of the required service standards set out in the contract. As for the inspections conducted by the USD and the RSD, the emphasis is naturally on the standards of hygiene set down by these two Departments for canteens in general. I believe that as far as hygiene standards are concerned, there should not be any substantial differences between police canteens and factory canteens in general. In addition, I must point out that the checks conducted by the USD and the RSD are usually useful. In the past three years, for example, the USD and the RSD did give quite a number of verbal warnings following their inspections of these canteens; the former gave 348 warnings, and the latter 54.

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

MR CHAN CHOI-HI (in Cantonese): Madam President, it is after all not very professional to place these canteens under the supervision of senior police management. May I ask the Secretary whether the Government has ever considered the possibility of placing these canteens under the ambit of Cap. 132? That is to say, has the Government ever considered the possibility of requiring these canteens to hold proper licences? Also, is it specifically stated in invitations to tenders that police canteens are not allowed to serve outsiders?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Security.

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Madam President, let me make one clarification here. Checks are not conducted by senior police management, but by the police catering division instead. And, such checks are not the only form of supervision, because the Welfare Committees of individual police districts are also responsible for supervising the daily operation of their respective police canteens. For that reason, I do not believe that the checks conducted by the police would in any way fail to meet professional standards, not least because these are their staff canteens, and they would thus be particularly concerned. As for hygiene standards, as I have already pointed out, we have the professional assistance from the USD and the RSD. Under such circumstances, I believe the supervisory system in general is satisfactory. Of course, one can rightly say that there must always be room for further improvements in the case of any system. But, does this mean that these canteens should thus be required to apply for licences like other kinds of food establishments? On this question, let me reiterate that the basic role of these canteens is to provide catering services to the staff of the Police Force, and they are not operated like ordinary restaurants and food establishments. What is more, since these canteens are located inside police stations, we will never allow them to operate like ordinary lounges, where access and exit are entirely free from any restrictions.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW.

MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Madam President, paragraph (d) of the main reply mentions that contracts for running police canteens are granted by open tender. Everybody, I believe, hopes that all contracts for running police canteens can be granted by tender on an open and fair basis, and that there are no elements of private deals. In regard to the procedures and criteria mentioned in paragraph (d), may I ask whether the Secretary and the top management of the police are satisfied with them? In addition, are all the contracts for running police canteens granted by tender according to the procedures described? And, how can the authorities concerned ensure that no private deals are involved?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Security.

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Madam President, as I pointed out in the main reply, tenders are indeed invited on an open and fair basis. As a matter of fact, the procedures described are adopted by each and every police station when they invite tenders, and our colleagues in the Police Force are satisfied with the situation. But, let me also mention one point as well. Contracts for a very small number of police canteens have been granted not by tender. This is not so much because there are any private deals, but because the canteens concerned are located in relatively remote areas such as Ta kwu Ling, Lo Wu, Sha Tau Kok and even San Uk Ling Holding Centre; the number of staff attached to the police districts, police stations and other relevant units there is simply too small to make any considerable turnover at all possible. So, as a result of remoteness and small turnover, simply no one would want to operate a canteen in these places. That being the case, the Police Force have no alternative but to take up the task of catering provision themselves. But, I can affirm once again that we will absolutely not grant the frachise of operating any police canteen to any operator through private deals.

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

MR WONG SIU-YEE (in Cantonese): Madam President, I hope that the Secretary will clarify one more point. In case a police canteen operator allows a police officer to treat his family members or friends to food and beverages in his police canteen, should the operator be regarded as having violated the relevant contract condition?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Security.

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY ( in Cantonese ): Madam President, generally speaking, police canteens are supposed to serve staff members of police stations only, and relatives and friends of police officers should not be served. However, there are always exceptions, no matter what or which contract systems we are looking at. In our case now, the exception is that individual members of the public who have special reasons may be allowed to dine at a police canteen with the approval of the District Commander concerned. Those who may be granted exception under special circumstances are usually witnesses and victims of police investigation cases. Sometimes, permission to dine at a police canteen may also be granted to Junior Police Call members visiting a police station. But, in general, we do not allow friends and relatives of police officers to dine at police canteens. If we allow them to do so, police canteens will be no different from other kinds of food establishments.

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

Management of Home Ownership Scheme Estate

3. MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): Madam President, regarding the management of Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) estates, does the Government know:

(a) of the basis for the authority concerned earmarking certain public roads and slopes within the boundary of HOS estates when the estates are under construction;

(b) who will bear the maintenance costs of the road within the boundary of an HOS estate if the roads are used by both the residents of that estate and those of the neighbouring public housing estate(s);

(c) of the reasons why fines for illegal parking within the boundary of an HOS estate are collected by the firm responsible for the management of that estate or the Housing Department (HD); and

(d) of the reasons why residents of HOS estates have to pay a supervision fee in addition to the management fee; and what is the current average monthly supervision fee paid by each HOS household?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Housing.

SECRETARY FOR HOUSING (in Cantonese): Madam President,

(a) Roads designed mainly to serve an HOS estate are included within its boundary at the planning stage. Adjacent slopes are also included if they have been cut in connection with the formation of the site of which the estate is developed.

(b) Owners of flats are responsible for the cost of maintaining roads falling within the boundary of the HOS estate.

(c) Fines for illegal parking are neither collected by the private property management agent nor by the HD. They are payable directly to the Government.

(d) The monthly management fee paid by residents of HOS estates managed by private property management agents includes an amount of about $30 a month per flat to cover the cost of supervision of management agents by HD staff. Such supervision is necessary to ensure that the services provided meet specified standards.

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

MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): Madam President, I must say that the Secretary's reply is totally irrelevant to my question. Why? The reason is that when I asked my question, I already referred very specifically to public roads and slopes, not roads inside HOS estates. The Government must make sure that it can understand the thrust of my question. Since the public roads within an HOS estate are not reserved solely for its residents, but can be used by all members of the public instead, why should the residents be required to pay all the maintenance costs of these roads? What is more, the issues raised in paragraphs (b) and (c) of my main question are in fact the subject of many complaints lodged by residents of HOS estates. These residents point out that maintenance costs are borne by HOS estate residents themselves. But then, they grumble, when it comes to illegal parking within an HOS estate, all fines are still made payable to the HD, although this problem may probably be a mere violation of estate management regulations, and even the traffic police have thus refrained from taking the usual enforcement action of issuing fixed penalty tickets. In other words, these residents are of the view that while residents have to bear all maintenance costs, all fines, however, will go into the pocket of the Government. What is the reason for this? The Secretary failed to answer this question just now. Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Housing.

SECRETARY FOR HOUSING (in Cantonese): Madam President, in general, the Highways Department is responsible for the maintenance of all roads used by members of the public, and the Department will also pay the costs incurred. The essence of my main reply is that if the residents of a certain HOS estate make use of some particular major roads to move into or out of their housing estate, then such major roads should be regarded as having been constructed to serve their needs, and the residents should thus be required to assume the responsibility of paying for the maintenance of these roads. This is a general policy of the Government. As for penalty fines, it should be noted that the people involved are penalized only because they have violated some regulations, and penalty fines are usually paid to the Government, instead of owners of property. Thank you, Madam President.

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

MR CHAN WING-CHAN (in Cantonese): Madam President, paragraph (b) of the main reply states that owners of flats are responsible for maintaining roads falling within the boundary of their HOS estate. May I ask whether it is possible to designate these roads as private roads, where access by vehicles of non-resident can be banned? Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Housing.

SECRETARY FOR HOUSING (in Cantonese): Madam President, if the management of an HOS estate is still in the hands of the Housing Authority (HA) or the HD, the HA will designate these roads as roads with restricted access. But, if the management of the housing estate has been returned entirely to the residents, which means that an Owners' Corporation has been established, the residents will have complete management authority over this matter. That being the case, these roads can then be formally designated as private roads. But, this in fact will not create much difference, except that these roads will be given a different designation and placed under a different management authority. Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr James TIEN.

MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): Madam President, since it is now the rainy season of the year, torrential rains are common. Many private buildings are erected on slopes. In case these slopes develop any problems, the property owners must of course pay for the maintenance works required. The point now is that even in the case of a government slope, when it collapses, residents of private flats may still have to pay. Suppose a rainstorm occurs when an HOS estate is under construction, and a slope in its vicinity develops problems which must be rectified, will the Secretary please tell this Council who should pay the millions dollors of maintenance costs ─ the Government or owners of the HOS flats?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Housing.

SECRETARY FOR HOUSING (in Cantonese): Madam President, it all depends on the initial positioning of the slope in question. If the slope collapses when there are no buildings on it, the Government will of course be responsible for the maintenance costs. However, if the slope has been cut by the HA for the purpose of housing construction, then, the slope will be included as part of the construction site of the housing project, regardless of the type of housing units to be constructed, that is, whether they are HOS estates or public rental housing estates. In case a public rental housing estate is to be constructed, the HA will pay all the maintenance costs. But, if a HOS estate is to be constructed, individual flat owners will have to share the maintenance costs and other expenses. In this respect, the Government applies the same criterion to all private buildings. Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Last question requiring an oral answer, Dr TANG Siu-tong.

Ageing Buildings

4. DR TANG SIU-TONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, recently an incident involving the collapse of a canopy of an old building in North Point resulted in the injury of five people, and this has aroused the concern of the public over the issue of ageing buildings. In this regard, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the current distribution of private residential buildings in Hong Kong in terms of the age of the buildings;

(b) of the number of old buildings in which parts of their structural components have potential risks of collapsing; and what plans or measures does the Government have in eliminating those potential risks?

(c) whether there are any established procedures regarding the inspection of buildings aged over 30 or 40 years, so as to ensure the safety of those buildings?

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

(a) our statistics on privately-owned buildings do not make a distinction between residential and non-residential buildings. The numbers of private buildings falling within the age group of "below 20 years", "20 to 40 years" and "over 40 years" are estimated to be in the range of 25 000, 18 500 and 6 500 respectively;

(b) apart from responding to complaints, the Buildings Department (BD) has been proactively seeking out dangers in buildings for action since 1989. A planned survey of all private buildings in Hong Kong was conducted by the BD in 1989-96. A consultancy study was commissioned in 1994-95 on buildings completed between 1946-58.

In the course of inspections carried out under the planned survey, the consultancy study and in response to complaints, where parts of structural components of buildings are identified to have potential risk of collapsing, actions such as emergency shoring and urgent removal of the loose parts will be taken immediately, thereby removing the potential risk. Follow-up actions, such as the issuing of statutory orders for investigation, repairs or demolition where appropriate, will be taken.

In the six months ending 30 June 1997, the BD has carried out 4 806 inspections either in response to complaints or following up the findings of the consultancy study. Such inspections resulted in emergency remedial action in 49 cases and the serving of 329 statutory orders to building owners for taking remedial action. These inspections form an ongoing exercise.

Other planned measures include the Building Safety Inspection Scheme. At the moment, we are consulting professional bodies on the mandatory Building Safety Inspection Scheme and will start consulting the general public of the scheme in the coming week.

(c) the BD has established guidelines on inspection of buildings. Each inspection has to be led by a professional staff member and includes checking and reporting on the following:

- past defects, repair history and current maintenance conditions;

- existence of unauthorized structures/ attachments to buildings;

- suspected unauthorized construction, alterations and additions;

- external elevations, common areas and internal units, where applicable, for structural and non-structural defects;

- identification of areas of potential structural danger and needs for further structural investigation; and

- overall assessment of building/structural defects and recommendations.

Following the recommendations of the consultancy study on post-war buildings over 40 years old, further guidelines on inspection of such buildings have been drawn up covering both the inspection cycles, key areas of inspection and the types of tests to be used.

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

DR TANG SIU-TONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, it is pointed out in the main reply that the Government may issue statutory orders, requiring owners of buildings with potential risks of collapsing to carry out repairs. In case of non-compliance, what can the BD do? Second, if an owner finds the costs of repairs too expensive to afford, what assistance can the Government render? Third, if a building is now certified safe after inspection, but collapses after one or two years, can it be said that there is professional negligence?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr TANG Siu-tong, since you have asked three questions all in one go, the Secretary may not have been able to take down all of them. If he misses out any of your questions in his reply later, please put up your hand and request permission for raising your questions again.

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Cantonese): Madam President, under the Buildings Ordinance, the Building Authority has the statutory power to take various actions, including prosecutions. In this regard, we instigated a total of 145 prosecutions in 1996 with the highest fine imposed amounting to $50,000. In addition, if an owner keeps on ignoring a statutory order we have issued to him, he is liable to an additional fine of $5,000 per day and a maximum imprisonment of one year. That said, this does not mean that an owner who is willing to pay the additional fine can indefinitely ignore a statutory order because in the event of persistent defiance, the Government may take the proactive step of seeking assistance from a maintenance contractor, and under critical circumstances, it may even employ a maintenance contractor to carry out the urgent repair works required. Following such repair works, the Government will take legal actions to recover the expenses incurred from the owner concerned. Moreover, once a statutory order is issued, the relevant case will also be sent to the Land Registry, where a record will be marked. In other words, if the owner concerned wishes to sell his flat before the statutory order is complied with, records from the Land Registry will show that some statutory requirements in connection with the flat have not been met. Thank you, Madam President.

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

MR CHOY KAN-PUI (in Cantonese): Madam President, will the Government please tell this Council whether it has conducted any publicity work to educate those still living in ageing buildings on the potential risks and problems they are facing, and on ways of preventing their buildings from collapsing? Also, what is the estimated number of people who are still living in ageing buildings?

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

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Cantonese): Madam President, as far as publicity is concerned, the BD has produced some APIs on the risks which may be caused by buildings with structural problems, and these APIs are broadcast through the various mass media. In addition, our colleagues are stationed in offices of the Home Affairs Department to answer residents' questions on the structural safety and maintenance of buildings, and they will also provide assistance and advice if required.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr NGAN Kam-chuen.

MR NGAN KAM-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Madam President, it is reported that the Government has recently written to some local banks, and has sought to explore, through the Hong Kong Association of Banks, whether the banking industry are prepared to extend building maintenance loans to flat owners. What are the responses from the banking sector? Second, has the Government so far considered the possibility of setting up a building maintenance fund to offer low-interest loans to eligible owner-occupiers for the purpose of carrying out maintenance and repairs?

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

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Cantonese): Madam President, yes, the BD has recently written to major banks and insurance institutions, enquiring whether they have any plans of extending such loans to assist flat owners who want to carry out building maintenance. These institutions are also asked whether they intend to offer this kind of loans in the near future in case they do not plan to do so for the moment. We are still awaiting their response. The second part of the question concerns whether or not the Government will consider setting up a fund to offer financial assistance to flat owners who have to carry out building maintenance. We are currently considering this possibility. But, let me make one point very clear. We must not forget that the buildings in question are private buildings after all. So, as in the case of all other forms of private properties, owners themselves are obligated to ensure that their properties are safe, and that their properties will pose no safety problems to other people.

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

MR CHENG KAI-NAM (in Cantonese): Madam President, insofar as existing mandatory repairs orders or any mandatory building inspection requirements which may be specified by the law in future is concerned, if a private building does not have an Owners' Corporation, or if its Owners' Corporation fails to reach a consensus (There were indeed many similar cases in the past, and complicated lawsuits followed), how can these inspection orders or repairs orders be enforced?

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

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Cantonese): Madam President, as I understand it, at the same time when the Home Affairs Department encourages owners of flats to set up their Owners' Corporation, the Department is also actively considering how best to improve the existing legislation so that the inadequacies referred to can be remedied. Let me also add that under the existing practice, once a statutory order is issued to require a building to undergo repairs or other remedial works, the order will be served to all relevant flat owners, and they will be obligated under the law to carry out such repairs.

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

DR TANG SIU-TONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, I want to ask a follow-up question on the second part of the question which I asked just now. In case a flat owner is financially incapable, how will the Government come to his assistance? A moment ago, the Secretary replied that the Government was enquiring banks whether they would offer loans for this purpose. If the banking sector refuses to do so, will the Government carry out repairs for flat owners first and try to work out solutions later?

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

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Cantonese): Madam President, since the Government is still considering how it can assist flat owners to overcome the financial difficulties which they experience as a result of building repairs, I am unable to offer any concrete and specific answers to Mr TANG at this stage.

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

MR CHOY KAN-PUI (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Secretary did not answer the question I raised just now. How many people are living in ageing buildings?

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

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Cantonese): Madam President, to me, the term "ageing buildings" is rather loose in meaning. But, if we say that buildings which are 30 or 40 years old should be considered ageing, what actually is our criterion? If age is to be used as the criterion, Members may be aware that in my main reply, I in fact referred to the range between 20 years and 40 years or over as the criterion. Of course, it is also possible to set the criterion at 30 years, for it depends on how we look at this problem. Anyway, the first part of my main reply has already given Members a rough idea on the number of "ageing" buildings.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr NGAN Kam-chuen.

MR NGAN KAM-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Secretary has already answered the question which I raised just now. But, I want to ask a follow-up question. Is there any time limit within which the Hong Kong Association of Banks and the insurance sector as mentioned in my first question are required to give their replies? When the Government wrote to consult them, did it specify any time limit for their replies? For example, did it say that it expected their replies within two or three months? Also, on the setting up of a fund for building maintenance and repairs, how much time does the Government need for consideration? And, how will the Government make its decision? The buildings concerned no doubt belong to private individuals, but, they do pose potential dangers to the general public. So, how long does the Government want to consider before taking actions to ensure their proper repairs and maintenance?

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

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Cantonese): Madam President, my answer to the first part of the Honourable Member's question is that we expect to finish collating the views of the banking and insurance sectors by the end of this month. As to the second part, I would like to emphasize that we of course want to legislate as soon as possible on the introduction of a compulsory buildings safety inspection scheme. As I pointed out a moment ago, we will launch a public consultation exercise next week. After the completion of this consultation exercise, we will then be able to submit the relevant bill to the Provisional Legislative Council within its term for Members' consideration.

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

DR TANG SIU-TONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, I want to follow up the third point of my earlier supplementary question, that is, the point on professional negligence. If a building is now certified as having met the required safety standards by Government professionals, but collapses after a year or a half, can it then be said that there is professional negligence?

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

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Cantonese): Madam President, it is hard for me to give a definite reply to this question because the answer will have to depend on the circumstances surrounding each and every building involved in such cases. We will first have to conduct an investigation before we can ascertain whether the building concerned was indeed checked by government personnel, and whether there were any elements of negligence in the course of such a check. The specific circumstances of individual cases have to be examined before I can answer such a question.

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Flood Prevention

5. DR RAYMOND HO (in Chinese): In recent years, the Government has adopted various measures to prevent flooding, such as improving the designs of sewage pits and stormwater drains as well as strengthening the co-ordination among various departments. However, there are still some locations in the urban area which are prone to flooding in times of heavy rainfall due to blockage of stormwater drains. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council whether:

(a) the current policy on the promotion of civic education will be reviewed with a view to educating the public about their obligations to keep a clean environment, so as to reduce the chance of stormwater drains being silted up; and

(b) any plan is in place to step up prosecutions against those people who litter and to clean streets more frequently?

SECRETARY FOR BROADCASTING, CULTURE AND SPORT (in Chinese): Madam President, on the basis of information provided by the Urban Services Department and the Regional Services Department, the answers to Dr Raymond HO's question are as follows:

(a) The two Provisional Municipal Councils place great emphasis on educating the public against littering. Since the commencement of the territory-wide Keep Hong Kong Clean Campaign in 1986, the two Provisional Municipal Councils have been working diligently to educate the public on the importance of keeping the environment clean through a series of publicity and community involvement programmes. District-based clean-up activities are also organized to enhance public awareness against littering. The theme and strategy of the Keep Hong Kong Clean Campaign are reviewed regularly to sustain the public's interest in it and to meet the community's needs.

(b) The two municipal services departments have been taking vigorous enforcement action against those who litter. During the first six months of 1997, some 20 500 litter offenders were prosecuted. In addition to regular enforcement action, the Urban Services Department will in September and October mount a series of anti-littering operations. The first month of the operations will emphasize on publicity whereas in the second month vigorous prosecution action will be taken against offenders.

Streets and gullies are cleaned regularly. The frequency is usually higher for busy streets with heavy pedestrian flow and areas prone to flooding. The frequency is further reviewed and increased as necessary during the rainy season, in order to minimize the risk of flooding due to blockage of gullies or stormwater drains.

Graduate Teachers in Primary and Secondary Schools

6. DR LAW CHEUNG KWOK (in Chinese): The Chief Executive mentioned in his inaugural speech that in future, primary and secondary school teachers should all possess a university degree and have received teacher training. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the respective numbers of serving teachers in primary and secondary schools who do not possess a university degree, and the proportions of such teachers to the total numbers of primary and secondary school teachers in Hong Kong respectively;

(b) of the respective numbers of serving teachers in primary and secondary schools who have not received teacher training, and the proportions of such teachers to the total numbers of primary and secondary school teachers in Hong Kong respectively;

(c) of the estimated number of years required for teachers who do not possess a university degree, or who have not received teacher training, to attain through in-service training the standard mentioned by the Chief Executive; and the estimated amount of funds required for providing such training; and

(d) whether it has any plan to upgrade the Hong Kong Institute of Education (HKIEd) to university status with a view to providing more graduate teachers, so that the Chief Executive's proposal can be put into practice; if so, when the plan is expected to be implemented?

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

(a) According to the findings of a survey conducted by the Education Department (ED) in October 1996, there were 15 172 (79.2%) primary school teachers and 4 565 (20.6%) secondary school teachers without a university degree.

(b) The same survey also revealed that there were 3 044 (15.9%) primary school teachers and 5 280 (23.8%) secondary school teachers without teacher training. However, the ED encourages these serving untrained teachers to receive professional training as soon as possible by introducing a salary bar to their salary scales (Point 19 for untrained Certificated Master/Mistress with the salary scale of Point 14 to Point 24; and Point 22 for untrained Graduate Master/Mistress with a salary scale of Point 17 to 33) and by barring them from promotion before completing the professional training.

(c) It is the Chief Executive's new policy objective to require, in the foreseeable future, all new teachers for primary and secondary schools to have a university degree and teacher's training. We have asked the University Grants Committee (UGC) to examine the matter and to advise on how best to meet this major policy objective. The UGC's advice should cover, among other things, the timetable for meeting the policy target, the financial implications, and the effect of implementing the policy on the development of higher education and the future role of the Hong Kong Institute of Education (HKIEd). The UGC plans to complete the exercise in the first half of 1998. We will consider the way forward in the light of the UGC's recommendations.

(d) We have taken active steps to upgrade the HKIEd. For instance,

- we have brought the HKIEd under the aegis of the UGC since July 1996 so that it has become an integral part of the academic community at the tertiary level. We hope that the UGC can nurture the HKIEd and guide it to become a centre of excellence in teacher training.

- we are spending $2.5 billion on a new world-class campus for the HKIEd in Tai Po. Our recurrent subvention for teacher education at the Institute this year is around $700 million.

- the HKIEd, which is primarily geared at training non-graduate teachers, will start offering a limited number of Bachelor of Education degree and postgraduate diploma places in the 1998-99 academic year, subject to validation of the courses by the Hong Kong Council for Academic Accreditation. The UGC also agrees in principle that the provision of degree and postgraduate level courses should be progressively increased in the next triennium at a steady pace to ensure quality.

The future development of the HKIEd will be covered in the UGC review.

Schooling Needs of Child Immigrants from Mainland

7. MR CHAN CHOI-HI (in Chinese): In view of a large number of children who have newly arrived in Hong Kong from the Mainland, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the number of primary and secondary schools which the Government plans to build in order to meet the educational needs of these children; and whether this will affect the scheme for whole-day schooling in primary schools resulting in the scheme being delayed; and

(b) of the specific plans in place to help these children adapt to the education system in Hong Kong and catch up with the education standard of local school children of their age?

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

(a) The Government has included seven primary and nine secondary schools in the School Building Programme to meet the educational needs of new arrivals children (NAC). These schools will be completed between 1997-98 and 1999-00 school years. We will also closely monitor the arrival of NAC in future. As we estimate that the number of NAC would increase to 66 000, we have made plan to build another six primary and 10 secondary schools by the commencement of the 2001-02 school year to meet the educational needs of these NAC.

As for the implementation of whole-day primary schooling, the Government pledged at the end of last year that by the 2001-02 school year, 40% of the pupils in government and aided primary schools would be studying on a whole-day basis. The Chief Executive declared at the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region that whole-day primary schooling should be implemented as soon as possible. While we will build new schools for NAC, we will also actively consider speeding up the implementation of whole-day primary schooling. Hence, meeting the educational needs of NAC will not cause any delay to the announced implementation plan for whole-day primary schooling.

(b) The Education Department (ED) has been providing education and related support services to help NAC adapt to the local education system and raise their academic standard. These services include:

(1) Induction/English Extension Programmes

- Since April 1995, a 60-hour Induction Programme has been provided for NAC aged six to 15 through non-government organizations (NGOs). The course contents include social adjustment, and learning of Chinese and English languages and homework counselling.

- Since October 1995, a 60-hour English Extension Programme has been provided for NAC aged nine to 15 who have completed the Induction Programme, to improve their standard of English. These Programmes are also run by NGOs.

(2) Remedial services in schools

- After admission to schools, NAC with special educational needs can have access to a wide range of support and remedial services in schools, such as personal guidance services and remedial teaching in Chinese, English and Mathematics.

- For NAC with more severe learning or adjustment difficulties, the ED provides a spectrum of intensive remedial services as well as other assessment and supportive services.

(3) Producing resource materials for NAC

- The ED has produced a set of English Language Self-Learning Package (for Primary 1 to Primary 3 levels) to help NAC strengthen their foundation in English.

(4) School-based support scheme

- A school-based support scheme will be introduced in the 1997-98 school year whereby a block grant will be given to schools with an intake of NAC. The rate is $2,000 per NAC per annum at the primary level and $3,330 at secondary level.

- Schools can use this grant flexibly to provide school-based support services such as organizing remedial classes/extra-curricular activities, and producing and acquiring teaching material to help NAC in learning and adapt to the school life.

Visa-free Entry Arrangement for BN(O) Passport Holders

8. DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: It is reported that some countries which previously offered visa-free entry to British National (Overseas) (BN(O)) passport holders have ceased to adopt such a practice after 1 July 1997. Will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the reasons for the above countries not offering visa-free entry to the BN(O) passport holders;

(b) whether any of these countries have undertaken to offer visa-free entry to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region passport holders;

(c) for countries which have visa-free entry agreement with Britain and thus extended such a practice to Hong Kong before 1 July 1997, under what circumstances will this practice be changed; and

(d) of the actions taken by the Government to ensure that the immigration practices adopted by the 80-odd countries or regions before 1 July 1997 in respect of holders of the BN(O) passport and the Certificate of Identity will be maintained?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Madam President,

(a) and (b)

As far as we know, no country or territory has withdrawn visa-free access facility offered to BN(O) passport holders after 30 June 1997. In late June, Malaysia announced that Hong Kong Special Administration Region (SAR) and BN(O) passport holders would need to have a visa to visit Malaysia from 1 July and 1 October 1997 respectively. We took immediate action to request the Malaysian Government to reconsider their decision. We understand that the United Kingdom Government also made a similar request to the Malaysian Government. In early August, we were informed by the Malaysian Government that they were reviewing our request and pending a final decision, SAR and BN(O) passport holders would not need to apply for a visa to visit Malaysia. A final decision is expected later in the year.

(c) Only one visa abolition agreement, signed by the United Kingdom with Argentina, applied specifically to BN(O) passport holders. Under the terms of this agreement, the United Kingdom Government granted reciprocal visa-free access to Argentinean nationals to Hong Kong. We understand that there is no expressed provision for the termination of this agreement by a specific date, but because the United Kingdom Government cannot continue to offer visa-free access to Hong Kong to Argentinean nationals from 1 July 1997, this agreement has in practice ceased to apply. However, the Argentinean Government have expressed willingness to continue to grant visa-free access for BN(O) passport holders to Argentina on an informal basis. There are eight other Visa Abolition Agreements between the United Kingdom Government and other states all of which pre-dated the creation of the BN(O) status and do not refer specifically to BN(O) passport holders, although they cover them in practice. These agreements accord mutual visa-free access to the third country and to United Kingdom (but not to Hong Kong) for British nationals and nationals of the third country respectively. These agreements continue in force.

(d) The travel convenience of Hong Kong residents holding different forms of travel documents remains a priority concern of the SAR Government. Through the British Consulate General in Hong Kong, we have been maintaining a close liaison with the British Government in respect of the travel convenience of BN(O) passport holders. Although no new Certificate of Identity is issued from 1 July 1997, we have monitored the degree of travel convenience of Certificate of Identity holders closely and have taken prompt action whenever necessary. When there were reports that Certificate of Identity holders were not accepted for visa applications to some European countries in July, we took immediate action to clarify with the countries concerned. We were assured that there had been no change to the treatment of Certificate of Identity holders. We will continue to liaise with the United Kingdom Government to preserve the visa-free access arrangements for BN(O) passport holders, and take appropriate actions to preserve and (where possible) enhance the travel convenience of Certificate of Identity holders.

Small House

9. DR TANG SIU-TONG (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the total number of small house applications which are still being processed as at 1 July this year, together with the number of applications approved in each of the past three years;

(b) in regard to the undertaking given by the Government two years ago to examine the possibility of contracting out the vetting and approving work so as to speed up the processing of small house applications, of the outcome of the study in this regard; if the proposal is found to be feasible, of the reasons for not implementing the proposal; and if the proposal is found not feasible, what the reasons are; and

(c) whether the Government has any plans to improve and expedite the vetting and approving procedures for small house applications, so as to assist indigenous villagers to resolve their housing problem?

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

(a) The total number of outstanding small house applications as at 1 July 1997 is 14 810 cases. The numbers of applications approved with land grant conditions executed are 1 730, 1 540 and 1 910 in 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 respectively;

(b) the study recommends that part of the work relating to setting out of a small house site, preparation of a site plan to be attached to the land grant documents, legal documentation and registration of title deeds may be contracted out to a contractor comprising registered land surveyors and practising solicitors. The Administration accepts the recommendation. The Lands Department is making preparations for the implementation of a pilot scheme in Yuen Long in early 1998 for a period of 17 months. Under the scheme, an applicant may opt for the contractor's services at the tendered price. If the scheme proves to be successful, the Administration will consider extending the scheme to other districts in the New Territories; and

(c) to improve the vetting procedures, the Lands Department, after consultation with the Heung Yee Kuk, has introduced a new composite small house application form, with which the applicant will no longer be required to make a separate Statutory Declaration. The Department has also set up a special duties team to screen the applications. If an applicant does not meet the basic requirements under the Small House Policy, the applicant will be given early notification. If an application meets the requirements, it will be passed to the relevant District Lands Office for processing.

AIDS Trust Fund

10. DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Regarding the AIDS Trust Fund which was set up in mid 1993, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of a breakdown of the respective numbers of applications received, approved and rejected to date in respect of the following categories of applications:

(i) ex-gratia payment,

(ii) medical and support services; and

(iii) publicity and public education;

(b) of the , as well as the highest and lowest payment for the successful applications in respect of each of the above three categories;

(d) of the longest, shortest and average time taken in processing an application (from the date of submission of an application to the date of notifying the applicant of the result of the application) in respect of each of the above three categories in each of the years since the establishment of the Fund;

(e) of the plans, if any, to streamline the procedures in processing applications;

(f) whether people contracting HIV via transfusion of blood or blood products in Hong Kong after 1985 are eligible to apply for the ex-gratia payment; if not, whether consideration will be given to making such people becoming so eligible; and

(g) whether the nationality or resident status of a person contracting HIV via transfusion of blood or blood products in Hong Kong is one of the deciding factors in determining the eligibility for receiving ex-gratia payment?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE:

(a) The total number of applications processed by the AIDS Trust Fund is as follows:

Category of applications
No of applications (as at 4 August 1997)				Received	Approved	Rejected	Withdrawn
Ex-gratia payments	60	56	4
Medical and support services	29*	23	4	1
Publicity and public education	182	142	33	7
Total	271	221	41	8

* one application is being processed.

(b) Of the applications processed, the highest and lowest payments to successful applications in respect of each category are as follows:

Approved Applications
Category		Highest amount	Lowest amount
$	$	$
Ex-gratia payments	32,150,000.00	1,000,000.00	300,000.00
Medical and support services	52,519,884.00	27, 762, 425.00	33,500.00
Publicity and public education	22,239,172.28	2,000,000.00	2,359.40
Total	$106,909,056. 28

(c) The criteria adopted by the Council for the AIDS Trust Fund (Council) for processing applications to the AIDS Trust Fund are as follows:

(i) Ex-gratia Payments

Applications for ex-gratia payments will be approved only if the recipients fall within one of the following three groups of persons:

(1) residents of Hong Kong who have been infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) through the transfusion of contaminated blood or blood products in Hong Kong prior to August 1985;

(2) spouses and children of the persons mentioned in (1) who have been secondarily infected with HIV; or

(3) a family member of the persons mentioned in (1) who have already passed away.

(ii) Medical and Support Services

To be approved, the proposals contained in the applications must directly benefit the HIV-infected patients or their families and should not duplicate services normally provided by the Hospital Authority and Department of Health.

(iii) Publicity and Public Education

To be approved, the proposed projects must contribute to the public understanding of AIDS, foster a sympathetic attitude toward those affected by this disease and help to instil a positive approach to the prevention of AIDS.

In examining the applications for funds for "Medical and Support Services" and "Publicity and Public Education", the Council also takes into account whether the proposals:

- have a clearly defined scope and are self-contained;

- are accompanied by an impact analysis and implementation programme;

- have ready detailed planning and cost estimates;

- are to be implemented by persons or organizations which have a good track record of completing projects without unnecessary delay or cost overruns.

(d) There is no readily available information on the longest, shortest and average time taken in processing the applications received since the establishment of the Fund. In accordance with the present vetting procedures, the processing time ranges from a few weeks for urgent cases to six months in cases where additional information from the applicant is required. The average processing time is about three months.

(e) Following a review in 1996, the Council has introduced improvement measures to streamline the procedures for processing applications. The Council has now set a fixed schedule for holding four rounds of Sub-Committee and Council meetings a year. The three categories of applications are first examined by the respective Sub-Committees and then by the Council for a final decision. The application deadlines for each round of meeting and the application procedures are announced through the media. A new application form has been introduced to facilitate the applicants in providing the necessary information. Applicants may also be invited to attend a meeting in person to present their applications and provide necessary clarifications.

(f) Under the terms of the Declaration of Trust establishing the AIDS Trust Fund, only persons who are Hong Kong residents and who contracted HIV via transfusion of contaminated blood or blood products in Hong Kong before August 1985 and their family members under conditions described in (c) are eligible for receiving the ex-gratia payments. The terms of the Trust do not permit amendment of these conditions.

(g) As described in (c), the resident status of the person contracting HIV is a relevant factor in determining the eligibility for receiving ex-gratia payment. The person must be a Hong Kong resident.

Fire Incidents on Buses

11. MR CHOY KAN-PUI (in Chinese): Regarding the recent occurrence within one day of fire accidents on three public buses in motion which has aroused public concern over the safety of bus passengers, will the Government inform this Council of:

(a) the number of fire accidents which occurred on buses in each of the past three years, together with the causes of such accidents; and

(b) the measures to be taken by the authority concerned to prevent the recurrence of fire accidents on buses in motion, so as to ensure the safety of the passengers?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT (in Chinese): Madam President, in each of the past three years, the number of fires which occurred on buses while in motion was 16, 15 and 15 (from January 1997 to July 1997) respectively. The main causes were fuel or oil leakage and electrical short circuit. Details are shown in the annex.

The Administration takes a serious view about the recent spate of fires on buses while in motion, even though no passengers were hurt. The Transport Department (TD) has worked with the franchised bus companies to investigate the cause of fire in each case. More specifically, the following measures have been taken:

(a) A fleet check was ordered for all buses with the same type of component as the ones found to have failed and caused the fire.

(b) As seven cases of fire this year were due to deterioration of the oil or fuel hose resulting in leakage, all franchised bus companies were required to inspect similar hoses, and replace those which are defective, and those which are approaching the end of their economic life.

(c) The TD has instructed franchised bus operators to tighten up their monthly maintenance inspection of their fleet to provide an early warning on mechanical and electrical defects.

(d) To tackle the problem of poor workmanship which caused one of the incidents, franchised bus companies were required to review and improve inspection and quality control procedures. Internal disciplinary action was also taken against the staff concerned.

(e) Franchised bus companies were also urged to step up enforcement of the no-smoking restrictions on buses to prevent recurrence of fire due to cigarette ends left behind by passengers, as in one recent case.

In addition, the TD has increased the daily surprise spot checks of in-service buses, from eight buses a day to 12 buses a day. Where there are indications of improper maintenance, the bus companies will be required to rectify the situation, and prosecution may also be instituted. All buses are inspected annually by the TD for roadworthiness before licences are renewed.

As an ongoing effort, franchised bus companies are urged to enhance the training of bus drivers in the handling of emergencies. The safety of passengers is always the key consideration.

Annex

Number of fires on buses in motion between 1995 and 1997 (January - July)

Causes	1995	1996	1997 (1 January 97 - 31 July 97)
Sparks from electric short circuit	6	3	7
Heat from engine due to fuel or oil leakage	10	9	7
Lighted smoking materials ignited nearby combustibles	0	0	1
Heat from exhaust piping or friction due to combustibles trapped under bus	0	2	0
Overheating of the brake lining after tire burst	0	1	0
Total	16	15	15

Source: Fire Services Department

Arrangement for Book Fair

12. MR HO SAI-CHU (in Chinese): It is learnt that the book fair held recently at the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre was intended to promote the sale of books as well as to enhance the cultural awareness of the public. However, most of the teenagers who attended the fair rushed to the comics stands, resulting in the venue becoming so crowded that some had even suffered injury. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council whether:

(a) consideration will be given to requesting book fair organizers to hold separate exhibitions at different times for the display of comics and other books in the future; and

(b) any specific plan is in place to promote reading among teenagers so as to enhance the cultural awareness of the community?

SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY (in Chinese): Madam President,

(a) The book fair in question was organized by the Trade Development Council (TDC). According to the TDC's past experience of holding similar book fairs, the comics stands were usually very crowded on the first day of the fairs. In view of this, the comics stands section was purposefully separated from the other sections of the TDC's book fair this year. The situation was improved as compared to the past. Admittedly, there were still many visitors, mostly teenagers, swarming towards the comics stands on the first day of the book fair, and the venue was rather crowded. However, for an exhibition with 350 000 admissions within six days, the order was on the whole satisfactory. According to a survey conducted by the TDC at the venue during the book fair, both organizers and visitors were generally satisfied with the new arrangements. The TDC will monitor the situation closely and adopt measures to ease the flow of people when organizing exhibitions of a similar nature in future. It is considered that for the time being it is not necessary to display comics at a different time.

(b) All along the Government has been concerned with our students' language proficiency and is keen to cultivate a reading habit among the youngsters. Our policies and specific measures include the following:

1. In 1986, the Government began to encourage secondary schools to adopt the mother-tongue as the medium of instruction and ever since, we have been providing additional resources (including a lump sum grant of $18,000 for purchasing books) to those schools which use the mother-tongue as the medium of instruction.

2. In 1994, the Language Fund was set up with an injection of $300 million from the Government to finance and promote projects for enhancement of our students' proficiency in both Chinese and English. In the past two years, the Language Fund committed over $13 million to a total of 19 projects on reading and writing (17 projects on Chinese, one on English and one on cross-language activities), including English and Chinese reading schemes, Youth Literary Awards, poetry writing and essay competitions, as well as reading activities for parents and children organized by various schools.

3. Over the years, the Education Department has been actively promoting the Extensive Reading Scheme in primary and secondary schools to encourage students to read more good quality Chinese and English books. By cultivating students' interest in reading and helping them develop a reading habit, the scheme aims to improve their language proficiency and broaden their horizons. At present, the Secondary 1 to 3 students of 173 secondary schools and the Primary 5 to 6 students of 84 primary schools have participated in the English Extensive Reading Scheme. Besides, the Primary 5 to 6 students of 34 primary schools have participated in the Chinese Extensive Reading Scheme. The total number of student participants exceeds 111 000. In the 1997-98 Budget, the Government has allocated more than $100 million for extending the Chinese and English Reading Schemes to all levels in government primary and secondary schools in the next four years with a view to promoting reading in schools and thereby into society as well.

4. A Reading Award Scheme has been jointly organized by the Education Department and the Shun Hing Group since 1988 to encourage students to do more reading and make good use of library resources. A total of 622 primary and secondary schools, with more than 95 000 students, have participated in the scheme this year.

We believe the above measures will not only foster reading among teenagers, but also enhance their cultural awareness.

National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance and Regional Flag and Regional Emblem Ordinance

13. MR LAU WONG-FAT (in Chinese): The National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance and the Regional Flag and Regional Emblem Ordinance, which strictly regulate the hoisting of the national flag and regional flag, have already come into operation. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) which government department is responsible for monitoring whether private organizations have complied with the stipulations for the hoisting of the national flag and regional flag;

(b) what procedures the relevant department will adopt in advising those private organizations found to have breached the stipulations for the hoisting of the national flag and regional flag to comply with such stipulations;

(c) whether any complaints have been received concerning the hoisting of the national flag and regional flag in an improper manner; if so, of the total number of such complaints received; and

(d) whether consideration will be given to conducting a large-scale publicity campaign, including the setting up of an enquiry hotline, so as to enable private organizations to have a better understanding of the stipulations for the hoisting of the national flag and regional flag?

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

(a) In accordance with the Stipulations for the Display and Use of the National Flag and National Emblem and the Regional Flag and Regional Emblem made by the Chief Executive under section 3(2) of the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance and section 3(1) of the Regional Flag and Regional Emblem Ordinance, the Director of Administration is responsible for specifying which government offices and organizations as well as other organizations should display the national and regional flags on certain days. The Administration Wing of the Chief Secretary for Administration's Office is also responsible for advising these offices and organizations on the display of these flags. As regards whether private organizations comply with the stipulations for the display of the national and regional flag, the Administration Wing of the Chief Secretary for Administration's Office will act on complaint when reports of non-compliance with the stipulations are received.

(b) Both the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance and the Regional Flag and Regional Emblem Ordinance have clear provisions on the hoisting of the national and regional flags in proper manner. On request or on complaint, the Administration Wing of the Chief Secretary for Administration's Office and the Protocol Office will provide advice to private organizations in this regard.

(c) A number of enquiries concerning the display of the national flag and regional flags have been received. However, there have not been any complaints concerning the display of the national and regional flags in an improper manner.

(d) The Administration Wing of the Chief Secretary for Administration's Office and the Protocol Office will continue to provide advice to private organizations. Any organization which wishes to obtain such advice can write to the Director of Administration or the Director of Protocol. At present, there is no plan for any publicity campaign.

Educating People on the Values of Honesty, Integrity and the Law

14. DR DAVID LI: According to a recent survey conducted by the Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups on behalf of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, an increasing number of young people believe bribery is acceptable and one in five of the respondents think there is nothing wrong with breaking the law to make money. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council of any plans in place to educate the young people on the values of honesty, integrity and the law?

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr President, the Government has devised programmes, both in and outside school, to educate students and other young people on the values of honesty, integrity and the law.

It has always been the aim and policy of the Government to provide balanced education for our students. Honesty, integrity and the rule of law have been important elements in the school curriculum and in extra-curricular activities. Relevant topics have been included in the existing subjects of Chinese Language, General Studies, Social Studies, Economic and Public Affairs and Religious Education at both primary and secondary levels. The Guidelines on Civic Education in Schools (1996) have also established honesty, principled morality and common good as the built-in core values of schools' civic education programmes. In this context, the Curriculum Development Council will further strengthen references to these important values when syllabuses of the relevant subjects are revised.

To assist schools in teaching these important values, the Education Department will provide a number of courses on civic education for teachers during the 1997-98 school year. The Education Department has also produced teaching resources for distribution to schools, including the packages on Personal and Social Education for junior secondary and primary levels. The series on "Moral Education Reference Materials" are issued to schools from time to time. The coming issue, scheduled to reach schools in late 1998, will suggest activities on related topics.

The ICAC, Commission on Youth and the Committee on Promotion of Civic Education have also contributed to the moral education of young people.

Young people have always been accorded high priority in ICAC's educational and publicity effort. In order to meet the needs of young people of various age groups, products and projects of different formats have been designed to spread anti-corruption messages through a variety of channels. These products and activities include:

(a) conduct anti-corruption talks for final year students of secondary schools, technical institutes and tertiary institutions;

(b) organize student activities in conjunction with organizations such as School Liaison Committees, Headmasters' Associations, Student Associations, Student Affairs Offices to promote positive values;

(d) promote training on ethics by providing information portfolios for students of different faculties and by co-organizing activities with tertiary institutions;

(e) inculcate work ethics among young workers through activities such as workshops and seminars;

(f) tap the resources of the voluntary agencies and youth organisations to promote ethics among young people by inviting them to participate in the ICAC's Youth Ethics Participation Programme; and

(g) create a social atmosphere conducive to the promotion of positive values through mass media publicity such as radio and TV programmes.

The Commission on Youth (the Commission) was set up in 1990 to advise the Government on matters pertaining to youth. In 1993, the Commission promulgated the Charter for Youth (the Charter), which enunciates the principles and ideals on youth development such as the development of a proper sense of social values. The Charter provides a point of reference for policy makers, youth service providers and other parties involved in promoting the welfare of youth. To date, more than 390 organizations and around 2 000 individuals have subscribed to the Charter.

Apart from promoting the Charter, the Commission is also undertaking a study to examine the moral values of young people today. The objectives of the study are to examine the fundamental issues involved in influencing young people's attitude and social values and to explore the means to convey positive and proper messages to them. The study is expected to be completed by the end of this year where recommendations will be drawn up to Government departments and organisations concerned for consideration and follow-up actions.

The Committee on the Promotion of Civic Education (CPCE) promotes responsible citizenship and the rule of law as an ongoing civic education programme. The subjects covered by the committee's promotional activities under the general theme of "responsible citizenship" include honesty, integrity, self-discipline and self-respect.

To this end, the CPCE has produced a handbook for parents (400 000 copies) and has jointly produced a civic education package for youngsters "Towards Good Citizenship" with the ICAC in May 1997.

The Government will continue to closely monitor the situation and keep under review its educational and publicity programmes in this area.

Man On Shan Railway Project

15. MRS MIRIAM LAU (in Chinese): The Government indicated in March this year that the feasibility study of the Ma On Shan Railway Project (the Project) had been completed. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the findings of the above feasibility study as well as the proposals relating to route alignment;

(b) of the progress to date in examining the findings of the feasibility study;

(c) whether, apart from conducting a feasibility study, the Government has drawn up any timetable for carrying out technical and financial studies concerning the implementation of the various proposals of the Project; if so, what the details are; and

(d) of the date when a decision on the Project is expected to be made, and the date when the Ma On Shan Railway is expected to be completed?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT (in Chinese): Madam President, the Ma On Shan to Tai Wai rail link (MOS rail), together with the extension of the Kowloon-Canton Railway from Hung Hom to Tsim Sha Tsui, is one of the three high priority projects recommended under the 1994 Railway Development Strategy (RDS). The engineering feasibility study on the project has been completed and the main recommendations in respect of the MOS rail are as follows:

(a) There should be nine stations, namely, Tai Wai, Sha Tin Tau, Sha Kok Street, City One, Shek Mun, Chevalier Garden, Heng On, Ma On Shan and Lee On and the depot should be at Tai Wai;

(b) It should be a reduced heavy rail system (that is four-car MTR-type trains). Such a system would allow trains to be lengthened if necessary to cater for the possible future extension of the MOS rail into the urban area; and

(c) The civil works of the railway should be designed to cater for possible future extension of the railway. The consultants have proposed the adoption of side platforms which can be lengthened in future to cater for longer trains.

The Administration is considering the recommendations of the engineering feasibility study, and the appropriate financial and institutional arrangements for implementing the project. The timing for the commencement and completion of the project will be clearer after we have completed such deliberations.

School Improvement Programme

16. MR YEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Chinese): It is learnt that the management of many schools have revealed that there is slow progress in the school improvement projects and that problems occur in many areas, such as the failure of the department concerned to provide schools with lists of furniture items and guidelines for the purchase of such items, the lack of ancillary furniture and equipment in activity rooms, and so on. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council of the progress of the School Improvement Programme, and whether ancillary facilities such as furniture, equipment and air conditioners will be provided to schools?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Chinese): Madam President, based on the recommendation of the Education Commission Report No. 5, the Government has been implementing the School Improvement Programme (SIP) since 1993. The SIP aims at improving the teaching and learning environment of existing primary and secondary schools up to the latest standards where practicable. Under the SIP, existing primary and secondary schools are provided with additional classrooms and other facilities including libraries, student activity rooms, additional staff rooms, staff common rooms and interview rooms. The Government is implementing the SIP by phases at all primary and secondary schools where it is necessary and feasible to carry out improvement works.

Up to July 1997, the Government has carried out feasibility studies at 408 schools. It is not suitable to carry out improvement works at 61 schools at this stage for various technical reasons. As for the 347 schools found feasible for improvement works, works at 64 schools have been completed and those at 138 are in progress. Works at the remaining 145 schools will commence soon. Besides, the Government is carrying out feasibility studies at another 59 schools.

Schools which participate in the SIP are granted an allowance to purchase necessary furniture and equipment (F/E) for the additional rooms. Normally, a few months before the completion of improvement works, the Education Department will send an F/E list to the schools concerned and advise them the procedure for the purchase of the F/E items.

According to the existing standards, air-conditioners will be installed in staff rooms, staff common rooms and interview rooms. As for classrooms and special rooms (except the student activity rooms), if they are affected by traffic noise exceeding 65 dB, they will be provided with air-conditioning under the Noise Abatement Programme.

Ex-gratia payment for fishermen

17. MR NGAN KAM-CHUEN (in Chinese): Currently the criteria adopted by the Agriculture and Fisheries Department (AFD) for calculating ex gratia allowances paid to fishermen are based on the types of fish caught outside Hong Kong waters. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council whether the AFD will consider conducting tests on the response of fish caught in Hong Kong waters to different suspended solid concentrations, and using the results as the basis for determining the amount of ex gratia allowances granted; if not, why not?

SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES (in Chinese): Madam President, on 23 July 1993, the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council approved a proposal that mariculturists should be eligible for ex gratia allowances when the concentration of solid matter suspended in the waters of fish culture zones affected by dredging or dumping activities either:

(a) reaches 100% more than the highest level recorded at the zone during the five years before commencement of works in the vicinity; or

(b) reaches 50 mg per litre.

In determining these criteria, reference was made to various overseas literature and studies, particularly those related to fish species living naturally in very clear water. The lowest concentration of solid matter known to have a negative impact on the life expectancy of fish is 90 mg per litre of water and the lowest concentration known to increase susceptibility to fish disease is 100 mg per litre. The criterion of 50 mg per litre therefore provides a reasonable margin of safety for local mariculturists, particularly when it is taken into account that the majority of fish cultured in Hong Kong are estuarine species more tolerant to water with higher levels of suspended solids.

Since these arrangements were introduced, ex gratia allowances have been paid to mariculturists in two fish culture zones when the concentration of solid matter suspended in the waters of the zones concerned reached the levels necessary to trigger payments.

As the existing arrangements are fair and working satisfactorily, there is no need to conduct tests on the effects of different concentrations of suspended solids on local fish species or to review the basis for determining the amount of ex gratia allowances granted.

Hong Kong Residents' Spouses and Offsprings Living in the Mainland

18. MR HUI YIN-FAT (in Chinese): Regarding Hong Kong residents' spouses and offsprings living in the Mainland, will the Government inform this Council of:

(a) the numbers of such spouses and offsprings as at the end of last year;

(b) the respective proportions of the above offsprings who are of the appropriate age to receive education in kindergartens, primary and secondary schools in Hong Kong, who are within the age group of 18 to 30, and who are above the age of 30;

(c) the number of Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) recipients who applied for CSSA in each of the past three years because their spouses were living in the Mainland and that they had to give up their jobs in order to look after their children in Hong Kong; and

(d) the amount of expenditure in respect of CSSA cases mentioned in (c) above in each of the past three years?

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

(a) As Hong Kong residents are not required to inform the Government of their marriages which take place outside Hong Kong and the birth of children to them outside Hong Kong, we do not have the number of spouses of and children born to Hong Kong residents in the Mainland. However, some indicative figures are as follows:

(i) the number of one-way permit applications from spouses of Hong Kong residents stood at about 95 000 as at mid-July;

(ii) the number of children born in the Mainland before 1 July 1997 who will have the right of abode in Hong Kong under Basic Law Article 24(2)(3) and who are below 20 years of age (hereafter referred to as eligible children) is estimated to be about 66 000.

(b) We do not have a breakdown by age of the 66 000 eligible children who have applied for one-way permits. Based on the arrival pattern of immigrants aged 20 and under who arrived in 1996, it is estimated that the percentage breakdown by age is as follows:

Age	Percentage
3 - 5	25
6 - 11	41
12 - 18	25

(c) The CSSA Scheme aims to provide assistance to those financially vulnerable members of our community in meeting their basic needs regardless of their sex, age, family status or background. Any individual or family who is in need and who meets our eligibility criteria will be rendered assistance. The Social Welfare Department (SWD) therefore does not maintain separate records on CSSA recipients whose spouses are living in the Mainland and who have to give up their jobs to look after their children in Hong Kong.

(d) Following from (c) above, the SWD does not have separate statistics on payments to the specified category of CSSA recipients.

Prices of Residential Flats

19. MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council of the highest, lowest and average selling prices per sq ft in respect of the following categories of private residential properties in Hong Kong in each of the past five years:

(a) luxury residential flats on Hong Kong Island;

(b) non-luxury residential flats on Hong Kong Island;

(d) residential flats in the New Territories?

SECRETARY FOR HOUSING (in Chinese): Madam President, information on the highest, lowest and average selling prices per square foot of private residential flats in Hong Kong in the past five years is as follows:

Table 1:

Small and medium sized flats

(saleable floor area of less than 1 076 sq ft)

Hong Kong Island	Kowloon	New Territories
($/sq ft)	($/sq ft)	($/sq ft)
1992	Highest	--------------------------	Not available	-----------------------
Average	3,772	3,031	3,025
Lowest	--------------------------	Not available	-----------------------
1993	Highest	11,399	9,779	7,260
Average	4,344	3,560	3,381
Lowest	866	608	551
1994	Highest	16,233	12,224	10,778
Average	5,468	4,151	3,883
Lowest	670	513	442
1995	Highest	14,424	10,483	9,734
Average	5,076	3,960	3,642
Lowest	920	681	383
1996	Highest	22,859	14,414	10,059
Average	5,592	4,368	3,973
Lowest	971	804	428

Table 2:

Large flats

(saleable floor area of 1 076 sq ft or more)

Hong Kong Island	Kowloon	New Territories
($/sq ft)	($/sq ft)	($/sq ft)
1992	Highest	--------------------------	Not available	-----------------------
Average	3,929	3,390	3,060
Lowest	--------------------------	Not available	-----------------------
1993	Highest	14,073	7,780	10,332
Average	4,932	4,047	3,863
Lowest	1,296	785	1,063
1994	Highest	20,041	13,185	10,744
Average	7,157	5,228	5,117
Lowest	1,567	844	977
1995	Highest	17,605	9,916	10,823
Average	6,423	5,012	4,592
Lowest	1,672	867	820
1996	Highest	21,043	13,649	13,821
Average	7,926	5,500	5,185
Lowest	1,858	923	836

Performance Pledges of Government Departments and Public Bodies

20. MR CHAN CHOI-HI (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council whether there will be a comprehensive review of the performance pledges of all government departments and public bodies; if so, when and how the review will be carried out?

CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Chinese): Madam President, every government department which serves the public directly and 10 departments rendering internal services have now made Performance Pledges.

Since the inception of Performance Pledge in 1992, departments concerned have been pushing for continuous improvements in their respective services by enhancing performance targets, extending pledges to cover new areas and making their services more attuned to customers' expectations.

There is, nevertheless, after five years, merit in our conducting a more general review of the Government's programme of performance pledges and the extent to which it is being adopted by the public bodies. Such a review will be conducted by the Efficiency Unit later this year.

BILLS

First Reading of Bills

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): First Reading of Bills.

HONG KONG COURT OF FINAL APPEAL (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1997

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BILL

CLERK (in Cantonese): Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (Amendment)

(No. 2) Bill 1997

Legislative Council Bill

Bills read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Rule 53(3) of the Rules of Procedure.

Second Reading of Bills

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Second Reading of Bills. Secretary for Justice.

HONG KONG COURT OF FINAL APPEAL (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1997.

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE (in Cantonese): Madam President, I move that the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 1997 be read the Second time. The purpose of this Bill is to make technical amendments to the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

Under the existing Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, those permanent judges who are eligible to be appointed as Acting Chief Justice must be Chinese Citizens who are permanent residents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region with no right of abode in any foreign country. At present, no permanent judge can meet this requirement. As a result, whenever the Chief Justice is absent for any cause, the post of Chief Justice may become vacant, and there will be no one to discharge the respective statutory powers and functions.

In order to prevent such a situation from arising, we propose to amend section 5 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, to the effect that in case the Chief Justice is ill or absent for any cause, and no permanent judge can be appointed to act as Chief Justice because no permanent judge is "eligible to be appointed as the Chief Justice", the Chief Executive shall need to appoint the next most senior permanent judge as Acting Chief Justice.

Madam President, since the amendment is just technical in nature, I do urge Members to pass this Bill into law as soon as possible.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill be read the Second time.

In accordance with Rule 54(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the debate is now adjourned and the Bill referred to the House Committee. Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BILL

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Madam President, I move the Second Reading of the Legislative Council Bill.

Members of this Council, I believe, will agree that one of the most important tasks which the Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government must tackle is to make electoral arrangements for the first Legislative Council next year. In doing so, the SAR Government considers it equally important to ensure that the election will be conducted in an honest, open, fair and acceptable manner to the public. In this connection, we will make the best of our endeavour to ensure that all candidates, whether they run in direct elections, functional constituency elections or Election Committee elections, will be able to compete on an equal footing. We are also determined to make the entire election process fair and highly transparent, so that the public may understand more about the electoral system and thus have more faith in it. That way, it is hoped that the credibility of the Legislative Council can be enhanced.

Over the past few months, the various sectors of the community have held very in-depth discussions on the relevant electoral arrangements. On 8 July, the Government announced the overall electoral arrangements for the first Legislative Council. Following this, with a view to soliciting the views of the public on a more extensive basis, we published a consultation document in late July on the delineation of the electorate for the nine new functional constituencies and the Election Committee. Now, after thoroughly considering the views of the public, the Government has drafted this Bill, which seeks to lay down a legal basis for the Legislative Council's electoral arrangements, including the delineation of the electorate for functional constituencies and the Election Committee.

As for the specific technicalities of these electoral arrangements, such as the ceiling for election expenses and the procedures of voter registration, separate subsidiary legislation will be drawn up and put before this Council at a later date. Since Members are already very familiar with most of the proposals contained in this Bill, I will just give a further elaboration on some of its important principles. But, before I do that, let me first discuss the aims and development of representative government in Hong Kong.

According to the political development blueprint for the SAR as laid down in the Basic Law, the method for forming the Legislative Council shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the SAR and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate goal is the election of all Members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage. In fact, the Basic Law states that after 2007, if there is then a consensus in the community, the method for forming the Legislative Council may be amended in accordance with the relevant provisions. That being the case, when we draw up the electoral arrangements for the first Legislative Council, we should adopt a far-sighted vision, and work gradually toward the ultimate goal of universal suffrage. The various electoral proposals contained in this Bill have been formulated precisely with this ultimate goal in mind.

Now, let me explain the factors which we have considered in the course of creating the functional constituencies and delineating their respective electorates. Under the system we have all along adopted, there is indeed universal suffrage for geographical constituency elections. However, the creation of functional constituencies and the delineation of their respective electorate have never been based on the concept of universal suffrage. The purpose of creating functional constituencies is to ensure that those occupations in the industrial, commercial, economic and various other sectors which have made significant contributions to the community can be adequately represented in the Legislative Council. What is more, these sectors are expected to serve the legislative assembly with their professional expertise and thus enhance its operation. All along, we have followed a set of well-established and transparent criteria for the creation of functional constituencies which requires, among other things, that a functional constituency must be representative of a well-established and significant sector in Hong Kong and that its composition must be capable of a clear-cut definition. When working on the creation of the nine new functional constituencies, we adopted precisely the aforesaid long-standing concept and criteria.

As for the delineation and size of functional constituency electorates, we note that there are divergent views and voices in the community. But, I wish to point out that in discussing the delineation of functional constituency electorates, we should not focus on the size of electorates, but should assess whether or not a particular functional constituency can in fact adequately and truly represent the sector concerned. I am convinced that our recommendations in this respect can meet this requirement. Generally speaking, the functional constituencies will be composed of major organizations representative of the relevant sectors, and each electorate of the functional constituencies concerned should generally include the corporate members of these major organizations. Besides, establishments originated from some form of registration or licensing system specific to the relevant sector may also be included. In the case of electorates of professional constituencies, these will be based on membership of those professions with well-established and recognized qualifications.

I must emphaisze that our ultimate goal is to establish a 60-seat Legislative Council which is wholly returned by an election based on universal suffrage. For that reason, when we discuss the relevant electoral arrangements, we should focus on this long-term objective. Let me use an example to illustrate my point. The Bill recommends the adoption of proportional representation for the geographical constituency elections next year. It is generally recognized that proportional representation can reflect the views of electors by means of the allocation of seats among candidates. But, besides this merit, this system of election has the added strength of being able to tie in with the long-term objective of our political development. Since proportional representation works on the concept of large constituencies with multiple seats, we will not need to introduce any drastic changes to the delineation of constituencies if we wish to increase the number of geographical constituency seats in the future.

Let me now briefly introduce the broad thrust of this Bill. First, the qualifications of voters. A person who is eligible to be registered as a voter for a geographical constituency must be a permanent resident of the SAR who is 18 years of age or above and ordinarily resident in the SAR. As for functional constituencies, a person who is eligible to be registered as a voter must be registered as an voter for a geographical constituency, and a corporate voter may authorize a proxy to vote on its behalf.

Concerning the qualifications of functional constituency electors, the Bill sets out a "12-month" requirement. This is intended to ensure that only a person who has genuine connection with a functional constituency can become a voter and vote in an election, thereby eliminating the possibility of "vote planting". The essence of this requirement is that a body which is a corporate member of a representative body in a functional constituency is eligible to be registered as a corporate voter for that particular functional constituency only if it has been a corporate member of the representative body and has been operating for 12 months immediately before making its application for registration as a voter. As for a natural person who is a member of the representative body, he or she is eligible to be registered as a voter for the functional constituency only if he or she has been a member of the representative body for the 12 months immediately before making an application for registration as a voter.

The Bill also specifies that, under some specified circumstances, a person will be disqualified from being registered as a voter; or, even if a person has already been registered as a voter, the person will still be disqualified from casting his vote in an election. Specifically, persons of unsound mind, members of the armed forces of any country, prisoners, fugitives and persons who have been convicted of some specified crimes over the past three years from the date of the election to be held will all be disqualified.

Let me just add that in order to prepare for achieving the long-term goal of full direct elections, the Government will also step up the work of voter registration for geographical constituencies. For a long time, the Government has been doing its utmost to increase the number of registered voters for geographical constituencies, and various means have been adopted to encourage citizens to register as voters. After many years of hard work and efforts, more than 2.5 million citizens have registered as voters, representing more than 60% of all eligible citizens. But, we are not complacent. To prepare for the election of the first Legislative Council next year, we will allocate all such resources as may be appropriately required to launch a full-scale voter registration campaign. Our ultimate aim is to register all eligible citizens. At the same time, we will also make use of this opportunity to update the electoral registers, so that the accuracy of electoral registers can be improved. In order to achieve this aim, the Government is positively exploring the possibility of conducting a household-to-household registration exercise.

As for the qualification of candidates, the Bill specifies that a person is eligible to be nominated as a candidate at a geographical constituency election if the person has reached 21 years of age; is registered as an elector for a geographical constituency; and has ordinarily resided in Hong Kong for the three years immediately preceding the nomination. For functional constituencies, a person is eligible to be nominated as a candidate at a functional constituency election if the person is registered as a voter for a geographical constituency; and is registered as a voter for a functional constituency or can prove that he or she has substantial connection with the constituency. In regard to the 10 Legislative Council seats returned by the Election Committee, they are open to contest by all geographical constituency electors.

The Bill also stipulates that permanent residents of the SAR who are not of Chinese nationality, or permanent residents of the SAR who have right of abode in foreign countries can run in the elections for the 12 specified functional constituencies. This provision is added to give recognization to the significant contributions made by expatriates to Hong Kong over the years, and to take account of the fact that there is a far greater number of expatriates in functional constituencies than in geographical constituencies.

Next, I will brief Members on the system of voting specified in the Bill. For geographical constituency elections, there will be a total of five constituencies, each with three to five seats, making up a total of 20 seats for all geographical constituencies. The elections will be conducted in accordance with a voting system known as the list system of proportional representation. A body participating in the election must nominate candidates in the form of a list. But, to take account of independent candidates, the Government will also accept "single candidate's lists". At an election, a voter is entitled to cast a single vote for a list. Votes will be counted by applying the largest remainder formula.

For functional constituencies, the system of "single vote, single seat" will be adopted basically. However, in the case of the six constituencies which has the smallest electorate, namely, those of the Urban Council, Regional Council, Heung Yee Kuk, Agriculture and Fisheries, Insurance, as well as Transport, the preferential elimination system of voting will be applied. Under such a system of voting, the number of votes received by an elected candidate of a constituency will at least reach 50% of the total number of votes for that constituency, thus ensuring that he or she can command a majority support of all the voters. Besides, for the Labour functional constituency which has three seats, the "first past the post" voting system will be applied. In other words, a voter may cast as many as three votes, and the voting results will be determined in accordance with the simple majority rule.

As for the Election Committee, it will elect 10 Members of the Legislative Council in accordance with the simple majority system of election. And, the composition of the Election Committee is also specified in detail in the Bill. Most of the 800 members of the Election Committee will be returned by elections held within the subsectors of the sectors belonging to the constituencies concerned, and the election process will be monitored by the Electoral Affairs Commission to be set up, so as to ensure complete openness and fairness.

Finally, I wish to remind Members of the time urgency relating to this election. In order that the election can be conducted at the end of May next year as scheduled, a number of important procedures must first be completed. For example, the Electoral Affairs Commission must submit its recommendations on the delineation of constituencies to the Chief Executive before the statutory deadline in late October; the registration of voters must be conducted between the end of this year and January next year; the registers of voters must be published before mid-March; and, the Election Committee must be set up by early April.

It can thus be seen that the schedule is indeed very tight, with many of its procedures and deadlines fixed by law. Moreover, many of the procedures are inter-related, such that the progress of each and every procedure will directly affect the commencement of another procedure. For example, the Electoral Affairs Commission can commence its work on constituencies delineation only after the number of geographical constituencies has been finalized; and, in turn, the number of geographical constituencies can be finalized only after this Bill has been enacted.

Owing to the aforesaid reasons and various other circumstances, time is extremely important for the entire process of the election, and no delay can be allowed. The Government will make the best of its endeavour to ensure that all the work required will be completed before the respective deadlines. What is more, we also hope that this Council will complete the relevant legislative process as soon as possible, so as to provide a legal basis for the various preparation work required.

Before closing, I wish to take this opportunity to thank members of the Bills Committee on the Electoral Affairs Commission Bill for their efforts, which have enabled the Bill to be scruntized quickly for the resumption of Second Reading debate next week. This will greatly assist the smooth conduct of the election.

With these remarks, Madam President, I commend the Legislative Council Bill to this Council for prompt enactment.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Legislative Council Bill be read the Second time. In accordance with Rule 54(4) of the Rules of procedure, the debate is now adjourned and the Bill referred to the House Committee.

MOTION

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Motion under the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance. Chief Secretary for Administration.

INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL CLAUSES ORDINANCE

CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION: Madam President, I move the motion as set out under my name on the Agenda.

The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Rules Committee made the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Rules (the Rules) of 1 July 1997. The Rules were gazetted on the same date and tabled at the Council Meeting on 9 July 1997. The aim of the Rules is to provide for the procedures and practice for appeals to the Court of Final Appeal.

I would like to thank the Honourable Ronald ARCULLI and other members of the Subcommittee for their careful scrutiny of the Rules. After consideration, the Subcommittee supports the Rules and has made certain drafting points for the Rules Committee's consideration. I understand that all other substantive queries on the Rules have also been satisfactorily answered by the Judiciary Administrator. We agree that four technical amendments should be made to the Rules to make the provisions clearer.

Madam President, I beg to move.

The Chief Secretary for Administration moved the following motion:

"That the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Rules, published as Legal Notice No. 384 of 1997 and laid on the table of the Provisional Legislative Council on 9 July 1997, be amended -

(a) in rule 5(2) and (3) by repealing "《區域" and substituting "《地方";

(b) in rules 57, 74, 75 and 76 by repealing "High Court" wherever it appears and substituting "Supreme Court";

(d) in Form A in Schedule 1 by repealing "/Criminal"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Rules, published as Legal Notice No. 384 of 1997, be amended in accordance with the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance as set out on the Agenda.

Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated to speak)

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.

MEMBERS' MOTION

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members' Motion. A motion with no legal effect. I have accepted the recommendations of the House Committee as to the time limits on speeches for motion debate. The mover of the motion will have 15 minutes for his speech including his reply, and another five minutes to speak on the proposed amendment. Other Members, including the movers of the amendments, 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. Mrs Selina CHOW.

Vietnamese boat people

MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Madam President, as we all know, this is not the first time we move a motion on abolishing the port of first asylum policy in this Chamber.

I have two cogent reasons for moving a similar motion yet again.

First, since I am convinced that this is the right thing to do, I must get it done. Actually, as early as late June, when the repatriation scheme for boat people had to end despite efforts of the British Hong Kong Administration, we should have changed our way of looking at this problem. Moreover, when the Comprehensive Plan of Action (CPA) ended last year, we should have abolished the port of first asylum policy altogether.

Second, most political organizations or bodies of Hong Kong, be they radical or conservative, have all reached a definite consensus on what we should do concerning this issue. Therefore, we can see no reason for the continuation of this policy.

Even Refugee Concern Hong Kong and other humanitarian or human rights groups have said that the port of first asylum policy should be abolished. We know only too well that those Vietnamese boat people who come to Hong Kong these days are actually not refugees anymore; they are just economic migrants. But, since they have not entered Hong Kong through proper channels, they can only be treated as unwelcome illegal immigrants.

The only remaining obstacle seems to come from the Government itself. When they discuss this issue with the press on informal occasions, government officials seem to worry that abolishing the port of first asylum policy may well impair the international image of Hong Kong, and that once this policy is abolished, it will become impossible for Hong Kong to recover the $1.1 billion owed to it by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). Moreover, they are also worried that the abolition of the policy may create operational difficulties for our enforcement agencies.

When it comes to the UNHCR, we must frankly admit that its staff have devoted tremendous efforts to assisting Hong Kong in dealing with the problem of Vietnamese refugees or boat people. For example, from the 1970s when the problem first emerged to April this year, they have arranged for the overseas resettlement of some 143 000 Vietnamese refugees from Hong Kong. During the same period of time, they have arranged for the repatriation to Vietnam of more than 60 000 Vietnamese boat people or illegal immigrants. It should be noted that even the staff of the UNHCR, who have such a professional understanding of the issue, have admitted that the problem we are facing now is one of illegal immigrants from Vietnam, not of political refugees. For that reason, we actually have sufficient grounds to justify our abolition of the policy, and the staff of the UNHCR should also clarify the situation to the whole world.

According to press reports today, when the Government talked about the abolition of the policy, it said that the relevant ordinance must be amended. What this implies is that the procedures involved will not be as smooth and straightforward as imagined. Some journalist friends of mine have also asked me why I have not considered moving a Members' Bill to force the Government to abolish the policy.

In response, I have sought legal advice, and have come to understand that the powers conferred on the Director of Immigration under section 13(A) of the Immigration Ordinance, which enable him or her to exercise control over the various arrangements regarding refugees in Hong Kong, were in fact absolutely required when the port of first asylum policy and the screening policy were introduced years back. Today, some 1 000 refugees are still stranded in Hong Kong. For that reason, the Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government must put in place an unambiguous policy to solve the problem of refugees stranded in Hong Kong once and for all. For example, it should persuade third countries to accept these refugees (though the chance of success is really very slim). Alternatively, the Government should persuade the refugees to return to Vietnam voluntarily (which is not at all easy either). Besides, there is one more alternative, an alternative which the Hong Kong people would hate to consider, but one which they may be forced to adopt eventually. This alternative is to allow these refugees to stay in Hong Kong. These various different alternatives may have to be adopted eventually to solve the refugee problem once and for all. Once this problem is eradicated, the relevant section of the aforesaid ordinance may then be deleted, but before this happens, the Director of Immigration must still be vested with these powers. That said, I must still point out that the powers set out in the ordinance are entirely irrelevant to the abolition of the policy under discussion today, and, the abolition of the policy will not require any legislative amendments as claimed.

As far as enforcement is concerned, once the port of first asylum policy is abolished, marine interception operations must be stepped up. But, I cannot buy the viewpoint that stepping up such operations is necessarily tantamount to treating illegal entrants without humanity.

Instead of buying this viewpoint, I would say that this mentality of government officials is precisely one of the reasons for the dilemma we are facing today. Why has Hong Kong become the largest reception centre for the exodus of refugees or illegal migrants from Vietnam over the past 20 years or so? Since the 1970s, a total of 200 000 Vietnamese people have entered Hong Kong, and they have either been resettled overseas as refugees or repatriated to Vietnam as illegal immigrants. What is more, for repatriation alone, the number is already as large as 60 000-odd, which is twice the combined repatriation total for all ASEAN countries.

The major reason for this phenomenon, I believe, is that Southeast Asian countries in general have been able to take firm and decisive actions against this problem, but, we in Hong Kong have been circumscribed by the United States and the United Kingdom. As a result, our policy has been characterized by a lack of determination and decisiveness, thus making Hong Kong the most convenient destination for those Vietnamese people who want to sneak out of their country in search for jobs and a better life.

For that reason, I cannot agree that we should continue to refrain from tackling this problem. If, as claimed by some government officials, this policy now exists in name only, I would say that it is high time we told the whole world accordingly.

Regarding the "exist-in-name-only" status of the port of first asylum policy, in case the Vietnamese can only read the message of "exist" from it, and in case only the Hong Kong people can read the message of "in name only", then such a state of nominal existence will certainly do no good but harm to both the Hong Kong people and those Vietnamese who intend to sneak into Hong Kong. Therefore, why should we continue to allow this policy to exist in name only? I fail to see why.

No, there is no reason for us to do so. Instead, we have a very special need to point out explicitly to those Vietnamese who want to chart the high seas to sneak into Hong Kong that the policy making Hong Kong a port of first asylum has changed, and that, therefore, they will not be permitted to enter the territories of Hong Kong. A clear message to this effect will certainly deter boat people and discourage them from coming to Hong Kong illegally. This will do justice to the Hong Kong people, and this is the decision which we must make.

However much I wish to see a prompt solution to the problem of Vietnamese illegal immigrants, I will not be so naive as to believe that we can solve all problems just by abolishing the port of first asylum policy. Whether as a civic-minded member of the community, or in my capacity as a Member of the former and current Legislative Councils who has been playing a part in handling the problem over the years, I am deeply aware of the intricacies surrounding the problem, not least because I have been to Vietnam, where I negotiated with local officials and visited some families who were sent back to their country through repatriation.

For as long as northern Vietnam remains backward in economic development, and for as long as the unemployment problem in this country remains unresolved, the Vietnamese will still attempt to extricate themselves from the state of poverty by hook or by crook. With the situation as such, Hong Kong will remain a source of illusory hopes and opportunities for the Vietnamese.

Time and again, numerous Vietnamese boat people have challenged the rough sea and risked their own lives in an attempt to sneak into Hong Kong. In the case of some who have been repatriated after a period of detention, they still make fresh attempts to sneak into Hong Kong despite the dangers and the possible fate of being detained at boat people centres again. It is thus not difficult for us to imagine how bitter and hard their life in Vietnam is. Therefore, we must urge the international community to assist Vietnam in its economic development, so as to induce the people there to give up the idea of extricating themselves from poverty by running away from their country.

That said, before there are any marked improvements in the economy of Vietnam, we should still draw up measures to block the illegal entry of boat people, and, apart from that, we must also work out ways of repatriating those illegal immigrants who have already landed in Hong Kong.

Although an official of the Vietnamese Consulate did give an appealing assurance yesterday, saying that his Government was prepared to negotiate an agreement on repatriation upon arrest with the Hong Kong SAR Government, such an assurance was qualified by one important condition: repatriation must be preceded by verification of Vietnamese nationality. What this means, in effect, is that we will still be marking time, even with a so-called agreement on repatriation upon arrest. For, how is such an agreement going to be any different from our current practice, under which those boat people who have been verified to be Vietnamese in nationality are repatriated orderly?

That being the case, we must realize that the signing of an agreement involves more than our unilateral intention, and we must not think that the crux of the problem will simply disappear after the signing of an agreement. We must negotiate with Vietnam along the line of speeding up the identity verification of illegal immigrants, with a view to achieving the aim of repatriation upon arrest.

Maybe, over the years, Hong Kong has given the Vietnamese Government an impression that it is an "easy touch", which is why the progress of verifying the identity of boat people has, most of the time, been extremely slow. If we are not "beefy" enough, we should seek assistance from the Central Government in Beijing, so as to urge the Vietnamese Government to sign an agreement and speed up the process of taking back the Vietnamese illegal immigrants in Hong Kong. It is hoped that we can thus achieve our desired ultimate objective.

Madam President, the Vietnamese official whom I referred to just now also said that his Government had not received any list of illegal immigrants from the Hong Kong Government, implying that they could not start tackling the matter despite their intention to do so. Actually, I find this comment rather ridiculous, and I am a bit surprised too. Though I do roughly know what is going on, I still hope that the Secretary for Security can make some clarifications regarding this comment later on. Another point which the Secretary for Security should clarify concerns a remark made by a spokesman for the Vietnamese Consulate. According to this spokesman, Vietnam has already signed agreements on repatriation upon arrest with a number of Southeast Asian countries. I have asked all the authorities on the matter who are accessible to me, including the officials of the UNHCR and the Hong Kong Government. But, all of them have told me that they have never heard of such agreements. Perhaps, the Secretary for Security may wish to clarify the matter a moment later.

Regarding the advances made by Hong King, I do not wish to speak too much either. But, I do wish to point out that we should be treated fairly. Of course, we all know that the UNHCR has to face lots of other refugee problems. However, we should still ask them to discharge their obligations towards Hong Kong as far as possible.

Madam President, I am not sure whether you would allow me to speak on the two amendments now. If you allow me to do so, I may as well say a few words on them. The Honourable LAU Kong-wah's amendment advocates immediate repatriation and the signing of an agreement. I have already explained that our unilateral intention alone will not be sufficient to bring about immediate repatriation. For, does the signing of an agreement require just one party? No, two parties are required. And, we must also remember the many conditions put forward by Vietnam, which will make the signing of an agreement largely meaningless. We must also note that it will not be easy for us to bring about such an agreement either. As I see it, we will probably need the involvement of the Central Government. In any case, I cannot support Mr LAU Kong-wah's amendment at this stage although I do appreciate his good intent. I must also say that with regard to this issue, we all have very good intent, and we are all very concerned.

Let me now speak on the Honourable Miss CHOY So-yuk's amendment. She advocates that the SAR Government should promulgate the abolition of the port of first asylum policy. Actually, before that, the SAR Government must first decide to abolish this policy, and this will then lead to a number of follow-up actions, including, naturally, making a promulgation. She also mentions another point, a point which has turned me particularly against her amendment. This is the point on "black market labour", which she seeks to include in the motion debate today. But, I think that "black market labour" is already a separate issue, and I very much hope that she will move a separate motion on it. That said, I still fail to see how the SAR Government can possibly draw up a set of measures directed solely at Vietnamese black market labour. What I mean is that I cannot see how the SAR Government can possibly separate Vietnamese black market labour from those of other nationalities. Black market labour from many different countries such as Pakistan and the Philippines are working in Hong Kong, and we have already put in place a number of legislation and policies to deal with them. For that reason, I cannot support Miss CHOY So-yuk's amendment either.

Thank you, Madam President.

Mrs Selina CHOW moved the following motion:

"That this Council urges the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to repatriate as soon as possible all Vietnamese boat people and illegal immigrants stranded in Hong Kong, abolish the port of first asylum policy, as well as expeditiously recover from the United Nations High Commission for Refugees the $1.1 billion advances made by Hong Kong."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW, actually, you still have five minutes to speak on the amendments.

I now propose the question to you and that is: That this Council urges the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Government to repatriate as soon as possible all Vietnamese boat people and illegal immigrants stranded in Hong Kong, abolish the port of first asylum policy, as well as expeditiously recover from the United Nations High Commission for Refugees the $1.1 billion advances made by Hong Kong.

Members have been informed by circular on 13 August that Mr LAU Kong-wah and Ms CHOY So-yuk have separately given notices to move amendments to this motion. As there are two amendments to the motion, I propose to have the motion and the amendments debated together in a joint debate.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Council shall now debate the motion and the amendments together in a joint debate. I will call upon Mr LAU Kong-wah to speak first, to be followed by Miss CHOY So-yuk; but no amendments are to be moved at this stage. Members may then express their views on the main motion as well as on the amendments to the motion.

MR LAU KONG-WAH (in Cantonese): Madam President, Hong Kong has been troubled by the boat people problem for 20 years already, and we have spent some $10 billion on the Vietnamese. So, we can actually face our own conscience and the international community with no shame at all. That said, we must still take actions to really solve the problem.

Today, let me focus on my observations about the attitude of the Government and on my opinions about the motion of Mrs Selina CHOW. With respect to repatriation upon arrest, we have been told that our Government has always wanted to sign an agreement with Vietnam, but that the Vietnamese Government has repeatedly refused to do so. Yesterday, we paid a visit to the Vietnamese Consulate and met with the Vice-Consul, Mr LE Trung-hoa, who discussed the problem with us on behalf of the Vietnamese Government. In the presence not only of us but also of local and international media, he made a number of undertakings. First, he agreed that the Vietnamese who come to Hong Kong these days are illegal immigrants, and they should be treated in accordance with the relevant international practice. Second, he was prepared to take back these illegal immigrants without requiring them to undergo any screening. Third, he agreed that negotiations should start as soon as possible. We can, of course, imagine that it would be as hard to reach such an agreement as it would be to enter into an agreement of matrimony. But, the point is that, if a man has no intention of marrying a woman, it would be most inappropriate for him to keeping asking the woman whether she is willing to marry him. The key now lies in the Hong Kong Government because the position of Vietnam is very clear and it has already given a message of "I do". That being the case, the Secretary for Security should hesitate no more. Instead, he should take immediate offensive actions, strike at the very heart of the problem, and sign an agreement with Vietnam.

The Government has given us another impression that it is afraid of impairing the international image of Hong Kong. Regarding this worry, I must point out that we are just advocating the adoption of an international practice, whereby illegal immigrants are arrested and then repatriated. Which countries in the world do not adopt this international practice? Why should there be a question of impairing our international image? The point is that if we continue to treat illegal immigrants from the Mainland and Vietnam differently, that is, if we continue to apply a double-standard, we will impair the image of Hong Kong, both in the world and in the Mainland.

Having read Mrs Selina CHOW's motion, I believe that we do indeed share the same objective. However, if different means are adopted, the results may also be different. During a motion debate held in late 1994, Mrs Selina CHOW spoke against the abolition of the port of first asylum policy, and she just asked for a review. But, in late 1995, she advocated the abolition of the policy as soon as possible, because, as she herself explained, "Circumstances have changed. Can we still remain resistant to changes?" Now, two years later, she is still talking about "as soon as possible". That makes me a bit surprised. Is Mrs CHOW lagging behind changed circumstances? The situation now, in 1997, is all very clear. The CPA adopted by the international community came to an end last year, and the so-called "Britain factor" is already gone. Support for the abolition of the policy is now available from the Central Government, from the people of Hong Kong and from within Vietnam itself. So, drastic changes have emerged over the past two years. This is precisely a scenario of changed circumstances once referred to by Mrs CHOW herself. Of course, when I say "immediately", I certainly do not mean "today". But, I believe that all Members of this Council do want to urge the Government to take immediate actions.

On the signing of an agreement on repatriation upon arrest, my views are slightly different from those of Mrs CHOW. One thing which is certain is that screening and verification are two separate issues. Verification is required under the relevant international practice. Even in the case of sending illegal immigrants back to the Mainland, we do have to provide a list of those to be returned, and no return of illegal immigrants is possible without such a list. I believe that any agreement on repatriation upon arrest which we eventually sign with Vietnam in the future will have to incorporate a similar procedure of verification. All countries have to adopt this procedure. For, how can we possibly expect a country to take back any people before verifying whether they are its nationals? This is why we must not allow ourselves to be misled and influenced by the Government's argument any more. Mrs CHOW said just now that she had not heard of any international agreements on repatriation upon arrest. But, this does not mean that such agreements do not exist in reality. They do exist. And, the Immigration Ordinance has actually laid down a set of procedures for Hong Kong to deal with all illegal immigrants. The Secretary for Security may perhaps explain this later.

I do not agree with Mrs CHOW that once the port of first asylum policy is abolished before the signing of an agreement on repatriation upon arrest is signed, illegal immigrants from Vietnam may have to be hauled out to the high seas. I am against such a way of handling the matter, and I am also against any advocation to this effect because I find this kind of treatment altogether inhuman, inappropriate and impracticable. In fact, a simple way of dealing with these people is repatriation upon arrest, that is, once they come, we will arrest and then repatriate them. We will be able to do so once there is an agreement.

I also owe an explanation to some colleagues who reminded me that such an agreement might have to be signed by the Central Government on behalf of the SAR. Subsequent to their advice, I made an enquiry with the Security Branch, and was informed that according to Article 154 of the Basic Law, the drawing up of immigration control agreements with foreign countries or Vietnam is in fact within the scope of autonomy of the SAR. The Secretary for Security may wish to give an account on this later at this meeting.

Madam President, for the boat people issue, you were among the first ones to deal with it, and Mrs Selina CHOW should belong to the second generation. For Members of the Provisional Legislative Council, they should belong to the third generation already, and, so, I would really think that there should be a final settlement. I fully appreciate that the immediate abolition of the port of first asylum policy and the signing of an agreement would not solve all problems. However, I still insist that this will be a very important first step leading to a final solution. I hereby call upon Honourable colleagues to support my amendment. In particular, I also wish to call upon Mrs CHOW, in the hope that she may change her position and support my proposal on an immediate abolition of the policy. There is only one reason for my appeal, and that is, as Mrs CHOW once put it, "Circumstances have changed. Can we still remain resistant to changes?"

Thank you, Madam President.

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

MISS CHOY SO-YUK (in Cantonese): Madam President, the boat people problem has been frustrating Hong Kong for more than 20 years already. Despite the strong unanimous view held by both the Hong Kong people and the Chinese Government that the British Government must completely solve the problem before its withdrawal from Hong Kong, the British Government persistently clung to an approach characterized by indecision and procrastination. As a result, after its reunion with China, Hong Kong is still faced with a messy situation of having to deal with some 1 000 Vietnamese refugees and another 1 000-odd Vietnamese illegal immigrants. This is unfair to the people of Hong Kong; and it can also be said that the $8 billion spent by Hong Kong taxpayers on handling refugees and illegal immigrants in the past has all failed to achieve the desired purpose. What is more worrying is that a new influx of illegal immigrants from Vietnam seems to have emerged. If the SAR Government handles the problem with the same indecision and timidity as the British Government, then, sooner or later, the boat people issue will become an abyss from which the Hong Kong people will never be able to extricate themselves.

For a very long time, I have been following the Vietnamese boat people issue with concern. I have petitioned Government House many times before, asking for the abolition of the port of first asylum policy, and I have also gone to the UNHCR to demand the repayment of the advances made by us. That is why I am pleased to see the conduct of this motion debate in the Provisional Legislative Council today. That said, I still wish to move an amendment to the original motion of Mrs Selina CHOW and the amendment of Mr LAU Kong-wah, because I want to put forward a more effective solution to the problem.

We all wish to shake off the burden of Vietnamese refugees and boat people; we all wish to recover the advances made by us from the UNHCR; and, we all want the Government to take more decisive and effective actions to achieve the aforesaid purposes. The only question is how we can possibly achieve this objective.

According to the Government, all Vietnamese boat people arriving at Hong Kong on or after 15 June 1995 have been treated as illegal immigrants who are not entitled to screening. This means in effect that the port of first asylum policy is now existing in name only. But then, since this policy is already dead, why should we continue to allow its nominal existence, which has led to so many rumours in Vietnam or other countries? On the other hand, though the Hong Kong Progressive Alliance (HKPA) supports the abolition of the port of first asylum policy, we must emphasize that even if all Vietnamese boat people or illegal immigrants stranded in Hong Kong are repatriated, and even if the port of first asylum policy is abolished, the Government must still consider ways of dealing with the Vietnamese illegal immigrants who keep pouring into Hong Kong now. We must realize that the elimination of old problems will not necessarily enable us to avoid new problems; and, in many cases, the ways by which we solve old problems will not work with new problems.

On the advocation that an agreement on repatriation upon arrest should be used as a means of solving the illegal immigrants problem, the HKPA views that probably no other alternatives are more desirable. Of course, we do appreciate that under the international practice for the handling of illegal immigrants among countries, identity verification is an absolutely required procedure. But, even if this may have made it difficult to implement repatriation upon arrest, we still insist that the SAR Government must do everything it can to urge the Vietnamese Government to shorten the time spent on identity verification, so that repatriation can be speeded up to save our money and manpower. Currently, it takes about three to six months to make arrangements for repatriation, and the Vietnamese Government alone takes up at least four months for verifying the identity of the boat people concerned. In view of this, we maintain that it will be necessary for the SAR Government to negotiate with the Vietnamese Government, with the assistance of the Central Government, for a substantial reduction in the time needed for verification.

Actually, the Vietnamese who sneak into Hong Kong these days are no longer refugees under political persecution. Since the beginning of this year, some 1700 illegal immigrants from Vietnam have been arrested. Of them, only four claim to be refugees. The rest have all sneaked into Hong Kong in the hope of working here as black market labour to earn money. What is more, one third of these arrested illegal immigrants are found to have sneaked into Hong Kong for two or more times. This aptly illustrates the point that, to most Vietnamese illegal immigrants, whether or not Hong Kong is a port of first asylum is simply of little significance. The plain fact is that a Vietnamese illegal immigrant needs only to work in the new airport or other construction sites for just one week and he will have earned enough money to pay for the charges he owes to a "snakehead". And, if he works here for four weeks, he will have earned enough for a whole year's living expenses back in Vietnam. As a result, for as long as Vietnamese boat people can continue to work as black market labour in Hong Kong, they will keep coming here even when the port of first asylum policy is abolished. The presence of Vietnamese black market labour in Hong Kong has in fact deprived many local workers of their "rice bowls", and has also created many unnecessary pressures and problems for the community of Hong Kong. In view of such a situation, an effective curb on Vietnamese black market labour will be the only real solution to the boat people problem. My recommendation is that apart from strengthening border patrols, the Government must also step up its raids on construction sites and other places frequented by Vietnamese black market labour. Once black market labour are found, the employer concerned must be heavily penalized. What is more, the employer must be blacklisted and barred from bidding for any public works projects. Only in this way can we deter employers from employing black market labour. For black market labour, they must be penalized by heavier fines because imprisonment simply cannot solve the problem. Once the Vietnamese boat people realize that it is difficult for them to get jobs in Hong Kong, and that even if they can get jobs, their hard-earned money will be confiscated upon arrest, they will not keep pouring into Hong Kong in the future.

Regarding the reason why I have raised the issue of black market labour, I would like to clarify that my intention is not so much to pick on Vietnamese black market labour in particular. The reason is rather that if we want to solve the problem of Vietnamese boat people, we must draw black market labour into the picture because the boat people problem is largely related to the recent influx of black market labour into Hong Kong.

Madam President, I so submit. Thank you.

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

MR CHENG KAI-NAM (in Cantonese): Madam President, an abolition of the port of first asylum policy and an immediate solution to the Vietnamese boat people problem, I believe, have been an unanimous demand of the Hong Kong people over the years. This is beyond any doubt.

When Hong Kong was still under British administration, we repeatedly urged the British Government to discharge its responsibilities in respect of this problem. Chinese officials with responsibilities for Hong Kong also reiterated time and again that the Vietnamese boat people problem must be solved before 1 July 1997, and that repatriation would be the solution.

Next, let me focus on the port of first asylum issue. We have repeatedly discussed and negotiated with government officials, and they have told us that the port of first asylum policy is intended for refugees only. But, for Hong Kong, the following point is also beyond any doubt. The problem of Vietnamese refugees is already part of history because what we have now are all illegal immigrants. Since the problem of refugees no longer exists, and since the port of first asylum policy is intended for them only, why is it impossible to abolish this policy now? The Government has also said that since the port of first asylum policy is existing in name only, whether we abolish it or allow it to exist will not make any difference. Hence, it has asked, "Why must we abolish it instead of allowing it to exist?" But, let me ask the Government in return, "In that case, why must we allow it to exist instead of abolishing it?"

The Honourable colleagues who have moved the motion and amendments today all agree that the port of first asylum policy must be abolished. This is very encouraging and it shows that they are responsive to the people's opinions. That said, I still want to correct some of the remarks made by Mrs Selina CHOW just now. That political party which claims itself to be most representative of the people's opinions in Hong Kong, but which does not have the chance to work with us in the Provisional Legislative Council once clamoured that the port of first asylum policy must not be abolished. Members of this political party argued that the Hong Kong people would all become refugees after the reunion with China, and they would have to eke out a miserable existence in other ports of first asylum. However, what is so baffling is that, recently, this same group of people have clamoured again that there is no further need to fight for the abolition of the port of first asylum policy because it is existing in name only. This time around, their views are so usually similar to those of the SAR Government. That really baffles me. Is this because, as Mr LAU Kong-wah has just put it, "circumstances have changed"?

Another reason for the Government's opposition to the abolition of the policy is that it wants to protect the international image of Hong Kong and avoid being criticized for inflicting inhuman treatment. But then, I must say, this is precisely the reason why we must make it very clear to the international community, the Vietnamese government and its people that no one should harbour any further illusory hopes of entering Hong Kong. That we must immediately abolish the port of first asylum policy is precisely because it is inhuman to force those boat people who have entered Hong Kong illegally to live under restrictions or surveillance; it is indeed most inhuman to give them illusory hopes and induce them to enter Hong Kong again and again at great risks. Therefore, we must implement with determination the policy of immediate repatriation upon arrest.

We understand that the implementation of repatriation upon arrest for Vietnamese illegal immigrants will involve many technical difficulties, one of which, as mentioned by several other Members just now, is identity verification; and, there is also the difficulty in verifying the boat people status of illegal immigrants who have come ashore (for they are not caught while on board a boat). In spite of this, I am convinced that with determination to solve the problem, the SAR Government will not be hindered by these technical issues.

In the past, the British Government tactfully evaded its responsibilities over the Vietnamese boat people issue, which is why this problem is still with us now. So, it is high time that the SAR Government took actions to seek a solution. For that reason, the Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong will support Mr LAU Kong-wah's amendment.

I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Peggy LAM.

MRS PEGGY LAM (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Vietnamese boat people problem has troubled Hong Kong for more than 20 years, and has also bothered the former Legislative Council for several terms of its office. I can still recall that several years ago, you and I and several Members of the then Legislative Council went on a fact-finding tour to Vietnam with the aim of bringing about the abolition of the port of first asylum policy. Now, several years later, some 1 300 Vietnamese refugees are still stranded in Hong Kong, awaiting reception by third countries; the UNHCR still owes us $1.1 billion; some 1 700 Vietnamese boat people have yet to be repatriated; and, boat people still keep coming our way everyday. What is more, some boat people have become illegal workers and others are causing nuisances to the residents of outlying islands. All these problems have exerted immense pressure on Hong Kong, psychologically and in practical terms.

Since the situation in Vietnam has improved dramatically, those Vietnamese who still sneak out of their country are no longer refugees under political persecution, and their motive is mainly economic in nature. That being the case, the so-called political refugee problem has in fact become an "economic migrant problem". As a result, the policy which makes Hong Kong a port of first asylum has been overtaken by events, whether from the perspective of humanitarianism or practical circumstances. It follows that an abolition of this policy will bring a blessing to Hong Kong, but will not cause any damage to the well-being of the Vietnamese people.

From the humanitarian perspective, I can say that, by any and all standards, Hong Kong has in fact done its utmost for Vietnam, one of its Asian neighbours. Even though Hong Kong is such a tiny place, we have discharged our duties as a port of first asylum for the past 20 years, and have thus paid huge prices, whether in terms of public money, our precious manpower and land resources, or the pressure and unreasonable criticisms from western countries.

In recent years, Vietnam has adopted an open-door policy, bent on economic development. Gone is the political persecution 20 years ago. The Vietnamese boat people who come to Hong Kong now have fled their country in search of financial improvement. They can no longer be called "refugees" and we do not owe them any "obligations".

The most formidable problem faced by Vietnam today is not a "refugee problem", but a "development problem", that is, the problem of how this country is going to rebuild its economic strength and social institutions. If Vietnam wants to re-enter the international community with a fresh image, it must first shake off its old image as "a country of refugees". When Vietnam does so, it will simply become unnecessary for Hong Kong to remain a port of first asylum.

If the international community is worried about the persistence of human rights abuses in Vietnam, it should draw up corresponding and reasonable measures, instead of relying on a policy left over from the "refugee era" as a means of tackling the existing human rights problems in Vietnam.

Actually, the port of first asylum policy adopted by Hong Kong has been abused by many of those Vietnamese who want to flee their country for economic considerations. These Vietnamese simply want to try their luck to see if they can come to Hong Kong, where they may earn money by working as illegal workers. For them, the biggest loss is that they may end up being detained in a boat people camp for a year or half. But then, they know that they will be sent back afterwards, and that they can always try to sneak into Hong Kong again.

The abolition of the port of first asylum policy will not affect the well-being of the Vietnamese people. Rather, to those Vietnamese who want to flee their country for economic reasons, or who want to "jump the queue of emigration", the abolition will serve to impart a very clear message: they will no longer be able to use Hong Kong as a stepping-stone for emigration.

Unfortunately, the boat people problem was all the time regarded as a diplomatic issue in the past. The British Government and other western powers alike all regarded the waves of Vietnamese refugees as a means of elevating their diplomatic standing and containing the expansion of the communist camp. Their hypocrisy and selfishness have forced Hong Kong to shoulder the burden of boat people for as many as 20 years. But, these powers themselves have shirked their responsibilities of paying the expenses incurred, and of taking any refugees. Worse still, when the sovereignty over Hong Kong was about to be returned to China, the British even behaved so shamelessly as to wash their hands of the problem altogether.

Although the Basic Law states that the SAR Government may apply immigration control on entry into, stay in and departure from the Region by persons from foreign states and regions, I am afraid that an ultimate solution to the boat people problem may not be possible without State support. So, I now call upon the SAR to adopt a "two-pronged" approach to the problem. That is to say, it should seek assistance from the Central Government at the diplomatic level while attending to the practical technicalities itself.

I must also urge the officials of the SAR Government to pay serious heed to the aspirations of the people. They must free themselves from the pressures exerted on them by their former colonial overlord and act proactively to solve the boat people problem.

Madam President, I so submit.

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

MR NGAI SIU-KIT (in Cantonese): Madam President, I rise to speak in support of abolishing the port of first asylum policy.

We all know that the port of first asylum policy was first imposed on the colony of Hong Kong by the British Government because the latter wanted to discharge its so-called responsibilities under the CPA for those Vietnamese boat people stranded in Hong Kong. But, the SAR Government and the residents of the Region do not have any obligation to inherit the mess left by this unreasonable policy. As the sovereign of the SAR, the Chinese Government has never specified that Hong Kong should become a port of first asylum, and, as Foreign Ministry Commissioner in Hong Kong Mr MA Yuzheng stated some time ago, "The Chinese Government has never recognized the status of Hong Kong as a port of first asylum." For that reason, the SAR Government should handle the boat people problem on its own in accordance with the provisions on immigration controls laid down in the Basic Law. Hence, precisely because of this reason, the Hong Kong SAR has no obligation to uphold the port of first asylum policy; quite the contrary, the SAR Government is obligated to work out an ultimate solution which can repatriate all boat people stranded in Hong Kong and stop any more boat people from coming. Madam President, I must say that it is only reasonable and legal for the SAR Government to draw up a specific illegal immigrants policy which can eradicate the port of first asylum problem and the related troubles left by the former government.

Madam President, the nature of the so-called "Vietnamese boat people problem" has already changed. A look at those Vietnamese boat people who come to Hong Kong these days will show that they are mostly men in the prime of their life, and once they arrive in Hong Kong, they will try each and every possible means to go into hiding in order that they can work as illegal workers. That being the case, the port of first asylum policy has in effect become an indirect source of assurance and encouragement for these people. Madam President, for as long as the SAR continues to implement the port of first asylum policy, the endless stream of illegal immigrants will never stop.

Madam President, it is all very easy for human rights activists to chant highly appealing slogans because they do not really have to pay anything for their verbal support. Over the past 20 years, Hong Kong has made huge unreturned contributions for the care of the Vietnamese refugees and boat people. As we can all roughly estimate, Hong Kong has spent a huge sum of money in the region of $8 billion to $10 billion, and the UNHCR alone already owes us as much as $1.2 billion. The Finance Bureau of the SAR Government has recently released a consultation document on its review of the local profits tax regime, and paragraph 7 of this document points out, among other things, that an adjustment of 1% of the profits tax rate will lead to an increase or decrease of $1.8 billion in profits tax for the year 1998-1999. Madam President, this really shows that Hong Kong has indeed paid a very high price for the problems of Vietnamese refugees and boat people, and as pointed out just now, Hong Kong has already done its utmost by any and all humanitarian standards. So, when those individuals or countries who have been chanting empty humanitarian slogans really reflect on their own behaviour, should they not feel ashamed? Human rights activists have also asked, " In case some boat people arriving in Hong Kong sink their own boats, can the SAR Government watch with folded arms? "

Madam President, this is indeed a self-deceiving argument, marked with excessive kind-heartedness but insufficient wisdom. Experiences from all over the world and at all times have shown that burning one's own boat is always a strategic option which is taken only when one knows very well that this will work on the enemy. That being the case, there is all the more reason for us to adhere firmly to the policy of intercepting all illegal immigrants and to discontinue the port of first asylum status of Hong Kong, so that the Vietnamese will stop harbouring any illusory hopes about sinking their own boats. This is undoubtedly a responsibility which the SAR Government must discharge towards the entire community.

Madam President, illegal immigrants are illegal immigrants, and, as such, they must be handled in accordance with the immigration controls laid down in Article 154 of the Basic Law. Since the repatriation of illegal immigrants to their places of origin is both sensible and reasonable, we need not make any deliberate attempts at signing any agreements with any foreign governments. For these reasons, I strongly disapprove of the amendment by Mr LAU Kong-wah. Mr LAU urges the SAR Government to "sign an agreement with the Vietnamese Government for the repatriation of Vietnamese illegal immigrants upon arrest ......". I insist that there is no need for us to accord any special treatment to Vietnamese boat people because this will make it difficult for the SAR Government to initiate any proactive measures in handling the problem. It is all right for us to explore how best to overcome the technical problems related to repatriation. But, it will be very inappropriate to treat this secondary issue as our primary concern. Suppose the Vietnamese Government refuses to sign an agreement, are we going to stop our work on repatriation? In view of such reasons, I strongly disagree with Mr LAU Kong-wah in this respect.

Regarding the amendment by Miss CHOY So-yuk, which urges the SAR Government to "take effective measures to eradicate the problem of black market labour in Hong Kong", I also see no need for us to do so. The reason is that the SAR Government has already put in place a whole set of labour legislation to handle and eradicate black market labour. Black market labour are black market labour, and they should all be banned without any discrimination. We need not draw up any special measures to deal with Vietnamese black market labour.

With these remarks, Madam President, I support the original motion moved by Mrs Selina CHOW.

PRESIDENT: Mrs Elsie TU.

MRS ELSIE TU: Madam President, it was outrageous for the western nations to involve Hong Kong without consultation in what was part of Cold War propaganda which encouraged Vietnamese to seek resettlement in the so-called western paradises. Advice to escape from their country was dropped by air in Vietnam after the defeat of the United States in that country. I cannot blame the first Vietnamese illegal immigrants for taking the United States' advice to escape from the war-devastated country. But that had nothing to do with Hong Kong and should have been dealt with by the countries involved in that war.

Hong Kong residents were not allowed to bring their relatives to Hong Kong. So it is obvious that they would not agree with being a port of first asylum for others. The Executive Council Member Lydia DUNN, now Baroness DUNN, strongly objected right from the beginning. But Hong Kong was still forced by Britain to accept the migrants. The migrants therefore were and still are Britain's responsibility.

Finding Hong Kong a place that offered food and shelter, and sometimes work or even resettlement abroad meant that more and more arrived. When the situation got out of hand, the western countries began to wash their hands and responsibility either to resettle the migrants, especially the criminal elements amongst them, or to pay for their livelihood. Hong Kong was left eventually virtually alone to bear the burden. The burden involved providing not only food and shelter, but also medical care, schooling of a sort, as well as paying a huge number of personnel from the disciplined services to preserve peace and order. The only thanks we got were threats of violence from some of the lawless elements and court actions for which we Hong Kong people had to pay for legal aid to fight against ourselves.

Britain has now finally broken its promise to clear the camps by 1 July as we have always suspected it would do. Hong Kong can accept this burden no longer. We must urgently, at the earliest possible moment, abolish the port of first asylum policy and repatriate the remaining migrants, though I think we must exercise humanity in the case of any who are genuinely too old to travel. Hong Kong must also demand repayment of all the money we have been forced to pay for the up-keep of the migrants who are the responsibility of the United Nations countries which made decisions without consulting the Hong Kong people.

No country should be forced to accept illegal immigrants as Hong Kong has been forced into doing. This is not a racial issue, but the right of the Hong Kong people to protect themselves, their property and their jobs from illegal entry by foreigners, seeking their interest at our expense and lowering the standard of living of Hong Kong workers.

The majority of the independent "Breakfast Group" supports Mrs CHOW's motion, but they consider that to introduce the word "immediately" as proposed by Mr LAU, desirable though it is, cannot be a practical reality as Mrs CHOW has explained. We therefore prefer to keep the wording "as soon as possible" and I emphasize that we really do mean "as soon as possible". Action must begin at once.

Concerning the other amendments, Madam President, I have no strong objection to them, but I would like to remind Members that a Members' Motion has no statutory binding power on the Administration. Instead of making amendments which merely add details to the original motion, we can all add our views during our speeches in this debate for consideration by the Government. By putting forward formal amendments, we may appear to the public to be competing with one and other to win the motion for our own parties, when in fact in this motion we are probably all of the same opinion, and there is no controversy. I am sure that we are all aiming at abolishing the port of first asylum policy, repatriating the migrants already here and any who may try to come here, as well as demanding repayment of the debt owed to us by the nations that forced this policy on Hong Kong. I therefore think it is wiser not to confuse the public but to show a united front on this issue.

With these words, Madam President, I support Mrs CHOW's motion.

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

DR TANG SIU-TONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Vietnamese boat people problem is indeed a very heavy burden for Hong Kong, and we have been discussing it for more than a decade already. It can be said that this problem has aroused the discontent of all in Hong Kong. I am sure that very few people in Hong Kong are on the side of the Vietnamese boat people. What is more, up to this moment, the UNHCR still owes Hong Kong more than $1 billion, and one just cannot tell when we can recover our hard-earned money. For that reason, the Hong Kong people are extremely dissatisfied.

Concerning the port of first asylum policy, I am sure that Hong Kong people are all in support of its abolition, because if this policy is not abolished, it will be difficult to implement repatriation upon arrest. A moment ago, Mr LAU Kong-wah said that Mrs Selina CHOW belongs to the second generation of people who demand the abolition of the port of first asylum policy or oppose the entry of Vietnamese boat people. As a matter of fact, Mrs CHOW should belong to the first generation although when we talk about the second generation, we usually refer to younger people like her. But, the fact remains that Mrs CHOW should belong to the first generation. As for us, we should belong to the second generation, not so much because we are younger, but probably because we get involved at a later time. Regarding Mr LAU Kong-wah's demand that all Vietnamese boat people stranded in Hong Kong should be repatriated "immediately" instead of "as soon as possible", I think that given the present context, "immediately" and "as soon as possible" actually carry the same practical meaning. The reason is that in practice, the most we can do is to get things done "as soon as possible", and really nothing can be done immediately, in the literal sense. To demand the Administration to repatriate all boat people immediately is the same as asking it to do something impossible. That being the case, and since "as soon as possible" already implies getting things done within the shortest possible period of time, the two expressions are in fact roughly the same in terms of practical significance. It follows that the amendment concerning these two expressions is all a game of diction; either one of them will do. On repatriation upon arrest, as I said a moment ago, it must be preceded by the abolition of the port of first asylum policy because as long as this policy remains, it will be hard to implement repatriation upon arrest. Regarding the question of who should have the authority to sign an agreement with Vietnam, that is, whether this should fall within the foreign affairs responsibilities of the Central Government, or whether this is within the autonomy enjoyed by Hong Kong, Mr LAU Kong-wah has invited the Secretary for Security to make a clarification. On my part, I do wish to hear from the Secretary that Hong Kong has the authority to do so on its own.

In response to Miss CHOY So-yuk's point on Vietnamese black market labour, many people have said that Vietnamese black market labour, like their counterparts from other countries, are already put under legislative controls. But, why has Miss CHOY raised her point on Vietnamese black market labour? The answer is precisely the crux of the whole problem. Vietnamese boat people have all sneaked into Hong Kong out of one single financial motive, which is to earn money. And, if they do not work as black market labour, they cannot possibly earn any money here. This point is precisely the crux of the Vietnamese boat people problem. Suppose there are no prospects of financial gains for them, these boat people will not try to come to Hong Kong by hook or by crook, because their journeys to Hong Kong, by sea or by land, are by no means free from dangers, and they also have to make substantial sacrifices before they can come to Hong Kong. That is why I think that Miss CHOY has actually highlighted the key issue underlying the whole problem. We hope that the Government will take actions to root out this problem. A song entitled "Cling to your roots (把根留住)" has recently become very popular in Hong Kong, and many people, including a friend of mine who is not in this Chamber now, love to sing it very much. But, I hope that the Government will not cling to the roots of the Vietnamese boat people problem. Instead, it must root out this problem.

Thank you, Madam President.

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

MR CHOY KAN-PUI (in Cantonese): Madam President, since 1979 when Britain forced Hong Kong to implement the port of first asylum policy, we have already accepted more than 200 000 Vietnamese boat people and spent $8.4 billion of our own money. When the British Hong Kong Administration was about to withdraw, it vowed that it would solve the problem of Vietnamese boat people stranded in Hong Kong before it left. But, in the end, it withdrew from Hong Kong with just a simple " good-bye ", leaving behind a heavy burden for us. Today, 2 100 Vietnamese boat people and refugees are still stranded in Hong Kong, and the problem still remains unresolved. It is estimated that the living expenses of these boat people and refugees will amount to $200 million a year. Just who are going to pay such expenses? The Hong Kong people? No way! The British Government? No likelihood either! That being the case, I maintain that the SAR Government must negotiate with the UNHCR, with a view to making it shoulder the expenses directly. Then, there are also the $1.13 billion of advances made by Hong Kong for care of the boat people over the years. Although the UNHCR has undertaken to ask for donations from United Nations members for the purpose of repaying this sum of money, the chances of our recovering these advances are indeed very, very slim, because the United Nations itself is now up to the neck in financial troubles, having to deal with refugee problems all over the world, especially in Africa and other war-devastated regions.

Actually, the refugee problem experienced by Hong Kong was first created by Britain. Years back, in what appeared to be a noble and righteous move, Britain exercised its influences as a sovereign power and forced Hong Kong to agree to become a port of first asylum. At that time, Britain also promised to accept Vietnamese refugees and persuade European countries and America to do the same. In view of such an undertaking, Britain should be obliged to accept all those 1 300 refugees who are still stranded in Hong Kong. But, what Britain has done so far was to accept a mere 30 refugees last month. What has happened to its avowed commitment to humanitarianism, human rights and freedom? In order to seek a prompt solution to the problem of Vietnamese refugees and boat people stranded in Hong Kong, the SAR Government must do all it can to urge the United Nations to persuade other countries to speed up their acceptance of these refugees; and, in order not to waste any more money and resources of the Hong Kong people, the SAR Government must also step up its liaison with the UNHCR and the Vietnamese Government, so that arrangements for the repatriation of all Vietnamese boat people stranded in Hong Kong can be made as soon as possible.

Madam President, as pointed out by the Security Bureau some time ago, the SAR Government now treats all Vietnamese boat people who sneak into Hong Kong as illegal immigrants, and it no longer conducts any screening for them. As a result, according to the Security Bureau, the port of first asylum policy is existing in name only. Here, let me also add that for all those Vietnamese illegal immigrants who sneak into Hong Kong now, their sole purpose is to seek employment to earn money, and genuine seekers of political asylum are indeed extremely rare. That being the case, why do we not abolish the port of first asylum policy immediately, so as to stop Vietnamese illegal immigrants from harbouring any further illusory hopes? What is more, the SAR Government must seek to sign an agreement with the Vietnamese government, and when doing so, it should ask for authorization or diplomatic assistance from the Central Government. In this way, an ultimate solution to the boat people problem will be possible because we will then be able to ensure that all those Vietnamese illegal immigrants who are repatriated upon arrest will be accepted by the Vietnamese Government.

Madam President, the problem of Vietnamese illegal immigrants has also led to a problem of black market labour. Recently, owing to the increased demand for workers in the construction industry, the employment of Vietnamese illegal immigrants has become widespread in many labour markets, including that of the new airport, and this has posed a direct threat to local workers in terms of job opportunities. Since permission to work in Hong Kong is granted to some Vietnamese refugees and some boat people who are denied acceptance by the Vietnamese Government and other countries, it is very difficult to distinguish those boat people who are not permitted to work. Many boat people have thus capitalized on this difficulty, and they have succeeded in obtaining employment in many construction sites by producing forged work permits. Worse still, many illegal immigrants are able to obtain jobs because of the secret referrals by boat people with work permits; this has induced an increasing number of Vietnamese illegal immigrants to work as black market labour in Hong Kong. In view of this, before the SAR Government is able to reach an agreement on repatriation upon arrest with the Vietnamese Government, it should put in place a series of effective measures to curb Vietnamese illegal workers.

Madam President, I so submit.

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

MR CHAN CHOI-HI ( in Cantonese ): Madam President, I want to make a few points on this issue.

First, the proposal on abolishing the port of first asylum policy. I believe that all Members sitting in this Chamber now will not object to this proposal, and neither will members of the public, I venture to think. However, can the abolition of this policy really solve this problem? I doubt it, because the solution to this problem, in practice, will have to depend on the co-ordinated efforts of many parties. As pointed out by those Members who spoke just now, if we fail to seek any assistance from the Chinese Government, we cannot possibly get things done in many respects. For example, how are we going to recover the $1 billion advances that we have made? And, how are we going to negotiate with the Vietnamese Government? So, I have to say that while the SAR Government should make its own efforts, the Central Government too must bear some responsibilities and obligations; at least, it has to assist us in doing our work better. In this connection, I hope that in the near future, I can hear from the Central Government or the Foreign Ministry a much more concrete timetable or agenda which can tie in with the related work schedule of the SAR Government. I very much look forward to seeing a clear declaration of position from the Central Government in the near future.

Second, the problem of black market labour. Many Members have discussed this issue just now, one of whom is Miss CHOY So-yuk. All along, the Vietnamese illegal immigrants arrested in Hong Kong are mostly able-bodied young men. Put simply, their only motive of coming to Hong Kong is to seek illegal employment. But, why are there such employment opportunities for them? The obvious reason is that while one party are prepared to sell their physical labour, the other party are at the same time willing to hire the physical labour offered. But then, who are willing to hire the physical labour of illegal workers? Some businessmen in Hong Kong, very obviously. I do not intend to pass any judgmental comments on these local businessmen, saying whether they are scrupulous or unscrupulous. That said, I must make it very clear that the realities are very much unlike the situation depicted by Mr NGAI Siu-kit, who claimed that there is already a very sound system in Hong Kong which can deal specifically with illegal workers. Why do I say so? The reason is: if there is already a concrete and clear system, why are we still faced with the problem of black market labour? If what Mr NGAI Siu-kit has said is a true reflection of the realities, the problem should have been solved already, and there should not be any black market labour now. So, we must say that there are loopholes ─ I mean there are definitely loopholes in the existing legislation. That is why there is an illegal worker market in Hong Kong; and, when there is such a market, there will be supply and demand. To all black market labour, whether they come from Vietnam, the Philippines or any other places, Hong Kong is invariably like a piece of magnet which attracts them to come here for work. I think that the Vietnamese refugees have long since ceased to bother whether or not Hong Kong is still a port of first asylum. Their primary concern is to earn money, and, to them, Hong Kong is simply "a port of first-rate money-earning prospects". A mere mention of Hong Kong will remind them of "a port of first-rate money-earning prospects". This explains why they all want to come to Hong Kong in search for jobs. This also illustrates that the fundamental cause of the problem is indeed very simple. So, I think that our Government will be able to tackle this problem if more can be done to hit at its fundamental cause. One example is to impart a clear message to other countries that we will definitely not allow black market labour to work in Hong Kong.

Third, the problem of humanitarianism. Recently, when we discuss the boat people problem, we all seem to be worried about a violation of humanitarianism. I must say that this worry is unfounded and misconceived. Actually, it is perfectly possible for us to tackle this problem by adhering to humanitarian principles. Some people argue that if we are humane towards the boat people, we will be inhumane towards Hong Kong people. But, we should not look at the matter in this way. I view that while we must of course defend a certain bottomline of humanitarian principles, this must not be taken to mean that we are somewhat too cowardly to deal with the problem or that our Government has not done good enough. We must defend a certain bottomline of humanitarian principles. For example, we must not haul any boat people or other Vietnamese out into the high seas because this will definitely impair our public image, or the image of Hong Kong in the world. So, I maintain that there must always be a bottomline of humanitarian principles, whether we are talking about the past, the present or the future. I believe that in our handling of the Vietnamese boat people problem, humanitarianism should always be a very important consideration.

With these remarks, I support the amendment of Miss CHOY So-yuk.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Howard YOUNG.

MR HOWARD YOUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Liberal Party urges the Government to repatriate all Vietnamese boat people and illegal immigrants stranded in Hong Kong as soon as possible.

The declaration made by Britain in 1979 which turned Hong Kong into a port of first asylum marked the beginning of our commitment towards neighbouring Vietnam, under which those Vietnamese fleeing their homeland because of political purges were to be provided with a shelter of a sort in Hong Kong before their reception by western countries. Since the decision was made by its sovereign power at that time, Hong Kong, then a colony, could have no say at all, and all it could do was to swallow its discontent.

Now, the British Government has withdrawn. But, having returned the sovereignty over Hong Kong to China, the British Government has left behind a huge burden ─ a burden created by the endless stream of Vietnamese illegal immigrants on Hong Kong thanks to British generosity at our expense. In recent years, the Vietnamese illegal immigrants who sneak into Hong Kong are mostly economic migrants who want to improve their lot; unlike those who came in the 1970s, these illegal immigrants are no longer political refugees. As for why Vietnamese boat people want to come to Hong Kong, the comparative economic eminence of Hong Kong among its Asian neighbours is no doubt a reason, but, the fact that other Southeast Asian countries have already ceased to enforce the port of first asylum policy is definitely another. Since Vietnamese boat people have nowhere else to go, Hong Kong has naturally become their only destination.

The UNHCR still owes us as much as $1.17 billion of advances, and so far it has failed to make any undertaking to repay this debt in the foreseeable future. What is more, the Chinese Government has already made it very clear that it will not take over the "mess" left behind by Britain. In view of this, there is actually not much significance for Hong Kong to adopt the port of first asylum policy any further.

Given such a situation, if we do not abolish the port of first asylum policy, we would only give the boat people stranded in Hong Kong an illusion that by hanging around in Hong Kong, refusing to leave, they will eventually be accepted by western countries or have a chance of emigration. We may also give those Vietnamese who are not yet here a rosy misconception or even illusory hope that when they come, they may still have a chance of emigrating to western countries.

In fact, requiring Hong Kong to keep on taking Vietnamese boat people simply will not work, either as a stop-gap measure or as an ultimate solution, because very few western countries will continue to accept economic migrants from Vietnam in any large numbers. As a result, for the boat people problem to be solved once and for all, Vietnam must be urged to improve its domestic economy and thus its people's living, so that they may be induced to give up the idea of leaving their own country. One possibility, for example, is for Vietnam to develop its tourist industry to attract foreign tourists including those from Hong Kong. That way, it will be able to earn the foreign exchange required for the development of its commerce and other industries.

However, if we read the newspaper advertisements put up by some travel agencies, we will find that a tour package with Vietnam as the destination, which includes a return air ticket, three-star hotel accommodation and transport to and from the airport, will cost as much as $4,790. On the other hand, a similar tour package, with Manila or Bangkok as the destination, will only cost less than $3,000, and even for one with Singapore as the destination, the cost will just be $3,890. So, it can be seen that there is actually a price difference of more than 20%, although the journey distance, duration, facilities and other services offered are roughly the same.

As for the related measures adopted by the Vietnamese Government, let me make one point first. A Hong Kong resident who wants to apply for a tourist visa to Vietnam has to pay HK$280 for a normal application or HK$340 to HK$700 for a priority application. In contrast, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines all offer visa-free access to Hong Kong residents who hold either BN(O) passports or SAR passports. In the case of the United States, though visas are required, they are issued free of charge. So, in comparison, we can see that the fees charged by Vietnam are indeed much too high, to the extent that the development of its own tourist industry is hindered. If Vietnam decides to improve and develop its tourist industry, it can surely reduce very significantly its people's desire to sneak out as illegal economic migrants. With this suggestion, I urge the Vietnamese Government to consider as much as possible what more it can do to stop illegal immigrants or boat people from sneaking into Hong Kong.

With these remarks, Madam President, I support the original motion.

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

MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Madam President, since the first batch of Vietnamese illegal immigrants came to Hong Kong in a cargo ship in 1975, the term "boat people" has almost become a registered trademark for this kind of visitors from Vietnam. In 1979, in its capacity as the sovereign power of Hong Kong, Britain signed an international agreement which turned Hong Kong into a port of first asylum. This marked the beginning of Hong Kong's involvement in the Vietnamese boat people problem, and from then onwards, Hong Kong people have had to shoulder the burden of looking after the "boat people".

There is no denying that many early-day "boat people" were forced to challenge the rough sea and come to Hong Kong because they were genuinely battered by lingering warfare, political purges, hardships in life and the resultant sense of desperation. From the humanitarian perspective, it was indeed right for Hong Kong to feel obligated to act as a stop-over point, where these miserable people could be given some temporary care while waiting for acceptance by third countries. But, it subsequently turned out that the scale of the "boat people problem" was much larger than what the Hong Kong Government and western countries had expected. As a result, the Hong Kong Government found it necessary to introduce changes in 1988, ending the policy of treating all Vietnamese visitors as refugees and replacing it with a screening policy. In 1989, the Hong Kong Government even joined the CPA implemented by the various governments in the region. Around that time, demands for a review of the boat people policy started to gather momentum among the various sectors of Hong Kong. Unfortunately, the British Government still chose to remain generous at our expense. As the British Government clung to the policy of making Hong Kong a port of first asylum, the people of Hong Kong all suffered as a result.

The current political situation Vietnam has become quite stable, and, not long ago, Vietnam even joined the ASEAN. From this, we can see that the political situation of this country is already entirely different comparing with the circumstances 20 years ago, and those who do come to Hong Kong at great risks for political reasons should actually be in the minority. At the conference on Indo-Chinese refugees held in March 1996, it was resolved that the CPA should be scrapped in June 1996. Strangely, however, Hong Kong has still remained a port of first asylum despite its status as a member of the CPA. This, indeed, is absolutely baffling. An overwhelming majority of those Vietnamese who sneak into Hong Kong these days are purely motivated by economic considerations. It has even been noticed that most of those Vietnamese illegal immigrants arrested recently are actually recidivist illegal immigrants who were once repatriated but who have returned to work as black market labour. This is evidence enough that the "boat people problem" has already changed in nature, from an issue of escaping from political persecution to a problem of illegal entry motivated by economic gains.

Madam President, the port of first asylum policy was first imposed on Hong Kong by Britain. So, logically, this policy should be abolished upon the lowering down of the Union Jack. Regrettably, the SAR Government has so far refused to clarify whether or not this policy will be abolished, and it has simply repeated again and again that the port of first asylum policy is actually existing in name only because no more screening is conducted for Vietnamese illegal immigrants. Madam President, we cannot help asking the Government whether the problem can be solved simply by claiming that the policy is existing in name only. We often hear such a strongly-worded government warning directed at illegal immigrants from China: "There will be no amnesty in Hong Kong and Hong Kong will stick to the policy of repatriation upon arrest. So, do not be deceived by the rumours spread by snakeheads." It is thus regrettable to note that, so far, the SAR Government has remained altogether dubious in regard to its position in abolishing the port of first asylum policy. Such a dubious attitude has inevitably given an impression that the Government has kept on sending a misleading message to the Vietnamese that if they are arrested after sneaking into Hong Kong, they will be treated in the same way as they were treated before the reunification. If a new influx of illegal immigrants ensues, what is the SAR Government going to say to the public?

It has been pointed out that the SAR Government has delayed making a decision on the port of first asylum policy largely because it fears that the international image of Hong Kong may be impaired. If this is really what the SAR Government has in mind, then I must say that it is indeed over-worried. We can actually say without any guilty conscience that Hong Kong has already done its utmost to tackle the boat people problem. We have shouldered the burden for nearly 20 years, spending almost $10 billion. Very frequently, we have had to deal with boat people disturbances and the lawsuits instigated by them. What is more, despite the very remote possibility of recovering the advances they have made, the people of Hong Kong have remained fully dedicated to the well-being of the boat people. As far as the boat people problem is concerned, are there any other countries in the international community which dare to claim that they have done better than Hong Kong in terms of dedication and selflessness? In case there are still some people who accuse Hong Kong of trying to abandon the boat people by abolishing its port of first asylum policy, then just let these shameless people tell the international community what they have actually contributed to solving the boat people problem.

Madam President, the Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB) fully appreciates that we cannot solve the boat people problem once and for all simply by abolishing the port of first asylum policy. Concerning our handling of Vietnamese illegal immigrants in the future, we are firmly against the adoption of any inhuman treatment for those who enter our territorial waters illegally. For those illegal entrants whose destinations are not Hong Kong, we should continue to give them provisions and supplies so that they can get on with the journeys to their destinations. If Hong Kong is already their destination, the DAB views that repatriation upon arrest will be a practicable solution. However, since repatriation upon arrest involves many technicalities and diplomatic considerations, the DAB thinks that the SAR Government should seek assistance from the Central Government whenever necessary, so that a workable solution to the problem of Vietnamese illegal immigrants can be identified as soon as possible. As for the curbing of Vietnamese black market labour, the DAB is very concerned about the adverse impact produced by illegal workers on our domestic economy and labour market. However, we must point out that black market labour should be tackled as a whole under our existing labour legislation. We must also add that the Vietnamese are not the only ones who work as illegal workers, and that we must prevent the nationals of all other countries from taking up illegal employment in Hong Kong.

I so submit.

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

MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, in the past few years, the problem of Vietnamese boat people and refugees was a frequent topic of discussions in the former Legislative Council. As we may all realize, the burden now borne by Hong Kong was first created by Britain and the United States. Why? Vietnam was once an affluent country with rich resources, and it was even known as one of the three biggest growers of rice in the world. However, in the 1950s, immediately after World War II, Vietnam was plunged into a civil war between the north and the south as a result of the selfish American attempt to topple the regime of NGO Dinh Diem (吳迋炎) and his brother. The civil war went on until 1975 when the country was finally liberated, so to speak. But, such a liberation was followed by an exodus of Vietnamese from their country, and Hong Kong was not the only destination for those who fled their homeland. Why do I lay the blame on the United States Government? The plain fact is that the United States Government has indeed instigated many disturbances in many places and countries all over the world in the name of democracy and human rights, and many serious consequences, like the exodus of Vietnamese from their country, have thus resulted. And, why do I lay the blame on Britain? As we all know, Britain was the sovereign power of Hong Kong at that time, and it undertook to make Hong Kong a port of first asylum in precisely this capacity.

With the end of British administration on 30 June 1997, Hong Kong has become a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of China with effect from 1 July 1997. So, when we look at the boat people problem now, we should adopt this attitude: What happened in the past have become history; and, history should provide us with a source of review and experience, thus enabling us to tackle the matter with a better approach. We have now set up our own SAR Government, headed by the Chief Executive and his team. We very much hope that the SAR Government will abandon the mentalities of the former British Hong Kong administration and refrain from doing things which are harmful to the interests of Hong Kong. Since the Hong Kong people have voiced their opinions so clearly, why do we not review the whole matter? From the press, and from other media, we learn that the SAR Government is worried about two possibilities. First, it is worried that we may fail to recover from the UNHCR the $1.1 billion of advances made by us. Second, it is worried that the international community may criticize us sharply. In this connection, we maintain that we should conduct a referendum among Hong Kong people ─ not a referendum on our electoral system, but a referendum on how they look at these two worries. If such a referendum reveals that the Hong Kong people are indeed worried about these two possibilities, we should of course respect and accept their feelings. But, if the opposite is the case, I want to put a challenge to the SAR Government. The relevant Policy Secretaries of the SAR Government must do their best and show that they have the ability to tackle the problem; otherwise, they must step down in apology. After all, why should the people continue to bear the pains of this burden for ever?

Madam President, we know that the Hong Kong Government has signed re-purchase agreements with eight countries. In other words, as far as the monetary system is concerned, we have done our very best to assist other Asian countries and to better protect our own currency. But, over the matter of our own security, why has our Government been so at a loss as to what to do? Is it really so incompetent? This calls for a review. In case there have been any hidden facts, they must now be released for the better information of the Hong Kong people. If not, I must say that it will be useless for and irresponsible of the SAR Government to offer any explanation and excuses.

Madam President, let us not lay all the blame on the Vietnamese Government, for I am convinced that it has already discharged its own responsibilities. Which country on earth does not want its people to lead a better life? Which country does not want to do better in terms of its people's living standard and all other areas? However, if problems still occur despite these good intentions, we, as an open and more enlightened country, should really take the problems as part of the realities. On this particular aspect, I want to say that we do have the means and obligation to help the countries in trouble to understand that they should face up to the realities when they encounter any difficulties which cannot be overcome. I maintain that the SAR Government should not evade its responsibilities. We appreciate others' difficulties, but we are also convinced that other countries will appreciate our difficulties too.

Let me also take this opportunity to make one point. On the boat people problem, many so-called human rights organizations have in fact ignored the interests of other countries and interfered with their domestic affairs. They are self-righteous, and they have sought to interfere with the domestic affairs of other countries by capitalizing on their less developed circumstances. In brief, these organizations have "waved a red banner against a red banner and have trampled on human rights in the name of human rights". If the officials of the Hong Kong SAR Government fail to come up with any solutions, but try to evade their responsibilities instead, I must say that they are absolutely irresponsible.

With these remarks, I support the original motion and the various amendments tabled today, in particular the one by Mr LAU Kong-wah which demands the SAR Government to tell the truth immediately. I must stress once again that the public should be allowed to know the truth, and the highest authorities concerned and other responsible officers must be held responsible for the truth. They must not try to shift the blame to other international organizations, nor must they allow themselves to be influenced by any other fears and worries.

Madam President, I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Bruce LIU.

MR BRUCE LIU (in Cantonese): Madam President, I speak on the motion today on behalf of the Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood.

According to available information and statistics, those Vietnamese who sneak into Hong Kong these days are no longer refugees; if there are any refugees among these Vietnamese, we can still deal with them separately, because a separate system for refugees is still in force in Hong Kong. The focus of our discussions today should be the ways in which the problem of Vietnamese illegal immigrants can be solved. On this, my first point is that the community of Hong Kong has already reached a consensus on the port of first asylum policy, and so has the Provisional Legislative Council. Our consensus is that the Government should, as soon as possible, relinquish Hong Kong's status as a port of first asylum.

That said, let me also point out that the abolition of this policy alone will not solve the problem of Vietnamese illegal immigrants because many other supplementary measures are required. The SAR Government must implement a series of effective measures step by step, and three of these measures, I think, relate to some "absolutely indispensable" arrangements.

First, the SAR Government must negotiate with the Vietnamese Government, with a view to drawing up an agreement on repatriation upon arrest on the basis of mutual co-operation. Here, let me just draw in one point first: the controversies surrounding repatriation upon arrest and repatriation after identity verification are indeed largely unnecessary because, in any case, repatriation upon arrest must still be preceded by identity verification in practice. So much for the controversies. But then, how are we going to reach such an agreement? First, let us look at Article 154 of the Basic Law, which states that the SAR Government may apply immigration controls on entry into, stay in and departure from the SAR by persons from foreign states and regions. This implies that the SAR Government is entitled to a high degree of autonomy in regard to immigration controls. From this, we can infer that the Basic Law has actually given us the authority to handle the problem of Vietnamese illegal immigrants on our own. So, we do in fact have the authority to sign an agreement with the Vietnamese Government because under the Basic Law, the SAR Government is allowed to sign agreements of this nature with foreign states under the name of "Hong Kong, China". That said, if there are still any doubts, the SAR Government should seek clarifications from the Central Government. I am sure that the Chinese Government will be prepared to assist Hong Kong in complying with the Basic Law in seeking to reach such an agreement with the Vietnamese government.

Second, does the signing of such an agreement necessarily mean that we can implement repatriation upon arrest immediately? No, I must say. Before this, we must draw up some standards governing the implementation of this policy; these standards must at least conform with international humanitarian standards and practices. We must show the international community that our implementation of this policy will be guided by international practice, and, for that reason, even if we abolish the port of first asylum policy, we will not haul any Vietnamese illegal immigrants out into the high seas, but will instead let them land in Hong Kong first. However, having pointed out that we must adhere to a whole set of procedures for handling illegal immigrants, I must add that our SAR Government will have to pay some prices for implementing these procedures. For example, we will have to verify the identity of those illegal immigrants coming from Vietnam; then, we will also have to make arrangements with the Vietnamese Government, so that they can be repatriated and taken back by their own country. Besides, the SAR Government must ensure their safe return to Vietnam, either through escorts by SAR Government officials or other means. Hence, it can be seen that we actually have to shoulder some unavoidable responsibilities and pay some prices. These are the prices which we must pay if we want to implement the policy of repatriation upon arrest.

Third, the SAR Government must carry out some relevant publicity work on an international scale. Such propaganda should seek to protect the international image of Hong Kong by preventing the international community from thinking that once Hong Kong becomes an SAR, it wants to abolish the port of first asylum policy and wash its hands of the refugee problem. Let me emphasize that this is simply not true in reality, for what we are dealing with is just a problem of illegal immigrants.

We all know that the Chief Executive, Mr TUNG Chee-hwa, is about to make a series of overseas trips. Actually, these trips come just at the right time. If we can reach a consensus quickly, Mr TUNG may still have the time to adjust his itinerary and add in an item on explaining to the world why Hong Kong wants to abolish the port of first asylum policy.

With these remarks, Madam President, I support the original motion and Mr LAU Kong-wah's amendment.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? If not, I will now invite Mrs Selina CHOW to speak on the amendments.

I will now invite Mrs Selina CHOW to speak on the amendments. Mrs CHOW, you have five minutes.

MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Madam President, a moment ago, Mr LAU Kong-wah criticized me for being indecisive. But, his arguments are altogether odd. What I want from the Government is the abolition of the port of first asylum policy ─ it is abolition, not abolition qualified by "as soon as possible". No doubt, the expression "as soon as possible" is used in my motion to urge the Government to carry out repatriation, and Mr LAU has proposed to replace this expression with "immediately". This is where our difference lies. I have used "as soon as possible" largely because of my realization that the crux of the problem has not been any procrastination on the part of the Government, but the prolonged verification process, lengthy timetables and complicated formalities adopted by the Vietnamese Government. At one time, it took the Vietnamese Government as long as several years to verify the identity of boat people. Is that the fault of the Hong Kong Government?

Mr LAU also criticized the Hong Kong Government for failing to supply any lists of boat people to the Vietnamese Government. Mr LAU must appreciate that since the Vietnamese who sneak into Hong Kong all know of the identity verification procedure, most of them will refuse to co-operate and give true information about themselves, thinking that for as long as they can hide their true identity, they will still have a chance, however slim, of escaping the fate of being repatriated to Vietnam. For Vietnam, as a country, it is also faced with a lack of co-ordination between its central government and regional authorities, and because of the existence of a myriad of economic problems, the Vietnamese authorities are not particularly enthusiastic about the issue of repatriation. When Mr LAU recalled his meeting with Vietnamese diplomats, he talked about the rosy undertakings given to him. But, I think that before Mr LAU allows himself to be overjoyed, he must first look at what happened in the past. My experience tells me that negotiations with Vietnamese officials, particularly diplomats, are always very encouraging. But, if one thinks that what these officials say will really be implemented, one will indeed be too optimistic. Such experience is perhaps what makes the first generation different from the third generation. In view of all this, we can conclude that the sealing of an agreement or otherwise is not actually the key factor determining whether or not repatriation upon arrest can be implemented. The deciding factor is the elimination of the obstacles put up by Vietnam in the name of identity verification. The elimination of these obstacles is the only answer. If we sign an agreement on repatriation upon arrest, but continue to hold up repatriation until after identity verification, we will not possibly achieve anything.

Moreover, on our autonomy under the Basic Law to deal with this problem on our own, I must say that whether or not we really have this authority is not a matter of key significance. The most important factor, rather, is how Vietnam looks at this authority of ours. In past, the Vietnamese Government was extremely level- and rank-conscious in its approach to the problem. Consequently, even Britain found it necessary to exert pressure on Vietnam at the levels of Under-Secretary, Foreign Secretary or even Prime Minister before it could manage to achieve some modest results. So, I am convinced that the officials of the Hong Kong Government have actually experienced untold hardships. That being the case, if we harbour the unilateral hope that we can solve the problem simply by signing an agreement on our own, we will be much too optimistic. What is more, if the Central Government can really assist us, why is it impossible for us to sit back and relax and rely on our sovereign power to achieve this legitimate objective for us?

There is nothing wrong with Miss CHOY So-yuk's amendment in principle, but I must say that her amendment is characterized by a lack of realism, not least because it will be largely impossible for us to set any deadline for the United Nations to repay its debts. As for the problem of black market labour, its implications, I must say, are so enormous that we should really discuss it as a separate topic (though I fail to see how we can possibly work out any special measures to deal solely with Vietnamese black market labour). Suppose we really follow the advice of Miss CHOY and pick out Vietnamese illegal workers for severe penalties, we will in fact be seeking to curb the problem of illegal immigrants by the adoption of a racist measure. Black market labour are black market labour, and they should not be differentiated on the basis of nationality or race.

I hereby call upon Honourable colleagues to oppose the amendments for the sake of preserving the integrity and focus of the original motion. I also urge them to support the original motion, which states that tough measures similar to those adopted by western democracies should be applied to deal with illegal immigrants. Thank you.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Security.

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Madam President, since 1975 when the Vietnamese boat people problem first surfaced, Hong Kong has received a total of 200 000 Vietnamese. Of these, 143 000 have been resettled overseas following confirmation of their refugee status, and another 69 000 non-refugees repatriated to Vietnam. All along, we have never turned away even one single asylum-seeker. This is absolutely a record of which we should feel proud. Since 1989 when the international community drew up the CPA, we have strictly followed this plan as a means of solving the boat people problem. In 1991, when the influx of boat people reached its climax, the number of boat people stranded in Hong Kong was as large as 59 000. Now, however, this number has dropped to a mere 790. As for the number of Vietnamese refugees, it has also dropped from 69 000 in the peak year of 1979 to 1 300 now. The number of Vietnamese boat people and refugees stranded in Hong Kong now is just 1% of the total.

As far as such a result is concerned, international co-operation is of course a contributing factor. But, the immense kind-heartedness and commitment shown by the Hong Kong people towards this problem is certainly another.

The original motion advocates the repatriation of all Vietnamese refugees and boat people stranded in Hong Kong as soon as possible. This has indeed been our principal aim in handling the problem over the years. In 1996 alone, we repatriated more than 15 000 boat people. And, in the first seven months of this year, we also repatriated a total of 4 420 Vietnamese boat people, thus reducing the boat people population from 5 525 at the beginning of this year to 790 now. Of these boat people who are still stranded in Hong Kong, about 480 are "non-nationals" and their family members, who have been denied acceptance by the Vietnamese Government. The remaining 310 or so have been verified to be boat people, but, because of various reasons beyond our control, they cannot be repatriated for the time being. For example, they may be physically unfit for repatriation; or, they may be still at large or awaiting court hearings. Once these causes of delayed repatriation are eliminated, we will make arrangements for their repatriation to Vietnam as soon as possible. As for the cases of "non-nationals", we will continue to negotiate with the Vietnamese Government and the UNHCR, with a view to working out a solution.

In regard to Vietnamese illegal immigrants, nearly 1 400 people have been arrested in Hong Kong so far this year. This figure is even larger than the corresponding figure for the whole of 1996. At present, about 900 people are awaiting repatriation, and a list of some 800 people with personal particulars has been forwarded to the Vietnamese Government for identity verification. We have drawn up bilateral arrangements with the Vietnamese Government, under which these people can be repatriated to Vietnam after identity verification. The only problem is that it usually takes a very long time, about four to six months, for the Vietnamese Government to complete the identity verification. For that reason, we have urged the Vietnamese Government to speed up its work, and we will also continue to negotiate with the Vietnamese Government, with a view to reducing the time required identity verification and repatriation as much as possible. Besides, we also maintain close contacts with the Mainland and the Vietnamese Government, so as to exchange intelligence and enhance the interception of Vietnamese illegal immigrants.

The abolition or otherwise of the port of first asylum policy has aroused great concern and controversies in the community over the years. Before a decision is made, let me first make some clarifications on this policy. First, following the end of the CPA in June 1996, Hong Kong has long since ceased to be a port of first asylum for Vietnamese refugees. We are thus no longer under any international obligation to provide asylum for the Vietnamese. In fact, very few Vietnamese illegal immigrants still ask for political asylum these days. In the case of this year, for example, of the most recent batch of 1 400 Vietnamese illegal immigrants arriving in Hong Kong, only four of them have asked for screening to verify their alleged refugee status, and subsequently, they have all been verified to be non-refugees.

Second, for most of the Vietnamese illegal immigrants who come to Hong Kong these days, their sole objective is to seek illegal employment and earn money, rather than to seek political asylum. The massive influx of Vietnamese boat people into Hong Kong in search of political asylum has already become history.

What we are facing now is a problem of Vietnamese illegal immigrants. We are convinced that for as long as some people continue to believe wrongly that they can seek illegal employment and earn money in Hong Kong easily, the Vietnamese and people from other places will keep on entering Hong Kong illegally. To those illegal immigrants who seek to work in Hong Kong illegally, the continuation or otherwise of the port of first asylum policy is simply not a matter of any significance. For that reason, it is indeed a total misconception that this policy has led to an increase in the number of Vietnamese illegal immigrants. Stern measures to prevent the Vietnamese from sneaking out of their country, together with the prompt repatriation of illegal immigrants, are the only effective means of solving this problem.

When Vietnamese illegal immigrants are intercepted, most of them will be willing to provide accurate information on their personal particulars, so as to enable the Vietnamese authorities to verify their identity. The reason for this is that since they cannot earn any money in Hong Kong as planned, they all want to return to Vietnam as soon as possible. So, in essence, Vietnamese illegal immigrants are no different from illegal immigrants from mainland China or other places. So these Vietnamese illegal immigrants do not actually harbour any illusory hopes of resettling overseas as people have generally imagined. In view of this, with the exception of repatriating these illegal immigrants as soon as possible after arrest, we do not think that any other means, including the abolition of the port of first asylum policy, will possibly provide any substantial help in solving this problem.

Some people who support the abolition of the policy have advocated that we should haul all Vietnamese illegal immigrants and their boats out into the high seas and forbid them to enter Hong Kong. We are worried that this may produce negative effects, and we also have doubts and reservation about the underlying principles, practicability and practical effects of such a course of action. To begin with, most Vietnamese illegal immigrants arrive in dilapidated wooden boats which cannot meet international sea-worthiness standards. That being the case, if we forcibly drag them out into the high seas, will we contravene the relevant international conventions on navigational safety or even our own marine legislation? Even if we can haul their boats out into the high seas under safe circumstances, they will still try their luck again, in the hope of landing successfully in Hong Kong to seek illegal employment. In the end, we will achieve nothing. If we choose to haul the boats of Vietnamese illegal immigrants out into the high seas, the international community will certainly criticize us very sharply, and the good international image which we have built up over the years will be greatly smeared as a result. So, we must really ask ourselves, "What can we get in return?" This is a question which we must not ignore, bearing in mind that over 90% of Vietnamese illegal immigrants are in fact intercepted on land, and, as a result, we cannot possibly "haul them out into the high seas with their boats".

The Vietnamese boat people problem is drawing to a close, and we are right now conducting a comprehensive policy review on the questions relating to Vietnamese refugees, boat people and illegal immigrants. One of our considerations concerns whether or not we should abolish the port of first asylum policy which is now existing in name only. Should we decide to abolish this policy, we will have to amend those sections of the Immigration Ordinance which deal with Vietnamese boat people. When we study any possible amendments, we must proceed with extreme caution because there is a real need for us to retain our specific powers under the Ordinance to detain and repatriate Vietnamese illegal immigrants; the general powers of detention set out elsewhere in the Ordinance are simply not enough for our purpose. In the course of the review, we will seriously consider the opinions of Members and the community, with a view to making a sensible and reasonable decision which is beneficial to the long-term interests of Hong Kong.

The UNHCR now still owes us $1.17 billion of Vietnamese boat people-related expenses. In 1988, the UNHCR signed a memorandum of understanding with the Hong Kong Government, under which it undertook to pay for the living expenses of those Vietnamese boat people stranded in Hong Kong. However, since the UNHCR subsequently failed to meet the related expenses, the Hong Kong Government had to make advances for the purpose, thus leading to the problem of accumulated debts. But, since the number of Vietnamese boat people stranded in Hong Kong is very small, I do not think that this amount of debts will increase drastically any further. On the debts accumulated so far, the UNHCR has repeatedly assured us that it will make the best of its endeavours to effect repayments. It has also made it clear that the validity of its pledge on repayment will not be subject to any time limit.

Over the years, we have repeatedly urged the UNHCR to repay the money it owes us. At the fifth, sixth and seventh meetings of the Steering Committee on the CPA, we urged those countries which had promised to make contributions to pay attention to the debt problem confronting the UNHCR. In May this year, when the UNHCR met with representatives from host countries, our Refugees Co-ordinator also appealed to the countries concerned, asking them to make donations to help the UNHCR repay its debts. We fully appreciate the concern of the community and Members over this issue, and we will certainly do all we can to urge the UNHCR to repay the money it owes us as soon as possible.

In regard to Miss CHOY So-yuk's amendment, which asks the UNHCR to give a specific deadline for debts repayment, we have no objection in principle. But, we do believe, on the other hand, that it will be very much unlikely for the UNHCR to yield to such a demand, for we must not forget that the UNHCR in fact derives all its income from the contributions made by the international community. That being the case, and since there is a lack of donations for the particular purpose of dealing with the boat people stranded in Hong Kong, we believe that the UNHCR may well find it difficult to set down any deadlines for repaying its debts to us. What is more, even if the UNHCR really gives us any deadlines, its repayment ability will still be constrained by how much it can receive from the international community. As a result, the setting of deadlines will not possibly produce any practical results.

One of the amendments to the original motion today involves the request that we should sign an agreement on repatriation upon arrest with the Vietnamese Government. In principle, we do not have any objection to this request. But, as far as I understand it, the position of the Vietnamese Government has not changed; it still insists that before it takes back any illegal immigrants from Hong Kong, proper identity verification must be conducted. I have no knowledge of the Vietnamese Government having signed any agreements on repatriation upon arrest with any countries, nor do I know of any such agreements. To be fair, I must say that it is not entirely unreasonable for the Vietnamese Government to ask for verification of identity. Actually, with the only exception of illegal immigrants from mainland China, for whom there is indeed an arrangement of repatriation upon arrest, Hong Kong do not have any similar arrangements with any other countries in the world. In the case of Vietnamese illegal immigrants, the root of the problem is that the speed with which the Vietnamese Government verifies the identity of illegal immigrants is much too slow, thus compelling Vietnamese illegal immigrants to be stranded in Hong Kong for longer than necessary. As I said just now, we will continue to negotiate with the Vietnamese Government, in the hope of speeding up the identity verification and repatriation processes. If the Vietnamese Government agrees to do so, and if the relevant terms and conditions are reasonable, we will be prepared to sign an agreement on repatriation upon arrest with it.

On the problem of Vietnamese illegal immigrants seeking illegal employment in Hong Kong, we have tried to tackle such unlawful activities through various means. To begin with, the police and the Immigration Department have been closely monitoring the situation; raids on black spots of illegal workers are carried out from time to time, either by individual departments or on an inter-departmental basis, and each time, illegal workers are rounded up. As far as this problem is concerned, Vietnamese black market labour are no different from their counterparts from other countries ─ all being persuaded by snakeheads to sneak into Hong Kong for prospects of employment. In order to curb the activities of black market labour, the Immigration Department set up a task force in June 1996, and the size of this task force has since increased gradually from 46 members at the start to 92 members now. Since 1995, we have arrested a total of 12 500 illegal workers and prosecuted 9 950 of them. Over the same period, we have also carried out investigation work in relation to 4 800 employers and prosecuted 1 980 of them. In terms of legislative work, the Government has started to impose heavier penalties for employing illegal workers with effect from January 1996, raising the maximum penalty to a fine of $350, 000 and imprisonment for three years. Moreover, following their discovery that some Vietnamese have managed to get jobs by producing forged refugee identity cards, the police and the Immigration Department have started to investigate the matter and have subsequently uncovered a forged refugee card syndicate. This has proved to be useful in curbing Vietnamese black market labour.

In a further attempt to prevent illegal immigrants from seeking black market employment in Hong Kong, the Government has laid down a clear and specific rule under which the government departments concerned will not award any public works contracts to a contractor who has been convicted twice over the preceding year for employing black market labour. Over the past years, the Government has also carried out an extensive publicity drive directed at employers in all trades and industries, advising them not to take on illegal workers. With all these measures, we have aimed to minimize the chances for illegal immigrants to secure black market employment in Hong Kong.

I would like to reiterate that the Government, like Members of this Council, is concerned about the problems caused by Vietnamese boat people and illegal immigrants. During our policy review, we will study the related issues in detail, and we will continue to do all we can to repatriate, as soon as possible, all Vietnamese boat people and illegal immigrants stranded in Hong Kong. In addition, we will continue to urge the UNHCR to repay the advances made by us and we will also step up our efforts of curbing Vietnamese black market labour. As for all the possible ways of achieving these objectives, including a formal termination or otherwise of the port of first asylum policy, we will treat them as an important theme of our policy review. The Government will seriously consider the views put forward by Members of this Council.

Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now call upon Mr LAU Kong-wah to move his amendment to the motion. Mr LAU Kong-wah.

MR LAU KONG-WAH (in Cantonese): Madam President, I move that Mrs Selina CHOW's motion be amended as set out on the Agenda.

Mr LAU Kong-wah moved the following amendment:

"To insert "immediately" before "repatriate"; to delete "as soon as possible"; and to add ", sign an agreement with the Vietnamese Government for the repatriation of Vietnamese illegal immigrants upon arrest" after "the port of first asylum policy"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LAU Kong-wah be made to Mrs Selina CHOW's motion.

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)

Mr LAU Kong-wah rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAU Kong-wah has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for three minutes.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Before I announce the result, are there any queries? If not, the result will now be displayed.

Mr WONG Siu-yee, Mr David CHU, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr YUEN Mo, Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TSANG Yok-sing, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LAU Kong-wah, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Dr TANG Siu-tong, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr LO Suk-ching, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr TAM Yiu-chung and Miss CHOY So-yuk voted for the amendment.

Mr James TIEN, Mr HO Sai-chu, Dr Raymond HO, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Eric LI, Mrs Elsie TU, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mrs Peggy LAM, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr Henry TANG, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mrs Sophie LEUNG and Mr Howard YOUNG voted against the amendment.

Mr CHAN Choi-hi and Mr KAN Fook-yee abstained.

THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 26 Members in favour of the amendment, 15 against and two abstaining. She therefore declared that the amendment was carried.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Miss CHOY Sok-yuk, as Mr LAU's amendment has been agreed, your amendment cannot proceed in its present form. Would you like to seek leave to alter the terms of your amendment?

MISS CHOY SO-YUK (in Cantonese): Madam President, may I seek your permission to change the terms of my amendment as set out in the paper which I have now tabled?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You have my leave to revise the terms of your amendment. In accordance with the House Committee's recommendation which I have accepted, you have up to three minutes to explain your revised amendment.

MISS CHOY SO-YUK (in Cantonese): Madam President, I move that Mrs Selina CHOW's motion as amended by Mr LAU be further amended by my revised amendment.

Madam President, let me outline once again the main features of my amendment here.

First, Hong Kong is a small but densely populated place, and its resources are limited. For that reason, the Government must repatriate all Vietnamese boat people and illegal immigrants stranded in Hong Kong as soon as possible, so as to shake off the burden which has been put on our shoulders for many years. That way, the Government can save taxpayers' money and use it for the purpose of improving the well-being of the community.

Second, the Government must pay heed to public opinions. It must take decisive actions and announce to the world the abolition, immediate abolition, of this policy. It must convey an unambiguous and clear message to Vietnam and other countries that Hong Kong is no longer a refugee reception centre. This will dispel the illusion harboured by those who want to linger in Hong Kong in the hope of securing overseas resettlement.

Third, the Government should, through proper channels, urge the UNHCR to give a specific date on which it will repay all the money it owes Hong Kong. The Secretary for Security has just said that the Administration has no objection to this proposal in principle. This makes me very surprised. If it has no objection in principle, why then does it refuse to act just because of the worry that the other party may be reluctant to commit itself to a deadline? This is entirely a timid attitude. Since the Secretary for Security agrees to my proposal, I hope that he will do what he should do, instead of bothering about the results at the end.

Fourth, the Government should realize that the abolition of the port of first asylum policy, alone is not an effective solution to the problem of Vietnamese boat people. To really solve the problem, we will need to introduce effective measures to tackle the problem of Vietnamese black market labour in Hong Kong. That is why the Government should devote more resources and increase the strength of the police for the purpose of inspecting the construction sites of the new airport and other places frequented by illegal workers. It should also encourage the public to report illegal workers, and take effective measures to sever the ties between underground syndicates and the black market labour and illegal immigrants stranded in Hong Kong. Moreover, heavy penalties should be imposed on employers taking on illegal workers; fines should also be levied on illegal workers. Only by adopting a multi-pronged approach can we stamp out Vietnamese black market labour for the protection of the job opportunities of local workers.

Madam President, the problem of Vietnamese boat people has emerged as a topic of discussion again largely because more and more Vietnamese boat people have poured into Hong Kong over the past few months. Why have more and more boat people come to Hong Kong? They have not come to Hong Kong as refugees, but as black market labour instead. This is a problem which the Government must eradicate before it can allay our anxieties. Thank You, Madam President.

Miss CHOY So-yuk moved the following amendment:

"To add ", and request the Commission to commit to a repayment deadline; and at the same time, take effective measures to eradicate the problem of black market Vietnamese labour in Hong Kong" after "made by Hong Kong"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): For the sake of clarity, Members can refer to Miss CHOY So-yuk's revised amendment which is now tabled for their reference. I will now read out the text of the revised amendment again: "That this Council urges the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to immediately repatriate all Vietnamese boat people and illegal immigrants stranded in Hong Kong, abolish the port of first asylum policy, sign an agreement with the Vietnamese Government for the repatriation of Vietnamese illegal immigrants upon arrest, as well as expeditiously recover from the United Nations High Commission for Refugees the $1.1 billion advances made by Hong Kong, and request the Commission to commit to a repayment deadline; and at the same time, take effective measures to eradicate the problem of black market Vietnamese labour in Hong Kong."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Miss CHOY's amendment to Mrs Selina CHOW's motion as amended by Mr LAU be approved.

I now put the question to you as stated.

MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Madam President, a point of order. Miss CHOY So-yuk has put forward an amendment without notice, and you have given leave for her to do so. Are we actually permitted to debate her revised amendment? I ask this question because you allowed her to speak just now. But, are we allowed to conduct another debate on her revised amendment?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If Members wish to further debate the revised amendment of Miss CHOY So-yuk, I will grant my permission. However, my original idea is that there should be no further debate because Miss CHOY's revised amendment is just technical in nature, and does not involve any changes in the meaning of her original amendment. Since the amendment moved by Mr LAU Kong-wah has been approved, the terms of her original amendment have to be altered accordingly. But, this does not involve any changes in meaning. For that reason, I do not think that there should be a further debate, unless Members feel strongly otherwise.

MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Madam President, I am simply referring to a point of order. In a case like this, you have to ask Members whether they wish to speak. I myself do not want to speak. However, I would like to point out that according to Rule 33(3) of the Rules of Procedure, a further debate can be conducted on a question proposed on an amended motion. I am simply drawing your attention to this point. In case an amendment is moved without notice, you may have to ask Members whether they wish to speak. It may well be that Members have already said all they wish to say. But, you still have to follow the procedure of asking them. This is the point I wish to raise.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): As I said just now, if Members still want to speak, I will allow them to do so. Does any Member wish to speak? If not, I will now put the question to you.

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.

Dr TANG Siu-tong rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr TANG has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for three minutes.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The question now put is: That Miss CHOY's amendment to Mrs Selina CHOW's motion as amended by Mr LAU Kong-wah be approved.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Before I announce the result, are there any queries? If not, the result will not be displayed.

Mr WONG Siu-yee, Mr David CHU, Mr HO Sai-chu, Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Dr TANG Siu-tong, Mr LO Suk-ching and Miss CHOY So-yuk voted for the amendment.

Mr James TIEN, Dr Raymond HO, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Eric LI, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mrs Elsie TU, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr Henry TANG, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TSANG Yok-sing, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr YOUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr KAN Fook-yee, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok and Mr TAM Yiu-chung voted against the amendment.

Mrs Peggy LAM, Mr YUEN Mo, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr LAU Kong-wah and Mr LAU Wong-fat abstained.

THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 11 Members in favour of the amendment, 26 against and five abstaining. She therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW, you are originally entitled to reply but since you have already used up the 15 minutes when you made the last speech just now, in accordance with the decision of the House Committee, you may not reply.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mrs Selina CHOW as amended by Mr LAU Kong-wah be approved.

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.

NEXT MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, I now adjourn the Council until 2.30 pm on Wednesday, 27 August 1997.

Adjourned accordingly at Four minutes past Six o'clock.

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Wednesday, 20 August 1997 The Council met at half-past Two o'clock

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 20 August 1997
The Council met at half-past Two o'clock