Provisional Legislative Council
PLC Paper No. CB(2) 901
(These minutes have been
seen by the Administration)
Ref. : CB2/PL/SE/1
Provisional Legislative Council
Panel on Security
Minutes of Meeting
held on Thursday, 20 November 1997 at 2:30 pm
in the Chamber of the Legislative Council Building
Members present :
Hon Mrs Selina CHOW, JP (Chairman)
Hon CHENG Kai-nam (Deputy Chairman)
Hon Allen LEE, JP
Hon Mrs Elsie TU, GBM
Hon Henry WU
Hon MA Fung-kwok
Hon CHEUNG Hon-chung
Hon CHAN Choi-hi
Hon Andrew WONG Wang-fat, JP
Hon Kennedy WONG Ying-ho
Hon IP Kwok-him
Hon Bruce LIU Sing-lee
Hon LAU Kong-wah
Hon Ambrose LAU Hon-chuen, JP
Hon KAN Fook-yee
Members attending :
Hon LEE Kai-ming
Hon CHAN Yuen-han
Members absent :
| Hon HUI Yin-fat, JP | ]
|
| Hon Howard YOUNG, JP | ] other commitments
|
| Dr Hon LAW Cheung-kwok | ]
|
Public Officers attending :
Item III
- Mrs Clarie LO
- Commissioner for Narcotics
- Miss Cathy CHU
- Principal Assistant Secretary for Security (Narcotics)
- Ms Linda SHINE
- Senior Government Counsel
Item IV
- Mr Alex FONG
- Deputy Secretary for Security 2
- Mrs Sarah KWOK
- Principal Assistant Secretary for Security
- Mr Kelvin PANG
- Assistant Commissioner of Correctional Services
- Mr Peter H H WONG
- Senior Assistant Solicitor General (Atg)
- Mr H N NG
- Secretary, Long-term Prison Sentences Review Board
Item V
- Mr Alex FONG
- Deputy Secretary for Security 2
- Mrs Sarah KWOK
- Principal Assistant Secretary for Security
- Mr Kelvin PANG
- Mr John HUNTER
- Deputy Principal Government Counsel
Item VI
- Mr Alex FONG
- Deputy Secretary for Security 2
- Mrs Sarah KWOK
- Principal Assistant Secretary for Security
- Mr CHAN Kwong-ching
- Chief Ambulance Officer (Atg)
- Fire Services Department
Clerk in attendance :
- Mrs Sharon TONG
- Chief Assistant Secretary (2) 1
Staff in attendance :
- Miss Salumi CHAN
- Senior Assistant Secretary (2) 1
I.Confirmation of minutes of the Policy Briefing and the Panel meeting held on 16 October 1997
(PLC Paper Nos. CB(2) 612 and 632)
The minutes of the Policy Briefing and the Panel meeting held on 16 October 1997 respectively were confirmed.
II.Date of next meeting and items for discussion
(PLC Paper No. CB(2) 618(01))
Items for discussion at the next Panel meeting
2.Members agreed to discuss the following items at the next Panel meeting to be held on 18 December 1997 :
- Police Top Command Structure;
- Indebtedness of Police officers;
- Hong Kong new airport at Chep Lap Kok
- Security arrangements, non-emergency ambulance service in the Restricted Area and emergency drill; and
- Progress report on the policy review on the issues of Vietnamese migrants, Vietnamese refugees and Vietnamese illegal immigrants.
Items for discussion at future Panel meetings
3.The Chairman remarked that at a case conference with the Administration that morning on the issue of Frontier Permit and related matters, Members considered that the Administration should review its overall policy in respect of the Frontier Closed Area and that the subject should be followed up by the Security Panel.
| 4.Mr KAN Fook-yee considered that the review should also cover the Administration's policy of maintaining the Frontier Closed Area as a buffer zone to operate against illegal immigration, in particular, the desirability of replacing the existing policy by other alternatives such as disestablishment of the Frontier Closed Area so that the land in question could be released for development purpose, and compensation for those villagers who owned private land which fell within the Frontier Closed Area. Mr Andrew WONG considered that the Administration's review might as well cover the enforcement of curfew in the Frontier Closed Area. The Chairman said that the Administration would be informed of Members' points of concern.
| Clerk
|
|---|
Plan for Panel visits
5.Members agreed to visit the Frontier Closed Area before discussion of the subject by the Panel. The Clerk would follow-up with the Administration.
(Post meeting note : The visit is scheduled for the morning of 12 February 1998.)
6.Regarding members' proposal raised at a previous meeting to visit the Hong Kong Garrison of the People's Liberation Army, the Chairman said that the Security Bureau had referred the request to the Hong Kong Garrison. The Clerk would check the progress.
(Post meeting note : The Administration has advised that a reply from the Garrison is awaited.)
Rescheduling of the regular Panel meeting on 15 January 1998
7.The Chairman pointed out that the regular Panel meeting originally scheduled for 15 January 1998 clashed with the Chief Executive's Question and Answer Session to be held in the same afternoon. Members agreed to postpone the regular Panel meeting to 22 January 1998 at 2:30 pm.
III.Policy and arrangements on sharing of assets confiscated from drug traffickers
(PLC Paper No. CB(2) 618(02))
Briefing by the Administration
8.Commissioner for Narcotics briefed members on the Administration's information paper. She pointed out that by confiscating the assets of drug traffickers, the Administration aimed to hinder them from using the assets to further their drug trafficking or other criminal activities through money laundering. The financial gain arising from the assets confiscated was nothing more than an additional benefit.
Discussions
Policy on asset sharing
9.In response to Mrs Elsie TU's enquiry, Commissioner for Narcotics advised that it was not a legal requirement for the Administration to share assets confiscated from drug traffickers with foreign jurisdictions. However, paragraph 5 of Article 5 of the 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (UN Convention) provided that a party might share with other parties, on a regular or case-by-case basis, assets confiscated from drug proceeds in accordance with its domestic law, administrative procedures or bilateral or multi-lateral agreements. In line with this provision, the Administration considered requests for asset sharing from foreign jurisdictions on a case-by-case basis, with due regard to the circumstances of each case and the extent of assistance given by the requesting jurisdiction. However, the Administration would not entertain any such requests if the total value of the assets confiscated was HK$10 million or less. The Executive Council was consulted in April 1993 and supported this policy on asset sharing.
Threshold for asset sharing
10.Responding to Mr Henry WU, Commissioner for Narcotics advised that it was reasonable to set the threshold level at HK$10 million as asset confiscation was a time-consuming process involving a considerable administrative effort in the processing of court orders and other confiscation procedures. For the time being, the Administration did not see the need to review the threshold level. However, it would do so when such a need arose.
|
In response to Mr Henry WU's follow-up question , Commissioner for
Narcotics advised that some foreign jurisdictions had also set a threshold level for asset sharing. She agreed to provide information on the countries involved and their respective threshold level.
| Adm |
Criteria for asset sharing
11.Responding to Mr LAU Kong-wah, Commissioner for Narcotics advised that the criteria for asset sharing were as follows :
- the requesting party must be a government with which Hong Kong had entered into an agreement on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, or previously a bilateral agreement on the suppression of drug trafficking ; and
- the assets were confiscated as a result of significant contribution, be it investigative or judicial or both, made by the requesting jurisdiction, for example, through an external confiscation order (ECO) issued by the requesting jurisdiction.
12.Commissioner for Narcotics advised that Hong Kong had co-operated with the United States (US) on 15 drug cases which had resulted in drug proceeds amounting to about $360 million being frozen or confiscated in Hong Kong. Of these 15 cases, there were five cases each involving assets valued over HK$10 million. Only two of the five cases involved the issue of ECO and the US Government (USG) had only requested asset sharing in respect of those two cases. The Administration had also forwarded two requests to the USG for sharing of drug trafficking proceeds in the total value of US$101.8 million confiscated on their side.
(Post-meeting note : The Administration has subsequently advised that three, instead of two, of the five cases involved the issue of ECO.)
13.In response to Mr LAU Kong-wah's follow-up question, Commissioner for Narcotics advised that since 1993, the Administration had received requests for assistance from foreign jurisdictions, including US, Canada and Australia, mainly for freezing rather than confiscation of drug trafficking assets.
14.In response to Mr IP Kwok-him's enquiry, Commissioner for Narcotics advised that certain countries such as US, in processing requests for assistance from foreign jurisdictions in asset confiscation, would give priority to those which were willing to share confiscated assets.
Ratio of asset sharing
15.Responding to Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Commissioner for Narcotics advised that the ratio of asset sharing would be considered on a case-by-case basis. Normally, the Administration would first deduct 20% of the gross confiscated assets as administrative costs and retain at least 60% for Hong Kong Government (HKG). Thus, the amount to be shared with the requesting jurisdiction would range from zero to a maximum of 40% depending on its contribution.
| 16.Mr Ambrose LAU sought clarification on why the Committee on Asset Sharing had accepted the request of the USG for sharing 50% of the confiscated assets in the case of CHAN Ching-wai as stated in the Administration's paper presented to the Finance Committee on 17 October 1997. Commissioner for Narcotics responded that it was only a general practice, rather than an established policy, for the Administration to deduct 20% of the gross confiscated assets as administrative costs and to share not more than 40% with a requesting jurisdiction. For the case of CHAN Ching-wai, in view of the comparatively low administrative costs incurred by the HKG and the fact that the confiscation would not have been possible without an ECO issued by the USG, the Administration proposed not to deduct the 20% of the gross confiscated assets as administrative costs and to accept the USG's request for a 50% share. Members considered that the Administration should follow the general practice as far as practicable and it seemed unjustified for a deviation in this case. Having noted members' views, Commissioner for Narcotics undertook to discuss with the relevant government departments for a reassessment of the case. A revised proposal would then be submitted to the Finance Committee for funding support.
| Adm |
|---|
17.Responding to Mr Bruce LIU, Commissioner for Narcotics advised that each country had its own policy on the ratio of asset sharing. As far as she knew, the USG had not set an upper limit on the amount to be shared and had, in certain cases, shared as much as two-thirds of the confiscated assets with the requesting jurisdiction. In a recent case, the Administration had requested the USG to share 60% of the gross confiscated assets and the reply was being awaited.
| 18. Some members considered that the Administration should put in place a set of criteria for determining the ratio of asset sharing. Mr KAN Fook-yee suggested the Administration to discuss with each of the jurisdictions referred to in paragraph 12(a) above on such criteria to ensure consistency in handling various cases with the same country and reciprocal treatment. For example, if a government would share not more than 10% of the confiscated assets with other jurisdictions, it was not reasonable for Hong Kong to share with it up to 40%. Commissioner for Narcotics pointed out that asset sharing involved internal policies of foreign jurisdictions which were subject to changes. At present, Hong Kong had entered into an agreement on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters with the US, France and Australia and draft agreement with Switzerland, New Zealand and the Philippines. So far, the Administration had only received requests from the US for asset sharing. It seemed not necessary at this stage to discuss with each of these countries on the criteria for determining the ratio of asset sharing. Mr KAN Fook-yee considered that the case of CHAN Ching-wai had indicated the need and desirability for setting such criteria. Commissioner for Narcotics undertook to look into his suggestion.
| Adm
|
|---|
IV.Long-term Prison Sentences Review Regulation
(PLC Paper No. CB(2) 618(03))
Briefing by the Administration
19.Deputy Secretary for Security 2 briefed members on the Administration's information paper. He said that the Administration aimed to introduce the Long-term Prison Sentences Review Regulation (the Regulation) into the Provisional Legislative Council in December 1997.
Discussions
20.Mrs Elsie TU and Mr Andrew WONG were concerned about the uncertainty of those prisoners who had been sentenced for detention at Her Majesty's pleasure (HMP) years ago and were still serving indeterminate sentences. Deputy Secretary for Security 2 advised that having regard to the jurisprudence of the European Convention on Human Rights, the following provisions were made in the Long-term Prison Sentences Review Ordinance (the Ordinance) enacted in June 1997 :
- For those prisoners who had been serving discretionary life sentences or detained at Executive discretion at the time the Ordinance came into effect, the Chief Justice must, within 6 months after commencement of the Ordinance, make recommendations to the Chief Executive on the appropriate punitive tariff period, i.e. the minimum term to be served by the prisoners concerned ;
- in respect of new cases, the trial judge must specify the tariff period when he imposed a discretionary life sentence ;
- the Long-term Prison Sentences Review Board (the Review Board) would consider whether discretionary life sentence prisoners should be released upon the expiry of the tariff period.
21.In response to Mr Andrew WONG's enquiry, Senior Assistant Solicitor General (Atg) advised that the Ordinance also provided amendments to the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap. 221) by adding the new sections 67B and 67C. The new section 67C (in Annex 1) provided the relevant procedures to be followed in determining the minimum terms in respect of the existing prisoners who had been serving discretionary life sentences or detained at Executive discretion.
22.Mrs Elsie TU and Mr Andrew WONG criticized the lack of transparency of the Review Board. In response to their queries, Deputy Secretary for Security 2 advised that for the purpose of reviewing a prisoner's sentence under the Ordinance, the Review Board took into account a number of matters which would be included in the Regulation to be introduced to the PLC. This would help increase the transparency of the Review Board.
(Post-meeting note : Schedule 1 of the Regulation where the 18 matters considered by the Review Board were listed was attached in Annex 2 for members' information.)
| 23. In response to Mr Andrew WONG's enquiry, Secretary, Long-term Prison Sentences Review Board advised that at present, 14 HMP cases remained to be resolved. At Mr Andrew WONG's request, Deputy Secretary for Security 2 agreed to provide information on the position of these cases.
| Adm
|
|---|
V.Transfer of prisoners of foreign nationalities to their countries of origin
(PLC Paper No. CB(2) 618(04))
Briefing by the Administration
24.Deputy Secretary for Security 2 briefed members on the Administration's information paper. He also pointed out that before 1 July 1997, Hong Kong had arrangements for transfer of prisoners :
- with the United Kingdom ;
- with 23 countries, pursuant to the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, which had been extended to Hong Kong by the United Kingdom ; and
- with Thailand, pursuant to the United Kingdom-Thailand Agreement on the Transfer of Offenders and on Co-operation in the Enforcement of Penal Sentences, which had also been extended to Hong Kong by the United Kingdom.
25.Deputy Secretary for Security 2 said that as the arrangements mentioned above had lapsed on 1 July 1997, the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Ordinance (TSP Ordinance) was enacted to provide legal backing for implementing new arrangements for transfer of foreign prisoners. Moreover, such arrangements were also made on the basis of Article 96 of the Basic Law which provided that "With the assistance or authorization of the Central People's Government, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may make appropriate arrangements with foreign states for reciprocal juridical assistance".
26.Deputy Secretary for Security 2 pointed out that the existing legislation did not cover transfer of prisoners between the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) and the Mainland. However, Article 95 of the Basic Law provided that "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may, through consultations and in accordance with law, maintain juridical relations with the judicial organs of other parts of the country, and they may render assistance to each other." As there were a number of juridical assistance issues which needed to be discussed with the Mainland, the Administration would place its priority on those more urgent issues such as rendition and would discuss with the Mainland on transfer of prisoners at a later stage.
Discussions
Transfer of Mainland prisoners to the Mainland
27.Mr CHAN Choi-hi considered that apart from rendition, the Administration should place its priority on making arrangements with the Mainland on transfer of prisoners so that the problem of prison overcrowding in Hong Kong might be relieved to a certain extent. He also requested the Administration to provide a timetable for making the relevant arrangements with the Mainland. Deputy Secretary for Security 2 reiterated that the Administration's priority was to work on the more urgent issues. Moreover, it was expected that the relevant arrangements could only be made with the Mainland after a lengthy negotiation process. The Administration would take a step-by-step approach and it was not feasible to work out a timetable at this stage. In view of the long lead time in finalizing the arrangements, this would not serve as a ready solution to relieve the problem of prison overcrowding.
28.Mrs Elsie TU did not consider it justify to give priority to the Mainland prisoners as they had no language and cultural barriers as compared with the foreign prisoners. In response to Mr Bruce LIU's enquiry, Assistant Commissioner of Correctional Services advised that according to the information available, there had not been any requests from Mainland prisoners in Hong Kong for transfer back to the Mainland.
Transfer of foreign prisoners
29.Mr Henry WU noted from paragraph 4(c) of the Administration's information paper that arrangements for transfer of foreign prisoners must provide that any adjustment to the sentence by the transferring jurisdiction (for instance, by way of pardon, reduction of sentence) be given effect to by the receiving jurisdiction. In response to his enquiry, Deputy Principal Government Counsel explained that this requirement meant to cover the situation where a prisoner had already been transferred to his country of origin, i.e. the receiving jurisdiction. For example, after a prisoner had been transferred from Thailand to Hong Kong, the King of Thailand pardoned the prisoner. Then the HKSAR Government must give effect to that after receiving formal notice from the Thailand Government.
| 30.In response to Mr CHENG Kai-nam's enquiry, Deputy Secretary for Security 2 advised that there were a total of 985 foreign prisoners in Hong Kong. Mrs Elsie TU noted from paragraph 7 of the Administration's information paper that 53 foreign prisoners in Hong Kong had requested transfer to their countries of origin and it was expected that 19 of them could be transferred under bilateral agreements either signed or about to be signed in the near future. She would like to know the countries involved in those cases. Deputy Secretary for Security 2 agreed to provide the relevant information in writing.
| Adm
|
|---|
| 31.Mrs Elsie TU expressed concern about the transfer requests of prisoners from Nigeria, Columbia, Pakistan and the Philippines. Responding to her query, Deputy Secretary for Security 2 clarified that there had not been any delay in processing requests for transfer from these groups of prisoners. He pointed out that under the TSP Ordinance, transfers could only be effected if arrangements had been concluded with the jurisdiction concerned. As the TSP Ordinance had only come into operation in June 1997, it took time for the Administration to work out the operational details for the transfer. The Administration had not finalized these details and would approach the relevant consulates for making the arrangements in accordance with bilateral agreements or, the circumstances of individual prisoners if bilateral agreements were not in place. The Administration had so far signed only two bilateral agreements, one with US and the other with UK, and would continue discussions with other countries. Mrs Elsie TU urged the Administration to expedite the transfer arrangements.
| Adm
|
|---|
VI.Emergency ambulance service
(PLC Paper No. CB(2) 618(05))
(Part I of Chapter 6 of the Director of Audit's Report No. 29, October 1997)
Briefing by the Administration
32.Deputy Secretary for Security 2 briefed members on the Administration's information paper. He highlighted that the Fire Services Department (FSD) was committed to achieving the current target of responding to 92.5% of all emergency calls within 10-minute travel time, and then eventually to 95% of the calls. In this connection, resources had been secured for the provision of 222 posts and additional ambulances over two years by phase as follows :
| September 1997 | Filling of 75 newly created posts
|
| March 1998 | Filling of 79 newly created posts and
|
| provision of 22 additional ambulances
|
| September 1998 | Filling of 57 newly created posts
|
33.Deputy Secretary for Security 2 pointed out that since the filling of the 75 newly created posts in September 1997, the FSD was able to respond to 91.6% of all emergency calls within the 10-minute travel time. It was expected that with the provision of additional resources in 1998, the performance of emergency ambulance service (EAS) would be further improved.
Discussions
Performance of EAS
Members were concerned about the deteriorated performance of EAS in recent years. In 1994, it responded to 91.7% of emergency calls within 10-minute travel time but in 1996 , it could only respond to 89.7%. In response to members' queries, Deputy Secretary for Security 2 advised that the FSD had carried out analysis of the cases which had not achieved the 10-minute travel time target and identified various causes involved, such as long distance and traffic congestion. The Chairman considered that the failure to achieve the target, due to long distance travelled, highlighted deficiencies in the deployment of ambulances to attend to emergency calls. She suggested that further analysis be conducted to identify the problems involved in deployment. Chief Ambulance Officer (Atg) pointed out that the subject had already been covered by the 1995 Consultancy Study. At present, the Fire Services Communication Centre (FSCC) served as a mobilization and control centre for fire-fighting and ambulance operations. It operated a computer-aided despatch system, which was linked to all fire stations, ambulance depots, fire appliances and ambulances. In the case of an incident, staff of the FSCC would mobilize the nearest available ambulances with the assistance of the computer-aided despatch system. FSD would closely monitor the deployment of ambulances to ensure an effective emergency cover was maintained.
34.Mr LEE Kai-ming was concerned when the performance target could be met. Deputy Secretary for Security 2 reassured members that the Administration was actively implementing the recommendations of the 1995 Consultancy Study with an aim to achieve the performance target.
35.In response to Mr Henry WU's enquiry, Deputy Secretary for Security 2 advised that the Administration had, as recommended by the 1995 Consultancy Study, included the turn-outs of Ambulance Aid Motorcycles (AAMCs ) in the calculation of the performance of EAS. At present, a total of 13 AAMCs were available for deployment. The Administration planned to expand its fleet of AAMCs by 11. Responding to the Chairman, Chief Ambulance Officer (Atg) advised that normally, AAMCs would be deployed to respond to emergency cases where urgent attention was required so that stabilizing treatment might be rendered to the patients concerned at the earliest possible opportunity, often before the arrival of ambulances.
Performance measure based on response time but not travel time
36.Members pointed out that the public was most concerned about response time. Indeed, the 1995 Consultancy Study had raised that response time was the most appropriate measure for the performance of EAS in Hong Kong. Staff side of the FSD and some former Legislative Council Members had supported the use of response time when the matter was discussed in 1996. Members queried why the Administration was still using travel time as the performance target of EAS. Chief Ambulance Officer (Atg) advised that in fact, the 1995 Consultancy Study had recommended that :
- the 10-minute travel time target should be retained until it was consistently achieved ;
- a plan should be drawn up for adopting response time as the performance target for EAS.
37.Chief Ambulance Officer (Atg) added that the FSD was actively studying the feasibility of switching to response time. It had initiated a trial scheme to use a new Trunked Radio System in September 1997 to record response time. Data collected would be used to assess the suitability of using response time as the performance measure for EAS. Some members queried why the Administration had not started to implement the trial scheme earlier. Chief Ambulance Officer (Atg) advised that in calculating the response time, several data including the time of arrival at the address of the call were needed. The availability and accuracy of the time of arrival at the address of the call depended on successful transmission of the arrival code from the individual ambulance to the FSCC computer through the radio system. However, transmission had not been reliable due to interference of the existing radio system. To overcome this problem, FSD was replacing its radio system with the Trunked Radio System. Members urged the Administration to closely monitor the progress of the trial scheme and work for the early adoption of response time as the performance target. They suggested that the staff side should be kept informed so as to ease their worries. Responding to the Chairman, Chief Ambulance Officer (Atg) advised that on average, an ambulanceman was required to handle about 6 cases daily and that such workload level should not have imposed too much pressure on the staff concerned. The staff side was aware that the Administration had secured additional resources with which their workload would be reduced.
Time of attending to patients at the scene and time of travelling from the scene to hospital
| 38.Responding to Mr MA Fung-kwok, Chief Ambulance Officer (Atg) advised that the 1995 Consultancy Study had provided the statistics that normally, the ambulancemen stayed at the scene for about 10 minutes to attend to the patients. Then it would took them no more than 30 minutes to travel to hospital but the actual time required would depend on the districts involved. In the past, it took comparatively more time for sending a patient from New Territories East to hospital. However, the situation had improved with the establishment of the Nethersole Hospital in Tai Po. Mr MA Fung-kwok requested the Administration to provide information on the distribution of resources in various districts. | Adm
|
|---|
Provision of essential medical equipment on board of ambulances
39.Responding to the Chairman, Chief Ambulance Officer (Atg) advised that essential medical equipment was provided on board of all ambulances. Such provision was under constant review and various improvements had been made. For example, the FSD planned to equip all ambulances with defibrillators in 1998 while at present, only 124 ambulances had this equipment. Moreover, the FSD had engaged a medical doctor as the department's medical director in April 1997 to provide advice and assistance in the paramedic training programme and the equipment required. At present, a total of 33 ambulances were manned respectively by a Emergency Medical Assistant (EMA) who was qualified to provide paramedic ambulance service. Under the EMA II training programme, selected ambulance supervisors received paramedic training on intravenous fluid therapy, automatic external defibrillation, etc. At the end of the training, they were required to attach to a hospital where they had to demonstrate their competency in intravenous infusion technique by performing successful intravenous infusion operations. The FSD would expand the paramedic ambulance service with the availability of more qualified EMAs.
Serious mismatches between the type of ambulance and the type of emergency case in the deployment of EMA ambulances
40.Mr CHENG Kai-nam was concerned about the serious mismatches between the type of ambulance and the type of emergency case in the deployment of EMA ambulances as stated in the Director of Audit's Report. He sought clarification on the reasons for such mismatches. Chief Ambulance Officer (Atg) responded that the main purpose of EAS was to treat and carry patients to hospital as quickly and as safely as possible. Hence, there might be a situation where an EMA ambulance was deployed to attend to a non-EMA call if it was the nearest ambulance available at that time. Indeed, this might result in the unavailability of EMA ambulances in attending to EMA calls. However, all ambulances were provided with essential medical equipment which should be sufficient to cover the general emergency cases.
Others
| 41.At the Chairman's request, Deputy Secretary for Security 2 agreed to provide for members' reference a copy of the Administration's paper presented to the Public Accounts Committee on this subject.
| Adm
|
|---|
VII.Close of meeting
42.The meeting ended at 4:55 pm.
Provisional Legislative Council Secretariat
14 January 1998
