OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 14 October 1998
The Council met at half-past Two o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

THE PRESIDENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS RITA FAN, G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH TING WOO-SHOU, J.P.

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

THE HONOURABLE DAVID CHU YU-LIN

THE HONOURABLE HO SAI-CHU, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CYD HO SAU-LAN

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

THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL HO MUN-KA

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

THE HONOURABLE LEE WING-TAT

THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LEE CHU-MING, S.C., J.P.

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

THE HONOURABLE LEE KAI-MING, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE FRED LI WAH-MING

DR THE HONOURABLE LUI MING-WAH, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE NG LEUNG-SING

PROF THE HONOURABLE NG CHING-FAI

THE HONOURABLE MARGARET NG

THE HONOURABLE MRS SELINA CHOW LIANG SHUK-YEE, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE RONALD ARCULLI, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG MAN-KWONG

THE HONOURABLE AMBROSE CHEUNG WING-SUM, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE HUI CHEUNG-CHING

THE HONOURABLE CHRISTINE LOH

THE HONOURABLE CHAN KWOK-KEUNG

THE HONOURABLE CHAN YUEN-HAN

THE HONOURABLE BERNARD CHAN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN WING-CHAN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM

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

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

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG

THE HONOURABLE GARY CHENG KAI-NAM

THE HONOURABLE SIN CHUNG-KAI

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

DR THE HONOURABLE PHILIP WONG YU-HONG

THE HONOURABLE WONG YUNG-KAN

THE HONOURABLE JASPER TSANG YOK-SING, J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE YEUNG SUM

THE HONOURABLE YEUNG YIU-CHUNG

THE HONOURABLE LAU CHIN-SHEK, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE LAU KONG-WAH

THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, G.B.S., J.P.

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

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

THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHOY SO-YUK

THE HONOURABLE ANDREW CHENG KAR-FOO

THE HONOURABLE SZETO WAH

THE HONOURABLE TIMOTHY FOK TSUN-TING, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE LAW CHI-KWONG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG, J.P.

MEMBERS ABSENT:

THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN

THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN

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

THE HONOURABLE HOWARD YOUNG, J.P.

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

THE HONOURABLE MRS ANSON CHAN, J.P.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

MR RAFAEL HUI SI-YAN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY

THE HONOURABLE ELSIE LEUNG OI-SIE, J.P.
THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

MR DOMINIC WONG SHING-WAH, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR HOUSING

MRS KATHERINE FOK LO SHIU-CHING, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE

MR JOSEPH WONG WING-PING, G.B.S., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER

MR BOWEN LEUNG PO-WING, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS

MR KWONG KI-CHI, G.B.S., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND BROADCASTING

MISS DENISE YUE CHUNG-YEE, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR THE TREASURY

MR STEPHEN IP SHU-KWAN, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES

MRS REGINA IP LAU SUK-YEE, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

MR PETER LO YAT-FAI, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

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

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

MR RAY CHAN YUM-MOU, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

PAPERS

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

Subsidiary Legislation	L.N. No.
Immigration (Places of Detention) (Amendment) Order 1998	324/98
Immigration Service (Designated Places) (Amendment) Order 1998	325/98
Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Public Pleasure Grounds) (Amendment of Fourth Schedule) (No. 4) Order 1998	326/98

Sessional Papers

No. 28	─	Construction Industry Training Authority Annual Report 1997
No. 29	─	Estate Agents Authority Annual Report 1997/1998
No. 30	─	Occupational Deafness Compensation Board Annual Report 1997-98
No. 31	─	Hong Kong Council on Smoking and Health Annual Report 1997-1998
No. 32	─	Sewage Services Trading Fund Annual Report 1997-1998
No. 33	─	Electrical and Mechanical Services Trading Fund Annual Report 1997-98
No. 34	─	Report of changes to the approved Estimates of Expenditure approved during the first quarter of 1998-99 Public Finance Ordinance : Section 8
No. 35	─	Report by the Trustee of the Prisoners' Education Trust Fund for the period 1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998
No. 36	─	Hong Kong Sports Development Board Annual Report 1997-98
No. 37	─	The Provisional Legislative Council Commission Annual Report 1997-1998
No. 38	─	Companies Registry Annual Report 1997-98

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Questions. Question time normally does not exceed one and a half hours, with each question being allocated about 15 minutes on average. When asking supplementaries, Members should be as concise as possible, and should not ask more than one question.

First question. Miss CHAN Yuen-han.

Use of Former Tamar Site　

1. MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Government recently granted the former Tamar Site to the Hong Kong Tourist Association (HKTA) on a two-year short-term lease for a nominal rent, for it to manage. In this connection, will the Administration inform this Council of:

(a) the purpose of granting the former Tamar Site to HKTA for a nominal rent;

　

(b) whether it is aware of any plans by the HKTA to optimize the use of this piece of land; whether these plans will allow commercial organizations to organize commercial activities on the site; and whether the HKTA will set a ceiling on the rents or fees charged by those commercial organizations; and

(c) whether the authorities have considered leasing other sites in Hong Kong in order to increase facilities for attracting more tourists, such as setting up open-air markets (for example, flea market)?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Economic Services.

SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES (in Cantonese): Madam President,

(a) The Government sought in March this year suggestions for the temporary use of the former Tamar Site for the purpose of assessing the most suitable use of the site. Having regard to the outcome of the expressions of interest, the Government decided that the site should be granted to the HKTA for staging recreational, entertainment and tourism-related activities to help promote tourism.

In consideration of the fact that the HKTA is a non-profit-making statutory organization responsible for promoting tourism on behalf of the Government, and that the use of the site will help promote the tourist industry, the Government decided that only a nominal rent will be charged.

(b) During the tenancy period, the HKTA will try to make the best use of the former Tamar Site for holding various tourism promotion activities. Apart from organizing activities on its own or jointly with other organizations, the HKTA also welcomes local and overseas organizations including commercial organizations to apply to rent the site for holding tourism promotion activities. The HKTA will monitor the content and quality of these activities to ensure that they achieve the objective of promoting tourism.─

On top of the major events like the "City of Life ─ Star Spectacular 1998" organized by the HKTA in late August and the "City of Life ─ Harbour Fun Carnival" being jointly organized by the HKTA and the Metro Broadcast Corporation Limited (MBC) in October and November, five organizations will organize activities at the former Tamar Site in the coming four months. There are also other organizers who have indicated interest in staging activities at the former Tamar Site within this year or in 1999.

As far as the rental level is concerned, the HKTA will levy a daily rental of $35,000 or 8% of the total gross ticket sales (whichever is the higher) on organizers of commercial events, and $10,000 in respect of non-commercial events. In setting the rental level, the HKTA has taken into account the need for them to invest $12 million to $14 million in the site for basic facilities, improvement works and site management. The HKTA will make adjustments to the rental level under exceptional circumstances. As for the rent to be paid by sub-tenants to organizers of commercial events, the HKTA is of the view that this should be determined by the demand and supply situation of the market.

(c) The Government will actively consider various proposals that aim to promote Hong Kong tourism including consideration of releasing suitable sites to provide additional facilities for attracting more tourists, such as setting up open-air markets.

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

MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): Madam President, I am a bit surprised by the reply of the Secretary for Economic Services. Why has the Secretary answered only part of my question? In the first part of my question, I asked the Government to tell us the purpose of granting the former Tamar Site to the HKTA at a nominal rent. In response, the Secretary has only given a simple reply, saying that there is a need to identify the most suitable use of the site. But I must point out that the granting of the site to the HKTA is looked at quite differently by the Task Force on Employment. At its meeting on 9 July, the Task Force referred specifically to the setting up of a flea market at the former Tamar site as part of the Government's efforts to boost the economy and create job opportunities, saying that 3 200 posts would thus be created. Is it a usual practice for different government departments to give different replies on issues of their common concern? Or, is this the result of the fact that the different segments of the Government all have different ways of looking at the need to revitalize our economy and create job opportunities? I hope that the Government will tell us very clearly the exact meaning of what the Task Force said on 9 July. I also hope that the Government will tell us what the Task Force meant when it said that the flea market to be established at the former Tamar site would create 3 000 posts. I hope the Secretary can give us an answer.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Economic Services.

SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES (in Cantonese): Madam President, I do not think that there should be any contradictions between my reply and what was said by the Task Force on Employment. Because of the scope of my responsibilities, I have naturally said more about the tourism side of the matter. But as the Honourable Member can also see, the Secretary for Education and Manpower is sitting right beside me; I suppose he will be able to say more on what I have not dealt with in detail. The Secretary should know more about what was said at the meeting on 9 July mentioned by the Honourable Member, and he should also know more about our employment situation. But I do not think that there should be any contradictions at all. The HKTA is no doubt responsible for promoting tourism, but this will not possibly contradict the saying that 3 200 posts will be created because I think the Honourable Member should also know that the holding of any tourism promotion activities at the former Tamar site will inevitably create more jobs. For example, the Trendy Market which the HKTA organizes in conjunction with the Metro Broadcast Corporation Limited and the Hong Kong Council of Social Service will also create job opportunities. We are of course talking about the situation in the next 22 months. In this connection, as I explained just now, we will hold a series of activities there, basically to promote our tourism industry, but at the same time, these promotion activities will certainly create more jobs. Madam President, the Secretary for Education and Manpower may wish to say more on this particular matter.

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

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Madam President, I wish to add that the Task Force on Employment led by the Financial Secretary is mainly responsible for co-ordinating the work of the various Policy Bureaux and departments inside the Government, so as to ensure that their measures and policies can create new jobs. In the case of designating the former Tamar site for tourism purposes, for example, since the activities concerned will create new jobs, the Task Force on Employment led by the Financial Secretary has naturally included them as one of the positive measures which can improve the employment situation. As for other measures, such as the speeding up of infrastructure projects, since they will bring new jobs at an earlier time, they have naturally been included in the measures of the Task Force as well. Besides, we also plan to carry out the maintenance works at the schools concerned as soon as possible. As far as this is concerned, it is of course prompted by our intention of improving the educational environment, but it is also our intention to create several thousand new jobs at the same time. For this reason, this has naturally been regarded as one of the measures of the Task Force.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Miss CHAN Yuen-han, do you wish to follow up your supplementary question? Or, do you want to wait for your next turn?

MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): I wish to follow up my supplementary question. Will you allow me to do so now? Or, do you want me to ask another question later?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The Secretary has already answered your supplementary question. You should wait for your next turn.

MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): Fine.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Bernard CHAN.

MR BERNARD CHAN (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Secretary said that the setting up of a flea market would help promote our tourism industry. May I therefore ask the Secretary the following question. Of the 7 000 or so people who visited the first flea market last week, how many were local people, and how many were tourists? If there were more tourists than local people, how has this flea market been publicized and promoted overseas? Are people in other countries told that Hong Kong can now offer a lot of inexpensive and quality goods to shoppers? I just want to know whether flea markets can really boost the tourism industry of Hong Kong.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Economic Services.

SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES (in Cantonese): I must thank the Honourable Member for asking this supplementary question. I am sure that Members should know the answer better than I do, because they have travelled overseas more frequently than I do. I would say that different people would have different opinions about the effectiveness or otherwise of flea markets. That said, I still believe that Hong Kong is indeed a place of varieties. By this, I mean that we have many large department stores where goods of famous brand names are available, and we also have flea markets where tourists can buy handicrafts or some cheaper goods. Our main objective is to offer as many choices as possible to tourists. Actually, this is not the first time that Hong Kong organizes a flea market. As we all know, in the Gold Coast, in Fairview Park, and in Yuen Long, there are already some privately-operated flea markets each with several hundred stalls attracting hundreds and thousands of visitors. This can prove that flea markets are indeed very popular among people. As for the specific question asked by the Honourable Member, I must say that since last Sunday was just the first time when the flea market at the former Tamar site was organized, only 10% among the 7 000 visitors, according to the statistics of the HKTA, were tourists. In regard to publicity work, since not much time was available, we only distributed some pamphlets in Chinese, English and Japanese at the airport and hotels. And, the Hong Kong Hotels Association rendered very great assistance in this respect. To sum up, tourists are our main targets.

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

MR CHAN WING-CHAN (in Cantonese): At first, Honourable Members belonging to the labour sector hoped that the flea market at the former Tamar site could help solve the unemployment problem faced by some workers. But the HKTA is now given the task of organizing the flea market. We understand this is a rather difficult task for the HKTA, because it is no expert in this kind of functions. Will the Government therefore consider the possibility of changing the existing arrangement under which only the HKTA is responsible for planning the uses of the former Tamar site? Will the Government instead co-operate with the HKTA, trade unions and the business sector (especially small merchants) in planning the uses of the former Tamar site? I think this will work better in solving our unemployment problem.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Economic Services.

SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES (in Cantonese): I must thank the Honourable Member for his understanding that the HKTA is no expert in organizing flea markets. When organizing the flea market, the main objective of the HKTA is in fact the promotion of tourism, and its has tried to achieve this aim by inviting the participation of interested organizations, commercial and non-profit-making alike. The recent cases of the Metro Broadcast Corporation Limited and the Hong Kong Council of Social Service are good examples. The Honourable Member mentioned trade unions and other organizations a moment ago. Their applications are naturally very much welcomed. But we have to note that if we are simply talking about the former Tamar site, we will still have 22 months only, because the existing lease will end on 30 June 2000. In the interim, as I have just explained, many functions are being planned and these include an industrial exhibition, handicraft product functions, handicraft product and food festivals, folk arts performances and so on. Many of these functions will require the construction of stalls, while others will involve the construction or removal of performing stages. Therefore, many jobs will be created because of the needs for transportation, security and so on. But I must stress that the only role of the HKTA will be to manage these functions and to ensure that their quality can meet its requirement of promoting our tourism industry. And, as I explained just now, these functions will inevitably create more jobs. So I hope that all interested parties will contact the HKTA.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, which part of your question has not been answered?

MR CHAN WING-CHAN (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Secretary replied that trade unions could also apply. But this is not what we suggest. Rather, we hope that trade unions, the business sector and the Government can all join hands to plan the uses of the site.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Economic Services.

SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES (in Cantonese): Madam President, I think I have already answered the Honourable Member's supplementary question. All organizations which make use of the site, be they trade unions or commercial organizations, can in fact promote our tourism industry and create jobs. As I said just now, if trade unions or other organizations have any suggestions on the uses of the site or the types of functions to be organized, they are always encouraged to contact the HKTA.

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

MR LAU KONG-WAH (in Cantonese): Madam President, I must say that the low rent in question is indeed almost the same as a "free offer", though I also agree that the Government may well have several objectives in mind. How does the Secretary evaluate the situation so far? Has the objective of attracting "more tourists, more income and more jobs" been achieved?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Economic Services.

SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES (in Cantonese): I think it will be too early for me to make any evaluation now. With respect to "more tourists", I think we have been quite successful, because the music function entitled "Stars Spectacular" was attended by several thousand tourists from Southeast Asia. On employment, I must say that this was in fact the first time that the Metro Broadcast Corporation Limited ever organized any similar events. However, as I said just now, some of the stall operators were actually selected by some Honourable Members. This function has at least enabled some people to start their own businesses. We have 22 months, and this is just the beginning; many organizations have already indicated their interest in participation. The Honourable Member referred to the nominal rent in question. In this connection, I do not want people to have a wrong impression that the HKTA is allowed to use this site to make money for itself. This is simply not true. Members, I am sure, should know very well that the site is not actually equipped with any infrastructure facilities. So a lot will have to be done in respect of water and electricity supply, security, management, insurance and so on, if the stalls mentioned just now are to begin operation there. In fact, over the next 22 months, the HKTA will have to spend $12 million to $14 million on all these areas. When it comes to income, the mere mention of $10,000 per stall a day may make one think that the income from rents will indeed be very big. But if we really care to do some detailed calculations, we will see that the total rental income will just be around $5 million for the whole period because functions will not be held on each and every day. Besides, as we all know, the organizer of a function will usually have to provide car parking facilities to stall operators, and there is also the question of catering. As estimated by the HKTA, even when the income from car parking facilities is included, it will at best be able to recover 70% of its total expenditure. So the HKTA will certainly not gain any profits from this. The Honourable Member has asked me to make an evaluation now. But I hope he will appreciate that the flea market is only just the first of a whole series of functions. Later, on other occasions, such as the meetings of the Economic Services and Public Utilities Panel, I hope I will be able to report to Honourable Members on the progress.

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

MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): Madam President, as rightly pointed out by the two Secretaries, the uses of the former Tamar site are meant to help us deal with our economic difficulties, to boost the economy, to promote the tourism industry and to create jobs. The proposed uses of the site have actually gone through a rather twisty path. First, it was the proposal of a Jumbo Market. But since the whole proposal was dominated by commercial considerations, and since a rental payment of $30,000 was proposed, it was withdrawn due to poor responses. The matter is now handed over to the HKTA. But as mentioned by the Honourable CHAN Wing-chan, the HKTA actually finds it very difficult to perform this task, and the Government also knows this very well.

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

MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): Madam President, here is my supplementary question. Given the circumstances, we can all see what lies ahead. We have already gone through a rather twisty path, and we will have to face yet more difficulties. So how is the Government going to achieve its original objective of easing unemployment and boosting the economy and the tourism industry?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Economic Services.

SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES (in Cantonese): Madam President, I suppose the Honourable Member's supplementary question should be on how the site is to be used to promote the tourism industry and solve the unemployment problem. I have in fact tried to answer such a question. The "City of Life ─ Harbour Carnival" currently organized by the Metro Broadcast Corporation Limited comprises a series of programmes such as arts bazaars and the Trendy Market, and these programmes can at least provide some job opportunities, though they cannot of course solve the unemployment problem altogether. I hope the Honourable Member will bear with us for the moment, because a whole host of other functions and activities are forthcoming. I can say for sure that each of these forthcoming functions will create jobs, because manpower will be required for transportation, security, stall management and catering. I am sure that Honourable Members will all agree that the former Tamar site alone will not possibly be able to solve the unemployment problem; at best, it can only be used to provide the impetus required for boosting the tourism industry and creating job opportunities. In the course of this, the HKTA will do its best to ensure the quality of all the functions.

MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): Madam President, I am afraid that the Secretary has once again failed to answer my supplementary question. In other words, he has failed to tell us how the objectives, the three objectives which I have mentioned, can be achieved. With respect to the 3 200 posts in question, has the Secretary drawn up any timetable on their creation? Do we have to wait until yet another failure occurs two years later before other plans are made? I have asked the Secretary on the objectives, so as to see whether he can give us a timetable. There have been two failures already. So what should we do now?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Miss CHAN Yuen-han, I know that you do not think that the Secretary has answered your supplementary question. But I have also noticed that the Secretary has repeatedly given the same answer in responding to different supplementary questions. Moreover, we have already devoted more than 20 minutes to this question. So I shall draw a line here, and I advise Honourable Members to follow up this issue through other channels.

Second question. Mr LAU Wong-fat.

Short Term Tenancies of Land for Industrial Undertakings

2. MR LAU WONG-FAT (in Cantonese): Madam President, will the Government inform this Council of:

(a) the number of cases in which government land in the New Territories is currently leased under short term tenancy for the purpose of operating small-scale industrial undertakings;

(b) the basis for determining the rent payable in respect of the land concerned; and

(c) the average rate of increase in the annual rent per sq m of the land so leased over the past five years?

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

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

(a) There are 459 cases in which government land in the New Territories is currently leased under short term tenancy for the purpose of operating small-scale industrial undertakings, which include boat or ship building/repairs, car repair workshop, glass factory, iron foundry, and so on.

(b) The above short term tenancies are granted by way of open tender, direct grant or regularization of tolerated structures on government land. For tenancies granted by tender, the rentals are the successful tendered rates. For direct grant, the rentals are the prevailing market rentals at the time, having regard to the location, uses, permitted structures, and term of the tenancies and so on of the sites. Unless the terms and conditions of the tenders or the direct grant stipulate otherwise, all such short term tenancies are subject to a rent review every three years and the new rental will reflect market rate prevailing at that time.

As regards regularization cases, the Lands Department has set standard rates for different types of sites in each district according to the location and permitted structures on the site. The standard rates are assessed on a full market value basis by reference to the tender results of similar sites in the previous 12 to 24 months. The rentals are applied to the sites upon the commencement date of the tenancies, having regard to the size, uses and characteristics of the sites, and are also subject to a rent review every three years. For example, the current standard rates which came into effect on 1 April 1997, were assessed on the basis of market rental levels between early 1995 and early 1996. The next review will be conducted in 1999, with the new rates to be implemented in early 2000.

(c) Rentals based on the results of tenders or rental assessments for direct grant cases reflect the market value given to the sites. As they vary according to the location, uses, permitted structures, and term of the tenancies and so on, it is therefore not meaningful to provide an overall average rate of increase in the annual rental for these types of short term tenancies.

Rentals based on standard rates have also varied over the last five years, again depending on the location, size, uses and permitted structures on the sites. The range of increase has been between 57% and 63% since 1993, or an average of 12% to 13% annually.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAU Wong-fat.

MR LAU WONG-FAT (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Government has always stressed the importance of giving assistance to small and medium-sized enterprises. Given the present economic downturn, will the Government take the initiative of lowering the rentals so as to help the tenants tide over the financial difficulties?

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

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Government is of course prepared to do its best to help all groups, members of the public and trades that find themselves in a difficult situation. But in my main reply I have already explained that the current standard rates were assessed on the basis of market rental levels between 1995 and 1996. In other words, the current rentals are the cheaper standard rates of a few years ago and these are subject to a rent review every three years. We shall conduct such a review next year (which is a few months from now), when we will take into consideration the market situation then. The Lands Department has begun collecting data in this respect.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr James TIEN.

MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): Madam President, in the last paragraph of part (b) of his main reply, the Secretary said that the current standard rates which came into effect on 1 April 1997 were assessed on the basis of market rental levels between early 1995 and early 1996, but there is a gap of 13 months in between; then how can the rentals which came into effect on 1 April 1997 be assessed on the basis of market rental levels 13 months ago? Will the Government inform us why after the expiry of the tenancies for industrial undertakings, the rentals as determined by the Government in the new tenancies are still at a very high level? Is it because after the market rental level was determined on 1 April 1997, the same rental level is still used for tenancies granted in 1998?

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

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Cantonese): Madam President, I feel that there is room for improvement in the current system. As Mr TIEN has said, it is indeed not a satisfactory way of doing things to use the data obtained in early 1996 as the basis for assessing the new rates to be implemented at about one year later. So I have discussed with the Director of the Lands Department to see if the period in between can be shortened, so that the revision of rentals can reflect the market situation more promptly. But I do not agree to Mr TIEN's view, for if the 1997 rentals were revised now, there might be some changes in the interim period, but as the 1997 rental level is applicable up to 2000 and there will be a review before the tenancies for 2000 expire, so the review will be conducted in 1999. I only want to say that the rental levels for 1995 to 1996 were lower than the market levels. So from the very beginning, rentals were lower than market levels. If a review is conducted now, it will have to make reference to rental levels in the few months between the end of 1997 and early 1998 during which they were at their peak. But the current rentals have fallen. If the figures are reviewed in 1999, they will be lower than the average rates for the previous year. But that is quite abstract, we will have a clearer picture after the data are collected.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG.

MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, about the follow-up question raised by Mr James TIEN, if the rental levels of 1995-96 are used as the basis to determine the rates which came into effect on 1 April 1997, then rentals will of course be lower than those for 1997. In 1998, rental levels have fallen across the board, that applies to industrial buildings as well. Even in such a situation, the Government has not considered lowering the rentals. I took part in a case handled by the New Territories North District Manufacturers Association of Hong Kong Limited (the Association). I believe the Secretary is aware of this case as well. I hope the Secretary can finish handling the issues of short term tenancies and fees for short term waiver before his transfer to Beijing.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, please put your follow-up question in a more straightforward manner.

MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): We shall have a case conference next Wednesday, but the Government said earlier that a review was being undertaken and their request was being considered. Will the Government inform us whether the review has been completed? Will the Government consider lowering the rentals and licence fees for 2000, that is, before the review in 1999?

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

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Cantonese): Madam President, what Mr WONG has said is right, for the Lands Department received a report of a survey done by the Association which showed that the rental levels of industrial premises have fallen in general. The Department is studying this report and has arranged a meeting with a relevant committee of the Association next week to discuss the matter. I have not yet received any findings of the study made by the Lands Department on the report to date. We will study the matter carefully and please do not forget, very often the rental levels will become a contract between the leasee and the Government, so we will need to consider the contract terms and market conditions.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW.

MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Madam President, I am not sure if I have got it wrong with the reply given by the Secretary just now to Mr LAU Wong-fat's follow-up question. He said that in determining the rentals in 1997, the market rental levels of 1995-97 were used as a basis for assessment. So the rentals in fact are very reasonable. This is based on the assumption that rental levels will keep on increasing. But we all know that current rental levels have not levelled off slightly but have actually plummeted. Will the Secretary tell us, in his evaluation of the prevailing market rentals, why does he not use the market rental prevailing at that time as a standard but use a retrospective rental level of two years ago as a standard? The market rental levels at that time may be much lower than or much higher than the present levels.

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

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Cantonese): Madam President, first of all, I feel that Honourable Members have paid too much attention to one single aspect and focused their follow-up questions on it. As I have said in my main reply, we have three ways to grant short term tenancies. One of these is by way of open tender. The rental level is proposed by the party making the tender. So these rental levels are entirely voluntarily proposed in the tender. They are not imposed by the Government.

Just now I said, the rentals which came into effect on 1 April 1997 were the standard rates. Such standard rates are so called because they have not been determined as a result of open tender but that the tenancies are granted by way of direct grant or regularization of tolerated structures, and so there is a need for an average rental level. As tenancies are not granted by way of open tender, we need to use the standard rates in granting these tenancies. For tenancies granted by way of open tender, the rentals received depend on the party making the bid. If a piece of land is now put out to open tender, and the rental levels proposed by the parties making the tenders are low, then we will take this as the market rate. The biggest problem is that the standard rates will have to be revised every three years. But in cases where tender is not invited, how are we going to assess the market value? It will not do even if we make adjustments and reviews every day. So we have to introduce a system of standard rates based on the average market value obtained by way of open tender each year. On the other hand, a mechanism is in place for adjustment of rental levels, and this enables tenants to raise objections and lodge appeals to revise the rental levels. In this regard, the Lands Department will deal with each individual case according to its merits.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAU Wong-fat.

MR LAU WONG-FAT (in Cantonese): Madam President, if tenants are not satisfied with the rate of increase in rental levels, is there any mechanism under the existing policies to raise objections to increase in rentals? If such a mechanism does exist, what the procedures are and are any independent persons involved?

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

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Cantonese): Madam President, the answer is in fact yes. If tenants consider that the rentals do not reflect the prevailing market value or the value of the land they own, they can make a complaint on this ground. And the related procedures are very simple indeed. The tenant only needs to state his grounds and submits his case to the Lands Department. The Department will handle his case and the average processing time required will depend on the complexity of the case concerned. The entire case can usually be completed within one to six months.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG.

MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Secretary said earlier that some tenancies are granted by way of open tender and some by regularization of tolerated structures. The standard rates are therefore determined. All these are legally binding and therefore cannot be changed casually. But I remember a motion was moved in this Council recently which proposed to make an "across-the-board" reduction of rentals in government markets by 30% to 50%. On that occasion, I mentioned in my speech that considerations of the land should be included in the determination of rentals. This point is quite obvious. For markets, there can be invitation for tender for stalls and there can be a limited tender for the stalls, and there can even be cases in which the stalls concerned have been leased as a result of previous open tender and the rental is now merely raised to a certain level. As such a practice is possible in the two Municipal Councils as well as in the Housing Authority, then how is this not possible with the Lands Department?

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

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Cantonese): Madam President, I am afraid it will not be appropriate for me to explain the arrangements made by the Housing Authority or the two Municipal Councils regarding rentals. On our side, we do not just lease land for industrial purposes, we also have other ways of land administration. If the entire system changes, we need to weigh against the various consequences. The Government is not just leasing a few hundred pieces of land for industrial purposes, there are also other kinds of short term tenancies which fall outside the scope of this question. These include those for commercial and even private residential uses. So looking at the situation as a whole, we think that the mechanism whereby a review is made every three years is a good one, for it can narrow the gap between prevailing rentals at the time and the market value. I have also said earlier that the data collected during the review can only be used after one year. This may be quite a long time, but we will examine how we can shorten the timespan so that the market value assessed after the review can truly reflect the prevailing rentals at the time. I hope we can improve on that.

PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): Third question. Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung.

Job Vacancies

3. MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, according to the Government's estimate in early June this year, there would be at least 100 000 job vacancies available in the labour market within the next one and a half years. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council of:

(a) the classification of these jobs according to their academic qualifications requirements;

(b) whether it knows if there will be sufficient qualified Hong Kong residents to take up new positions in the professional, management, administrative or supervisory fields; and

(c) the respective numbers of positions among these jobs that have already been created and filled by recruitment; and how the progress in the creation of these positions and the recruitment of candidates compares with that originally estimated by the Administration?

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

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Madam President, according to the Government's assessment made in May 1998, there would be some 100 000 new jobs in the labour market by the end of 1999, largely as a result of the Government's key policy initiatives and major infrastructural or other projects, and partly because of the needs of the Civil Service. These 100 000 jobs comprise about 11 000 civil service posts expected to be filled before 31 March 1999, and about 89 000 other jobs in the subvented and private sectors.

The exact timing at which the actual job vacancies would be available for recruitment in the labour market during the period depends on the needs of individual employers in various sectors.

The Government will produce an updated assessment by the end of this year in the light of the new initiatives and infrastructural projects set out in the 1998 policy address.

Against this background, my reply to your specific questions is as follows:

(a) Around 18 000 of the 89 000 non-government jobs fall within the category of professional, managerial, administrative or supervisory occupations, while 71 000 are operative/clerical and supporting posts.

(b) We have not made a detailed assessment of the academic qualifications required for individual jobs as they are largely dependent on the demand and supply situation at the time and any particular requirement of the employers concerned. However, we expect that such requirements should not depart significantly from the present situation. For example, jobs at the operative level would require workers with the necessary training and jobs at the managerial level should attract applicants with post-secondary or university qualifications. Like the present situation, we expect that most of the new jobs can be filled by local candidates.

(c) Based on the latest information, some 15 000 jobs have already been created as at mid-September 1998. These jobs include some 3 000 civil service posts, and around 12 000 non-government jobs.

The progress of availability of new jobs in the subvented and private sectors is generally in keeping with our previous assessment that of the 89 000 non-government jobs, some 33 000 will be created by the end of this year. As for the civil service posts, the pace at which civil service vacancies are filled is broadly comparable to that for the corresponding period last year.

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

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Secretary said in reply just now that out of the 89 000 non-government jobs, 18 000 fall within the category of professional occupations while 71 000 are operative/clerical and supporting posts. The Secretary also said that most of these 71 000 posts would require workers with the necessary training while jobs at the professional level would even require applicants with tertiary education qualifications. In face of the 5% unemployment rate at present, the majority of unemployed workers belong to the grassroots whose education and skill levels are on the low side. Therefore, the 89 000 non-government jobs are of little help to most of the unemployed workers. I would like to ask the Secretary if there are better ways or if the Administration will create more jobs to help workers in this category.

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

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Government is watching closely the categories of these newly created jobs and how it can help local applicants to fill these jobs. Everyone should be well aware that between now and the next one or two years, many jobs will be created as a result of the Government's major infrastructural projects. In recent months, the Government has been discussing with the Construction Industry Training Authority as regards these matters. For example, the trainee places will be increased to 20 000 next year and in this year's policy address, it has also been announced that the Government will allocate $500 million to the Employees Retraining Board which will, taking account of the needs of the market, provide training to those who are switching trades in the hope of filling the new posts that keep on emerging in the market.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Which part of your question has not been answered, Mr LEUNG?

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Secretary has only talked about how to train the workers but my question concerns whether the Government has considered how to create new posts for the unemployed grassroots workers who are not so well-educated.

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

SECRETARY FOR MANPOWER AND EDUCATION (in Cantonese): Madam President, the creation of new jobs is somewhat off the topic of the original question. This I think should be explained from two perspectives. First, I have already mentioned in the main reply that we will conduct a comprehensive assessment by the end of this year in the light of the new initiatives set out in the 1998 policy address. Second, the Government has established the Task Force on Employment headed by the Financial Secretary. The Task Force holds monthly meetings to review if new measures should be introduced, which include creating temporary posts under certain circumstances to alleviate the present situation.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Michael HO.

MR MICHAEL HO (in Cantonese): Madam President, in paragraph (b) of the main reply, the Government said that it had not made a detailed assessment of the academic qualifications required for individual jobs as they are largely dependent on the demand and supply situation at the time. Will the Government inform this Council whether it will conduct an accurate assessment to make sure that when the 100 000 job vacancies are opened, no more mismatches, that is, where there are jobs available, there is no one to fill them, will arise? Madam President, I know that the Government has already allocated funds to the Employees Retraining Board and the Vocational Training Board, but it does not necessarily mean that mismatches will not happen again.

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

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Madam President, out of these 100 000 jobs, 89 000 belong to subvented bodies and private bodies. With regard to such a large number of jobs of so many varieties and involving so many companies, it is of course impossible to assess every job opening in detail. The academic qualifications required for individual jobs are largely decided by the employer with reference to the demand and supply situation of the labour market. Within any period of time, employers will make different decisions in view of the changes. As I have mentioned before, most of these jobs come from major infrastructural projects and so we will, according to the manpower demanded by these projects, provide as many trained workers as possible through our contacts with the industry and trade unions and also through the training provided by the Construction Industry Training Authority. However, as the specific supply and demand situation depends on the environment at the time, which includes the requirements of the employer and the aspirations of the worker, so it is difficult to arrive at a very meticulous conclusion in such a macro assessment.

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

MISS CHOY SO-YUK (in Cantonese): Madam President, with respect to these 89 000 future jobs, will the Government consider, in case two applicants posses the same educational and skill levels, giving priority to the one who has been out of work longer, or who is receiving Comprehensive Social Security Allowance, so as to solve the unemployment problem as soon as possible?

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

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Madam President, all these 89 000 jobs belong to subvented or private organizations. The employment requirements are basically determined by these organizations. Of course, the Government will do its best to, through other channels, help the unemployed workers switch occupations or to land new jobs after undergoing retraining.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew CHENG.

MR ANDREW CHENG (in Cantonese): Madam President, out of these 100 000 jobs, 89 000 belong to subvented or private organizations, and 75% of them, that is, over 67 000, are of a temporary nature with an average employment duration of 25 months. How can the Government assess, under the persistent downturn at present, the situation on a regular basis and also ensure that all of these 100 000 jobs will be opened by the end of next year, and none of them, especially the temporary ones, will be scrapped because of the sluggish economy, resulting in the employment crisis not being really resolved?

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

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Madam President, I have already said in the main reply that the 100 000 jobs will be created as a result of the Government's key policy initiatives and major infrastructural or other projects. These policy initiatives and major infrastructural projects will not be scrapped. In other words, we are confident that these jobs will be created. In addition, I have also said in the main reply that about 15 000 jobs have already been created and the Government expects 33 000 more jobs to be created by the end of this year. This matches our initial estimation quite closely and the Government will update the assessment within this year.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew CHENG.

MR ANDREW CHENG (in Cantonese): It is not that I do not trust the Government will launch the major infrastructural projects. But as indicated in the information provided by the Task Force on Employment, other industries such as the tourist and telecommunications industries also have many temporary jobs. So, my supplementary question is: What conditions or mechanisms has the Government established or adopted to ensure that at least 60 000-odd temporary jobs will be created with the employment duration of at least 25 months?

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

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Madam President, these temporary jobs are dependent on the infrastructural projects. If the project works last for two years, then the workers will be employed for two years. According to the estimation of the Government, the employment duration of the 60 000 to 70 000 temporary jobs mentioned by Mr Andrew CHENG is two and a half to three years on average. The number and duration of employment of these jobs are estimated according to the information of the individual government infrastructural projects that we have on hand. As we continue to review the progress of the works, and also because the Government has sufficient resources to carry out the works, we are confident that the number and employment duration of these posts will not deviate too much from our estimation. But in any case, the Government is going to update the assessment by the end of this year.

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

Use of Violence by Students

4. MR Yeung YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, it is reported that recently there have been successive cases in a practical school involving the alleged use of violence by students. In one case, a student beat the principal after being admonished for arriving late for school, and in another case two students assaulted a schoolmate in a bid to recover debts. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the total number of cases reported to the authorities concerned in the past three years involving the use of violence by students inside and outside schools and, of these cases, the number of those involving the use of violence against principals or teachers;

(b) whether it has assessed if there is a need for enhancing the current support for practical schools (such as the provision of social workers and professional psychological counsellors); and

(c) of the measures in place to ensure the personal safety of teachers and allay their psychological fears that they may be attacked by students?

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

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

(a) The Education Department (the Department) does not have comprehensive data on disciplinary problems, including cases of use of violence, occuring inside and outside schools. As a normal rule, schools handle cases of unruly behaviour on their own and are free to decide whether or not to report individual cases to the Department. According to the Department's available records, from the beginning of the academic year 1995-96 up to 5 October 1998, a total of 60 cases involving the use of violence by students inside and outside schools have been reported, amongst which nine involved the use of violence against school heads or teachers.

The definition of "violence" covers fighting, bullying other students and causing bodily harm to others.

(b) The Department has already provided more support services for practical schools, as compared with ordinary schools. For example, the standard class size for Secondary 1 to Secondary 3 in practical schools is 30 (as compared to 40 in regular schools); the class/teacher ratio is 1.5 teachers per class in practical schools (as compared to the ratio of 1.3:1 for regular schools); the ratio of school social workers to students in practical schools in general is 1:100 (the ratio for ordinary schools in general is 1:2 000). In addition, the sponsoring bodies of practical schools can employ one educational psychologist for every 30 special education classes they provide; whereas the sponsoring bodies of ordinary schools can only employ, on an average, one educational psychologist for every 380 classes.

The Psychological Services Section of the Department also provides general and emergency support services, including advice on case handling, case consultation and discussion, teacher training and so on.

We therefore consider that support services for practical schools are generally sufficient.

(c) As far as the Department understands, cases of use of violence by students inside and outside schools do not happen often. The department has not received any requests from individual school headmasters or teachers for stepping up personal protection or counselling. Where necessary, the educational psychologists of the Psychological Services Section of the Department are ready to render assistance to school headmasters and teachers on request.

In addition to imparting knowledge, teachers also have responsibility for dealing with the disciplinary and emotional problems of students as well as guiding their development. Teachers have been trained, inter alia, in the necessary skills in handling these problems during pre-service training. The Department also organizes talks, seminars, workshops and outreaching training on student behaviour for teachers to strengthen their understanding of and ability in guiding and disciplining students.

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

MR YEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, part (b) of the main reply mentioned that one educational psychologist can be employed for every 30 special education classes provided. Yet we understand that the vast majority of practical schools actually have only 15 classes, and that it is impossible for them to employ half an educational psychologist. In this connection, could the Secretary inform this Council whether any of these practical schools have ever succeeded in employing any educational psychologists?

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

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER(in Cantonese): Madam President, what I have referred to in part (b) of my main reply is that sponsoring bodies of practical schools could employ one educational psychologist for every 30 special education classes they provide. In other words, for any sponsoring bodies that set up more than one practical school, they could employ one educational psychologist for every 30 special education classes they provide. According to our records, practical schools, including the one which has recently been covered in newspaper reportage, have succeeded in employing educational psychologists through the provision of 30 special education classes by their respective sponsoring bodies.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr YEUNG, which part of your supplementary has not been answered?

MR YEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, as far as I know, no sponsoring bodies would like to set up two practical schools basically. In other words, no practical schools could employ any educational psychologists at all. Could the Secretary provide this Council with specific examples of the schools he referred to?

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

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER(in Cantonese): Madam President, I will be most happy to provide more information at the Panel on Education. According to the information I have with me, the sponsoring body of a particular practical school in Ma On Shan has indeed set up more than one practical school and hence employed an educational psychologist. As such, I would be most happy to provide Honourable Members with the information regarding the sponsoring bodies and practical schools which have employed educational psychologists.

PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong.

Mr CHEUNG MAN-KWONG(in Cantonese): Madam President, the Government has mentioned in the main reply that it considered the support services for practical schools generally sufficient. However, that is theoretically true only. Let us take the newly established practical school where incidents have reportedly taken place as an example. At the beginning of the academic year, the computer room was not equipped with computers, the art and craft room was not equipped with any machinery, the domestic science room was not equipped with cooking stoves or sewing machines, while the basketball court was not equipped with any basket and backboard; what is more, the safety mesh was not yet installed on the first school day. A practical school which has practically no facilities at all would practically be of no use to those naughty students. Could the Secretary inform this Council whether this school is worthy of its name; and of the measures the Government is going to take to make this practical school more practical?

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

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER(in Cantonese): Madam President, in regard to that practical school, it is true that the school building has yet to be furnished while other facilities such as computers are yet to be installed, and this is mainly due to the fact that the school was set up at around August or September this year. However, I should like to thank the Honourable CHEUNG Man-kwong for bringing up the matter. In the meantime, the Department is following closely the progress of the matter; besides, we have already contacted the Architectural Services Department and will bring improvements to the relevant facilities of the school promptly.

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

Mr NG LEUNG-SING(in Cantonese): Madam President, I would like to know whether the major cause for the incidents in the practical school which the Honourable CHEUNG Man-kwong referred to just now was that the students there were comparatively naughtier. According to the main reply, from the beginning of the academic year 1995-96 till now, a total of 60 cases involving the use of violence by students inside and outside schools have been reported. In this connection, could the Secretary inform this Council whether students of practical schools are responsible for most of these 60 cases; whether it is because these 60 case have been reported to the police that they are on the record of the Department; and whether it is impossible to investigate into cases involving the use of violence by students outside schools if the cases have not been reported to the police?

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

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER(in Cantonese): Madam President, only one of the 60 cases involving the use of violence, which was the most recent case, took place in a practical school. For the rest of the cases, some 30 cases took place in schools which take in a greater proportion of students of lower academic aptitude. As I said in my main reply, schools would normally handle cases of unruly behaviour on their own, including cases involving the use of violence. Since it is up to the schools to decide whether or not to report the cases to the Department after they have handled the cases, the Department really does not have any comprehensive data in this respect. The 60 cases I referred to were reported to us by the relevant schools. However, as I said in the main reply, after taking into consideration the various situations of different schools, we have indeed been providing practical schools with more support services as compared with ordinary schools in terms of the number of teachers and social workers, psychological counselling services and so on.

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

Mr HO SAI-CHU(in Cantonese): Madam President, I should like to raise a supplementary on the figures referred to in part (b) of the main reply. We have been told that whilst the class size for practical schools is about 20% smaller than that for ordinary schools, the former would have 20% more teachers than the latter and 20 times more in terms of the number of social workers. In a nutshell, something must have gone wrong as far as those ratios are concerned. Does the Secretary consider the number of social workers for ordinary schools really too small, since the social worker to students ratio stands at 1:2 000 for ordinary schools while that for practical schools stands at 1:100, representing a vast difference of many times? Could the Secretary inform this Council whether the Government considers the number of social workers for ordinary schools really too small, and whether it would consider improving the ratio? As regards the condition that one educational psychologist could be employed for every 30 classes, it is in fact possible for schools to employ half an educational psychologist, since many school have in fact only half a social worker only.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Ho, is your supplementary asking about the possibility of improving the social worker to students ratio for ordinary schools?

MR HO SAI-CHU (in Cantonese): Madam President, the problem is that the ratio as reflected by the data provided seems somewhat inappropriate. When compared with the number of social workers for practical schools which should be enough, that for ordinary schools would be far from being adequate. Does the Secretary agree with me?

PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): Secretary, it seems to be another supplementary, please make the answer a short one.

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER(in Cantonese): Madam President, I will make it a short one. Many from the education community and the social welfare sector have been urging the Government to improve the ratio of school social worker to students, and their requests would be taken into consideration in the light of the resources available and the planning requirements for the year under normal circumstances.

PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): Miss Cyd HO.

MISS CYD HO(in Cantonese): Madam President, first of all, I should like Honourable Members to recognize that students going to practical schools are not necessarily naughtier, they are unable to attend grammer schools simply because their examination results are not as good as others.

Just now the Honourable HO Sai-chu referred to the vast difference between the educational psychologist to students ratio for practical schools and that for ordinary schools. In this connection, could the Secretary inform this Council whether the objective of the Department in setting the ratios was to guide the students in terms of their emotional development or their studies; and whether the Government considers it necessary to raise the ratio for practical schools simply because their students could not do as good as others in public examinations? In addition, whereas part (c) of the main reply has referred to the provision of special training for teachers of practical schools, the Secretary has revealed that most of the use of violence cases were related to ordinary schools, I would therefore like to know if teachers of ordinary schools are provided with any support in this respect?

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

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER(in Cantonese): Madam President, I fully agree and hope that practical schools will not be labelled in any way because of this question today. The intake of practical schools are mainly those students who are not interested in the curricular of grammer schools. They are more interested in practical subjects.

With respect to the ratio of social workers to students, it should of course be determined in the light of the situation of individual schools. As referred to in my main reply, the ratio for ordinary schools should be 1:2 000; however, for those schools the students of which are academically less able, the ratio would be adjusted to 1:1 000. By the same token, since we consider the students of practical schools would have more problems with their studies, the ratio for practical schools is therefore further adjusted. As regards the training for teachers referred to in part (c) of the main reply, the talks, seminars, workshops as well as outreaching training are in fact open to teachers of all kinds of schools.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Miss HO, has any part of your supplementary not been answered by the Secretary?

MISS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Madam President, I should like to raise a short follow-up question. Are the educational psychologists employed to guide the students in terms of their emotional development or in terms of their studies?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Miss HO, you have already included this in the supplementary you raised earlier.

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER(in Cantonese): Madam President, educational psychologists are basically responsible for guiding the students in terms of their emotional and psychological development, as their post title implies. In addition, educational psychologists have of course received professional training, including that on educational fronts.

PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): Dr YEUNG Sum.

DR YEUNG SUM (in Cantonese): I wish to follow up the problems of the school which had been set up at around August or September as referred to by the Secretary earlier. Whereas newly constructed buildings have to meet the basic facility requirements set down by the Building Department before they could be issued with occupation permits, that particular school, as reflected in the question raised by Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong and the subsequent reply made by the Secretary, did not have in its computer and domestic science rooms the necessary computers or kitchen wares when the academic year began. Should not the Education Department check that the school has in place all the basic facilities before granting it permission to commence services? could this situation be regarded as an indication of the insufficient support services for practical schools on the part of the Government?

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

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER(in Cantonese): Madam President, many schools may have problems in matching the provision of some of their facilities with the commencement date of the academic year. As I said before, the Department has made follow-up contacts with relevant government departments, and I will be most happy to report in detail the progress of this particular case at the Education Panel in due course.

PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): Honourable Members, we still have a large number of supplementaries outstanding. But bearing in mind the time factor, I shall draw the line here.

Fifth question. Dr LUI Ming-wah.

Pilot Scheme for the Entry of Mainland Professionals

5. DR LUI MING-WAH (in Cantonese): Madam President, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the respective numbers of applications received and approved, as well as the number of the relevant employment visas issued since the implementation of the Pilot Scheme for the Entry of Mainland Professionals, together with a breakdown of the figures by trade and post;

(b) whether it has reviewed the effectiveness of the pilot scheme; if so, what the details are; and

(c) whether it will consider extending and expanding such a scheme, as well as streamlining the relevant application procedures?

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

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Madam President, there were altogether 3 129 applications for the 1 000 quotas under the Pilot Scheme for the Entry of Professionals from the Mainland since its implementation in 1994. Four quarterly ballot exercises (for 250 quotas each time) were held. The Immigration Department then invited the 1 000 selected applicants to submit formal applications. The 2 129 applications not drawn out in the ballot exercises were put on a reserve list.

In view of the slow utilization of the quotas (mainly because of the substantial number of applications withdrawn by the applicants), the Immigration Department subsequently asked all the companies on the reserve list to confirm their interest, and if so, submit formal applications for any unused quotas. As of 31 January 1997, all the applicants of the 2 216 selected quota applications (comprising the 1 000 drawn up from the four balloting exercises and the 1 216 on the reserve list which confirmed their interest) had been called up to submit their formal applications. The processing of all the outstanding quota applications under the Scheme came to an end in late 1997.

My reply to the specific questions is as follows:

(a) Of a total of 3 129 applications submitted in the first instance, 2 459 were withdrawn at various stages. Of the remaining 670 valid applications, 602 were approved. A detailed breakdown of the applications received and approved with employment visas by trade and occupation is at Annex A.

(b) The Government has completed the review of the Pilot Scheme. It was found that the Pilot Scheme had taken a total of three years to complete instead of the originally scheduled duration of one year, because of the slow and low utilization of quotas.

As regards the slow utilization of quotas, under the Pilot Scheme, applicants with approved quotas were given four months to arrange for the submission of visa applications by the candidates. However, most of the employers with approved quotas were not able to comply with the four-month visa application deadline, resulting in the slow utilization rate of the quotas. The major reasons cited by employers seeking extension of this deadline were their need for more time either to identify a suitable candidate through a designated mainland recruitment agency or to go through the necessary procedures to bring the selected candidate to Hong Kong.

As regards the low utilization of quotas, 2 459 out of the 3 129 quota applications were withdrawn by the applicants at various stages. These comprised 913 who were not drawn out through the ballot exercises but the applicants chose not to remain in the Scheme when the Immigration Department approached them in October 1995, and 1 546 from those who opted to stay in the Scheme but subsequently withdrew at different stages of the quota vetting process. The majority of these applicants did not give any reasons for their withdrawal and most of those who did so cited "unable to identify suitable candidates" and "change of company's policy" as the causes. In view of these findings, we consider it not appropriate to revive the Pilot Scheme in its present form.

(c) As announced in the 1998 policy address, in order to build a critical mass of expertise to foster innovation and technological development in Hong Kong, we will consider measures which will enable employers to recruit the best professionals from the Mainland and elsewhere in the world.

Annex A

Breakdown of quota applications received and approved with employment by trade

	Quota Applications received	Quota Applications and Visas approved
Construction	457	92
Electronics	323	65
Finance	373	66
Manufacture	325	89
Infotech	113	18
Legal	72	19
Property	133	26
Trading	816	149
Transport	157	24
Others (for example, Catering and Hotel)	360	54
Total	3 129	602

Breakdown of quota applications received and approved with employment by post title

	Quota Applications received	Quota Applications and Visas approved
Accountant	177	16
Administrator	837	186
Consultant	116	23
Development Professional	192	33
Engineer	872	171
Marketing Executive	356	67
Programmer	130	29
Project Specialist	130	32
Others (for example, Analyst, Designer, Purchaser and so on)	319	45
Total	3 129	602

PRESIDENT(in Cantonese):Dr LUI Ming-wah.

DR LUI MING-WAH(in Cantonese):Madam President, I would like to thank the Secretary for his answer and the statistical figures he has provided as development of innovations and technologies will soon be launched in Hong Kong and we really need to look for many high technology professionals. One source of professionals is mainland China but the Mainland is now building the country through technology and education, and its rapid economic development also urgently needs a large number of professionals. With such competition, will the Secretary inform the Council of the measures the Government will adopt, in addition to our own conditions, to attract scientific and technological professionals to work and live in Hong Kong, and of the time when these measures will be published?

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

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER(in Cantonese):Madam President, as I have said in paragraph (c) of my main answer, as announced in the 1998 policy address, we will consider measures which will enable employers to recruit the best professionals from the Mainland and elsewhere in the world. Specifically, the Commission on Innovation and Technology (CIT) has yet to complete its final report but we hope that in the next few months, the Education and Manpower Bureau, the Trade and Industry Bureau, the Security Bureau and other relevant Policy Bureaux will continue to take follow-up actions in this respect and expeditiously put forward measures for achieving the objective stated in the policy address.

PRESIDENT(in Cantonese):Dr LUI, has the Secretary not answered part of your supplementary question, or do you wish to wait for you next turn?

DR LUI MING-WAH(in Cantonese):The Secretary has not answered two points, that is, what measures will be adopted and when will they be announced? As the final report of the CIT will only be completed in July next year, will the relevant measures be made public only in the middle or by the end of next year?

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

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER(in Cantonese):Madam President, I has not mentioned in my earlier answer that we will only make suggestions in the middle of next year after the CIT has completed its final report. But I can really not answer Dr LUI's question with specific suggestions now. However, I have just stated that as the objective has been clearly published, the next step is for the Trade and Industry Bureau, the Education and Manpower Bureau and the Security Bureau, and together with other relevant Policy Bureaux if necessary, to consider how this objective can be achieved.

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

MR NG LEUNG-SING(in Cantonese):Madam President, in my opinion, paragraph (c) of the main answer has actually not answered part (c) of the main question, therefore, I would like to quote some of its contents in the hope that the Secretary can supplement his answer. Part (c) of the question concerns whether the Government will consider extending and expanding such a scheme as well as streamlining the relevant application procedures. However, it is only stated in the main answer that of 2 459 applications, 913 were not drawn out through the ballot exercises while the remaining 1 546 were withdrawn by the applicants. The reasons for withdrawal stated are not excessively long vetting period or too complicated application procedures but two other reasons. One of them is "unable to identify suitable candidates" while the other is "change of company's policy". However, according to some factory owners when I have contacted, when they were trying to identify the professionals, the time required for the examination and approval of their applications was excessively long, so much so that when the process was near completion, the relevant companies might have changed their original policies. Therefore, I would like to repeat part (c) of the question. Excuse me, Madam President, for my supplementary question may be rather long. Does the Government need to streamline the relevant application procedures to meet the needs at the given time so that successful applications can be filed for those professionals who can really be helpful to the relevant enterprises to come to Hong Kong?

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

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER(in Cantonese):Madam President, we can see that the Pilot Scheme has not been satisfactorily implemented. There were 1 000 quotas but they were only used by the applicants after a very long time, and there was a relatively low utilization rate. Certainly, the examination and approval process Mr NG just referred to is not only related to the problems of Hong Kong. As I have said in my main answer, if an application is filed for a suitable candidate to come to Hong Kong, it will usually go through procedures that take a fairly long time. Having taken these factors into account, I have therefore stated in my main answer that we will consider adopting measures but we do not intend to revive the Pilot Scheme in its present form. Therefore, it can be said that the future measures will definitely not be a continuation of the Pilot Scheme.

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

MR HO SAI-CHU(in Cantonese):Madam President, my supplementary question is similar to that of Mr NG Leung-sing. The two reasons for the withdrawal of applications have just been stated but I wonder if the Secretary will agree that the two reasons mean that after the time-consuming examination and approval process, the original needs have vanished because of basic changes in our economic development. We will need more professionals, especially mainland professionals, in future along with the development of sophisticated technologies and high value-added industries. Will the Secretary carefully consider learning a lesson from this incident and streamlining the future application procedures so that applications will be easily approved and the Pilot Scheme will be adopted again when necessary?

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

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER(in Cantonese):Madam President, wefind the effectiveness of the Pilot Scheme unsatisfactory but the main question does not only concern the examination and approval process of the Hong Kong Government. Let me give two examples to illustrate this. The first 1 000 applicants whose applications were drawn out in the ballot exercises could submit formal applications but some of these applicants might have withdrawn their applications. After they had withdrawn their applications, we took a certain period of time to notify certain companies on the reserve list. However, after that time period, the policies of these companies might have changed and they therefore did not file applications. Another example is that after we had approved the quotas, we gave the applicants four months to identify suitable candidates to come to Hong Kong but more than 60% of the applicants told us that they could not find suitable candidates in the Mainland within the four-month period. In any case, as the entire process of the Pilot Scheme is unsatisfactory, as I have just said, we do not intend to revive the Pilot Scheme in its present form.

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

MISS CHOY SO-YUK(in Cantonese):Madam President, I find it a great pity that the Pilot Scheme is not successful. As many Honourable colleagues have just said, the time needed to examine and approve applications is a crucial factor. If a commercial organization needs to recruit a staff member, it cannot wait endlessly for several months. Besides, it is impossible for the suitable professional in the Mainland to wait idly for a year. Under this circumstance, will the Government consider adopting a more flexible approach such as issuing a short-term, say one year, temporary work permit to the suitable professional, so that the Government can examine and approve the application within the period and if the application is approved, the professional can then become a permanent staff member? Moreover, will the Government consider letting employers recruit professionals in the Mainland by themselves instead of through designated companies and allowing all graduates of tertiary institutions designated by the Government to file applications? Will this be more flexible?

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

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER(in Cantonese):Madam President, in considering new arrangements, the Government will surely give consideration to a more flexible, faster and more efficient mechanism to allow mainland technological professionals to come to Hong Kong as soon as possible.

PRESIDENT(in Cantonese):Mrs Sophie LEUNG.

MRS SOPHIE LEUNG(in Cantonese):Madam President, as we are now discussing about innovations and technologies, we can make reference to the successful examples of the Silicon Valley. In fact, more than 20% of those people who have successfully established businesses in the Silicon Valley are Asians and most of these successful people stayed for work in the United States holding work permits in the 1960s to 1980s. Their situation then was similar to ours now. We should learn from their experience in developing innovations and technologies in Hong Kong. Will the Secretary carefully consider reviewing this system again and figuring out a more satisfactory mechanism given that the Pilot Scheme has made slow progress and the examination and approval procedures have met with obstructions?

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

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER(in Cantonese):Madam President, I have actually given the same answer for several times. We will learn from the experience of the Pilot Scheme and we will certainly consider new arrangements and measures that will attract outstanding mainland technological professionals to Hong Kong more quickly, flexibly and efficiently.

PRESIDENT(in Cantonese):Mr Andrew WONG.

MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese):Madam President, I hope that the Secretary will briefly elaborate on his rather diplomatic answer, that is, "we consider it not appropriate to revive the Pilot Scheme in its present form". Does it mean that the Pilot Scheme has died a natural death and will no longer be implemented while the new scheme may not import professionals from the Mainland but recruit professionals from all parts of the world instead?

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

MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese):Will this be done by way of work permits?

PRESIDENT(in Cantonese):As time is pressing, Members should try to be as concise as possible with their supplementary questions. Secretary for Education and Manpower.

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER(in Cantonese):Madam President, the existing Immigration Ordinance actually does not allow the importation of mainland technological professionals. The Secretary for Security can supplement my remarks later if necessary. I would like to say that the import of technological professionals from the Mainland is generally not allowed under the current immigration policy. I have said in my main answer that we will actively consider new measures and arrangements but the mode of operation of these measures and arrangements will be different from that of the Pilot Scheme. For instance, I do not think that the new arrangement has to preserve the so-called ballot exercises as I wonder whether there is really a close link between ballots and actual needs, for example.

PRESIDENT(in Cantonese):Mr James TIEN.

MR JAMES TIEN(in Cantonese):Madam President, in 1994 when we launched the Pilot Scheme, the Liberal Party and the industrial and commercial sectors thought that importing mainland professionals would not seize Hong Kong people's jobs but create more job opportunities instead to support our industries. In reviewing the effectiveness of the Pilot Scheme, the Government talked at great lengths about the number of applications and the period of time required for their approval, but I do not think that these matters should be reviewed. I would like to ask the Government if it has reviewed whether the 602 mainland professionals already in Hong Kong can bring about sounder operation of the relevant enterprises and thereby create more economic activities and job opportunities?

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

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER(in Cantonese):Madam President, we have really not considered this in detail when we made the review. Basically, the Pilot Scheme has been implemented for only three years and the 600-odd people have only arrived in Hong Kong for a short time, we have yet to evaluate in detail whether they have brought about the creation of new posts after their arrival. But I will gladly look up the relevant information. In any case, we should look forward and we hope that we will come up with a more flexible and efficient arrangement.

PRESIDENT(in Cantonese):Last supplementary. Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG(in Cantonese):Madam President, my view is just the opposite of Mr James TIEN's. In fact, many professionals are among the 5% unemployed people. When the Secretary answered Miss CHOY So-yuk's supplementary question earlier, he said that a more flexible and faster method would be adopted to deal with these problems. However, I think that these posts can actually be taken up by local professionals, not necessarily by professionals from elsewhere. How can the Government guarantee that these measures will not affect the job opportunities of local professionals?

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

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER(in Cantonese):Madam President, as I have mentioned in paragraph (c) of my answer earlier, we have established our policy objectives and we must recruit outstanding technological professionals to cope with the technological development in Hong Kong and we cannot give up considering the importation of such professionals just because they are in the Mainland. Moreover, we find that these people can create more posts and they will not cause the unemployment rate to rise.

PRESIDENT(in Cantonese):Last question seeking an oral reply, Mr Fred LI.

Monitoring of Public Utilities Companies

6. MR FRED LI (in Cantonese): Madam President, regarding the monitoring of public utilities companies, will the Government inform this Council whether it knows:

(a) the legal basis on which the Hong Kong and China Gas Company Limited (HKCG), the China Light & Power Company Limited (CLP), the Hongkong Electric Company Limited (HEC) and the Hong Kong Telephone Company Limited (HKTC), require customers to pay deposits; the respective numbers of customers involved and of the total amounts of deposits received by the respective companies; and

(b) if the public utilities companies concerned will pay to customers the interests generated by their deposits when refunding the deposits to the customers; if such interests are not paid to the customers, why not; and whether the Administration has considered requiring the public utilities companies to pay their customers the interests generated by their deposits when refunding the deposits?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Economic Services.

SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES (in Cantonese): Madam President,

(a) The HKCG, CLP, HEC and HKTC collect deposits from their customers and pay interest on these deposits in accordance with the supply/service rules of the respective company. These rules have been accepted by the companies' customers. They have legal force and are binding.

The number of customers involved and total amounts of deposits held by the respective company are as follows:

Company	No. of customers	Total amount of deposits $M
HKCG	972 000	609
CLP	1 783 000	1,902
HEC	490 000	1,126
HKTC	7 500	10

(b) The CLP and HEC pay interest once a year on the deposits. On refunding the deposits to customers, the CLP and HEC will also pay the interest accrued on these deposits since the last interest payment date to the date the customer account is terminated.

The HKCG pays interest on deposits over $150 once a year. The Company does not pay interest on those deposits at or less than $150 as the Company considers the customers involved are already enjoying a concessionary deposit rate compared with the normal deposits of $300 or $600 required of the other customers. On refunding deposits to customers the HKCG also does not pay interest which could have accrued since the last interest payment date to the date the customer account is terminated. The HKCG considers that this part of the interest should be applied to cover expenses incurred on closing the customer accounts. The HKCG is now reviewing these two practices.

Customers of the HKTC may, in lieu of cash deposit payment, sign up an autopay agreement with the HKTC or arrange a bank guarantee. The HKTC does not pay interest to the customers concerned when refunding deposits. As a deposit is required only in exceptional cases and alternative arrangements are available to customers not willing to pay cash deposits, the HKTC does not see a need to establish an interest refund system. The interest accrued on the deposit is regarded as part of the HKTC's revenue and is taken into account in the overall finances of the company.

Given the small amount of interest receivable on deposits and the administrative costs of establishing an interest refund system, the Government does not consider it necessary to mandate the establishment of an interest refund system.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Fred LI.

MR FRED LI (in Cantonese): Madam President, I would like to raise a follow-up question in connection with the HKTC. However, I would like you to first look at the main reply to see if there is a mistake. Madam President, I hope you will not treat this as a question.

Part (b) of the main reply mentions that the Company does not pay interest on those deposits at or less than $150 as the Company considers the customers involved are already enjoying a concessionary deposit rate compared with the normal deposits of $300 or $600 required of the other customers. I think it is illogical to use the translation "為低" here. I think it should be translated as "為高" instead. Would the President allow me to clarify this point first?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Economic Services.

SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES (in Cantonese): According to the Chinese sentence structure, I think here it means that originally normal customers are required to pay $300 or $600 as deposits. But these people, for example elderly people, are only required to pay $150, which is lower than the $300 or $600 payable by other customers. Therefore, this is regarded as a concession. (Laughter)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Fred LI.

MR FRED LI(in Cantonese): Madam President, I do not really quite understand. Anyway, I would like to turn to the supplementary question I really wish to raise.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You can wait for your next turn to raise the other supplementary question.

MR FRED LI (in Cantonese): Really? I thought it was only a typing error!

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): There is no typing error in the Secretary's main reply. You can raise your supplementary question later. Mr Michael HO.

MR MICHAEL HO (in Cantonese): Madam President, concerning the interest paid on the deposits, will the Government inform this Council how the interest rates are determined? Are they based on the interest rates of saving deposits as determined by the Hong Kong Association of Banks or by the Company itself? How will the Government deal with interest rates which are too low?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Economic Services.

SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES (in Cantonese): Madam President, as far as I understand it, the HKCG has been calculating interest at 3.5% per annum, whereas the two power companies use the normal deposit interest rate offered by the HongkongBank. Although I have no deposit with the banks, I know that the existing deposit interest rate is around 5.25%.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Michael HO.

MR MICHAEL HO (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Secretary has not answered part of my question. How will the Government deal with interest rates which are too low?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Economic Services.

SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES (in Cantonese): In talking about low interest rates, Mr Michael HO should be referring to the HKCG because the interest rate it offers is 3.5%. We have discussed with the HKCG about this issue. Being a responsible company, the HKCG has recently announced that it will not raise charges. The Company has also promised that it will consider carefully this issue as well as the other two issues mentioned by me just now. I think the Company tends to make changes to follow the practice of other companies.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Fred LI.

MR FRED LI (in Cantonese): Madam President, my question is related to the HKTC. As the Secretary for Information Technology and Broadcasting is with us at the moment, he can answer this question.

Except for a small number of users who choose to pay telephone charges by means of autopay, the HKTC has been charging its users three-month telephone charges in advance. However, it has never calculated any interest for the charges paid in advance and returned the interest to the users. Will the Government inform this Council of the amount of interest received by the HKTC each year as a result of this practice? Does the Government agree with such an unfair practice?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Information Technology and Broadcasting.

SECRETARY FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND BROADCASTING (in Cantonese): Madam President, in looking at this issue, we should, first of all, understand that within a commercial sphere which provides continuous services with fixed charges, it is extremely common for a one-month to three-month advance payment to be charged. Examples are rents for flats and commercial premises, management fees and so on. The HKTC charges advance payment (one-month or three-month payment, depending on whether the customers pay the charges by means of autopay) for it has to take into account the general commercial practices on the one hand and administrative acts on the other. If we are to compare the one-month advance payment and three-month advance payment levied by the HKTC, what rate should we use for the purpose of calculating interest? If we calculate it in terms of 8% or 9%, the Company will yield approximately $130 million per year; if we calculate in terms of 5%, it will yield several million dollars only. What we need to consider is as far as each user is concerned, depending on whether we calculate it in terms of 5% or 8%, the difference is only a few dollars if we compare three-month advance payment with one-month advance payment. If we are to ask the HKTC to issue telephone bills each month, the postage, say a little more than $1 for each letter, together with the administrative fee, will have almost exceeded the income derived from the interest. Therefore, on the whole, if the HKTC is to change the advance payment from three months to one month, administrative expenses may even be higher than the income derived from the interest.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SIN Chung-kai.

MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): Madam President, just now the Secretary, Mr Stephen IP, made an incisive remark to explain the issue concerning "為低". Yesterday, he commended Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong for being an eloquent speaker. But I think he is even better in this respect for he can even offer such an explanation. The question I want to raise concerns the HKCG, CLP and HEC. Does the Government feel that there is a need to issue a guideline in respect of this issue, that is, on what basis the interest rate of the deposits should be determined?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Economic Services.

SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES (in Cantonese): Madam President, I have just said that the two power companies are calculating the interest in accordance with the current deposit interest rate determined by the Hong Kong Association of Banks. I believe this is a very fair practice. Although the HKCG has based its calculation on 3.5% over the past few decades, the Company has agreed that, given modern technology such as computers and so on, it will not be difficult for the Company to follow the practice of other companies. Therefore, the Company has agreed that it will follow up the matter. In my opinion, it is appropriate to calculate the interest in accordance with the deposit interest rate set by the banks.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Yes, Mr SIN Chung-kai.

MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): My question is: Is there a need for the Government to provide these companies with a guideline? These companies have done something. Does the Secretary consider that there is a need for the Government to lay down a guideline? Is there such a need or not?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Economic Services.

SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES (in Cantonese): Madam President, the two power companies have done something. In the reply I gave just now, I also indicated that I found it appropriate for them to do so. In addition, the HKCG will take follow-up action. Under such circumstances, I think the Government needs not issue a guideline for the time being.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Fred LI.

MR FRED LI (in Cantonese): Madam President, just now the Secretary for Information Technology and Broadcasting made a comparison by citing the fact that tenants are required to pay deposits and advance payments in addition to the rents. But I hope the Secretary can answer this question. As the CLP, HEC and HKCG do not levy advance payments each month, why does the Government allow the HKTC to employ such an unfair practice as well as receiving interest by fraud?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Information Technology and Broadcasting.

SECRETARY FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND BROADCASTING (in Cantonese): Madam President, I do not consider this practice unfair because the situation is different. As far as electricity and gas are concerned, the charges are determined by the volume of consumption. As for telephones, the advance charges we are talking about refers to basic telephone tariff for each month. For some charges levied according to the volume of consumption, such as long distance telephone calls, they are charged in arrears after the volume of consumption of the users has been calculated.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew CHENG.

MR ANDREW CHENG (in Cantonese): Madam President, I also wish to follow up the question as to why the HKCG refuses to pay interest to deposits which are less than $150. Although the interest is not much, "the poorer one is, the more difficulties one will have to face". For those grassroot people who are required to pay deposits, they will have a more desperate hope of being treated fairly. If it is said to be a concession for them, I think it would even be better for the Company to waive the deposits. As the Government acts as a supervisor and given the premise that the Government needs to safeguard the interest of consumers, what role does the Economic Services Bureau play over such issues related to the interest paid on the deposits?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Economic Services.

SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES (in Cantonese): Madam President, I believe Mr CHENG clearly knows that the HKCG is different from the two power companies. It is not under the supervision (if the word "supervision" has to be used) of the Government. But perhaps I need to clarify the issue concerning the $150 deposit again. Mr SIN Chung-kai praised me for speaking eloquently. However, that argument was put forward by the HKCG rather than me. This is why I have to make a clarification. We also share with Mr CHENG that we cannot see why deposits at or less than $150 should not be allowed to bear interest. This is why I just said that I would follow up this matter with the HKCG. Being a responsible company, the HKCG told me that it would be pleased to consider the matter and follow the practice of the two power companies. In other words, it will pay interest to deposits at or less than $150. Moreover, in returning the deposits to users whenever they decide not to use the gas anymore, the HKCG will pay interest which has accrued since the last interest payment date to the date the customer account is terminated, in addition to the interest calculated in accordance with the deposit interest rate as I mentioned earlier. These three practices and changes prove that the HKCG management is open-minded.

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

MISS CHOY SO-YUK (in Cantonese): Madam President, I would like to follow up the question raised by Mr Fred LI and the answer furnished by the Secretary for Information Technology and Broadcasting. Just now, the Secretary for Information Technology and Broadcasting said that it was reasonable for the HKTC to charge advance payment. Even if an user wishes to stop using the service provided by the HKTC next month, he will still be required to pay the tariffs for next month in advance. It is only until after cutting his telephone line that the HKTC will refund the tariffs back to him at the end of next month. Though the HKTC can only provide the line-cutting service when it is free, the user still needs to pay the telephone tariffs for that month in advance. Does the Secretary for Information Technology and Broadcasting consider this reasonable or not?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Information Technology and Broadcasting.

SECRETARY FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND BROADCASTING (in Cantonese): Madam President, as far as rental telephones which levy advance payment are concerned, if for example the rents are received on the first day of a month and it is after that day that the HKTC receives notification from an user that he wishes to suspend the service, the service should be terminated with effect from the date of notification. Of course, from our point of view, any works the HKTC needs to carry out afterwards should be completed within that month as far as possible. This should be regarded as reasonable under such circumstances.

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

MISS CHOY SO-YUK (in Cantonese): Madam President, the real situation is the HKTC is aware that the user is not going to use its service with effect from next month, and the user has already given notice in advance so that the HKTC clearly knows that the user is not going to use the service any longer. However, the Company still asks the user to pay in advance. The payment is then refunded to the user at the end of that month after the telephone line is cut.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Information Technology and Broadcasting.

SECRETARY FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND BROADCASTING (in Cantonese): Madam President, actually the question hinges on whether the HKTC is able to complete its task within a reasonable and short period of time. If it is able to do that, then it should be regarded as reasonable.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Last supplementary. Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, the question I am going to raise may not keep to the subject. But I am not satisfied with one of the points listed in the reply given by the Secretary for Economic Services just now. He mentioned that the HKCG is being responsible for it had decided not to raise charges, but ......

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, Members are not allowed to give personal opinions during question time. Please raise your supplementary question.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): I would like to ask the Secretary for Economic Services a question. Whether a private organization will raise its charges or not should be decided from a commercial angle. In this respect, should the Secretary say something like "being responsible"?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Economic Services.

SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES (in Cantonese): Madam President, I think this question is not relevant to the main question. I cannot see ......

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, I understand what you mean. You have indeed mentioned this point in replying a supplementary question earlier. It was from your reply that Mr LEUNG raised another follow-up question. As such, I cannot rule that there is no need for you to reply. As to how you should answer the question, it is up to you. (Laughter)

SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES (in Cantonese): I think I have already answered the question. Of course, Mr LEUNG can have his own opinion. I feel that it is a responsible act of the HKCG to take the lead to decide not to raise charges given the present circumstances. I also said in this Council yesterday that I hoped the CLP and other public utilities can appreciate the existing situation by not raising charges.

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Hong Kong Residents Staying in the Mainland for Employment, Marriage or Settlement

7. MR CHAN KWOK-KEUNG (in Chinese): There are quite a number of Hong Kong residents who stay in the Mainland for employment, marriage or settlement in recent years. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a)	whether it has estimated,
	(i)	the respective numbers of Hong Kong residents staying in the Mainland for employment, marriage or settlement in the past and next five years, with a breakdown of the data in respect of these residents in each of the above categories by occupation, age, sex and province or county in which they live;
	(ii)	the respective numbers of mainland-born legitimate children of Hong Kong residents who are living in the Mainland at present and in the next five years;
	(iii)	the number of Hong Kong residents who travel between Hong Kong and the Mainland everyday for employment in the Mainland at present;
	(iv)	the number of Hong Kong residents who live in the Mainland and travel across the border everyday for employment in Hong Kong at present; and
(b)	if no estimation has been made in respect of part (a), the reason of it; and whether it will consider collecting information for the purpose of estimation?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): Madam President,

(a)	(i)	During the period from September to October 1995, the Census and Statistics Department conducted a special topic enquiry on "Hong Kong residents working in the Mainland of China" as part of the General Household Survey. The findings showed that some 122 000 Hong Kong residents worked in the Mainland during the 12 months preceding the enquiry and the breakdown of these residents by age, sex, industry and occupation is detailed in the attached tables 1 to 3 respectively. Other than this, we do not have any estimate of the other requested statistics.
	(ii)	As part of the efforts to determine the number of children born to Hong Kong permanent residents in the Mainland who would have the right of abode in Hong Kong, we estimated last year that as at 1 July 1997, there would be about 66 000 Mainland residents aged below 20 born to Hong Kong permanent residents who would be eligible for the right of abode in Hong Kong. Other than this estimate, we have no other estimate of the numbers of children of Hong Kong residents born and residing in the Mainland.
	(iii) and (iv)
		Hong Kong residents may leave or enter Hong Kong using their identity cards or valid travel documents without being asked the purpose of their departure or arrival. We do not therefore have any information, based on immigration statistics, on the number of Hong Kong residents who commute to the Mainland every day to work, or the number of those who live in the Mainland and commute to Hong Kong every day to work.
(b)	Government statistics are compiled, amongst other criteria, on the basis of their usefulness and timeliness to the formulation of relevant government policies as well as the practicability of such statistical collection. The compilation of the statistics sought in part (a) of the Honourable Member's question is constrained by the fact that such information is not readily available from immigration statistics, and any estimate will have to be based on special statistical surveys or by other means. Before any decision is taken to undertake such special topic surveys, the availability of the necessary resources, the policy need to undertake such surveys and any practical constraints would be taken into consideration. At the moment, within the Administration there is no perceived need to undertake such special surveys but they could be undertaken if it is agreed that there is a policy need to do so and if resources permit.

Annex I

Hong Kong residents who had worked in China by age/sex

Age group/sex	No. ('000)	%
Persons who had worked in China during the 12 months before enumeration	122.3	100.0
Age group
15-19	0.3	0.2
20-29	21.3	17.4
30-39	47.6	38.9
40-49	36.2	29.6
>50	16.9	13.8
Sex
Male	105.4	86.2
Female	16.9	13.8

Note: The above table shows that according to the results of the special topic enquiry conducted during September to October 1995, there were 122 300 persons who had worked in mainland China. These refer to persons who had worked in mainland China during the 12 months before enumeration, irrespective of the number of times of travel between mainland China and Hong Kong during the reference period of 12 months or the duration of each stay in mainland China. Persons who went to mainland China only to conduct business negotiation and inspection of business, to attend trade fairs, meetings and business-related entertainment were excluded. Transport workers commuting between mainland China and Hong Kong, and fishermen or seamen working within the waters of mainland China were also excluded.

Annex II

Hong Kong residents who had worked in China by industry while working in China

Industry while working in China	No. ('000)	%
Persons who had worked in China during the 12 months before enumeration	122.3	100.0
Manufacturing	65.8	53.8
Services
Wholesale, retail and import/export trades, restaurants and hotels	35.9	29.4
Other services*	14.1	11.5
Construction	5.7	4.7
Others	0.8	0.6

Note: The above table shows that according to the results of the special topic enquiry conducted during September to October 1995, there were 122 300 persons who had worked in mainland China. These refer to persons who had worked in mainland China during the 12 months before enumeration, irrespective of the number of times of travel between mainland China and Hong Kong during the reference period of 12 months or the duration of each stay in mainland China. Persons who went to mainland China only to conduct business negotiation and inspection of business, to attend trade fairs, meetings and business-related entertainment were excluded. Transport workers commuting between mainland China and Hong Kong, and fishermen or seamen working within the waters of mainland China were also excluded.

* Other services include transport, storage and communications; financing, insurance, real estate and business services; and community, social and personal services.

Annex III

Hong Kong residents who had worked in China by occupation while working in China

Occupation while working in China	No. ('000)	%
Persons who had worked in China during the 12 months before enumeration	122.3	100.0
Managers and administrators	49.2	40.2
Professionals and associate professionals	29.4	24.0
Clerks	8.3	6.8
Service workers and shop sales workers	6.2	5.1
Craft and related workers	21.3	17.4
Plant and machine operators and assemblers	5.7	4.7
Elementary occupations	2.1	1.7
Others	-	-

Note: The above table shows that according to the results of the special topic enquiry conducted during September to October 1995, there were 122 300 persons who had worked in mainland China. These refer to persons who had worked in mainland China during the 12 months before enumeration, irrespective of the number of times of travel between mainland China and Hong Kong during the reference period of 12 months or the duration of each stay in mainland China. Persons who went to mainland China only to conduct business negotiation and inspection of business, to attend trade fairs, meetings and business-related entertainment were excluded. Transport workers commuting between mainland China and Hong Kong, and fishermen or seamen working within the waters of mainland China were also excluded.

Issuance of Consents to Assign

8. MR MARTIN LEE (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the total number of Consents to Assign that the Lands Department has issued since January this year, permitting the sale of uncompleted flats (commonly known as "advance sale of flats");

(b) of the criteria that the Lands Department adopts in vetting and approving such applications;

(c) of the average time required for vetting and approving such applications; the longest and shortest time involved; and why some of the applications took longer time to be vetted and approved; and

(d) whether before completing the transaction of flats, buyers of such flats are entitled and allowed to ask for documents relating to the vetting and approving of the properties for sale, such as the correspondence between government departments and developers, occupation certificates, certificates of compliance and so on; if not, why not?

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

(a) 15 Consents to Assign were issued between 1 January and 30 September this year;

(b) before a consent to assign is issued, the subject premises need to have been given an Occupation Permit, and comply with the engineering obligations in the land grant conditions. Depending on the nature of the engineering works (for example, landscaping, footbridges, slope works or other engineering works required by the Government), the Director of Lands may accept an Undertaking from the developer that he will comply with the land grant conditions and complete the outstanding engineering works as will be specified in the Undertaking. Where the outstanding engineering works involve a substantial financial commitment on the part of the developer, the Director of Lands will require the Undertaking to be secured by a Bond to be procured from a bank in an amount sufficient to cover the outstanding engineering works;

(c) normally it will take two to three months for the Lands Department to process an application for a consent to assign. The longest and shortest time involved for the cases processed over the past nine months are 217 days and one day respectively. The time needed for giving a consent to assign is mainly affected by the extent of the outstanding engineering works and whether an Undertaking and/or a bank bond is required;

(d) members of the public may obtain copies of the Occupation Permits from the Buildings Department at a charge. The Lands Department will also provide a copy of the application for a consent to assign and the consent letter to purchasers or their legal advisers at a charge. A Certificate of Compliance is normally registered in the Land Registry and available for public search upon payment of a search fee. Other correspondence between government departments and the developers or their professional representatives is third party information and cannot be disclosed without the consent of the developers or their agents.

Improving the Design of Primary and Secondary School Premises

9. MISS EMILY LAU (in Chinese): Will the Executive Authorities inform this Council if they will consider improving the design of primary and secondary school premises so as to provide adequate sports venues and facilities, for promoting students' physical development?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Chinese): Madam President, in recent years, steady improvements to sports facilities have been made in the designs of primary and secondary schools to help promote physical development of students.

In the great majority of standard-design primary schools completed since the early 1990s, the number of basketball courts in the open playground has been increased from one to two; and the area of the covered playground has been increased from some 400 sq m to nearly 800 sq m. The area of the school hall has also been increased by 30% to 370 sq m, on par with secondary schools. In primary schools completed since 1997, a student activity centre of 180 sq m has been added. The school hall and student activity centre could be used for dance, table tennis, badminton and other physical activities. Regarding standard-design secondary schools, all along there are two basketball courts. Similar improvements in respect of covered playground and student activity centre have also been made as in the case of primary schools.

To cater for the various new developments in education, the Education Department (ED) reviewed the standard facilities for schools last year. The Architectural Services Department (ASD) has also completed the new standard designs for secondary and primary schools early this year. In standard-design 30-classroom primary and secondary schools to be completed from year 2000, there will be two basketball courts, and an additional multi-purpose area of more than 500 sq m to enable schools to organize various activities including sports activities. A few primary schools may only have one basketball court due to site constraints.

Separately, in order to accelerate the implementation of whole-day primary schooling, the ED and the ASD have also developed standard designs for 24-classroom and 18-classroom primary schools to make full use of smaller school sites. These smaller schools have at least one basketball court, and smaller covered playground, student activity centre and school hall. School site permitting, the Government will provide two basketball courts for these schools. In any event, as regards open space provision, the standards adopted by these schools are the same as those for 30-classroom primary schools, that is, at least two sq m per student.

Sandwich Class Housing Scheme

10. MR GARY CHENG(in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council of:

(a) the total number of flats (including uncompleted flats) which have already been put up for sale by the authorities concerned under the Sandwich Class Housing Scheme;

(b) the total number of flats which are under construction and not yet put up for sale under the Scheme; and

(c) the balance of loan quotas still available for application under the Sandwich Class Housing Loan Scheme?

SECRETARY FOR HOUSING (in Chinese): Madam President, by the end of September 1998, 8 122 flats have been put up for sale under the Sandwich Class Housing Scheme. Another 3 944 flats are under construction and have not yet been offered for sale.

As regards the Sandwich Class Housing Loan Scheme, there is a remaining quota of 1 500 loans available for application.

Provision on the Licence for Fish Culture

11. MR WONG YUNG-KAN (in Chinese): The Marine Fish Culture Ordinance (the Ordinance) (Cap. 353) stipulates that a licence issued for engaging in fish culture within a fish culture zone shall not be transferable. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the reasons for making such a provision;

(b) whether an assessment has been made to determine if this provision is still in keeping with present day needs; and

(c) whether there is any plan to amend the relevant provision; if not, why not?

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

(a) Section 8 of the Ordinance stipulates that a licence for marine fish culture shall not be transferable. The reasons for this are that the marine fish culture trade was fairly prosperous before the enactment of the Ordinance, whereas the locations and areas of the waters of Hong Kong that could be designated as fish culture zones are limited. When the Ordinance was being enacted, it was found that some applicants for the licence could not be granted the areas they requested and they had to be put onto the waiting list. In view of this, the Ordinance provides that a licence shall not be transferable so as to allow the areas vacated by mariculturists who have terminated their business to be reallocated to those on the waiting list according to priority.

(b) and (c)

In response to changes in the marine fish culture industry in recent years, the Agriculture and Fisheries Department has recently conducted a review of the provisions in the Ordinance. We are considering amending certain provisions, including section 8 on the transfer of licences. The marine fish culture trade will soon be consulted on the proposed amendments.

School Principals Applying for Extension of Service

12. MRS SELINA CHOW (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council of the number of principals and headmasters of government-aided secondary and primary schools who have reached the retirement age of 60 in the current and the past two school years; among them, the number who applied for extension of service; and the number of applications approved and the reasons for approving the extension of their service?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Chinese): Madam President, the following table shows the number of principals and headmasters of aided secondary and primary schools who have reached the retirement age of 60, the number who applied for extension of service, and the number of applications approved in the current and past two school years:

		1995-96	1996-97	1997-98
Number of aided secondary school principals who
(a)	have reached the retirement age of 60	25	31	41
(b)	applied for extension of service for one school year	21	27	36
(c)	have been given approval to extend their service for one school year	21	23	35
Number of aided primary school headmasters who
(a)	have reached the retirement age of 60	44	56	57
(b)	applied for extension of service for one school year	39	48	55
(c)	have been given approval to extend their service for one school year	38	47	36

Under the Codes of Aid, there is a general provision stipulating that teachers (including school principals) shall retire at the end of the school year in which they reach the age of 60. However, the Director of Education (the Director) may, on the recommendation of the Management Committees of the schools concerned and subject to the submission of satisfactory medical proof as to fitness, permit teachers and principals to continue in service for a period of one school year after they reach the age of 60. Applications for further extension of service, each of one school year, could be made up to the end of the school year in which the principals and headmasters reach the age of 65. Extension of service is not granted automatically. All applications are subject to annual review.

In considering each application, the Director takes into account all relevant factors. The determining factors, which may vary from case to case, generally include:

- reasons advanced by the applicants/schools;

- the needs and special features of the schools, including teachers' profile in terms of qualifications and experience; and

- special circumstances of each case, including recruitment difficulties arising from factors such as remote location of the schools and other unforseeable factors which render the timely recruitment of new principals/headmasters impossible, or leadership posts of the schools being left vacant and so on.

The final decision in respect of each application is always made by the Director in the best interests of the schools and students.

Review of Stock and Futures Markets Intervention

13. MR NG LEUNG-SING (in Chinese): Regarding the Government's intervention in the stock and futures markets in August funded by its reserves, will the Government inform this Council whether and when it will conduct a comprehensive review of such action and make public the results of the review; and of the reasons if no review is to be conducted?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES (in Chinese): The purpose of the Government's operation in the stock and futures markets in August is to frustrate the "double play" strategy of speculators who had sought to create extreme conditions in the money market in order to benefit from the huge short positions in the stock and futures markets. The rationale behind the Government's market operation has been thoroughly discussed during two motion debates and four meetings of the Panel on Financial Affairs of the Legislative Council. There has been wide recognition and acceptance of the exceptional move that the Government had made under those extraordinary market situations in August.

In early September, the Government announced a series of new measures to strengthen the currency board arrangements and enhance the discipline and transparency of the securities and futures markets. These will significantly reduce the possibility and impact of any similar market manipulation. The Government is also in the course of forming a new company called "Exchange Fund Investment Limited" to manage the stock portfolio acquired during the August operation. We hope to be able to disclose details of the Government's stockholding when the company is set up.

In the circumstances, the Government does not consider that any additional review is necessary.

Licensed Ferry Services

14. MRS MIRIAM LAU (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council, in respect of the past three years:

(a) of the number of complaints about licensed ferry services received by the authorities concerned each year, and the main subjects of complaint;

(b) whether any licensees of ferry services have breached the conditions of their licences, for example, by reducing the frequency of ferry service or suspending the service without prior approval; if so, what the details are; and

(c) how the authorities concerned have penalized these licensees in breach of the licence conditions?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT (in Chinese): Madam President, the Transport Department and the Transport Complaints Unit received 20, 10 and three complaints about licensed ferry services in 1995, 1996 and 1997 respectively. The majority of the complaints received were about the level and quality of services provided, for example, erratic services, long journey time, inadequate services and requests for extension of operating hours.

Over the past three years, there was only one case involving a licensed ferry operator breaching the ferry licence conditions. This involves a licensee charging ferry fare exceeding the maximum fare approved by the Commissioner for Transport. Immediately after the malpractice was discovered, the operator concerned was warned and the malpractice ceased. The ferry licence of the operator concerned was subsequently not renewed after its expiry on 14 April 1998 and the licence to operate the service was granted to another operator through public tender.

Ting Kau Bridge

15. MR LAU KONG-WAH (in Chinese): It is learnt that cracking and shifting of a section of the tarmacadamed road surface have occurred on the northbound lane of the Ting Kau Bridge (the Bridge) only four months after its opening. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the reasons for the occurrence of the above situation;

(b) whether the occurrence of the above situation is related to supervising measures during the construction of the Bridge; and

(c) of the details of the designed and the actual vehicle flows per hour of the Bridge?

SECRETARY FOR WORKS (in Chinese): Madam President,

(a) The Bridge was opened to traffic in early May this year. In mid- August, the asphalt surfacing of the nearside land of the northbound carriageway was found deformed. Remedial works were carried out at once by the Highways Department (HyD) and the Contractor. In-situ bitumen samples were collected for quality examination and composition analysis. Site investigation and in-situ testing were also conducted concurrently. Most of the tests have been completed. As the Bridge was constructed under a design and build contract, the findings of the tests are being studied in detail by the Contractor. Since the study is in progress, we are not able to come to any conclusion about the causes for the above problem at this stage.

(b) The HyD has checked the relevant site records, including the quality assurance records on the bituminous materials and the working procedures. At present, there is no evidence to show that the problem is related to the supervisory measures undertaken during the construction of the Bridge.

(c) The anticipated (design) and actual traffic flows on the Bridge during peak hours are as follows:

	Southbound	Northbound
	(No. of vehicles per hour)	(No. of vehicles per hour)
Anticipated Traffic Flow
(i) at the initial stage after the opening of the Bridge and Country Park Section (1998-99)	2 800	2 450
(ii) in year 2011	5 400	4 000
Actual Traffic Flow
(iii) current	3 000	2 200

　

Implementation of Switching the Medium of Instruction

16. DR DAVID LI: It is reported that some schools which have to switch their medium of instruction from English to Chinese from this academic year onwards are experiencing difficulty in sourcing good Chinese textbooks and reference books. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council whether it has considered allowing a sufficient lead-in time before it decided on the implementation date of the switch?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Madam President, the Government has allowed sufficient lead-in time for the implementation of the policy on medium of instruction. This is explained in the following paragraphs.

As early as 1984, following the Government's acceptance of the recommendations in the Education Commission Report No. 1, we have adopted a clear policy to encourage secondary schools to teach in the mother tongue.

Since 1986, the Government has introduced positive support measures for schools using Chinese as medium of instruction (CMI). These include:

(a) the introduction of a Chinese Textbooks Incentive Award Scheme to ensure that quality Chinese textbooks in a variety of secondary school subjects would be available to support schools using CMI;

(b) the provision of a series of subject-specific English-Chinese glossaries of terms in 1988 as a reference tool for teachers;

(c) the provision of additional equipment, teachers and funding to schools adopting CMI since 1988;

(d) the provision of teaching and learning resources and curriculum support materials (including syllabus and curriculum guides) in both Chinese and English for subjects which may be taught bilingually; and

(e) the provision of a one-off grant to further assist schools switching from English as medium of instruction (EMI) to CMI in 1998-99 school year.

As regards (a), there has been marked improvement in the availability of Chinese textbooks. From 56 sets in 1986 (each set comprises a number of volumes covering the subject syllabus), the number has increased to 184 sets as of September 1998. This number by and large covers all the secondary school subjects that may be taught bilingually.

As regards (b), the glossaries are distributed free of charge to schools. Each school is issued with two copies each of the subject-specific glossary. Additional copies of glossaries are available for purchase at the Government Publications Centre. To date, the series covers 23 subjects/subject areas which may be taught bilingually.

As regards (c), in accordance with provisions in the Code of Aid, schools adopting CMI are entitled to an additional wireless loop system to facilitate language learning, a one-off library grant for purchasing teaching materials and additional English language teacher posts on the basis of the number of classes taught in CMI.

As regards (d), with Chinese being more widely adopted as a medium of instruction, publishers are already gearing up to produce more and better Chinese textbooks and reference materials. The Education Department will continue to encourage the production of quality textbooks and support materials, in Chinese and in English.

As regards (e), schools switching from EMI to CMI in 1998-99 are entitled to a one-off grant of $155,000 per school to acquire additional clerical staff and equipment to handle paperwork in Chinese. Up to $146,000 is also available to each school for organizing school-based English programmes.

Following the issue of the Medium of Instruction Guidance for Secondary Schools in 1997, the policy is being implemented on a progressive basis, starting with Secondary 1 in 1998-99 school year, extending to Secondary 3 by 2000-01.

Measures to Facilitate Taiwan Visitors to Hong Kong

17. MR HOWARD YOUNG: From 1 June 1998 onwards, holders of Mainland Travel Permit (MTP) for Taiwan Residents with an entry-exit endorsement issued by the mainland authorities may be allowed to stay in Hong Kong for seven days without the need for entry permits issued by the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region whilst they are en route to or from the Mainland. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council whether:

(a) there is any change in the average daily number of visitors from Taiwan to Hong Kong after the introduction of the policy; and

(b) discussions will be held with the mainland authorities to consider issuing such endorsements immediately upon applications by MTP holders in the restricted area of the airport at Chek Lap Kok?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Madam President,

(a) The average daily number of the Taiwan visitors has been on the rise since we adopted our new policy in respect of Taiwan residents holding MTPs on 1 June 1998. Details on the increase are tabulated below:

Month	No. of Taiwan Visitors(round-up figures)		Percentage change
	1997	1998
May	176 000 (5 677)	145 300 (4 687)	-17.4%
June	166 300 (5 543)	154 500 (5 150)	-7.1%
July	152 800 (4 929)	171 300 (5 526)	+12.1%
August	167 500 (5 403)	173 100 (5 584)	+3.3%
September	146 900 (4 897)	169 900 (5 663)	+15.6%

Note: The figures in bracket denote average daily arrivals.

(b) The Chinese Travel Service Hong Kong Company Limited (CTS) is responsible for the issue of the entry-exit endorsement for holders of MTPs in Hong Kong on behalf of the mainland authorities. We understand that as from 18 September 1998, the CTS has set up an office in the restricted area of the Chek Lap Kok airport to issue the endorsement for MTP holders immediately upon their applications on a trial basis. This service came into full operation on 8 October 1998.

Development of Gifted Education

18. MR ERIC LI (in Chinese): In connection with the development of gifted education, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) whether it knows the progress of incorporating gifted education in pre-service and in-service teacher training programmes organized by tertiary institutions; of the number of tertiary institutions providing such teacher training programmes at present; and the number of prospective teachers and in-service teachers who have attended or are attending the relevant programmes;

(b) of the measures in place to promote activities or programmes relating to gifted education in primary and secondary schools; and the effects of implementing those measures; and

(c) whether it has considered providing assistance to school teachers in areas such as financial resources, class schedule and programme arrangement with a view to encouraging teachers to participate in various gifted education training programmes?

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

(a) According to information provided by the University Grants Committee (UGC), gifted education is incorporated in teacher training programmes in the form of elective courses, optional modules or as an element of other courses. A list of such courses offered by the UGC-funded institutions is at Annex A.

In the past three years, including the number of teachers who are at present attending courses, 72 prospective teachers and 343 in-service teachers have attended or are attending courses on gifted education.

The continuing and professional education departments of the tertiary institutions also offer, in response to demand, short-term extra-mural teacher training courses on various topics. According to information available, the tertiary institutions have organized short courses on gifted education in the past two years, but we do not have any statistics on the number of teachers attending these courses.

(b) The Education Department (ED) adopts a two-pronged approach in promoting gifted education programmes and activities. One approach is to provide students and teachers with school-based gifted education training programmes. During 1994-97, in pursuance of the recommendation of the Education Commission Report No. 4, the ED provided professional support services to the 19 schools participating in the "Pilot School-based Programme for Academically Gifted Students". In order to enhance the awareness and understanding of school heads and teachers participating in the Pilot Project on gifted education services and curriculum, 17 training courses/seminars/workshops were organized during the period. The ED also sponsored 29 teachers to attend the Eleventh World Conference on Gifted Education.

The other approach is through the Fung Hon Chu Gifted Education Centre, which organized 24 courses, seminars and workshops for school heads, teachers and parents interested in understanding and promoting gifted education services last year. More than 1 400 participants took part in these activities. Their feedback on these activities were positive. The evaluation report on the three-year pilot project is being finalized and preliminary indications are that school heads, teachers, parents and students participating in the project are generally satisfied with the outcome of the project.

The ED has planned to organize in this school year introductory seminars for all local primary and secondary schools on the findings of the pilot project on gifted education. The Fung Hon Chu Gifted Education Centre will continue to provide enrichment programmes for gifted children.

(c) To encourage teachers to participate in gifted education training programmes, teachers who attend short-term extra-mural courses on gifted education organized by the tertiary institutions can apply to the ED for partial refund of course fees. The ED also organizes in-service training programmes on gifted education for teachers free of charge. Moreover, schools are entitled to employ supply teachers to stand in for teachers attending in-service courses lasting continuously for three days or more.

Annex A

Institution	Course	Nature	Pre- service	In- service	Programme
City University of Hong Kong	Education for Children with Special Needs I (with a section on exceptional or intellectually gifted children)	elective course			BA (Primary Education)
	Education for Children with Special Needs II (with a section on exceptional or intellectually gifted children)	elective course
Hong Kong Baptist University	Education for the Gifted and Talented	elective course			Master of Education
Chinese University of Hong Kong	Educational Psychology-Motivation and Individual Differences (to commence in 1999-2000)	elective course			PGDE (Secondary Education)
	Introduction to Special Education	elective course			BEd (Primary Education)

Institution	Course	Nature	Pre- service	In- service	Programme
Hong Kong Institute of Education (note)	Teaching Gifted Children	elective module			Course for Teachers of Children with Special Education- al Needs
Hong Kong Polytechnic University	Nurturing the Gifted and Talented	self-financed			Teaching Gifted Education
University of Hong Kong	Giftedness	elective course			BEd (Children with learning difficulties
	Gifted eudcation	optional module
	Children with Special Needs	optional module			PGCE

Note : In reviewing current programmes and in designing new programmes, the HKIEd has taken into account the Education Department's recent requirement that all teacher education programmes provide some preparation in the teaching skills and strategies necessary to recognize special needs of children and to help students across the spectrum of abilities. These elements have been infused through professional studies and subject methods modules, such as Child Development and Classroom Mangement, as a natural extension of the concept of diversity in developing the teachers' responsibility to cater for individual difference, whatever their ability.

Reservations and Declarations on Two International Covenants

19. MISS CHRISTINE LOH: In 1976, the Government of the United Kingdom ratified, with certain reservations and declarations, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as well as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and extended them to Hong Kong, among other British dependent territories. In this connection, will the Administration inform this Council whether these reservations and declarations are still relevant to and necessary for Hong Kong; if so, what the reasons are; if not, whether they will be removed?

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Madam President, having regard to the Basic Law and in accordance with the "one country, two systems" principle, the Central People's Government (CPG) sought our views in February 1998 on the reservations and declarations registered in 1976 when the ICESCR was extended to Hong Kong. The Administration has since conducted a review and has advised the CPG that two of these reservations remain both relevant and necessary and should be retained, subject to the adaptation necessary to reflect the new constitutional situation. These are:

(a) reservation of the right to interpret Article 6 (which relates to the right to work) as not precluding the imposition of restrictions, based on place of birth or residence qualifications, on the taking of employment in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) for the purpose of safeguarding the employment opportunities of workers in Hong Kong. We believe that the need for this reservation is self-explanatory and obvious, particularly in the current economic situation.

(b) reservation of the right not to apply subparagraph 1(b) of Article 8 (right of trade unions to establish national federations or confederations and the right of the latter to form or join international trade-union organizations) in Hong Kong. This remains necessary because we need to consider further whether ─ and, if so, to what extent ─ the 1997 amendments to the Trade Unions Ordinance have brought Hong Kong into compliance with subparagraph 1(b) of Article 8.

We understand the CPG will lodge these reservations in respect of the SAR with the United Nations when it ratifies the Covenant.

With regard to the reservation relating to equal pay for equal work, we have advised the CPG that it is no longer relevant and should be removed.

As regards the ICCPR which China signed on 5 October 1998, we shall review the reservations and declarations under this Covenant in due course in the same way as we reviewed those under the ICESCR.

Distribution of Students and School Places

20. MR CHEUNG MAN-KWONG (in Chinese): Regarding the distribution of students and school places among government, subsidized and private schools throughout the territory, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) how the respective numbers of classes, places and students (including repeaters) at Primary 6 level compare with those at Secondary 1 level at the beginning of each of the 1997-98 and 1998-99 school years;

(b) whether there was an over-supply of Secondary 1 places in the two school years; if so, what the reasons were;

(c) of the forecast numbers of Secondary 1 classes (with specification in respect of the class size adopted for calculation), places and students in the next two school years;

(d) whether the Administration will adopt measures to make optimum use of the surplus Secondary 1 places, such as to encourage those secondary schools which have enrolled students with less satisfactory academic performance to take the lead in reducing the size of each class; and

(e) when the Administration will implement the plan to reduce the class size in secondary schools?

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

(a) The following table shows the numbers of Primary 6 (P6) and Secondary 1 (S1) classes, places and enrolment (including repeaters) at the beginning of the 1997-98 and 1998-99 school years:

	1997-98 School Year			1998-99 School Year
	Classes	Places	Enrolment	Classes	Places	Enrolment
P6	1 882	74 967	66 988	2 086	72 585	69 422
S1	2 030	81 119	79 253	1 998	79 920	74 809

* The above figures include government, aided, caput and bought place schools.

(b) Due to changes in population structure, there was a slight surplus of S1 places in the above two school years.

(c) The projected S1 classes, places (based on 40 students per class) and enrolment in the coming two school years are as follows:

	1999-2000 School Year	2000-01 School Year
Classes	2 011	2 045
Places	80 440	81 800
Enrolment	76 000	81 000

* The above figures include government, aided, caput and bought place schools.

(d) Depending on the situation of individual schools, the Education Department will allow secondary schools to have class size slightly less than 40. In the current school year, the average class size of secondary schools is 38.2, and that of S1 classes is 37.7. As we envisage that the surplus number and proportion of secondary school places in the next few school years will fluctuate, it is not appropriate at this stage to stipulate that certain secondary schools will reduce their class size first.

(e) In order to implement whole-day primary schooling as early as possible, we need a large number of school sites for building primary schools. We will continue to search for more sites and review regularly the demand and supply situation in respect of school sites with a view to implementing reduction of class size at the secondary level as soon as possible.

BILLS

First Reading of Bills

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Bills: First Reading.

ADAPTATION OF LAWS BILL 1998

ADAPTATION OF LAWS (NO. 2) BILL 1998

CLERK (in Cantonese):

Adaptation of Laws Bill 1998 Adaptation of Laws (No. 2) Bill 1998.

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): Bills: Second Reading. Secretary for Security.

ADAPTATION OF LAWS BILL 1998

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Madam President, I move that the Adaptation of Laws Bill 1998 (the Bill) be read the Second time.

The Bill seeks to adapt 15 Ordinances and their subsidiary legislation relating to the treatment of offenders and so on to bring them into conformity with the Basic Law and with Hong Kong's status as a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People's Republic of China.

The Ordinances referred to in the Bill are among the laws that have been adopted as laws of the SAR. Some references contained in the Ordinances, such as references to "Governor", "Crown", "Colonial Regulations", "London" and "Secretary of State" and so on, are inconsistent with the Basic Law or with the status of Hong Kong as a SAR of the People's Republic of China, and therefore they need to be suitably amended. Although the Hong Kong Reunification Ordinance and the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance have laid down how such references should be construed, it is considered unacceptable to retain them in our laws. We thus need to introduce the Bill to effect the necessary textual amendments.

The amendments proposed to the 15 Ordinances in the Bill are terminological changes. The adaptations, when passed into law, will take effect retrospectively, as from the date of the establishment of the SAR.

The Bill obviates the need to make cross references to the Hong Kong Reunification Ordinance and the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance. I hope Members will support this Bill.

Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Madam President, I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Adaptation of Laws Bill 1998 be read the Second time.

In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the debate is now adjourned and the Bill referred to the House Committee.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Security.

ADAPTATION OF LAWS (NO. 2) BILL 1998

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Madam President, I move that the Adaptation of Laws (No. 2) Bill 1998 be read the Second time.

The Bill seeks to adapt 12 crimes-related Ordinances and their subsidiary legislation to bring them into conformity with the Basic Law and with the status of Hong Kong as a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People's Republic of China.

Some references contained in the 12 Ordinances, such as references to "the Governor", "the colony" and "the Crown" are inconsistent with the Basic Law or with the status of Hong Kong as a SAR of the People's Republic of China, and therefore they need to be suitably amended. References to United Kingdom Acts are proposed either to be deleted or replaced by references to local legislation. Although the Hong Kong Reunification Ordinance and the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance have laid down how such references should be construed, it is considered unacceptable to retain them in our laws. We thus need to introduce the Bill to effect the necessary textual amendments.

The amendments proposed to the 12 Ordinances in the Bill are mainly terminological changes. The adaptations, when passed into law, will take effect from the date of the establishment of the SAR.

The Bill obviates the need to make frequent cross references to the Hong Kong Reunification Ordinance and the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance. I hope Members will support this Bill.

Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Adaptation of Laws (No. 2) Bill 1998 be read the Second time.

In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the debate is now adjourned and the Bill referred to the House Committee.

Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Bill

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council now resumes the Second Reading debate on the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 1998.

FISHERIES PROTECTION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1998

Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 22 July 1998

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak? Mr WONG Yung-kan.

MR WONG YUNG-KAN (in Cantonese): Madam President, concerning the Government Bill which proposes to raise the fine for fishing by means of explosives, toxic substance and destructive methods in order to deter people from doing so, as the representative of the agriculture and fisheries functional constituency in the Legislative Council, I personally support it and on behalf of the industry. In the long run, this will help protect the fishing industry in the local waters to the benefit of the local fishing industry.

I believe that with the enactment of this piece of legislation, illegal fishing activities in the local waters will be reduced to a certain extent. Our only concern is that some mainland fishing boats that enter our waters illegally may continue to employ fish bombs or toxic substance and the fishermen will also dive in the sea to catch fish during the night, seriously disrupting the marine ecosystem. I urge the marine police and the relevant departments to step up patrol in our waters, intercept the mainland fishing boats that enter our waters illegally and prevent them from engaging in illegal fishing activities in Hong Kong. This will not only protect the marine ecosystem in the Hong Kong waters, but also safeguard the livelihood of the local fishermen.

Moreover, I hope that the Director of Agriculture and Fisheries will fully consult our industry in formulating the respective subsidiary legislation in future.

With these remarks, Madam President, I support the Bill's Second Reading.

PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): Secretary for Economic Services.

SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES(in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam President. I would like to thank the Honourable WONG Yung-kan for his support. I also agree with his view and we will make more efforts to consult the public. We will ask the authorities concerned to step up their efforts to curb these illegal fishing activities. Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 1998 be read for the Second time. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(No hands raised)

PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.

CLERK(in Cantonese): Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 1998.

Council went into Committee.

Committee Stage

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Bill: Committee stage. Council is now in Committee.

FISHERIES PROTECTION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1998

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the following clauses stand part of the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 1998.

CLERK(in Cantonese): Clauses 1, 2 and 3.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(No hands raised)

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Council will now resume.

Council then resumed.

Third Reading of Bill

PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): Bill: Third Reading. Secretary for Economic Services.

FISHERIES PROTECTION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1998

SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES(in Cantonese): Madam President, the

Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 1998

has passed through Committee without amendment. I move that the Bill be read for the Third time and do pass.

PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 1998 be read for the Third time and do pass.

PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(No hands raised)

PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.

CLERK(in Cantonese): Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 1998.

MEMBERS' MOTIONS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members' motions. Resolution under the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance. Mr Andrew WONG.

INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL CLAUSES ORDINANCE

MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): Madam President, in my capacity as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Statutes of the University of Hong Kong (Amendment) Statutes 1998, I move that Statute IX of the Statutes of the University of Hong Kong (Amendment) Statutes 1998, which were laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 9 September 1998, be amended.

Statute IX of the Statutes of the University of Hong Kong (Amendment) Statutes 1998 is mainly related to the selection of Deans of Faculties. The Subcommittee is of the view that the text of the Statute as amended cannot reflect accurately the role of the Board of the Faculty in the decision making process regarding the selection of the Dean of the Faculty. As such, the Subcommittee put forward a proposal to the University of Hong Kong to improve the wording of the Amendment Statutes, and the proposal has been agreed to by the Court , the Council, as well as the Senate of the University.

Since it would take the University of Hong Kong more than two months' time to arrange for the amended text of the Amendment Statutes to be gazetted, in order to put the Amendment Statutes in force expeditiously, the University has agreed that I should move a resolution at today's Council meeting to amend Statute IX in a manner acceptable to both parties concerned.

Madam President, I beg to move.

Mr Andrew WONG moved the following resolution:

"That the Statutes of the University of Hong Kong (Amendment) Statutes 1998, published as Legal Notice No. 299 of 1998 and laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 9 September 1998, be amended by repealing section 3(a) and substituting -

"(a) by repealing paragraph 1 and substituting -

"1. Subject to the approval of the Council, on the recommendation of the relevant Board of Faculty and endorsed by the Senate, the Dean of each Faculty shall either be -

(a) elected, for a period of three years, by the members of the relevant Board of the Faculty, from among the teachers in the Faculty; or

(b) appointed by the Council, for such period as the Council shall determine.

A Dean shall be eligible for re-election or re-appointment."."."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the resolution moved by Mr Andrew WONG, as set out on the Agenda, be passed.

Council will now proceed to a debate. Does any Member wish to speak? Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung.

MR YEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, this motion under the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance concerns mainly with the selection of the Deans of Faculties. A provision is added to the Statutes allowing the Dean to be appointed by the Council, another option to the selection of the Dean besides election, thus making it more flexible. It also imposes a certain restriction on the appointment. For example, the appointment must be recommended by the relevant Board of Faculty and endorsed by the Senate. This is a pragmatic practice which upholds the principle of democracy and at the same time adds flexibility to the selection process. On basis of the principle of respecting the autonomy of the University, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong supports the motion. Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG, do you wish to reply?

MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, I thank Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung very much for the speech he has just given. He has also lent support to these amendments on behalf of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong. The Subcommittee mainly consists of Members from two parties other than me, an independent Member. The Democratic Party also agrees to the amendments but its members on the Subcommittee are not here right now. For the record, I wish to make it clear that this amendment exercise has absolutely nothing to do with politics. Our purpose is only to change some wording in the Statutes of the University of Hong Kong to reflect the original meaning of the Statutes more accurately.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the resolution moved by Mr Andrew WONG, as set out on the Agenda, be passed.

Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(No hands raised)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections and by the Election Committee, who are present. I declare the resolution passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Two motions with no legal effect. I have accepted the recommendations of the House Committee as to the time limits on speeches for the motion debates. The movers of the motions will each have up to 15 minutes for their speeches including their replies, and another five minutes to speak on the amendments. The mover of an amendment will have up to 10 minutes to speak. Other Members will each have up to seven minutes for their speeches. Under the Rules of Procedure, I am obliged to direct any Member speaking in excess of the specified time to discontinue.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): First Motion: Sustainable development of Hong Kong. Prof NG Ching-fai.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN HONG KONG

PROF NG CHING-FAI (in Cantonese): Madam President, I move the motion which has been printed on the Agenda.

When I was preparing to submit this motion concerning sustainable development in Hong Kong, I worries and feared that the motion would be teased as a pedantic view out of keeping with the times just like the case when I previously urged the Government to support the development of technological industries in Hong Kong. The second policy address of the Chief Executive, Mr TUNG Chee-hwa, seems to have given me confidence in putting forward my ideas for promoting sustainable development. Firstly, in the past, my colleagues in and outside this Council and I urged the Government time and again to support technological industries especially midstream research and development, and it appears our efforts have not been wasted for the policy address has given this a positive response which is heartening. Secondly, although paragraph 123 of the second policy address mentions the idea of sustainable development, I find that the sustainable development concept gradually formed in the international community in the last decade has not been given serious consideration by Hong Kong people. Nor has it had any due impact on the policy formulation of the Government. However, sustainable development is a brand new social development concept of mankind at the end of this century, and it is mainly about establishing a new international economic order in the 21st century. It is extremely important to every one of us. Therefore, I find it essential for the Council to discuss this motion today. It is stated in the policy address that the Government is conducting a study on sustainable development for the 21st century and the Legislative Council and the public are welcomed to take part in the discussions. I think that today's debate is a beginning for such discussions.

Madam President, as I have just said, sustainable development is a brand new development concept that has been gradually formed after years of exploration and study by the international community. If we are going to discuss this topic today, I am afraid we have to discuss the fundamental aspects at the knowledge level. First, what is sustainable development? Second, why do we need sustainable development? Third, who is going to create a new mode for the development of Hong Kong in the 21st century? Fourth, how can it be created? I have two points about this.

Firstly, I wish to stress that we really have to clarify the definition of "sustainable development". In the 1970s, Limits of Growth, an article written by the members of the Roman Club gave us enormous inspirations. Moreover, we can refer to the definition of sustainable development given by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1987, that is, "development shall satisfy the needs of contemporary people while not weakening the ability of their later generations of satisfying their needs". We should also understand that nowadays at the end of the 1990s, the sustainable development concept has evolved into a comprehensive development concept, a value orientation with satisfying people's needs at its centre. It has changed the European and American "industrial economics" that uses the Gross National Product (GNP) as an indicator of growth but not development, and established "existential economics" that uses social, economic, cultural, environmental hygiene and livelihood indicators. Therefore, sustainable development is not merely restricted to the level of environmental protection and pollution mitigation, although protecting nature and co-ordinating human beings and nature is the crux of the co-ordinated development concept. Therefore, my motion urges the Council to adopt, in formulating public policies and development plans in future, the concept of "sustainable development" as the fundamental basis for its macro-policy. The fundamental basis mentioned above refers to the theoretical basis, even the basis of strategic thinking.

Next, I would like to discuss why and how this international idea of sustainable development can be created. Firstly, the shocking ecological crisis brought about by several generations of industrialization has made it essential for people today to rethink the global ecological crisis in good time and explore whether our economy and society can sustain development. Is this none of Hong Kong's business? Certainly not. Although Hong Kong is a small but special place, Hong Kong people still live on the earth and we have to bear all environmental costs with other people and, like other people, we attach importance to the welfare of the next generation. We cannot eat food handed down from our ancestors but let our descendants run out of food. These general principles are self-evident. How was our performance in the past? In my opinion, if we have to establish a new development concept, we must review the development direction of Hong Kong in the past. Take the large-scale reclamation of the central Victoria Harbour as an example, it seems that the economic development train of thought behind the reclamation has not duly considered the damage to the ecology or the relationship between the interests of contemporary Hong Kong people and our next generation. We have to understand that although the land obtained from the reclamation of the central harbour apparently has high values, if we view the situation from the perspective of sustainable development, we also have to calculate the values of the natural landscape and whether it facilitates the navigation of boats and ships, and the cost of reclamation will largely increase as a result. Therefore, it is open to question whether this scheme complies with the principle of sustainable development. Take the Strategic Sewage Disposal Scheme as another example. Before the handover, it was initially thought that the sewage from Hong Kong would be discharged to the mouth of the Pearl River. This idea was both ignorant and unethical, and it lacked the common sense that we jointly own the earth, the atmosphere, the river systems, the sea, vegetation and the organism community. All environmental costs have to be borne by us together with our adjacent regions, and the whole world. Therefore, this idea has obviously violated the principle of sustainable development. Every development subject has equal obligation towards the control and treatment of environmental pollution, and richer regions even have to conscientiously assume more duties for the prevention and treatment of pollution.

Truly, the idea of sustainable development should be easily understood but the values behind putting this idea into practice have met with obstacles for a long time. The major reason is that individuals, groups, enterprises and countries often fail to give up egoism as far as the ecology is concerned. Precisely for this reason, we ask the Government to reconsider the Phase II plan of the Strategic Sewage Disposal Scheme in the light of the sustainable development principle. In fact, the Government should at least understand that we invest millions of dollars today to compensate for the adverse consequences brought about by our pursuit of growth in the past without taking the environment into consideration. In a certain sense, our GNP growth in the past carries some hollowness as the expenses for dealing with the aftermath of environmental pollution in these few years have not been deducted. Therefore, we should prudently deal with this scheme as two wrongs do not make one right.

On a higher level, has the economic development of Hong Kong in the past overlooked the fact that there are spiritual pursuits other than material pursuits? When the Government formulates policies, has it considered that it should try to let more people in the community uphold humanism and show ultimate concern for mankind? In the Declaration and Action Programme adopted at the 1995 Copenhagen summit on global social development, Article 4 states that social development is inseparable from the cultural, ecological, economic, political and spiritual environment it created, and this is a new realm of sustainable development concept with people at the centre. What I have just said explains why we have to create a new mode of development for Hong Kong in the 21st century. Not only is this a green road, but also an essential road leading to the future. The Government should be committed to this and every member of the public should form a sustainable development concept. I sincerely hope that the Government and the public can work as partners and jointly promote sustainable development in Hong Kong for the welfare of this and later generations.

Madam President, I would like to express my gratitude to Miss Christine LOH as she is the first Member who sympathizes with my motion and supports me. The idea of sustainable development has matured in developed countries, and at a meeting on world environment and development held in Rio De Janeiro in Brazil in 1992, more than 170 countries endorsed that this should be a new train of thought for promoting crivilized ecological development in future. The mainland China responded very quickly and formulated the Agenda of China in the 21st Century at the Chinese Environment and Development in the 21st Century Conference convened in 1994, based on its sense of responsibility and international obligations. However, here in Hong Kong, people have reacted apathetically to sustainable development, incommensurate with this self-proclaimed international city. Therefore, I am very glad that Miss LOH is keen on my motion.

The amendment of Miss LOH has mainly added "this Council also urges the Government to adopt a full set of indicators to measure the extent to which Hong Kong is moving towards sustainable development" to my motion. I believe that when Miss LOH mentions a full set of indicators, she is roughly referring to the new system of social development indicators being explored and formulated by the international community. This system which includes social, economic, cultural, environmental and livelihood indicators, is different from the "development = economy" economic development concept with GNP at the centre. At present, some countries are trying to formulate development indicator systems that match their national conditions and they hope to find out the operativeness of studies on sustainable development through quantitative analysis.

Does Hong Kong have to formulate a new set of yardsticks in pursuance of the principle of sustainable development concept instead of merely using GNP to measure our economic development? I think that the answer is affirmative but before we do this, we must first make efforts in terms of a qualitative analysis of studies on sustainable development. In other words, our Government and every member of the community should first establish a set of minimal values for sustainable development before formulating for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region a set of indicators that comply with the sustainable development principles and the actual conditions of Hong Kong and are generally recognized by the international community. The study on sustainable development in Hong Kong is only at its beginning and it is a complicated task to establish new development indicators. We have to make reference to international experience but we cannot simply copy it, and we also need extensive consultations and the participation of the general public. I am afraid that we have to proceed step by step. If we ask the Government to adopt a full set of indicators within a short period of time, it may not comply with the spirit of sustainable development as its operativeness may not be high. I hope that Miss LOH's amendment is also based upon this understanding.

In any case, I will treasure and listen carefully to the views of Miss LOH and other Honourable colleagues. With these remarks, Madam President, I beg to move.

Prof NG Ching-fai moved the following motion:

"That this Council urges the Government, in formulating public policies and development plans in future, to adopt the concept of "sustainable development" as the fundamental basis for its macro-policy, and thoroughly consider the impacts of various policies and plans on the natural and human environment, the neighbouring regions, and even the future of mankind."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is : That the motion moved by Prof NG Ching-fai, as set out on the Agenda, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members have been informed by circular on 9 October that Miss Christine LOH has given notice to move an amendment to this motion. Her amendment has been printed on the Agenda. In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the motion and the amendment will now be debated together in a joint debate.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now call upon Miss Christine LOH to speak and to move her amendment. After I have proposed the question on the amendment, Members may then speak on the motion and the amendment. Miss Christine LOH.

MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Madam President, I am delighted that the Honourable Prof NG Ching-fai has raised this important debate. Sustainable development is not an option for Hong Kong. It is a necessity. The reason I am seeking an amendment is only to try to press for some definite policy commitments.

Let me start by supplementing the excellent speech of Prof NG Ching-fai.

Economic health tied to environmental health

Firstly, our economic health is tied to our environmental health. This year's flooding in China and last year's forest fires in Indonesia are stark reminders of how the economy and the environment are inextricably linked. The pursuit of short-term profits through indiscriminate logging in China and Indonesia resulted in huge costs in terms of loss of life, damage to property, health costs, lost business, emergency service costs and fall in foreign investment.

Thirteen of the fifteen most polluted cities in the world are in Asia. The Asian Development Bank estimated that pollution was costing Asian economies the equivalent of 9% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as well as affecting the quality of life in those countries.

In India, it was calculated that the economy shrank 5.7% between 1980 and 1990 when damage to the environment was taken into account.

The situation in Hong Kong could be equally serious. The hospital costs of air pollution alone are estimated at HK$1.6 billion a year. When you start to add in ordinary medical bills, loss of tourism, loss of productivity of workers off sick, businesses that choose to make their headquarters in other cleaner cities, then you begin to understand just how serious the problem could be.

If neglect of the environment costs us money, then attention to the environment is also essential for successful business and economies. More and more surveys show that the world's most admired companies have strong environmentally responsible programmes.

A survey of 50 top executives in Hong Kong's financial services sectors showed that one of the key actions to strengthen Hong Kong's position was to clean the environment to improve the quality of life.

Hong Kong's survival depends on sustainability

Secondly, sustainable development is essential for our survival. We are fully dependent for our lives on services supplied by natural ecosystems ─ to make the air breathable, to supply freshwater and prevent floods, dispose waste and support agricultural systems.

Just to give one example. Global climate change is a threat to the well-being of the region. There is now overwhelming scientific consensus that global climate change is occurring due to human influence. There are many signs of rapid change in the climate from an increased frequency of extreme weather events to rapid retreat of glaciers. River delta and other low-lying regions are particularly vulnerable. It is estimated that a 50 cm sea rise would affect 40 000 sq km of land and 32 million people in the Pearl River Delta region. What effect will that have on Hong Kong?

Hong Kong's global responsibility

Thirdly, Hong Kong has global responsibilities. If you think Hong Kong is too small to have impacts globally, think again. Hong Kong is a major consumer of seafood, much of which is imported live from South East Asian waters. This is driving the destruction of coral reefs from dynamite and cyanide fishing. It is estimated that 90% of the Philippines coral reefs are dead or dying. Hong Kong is also a major consumer of tropical timbers, imported from countries like Malaysia and Indonesia.

GDP/Gross National Product (GNP) are false indicators

Fourthly, sustainable development can improve the quality of our lives. Conventional economics, as practised in Hong Kong, looks at people and nature through a narrow prism of buying and selling. I agree with Prof NG Ching-fai that for all its sophistication conventional economics does little more than assume that if the one key indicator of economic output, GDP or GNP, goes up, people's quality of life will improve. Yet, there is increasing evidence that this is not the case. Health, well-being, environmental quality, political participation, and personal and collective security all make contributions to well-being which are not captured by a conventional economic perspective.

Thus, by simply concentrating on economic indicators such as GDP or GNP, we are deceiving ourselves about the welfare of our community. For example, China's GDP is expected to increase by one percentage point as a result of the flooding, due to the massive reconstruction work that is needed. Does this mean that China is better off as a result of the flooding? Obviously not, as vital resources are diverted into dealing with a crisis that should never have happened.

In conventional economics, wealth is equivalent to money. In sustainable economics, wealth is equated with economic, social and environmental assets. Sustainable development requires a more sophisticated and diverse understanding of the world around us.

Sustainable development does not equal growth

Too often, sustainable development is referred to as sustainable growth. Growth as expansion means getting bigger. Growth as development means getting better, which may or may not require expansion.

The emphasis has always been on getting more rather than doing better with what we have. Do we need to build more power stations, like Hongkong Electric Company Limited's desire to build on Lamma Island, when we are already profligate in our energy usage? Do we need to build more container terminals which result in more traffic, container storage areas, when there are different ways of maintaining prosperity?

This brings me to the motion itself. Prof NG's original motion is excellent. However, the Administration will contend that they have already fully embraced the principles of sustainable development. It will remind us of its study, Sustainable Development for the 21st Century (SusDev21) study.

I believe it is not sufficient for the Government to say that they are committed to sustainable development. They have to demonstrate that commitment.

Firstly, the Administration must convert broad platitudes into binding commitments that involve real change at a policy level. All policy bureaux and departments should have environmental, social and economic considerations in their performance indicators or mission statements. Look at the Policy Objectives, published together with the Chief Executive's policy address, and you will find these missing in most cases.

It is not a question of simply tacking on environmental mitigation measures onto projects, or to claim that environmental and social considerations have been taken into account. For example, all large infrastructural projects now require environmental impact assessments. However, the fundamental assumptions of these projects are never questioned. Instead of asking do we need this road, this power station, this reclamation, we apply band aid solutions to deal with the environmental and social impacts ─ more noise barriers for noisy roads, different fuels for power stations, or produce a park in place of the harbour. This is not sustainable development. We cannot look at the issues one at a time. We need to look at problems strategically and holistically. We need to find new ways of meeting society's needs that do not involve trade-offs in other areas.

Secondly, we need clear markers to show us where we are heading in terms of sustainability. I have proposed a set of sustainability indicators in my "alternative policy address" this year. These are suggestions, it is up to the community to discuss and decide which are important for Hong Kong. There could be district indicators to allow districts to compare against one another and national indicators to chart progress within Hong Kong and against other countries.

Prof NG Ching-fai does not have to worry that I am asking the Government to do something in too much of a hurry. As regards the indicators, the Government's SusDev21 is precisely trying to do that. What I would like is a clear indication when this can be done and that there is a commitment to these indicators.

Thirdly, we need to involve the community in decision making. A central tenet of sustainable development is public participation. Decisions made behind closed doors, however wise and appropriate, will not be sustainable if there is not sufficient support from the community, or if the community does not understand what the Government is trying to do. The Government has already failed in one or two projects, like switching from diesel to petrol. The Government failed because people in this Council were not properly prepared. SusDev21 was supposed to be a great opportunity to educate the public about the issues and seek their input. Other than a few exhibitions in shopping centres, some uninspiring public leaflets and a few closed-door meetings, there has been very little to bring the public into the process. Madam President, I tried to go to one of those meetings but I was told that political parties were not welcomed. I wonder why.

It is going to take more, much more, than recycling paper or banning unleaded petrol, to make us sustainable. Institutional change is central to the achievement. The Government has to accept that fundamental changes to the way it operates are inevitable, indeed healthy and desirable.

There are few places in the world like Hong Kong where the opportunities exist to try out new ideas and technologies that could make us a showcase for a sustainable community for China and the rest of the world. Sustainability indicators are one way to show people the direction in which their society is moving. These indicators are also excellent feedback indications. At the same time, we need to rethink the whole way policy is formulated in Hong Kong to ensure that we are truly planning for the long term. A favourite platitude of the Chief Executive is ─ We owe Hong Kong people, their children and their grandchildren no less.

Miss Christine LOH moved the following motion:

"To add "and include in its policy commitments" after "and thoroughly consider"; and to add "; this Council also urges the Government to adopt a full set of indicators to measure the extent to which Hong Kong is moving towards sustainable development" after "and even the future of mankind"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Miss Christine LOH be made to Prof NG Ching-fai's motion.

Council will now proceed to the debate. Mr LAU Kong-wah.

MR LAU KONG-WAH (in Cantonese): Madam President, there were two rare phenomena in Asia last year. One was the "shortage of money" and the other "flooding". The "shortage of money" was due to the financial turmoil which swept through the whole of Asia, and which was aggravated by the attacks launched by international speculators. It is now doubtful whether the overall Asian economy can sustain its development.

The other phenomenon was flooding. The most prominent example was the flooding of the Changjiang river valley, which affected hundreds of millions of people. There were also flooding and rainstorms in South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong, and two thirds of the land in Bangladesh was flooded for some time. In view of this, we cannot but ask whether our environment can be protected on a sustained basis. There is a big question mark.

According to some estimation, due to the financial turmoil, 20 million people in Asia have fallen below the poverty line. The Changjiang floodings have also affected 200 million people, more or less the total population of the United States. With a shrinking economy and a destructed environment, can a society remain stable? Will unrest arise? Some people in Hong Kong have already been asking these questions.

All these are in fact covered by the concept of "sustainable development". The concept of "sustainable development" was put forward 10 years ago. Today, 10 years after that, we have seen the floodings of Changjiang. With every sandbag thrown into the Changjiang, it might imply that one tree had been fallen. Turning back to Hong Kong, this year is the International Year of the Oceans and the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB) has launched the "Save the Ocean" movement. However, more and more of our seas has been filled in, we have frequent red tides and more and more dead fish. The Honourable WONG Yung-kan will talk about this in greater detail later. Obviously, Prof NG Ching-fai's motion is not at all out-dated. Instead, I consider it quite timely and pressing. Therefore, we in the DAB fully support Prof NG's motion and the Honourable Miss Christine LOH's amendment.

In his policy address, the Chief Executive, Mr TUNG Chee-hwa, talked about the concept of "sustainable development" in one sentence (although this is already much), and that is about conducting studies. I remember that during the session of the Provisional Legislative Council, the Government already came up with some indicators. However, during the interim period, we have not seen the Government conduct extensive consultations or initiate discussions in the community. We fear that the Government is making decisions behind closed doors. I can cite some examples. For instance, with regard to the recent plans for Southeast Kowloon put forward by the Government, the blueprint is beautifully drawn and contains the concept of a "city within a city". However, there is a huge sewer in this "city within a city"! That is a nullah. For years, we have been trying to cover all the nullahs. Why should a huge nullah be created now, a 100 ft wide nullah? Is this not doing things the reverse way? Ironically, the plans are made by the Planning Department, which is also responsible for studying sustainable development. Is this not absurd?

Another example is the noise problem as a result of the removal of the airport. The development of the new airport was obviously intended to stimulate economic and infrastructural development, as well as solve the problem of noise nuisance to residents in Kowloon City. Ironically, although residents in Kowloon City no longer suffer from noise nuisance, residents in the New Territories and on Hong Kong Island are now exposed to noise. In future, when the second runway is completed, there will be noise in Tsim Sha Tsui and Kowloon as well. Such planning reflects that the concept of sustainable development has not been applied to the Government's overall framework for planning.

In the DAB's opinion, the concept of sustainable development must of course be approached from a global point of view and applied locally. Since Hong Kong is so small, we hope that there will be regional co-operation. Therefore, the co-operation between Hong Kong and the Guangdong Province is extremely important. Of course, we know that there are many meetings between Guangdong and Hong Kong. However, if issues like the economy, environmental protection and infrastructure are dealt with separately in separate meetings, it would be inconsistent with the concept of sustainable development. Moreover, these meetings are in fact very infrequent. Therefore, I hope the Government can pay attention to this.

Also, promotion in the community is very important. I hope the Government will allow more non-governmental organizations to participate in the discussion and promotion of the concept of sustainable development.

The third point that should be noted is adaptation within the Civil Service. In the past, our civil servants might only be concerned with their small world and small issues. However, now they have to face a flood of information, technological innovations, issues like global capital movement and concepts like sustainable development, all rushing in at the same time. Could our civil servants afford to confine themselves to their small world and small issues? I think they need to change and this change should be visible soon.

Madam President, some people describe the 20th century as an era of extremes. We can see the conflicts very clearly between different ideologies and different political systems. However, during the last 10 years, some issues of common concern have emerged, such as nuclear proliferation, the green-house effect, the concept of sustainable development and global capital movement. These are questions that we are all concerned about. Since we have a common future, I very much hope that we can face it together. The same thing applies to Hong Kong. The keynote of sustainable development is our common future. This is extremely important.

I so submit.

4.57 pm

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

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Cheung-ching.

MR HUI CHEUNG-CHING (in Cantonese): Thank you, Mr Deputy.

In the course of more than a century, Hong Kong has developed from a piece of uninhabited and desolate land into a prosperous city teeming with people and one of the most advanced economies of the world. We are all proud of Hong Kong's achievements. But the price we have paid for prosperity is in no way light at all: the green areas are fast disappearing, air and water qualities are deteriorating, more and more things which can well be reused are dumped on the streets, and our most valuable natural deep-water harbour ─ the Victoria Harbour ─ is dwindling into a huge nullah. This encroachment and damage of the natural environment has translated into increasingly higher costs of living and survival that the people of Hong Kong are paying.

Recently, the findings of a survey conducted by a green group show that despite being such a tiny place, Hong Kong consumes far more natural resources than the average standard. From the perspective of environmental protection, Hong Kong is undoubtedly a high-consumption, high-wastage and high-pollution society. Such a high degree of consumption, wastage and pollution is unlike the bubble economy which is fleeting and short-lived but a ruthless molestation of the natural resources. The damage done is long lasting and very likely to be irreplaceable and irrevocable. For the good of the generations to come and the future development of Hong Kong, it is imperative for the Government to use the concept of sustainable development as a basis for its macro-policies.

This should not be just a verbal pledge but rather it should be embodied by the setting of objective environmental protection indicators and targets in policy areas such as transportation, environment planning, municipal services and consumption of resources by the Government. Top officials such as the Chief Secretary for Administration should be charged with the duty of overseeing the entire matter. Besides, the Government should include mandatory environmental protection commitment in the performance pledges of every department. The effects of such work should be reported in the annual progress reports. The Government should also consider setting up an incentive mechanism to encourage the departments to strive for excellence and to become an environmentally-friendly and effective department.

Mr Deputy, the central theme of sustainable development lies in that current development should not only meet the needs of this generation but also that development should not cause any harm to the future generations and affect the space where they can meet their needs and their ability for doing so. I believe this concept will help foster a mutually-dependent relationship between environmental protection and economic development, and also an improvement in the business environment. The business environment I am referring to here includes a desirable natural environment and also other objective conditions for the survival and development of enterprises such as costs, manpower, investment opportunities and incentives to set up a business. The duty of the Government is to perfect the sustainability of the economic structure and system, so as to ensure a fair and stable market capable of providing room for long-term investment and sustainable development.

Government policies before the handover have not placed enough emphasis on the concept of sustainable development. It can be said that this is the main cause for the deterioration of the current business environment and our dropping competitiveness in the international market. One of the reasons why the Asian financial turmoil could have dealt such a severe blow to Hong Kong is the introduction of an excessive number of derivatives into the local financial markets before they were well-protected. That was due to a disregard of the sustainability of the financial system. Local innovative and technology-based industries lag far behind those in Taiwan and Singapore because the former government neglected industries. There was no industry here which could induce foreign investment and insufficient resources were put in to encourage research and development in industries and to generate a demand for hardwares and softwares in local industries. All these will lead to an increase in costs should Hong Kong decides to develop innovative and technology-based industries in future. It will be hard for local products to secure a place in the international market which is already very competitive.

The Chief Executive in his first and second policy addresses stressed the determination to reduce operating costs, develop high value-added industries and train people with diversified skills. These are the essential conditions for the continual development of the Hong Kong economy. I give my full support to these and I hope that the commitments made will not be affected by the short-term economic fluctuations.

Mr Deputy, whether there will be a better tomorrow for Hong Kong will depend very much on the Government's willingness to incorporate the concept of sustainable development really into the policies of today. I hope that when the people of Hong Kong and the Government are contemplating the way out for the local economy, they will no longer ask what can the natural, human and business environment do for them, but ask what they can do for the environment they find themselves in.

With these remarks, Mr Deputy, I support Prof NG Ching-fai's motion and Miss Christine LOH's amendment.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Raymond HO.

DR RAYMOND HO (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, in the economic development of any place, there is no other goal more important than the raising of the quality of life for the people. However, in many places of the world, there is such a relentless movement in the direction of economic development that the many problems associated with social progress, like the damage done to ecology and the undermining of the social and family structures, are all left uncared for.

There is no need to talk about far-fetched examples in faraway places. The Hong Kong we know so well is plagued with an increasingly alarming problem of pollution despite the rise in living standards of most of its people after years of economic growth. The quality of the air we breathe is worsening, the beautiful harbour that we used to have is losing its lustre. There is also the problem of transport that we painfully experience every day and talk so much about. More importantly, the damages done to the ecology and the environment are beyond remedy and irrevocable. If we have to lower our overall quality of life in exchange for economic development, then why are we working so hard to achieve this goal?

With the continuous growth in population, there is an incessant drive among the people for a better quality of life. So while development is a must in order to cater for the needs of modern society, we need to take into consideration the long-term needs when we contemplate and draw up plans for development. Long-term development must go beyond considerations for short-term interests and must pursue the greatest long-term interests of society. We need to draw up long-term plans on basis of the concept of sustainabe development. The protection of natural resources and the ecology are issues of the greatest concern to the people. Policies that take account of sustainable development should be able to maintain and enhance the people's quality of life through the provision of a series of social services and infrastructure facilities. Apart from clean and fresh air and a protected environment, a sound public transportation network, clean water supply and an effective sewage system and so on are equally important to the public.

To make a fast-developing city like Hong Kong one of most advanced cities of the world, some people think that the concept of sustainable development is not practicable. Actually, I do not think this is a matter of practicability. What is more important is to put it into practice and to realize it in government policies as quickly as possible. The policies concerned must be able to take care of the overall needs of Hong Kong and the Government should avoid causing any wastage of and damage to natural resources and the environment. For example, in the development of new towns, a lot of activities such as cutting into mountains or reclaiming land from the sea, building roads and bridges, have all brought fundamental changes to the natural environment. Certain parts of the sea have now become rivers, mountain slopes have been truncated and islands become hills or even turned into plains. Parts of the mountains or parts below the ground have been bored to build tunnels for cars, railways, water pipes and gas pipes. There may be different choices in planning and construction, but these are quite necessary.

However, on the basis of the principle of sustainable development, we must be firm and unswerving to make sure that after all the planning and construction work is done, both the ecological and natural environment can attain a commonly acceptable standard. These standards and indicators have already been clearly set by the United Nations a long time ago. We have to ask ourselves: Are we depleting resources which should belong to our next generation? Or are we making some of the resources irreplaceable after depleting and changing them?

Mr Deputy, it must be admitted that the Government of the Special Administrative Region will likely to encounter some difficulties when we put this into practice. But we have no other choice, and this is the only way out for the long-term development of Hong Kong. To really apply this concept in Hong Kong, the Government, non-governmental organizations, private sector organizations and the public will all need to pitch in, and their participation is equally important. The Government should embody this concept of sustainable development in its policies, and promote that concept to the parties concerned and the public as well in order to gain their support and co-operation. Sustainable development is about the future of every person in Hong Kong. It is everyone's responsibility. The Government should of course play a leading role in it.

Mr Deputy, I so submit. Thank you.

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

MR NG LEUNG-SING (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, because of the persistent efforts of the United Nations, environmentalists, experts and scholars, the concept of "sustainable development" has been gradually gaining the recognition of the international community. It has become a major international trend to include sustainable development as a fundamental leading ideal of the formulation of government policies.

Although different countries and places have different standards sustainable development, on the whole, the basic concept of "sustainable development" is that natural reserves are not inexhaustible. Hence, in utilizing its natural reserves, developing the technology and making investments, a modern society has to keep these in line with the genuine needs of mankind themselves and at the same time strike a balance between man's current and future needs. This requires man to, in his pursuit of a higher standard of material life, maintain the equilibrium in the natural ecosystems and preserve their restoration and regeneration power. Only by this will the human society have a basis for sustainable development and only with such development can we bring about a genuine improvement to man's living quality.

Under this concept, sheer economic statistics such as the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is no longer the only indicator for government reference in planning on social developments, and economic growth is no longer the only aspect of social development. In Hong Kong, the average GDP per capita was over US$ 26,000 in 1997, just next to Japan and Singapore in Asia and ahead of many developed industrial countries in Europe. As far as this figure is concerned, there should be no doubt about the economic power of Hong Kong but it is quite another matter when we look at the living quality of the people in this city. Hong Kong is a hectic commercial city where everyone's life is on the fast track. Here, accommodation is small and expensive, pollution problems keep deteriorating, the harbour and countryside are nibbled away and the population keeps growing every day. Time does not seem to have brought to these problems any improvement proportionate to our economic growth. To some people, Hong Kong is merely a commercial ground for them to sweat and to make money but not a place where they can nurture a comfortable home and enjoy their work.

Hong Kong has achieved a lot in its economic development that everyone should be proud of. It is now a major international trading and financial centre boasting a relatively free and open market, busy air cargo centres and container ports for sea transport and a sizable foreign exchange reserve. But we cannot forget that our ultimate goal, when we strive for these achievements, is to bring sustainable enhancement and improvement to the living quality of the people here. Therefore, we are glad to see that in his second policy address, the Chief Executive has also laid emphasis on how to attain a better living quality. There, he has put forward policies to reduce the pollution in the sea and the air, and stressed on working closely with our neighbouring areas for a better environment. These can help us incorporate the implementation of the sustainable development strategy into our long-term tasks. I think in the long run, the Government must step up the publicity and educate all people in the territory so that everyone will recognize that planning on the model of Hong Kong's economic growth should form one of the organic components of the strategy on sustainable development. Only by so doing can the present and future generations of Hong Kong be benefited and can Hong Kong become a genuinely blessed place.

Mr Deputy, I so submit.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Ambrose CHEUNG.

MR AMBROSE CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, the concept of sustainable development is basically a guarantee for the future successful development of any community. As Members also mentioned just now, since the promotion of this concept by the United Nations in 1992, more than 100 countries have conducted studies in line with the concept. The Hong Kong Government has already taken the first step in sustainable development. As far as I can recall, the Hong Kong Government has commissioned a consultancy study on sustainable development since September 1997. A consultative document was issued in April 1998 to extensively consult the relevant persons and organizations. As for the rest of the work, it is estimated that the whole study will be completed in September 1999. The study will be followed up in three stages in the next 12 months. In the Government's consultative document on sustainable development, we find several concrete proposals with a distinct direction. I hope the Government will adopt these. They include first, the China factor; second, the comparison between the softwares and hardwares relating to the subject of the discussion; and third, the decision-making framework, especially the political decision-making framework.

I would like to talk about the first point: the China factor. If I remember correctly, in this study, the Hong Kong Government focuses on two aspects with regard to China. The first focus is on the overall influence of the positive and negative factors of the economic development of the Pearl River Delta on Hong Kong. I find this approach rather narrow. In the respective discussions, we have suggested that we should look at the influence of the development of China as a whole on the overall development of Hong Kong. Instead, the Government has grouped the study of China's development in an item called international review. This review basically covers the research of 100 other countries, which is used as a reference point. I believe China's influence on us is not confined to the Pearl River Delta. I believe that China's overall development will have a tremendous impact on Hong Kong's future sustainable development. Therefore, I hope that when the Government begins the second phase of consultation, the China factor will be made the subject of an independent review in the consultative document. This is the first point.

Second, I mentioned the comparison between softwares and hardwares. Why did I mention this? I will give two examples for the Government's consideration. The first example relates to education, and the second to culture and the arts. In going through the Government's review, I found that the Government had set several benchmarks for education. The review of education examines the ratio between teachers and students, the average class size, the enrolment ratio of tertiary institutions and the average scores in the Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination. However, in terms of the co-ordination between the training of human resources and the education system, there is little emphasis on the development of young people in the areas of virtues, intelligence, physique, social skills and aesthetics. I hope the Government will pay attention to this. Another example is about culture and the arts. The Government's review of culture and the arts concentrates on four benchmarks: the area of urban recreational facilities, the area of country parks, the supply and use of cultural facilities and the number of historic architectural monuments and relics. Basically, the Government has not taken into account creative freedom and freedom of expression in relation to culture, arts, recreation and sport. These are all related to sustainable development in such realms as community, economy, environment and quality of life that we are talking about. I hope the Government will also take this into consideration.

The third suggestion for the Government to think about relates to the political framework. I already mentioned that the political factor as a main factor in sustainable development is the role played by the decision-making framework and principal institutions. In the entire study of the Government, there is little reference to public participation in the decision-making discussions through democratic channels. This is because the Government is trying to "put back the clock". On the one hand, the Government says it is accountable to the public. On the other hand, as reflected in the policy address, the Government is progressively retaking the powers in terms of the decision-making framework and expanding the powers of the central government. It tries to "put back the clock" gradually in terms of public participation in decision-making and the formulation of policies. The Government will soon begin the three phases as proposed. In the first phase, the basic data will be established. In the second phase, proposals for a new decision-making framework will be made. Finally, in the third phase, public consultation will be carried out. I hope that in the next 12 months, the Government will include in the review the points that I have mentioned.

Thank you, Mr Deputy.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Yung-kan.

MR WONG YUNG-KAN (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, as the 21st century is drawing near, the Hong Kong Government stresses repeatedly that we have to look towards the future. It has commissioned the Sustainable Development for the 21st Century study, with a view to establishing a policy-making framework to help the Government make policies for the future of Hong Kong which are balanced and sustainable. Regrettably, the Government has never attached importance to agriculture and fisheries, the primary industry of Hong Kong, but merely regards them as not indispensable. As compared with fishermen in other countries that have active agricultural and fishing industries, Hong Kong's fishermen are a forgotten lot. So far, the Government has not come up with a comprehensive policy for agriculture and fisheries. There are only fragmentary legislation and stopgap solutions. The red tide incidents this year have clearly shown that the Government lacks a feasible policy. Under these circumstances, how can members of the industry look towards their future? How can agriculture and fisheries achieve "sustainable development"?

The development of agriculture and fisheries was hindered because the former British Hong Kong Government lacked a long-term policy for agriculture and fisheries and left the industry to its own devices. Also, some government policies have not taken into account the demands of members of the industry. As the saying goes, "one reaps what one has sown". The evil consequences of what one has sown have now become gradually more apparent. For instance, due to the massive reclamation carried out by the Government in the coastal areas in recent years, many coastal fry rearing areas have been filled in. This has led to a decline in the fish yield. As a remedy, the Government now invests in artificial fish banks. If it had done a good job in educating the fishermen or the public, it would have obviated the need to remedy the situation now.

While agriculture and fisheries in Hong Kong might seem to be on the decline, we think that they still have certain productivity and a role to play in stabilizing the supply of non-staple foods in Hong Kong. This was also mentioned in the policy address this year. If the Government is prepared to support the industry, there is still room for its development. Great importance is attached to agriculture and fisheries in Taiwan and other countries. For instance, as early as 1929, Taiwan established a research institute for aquatic products, providing fishermen with co-ordination services and all sorts of assistance. Hong Kong has not even one proper research institute, and it has to rely on overseas scientific research results. However, due to the differences in climate and environment, the results of overseas scientific research might not be applicable to Hong Kong. It is true that there are researchers at the Agriculture and Fisheries Department and they will occasionally introduce new equipment to the industry. However, due to a lack of resources, these are at best inventions, which are not equal to scientific research.

Yesterday, I asked the Secretary for Economic Services that as we were going to spend $5 billion on building a science park, whether the Government would set up a research institute for agriculture and fisheries for their long-term development. I hope that the Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government will provide resources to set up a systematic research institute on agriculture and fisheries to help the industry adapt quickly to the changes in the natural environment, the market demands and the changes in consumer preference, to achieve the greatest economic results.

Besides, the Government should set up a sufficient loan fund to help the industry introduce advanced production technology and equipment, in order to catch up with the advanced agricultural and fishing countries and regions. Mr Deputy, in some countries in the world having advanced agricultural and fishing industries, such as the United States, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, the government not only protects the industry in terms of policy, but also provides adequate capital and loans to fishermen and farmers for the introduction of advanced production equipment and technology, as well as takes the initiative to offer assistance in respect of scientific research. At present, the Agriculture and Fisheries Department manages seven loan funds. However, most of them are merely intended to help the industry purchase general equipment to meet its emergency needs, and give little help in the way of introducing advanced production equipment and scientific research.

Mr Deputy, in my view, the sustainable development of agriculture and fisheries is closely linked to co-ordination with the Mainland for Hong Kong has close links with the Mainland, especially the provinces of Guangdong, Guangxi, Hainan and Fujian. Much of the farm land and many waters for fishing operations and mariculture farms in Hong Kong are close to Shenzhen and Zhuhai. The seas of many mainland provinces also provide fishing ground for Hong Kong fishermen. Hong Kong people have invested in fish farms and farms in these coastal areas, while non-staple agricultural and fisheries products are imported to Hong Kong every day. Therefore, the SAR Government and the mainland government need to enhance co-operation and technological exchange in agriculture and fishery, formulate an appropriate policy for the import of non-staple agriculture and fisheries products to Hong Kong as well as eliminate smuggling. They should assist each other in identifying farms using banned pesticides and excessive agricultural pesticides, as well as prevent mainland fishermen from engaging in illegal fishing.

According to Article 119 of the Basic Law, the Hong Kong SAR Government shall formulate appropriate policies to promote the development of agriculture and fisheries and various trades. I urge the relevant departments to abide by the provisions of the Basic Law and formulate a long-term policy for agriculture and fisheries, so that this industry will have "a better tomorrow".

I so submit. Thank you, Mr Deputy.

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

MISS CHOY SO-YUK: Mr Deputy, the Hong Kong Government has spent $40 million to hire a foreign consultancy firm to deliver the paper, Sustainable Development for the 21st Century, in April 1998, but it failed to list out concrete plans or indicators for the sustainable development in Hong Kong. Although the detailed report will be released later this year, we hope that the study of sustainable development should be useful in promoting the concept to the community rather than a general study. Until now, the public does not recognize that measures like community involvement in urban redevelopment and on-site briefing for the immediate neighbourhood are standard activities in overseas countries. Linkage to any active Website of the Environmental Protection Department of any European country, such as Germany, will tell you this. The Government could carry out more promotion activities for sustainable development.

Sustainable development indicators (SDIs) are useful in promoting sustainability if designed with care and used properly. However, like statistics, they can also be used to mislead and misinform the public if otherwise. For example, the Department of the Environment of the United Kingdom has developed SDIs in January 1996, but these SDI sets have not been identified using an explicit methodology and are not "user-friendly", thus making it difficult for other indicator developers to learn and also, they are not readily understood by the public.

Sustainable development is a process of community support and involvement. However, the present SDI study does not focus on public consultation. There is a danger that SDI study will miss the point as too much effort is devoted to developing "instant" indicators without adequate thoughts being given to the terms of reference and the long-term validity and robustness of the SDI set. The lack of application of a clear and widely acceptable method may lead to SDIs that are arrived at by an unsatisfactory public consultation process or merely by selecting existing environmental, social or economic indicators. If sustainable development really is a new paradigm, as seems likely following the Earth Summit and the commitments made to Agenda 21, then SDIs deserve to be constructed from a clean sheet and not simply developed in an ad hoc fashion.

We are thankful that Mr TUNG mentioned sustainable development in his policy address. But he could not even give a working definition to it and let this popular document carry the message to fellow citizens. The foreign consultancy did not seek advice extensively from the local community and local green groups to give a local definition of sustainable development, and the contents would be, as a matter of fact, something that any sensible research assistant can get from a library search. Without a professional and community-based definition with scientific indicators, any development projects such as planting a few trees could be called sustainable, notwithstanding that a forest or even a bay was removed in the process. Is the $40 million really well spent? The project was led by the Planning Department and not by a policy bureau. The Planning Department approves the consultant report and is also likely to be the assessor of sustainable development, should the concept be implemented. May I thus propose that an external assessor be employed so as to prevent conflict of interests and so that professionally recognized standards could be exercised.

Mr Deputy, with these remarks, I support the motion moved by Prof NG Ching-fai. Thank you.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Bernard CHAN.

MR BERNARD CHAN: Mr Deputy, facing a population of 7.8 million ─ or even 8.1 million ─ up to 2011, the Government has been juggling gigantic housing needs with environmentally sustainable policies. We see how the officials plan to intrude into the harbour or woodlands to create spaces for concrete towers and modern facilities.

This devastating force of economic development is not unclear to us. Just see how the once fascinating Pattaya in Thailand has been completely destroyed by environmentally unconscious businessmen, who have earned a lot of money out of the natural scenery. We may just take one day to ruin a wonderful place, but can never restore its original face when it is no longer natural. I urge the Government to think twice about the environmental impact of the policies before it is too late.

Of course, economic benefits arising from urban development have been uplifting people's livelihood, but we also envisage a significant fall of the standard of living upon the destruction of environment. The priority of territorial development is now with adequate housing for the ever-increasing residents. It is a matter of survival if the natural reserves are no longer sustainable. It is essential to strike a balance between economic development and environmental protection. Admittedly, our community is lacking a sense of preserving the good at the expense of economic benefits and personal convenience. But the sole emphasis on economic development will, in the end, destroy the fruits of urban development, instead of enhancing them.

We have marvellous country parks within reachable distance from the cosmopolitan. This is a unique feature that our counterparts like London, New York and Tokyo can only envy. But I am very much annoyed by how people have been dumping trash in the wonderful land, no matter how remote it is. I urge the Government to substantially raise people's environmental concern, because our livelihood can be sustained only with environmentally sustainable civic awareness. I am sure our natural reserves are no less attractive to tourists than our very earned flea market.

Mr Deputy, I am in support of Prof NG Ching-fai's motion. Thank you.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Sophie LEUNG.

MRS SOPHIE LEUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, the topic under discussion today is the concept of sustainable development. This concept is aimed at improving the environment where one lives from the point of view of an ordinary citizen so as to facilitate future development. It has been accepted internationally. Recently, I have read a report in the newspaper. I am sure it would give Members much food for thought. The report was about a well-known brand of American baby food. Its products had to be recovered become of excessive lead content. From this, we can see that a simple vegetable ─ carrot ─ which is grown in the soil may be contaminated because there is an excessive concentration of lead in the soil, so that the baby food made from these carrots also has an excessive lead content. If we take a look at the overall concept and environmental awareness, we can trace back to the beginning of this century to realize that while our living environment has become more and more sophisticated since the Industrial Revolution, we have to bear the consequences now. Under these circumstances, the recent studies on environmental protection and sustainable development have led to great conflict among many developing countries and developed industrial countries. Environmental protection groups also point their finger of blame at some industrial or developed countries and cast doubt on their so-called enjoyment of life.

According to a recent forecast about the 21st century, two industries will emerge as the major industries in the 21st century ─ medical development and environmental protection development. In view of this, I think the international community has accepted the idea that environmental protection is a must. It also shows that sustainable development is a trend that the whole world will follow. Let us look at the development in Hong Kong and our neighbouring regions again. According to the forecast of the United Nations, the global population will increase by 3 billion in the next 27 years. The present population of the Pearl River Delta is 32 million. In 25 or 40 years, it will be doubled. In 2016, Hong Kong's population will also reach 8 million. This is why the concept of sustainable development is crucial to the development of Hong Kong and our neighbouring regions. Otherwise, what can we do when the population keeps growing?

Today, the Liberal Party will support both Prof NG Ching-fai's motion and Miss Christine LOH's amendment. I have gone over both proposals many times. My feeling is: Why can they not be combined since they look so similar? In that case, we need not be divided. However, this is not my main concern. I only wish to bring out three approaches in respect of this motion and hope that the Government can mobilize all members of the public to participate. With regard to public participation, Members can perhaps treat Hong Kong as a territory and see it from three angles ─ the individual or the community, the enterprises and the Government. I hope that the Government can mobilize the people at these three levels to participate in the discussion and pay attention to the development of the whole concept. With regard to the three approaches, we should first look at the definition of sustainable development with a positive attitude and a broad vision. We can fully grasp the entire concept of sustainable development in a clear-cut direction. Only in so doing can it help policy-making and mapping out strategies useful to the future development and growth of Hong Kong.

The second approach is to avoid adopting a holistic approach in introducing the concept. Recently, we are conducting a study on sustainable development for the 21st century and discussing the formulation of some indicators to measure sustainable development. I hope that the Government, particularly the various policy-making departments, can refrain from relying on making reference to overseas situation in formulating policies and the opinion of foreign experts. We have to take into account the actual situation of Hong Kong and our neighbouring regions and better understand the world trend of the development before making our choice. This is the second approach I would like to suggest. For example, regarding the various environmental protection projects undertaken currently, we cannot rely solely on the information provided by some experts to make our decision. Let me remind Members about the recent report about a study on "slush" conducted by the Hong Kong Baptist University. Its findings show that there is no need to dump "slush" in the landfills. Instead, it can be treated as soil fertilizer.

The third approach is to ask the Government to lead us to do something. It is all very well to conduct study. However, we cannot just wait for the findings of the study without doing anything. In other words, we have to find out what we can do now. The Government should mobilize the public to participate and tell us how to look at the situation and what to do. I hope that the Government can adopt our suggestions. The Secretary, Mr LEUNG, who is listening to my speech, will soon take up a new post. I believe he can, in his new capacity, lead us to communicate with China and even the whole of Greater China, with a view to examining how we can develop in this area. I am sure that Mr LEUNG will bring us many pleasant surprises.

Thank you, Mr Deputy.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr James TO.

Mr JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, I rise to speak on behalf of the Democratic Party to give our support to the motion moved by Prof NG Ching-fai and the amendment moved by Miss Christine LOH. First of all, I should like to make a fair remark. Miss LOH's amendment is indeed different from the original motion in a significant way, as she has specifically proposed the adoption of indicators to facilitate future evaluation. Otherwise, even if Prof NG Ching-fai's motion is agreed to (the views expressed by other Honourable Members will of course be helpful to a certain extent), we would still need a set of standards by which we could quantify and then measure the progress made in order to keep the Government under "sustainable" supervision.

As a matter of fact, the concept of "sustainable development" covers a wide range of areas. In addition to aspects such as environmental protection, wild life conservation and preservation of cultural and recreational facilities, the significance of "sustainable development" will also be felt on the social, economic and political fronts, as well as embodied in our daily lives. As such, in formulating public policies and development plans, not only should the Government consider factors such as economic results and rates of return, it should also take into account social factors such as environmental conservation, ecological balance, public health and so on. It is imperative to incorporate the concept of "sustainable development" into all public policies and development plans, with a view to achieving balanced development on social, economic and environmental fronts.

The Democratic Party is of the opinion that if we are really determined to attain the goals, we should at least take the following two steps. Firstly, we hold that the Government should set up a "sustainable development" committee to co-ordinate the development plans of various department. The committee should be of a higher level than the existing mechanism in this connection; besides, it should be responsible for establishing the concept of "sustainable development" as the inter-departmental macro guideline for development, as well as playing the role of an overseer. Indeed we have already identified a number of inter-departmental issues over the past few years, the crux of the matter should therefore be very clear. Moreover, since we have also established quite a number of inter-departmental committees or monitoring committees of similar natures, the formation of a "sustainable development" committee should therefore be a necessary step.

Secondly, since the concept of "sustainable development" is something new to the community, it would entail a cultural transformation and a change in our inner sense or value; as such, we would need to pool our thoughts and ideas, with a view to transforming them into a determination to take action. As pointed out in a government publication, it is never easy to mobilize the people to change their way of thinking, and much time is needed before any noticeable result can be achieved. The Government has even pointed out frankly that the policy makers (or the Government), politicians, political figures, political parties or voters are always very short-sighted. During an election, the voters may sometimes be very short-sighted, but there are also times when the politicians are the most short-sighted parties. So, how is the Government going to initiate an inner transformation of our culture as well as our values? Well, perhaps the goal would eventually be attained one day. In this connection, we have found out lately that if any candidates running for the recent election have kept talking about environmental protection or "sustainable development", it would be very lucky of them if they managed to reap 10% of the votes under the proportional representation system. But then again, ideas of environmental protection and "sustainable development" do have their markets.

However, we should not restrict our targets to this level only. We should aim at winning the support of the general public and transforming their support into a trend. In this connection, despite the short-term adjustment or even general disappointment that we might have to endure, if we manage to cope with the mechanism for long-term development, we could at least do something in this respect. What is more, we should be hopeful that things would change for the better.

I will now turn to the field of education. I think there are a number of points on which we must place emphasis. First, formal education. We hold that environmental protection should be included as a compulsory subject for various stages of education below the tertiary level, say at secondary stage or for better results, at primary stage. The subject should be introduced throughout the stages to foster the students' sense of awareness in this respect. However, we are not talking about something like the environmental education we have had a few years back. We are talking about rendering the abstract concept of "sustainable development" into simple terms and introducing such basic ideas to students while they are still young and tender. Our target audience, in practice, include not only primary and secondary school students but also their parents, since parents would be influenced indirectly through their children. The impacts on the adults would then be reflected in their values and perspective on life. And all these are interactive.

Second, financial support for professional voluntary agencies which have been making contributions to the cause through their efforts to promote environmental protection and monitor the Government. With financial support, their contributions could be enhanced. These bodies have all along been in need of funds, many a time they are unable to attend useful conferences and seminars due to a lack of funds.

Third, environmental education should reach out to the grassroots. In this connection, the Government should foster the role play by voluntary agencies and welfare bodies. I think it is necessary for the Government to promote environmental education through all possible channels, via different means and in all directions. In regard to the third Review of the White Paper on Environment published by the Government in March 1996 and the most recently released document on Sustainable Development for the 21st Century, we could see that the Government is in fact changing its stance. By that I mean the Government has confirmed environmental needs as the basis for "sustainable development". In view of the comprehensive coverage of the report, I do wonder if the Government really has the determination to implement the ideas when it formulates the relevant policies.

As I reflect on some incidents of late, I could not help but feel disappointed. Honourable colleagues have already pointed out that the concept held by the Government, as embodied in reclamation projects and the development of route 3 or hidden between the lines of its publications, is in fact contrary to the concept of "sustainable development". Let me take the white paper published in 1996 as an example. According to the white paper, the sea is a self-cleansing system compared with our sewage disposal strategy. But it seems that the Government has described the sea as an infinite self-cleansing system, because it failed to point out the fact that when the sewage discharged into the sea reached a certain level, the sea would be unable to activate its self-cleansing system and the neighbouring regions would have to suffer with us as well. In view of the piecemeal information provided by the Government, it is really doubtful whether the concept held by the Government in this connection would be comprehensive enough. Perhaps the environmental impact assessments we have conducted so far only focus on assessing our ability to endure the adverse impacts. But should we now switch to assessing the sustainable development of certain major projects? I am afraid we have been keeping a blank record in this respect. In my opinion, only until the Government, leading industrial and commercial figures, legislators, and even grassroot bodies have all undergone thorough cultural and inner transformations could we attain sustainable development that knows no boundaries as we progress into the 21st century.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr MA Fung-kwok.

MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, the concept of "sustainable development" is not so widely accepted in Hong Kong as overseas. One can say that it is a relatively new and little known concept. However, this concept is extremely important to the development of Hong Kong. I am very glad that Prof NG Ching-fai has proposed this motion and aroused our attention and discussion. Let us explore together how we can achieve balance between social and economic development and the environment in the future development of Hong Kong.

Actually, Hong Kong people have always been very short-sighted. This might be because after the war, Hong Kong was considered as a temporary refuge for many people. In the beginning, the Government adopted a laissez-faire policy. Later, it adopted an active non-invention policy. Finally, during the last decade, it saw itself as a sunset government. Therefore, what the Government and the community pursued was just a high economic growth rate. They paid less attention to long-term development and failed to take account of the price the community had to pay for rapid economic growth.

In the past, without the concept of long-term development, many policies made were at the expense of the resources and interest of the generations to come. In general, one adopted the attitude of developed countries during their industrialization, which is "pollute first and clean up afterwards, destroy first and protect afterwards".

The concept of sustainable development that we talk about today is not confined to environmental protection and pollution mitigation. Economic growth under the concept of sustainable development cannot only stress physical and material factors. It has to include overall social factors. Economic development must be assessed in conjunction with the overall social development and the environment.

Early this year, the Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government issued the consultative document on Sustainable Development for the 21st century. Both this document and the second policy address of the SAR Government just released mentioned that Hong Kong's future achievement would depend a great deal on whether the concept of sustainable development could be implemented today. This is a good start.

However, I wish to emphasize that the concept of sustainable development should be realized in different areas. Apart from the economic, social and environmental domains, it should also be applied extensively to education, culture, sport and recreation, health and politics. However, the consultative document issued by the Government obviously emphasizes the measures for the hardwares such as city planning and improvement of the environment, without setting a direction for the development of softwares such as culture and education.

Mr Deputy, our education policy used to stress only the acquisition and transmission of knowledge and aimed at providing the Government, the commercial and industrial sector with skilled people. The education policy did not take diverse development into account. It is only after the establishment of the SAR Government that there is a chance for change. As for culture and the arts, even now, they are still developing aimlessly.

Do Hong Kong people have innovative ideas, an international vision and a sense of responsibility towards the future, our neighbouring regions and the world? What are our social values? Do our policies meet the human resources needs of a competitive community? The Chief Executive's policy address delivered earlier stresses the development of high technology. But is the development of high technology enough? In the areas of culture and education, how does one train citizens equipped with both knowledge in high technology and corresponding concepts of development? This is something open to discussion.

I hope that the SAR Government will study the concept of sustainable development in greater depth and use this concept as a basis for policy-making. This would ensure that the future development of Hong Kong will meet the needs of the present generation, without reducing the capacity of the next for improvement, so that Hong Kong will maintain its ability to survive and compete.

Some colleagues have proposed the formulation of indicators to assess whether the policies made by the Government are compatible with the idea of sustainable development. I believe that it is necessary to formulate long-term indicators. Different regions have different indicators. We should consider using some international indicators. However, they must be applicable to the circumstances in Hong Kong. Moreover, these indicators must be formulated according to the internationally accepted concept of sustainable development. If they are based on some concrete figures for the sake of achieving certain political, economic and social ends by individual persons or parties, they cannot be regarded as sound indicators. The indicators must also reflect the state of different areas.

I wish to emphasize that the indicators should not be hard figures. Instead, the indicators for education should reflect the ability of students to update their knowledge on their own, their ability to analyse and draw conclusions from information obtained from the community and their awareness of sustainable development. These should be used as the criteria for assessment. In terms of culture and the arts, the indicators should reflect among other things the populace's ability to appreciate culture and the arts and the overall cultural level.

In the long term, the community needs a set of sound indicators. However, it is not easy to formulate a set of indicators that are tailored to the circumstances of Hong Kong. I believe we still need a long period of time for discussion. At this stage, the most important thing is promotion and to educate the public about the concept of sustainable development and its importance, as well as urge the Government to use the new idea of sustainable development as the basis for macro policy formulation so that Hong Kong's future development will be charted in the interest of the present and next generations.

There is no difference in principle between the amendment proposed by Miss Christine LOH and Prof NG Ching-fai's motion. I agree with the Honourable Mrs Sophie LEUNG that they should have been combined to show the co-operation and consensus of Members of this Council on this question.

With these remarks, I support Prof NG Ching-fai's original motion. Thank you, Mr Deputy.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAW Chi-kwong.

Mr LAW CHI-KWONG(in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, we should be grateful to Prof NG Ching-fai for providing us with such a broad topic to speak freely on, and in particular, to express our views regarding the issue of "sustainable development in the 21st century".

I guess the Government would also be grateful to Prof NG, since one of the objectives of the Government's study on sustainable development in the 21st century is to encourage the public to discuss, participate, as well as concern themselves more with the matter. The motion debate held in this council today is one good way to enhance public concern over this matter.

We could certainly take this opportunity to criticize the Government for having all along concentrated solely on economic development and, hence, overlooked the need for conservation. We could also criticize the Government for adopting an active non-intervention policy in regard to our economic and social activities, and especially for its unwillingness to intervene even when such activities have caused not only damages but also many far-reaching and irremediable problems to our environment. I believe the Government should by now become aware of the problems, but the awareness has regrettably come too late and, most probably, not "good" enough.

I have recently referred to a very strange natural phenomenon on another occasion of the Council. I think I should relate it once again in this Chamber. once I was driving towards the west, I think it should be the middle of last month, and all of a sudden I saw that scene of a sunset low in the sky. the sun was not sinking behind the mountains (we used to sing the song "the sun sinks behind the mountains" when we were small) but was there low in the sky, in the midst of a smog, then all of a sudden a phenomenon resembling a sunset took place in front of me and the sun was not there any more. From this we could see that the pollution problem in Hong Kong as a whole has reached a grave level. Last week the Democratic Party had intended to conduct a signature campaign outside the Sogo department Store in Causeway Bay, but the campaign was later cancelled due to the rainy weather. Can you guess what I first thought of when I heard about the campaign? Well, I thought I should first find out where I could buy myself a gas mask if I were to take part in the signature campaign held outside the Sogo department Store. But since the campaign was called off in the end, I did not buy the mask. The Government is still studying the pollution-related problems at the moment, and by the time the government actions begin to take effects, I am afraid we might need to carry with us oxygen cylinders when we go shopping in Causeway Bay.

In addition to urging the Government to strengthen its environmental conservation efforts, I also support what several Honourable colleagues have said just now. Not only does the Government need to mobilize each and every one in the community to put in some efforts in this connection, we should all the more start with the small aspects of our daily lives to help establish an environmentally friendly way of life. I often have meals in the student canteen of the university where I teach. When I eat there, I always ask the cook to give me less rice since I need less than what he gives me, and each time I have to ask him to reduce by half the portion he intends to give me; nevertheless, many a time I have also seen the canteen tables covered with eating plates full of left-overs. I think the people of Hong Kong are just too indifferent to the issue of "wastefulness", that is why I believe mobilizing the public to be less wasteful should be one of the major tasks awaiting us.

Apart from environmental protection, I would also like to speak on other aspects of sustainable development. In regard to Agenda 21, one fundamental principle is that in striving to attain sustainable development for all mankind, countries of the world should devote themselves to eradicating poverty and reducing the disparity between the rich and the poor. the disparity between the rich and the poor is a well known problem in Hong Kong, and one of the indicators used to measure the disparity is the Gini coefficient. The Gini coefficient of Hong Kong was 0.451 in 1981, but the figure has already risen to 0.476 by 1991 and then further to 0.518 in 1996. We know that the problem of disparity between the rich and the poor, when left to develop to a certain level, will become a threat to social stability and holds back the development of the economy. The former Legislative Council has discussed the problem of disparity between the rich and the poor for many times, but our voices were never echoed by the Government. It is my hope that in carrying out its study on "sustainable development", the Government will not overlook the objective to reduce the disparity between the rich and the poor as set out under Agenda 21.

Another aspect of sustainable development is related to the welfare of the elderly. Since the beginning of the decade, the number of elderly recipients of Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) has been increasing in real terms at an average rate of 15% per annum. If we do not do anything at this stage, in 10 years' time, the financial burden brought about by the large number of elderly CSSA recipients will exhaust all our social welfare resources. For this reason, we hope the Government will reconsider setting up an old age pension fund to help the elderly resolve their post-retirement financial problems on the one hand, and alleviate the pressure of such problems on the CSSA and social welfare systems.

With these remarks, Mr Deputy, I support the motion and the amendment.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now invite Prof NG Ching-fai to speak on Miss Christine LOH's amendment. Prof NG Ching-fai, you have up to five minutes to speak.

PROF NG CHING-FAI (in Cantonese): Thank you, Mr Deputy. First of all I would like to thank the 13 colleagues who have spoken on my motion. Their views of sustainable development from various angles have benefited me greatly. I am also grateful to the Honourable Miss Christine LOH who has explained that she is not asking the Government to set down the full set of indicators immediately. I feel that Members' speeches today do more than facilitating the exchange of ideas among colleagues in this Council. The Secretary, I think, has also heard it very clearly that all Members are very concerned about this issue and wish to work with him together to do it right.

When I put forward this motion, I was a little worried that some would criticize it as a distant remedy which cannot meet the present need, and as we are already faced with many problems, it is not the time to bring this kind of motions up. However, having heard today's speeches, I feel relieved. I have always felt that a Council should, other than being eager to meet the needs of the people, helping this community address its immediate difficulties, also spare some time to take a look at the community's long-term development plan and the basis for policy-making. Just like when we have buried ourselves in the books for too long, our eyes will be tired, and we need to lift our heads to look at green plants and pastures in the distance and breathe in fresh air to allow our eyes to make appropriate adjustments. This will freshen our minds as well. Otherwise, if we only immerse ourselves in the hard work, we will lose our direction.

Having heard Members' speeches today, I know that we must induce a wide discussion about the concept of sustainable development. I also feel that it is very important that if the Government, this Council and the people all have similar views about sustainable development, then when the Government puts forward development plans in this respect, they will be more readily accepted by the people. In view of that, I wish to thank all Members once again for their support and hope that this motion will be passed. Thank you.

6.05 pm

THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair.

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

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Cantonese): Madam President, first of all, I am grateful to Prof NG Ching-fai for moving the motion and for the Honourable Miss Christine LOH's proposed amendment.

The spirit of the motion is basically in line with the policy objective of the Government. From the speeches by Honourable Members, it is apparent that Members have different understanding of the concept of "sustainable development" and harbour different expectations. This is perfectly understandable. This concept was first widely publicized by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature in its World Conservation Strategy in 1980. It gained prominence when it was recognized and promulgated in the United Nations' Earth Summit held in Rio De Janerio, Brazil in 1992. The significance of "sustainable development" lies in flagging up for governments around the world, business community, social groups as well as individuals, the importance of the protection of environment in the course of our pursuing progress and development in various spheres, so as to protect the well-being of our future generations.

Members may not be aware that there are over 70 definitions of "sustainable development" throughout the world. Some of them emphasize the importance of environmental protection while others focus on defining concrete policy objectives and proposals. In many places in the world, governments and institutions formulate their own "sustainable development" strategies on the basis of their respective pace of social and economic development; their environmental and natural resources conditions; political reality and the degree of acceptance by their community. The motion debate today may well set the scene for our formulating a sustainable development strategy for Hong Kong that befits our practical circumstances.

Throughout the debate this afternoon, many Members have urged the Government to step up its efforts and dedicate more resources to environmental protection work. A lot of views and proposals put forth by Members are worthy of careful consideration. My colleagues concerned and I would study them very carefully. But I want to emphasize that "sustainable development" does not simply relates to environmental protection. In my view, Hong Kong's "sustainable development" should include three essential elements. Enhancing the quality of our environment is only one of them. The other two equally important elements are a vibrant economy and social progress. An ideal "sustainable development" strategy should also not be limited by a specific timeframe. Apart from meeting the present environmental, economic and social needs and striking a fine balance among these competing needs, we should also have a vision for the future. We should never allow the policies we make today deprive our future generations of the ability to meet their own needs.

To summarize, governments elsewhere have taken action in promoting and implementing sustainable development. Such action can be broadly categorized into three types: first, the formulation of long-term policies to amend utilization of present resources and made of development planning to facilitate consideration of the environmental impact brought about by the said utilization and planning; second, the promotion of the concept of sustainable development in all government departments and encouraging participation from across the community including the industrial sector, the businesses and other parties interested; third, the production of a set of "sustainable indicators" for measuring the progress by which Hong Kong moves towards "sustainable development".

As a responsible member of the international community and to strengthen the basis for our future development, the Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government is actively involved in promoting "sustainable development". Some Members have suggested that we should take into account international experience in implementing "sustainable development" strategies. The Government has indeed given considerable thought to this. However, we must realize that Hong Kong is a fairly unique place. While we are constrained by the lack of natural resources and various other environmental conditions, we are able to take advantage of the best of the cultures of both the East and the West. We have not only inherited the thousand years' traditional Chinese culture, we have also benefited from the thinkings, legal system and education of the West. Geographically, Hong Kong is at the doorstep of the Pearl River Delta Region and our development has a significant bearing on the 1.2 billion people north of the boundary and the opposite is equally true.

Hence, the SAR Government has commissioned a consultancy to examine critically the problems Hong Kong faces in its "sustainable development" towards the 21st century. The main objective of the study is to recommend a mechanism to help ensure that our policies will take fully into account our needs in economic development, social progress and environmental quality. One of the prominent aspects of the consultancy study is to encourage public participation. The objective is to hammer home the importance of "sustainable development" to every citizen, and to obtain support from the public.

The study has several aims: to define "sustainable development" according to the Hong Kong situation, to set standards and indicators for sustainable development covering economic, social and environmental considerations, and to formulate a "sustainable development system", which is a major achievement of the study. The system will be used to ensure the Government assesses and considers issues related to sustainable development as it formulates its policies. The system will also identify policy-making mechanisms requiring improvement, making it possible for the Government to make informed and balanced policies relating to sustainable development. Furthermore, it will encourage as far as possible public participation as the study progresses so that the public is made aware of the importance of sustainable development. Generally speaking, the Government will eventually develop or propose a set of "indicators" for measuring the progress and achievements as Hong Kong moves towards "sustainable development". This is related to Miss Christine LOH's amendment. I hope that in the course of formulating such a set of indicators we can reconcile the needs and interests of the various sectors within the community. A consensus could only be reached through discussions among them.

As I have said earlier, we attach great importance to public participation and the views and concerns of the community. Hence, two large-scale promotion and consultation exercises would be conducted during the study period. The first round was held between April and June this year. We will fully consult the public again as soon as we have come up with more concrete recommendations. At present, no consensus has yet been reached regarding "sustainable development? Our debate today is timely in arousing the interest and concern of the whole community over this issue. I have listened very carefully to the views of Honourable Members. In summary, experiences overseas show that if "sustainable development" is regarded as a government venture and a government responsibility only, there will usually be small achievements or even failures. The problems Members mentioned about in other countries show in fact these countries have their own policies and joint-efforts are indispensable. And I hope that after this debate, Honourable Members will continue to assist the Government in encouraging public discussion of this issue in different areas.

Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Miss Christine LOH be made to Prof NG Ching-fai's motion. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(No hands raised)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority respectively from each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections and by the Election Committee, who are present. I declare the amendment passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Prof NG, you may now reply and you have up to three minutes and 25 seconds.

PROF NG CHING-FAI (in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam President. Having heard the Secretary's response, I may well rest reassured. The Secretary explicitly said that he has heard the points of Members and he has also put forth the point that I have brought up and recognized, and that is, to enable the concept and philosophy of sustainable development to really materialize in society, it cannot be achieved by the Government taking the initiative by itself alone; rather, it requires the joint efforts of the Government and the people together. This is very important.

From today's debate, we can see another point, which is sustainable development in fact embraces a great many things. The Secretary reminds us that it can have over 70 definitions and that is also part of the reason why I have not given it a definition. Since it has such a rich content, we should set our own goal according to our specific situation. Of course, this goal has to be in line with the general trend of the whole world and recognized by the international community. As I have pointed out in my speech, we cannot build our happiness upon others' suffering. That is just unreasonable. Culture is one issue, and other kinds of awareness is another. The Honourable LAW Chi-kwong has also pointed out that the wastefulness mentality is also one of the things that go against sustainable development. From this debate, we can gain a clearer understanding. We hope that the whole community will continue with this discussion, so that this concept of sustainable development can really become a recognized development goal of Hong Kong and making our city a genuine international city that we keep talking about. I also hope that it will become more than an international city, an advanced international city.

With these remarks, Madam President, I hope that Members will continue to vote in favour of this motion. Thank you.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Prof NG Ching-fai, as amended by Miss Christine LOH, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(No hands raised)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections and by the Election Committee, who are present. I declare the amended motion passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Second Motion: Rehousing all cage home lodgers and single persons. Mr LAU Chin-shek.

REHOUSING ALL CAGE HOME LODGERS AND SINGLE PERSONS

MR LAU CHIN-SHEK (in Cantonese): Madam President, I move that the motion on rehousing all cage home lodgers and single persons as printed on the Agenda be approved.

Concern for the vulnerable

Many people were a bit puzzled when they knew that I would move a motion on this subject matter, and they all wondered why I had not instead moved a motion on the compelling wage cuts problem now faced by "wage earners". Let me first try to clear their doubt. The rights and interests of "wage earners" have always remained my greatest concern, but I do also believe that besides paying attention to our own problems, we must also extend our concern to those people around us who are even more unfortunate than us. This especially true at this very time of economic downturn, when even those who used to be able to make ends meet are also beginning to face difficulties in earning a living. Under such a situation, the lowest strata of the community, or the most vulnerable of our fellow citizens, will inevitably receive even less care and concern than before. So while we criticize the Chief Executive for "not daring" to tackle the problems of unemployment and wage cuts in his policy address this year, we should also point out that the Chief Executive has entirely ignored the housing problem of cage home lodgers.

Honourable colleagues in this Chamber today may still recall that when Mr TUNG Chee-hwa ran in the election of the Chief Executive about two years ago, he once visited a cage home apartment where 70 lodgers lived. Apparently moved by what he saw, Mr TUNG remarked sadly that long-term and integrated policies were required if we were to successfully relieve the plight of those suffering from abject poverty. Regrettably, over the past year or so since his assumption of office, he has completely failed to propose any improvement measures to solve the housing problem of cage home lodgers.

The Chief Executive has been trying to encourage people to buy their own homes by putting forward various kinds of schemes in his last two policy addresses; ironically, while trying to assist the middle-income group in buying their own homes, he simply turns a blind eye to the housing needs of cage home lodgers.

Never-ending disasters

Barely a month a ago, a fire broke out in a cage home apartment located at Cross Street, Wan Chai, resulting in the tragic death and injury of more than 10 people. As far as the cage home problem is concerned, this disaster is only the tip of an iceberg. Actually, in the past 10 years or so, there were at least 10 cage home fires; and, from time to time, fightings also broke out among cage home lodgers, causing either death or injury. All these incidents were caused mainly by the over-crowded and appalling living conditions in cage home apartments.

Whether we talk about "cage homes", or "cubicle partitions", or even "bedspaces", we are invariably referring to the over-crowded and highly confined lodgings of the grassroots. And, all these inhabitants have one thing in common: they are all forced to live in such confined lodgings on a long-term basis because of their meagre income.

Actually, cage homes have existed in Hong Kong for several decades already and have thus become a notorious feature and even a shame of our community. Most cage home lodgers are "outcasts" forgotten by the rest of society, and, for this reason, it was not until as recently as roughly 10 years ago, when social work organizations and other pressure groups started to express their concern, that the community at large began to realize to their disbelief and surprise that even in a society like Hong Kong, which so very often boasted of its economic success, there were still some people living in such appalling conditions. I think the film "Caged People" produced by the Honourable MA Fung-kwok several years ago is indeed a masterpiece which gave the people of Hong Kong a more comprehensive understanding of cage home lodgers' living conditions.

Right to housing ignored

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as applied to Hong Kong recognizes the right to housing as one of the fundamental human rights, and it is further specified that the State Parties to this Covenant are obligated to provide proper housing to their people and remove all forms of improper housing. When the Government submitted its human rights reports in 1994 and 1995, the United Nations Commission criticized very severely that the policies of the Hong Kong Government on cage homes were far from being able to meet the requirements of the Covenant; the Hong Kong Government was therefore urged to draw up a timetable on the total elimination of cage homes. Regrettably, the Hong Kong Government has so far turned a deaf ear to the request of the United Nations Commission.

In response to the pressure exerted by international and local organizations, the Government enacted the Bedspace Apartments Ordinance in 1994, which requires that all apartments each accommodating 12 or more tenants shall be brought under the regulation of law. However, since it is not the real intention of the Government to eliminate all cage homes, it has just sought to regulate a very small number of cage homes in terms of fire safety only. So it can be said that the policy of the Government simply cannot provide any ultimate solution to the problem; worse still, it is also highly questionable whether such a policy can provide even any temporary relief to cage home lodgers.

According to the information provided by the Home Affairs Bureau, 63 licensed bedspace apartments with a total of 1 189 tenants are found in Hong Kong (and these are the cage homes which the Government finds it necessary to regulate). Besides, there are also 34 unlicensed bedspace apartments which accommodate 675 tenants. But do these figures depict the real situation? If the number of cage home lodgers was really around 2 000 as depicted, I do not think that the Government would have any problem in rehousing all of them. The point is that the real situation is far more serious than that depicted by the Government. As indicated by the information provided by Society for Community Organization, bedspaces and cubicle partitions are found in large numbers in the private residential buildings of old urban areas. In the areas around Tai Tok Tsui, for example, as many as 700 people are living in 30 bedspace apartments which have so far escaped the Government's attention. And, it is estimated that the total number of bedspace lodgers in Hong Kong is as high as 10 000.

Actually, even a licensed bedspace apartment is not necessarily a place with acceptable living conditions. Let me illustrate my point by referring to my own constituency, Kowloon West. There, I have found a bedspace apartment measuring only 800 sq ft but accommodating, believe it or not, as many as 50 to 60 tenants. This really worries me a great deal, and I just wonder how any regulatory requirements can possibly ensure the safety of these tenants in case of accidents.

Erroneous housing policies

The Government has sought to legalize cage home apartments instead of phasing them out all together. Its justification is that there is a great and genuine demand for this type of low-priced housing. The Government should really be ashamed of itself for having advanced such an argument, because it is more than evident that such a demand is actually the inevitable result of its own erroneous policy over the years ─ the policy of ignoring the housing needs of the grassroots.

Actually, the serious cage home problem we are now facing was first caused by the complete refusal of the Housing Authority (HA) to look after the housing needs of single persons. Such a refusal lasted for a very long time, and it was not until 1985 that the HA started to allow single persons to apply for public housing. However, since the supply of small-sized public housing units is very small relative to demand, the number of applicants waiting for the allocation of public housing units for one to two persons has remained very, very large. Government statistics indicate that as many as 19 400 applicants are now on the Waiting List for single-person public housing units. Single persons other than the elderly are all required to wait as long as nine years on average!

The Government has no doubt planned to construct about 50 000 public housing units a year. But since most of these units are meant for sale, the number of units available to single persons will still remain very small. And, even though the Government has further undertaken to construct some 40 000 single-person public housing units under the long-term housing strategy, these housing units will at best be able to cater only for the needs of single elderly persons and those affected by redevelopment projects; the housing needs of those single persons under the age of 60 are still largely ignored. Given the shortage of small-sized public housing units, most single persons with low income are forced to live in private residential buildings where rents are not really that economical and living conditions are nonetheless terrible. This explains the keen demand for cage homes and their widespread existence.

The unshirkable responsibility of the Government

I very much hope that the Government can from now on stop deceiving others as well as itself. I hope that it can really commit itself to the provision of proper housing to the lower strata of our community by rehousing all cage home lodgers and poor single persons. Specifically, I would like to urge the Government to take the following three measures.

First, the Government must recognize the people's right to proper housing. Specifically, it must lay down a minimum size of accommodation which can meet humane standards. This it can do by, for example, adopting the standard applied to public housing, that is, a minimum of 5.5 sq m for each person. That way, the quality of the people's housing can be ensured.

Second, using such a minimum standard as a yardstick, the Government should launch a comprehensive review on the housing needs of people from all walks of life in our community. Following this, it should draw up a proper timetable on rehousing all those who are in need of public housing, with a view to bringing an early end to all cage homes which are not at all fit for human habitation. Now that the Government has decided to halt the construction of sandwich class housing and that the construction of HOS flats may be stopped as well, I am sure that the Government will certainly be better able to construct more small-sized public housing units within a much shorter span of time; this will certainly help solve the cage home problem. So if the Government really has the determination required, I can say that this is indeed the best time, the most opportune moment, for it to take actions to root out this problem.

Third, the Government will need to reconsider the question of which Policy Bureau should be entrusted with the task of formulating policies on cage homes. Currently, such policies are formulated by the Home Affairs Bureau, and the one who is going to speak for the Government today is therefore the Secretary for Home Affairs. But one should note that the Home Affairs Bureau does not have any powers with respect to the supply of public housing, which is why I really sympathize the Secretary for Home Affairs. So I hope that he will ask the top leadership of the Government to put the Housing Bureau in charge of the cage home problem instead.

Construction of more single-person housing

Madam President, I know very well that we cannot possibly expect the Government to solve the cage home problem overnight. For this reason, I would think that for quite some time to come, there will still be a need to retain the single-person hostels run by the Home Affairs Department and various voluntary agencies. But I must hasten to add that the Government must be very cautious when deciding the locations and interior fittings of these hostels, and it must also listen to the views of users, so as to make these hostels genuinely compatible to the needs of cage home lodgers.

In this connection, I wish to emphasize that single-person hostels must be evenly distributed among the different urban districts. This is very important ─ grassroots single persons have been living in their respective districts for a very long time and are very familiar with their neighbourhoods; they have already developed very strong roots in their respective districts; and, many of them even earn their living in the very same districts in which they also live. As a result, when the Government seeks to solve their housing problem, it must not cut their roots and connections; otherwise, these grassroots single persons may find it very difficult to move from their cage homes.

I know that the Home Affairs Department has recently run into difficulties when trying to identify suitable sites for single-person hostels, because the Planning, Environment and Lands Bureau, which is in charge of land supply, has said "no" to the site proposals made by the Department. I hope that they can really sort things out as soon as possible.

A comprehensive package of integrated services

The last request of my motion relates to the formulation of a comprehensive package of services to cater for the living needs of cage home lodgers and single persons. This is a request which has rarely been put forward before.

From the cage home fire in Wan Chai last month, we can see that many of the single persons living in cage homes are more or less the "outcasts" of society, such as the ex-mentally ill, drug addicts and old people. For long enough, they have been discriminated against by the wider community, and many of them are in fact forced to live in cage homes because nobody is willing to let their places to them. This is one of the factors which has made the environment in cage homes so very complicated. Therefore, if the Government is determined to solve their problems once and for all, it must devise a comprehensive package of services covering counselling among other things, otherwise cage homes will certainly continue to exist in our community.

Let me use an example to illustrate my point. Many cage home lodgers are Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) recipients, but under the CSSA system, rental allowances are lagging far behind market rents because the ceiling of such allowances is set at $1,545 a month. Now, in To Kwa Wan, for example, the rent per sq ft for a cubicle partition is as high as $30 to $40, which means that a cubicle partition measuring 70 sq ft will cost a rental payment of as much as $2,500 a month. So with such meagre rental allowances, where can these CSSA recipients possibly turn to if they do not want to live in cage homes?

A true-to-conscience response required

I know that Honourable colleagues in this Council all very much support this motion. This shows precisely how unpopular the policy of the Government has been. I hope that instead of repeating its policy stand, the Government will respond to the requests of this motion with these unfortunate people on its conscience.

With these remarks, Madam President, I beg to move.

Mr LAU Chin-shek moved the following motion:

"That this Council urges the Government to review and formulate housing policies relating to cage home lodgers and single persons and set a timetable for rehousing all these people; in the interim, the Government should allocate more land in various urban districts for the construction of a sufficient number of singleton hostels and, at the same time, devise a comprehensive package of integrated services to cater for the housing, welfare and counselling needs of such people, so as to assist these cage home lodgers and single persons who are in the lowest social stratum in solving problems in their livelihood."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr LAU Chin-shek as printed on the Agenda be approved.

Council will now proceed to the debate. Mr Gary CHENG.

MR GARY CHENG (in Cantonese): Madam President, it seems that it has become a practice for the legislature to discuss the cage home problem once every year. But regrettably, despite repeated motion debates, the Government still keeps its attention only on fire safety of cage homes, without mentioning a word at all about the living environment of the lodgers. At the same time, it has not come up with any arrangements concerning cubicle partitions, the safety problem of which is similarly worrying. This is disappointing indeed.

The Bedspace Apartments Ordinance, which was enacted after protracted discussions, focuses only on fire safety of bedspace apartments. Apart from slightly lowering the living density of each flat, it has done nothing as far as the improvement of the living environment is concerned. As before, the area provided for a lodger is a bedspace measuring 3 ft by 6 ft only. To a certain extent, the legislation has even given operators an excuse to increase rents. Madam President, according to information provided by Honourable colleagues of this Council, the monthly rent for a luxury flat at Magazine Gap Road is $65,000, that is, $30 for each sq ft on average. But the rent for some bedspace apartments even reaches $1,500. In other words, it will cost the tenant $80 per sq ft in terms of area. Such a lodging, with its hellish living environment and exorbitant rent, can be said to be unique in the world.

Cage homes are indeed a disgrace for Hong Kong. We must put in place a set of comprehensive strategies to solve the problem within a definite period of time so as to improve the living environment of cage home lodgers.

We are of the view that our long-term objective should be targeted at gradually reducing the number of cage homes by way of various rehousing policies.

Building more public housing units provides the best means to radically solve the problem. Because the Government has, in the past, made a blunder in allowing private housing to dominate its housing policies so that the supply of public housing ─particularly public rental housing ─was suppressed, thus the Waiting List has for a long time maintained a list of 150 000 applicants. At the moment, it will even take nine years for a single person to be allocated with public housing. It is in fact impossible for such a society like Hong Kong to tolerate that an applicant has to live in such deplorable conditions for over 10 years before he can be allocated with public housing. When the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB) visited some of the cage homes in Hong Kong Island West earlier, it asked more than 10 cage home lodgers and found that nearly half of them were not waiting for public housing though their incomes were far lower than the income ceiling imposed on Waiting List applicants. Why has no one reminded them to apply for public housing?

Madam President, we have all along held that the Government should let public housing play the dominant role. Moreover, it should reduce the waiting time for public housing from the existing six years and a half on average to two years before 2006, including the waiting time for single persons. In order to reach this target, the Housing Authority must, in the next seven years, provide an average of 7 500 units for one- to two-person families each year. But according to information published by the Government, only 17 500 flats will be allocated to those one- to two-person families on the Waiting List in the coming five years. This means that only an average of 3 500 flats will be made available and this is far lower than the existing demand. At present, the demand for additional flats for one- to two-person families has reached 4 500 every year.

According to the above calculation, the Administration must at least double the supply of small units before it can meet the demand. In addition, the Administration should conduct a comprehensive registration for all cage home lodgers immediately so as to register all residents who are eligible and willing to move to public housing flats.

Apart from providing public housing, the Government should also provide cage home lodgers with short-term assistance so as to improve their living environment before they are allocated with public housing. The DAB is of the view that the Government can consider providing those who are eligible with rental allowance. Madam President, in January last year, the former Legislative Council has in fact passed a motion urging the Administration to provide families which are eligible for public housing with rental allowance. But regrettably, the Administration has so far failed to accede to this request. This is disappointing indeed. Now we would like to put up this request to the Government again in the hope that it can give us a positive response.

The existing Ordinance only regulates apartments with more than 12 bedspaces while apartments with less than 12 bedspaces as well as flats rented in the form of cubicle partitions are being neglected. In fact, the environment of such cubicle partitions may even be more deplorable. This is because the number of tenants living in these cubicles may or actually exceeds one person and, therefore, the living density here far exceeds that of cage homes. Furthermore, the cubicles are separated from one another by wooden planks only. It will easily give rise to disasters in case of fire. Nevertheless, these flats only need to comply with the basic requirements of general fire prevention under building regulations. This is not acceptable no matter we see it from the angle of fire prevention or living environment and sanitation.

Therefore, the Government should review the relevant ordinances expeditiously and consider extending the scope of the ordinances. For instance, if the number of sub-tenancy agreements and tenants of each flat exceeds a certain number, the flat shall come under the regulation of the ordinances, as well as raising its fire prevention standards. Of course, just as what it did with the Bedspace Apartments Ordinance, the Government must continue with its practice of arranging rehousing before taking prosecution in order to put the relevant legislation into formal implementation.

With these remarks, Madam President, I support the motion moved by the Honourable LAU Chin-shek.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW.

MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Madam President, when the former Legislative Council scrutinized the Bedspace Apartments Bill, I was a member of the relevant Bills Committee. That is why I have quite a good understanding of the Ordinance subsequently enacted. When the Bills Committee scrutinized the Bill together with the Government, its basic concern was to find out whether emphasis should be placed on safety in cage home apartments or to the living conditions there. The Government told the Bills Committee at that time that its primary concern was safety. The view of the Government was probably caused by a cage home fire in Sham Shui Po in 1990, one which I think Honourable Members can still remember. As a result of this fire, the Government insisted on tackling this issue from the perspective of safety, so as to identify ways of reducing the dangers posed to the lives and properties of cage home lodgers.

As for the improvements of living conditions in cage homes, the Government viewed that this might necessitate larger bedspaces and other requirements, and it was worried that cage home lodgers might thus have to pay higher rents. Another worry of the Government was that since there was already a shortage of bedspaces at that time, any moves to require improved living conditions might well force some cage home apartments to close down, thus leading to a new housing problem as the lodgers there had nowhere else to go. After studying the various factors involved, the then Legislative Council Members finally accepted the Government's view that the focus should be placed on safety. In addition, the Government also promised that it would rehouse all those affected cage home lodgers and no one would thus become homeless. For this very reason, the then Legislative Council eventually endorsed the Bill. But then, two years later, when the Ordinance was supposed to come into effect, the Government discovered that things were not yet quite ready as many fundamental problems had remained unresolved. Most importantly, it was discovered that many bedspace apartments were still unable to meet the licensing requirements. As a result, there was no alternative but to defer the implementation of the Ordinance for a further two years. However, even today, many problems still exist, and since many bedspace apartments cannot possibly meet the licensing requirements, their proprietors have actually chosen to operate illegally. And, to be very honest, the licensing requirements, even when fulfilled, can at best guarantee some very basic standards only.

Given the present circumstances, the Liberal Party views that we should stop focusing only on the safety of cage home lodgers and we should not take the Bedspace Apartments Ordinance as a long-term, here-to-stay, protection for them. We should all realize that even though Hong Kong is such a metropolitan centre nowadays, and even though it is so affluent, there are still some cage home apartments where living conditions are so horrible that we as a community should really feel ashamed. That is why the Liberal Party maintains that in terms of long-term planning, Hong Kong should no longer accept, or tolerate, such appalling living conditions. Well, as long as the emphasis on protecting cage home lodgers' safety is meant only as an interim measure, we would very much agree that such an emphasis is indeed both reasonable and necessary. But the Government must at the same time set down a plan to rehouse all cage home lodgers within a reasonable timeframe. It should not allow the problem to drag on indefinitely.

Some Honourable Members have given us some relevant statistics. As we now know, single persons must wait nine years before they can be rehoused, and for single persons over the age of 60, they may be rehoused a bit more quickly. But generally speaking, there will not be any great difference, because the Housing Authority (HA) simply does not entertain their requests. And, similarly, the Housing Bureau will not entertain their requests because the Bureau does not think that theirs is in fact a housing problem at all. But I must point out that theirs is indeed a housing problem. If the Housing Bureau refuses to join hands with home affairs officials to deal with this matter, the problem will probably drag on forever. Therefore, we maintain that inter-bureau efforts are required.

The Liberal Party has pointed out that apart from ignoring cage home lodgers, the Housing Bureau has also ignored many other lodgers whose dwelling places, such as roof-top tenements and cottages, fall within the so-called grey areas of policy responsibilities. This is really an irresponsible attitude. We maintain that the Housing Bureau must entertain the requests of these people, and it must do something to address their problem. We know that some hostels are still left vacant because single persons are discouraged to lodge applications because of the numerous conditions and restrictions. And, the arrangements in this respect are not very good either. Therefore, we should do something in this respect as an interim solution to the problem. Besides, even if there are not enough hostels, the Government does not necessarily need to construct new buildings. The reason is that there are now many new buildings which find no market, and the Government can simply make use of the smaller ones of these new buildings. That said, the HA must construct more housing units for single persons and take the needs of these people as its responsibility. The Chief Executive has set down the target that families waiting for public housing should be rehoused within three years from their dates of application. Why then should single persons be required to wait nine years? The HA should be held responsible for this too.

I hope that the Government can formulate long-term plans on this matter as soon as possible, so as to resolve the problem completely. Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Ambrose CHEUNG.

MR AMBROSE CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, the problem of cage home apartments is a good example to expose the fact that hypocrisy does exist in our community. More often than not, we could find our government officials referring to Hong Kong as a metropolitan city and an international hub, we could find them talking about our cargo throughput standing first in the world, our stock market coming second in the Asia Pacific region while our foreign exchange market fifth in the world, our GDP being among the world's top five, and we ranking first in our foreign reserves. Nonetheless, on the other side of the coin we could always find the cage home apartments, the conditions within which, as described at length by Honourable colleagues who spoke just now, are indeed deplorable. So, this is the hypocrisy of Hong Kong people.

With regard to the approach for tackling the problem, the three Honourable colleagues who spoke just now have raised many points in their speeches and I should like to supplement a few points here. First of all, the Government should establish a policy and direction for resolving the problem. In this connection, I share Honourable colleagues' views that efforts made to tackle the problem should not focus on improving the environment or ensuring safety, the cage home apartments should be phased out by the Government in the long run. However, since the objective of the Bedspace Apartments Ordinance is not to make the cage home apartments illegal, the Government should formulate new measures to achieve the purpose.

Secondly, the Government should get at the crux of the problem. While the Government claims that some 2 000 lodgers are still living in cage homes, the Society for Community Organization reveals that the number should amount to 10 000, five times the number given by the Government. Why is there such a great disparity between the two numbers? The basic reason is that the Government has been carrying out its registration and investigation work in a very passive manner. In my opinion, if the Government is determined to find out the real situation of the matter, it must take active actions. In tai Kok Tsui and likewise in Sham shui po, more than 30 cage home apartments have been found operating without any licence. As such, the assertion that there are only 34 unlicensed caged home apartments operating territory-wide is but a mistake. Furthermore, the Government should first gather information of the actual situation before formulating any policy. In this connection, the Government has all along been talking about constructing seven new singleton hostels in the next five years to accommodate some 2 000 cage home lodgers, but since the number of such lodgers is in fact far more than 2 000, those seven singleton hostels will not be sufficient to resolve the problems that we are now facing. this bring us to another very important issue which Honourable Members have referred to earlier: rent. Currently, the monthly rent for a singleton hostel unit run by the Government ranges from $400 to $1,500. The singleton hostel situated in Sunrise House, Shun Ning Road, Sham Shui Po is one latest example that can illustrate the situation. The hostel charges its lodgers $900 to $1,500 a month and maintains an occupancy rate of 30% only. The low occupancy rate is basically attributable to the comparatively higher rents charged by the Government. While such rent levels would of course be beyond the affordability of those who are on Comprehensive Social Security Assistance, even those who make $4,000 to $5,000 a month could not afford to pay that amount for accommodation. Therefore, the Government should really review its policy on rent pricing.

So, this is the rent issue. Apart from that, we could also see the metamorphosis the problem of cage home apartments is now undergoing. This is very much like the metamorphosis of certain diseases. One major reason leading to such metamorphosis is that more and more single persons have gone to the Mainland to get married, and that their wives and children are now applying to come to Hong Kong in accordance with the existing immigration policies. for these single persons who are on the Waiting List, it would originally take them nine years to be allocated a public housing unit, but according to my understanding of the existing policies, they will have to wait all over again upon the arrival of their families, since they will then fail to meet the requirement of seven years' residence in Hong Kong. As the situation develops, the demand for cage homes will continue to grow. If the problem of cage home apartments, which is undergoing metamorphosis, is left to be resolved by a inter-departmental approach, the cage home apartments will never be phased out. Last year, more than 50 000 immigrants arrived in Hong Kong ─ that means an inflow of 150 people a day ─ and most of them have come here for family reunion. I am not in any way opposed to immigrants, on the contrary, I am now urging the Government to put in place sufficient resources to provide appropriate accommodation for these persons when they arrive.

It is practically impossible for the Home Affairs Department to resolve the problem alone. In my opinion, the Department should join efforts with the Housing Department to examine how to improve the resettlement prospects of single persons as well as those who have come to Hong Kong in accordance with the immigration policies and are now on the Waiting List. Furthermore, I believe the Government is obliged to study in detail the rent levels as well as other related issues. In this connection, the Government should collect the relevant data and information and then submit them to this Council for discussion. It is only through thorough discussions that we could understand better this problem-in-metamorphosis and formulate long-term strategies to address it. Nevertheless, the measures which I think the Government should immediately take is to adjust the rents charged by government-run singleton hostels, and to make use of rent allowances or other means to improve the occupancy rate of the singleton hostels to a level higher than the 30% I referred to just now.

Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEE Wing-tat.

MR LEE WING-TAT (in Cantonese): Madam President, I agree with most of what my Honourable colleagues have just said. It is now nearly time for the ninth anniversary of the Nam Cheong Street fire in 1990, albeit a sad occasion to remember. The Bedspace Apartments Ordinance has recently come into force, but then another fire broke out in Wan Chai. By sheer luck, there were only two deaths and 13 casualties; but there could be more deaths had the fire spread faster.

One question to ask is: Why has the Government done so little after nine years have elapsed? I think it is a matter of government policy. I agreed with the Honourable Mrs Selina CHOW that the Government is still holding fast to the 1993-94 considerations, it has not the least idea to phase out cage homes gradually. I recall talking to Mrs CHOW about giving the Government five years' time to eliminate all caged homes as I did not think it possible for the Government to do so in a year in view of the rehousing needs. Some colleagues may say a shorter time should be given but I think five or six years is good enough. It is now the sixth year since I proposed this timeframe, but the problem is still there without any hope of being solved. So, I think the first thing that must be changed is government philosophy. If it is not determined to gradually eliminate cage homes the problem will never be solved by sketchy amendments to the Bedspace Apartments Ordinance.

After a delay of a year the Bedspace Apartments Ordinance is coming into force soon, but many loopholes are to be expected. At the last meeting of the Panel on Housing, an example was cited: If there were only 11 bedspaces, the premises would not be regulated. So, for a 500 sq ft unit partitioned into 11 rooms with wooden planks, there would be 55 people living there if each compartment housed five people. This would still render the premises legal. We can foresee the scenario that after the Ordinance comes into force, more morbid dwelling places will emerge. Many such degraded caged homes with wooden partitions will have passageways not wide enough for one or two persons to pass. However, since they are not bedspace apartments, they do not have to apply for licences, and they are not required to have one.

Whereas a recent survey conducted by the Society for Community Organization showed that 10 000 people were still living in wooden cubicle partitions or some similar poor conditions like those we can find in cage homes, the Home Affairs Department says the number should be 2 000. In this connection, I have great reservations about the government figure, since many such dwelling places have been revealed by the press and they are hence unknown to the Department because they are not registered. I hope the Department can conduct a thorough survey to find out the real situation.

Much has been said about rehousing, but the real solution lies in the construction of more public housing units to rehouse these people. The Government says the enforcement of the Bedspace Apartments Ordinance will not render people homeless. This is a very low standard because it might imply that the cage home lodgers will not be rehoused unless the bedspace apartments they live in have failed to obtain a licence under the Ordinance and some bedspaces have been removed. Once licences are obtained, they may move back to the bedspace apartments. In my opinion, if we do not encourage cage home lodgers to register for public housing and promise them the allocation of public rental units in a certain number of years, the problem will remain for some time.

Some colleagues said we had discussed at a recent meeting of the Panel on Housing the possibility of changing some Home Ownership Scheme flats into rental flats. I agree with the idea. At present, those who are much in need of housing are those grassroots people and residents in cage homes or wooden cubicles. There are over 100 000 people on the Waiting List. The sooner the problem can be resolved, the better for the community. Single persons on the Waiting List need to wait six years to be given a unit, if they are lucky. Some need 10 years. If we could increase the number of units and shorten the waiting time expeditiously, the problem will be resolved sooner. I hope the Housing Bureau and the Home Affairs Bureau can consider this promptly.

I would like to talk about two more points. In the past we submitted every year or from time to time a report to the relevant agency of the United Nations on the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. I think government officials are aware that countries more backward than Hong Kong such as Egypt and Bulgaria have been criticizing Hong Kong year after year for its inhuman cage homes, despite the apparent affluence Hong Kong claims itself to have attained. Now that the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) have undertaken to continue to submit such reports, I believe the international community will continue to criticize us likewise.

After listening to the debate today, I hope the Legislative Council will reach a consensus. As Mrs Selina CHOW said, we have not been able to reach a consensus on whether we should aim at dealing with the safety of cage home lodgers or their rehousing needs at the initial stage of our research into the problem. Today, many political parties, including the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong, the Liberal Party, and the Democratic Party all would like to resolve the problem step by step to rid the SAR Government of the shameful spot eventually. I hope that on the basis of today's debate all people, be they with or without political affiliations, will join hands to give a chance to those who might have been tolerating the nine-year wait for public housing since the ordeal of the fire just mentioned. I hope colleagues may, after this debate, continue to work together to compel the Government to lay down policies expeditiously to solve the cage home problem gradually and to rehouse the cage home lodgers in public housing. Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr MA Fung-kwok.

MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): Madam President, originally I had no intention to speak on this question. But as the Honourable LAU Chin-shek mentioned earlier that I shot a movie on this subject seven or eight years ago, I would like to respond briefly here. As for the way this Council looks at major policies, other colleagues have expressed a lot of ideas. Therefore, I do not want to repeat this topic again.

First of all, I would like to state clearly my motive for shooting the movie eight years ago. At that time, a big fire broke out in a cage home in Shek Kip Mei, resulting in serious casualties. As a result, I hoped I could raise the community's awareness of this issue by employing cinematic techniques. During the process of information gathering, I found that cage home lodgers or the so-called underpriviledged had a mode of living and standard of values different from ours as they were caught in an unique environment. Among them, we could often find the expression or existence of the true, good and beautiful virtues. I thought this point was worth an expression in such a materialistic community as Hong Kong so that we can reflect on ourselves or look back.

The view I held at that time was the Government would definitely take measures after the big fire and solve the problem pertaining to cage homes expeditiously. In addition, as Hong Kong's economy was developing quickly, the old districts where the cage homes were originally situated would soon be redeveloped. Therefore, there was an urgency for the movie to be finished as soon as possible. As a matter of fact, during the preparation process, we were unable to shoot on several locations we had originally identified because they were resumed by the landlords within a very short period of time. As a result, the production of the film was done hastily. At that time, I had not taken into account the factor that the movie might receive favourable comments in Hong Kong. Neither had I thought of the possibility of creating an objective effect, and that is, many overseas human rights organizations or governments asked why Hong Kong still allowed such problems to exist. It has thus become our burden. I really had not thought of this at that time.

Anyway, I had a conviction then that the problem was going to disappear very quickly. But regrettably, this issue is raised in this Council again after eight years. It seems that the problem has not been resolved in a reasonable manner. When I was on duty three weeks ago, a group of cage home lodgers came to me to lodge a petition. The problems they raised were basically the same as those raised eight or 10 years ago. If the figures provided by the Government are true, the problem is basically not a real problem and it can be solved in a simple manner. I just do not understand why the Government has to, from beginning to end, evade the cage home problem and refrain from taking some positive measures. I believe even if there are more than 10 000 cage home lodgers, the problem is not too difficult to solve.

To solve this problem, I think the Government cannot rely on only allocating land and building flats. In fact, this community has its unique needs. To start with, we have to recognize the fact that the cage home lodgers belong to an underprivileged and marginalized group of society. As such, we need to not only solve their housing problem, but also consider and take care of their actual living styles, psychological make-up and needs in other aspects. When I met with them, I saw some cases where even they were allocated with excellent singleton hostels, they were not necessarily willing to move there. This is because they felt that there were too many restrictions excessively interfering with their individual freedom of living or habits.

I hope that the Government can solve this problem expeditiously so as to clear Hong Kong of its disgrace as well as really catering to the needs of this group of people. I hope I need not shoot a sequel for this movie.

With these remarks, I support Mr LAU Chin-shek's motion.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr James TO.

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Madam President, after listening to the "rational and yet sentimental" speech made by Mr LAU Chin-shek, I should not have much to supplement his points. Nevertheless, I believe I should at least speak a few words in a debate. Moreover, just now Mrs Selina CHOW from the Liberal Party stated very clearly that she "objected to the Government using the bedspace apartments as a permanent measure", on hearing her words, strong feelings were rising in me. I hope the Government has taken note of these words in particular. Speaking of bedspace apartments, I was the Chairman of the Bills Committee on the Bedspace Apartments Bill. While it was obvious that different Members were holding very different views during our scrutiny of the Bill, I am sure our views now coincide more with each other. We have come to the conclusion that bedspace apartments should not be used as a permanent measure. I hope the Government has heard these words very clearly, and these words are the driving force behind my rising to speak on the motion.

I have received requests from overseas journalists to speak on the economic situation of Hong Kong during the period close to the reunification day, one interesting and impressive experience was that reporters from a Finnish television station suddenly requested me to take them to see the "cage homes". I was shocked by their request. Why would they want to put the "cage homes" on screen? Would a television station in Finland concern itself with the problem of "cage homes" in Hong Kong? Anyway, that was the fact. As we are now urging the Government to resolve the problem, we hope the Government could come to realize that the United Nations Orgainzation (UNO) will certainly be keeping a close watch on us this time as we have already become the focus of the world. Besides, Hong Kong will soon be submitting to the UNO its first report after reunification, and the problem of "cage homes" will certainly give rise to a lot of criticisms; as such, we hope very much that the Government will take heed this time.

In regard to the passage of the Bill, the then Legislative Council in fact did not have any choice. under the then political circumstances, we all understood that if we went our own way and negatived the bill, the issue of safety at stake would be too enormous a responsibility for anyone to shoulder. Therefore, we were compelled to pass the Bill. In fact, we had conducted a series of meetings with the then Government beforehand, and each meeting would mean a hard time for the government officials, since we would keep pleading with them to rehouse 500 cage home lodgers. However, as we later learnt that the number of cage home lodgers was way above 500, we began pestering the Government to rehouse 1 000 lodgers. As things developed, we were eventually pestering the then Secretary for Home Affairs, Mr Michael SUEN, to try every means to rehouse some 1 000-odd cage home lodgers. Nevertheless, the reply we got from the Secretary each time was that he would "try his best" or "try to do as much as practicable". So, this was how the Secretary for Home Affairs replied us. Would we really have to go so far as to pestering the Chief Secretary? In the circumstances, we could not but accept the Bill. At that time, we were still hopeful of the Government understanding the expectations of then legislators, which was to rehouse all the 2 000 or even 3 000 cage home lodgers in a few years' time. Yet so far the problem has remained unresolved.

But then new problems have arisen, since the housing problem of single persons has yet to resolve. Regarding the proposal to make bedspace apartments illegal, I think this idea is correct in terms of its direction. We cannot rely soley on our attractiveness to get things done. If we find anything improper or unacceptable, we should abandon it. But how? I have considered a number of methods, the most simple one being criminalizing the action. How should the relevant legal provisions be drafted? Well, I cannot speak for the Government, but the public officers sitting in attendance in this Chamber can. Suppose the draft clauses could provide that landlords should make sure the stipulated person/space ratio is complied to when leasing their properties to others, and that landlords would be penalized while the rental agreement concerned be considered void should the number of tenants exceed a certain level, and suppose the Government not only agrees to but insist on criminalizing the action, will it encourage the landlord to resume the property which he has leased to one single person only but is eventually found accommodating a large number of lodgers? So, when the proposal is put into practice, difficulties are bound to arise.

On the other hand, while the proposal to criminalize the action might sound somewhat unreasonable at the outset, it may not necessarily be so in practice. This is the conclusion I have come to after reconsidering the matter over and over again. Let us imagine that someone is transporting animals, say chickens. If he crams the chickens into overcrowded cages, he will be charged with cruelty to animal, which is a criminal offence. If we consider this case further, we will find that the chickens in fact have no choice, because animals are unable to fight against human beings. Nonetheless, their helplessness will not alter the fact that anyone who keeps animals in cages the conditions within which are unreasonably poor is doing cruelty to animals. For this reason, we feel we have the responsibility to safeguard the rights and interests of animals, and anyone acting against the rights and interests of animals will be charged with cruelty to animal. Whereas chickens do not have any choice, human beings should be able to make their own choices. If we are given choices, we certainly would not elect to live in cage homes (in spite of the unique culture the Honourable MA Fung-kwok has referred to, such as the practical existence of the true, the good and the beautiful, as well as the good samaritan spirit that is so hard to find elsewhere in Hong Kong). However, if you ask the cage home lodgers if there is any place that they do not wish to live in, they will tell you they do not want to live in singleton hostels. They are not unwilling to leave their cage homes, but all they want is a permanent singleton public rental unit. They are willing to cope with the offer if they have to share a public rental unit with another single person. But most important of all, they do not want to live in cage homes. As such, I am of the opinion that if the Government has the required additional resources, it should lay down a set of standards on living conditions and criminalize actions that are not in compliance with the standards － however strange this proposal might sound, in practice, it is both rational and logical. Any person who takes actions that fall below the standards or causes the relevant situation to fall below these standards will be penalized, for we do not want these appalling conditions to continue to exist.

Two years ago, I moved a motion on rental allowance in this Chamber, although my motion was carried, the Government has never done anything. No matter how the Government puts it, the year 2000 will arrive in three years' time. In other words, the objective of the Government is to allocate public housing to Waiting List applicants within three years. Bearing in mind that the present waiting time for public housing is about five to six years, if the Government would share our view in regard to the motion on rental allowance, it could perhaps grant rental allowance to those applicants who have been on the Waiting List for a certain period of time. In that case, the applicants will be able to leave the cage homes; at least they could rent real rooms instead of cage-like cubicles. I hold the view that the Government should be able to provide those additional resources; besides, it could always find out the sum of the additional resources required by simple calculation. Yet to my disappointment, only the Home Affairs Bureau has sent a representative to attend this meeting; and worse still, I could just recite the principles held fast to by the Bureau. It is very fortunate of us that Mr LO is not representing the Bureau to attend this meeting, otherwise, we would all recite his speech with him. (Laughter) As such, I will not hold any expectation at all. But in any case, after the Mr LO here today has finished making his speech － after two Mr LOs have finished giving their speeches － I hope that they would co-ordinate within their respective Bureaux and present our speeches to the Housing Bureau or an even higher level of the decision-making hierarchy for consideration. The Government should then find out the cost and resources required to resolve the problem and phase out cage homes; besides, it should also look into the practical methods that could enable it to attain the goals. In my opinion, the goals are practically attainable and the resources required should be within a reasonable level.

Last but not least, I should like to speak on the issue of "queue-jumping". In this connection, I am glad that the Chief Executive has already explained that the issue could be actively taken care of by assigning the redevelopment-related rehousing arrangement to the Housing Authority. Therefore, it should not be a matter of principle as far as the problem of cage homes is concerned. Thank you.

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

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, among many colleagues there is a consensus on today's subject, that is, it is a disgrace to have cage homes in such a well-known and affluent community as Hong Kong. All people would very much hope to get rid of that disgrace─the sooner the better. Mr MA Fung-kwok said he invested in making the film "Caged People" eight years ago but regrettably cage home lodgers are still a problem that remains unresolved today. Why is that so?

I think a very important reason is the view the Government holds towards cage homes and the lodgers. Two weeks ago, the Government submitted a document to the Panel on Housing. It holds this view: "Such accommodations require low rents and are conveniently located. There are certain demands for bedspace apartments by the residents." That clearly reveals the Government's policy towards cage homes. The Government is of the view that people need cage homes, and so it does not have any intention or plan to clear these cage homes. Before the Government arrived at that conclusion, has it ever tried to understand why there is a demand among the public for cage homes?

Are "low rents" and being "conveniently located" the reasons why people need cage homes? We all know single persons below the age of 58 need to wait nine years to be allocated public housing. Where can they go during these nine long years? They are commonly acknowledged to be an underprivileged group. They earn low wages. Cage homes are their only choice, although they do not want to live there. They are forced by the Government to do so. On the point of convenient location, they would of course need to find a convenient place to live. Can they settle in outlying islands? Unlike other people, this marginalized group cannot find jobs easily. So, they need to live in places near where they work. They resort to cage homes simply because they have no alternatives. The Government should not put the cart before the horse and say people have a demand for cage homes and so cage homes should be tolerated. Why does the Government not try to find out the causes which lead to such a demand? I hope the Government can give an answer to this Council. I hope it would not just say "low rents" and being "conveniently located" and explains everything away. Indeed if the Government keeps on saying that, we will only have the impression that it is being less than caring and unsympathetic to the cage home lodgers' plight. This is an absolutely irresponsible thing to do.

If the Government says cage homes feature "low rents" and being "conveniently located", how can it face up to the Chief Executive, who, after paying a visit to cage homes, said he was very upset? While the Chief Executive is upset about cage homes, the Government connives at their continual existence. What is happening between the Chief Executive and the Government? Are they being contradictory? The Chief Executive may want to solve the problem but the Government uses the said features of cage homes to cover up the responsibilities it fails to discharge.

There is one thing that worries me very much. If we request the Government to allocate more resources to solve the cage homes problem, the Government may say, due to the current economic downturn it is experiencing a reduction in revenue and so it may not be able to solve the problem as it means more expenses. This will cultivate a trend advocating "survival of the fittest and the law of the jungle" or the idea of people having to help themselves out of their difficulty. The philosophy is that those underprivileged groups will have to help themselves, feed themselves and to struggle for their own survival. This is unacceptable for a responsible government; more so since Hong Kong is such a well-known place. But the fact remains that the philosophy does exist in the concept of administration by the Government. The document I referred to, which was submitted by the Government, mentioned: "The Government does not intend to legislate and impose restrictions on the minimum or maximum living areas each individual is entitled to, because they are usually determined by the market, the economic environment, and the affordability and preference of the individual". That kind of logic shows that the Government is not only ignoring the basic rights of the people, such as their living area, but also regards it natural for the poor to live in deplorable conditions. This projects the impression that the poor should be penalized. They should accept the harsh reality. I think the Government's mentality is to stand aloof and does not think it should shoulder any responsibility at all.

I cannot see any determination on the Government's part at all to shed the shame, given its present policy. If cage homes are to be demolished I think the Government must change its strategy and way of thinking. In particular, it must deal with the matter with conscience before the problem can be solved. By "conscience" I mean it should not ignore the people's basic right to decent housing.

Madam President, in fact, the number of people on the Waiting List for public housing is ever-increasing. At present, the waiting time for public housing is not satisfactory. I hope the waiting time can be shortened, but the Government is not willing to allocate extra resources. I enquired with the Secretary for Housing about the possibility of converting sites for sandwich class housing schemes to those for public rental housing. But the Secretary refused ......

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, your time is up. Mr LAW Chi-kwong.

MR LAW CHI-KWONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, I still remember during the period from 1983 to 1985, a group of single persons living in wooden huts, temporary housing areas and cage homes staged a series of social actions. One of the actions they took was to sleep outside the former Government Secretariat building for one week. As a result, they gained the support of the public opinion as well as people in the community. The Government then began to change its position and consider the housing needs of single persons or two-person families.

Just as the Honourable LAU Chin-shek said, this policy has come very late and very slow. It is slow because many single persons still need to wait for nine years before they can be allocated with public housing. Other Members have given a lot of opinions on issues like housing, allocation of public housing and removal as raised in Mr LAU's motion, so I would like to concentrate on one point in the motion and that is the Government should devise a comprehensive package of integrated services to cater for the housing, welfare and counselling needs of cage home lodgers. Members may be aware that so far as this area is concerned, this Council and the Government have been sticking to their own stand for a long time in the Panel on Welfare Services. The Government has been hoping that the Neighbourhood Level Community Development Project can be terminated so that this service, which has often led to demonstrations in opposition to the various government policies, can be "put to an end" earlier. As members of an underprivileged group, these cage home lodgers live in abject poverty and in an often very crowded environment. They do not receive any help and they have no idea as to how to seek help. Some social workers have got in touch with them and found that they had little idea and little knowledge of the way to express their needs and how they could solve their problems. I think the most effective way to help this group of people is by providing them with outreaching service, under which social workers will make home visits and give them assistance directly when they have such needs. Through the community development service, social workers can get in touch with them directly so as to provide them with more comprehensive services. And when there is such a need, the social workers can give them direct assistance or refer their cases to other service units.

I hope the Government can cater to their housing needs. But apart from this, we should understand that that they have to live in cage homes in fact fully reflects the inadequacy of resources and the so-called community networks. As such, it is extremely important for the Government to provide them with comprehensive services.

With these remarks, I support the motion.

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

MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): Madam President, a series of mishaps about cage homes have happened recently, including a No. 3 alarm fire involving an unregistered and illegal cage home in Cross Street, Wai Chai. The fire lasted over two hours, causing two deaths and 13 injuries. These incidents have again aroused the community's concern about such lodgings. A few nights ago, another case of violence happened in a cage home in Sham Shui Po in which two lodgers first had a quarrel and then a fight. All these problems have again called to the Government's attention that the present cage home problem must be resolved. Although the Government enacted the Bedspace Apartments Ordinance in 1994 to regulate the bedspace apartments and their fire safety, the living conditions of lodgers have not been really improved. According to the Government's statistics, there are 97 licensed cage homes at present, housing over 2 000 people. In fact, as Mr LAU Chin-shek has earlier indicated, the actual number far exceeds this figure. In reality, the actual number of lodgers should total well over 10 000. We should understand that many of such cage homes are operating illegally. Now, not only the unlicensed ones have problems, but the licensed ones as well. This may well be illustrated by the fire in Cross Street. These are problems that can arise in the numerous cage homes. Therefore, in face of the cage home problem today, I feel that there is an urgent need for the Government to find a solution. In the past, whenever we mentioned the issue of cage home lodgers in this Council or discussed it on the street, we referred to a group of people who were the least well-off in society, whom we called the "underprivileged". To them, the problem is ever present and it has been discussed because of social movements or in the Council. Yet, we can see that even in the face of such a problem, the Government has failed to acknowledge its gravity. Their mere existence is already a problem. I have brought many people to visit these cage homes, including the Chinese official Mr CHEN Zuo'er, Mr TUNG Chee-hwa and so on. Many people have visited these places and all are shocked after their visit, querying why places with such appalling living conditions still exist in such a prosperous city like Hong Kong. Dozens of people crammed together in bedspaces in a flat. Most of them are single, manual labourers earning a meagre income, or some have already retired. They are all struggling to make ends meet. Strictly speaking, they are most in need of help in terms of accommodation.

In respect to the Government's present policy, Madam President, such as the provision of public rental units for singletons, as many colleagues have pointed out, people in general have to wait for a long time before they can be allocated with such units. At present, it is an indisputable fact that people have to wait nine years. Although the application of those over 58 years of age can be quickened and their waiting time shortened, those applicants under 58 years of age cannot be ignored. Besides, those aged over 58 also have problems after moving in these hostels. Therefore, with such a situation, particularly after today's debate, I really hope that the Government will truly help these people solve their present problems.

Other than the question of those singletons under 58 having to wait for a long time before they can be allocated a place in the hostel, the Legislative Council has also repeatedly debated about the long waiting time of the underprivileged living in old buildings, but the Government has yet to make housing arrangements for them. Given this situation, will the Government reconsider giving out the rental allowance that we have proposed in this Council?

I would like to put forward some specific solutions here:

Other than building public rental housing units to accommodate those one or two-member families in accordance with the housing policy, before the above problem is solved, the Government should also draw up other subsidiary policies as singletons under 58 are also badly in need of housing. Will the Government consider handing out rental allowance to ease their hardship?

I would also like to call to the Government's attention the problem about singleton hostels. The Government keeps saying, and it may still say later, that it has been building singleton hostels, some in Sham Shui Po earlier, and some more in the Western District later. I very much hope that the singleton hostels are meant as a transitional arrangement only, for after all the problem will only be solved through the construction of more public housing.

Moreover, when I came in this Chamber earlier, I heard Mr MA Fung-kwok say that the cage homes mean more than a housing problem, and housing is only the priority problem that needs to be addressed. I think that we are all aware of the other related problems, such as fights and many more. There are many causes for these. That may be because these people have long been living by themselves, they have peculiar ways of communicating with others and ways of living, or they have many resentments against society. All these take the whole Government to face and address. Therefore, I hope that the Government will not just stop there after making these transitional arrangements, thinking that everything will be fine after enacting the Bedspace Apartments Ordinance and providing these people with singleton hostels, and there is no need for other solutions. I do not think that the Government should have such an idea. It is time to tackle the problem at its roots and it should be done in several steps.

Many colleagues have said that they were forced to accept the arrangements of singleton hostels. At that time, they accepted it in the absence of other previous arrangements but they did not consider it a good solution to the problem. Since the enactment of the Bedspace Apartments Ordinance, many people have complained to us that they are worse-off now, not because their former environment was better but the rent was very low, and after the Ordinance has come into effect, they have to pay a much higher rent now. Therefore, this is not a solution to the problem. The ultimate solution lies in building more public rental units for one or two-member families to allow them a better living environment like that enjoyed by some elderly people now. In the meantime, I think that the Government can only make some transitional arrangements through the Bedspace Apartments Ordinance and treat the singleton hostels as a transitional measure. During this transitional period, I suggest that the Government should provide: a rental allowance, special treatment for special cases, and also counselling, that is, communal counselling. I think that these are all essential because in a matter of just over a month, a series of - if I remember correctly, three - mishaps involving cage homes have happened, starting from the outbreak of the Cross Street fire. Hence, I feel that the Government should adopt more measures in addition to the Bedspace Apartments Ordinance or singleton hostels to solve the problem. I think that the Government will comment on it later on.

I really hope that the Government will tackle the problem at its roots with a "three-pronged measure". As some colleagues have mentioned, around the handover, the greatest interest of the media was to cover the cage homes. People were all appalled that in such a highly advanced and developed city like Hong Kong, there could be places with such a poor living environment. Anyone who cared to visit such places, including Mr CHEN Zuo'er, was shocked by the fact that such places should exist in Hong Kong. In regard to this, the Government should stop being so stubborn.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Miss CHAN, your time is up. Mr Andrew WONG.

MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, originally I had no intention to speak but as today's debate is so terrific that I just cannot help making a few remarks. Regrettably, some Members to whom I wish to respond have already left. In fact, I am in support of the new parliamentary culture because we will then really have to sit down and discuss ─ this is the so-called "deliberative democracy" which I greatly support; and in order to achieve this we really have to think hard and talk to one another. Of course, some Members left early because they were busy; some Members may be listening to us somewhere else; some Members may be late. But never mind all these because the whole Council is moving forward continuously. The meeting of the Council today can even be said to be a continuation of the meeting held by the Panel on Home Affairs on Monday. I believe the Secretary, Mr LO, still has a fresh memory. Apart from this, another Mr LO has put forward something "new". The Honourable LEE Wing-tat has touched upon this when he delivered his speech earlier.

I think the problem does not lie in cage homes. Some extremely poor and inhumane conditions still exist in Hong Kong. In the fifties and sixties, we could find such situation as a family of eight sleeping in one bed. In the fifties, Hong Kong's economy was in the doldrums. In the sixties, our economy began to prosper. But the situation of the poor remained the same. In fact, Hong Kong is extremely crowded. In the past, communication was poor. Nowadays, communication may still be poor. We will need to spend more money if we wish to travel more conveniently because the Mass Transit Railway charges an extremely high fare. Many members of the public are now earning a meagre income. As a result, they find it impossible not to live in places which are conveniently located.

Some people in Hong Kong are single. In the past, this was attributed to many reasons such as their spouses had passed away, they had no children, they were unable to get married (for it was not convenient to marry in the Mainland) and so on. Nowadays, some single people who have got married in the Mainland come to Hong Kong alone while their spouses are not allowed to join them. What they face is therefore totally different. But we have to understand that we should not mix the accommodation for single people with that for small families although the ultimate solutions are the same. Therefore, I found the response given by the Home Affairs Bureau extremely disappointing. Just as the Honourable Mrs Selina CHOW has said earlier, for the purpose of enacting legislation in the past, we were willing to give up something, including many great ideals. Instead, we focused on discussing problems related to fire safety only. But up till now, the target in this area is still not reached. What shall we do then?

With a corridor measuring only 1.5 ft in width, how can people flee for their lives in a place where nearly 30 people live when a fire breaks out? Let us not talk about those big fires that took place eight or nine years ago. The same thing happened in fires that recently broke out. The Home Affairs Bureau is not willing to enact legislation in this respect. At that time, we were only talking about the density issue, that is, the number of people living in the cage home. But the Government said that it was very difficult to calculate. Just now, Mr LEE Wing-tat read out an article when he delivered his speech (was it Mr James TO or Mr LEE Wing-tat?). And that was the response we got from the Home Affairs Bureau. It has made me extremely disappointed. Why can it not be done? Have the authorities concerned consider whether it is feasible or not?

Because of the time limit, I wish to put forward a more specific proposal as I have spoken for more than three minutes out of the seven-minute limit. Just now, I hurried outside because I wanted to catch the Honourable Miss Margaret NG up to tell her that I might put forward some proposals which she would not like. But still I will put forward the proposals. She is welcome to make responses should she feel like it!

My proposal is very simple: Can the authorities consider introducing legislation to prohibit a residential unit, be it a house or a flat, from converting into two units unless with the approval of the Buildings Department. In the past, many guesthouses, that is, the so-called bogus hotels, divided one unit into several units which share a common entrance and exit. In fact, this is absolutely not permissible except with approval. In other words, unless with the prior approval of the Buildings Department, a large unit cannot be converted into two small units, while a single house cannot be separated into three storeys. According to my proposal, each unit can only be allocated to one family. The number of family members can be one, that is a single-person family, and can even be two, three, four or any number larger than that. But whatever the number, we can only treat the family as one single family. In so doing, the problem can be solved completely. But building a singleton or two-person hostel is the same as operating a hotel or guesthouse. In order to do this, we must lay down certain standards.

The legal profession may criticize me for infringing upon the title of other people. But the problem does not lies in the title as title is the percentage of share in a piece of land if one owes a house. As for the definitions of title and land title, they are already governed by the law. The layout within a premises will depend on how the layout plan was drawn. As such, it should be easy to solve all problems. The Government needs not make up such a complicated excuse by saying that it needs to build singleton hostels and that there are many things the Government is unable to do as this involves the freedom of other people. Of course, I am free to buy a house. If I cannot afford it, I can rent a house. If I cannot afford to rent a house of 5 000 sq ft, I can at least rent one measuring 2 000 sq ft! Of course, I have the freedom to say that I only need to sleep in a space measuring 18 sq ft and use an access road for both entrance and exit and that I do not need to bother about other parts of the house. If I do not like those areas, I am free not to use them. But I cannot make use of those areas indiscriminately to jeopardize the lives and health of other people. In addition, the people involved are not only limited to those living in the house, but also those living in the neighbourhood, because the problem will be even more serious if a fire breaks out.

I hope the Home Affairs Bureau can seriously consider the matter because there are numerous ways to solve the problem. If we can sit down and discuss, we can surely work out a lot of feasible solutions. I dare not say my suggestion is the best, but it merits consideration. But the Government must not try to shirk its responsibility by saying that people have the freedom to make choices. This is not going to work and we cannot accept it too. Therefore, I wish to make it clear that I support the motion moved by Mr LAU Chin-shek. The motion is consisted of two parts, with the latter part related to welfare. I also support the proposals concerning welfare. But I hope we can view these two parts as two separate issues. I have only talked about the first half of the motion. I support the part concerning welfare, but I do not intend to speak on it here. Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jasper TSANG.

MR JASPER TSANG (in Cantonese): Madam President, Honourable colleagues of this Council who have spoken all share the view that cage homes are not a suitable dwelling for we all know what the living conditions of the cage homes are like. But I am afraid that up to this moment the Government still thinks otherwise and that is why it thinks that there is still a need for cage homes. It says that some people look for bedspace of inexpensive rents in the urban areas and hence there is the need for cage homes. On that kind of reasoning, sleeping in the streets is also a need because there are still street-sleepers in the streets as it is more convenient to dwell in the urban areas and they do not have to worry about fires or paying rents. Does it follow that we should accept this kind of living? We must find ways to eradicate cage homes.

The Honourable James TO mentioned some means to eradicate cage homes. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB) also has some ideas which we will speak about later. Our suggestions are certainly not as effective as those of the Government's, as it has all the resources on hand. Hence the Government should make up its mind to eradicate all cage homes, just like the last Member who spoke said, " ...... cage homes have to be done away with eventually." I hope when making the reply later on, the Secretary for Home Affairs would say, "The Government agrees that cage homes have to be done away with eventually." As regards the timetable for the eradication, we can take the time to discuss it. But up to now, I think that the Government has yet to have such a concept. To it, cage homes are just accommodation with less satisfactory living conditions, but having a dwelling place is better than homeless. It thinks that only safety problems are problems but other living conditions are no big deal. So far as no accident happens and no one is burned to death, it needs not deal with problems involving the living environment. This concept of the Government must be changed before cage homes can be eradicated.

Just now, Mr James TO suggested criminalizing cage homes. I think he meant the operators of cage homes. As we know, the cage homes we are referring to are not any units that have bedspaces to let. There are no objections to renting out single rooms with a bed as bedspaces. We know what we are referring to when we speak of cage homes. As we consider eradicating or criminalizing them, the first thing we must take into account is justice. As Mr James TO has put it, people should be given real choices. If we say that cage homes are unsuitable for living, we need to provide adequate suitable accommodation to rehouse all those who live there. Otherwise, if people cannot find accommodation with better living conditions than that of cage homes, they may still ask the cage home operators to rent them bedspaces.

I do not quite understand the proposal of the Honourable Andrew WONG. (Laughter).

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, please sit down.

MR JASPER TSANG (in Cantonese): Maybe I should bring up some other ideas. A colleague cited an example of eight family members sharing a bed. Such crowded living conditions still exist today. For instance, we may find an entire family crammed into a room partitioned by boards, which may be even more crowded than the cage homes. How are we going to stamp out such rooms then? With no proper accommodation for people to choose from, any efforts to prohibit indecent living units are, in my opinion, not practicable and unjust.

Just now a Member said that the statistics the Government has on hand differed significantly from those obtained by the Society for Community Organization. I think that all of us who have visited cage homes do know why. The Government just cannot tell how many units there are in one building that have been turned into rented cage homes. For a 500 or 600 sq ft unit with 30 people living in it, how can the Government tell unless somebody reports it? If the need for cage homes arises out of a shortage of suitable accommodation, I think that cage homes are very difficult to eradicate. That, however, does not mean we cannot make any improvements before we can provide a sufficient number of suitable housing units.

A moment ago, Mr LAU Chin-shek suggested making provisions for the minimum living area per occupant of the cage homes. We have considered this too. But we have found that there could be difficulties because that does involve personal choices. If some people on their own accord request the cage home operators to rent out smaller units to them so that they can pay less, or if the family with eight or nine members I referred to cram into one room, are they acting against the law? I believe that the general public would not accept us making laws to make it an offence when people living in a specific area exceed a certain number. But this does not mean we cannot make laws to improve their living conditions. For example, we may require bedspace apartment operators to comply with certain terms and conditions on grounds of safety and sanitation. We may require bedspace apartments to have a common area besides the fire escapes, or certain facilities to be installed in toilets and kitchens. In fact, overcrowded kitchens can be very dangerous as there may be in store too many liquefied petroleum gas cylinders. We may also require that certain ventilation standards be met. Earlier, Mr MA Fung-kwok and I had met with some cage home lodgers and they complained that they were not able to go to sleep in the summer because of the fleas. Will the Government provide regular hygiene checks? All these can be worked out to make bedspace apartments meet the required minimum standards.

Of course, these measures will increase the operating costs. Operators may have to increase the rents as a result. Therefore we must have in place supplementary measures. We think that in addition to expediting the construction of public housing units and the transitional singleton hostels, rental allowance should also be considered. For those who are eligible for public housing but are not yet allocated any units, they should be granted allowances to cover the rental increase due to the improved conditions in their cage homes, which they cannot afford to pay, provided they meet the conditions on assets and income. Only when such supplementary measures are in place will regulation be practicable.

Thank you, Madam President.

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

MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Madam President, in the past decade or so, whenever any unfortunate incidents occurred at cage homes, there would be public outcries from the community, followed by expression of concern. However, every time, after the emotive outbursts had died down, the problem simply stayed. Since the enactment of the Bedspace Apartments Ordinance, the Government has clung firmly to the position that its approach to the cage homes, as reflected in the Ordinance, should be to regulate them, instead of rehousing their lodgers or phasing them out. This has led to an absurd phenomenon: Of the 97 registered cage homes, about two thirds have been granted licences, and the remaining one third continue to operate without licences. The only thing which the Home Affairs Bureau has done is to concentrate on the dozens of illegal cage homes which may have to close down, and arrange accommodation for those lodgers who may thus become homeless. As for the several hundred illegal and unregistered cage homes or cubicle partitions where as many as 100 000 people may be living, the Bureau simply does nothing, saying, "Sorry, this is outside the ambit of the Bedspace Apartments Ordinance. These are all private residential units. For that reason the Government cannot do anything, nor does the Government intend to impose any regulation at all. The tenants concerned may resort to the channels available under existing policies, and apply for public housing to solve their housing problems."

Madam President, under the Ordinance, only cage home apartments with more than 12 tenancy agreements are subject to regulation and a licensing system, that being the case, I would like to ask the Secretary a number of questions. Is he aware that many people are operating their cage home apartments by taking advantage of this loophole? Is he aware of yet another type of poor accommodation, that is, cubicle partitions, where the living conditions are even worse than those in cage homes? Does he know most tenants in these cubicle partitions are not qualified to apply for public housing under the existing policy?

The cage home issue is no longer just a sore spot behind the prosperity of Hong Kong; it has also become a target of attack by the international community. The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations have repeatedly expressed its concern over the protection of human rights in Hong Kong, saying that the Hong Kong Government should accord priority to the work on cage homes. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB) has been stressing that the real solution to the problem should be "full-scale rehousing and eradication in stages". We also maintain that as a proper step, a practicable timetable should be set down.

The documents recently submitted by the Government to the Legislative Council indicate that an average of 17 500 public rental housing units for single persons will be provided in the next five years. Elderly people aged 65 or above will be given priority and their average waiting time will be three to five years. People aged 60 or below will have to wait nine years on average. Madam President, we are talking about a waiting period of nine years. By the standards of today, this is utterly unacceptable. Are we saying that cage home lodgers must wait until they are very old, say from below 60 to above 60 before they are allocated public housing? A more important point is that the Chief Executive has stressed that the waiting time for public housing should be shortened. Nevertheless, as indicated by the information provided by the Government, there was no change in the waiting time of single persons in the last five years and there will not be any in the next five years either.

In late 1996, the Government deferred the implementation of the Bedspace Apartments Ordinance because it wanted to wait for the completion of the multi-storey singleton hostel at Sham Shui Po and also to identify suitable sites for similar hostels. But as of today, the Government is still saying it is actively planning to construct the hostels concerned. Thus, we cannot help being suspicious of the Government's sincerity in putting an end to this problem. Moreover, although the singleton hostel at Sham Shui Po provides self-contained rooms, like other unpartitioned singleton hostels which are sometimes called "modernized" cage homes, it has very strict admission requirements. Consequently, its occupancy rate has been low. Therefore we consider that the Government must review the terms and conditions for admission. It must relax these conditions to make the hostel more attractive; that way, there will be no waste of resources, because we can thus avoid the situation of "vacant housing units not channelled to people in need of housing".

Madam President, many colleagues mentioned only the cage home problem. I would like to talk about cubicle partitions. Cubicle partitions are mostly occupied by families with newly-arrived members from the Mainland. For this reason, the residency requirement imposed by the Housing Authority had posed indeed a very great problem to them. Under the existing requirements, a family will not be qualified for public housing unless at least half of its members have resided in Hong Kong for seven years. This means that even mainland children born to Hong Kong parents are required to live here for seven years before they can be qualified for public housing. As a result, cubicle partitions or bedspaces each measuring dozens of square feet, which can at most accommodate one person, have become the lodgings of whole families. In some extreme cases, individual families, despite their lack of means, are forced to give birth to one or two children in the hope of meeting the requirements. This explains why as many as seven or eight families each with five or six members are frequently living in a unit measuring just 400 or 500 sq ft. In these apartments narrow corridors are filled with cooking utensils; and there is no regulation whatsoever on fire escape routes and living density. If accidents occur, the consequences will be very serious.

So, we in the DAB maintain that the Housing Authority should carry out a prompt review on its residency requirement. As mainland children born to Hong Kong parents are already permanent residents on arrival at Hong Kong, they, like their Hong Kong-born counterparts, should be qualified for public housing without having to satisfy the seven-year residency requirement. We also think the Government should review the proportion of singleton units in public housing. More small units should be built to relieve people from the dangerous and crowded living conditions in cubicle partitions.

With these remarks, with these remarks, I support the motion.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Home Affairs.

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Madam President, first of all, I wish to thank the Honourable LAU Chin-shek for moving this motion.

Just now I have listened very carefully to each Member who spoke. Their speeches have showed their concern for the bedspace apartments (commonly called "cage homes") and their lodgers, as well as the housing and welfare problems of single persons in general. Honourable Members have also put forward a lot of valuable advice for the Government's consideration. Many of the opinions stated come under the purviews of the Housing Bureau and the Housing Department. Many Members also suggested that the Home Affairs Bureau should relay their suggestions to the departments concerned. The Home Affairs Department will certainly follow up all of the points made.

Apart from the issue of rehousing bedspace apartment lodgers, the motion moved by Mr LAU also mentions the issue of the housing and welfare of single persons in general. So I have asked the Secretary for Housing, the Director of the Housing Department and the Director of the Social Welfare Department for their advice. I am only making a comprehensive response on behalf of the Government. However, having heard the views of many Honourable Members, I have a feeling that they have either read my speech beforehand or they have guessed its contents. Despite this, I think I have the obligation to talk about government policies and their directions. So I ask Honourable Members to bear with me when I read my speech.

Bedspace apartments

Bedspace apartments are a kind of private residence with a number of bedspaces for lease. Most of these bedspace apartments are situated in densely-populated urban areas and have been in existence and operation for many years. Bedspace apartment lodgers choose to live there mainly because of the convenient location and the cheap rent.

The Government realizes that there is a considerable demand for these bedspace apartments because of the cheap rent and the convenient location. And so the government policy is not to make bedspace apartments or hired bedspaces illegal, but through legislation to ensure these bedspace apartments comply with the minimum requirements in fire and building safety so that the safety of the lodgers can be guaranteed. To this end, the Government enacted the Bedspace Apartments Ordinance in 1994 and provided for a set of statutory licensing system to regulate building and fire safety in bedspace apartments.

Since the enactment of the Ordinance in 1994, the Government has given a grace period of four years to the bedspace apartment operators to enable them to register with the Office of the Licensing Authority and to carry out the necessary improvement works in order to comply with the licensing requirements and to apply for a licence to continue running their business. The above-mentioned grace period expired on 30 June 1998.

The licensing of bedspace apartments

Mr LAU and a few other Members have mentioned the number of licences issued for bedspace apartments. I wish to mention here that the number of registered and licensed bedspace apartments is correct. The number of such apartments is 63 and the number of lodgers is 1 189. But there is a disparity between the number of those registered licensed apartments and those which are registered but have not been issued a licence. So I would like to mention here that there are 29 bedspace apartments which have registered but are unable to get a licence. The number of lodgers involved is 545. The Office of the Licensing Authority is urging these operators to complete the improvement works and to apply for a licence, otherwise the Government will take enforcement actions.

Some Honourable Members, including Mr LAU and Mr LEE Wing-tat, have mentioned the number of unregistered bedspace apartments. I want to say that the Home Affairs Department and the staff from the 18 District Offices will use all kinds of ways and means to find out those premises subject to the regulation of the Bedspace Apartments Ordinance but are not yet registered. Moreover, I wish to make use of this opportunity to call upon all social workers, members of the Provisional District Boards, community leaders, incorporated owners' associations and mutual aid committees to report suspected cases of unlicensed bedspace apartments in operation to the Office of the Licensing Authority of the Home Affairs Department. The Office will take follow-up actions.

Measures to rehouse bedspace apartment lodgers

After the implementation of the licensing system, some operators had opted for a reduction of the number of bedspaces or even closed their business since they were unable or unwilling to comply with the safety standards as prescribed by the Ordinance. This had displaced some lodgers. But as we have undertaken, we shall not make any such lodgers homeless as a result of the licensing scheme. We would also give assistance to any lodgers of registered bedspace apartments should they be displaced.

Among those lodgers who are displaced, all those who are 60 years old or above and those who need medical care or those who have spouses or family members residing in these bedspace apartments will be considered by the Social Welfare Department for rehousing in hostels run by welfare agencies which are subsidized by the Social Welfare Department or resettled in public housing estates through compassionate rehousing arrangements.

For displaced lodgers under 60 years of age, they can apply for the singleton hostels operated by the Home Affairs Department. At present, we have purchased 38 units of private properties in various districts and converted them into hostels for single persons. This plan will provide about 530 places for the bedspace apartment lodgers affected. In the long run, we are carrying out a scheme to build multi-storey hostels for single persons in districts where many bedspace apartments are found. The first one of such hostels is located in Shun Ning Road in Sham Shui Po. It can house 310 residents and is ready for occupation. The other one is located in High Street in the Western District and will be completed in 2001. This will serve to provide 270 places for lodgers on Hong Kong Island. Moreover, we are holding discussions with government departments to build such kind of hostels for single persons in other locations financial resources permitting. These places include Smithfield Road in the Western District, Bailey Street in Kowloon City, the West Kowloon Reclamation Area, Fuk Tong Road in Kwun Tong and Fuk Wing Street in Sham Shui Po. The Tung Wah Group of Hospitals is planning to build one block of such hostels in Shan Tung Street. When all these hostels are completed under our single persons hostels scheme, they will be able to give housing choices to those displaced bedspace apartment lodgers below 60 years of age.

Apart from the Home Affairs Department, the Urban Hostels for Single Persons subsidized by the Social Welfare Department also provide temporary residence for bedspace apartment lodgers aged 60 or above and who have health problems, and those single persons with housing needs. There are four such hostels at present. They are situated in Chai Wan, Wan Chai, Lok Fu and Cheung Sha Wan. Each of these hostels can provide 40 places and the average occupancy rate is over 70%. Moreover, the Social Welfare Department is planning to build four more such hostels in the next three years. They will be situated in Tsuen Wan, Sheung Wan, Hung Hom and Sham Shui Po and will be operated by non-governmental organizations on a self-financing basis. Since the passage of the Bedspace Apartments Ordinance, the Social Welfare Department has assisted about 1 100 lodgers in rehousing under the public housing compassionate rehousing arrangements or in hostels run by welfare agencies and the Urban Hostels for Single Persons. The Department will continue to make regular visits to bedspace apartments with the aim of contacting all those in need and help them improve their living conditions and to get assistance as appropriate.

I wish to point out that the hostel scheme for single persons operated by the Home Affairs Department is different from the existing public housing schemes. The former scheme is introduced especially to match with the implementation of the licensing system of the Bedspace Apartments Ordinance. Its target group is those lodgers who are below 60 and who have been displaced as a result of the implementation of the licensing system. It is not aimed at single persons in general.

Bedspace apartments and public housing policy for single persons

Maybe I shall make use of this opportunity to talk briefly on the public schemes of the Housing Bureau and the Housing Department, in particular, on those which address the needs of single persons for public housing.

The Secretary for Housing informed my Bureau that the Housing Authority had set up a Single Persons Waiting List as early as in 1985 to enable single persons of 18 or above to apply for public housing. Applicants of course will need to meet the other requirements for public housing, such as income and asset limits.

The Government is very much concerned about the housing needs of the elderly. Public housing applicants over the age of 58 can be placed on the Priority Scheme for the Elderly, but they must reach 60 when they are allocated flats. Besides, two or more related or unrelated elderly persons can jointly apply for the Elderly Persons Priority Scheme. Since 1985, the Housing Authority has provided all kinds of public rental housing flats to over 30 000 single persons. Out of a total of about 19 400 single person applicants on the Waiting List for public housing, about half are elderly persons.

In fact, for anyone who is genuinely homeless, the Housing Department can arrange accommodation for them in the temporary shelters or interim housing. Also, the Housing Authority will set aside suitable flats in the public housing estates for non-governmental organizations to set up hostels for single persons.

Public housing plans for the future

From the year 1997-98 to the year 2001-02, the Housing Authority will provide 46 000 public rental housing flats for single persons, including 30 000 flats for the elderly. According to the estimates made by the Housing Department, during the period from 1998 to 2001, about 200 qualified bedspace apartment lodgers will be rehoused yearly into public rental housing flats through the Waiting List or rehousing on compassionate grounds.

We have set long-term targets to reduce the average waiting time for those on the public housing Waiting List to under five years by 2001, to four years by 2003, and to three years by 2005.

Integrated services

All public housing estates have their own management offices. When necessary, the staff there will refer cases to government departments or non-governmental organizations for assistance. Since 1990, the Housing Authority has been implementing a community service scheme for the elderly who live in public housing estates. Its aim is to provide a network of links to the elderly singletons, define their personal needs and the resources required, encourage them to take part in community activities and voluntary work, and to provide a support network for them. The scheme has been extended to 25 public housing estates to date.

Moreover, the Housing Authority also provides accommodation through the Sheltered Housing for the Elderly scheme. Such flats are equipped with 24-hour service by hostel wardens and other facilities. These will ensure the elderly can lead a comfortable life in their twilight years.

In areas such as Hung Hom, Wan Chai, Tsuen Wan, Yau Ma Tei and Shum Shui Po where there are a lot of tenement buildings inhabited by the elderly, the Housing Authority has set up five Housing Information Centres to enable the public, especially those elderly people who live in less desirable private buildings, to inquire about public housing affairs. In the near future, a sixth Housing Information Centre will be set up in the Western District on Hong Kong Island. The staff of the Centre will pay visit to the elderly living in private buildings and those bedspace apartment lodgers and help them register on the Waiting List. From March 1995 to the present, the staff of the Housing Department have visited 1 500 bedspace apartment lodgers. From October 1997 to August this year, there are already 315 bedspace apartment lodgers registered for public housing application.

Apart from that, the Social Welfare Department sends its staff to pay annual visits to registered bedspace apartments to provide all sorts of welfare services to the lodgers in need, including financial assistance, case counselling and so on. When they find out certain elderly, physically weak or disabled lodgers are in need of housing assistance, the case workers of the Family Service Centres will provide the necessary assistance.

The way forward

The existence of bedspace apartments has really in some degree tarnished the reputation of Hong Kong. We are adopting measures to enforce the Bedspace Apartments Ordinance rigorously, in order that the safety of these bedspace apartments can be put on the right track. Lodgers who are displaced as a result of the implementation of the licensing system will be suitably rehoused. As for the housing and welfare needs of single persons in general, they will be dealt with by the relevant government departments according to existing established means and procedures.

Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAU Chin-shek, you may now reply, you have one minute and 40 seconds.

MR LAU CHIN-SHEK (in Cantonese): Madam President, I feel extremely sorry because the government departments that have a directly bearing with the motion today, that is, the Housing Bureau and the Health and Welfare Bureau, have surprisingly failed to send officials to attend the meeting. Instead, the two bureaux rely entirely on the officials of the Home Affairs Bureau to, without having listened to the speeches delivered by me and my colleagues in this Council, read out a long passage of rubbish on their behalf. It was indeed quite a job for Mr LO. I am extremely disappointed.

I find our discussion today very constructive. Moreover, we seldom share a common objective. Even some Members who originally had reservations about the keeping of cage homes and felt that there was a need for cage homes to exist said today that cage homes had to be ultimately phased out. Today, what impressed me most is that you will feel sad when you see a group of people belonging to the underprivileged living in an extremely deplorable environment. If you are a man of no power, I believe no one will blame you. Your sadness will just turn into sighs for one another. But if you are a man of great influence and you are in possession of resources and power whereas you only express your sadness about the fact that an underprivileged group are living in deplorable conditions, without taking action to alter their situation, then your sadness will only turn into hypocrisy.

Madam President, I earnestly hope that this is the last time this Council discusses and debates about the issue of cage homes. Let us express the same concerns under the same sky. Thank you.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr LAU Chin-shek be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections and by the Election Committee, who are present. I declare that the motion is passed.

NEXT MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, I now adjourn the Council until 2.30 pm on Wednesday, 21 October 1998.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Eight o'clock.