OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Wednesday, 14 October 2015 ...

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 October 2015

1

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Wednesday, 14 October 2015

The Council met at Eleven o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT: THE PRESIDENT THE HONOURABLE JASPER TSANG YOK-SING, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING, J.P. THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE ABRAHAM SHEK LAI-HIM, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE TOMMY CHEUNG YU-YAN, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE VINCENT FANG KANG, S.B.S., J.P.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 October 2015 2

THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-HING, B.B.S., M.H. PROF THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P., Ph.D., R.N. THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY LAM KIN-FUNG, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE ANDREW LEUNG KWAN-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE WONG TING-KWONG, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CYD HO SAU-LAN, J.P. THE HONOURABLE STARRY LEE WAI-KING, J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE LAM TAI-FAI, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAK-KAN, J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHAN KIN-POR, B.B.S., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE PRISCILLA LEUNG MEI-FUN, S.B.S., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-CHE THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-KIN, S.B.S. THE HONOURABLE IP KWOK-HIM, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MRS REGINA IP LAU SUK-YEE, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE PAUL TSE WAI-CHUN, J.P. THE HONOURABLE ALAN LEONG KAH-KIT, S.C.


3

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KWOK-HUNG THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP THE HONOURABLE WONG YUK-MAN THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL TIEN PUK-SUN, B.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE NG LEUNG-SING, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN, B.B.S. THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING, J.P. THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H. THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING, B.B.S. THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE KENNETH CHAN KA-LOK THE HONOURABLE CHAN YUEN-HAN, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.


THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG THE HONOURABLE ALICE MAK MEI-KUEN, B.B.S., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG WAH-FUNG, S.B.S., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG THE HONOURABLE SIN CHUNG-KAI, S.B.S., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, J.P. THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LIAO CHEUNG-KONG, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE POON SIU-PING, B.B.S., M.H. THE HONOURABLE TANG KA-PIU, J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE CHIANG LAI-WAN, J.P. IR DR THE HONOURABLE LO WAI-KWOK, S.B.S., M.H., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHUNG SHU-KUN, B.B.S., M.H., J.P. THE HONOURABLE TONY TSE WAI-CHUEN, B.B.S.


5

MEMBER ABSENT: DR THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P. PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING: THE HONOURABLE MRS CARRIE LAM CHENG YUET-NGOR, G.B.S., J.P. THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION THE HONOURABLE JOHN TSANG CHUN-WAH, G.B.M., J.P. THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY PROF THE HONOURABLE ANTHONY CHEUNG BING-LEUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING THE HONOURABLE MATTHEW CHEUNG KIN-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE PROF THE HONOURABLE K C CHAN, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY MR GODFREY LEUNG KING-KWOK, J.P. SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MR KEVIN YEUNG YUN-HUNG, J.P. SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION DR THE HONOURABLE KO WING-MAN, B.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH THE HONOURABLE PAUL CHAN MO-PO, M.H., J.P. SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT MR YAU SHING-MU, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING


CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE: MR KENNETH CHEN WEI-ON, S.B.S., SECRETARY GENERAL MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL


7

TABLING OF PAPERS The following papers were laid on the table under Rule 21(2) of the Rules of Procedure: Subsidiary Legislation/Instruments L.N. No.

Competition (Fees) Regulation ........................................... 155/2015 Competition Ordinance (Commencement) (No. 2) Notice

2015 ........................................................................

156/2015 Competition Tribunal Rules (Commencement) Notice ...... 157/2015 Competition Tribunal Fees Rules (Commencement)

Notice ......................................................................

158/2015 Competition Tribunal Suitors' Funds Rules

(Commencement) Notice ........................................

159/2015 Rules of the High Court (Amendment) Rules 2015


160/2015 Solicitors' Accounts (Amendment) Rules 2012


161/2015 Accountant's Report (Amendment) Rules 2012


162/2015 Solicitors (Professional Indemnity) (Amendment) Rules

2012 (Commencement) Notice ...............................

163/2015 Solicitors' Practice (Amendment) Rules 2012


164/2015 Foreign Lawyers Practice (Amendment) Rules 2012


165/2015


Trainee Solicitors (Amendment) Rules 2015 ..................... 174/2015 Rules of the High Court (Amendment) (No. 3) Rules

2015 ........................................................................

175/2015 Rules of the District Court (Amendment) Rules 2015 ....... 176/2015 Consular Relations (Additional Privileges and

Immunities) (Cambodia) Order ..............................

177/2015 Administration of Estates by Consular Officers Ordinance

(Amendment of Schedule: Cambodia) Order 2015 ........................................................................

178/2015 Consular Conventions (Application of Section 3)

(Amendment of Schedule: Cambodia) Order 2015 .............................................................

179/2015 Consular Relations (Additional Privileges and

Immunities) (Philippines) Order ............................

180/2015 Administration of Estates by Consular Officers Ordinance

(Amendment of Schedule: Philippines) Order 2015 ........................................................................

181/2015 Consular Conventions (Application of Section 3)

(Amendment of Schedule: Philippines) Order 2015 ........................................................................

182/2015 Inland Revenue (Exchange of Information relating to

Taxes) (Kingdom of Denmark) Order ...................


Taxes) (Faroes) Order ............................................


Taxes) (Greenland) Order ......................................

185/2015


9

Inland Revenue (Exchange of Information relating to Taxes) (Iceland) Order ............................................

186/2015

Inland Revenue (Exchange of Information relating to

Taxes) (Kingdom of Norway) Order ......................


Taxes) (Kingdom of Sweden) Order ......................

188/2015 Specification of Arrangements (The Mainland of China)

(Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income) (Fourth Protocol) Order ..........................................

189/2015 Port Control (Public Cargo Working Area) Order 2015


190/2015 Building (Standards of Sanitary Fitments, Plumbing,

Drainage Works and Latrines) (Amendment) Regulation 2015 ......................................................

191/2015 Building (Administration) (Amendment) (No. 2)

Regulation 2015 ......................................................

192/2015 Pharmacy and Poisons (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulation

2015 ........................................................................

193/2015 Electronic Transactions (Exclusion) (Amendment) Order

2015 ........................................................................

194/2015 Road Traffic Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 3)

(No. 2) Order 2015 .................................................

195/2015 Road Traffic Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 8)

Order 2015 ..............................................................

196/2015 Electronic Health Record Sharing System Ordinance

(Commencement) Notice 2015 ...............................

197/2015


Insurance Companies (Amendment) Ordinance 2015 (Commencement) Notice 2015 ..............................

198/2015

Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes (Amendment)

Ordinance 2015 (Commencement) (No. 2) Notice 2015 ........................................................................

199/2015

Other Papers

No. 1 ─ Protection of Wages on Insolvency Fund Board Annual Report 2014-15

No. 2 ─ Report of changes made to the approved Estimates of

Expenditure during the first quarter of 2015-16 Public Finance Ordinance : Section 8

No. 3 ─ The Land Registry Trading Fund Hong Kong

Annual Report 2014-15 No. 4 ─ Companies Registry Trading Fund

Annual Report 2014-15 No. 5 ─ Vegetable Marketing Organization

Financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2015 No. 6 ─ Fish Marketing Organization

Financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2015 No. 7 ─ Marine Fish Scholarship Fund

Report for the period from 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015 No. 8 ─ Agricultural Products Scholarship Fund

Report for the period from 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015 No. 9 ─ Urban Renewal Authority

Annual Report 2014-2015


11

No. 10 ─ Competition Commission Annual Report 2014/2015

No. 11 ─ Electoral Affairs Commission

Report on the Recommended Geographical Constituency Boundaries for the 2016 Legislative Council General Election

Report No. 1/15-16 of the House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Questions. In accordance with rule 9A of the House Rules, the time taken by each oral question should not exceed 22 minutes in total. After a Member has asked a main question and the relevant public officer has replied, the Member who asks the question has priority to ask the first supplementary question. Other Members who wish to ask supplementary questions may indicate their wish by pressing the "Request to speak" button and wait for their turn. Members may raise only one question in asking supplementary questions. These questions should be as concise as possible so that more Members can ask supplementary questions. Members should not make arguments when asking supplementary questions. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): First question. Hire Car Permits 1. MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, under the law, if private car owners intend to use their vehicles for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, they must hold a hire car permit (permit) issued by the Commissioner for Transport and maintain a valid insurance policy in respect of third party risks applicable to such use. In August this year, the Police arrested a few employees of a company which offered Internet car calling services and a


few private car drivers who were suspected of carrying passengers for reward without a permit. Some members of the industry have relayed that the vetting and approval criteria for a permit are so overly stringent that it is difficult for private car owners to lawfully operate services for the carriage of passengers for reward. They also hold the view that as taxi services vary in quality, there is genuine demand among members of the public for Internet car calling services and hire car sharing services (car-sharing services). It is learnt that places such as certain cities in the Unites States, Singapore and the Philippines have conducted consultation on Internet car calling services and amended their relevant legislation, so as to make use of information technology to enhance the efficiency and standard of their transport services. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number of enquires on Private Service (Limousine) Hire Car Permits received by the authorities as well as the respective numbers of applications received, approved and rejected, in each of the past three years; the vetting and approval criteria for various kinds of permits; the average processing time of each application last year, and the current number of valid permits and their validity periods;

(2) whether the authorities will consult operators of Internet car calling

business when reviewing the vetting and approval criteria for permits, and consider relaxing the criteria so that companies and car owners operating such business may operate lawfully with a permit, thereby increasing competition in the hire car market; if they will, of the details; and

(3) whether, when conducting the Public Transport Strategy Study, the

authorities will, by making reference to the practice of foreign countries, consider setting up a registration system for Internet car hire services as well as car-sharing services and drawing up a code of ethics for drivers, safety specifications for vehicles and requirements on procuring insurance, etc., and consult the industry on such issues; if they will, of the details?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, under a public transport-oriented principle, the Government has adopted a policy to use the railway as the backbone of public transport system. Other road-based public transport services, such as franchised buses,


13

non-franchised buses, public light buses and taxis, basically play a supplementary role. Franchised buses are still the mass carrier serving areas without direct railway access(1). Taxis provide safe and reliable point-to-point personalized services. Using a private car for carriage of passengers for hire or reward (hire car) is also a kind of point-to-point personalized transport service. It does not belong to public transport service nor is its fares subject to regulation. However, the private car owner concerned must obtain a hire car permit (Permit) issued to him before he can operate hire car service. At present, the Road Traffic (Public Services Vehicles) Regulations (the Regulations) contain specific provisions on the Permit requirements of hire cars and the assessment criteria for granting of Permits. The policy on hire cars and the relevant legislation reflect its historical context. The present legislation in respect of hire cars was implemented in 1981 with the primary objective of legalizing the "pak pais" (that is, illegal hire car service) at the time. While hire car permits were issued to persons then operating "pak pais", unlimited issuance of such permits should be avoided so as not to encourage quasi-taxi operation or even affecting the operation of other public transport services and aggravating road congestion. These are also the considerations of the Commissioner for Transport (the Commissioner) when exercising her discretionary power to issue Permits. My consolidated replies to the various parts of Mr Charles Peter MOK's question are as follows: At present, there are three types of valid Permits, namely private, hotel and tour services. The assessment criteria for Permits are set out in the Regulations in detail, including that the Commissioner, when processing an application, should be of the opinion that the type of hire car service specified is reasonably required. In addition, the Regulations also stipulate the factors that the Commissioner may take into consideration when assessing applications for individual types of hire car services. For example, in determining whether to issue a Permit for a private hire car service, the Commissioner needs to have

(1) At present, there are nine heavy rail lines and an Airport Express line linking the city centre with the Hong

Kong International Airport and the AsiaWorld-Expo in Hong Kong, covering Hong Kong Island, Kowloon and the New Territories. Upon completion of the four railway projects currently under construction (namely the South Island Line (East), the Kwun Tong Line Extension, the Shatin to Central Link and the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Hong Kong Section)), the railway network will cover areas inhabited by about 70% of the local population.


regard to the extent to which the area in which the private hire car service under application will operate is served by public transport. Details of the assessment criteria are in Annex 1. The numbers of Permits by types issued by the Transport Department (TD) and figures on the approval of Private Service (Limousine) Permits are in Annexes 2 and 3 respectively. A Permit shall be valid until the vehicle licence of the private car concerned next expires. In other words, the longest validity period for a Permit is one year. Since the information and supporting documents submitted in each application vary, the time required for the TD's processing of each application is different. In general, the TD can, upon receipt of all required documents, complete the processing of an application in about three to four months on average, whereas more time is required for processing more complicated cases. For example, if an applicant was prosecuted for allegedly illegal operation of hire car service prior to submission of application and such illegal operation is related to the application, the processing of such application will have to be suspended during the legal proceedings. The Government is open-minded in respect of the application of different types of technologies, including the use of Internet or mobile applications for calling hire cars. However, all hire car services, regardless of the use of which type of technology or platform, must be lawful and most importantly, have regard to the interest and safety of passengers. Under the current law, if car owners (whether individuals or companies) are interested in using their private cars for carriage of passengers for hire or reward, they must apply to the Commissioner for Permits for operating hire car services. Recently, there has been quite some discussion in the community (including the general public and the transport trade) about point-to-point transport service (that is, taxis and hire cars). To this end, the Government's fundamental position is to promote quality taxi service on the one hand, while to improve the regime for approving and regulating hire car services in response to the need of the community on the other hand. The Government is reviewing holistically the roles and positioning of public transport services other than the rail under the Public Transport Strategy Study commenced since the end of last year. The objective is to enhance their complementarity as well as to improve service quality and passenger choices. To address the concerns in the community, we will accord priority to reviewing taxi service. Apart from


15

improving the service quality of ordinary taxis, we will explore the feasibility of introducing premium taxi service. Areas of study include service standard, fare structure, operating and management models, taxi hailing mobile apps as well as other ancillary arrangements. In tandem, the Government will also review the assessment criteria for Permits in keeping with the times and responding to the demands of society. During the process, we will certainly listen to the views of stakeholders. President, we also note the emergence of the so-called hire car "sharing" services which have brought about controversies around the world. Regulatory authorities worldwide are still studying this complex matter and have yet to come up with a unified solution. For example, operations of passenger service for reward without licence, whether as taxis or hire cars, remain illegal and are prohibited in places such as Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, the Netherlands, Spain, Germany and France. We will closely monitor the development of this matter worldwide for our reference.

Annex 1 The Regulations stipulate that the Commissioner, when processing an application, must require that there is in force a valid third party risks policy of insurance which is in compliance with the statutory requirements and a valid vehicle licence in respect of the private car concerned. Also, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the type of hire car service specified in the application is reasonably required. The Regulations also stipulate the factors that the Commissioner may consider when assessing applications for individual types of hire car service, as follows: - In determining whether to issue a Permit for a private hire car service, the

Commissioner may have regard to, amongst other matters, the extent to which the area from which the applicant proposes to operate the private hire car service is served by public transport, whether the applicant is able reasonably to demonstrate that the service applied for is required in the area concerned, and whether the applicant has, in the area concerned, a place which the Commissioner considers suitable to park the private car when it is available for hire.


- As regards hotel and tour services, a Permit may be issued to a hotel or tourist agent if the hotel proprietor or tourist agent is the registered owner of the private car concerned. Otherwise, the Permit may only be issued to the registered owner of the private car who produces written approval from the hotel or tourist agent concerned for the provision of a hire car service exclusively for that hotel or tourist agent. In determining whether to issue a Permit for a hotel service, the Commissioner may have regard to, amongst other matters, whether the number of bedrooms and location of the hotel to which the application relates, and general standard of service provided by the hotel is such that the hire car service concerned is reasonably required for such a hotel. In determining whether to issue a Permit for a tour service, the Commissioner may have regard to, amongst other matters, the nature and availability of existing facilities for visitors to tour Hong Kong, and whether the applicant has the means and experience to enable him to provide visitors to Hong Kong with a tour hire car service of suitable standard.

Annex 2

Five Types of Hire Car Permit that can be Issued

by the Commissioner under the Regulations

Statutory Limit Imposed on the Number of Permits

Number of Permits Already Issued by the TD (as at 30 September 2015)

Private Hire Car Service(1) 1 500 625 Hotel Hire Car Service 400 152 Tour Hire Car Service 400 107 Airport Hire Car Service 60 0(2) School Hire Car Service 1 500 0(2) Notes: (1) Private hire car service includes Private Service, Private Service (Limousine) and Private

Service (Limousine) (Cross-boundary). (2) According to the TD, airport hire cars were gradually replaced by limousines providing

private hire car services in the mid-1980s, while at the same time school hire cars were also gradually replaced by school private light buses. The TD has thus not issued these two types of permits since then.


17

Annex 3

Year

Number of Enquiries about

Hire Car Permit ― Private Service (Limousine)(1)

Applications for Hire Car Permit ― Private Service (Limousine)

(Number of Permits(2)) Applications Received(3)

Applications Approved(3)

Applications Rejected(3)

2013 20 291 284 6 2014 37 316 267 17 2015 (as at 30 September)

33 261 225 34

Notes: (1) Private hire car service is classified into three types, namely Private Service, Private

Service (Limousine) and Private Service (Limousine) (Cross-boundary). The above numbers of enquiries include written enquiries or those received via 1823 call centre, whereas there are no statistics on enquiries made in person or by phone to the TD.

(2) Figures include applications of new, renewal and replacement of Permits. In addition,

as applicants may apply for more than one Permit in the same application, the number of Permits is shown in the above table for ease of calculation.

(3) Subject to the date of submission of applications and the timely submission of the

required information, the number of applications processed (that is, the total number of applications approved and rejected) may not be equal to the number of applications received in the same year.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, despite the lengthy remarks made by the Secretary, the fact remains that Hong Kong is still lagging much behind in the application of innovative technology and has thus failed to meet the public's demand for transport services. Just now the Secretary only mentioned about countries or places where such services are considered unlawful, but he has made no mention of the places where the provision of such services is already legal. For instances, Shanghai issued car-booking licences to some companies last week, while Singapore has amended two pieces of legislation within half a year to render "sharing" services virtually legal. If Hong Kong is to develop innovative technology, which places should it look upon as a model? Should we make reference to places of slow development or those with satisfactory results? Furthermore, members of the public are really dissatisfied with the existing taxi services and have a concrete request regarding the services concerned, yet the Government has been procrastinating all along.


President, according to some news within the industry, monopolization of licence has already emerged in the aforementioned market of private hire car service following the takeover of a hire car service company by a bus corporation in June 2015, as the number of licences in the corporation's possession may account for more than 90% of the total number of licences in the market. My supplementary question is whether the TD and the Bureau have in hand such information and the Government has in place any measures to tackle this situation. It is often said that taxi services are being monopolized by taxi companies, but now the problem involves not only taxis, as monopolization is found even in the market of hire car service. It is not enough for the authorities to just provide some figures to illustrate that a certain number of licences have been issued, bearing in mind that there are actually many licences waiting to be issued. President, may I ask the Secretary to tell us whether the authorities have in hand any information on the monopolization situation of the hire car service market? Given that monopolization in the taxi trade is by now a plain fact, there is no need for any further elaboration. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, as I have said in the main reply, our fundamental position towards the controversies in the community is as follows: on the one hand, we understand that there are lots of comments in society about the taxi service and we need to introduce improvements; on the other hand, while there are demands in society for both taxi service and hire car service, the biggest difference between the two is that the former is a mode of public transport but the latter is not. With regard to taxi service which falls within the scope of public transport, we will consider introducing the premium taxi service because passengers may need more diversified services. As for hire cars, just now I have given an account of the background to the permits issued in the past, which mainly aimed to tackle the issue of illegal operation of "pak pais" at the time. Today, however, the community at large may have more diversified demands for hire car services and it is our hope to review the demands together with the assessment criteria for hire car services, so that improvements can be made in both aspects. The Government is open-minded in respect of the platform for the application of technologies, and we encourage greater use of advanced technologies.


19

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has obviously failed to answer my supplementary question. My question is: Are the authorities aware of the industry's news that a bus corporation has monopolized over 90% of the permits for the hire car service upon taking over a hire car service company? However, the Secretary has not yet responded to this question. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, will you reply the question of whether or not monopolization also exists in the market of hire car service? SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I do not have the information referred to by Mr MOK just now. MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): I would like to ask the Secretary to check it up after the meeting and then provide this Council with some specific data. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): I will look into the information we have in hand. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Nine Members are waiting to raise their supplementary questions. Will Members please make their questions as concise as possible and refrain from making arguments. MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): President, as pointed out in Annex 2 to the main reply, the statutory limit imposed on the number of permits for private hire car service is 1 500. As at September, the TD has already issued 625 permits while the number of rejected applications as shown in Annex 3 is only 34. Does it mean that not many applications have been received and hence the statutory quota of 1 500 permits is not yet exhausted, or that the overly stringent vetting and approval criteria are a discouragement to application? The Secretary has mentioned in his main reply that the Government will also review the assessment criteria for Permits in keeping with the times and responding to demands. May I know whether the existing situation is attributable to the overly


stringent criteria which discouraged application or the rejection of applications notwithstanding the demands for such permits? SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, as pointed out in Annex 2, the statutory limit imposed on the number of permits issued for private hire car service is 1 500 and more than 600 permits have hitherto been issued. Hence, it is true that the quota has not been fully utilized. However, the TD will not issue permits arbitrarily in order to use up the quota. The approval or otherwise of the applications all depends on the information submitted as well as the merits of such applications, and one of the considerations is whether the applicant's service is reasonably required. Of course, such a judgment is made based on the relevant information submitted, as well as whether or not car owners can provide other information, such as the insurance policy as required by the law and other necessary information. Previously, permits were issued mainly to resolve the "pak pais" problem. As time goes by, we certainly have to address the latest demands. The Commissioner will also review the assessment criteria at this stage. I would like to emphasize one point. Even though there is a statutory limit on the number of permits that can be issued, it does not mean that all such permits have to be issued. The authorities will also take into consideration the needs of the community. MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has not answered my supplementary question because he seems to … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SIN, please briefly repeat your supplementary question. MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): Alright. The crux of the matter is that the Secretary has repeatedly remarked that the reason for issuing permits in the past was to resolve the "pak pais" problem at the time. Does it mean that only "pak pais" in the past were issued permits and the authorities will not issue new permits anymore, as there are no "pak pais" nowadays …


21

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SIN, this is not the supplementary question you raised just now. MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): President, what I am asking is whether the criteria for issuing such permits are overly stringent. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, the Member is asking whether the criteria for issuing permits are overly stringent. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Alright, I will give a brief reply. I pointed out earlier that the permits were introduced in the 1980s with an aim to resolve the "pak pais" problem at the time. This is the relevant historical context rather than the sole purpose. If the granting of permits was purely for resolving the "pak pais" problem at the time, we would not have issued new permits in recent years. As a matter of fact, we have been issuing new permits all along. As regards whether applicants can fulfil the assessment criteria, this is a separate issue. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, are the criteria overly stringent? SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): We are also aware of such views in society and hence, just as what I have said earlier, the Commissioner will review the existing assessment criteria. MR FRANKIE YICK (in Cantonese): President, hire cars are one mode of public transport. In order to protect the rights and interests of passengers and road users, it is incumbent upon the Government to put them under regulation and combat the use of private cars for carriage of passengers for reward without a lawful permit. If the criteria for approving applications for hire car service permits are relaxed, this will only encourage more private car owners to have their cars running on the roads and carrying passengers occasionally to earn extra income to cover the vehicle mortgage payments. This will increase the


burden on our roads and aggravate the congestion problem, very much contrary to the policy implemented all along by the government policy to alleviate road congestion. With technological advancement, we support the use of technology to increase the matching rate between taxis and passengers so as to increase the income of taxi drivers. To this end, the industry prefers developing a designated mobile app and platform for the taxi trade … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr YICK, please state your supplementary question directly. MR FRANKIE YICK (in Cantonese): … and introducing training courses on service manner, with a view to improving their services. Will the Government put in place any corresponding measures to support these initiatives? SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, as I have mentioned in the main reply just now, the Government is now reviewing the taxi service. Apart from improving the service of ordinary taxis, we are also considering introducing the higher-end premium taxi service to address community needs. Once implemented, this will be a different type of service mode. We need to take into account the service standard, fare or issues such as the need or otherwise for additional conditions to be specified, as well as various details pertaining to the processing of applications for licences to operate such premium taxi service. We are now in the course of studying all these issues and it is expected that all the details will be finalized by the end of this year, so that we will be able to listen to the views of various stakeholders in society and submit them to the Legislative Council Panel on Transport for consideration. MR FRANKIE YICK (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary gave no answer to my supplementary question. My question is: If the industry develops new mobile apps to improve the matching rate between taxis and passengers, and introduces training courses on improving service manner for taxi drivers, will the Government formulate any polices to support and complement such initiatives?


23

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, first of all, the Government strongly acknowledges the need to make greater use of advanced technologies. On the other hand, the Government is more than happy to offer support in its policies if the industry so wishes. We believe that there are demands for point-to-point personalized transport service in society, be it taxi service or hire car service. Hence, we will pay attention to the latest development of both services as well as community needs at the same time. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I need to remind Members not to make any comments. If Members state their questions directly, the Secretary will know what Members are asking about. MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): Secretary, "Didi Kuaidi" from Shanghai has been granted the first car-hailing licence on the Mainland, which implies that such a service is legalized on the Mainland. Nevertheless, Hong Kong's acceptance in this particular respect is not the same. Take Uber, which plans to establish its business in Hong Kong, as an example. The Government has failed to state its stance on Uber's modus operandi for the lawful carriage of passengers for reward. However, if Hong Kong is to take reference of the practice in Shanghai, the number of vehicles running on busy roads during peak hours will increase by 1 000, which is extremely undesirable. Earlier on, I suggested that the Government could implement a pilot scheme under which a certain number of out of the 18 000 taxi licences can be converted to hire car licences and interested licensees will be invited to tender their applications. At the same time, the Government could assist the taxi trade in establishing certain online platforms through the Innovation and Technology Bureau, so as to increase the technological competitiveness of the industry … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TIEN, please state your supplementary question. MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): … thereby contending with overseas competitors. If hire cars do not want to join this platform, they may join other platforms such as Uber. I would like to ask the Government whether it will


consider implementing this scheme. If we apply this principle, it is basically not necessary to issue new hire car licences, nor will there be any increase in the number of private cars running on busy roads because there are already a large number of taxis at the moment. In fact, there is really such a demand from the industry and they have met with me for this purpose on a number of occasions. Will the Government consider allowing some of the taxis to operate their business in this way, such that the taxi trade can meet the demands for hire car service in the market? SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, the use of private cars for hire or carriage of passenger for reward, in whatever form it may take, is regulated by relevant laws all over the world. It is the view of the Government that relevant regulatory frameworks have been devised for point-to-point personalized car service, whether taxi or hire car service, and these frameworks are sufficient to enable all the interested parties to establish their business. Of course, specifically, such as taxi service, just now I have also indicated the Government's intention to consider introducing the higher-end premium taxi service, which is a new mode of service. If this new mode of service is supported by the community and the industry, we will then explore whether people operating ordinary taxi service currently will have any chance to engage in the business. Since specific details have yet to be finalized, I am afraid I cannot provide too much concrete information at today's meeting. However, we will discuss in greater detail with Members at the Transport Panel meeting. As regards technological platform, the Government has all along considered that the development of technological platform and the statutory regulation of the mode of operation are two different matters. We encourage more and different platforms to make use of the latest technology. MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): President, my question is about the feasibility of converting the licence of existing taxis, that is to say, the number of existing taxis will decrease while the number of hire cars, whose fare is not subject to government regulation, will increase. Nonetheless, what the Secretary is talking now is existing taxis …


25

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TIEN, no debate is allowed during Question Time. Please express your viewpoints at the Transport Panel meeting or during motion debates. The Secretary has answered your supplementary question already. MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I am glad to hear the Secretary say that the authorities will announce its plan on the premium taxi service at the end of this year so as to receive views from the public. However, according to Annex 2 and as Mr SIN Chung-kai has said just now, only less than half of the 1 500 permits for private hire car service is used, meaning that applicants have failed to meet the statutory requirements. I would like to ask the Secretary: If the Government conducts a public consultation exercise on the premium taxi service, will the licensing requirements for such service be the same as those for private hire car service? SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, what the Member has referred to is two different types of transport service. As far as taxis are concerned, they are a kind of point-to-point personalized public transport service in our definition and must be subject to regulation, and the areas subject to regulation include eligibility of operators, drivers' test, service charge, service monitoring, and so on. Hire car service, on the other hand, does not belong to public transport service and its fare is negotiated between passengers and service providers. This kind of service is also subject to regulation. The Government exercises regulation by way of permit issuance. Prior to such issuance, consideration will be given to whether the service is genuinely necessary, so that there will not be a tremendous increase in the number of cars running on roads which are already busy. Even though the statutory limit imposed on the number of permits for private hire car service is 1 500, the quota has yet to be entirely approved so far. This probably reflects that the demand is not that great. At any rate, we agree to review, in light of the latest social changes or the diversified needs of the community, whether the criteria adopted by the Commissioner in granting permits do keep abreast of the times in meeting the needs. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council has spent 23 minutes and 30 seconds on this question. Second question.


Future Development of Lantau Island 2. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, last month, the Lantau Development Advisory Committee (LanDAC) endorsed the overall spatial planning and conservation concepts as well as the proposed recreation, tourism and social development strategies for Lantau Island (Lantau development proposals). The Lantau development proposals include: developing the East Lantau Metropolis which can accommodate a population of 400 000 to 700 000, thereby increasing the population of Lantau Island to about 1 million; constructing roads to connect Mui Wo and the future North Lantau development areas; and exploring the reprovisioning of the correctional facilities at Hei Ling Chau as well as the consolidation and relocation of other correctional facilities on Lantau Island, in order to release some of the penal sites for residential, recreational or other purposes. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the data or premise based on which the Government put forward the proposal of increasing the future population of Lantau Island to about 1 million; given that the authorities have told LanDAC that the country parks and the southern part of Lantau Island would be reserved for conservation and recreational purposes, and yet the aforesaid roads proposed to be constructed will significantly increase the traffic flow on Lantau Island, whether the authorities have assessed if the construction of such roads will run contrary to the concept of conserving South Lantau; if they have assessed, of the outcome; given that a member of LanDAC proposed at its meeting in March this year that the Shek Pik Reservoir be reclaimed to provide land for housing development and to improve the traffic on Lantau Island, of the Government's specific response to this proposal;

(2) whether the Government will review the distribution and planning of

the correctional facilities throughout Hong Kong before drawing up plans for the consolidation and relocation of the correctional facilities on Lantau Island; whether it has plans to build a large-scale prison somewhere on Lantau Island for relocating the existing correctional facilities on the island; if it has such plans, given that the Government shelved in October 2004 the project for building a large-scale prison at Hei Ling Chau due to strong public objection, of the Government's justifications to persuade the public nowadays to consent to the building of a large-scale prison on Lantau Island; and


27

(3) whether the Government intends to replace the Revised Concept Plan for Lantau (Concept Plan), which was formulated in 2007 after public consultation, by the Lantau development proposals; if it does, given that the development concepts set out in the Concept Plan were that "the development of major economic infrastructure and tourism uses should focus on North Lantau … whereas the rest of Lantau should be preserved for nature conservation and environmentally sustainable recreational uses", why the Government revised the Concept Plan substantially?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, Members, good morning. According to the planning background, latest development advantages and constraints of Lantau as well as the overall strategic planning direction of Hong Kong, the Lantau Development Advisory Committee (LanDAC) has formulated the strategic positioning, planning vision and direction of Lantau and drawn up a set of "Overall Spatial Planning and Conservation Concepts for Lantau" (the Concepts). The Concepts cover four major regions (please refer to the Plans 1 and 2 attached), which include the following:

(a) The Northern Lantau Corridor focusing on economic and housing developments to create synergy and economies of scale;

(b) The North-eastern Lantau Node for leisure, entertainment and

tourism through reclamation at Sunny Bay and extension of Hong Kong Disneyland;

(c) The East Lantau Metropolis (ELM) as a strategic growth area with a

core business district by capitalizing on the geographical advantages of the central waters being close to Hong Kong Island; and

(d) The predominant part of Lantau for conservation, leisure, cultural

and green tourism. My reply to the three parts of Mr WU's main question is as follows:

(1) According to initial analysis and making reference to the scale of existing new towns, the Concepts initially estimated that the ELM may have potential to accommodate a population of about 400 000 to 700 000 which would create economies of scale and critical mass for


the population and economic activities. If the existing and planned population of about 300 000 for Lantau are also added, it is estimated that the population of Lantau could be increased at most up to near 1 million in the long term. However, we must emphasize that this estimation on capacity was made on the assumption that all the proposed development projects included in the Concepts would be implemented after confirmed by detailed feasibility studies as feasible and endorsed by society. As the actual uses, development scale, feasibility and implementation arrangement of each proposed development project have yet to be studied, the estimate is only a set of reference figures for the long-term development of Lantau. It is one of the possible options for source of land supply beyond 2030 for Hong Kong as a whole. At the same time, the Government has also commenced the preliminary feasibility study on development of the northern area of New Territories as another possible option for the consideration of society.

The Concepts have suggested a set of strategic transport network to

complement the development proposals, especially the ELM. However, since the proposed transport network is only at a preliminary conceptual stage, detailed studies will be conducted after the feasibility of concerned development proposals and future development directions of Lantau are studied and confirmed. The studies will comply with the conservation principles and planning directions under the Concepts, and will not affect the planning direction of south Lantau for conservation, leisure, culture and green tourism.

The Shek Pik Reservoir, which falls within the South Lantau

Country Park, collects about 12% of total rainwater gathered in Hong Kong. As the major source of local freshwater supply, the Shek Pik Reservoir is the third largest storage capacity reservoir in Hong Kong supplying freshwater for Lantau, Hong Kong Island, Peng Chau, Cheung Chau and Hei Ling Chau. Moreover, the Shek Pik Reservoir is located in remote area, and the existing transport and infrastructure facilities are limited. As such, we consider it not appropriate to fill up the Shek Pik Reservoir for land development.

(2) The idea of consolidating and relocating the correctional facilities at

Lantau and Hei Ling Chau is put forth in the Concepts. Apart from the proposed relocation of the scattered correctional facilities at Hei Ling Chau to match with the development of the ELM, based on the


29

planning principle of optimizing the use of land occupied by existing government facilities, we will study if it is possible to consolidate and relocate the correctional facilities spreading over the other parts of Lantau to release land for tourism, recreational, residential and other uses. This idea is still at a preliminary conceptual stage, the actual details including the correctional facilities to be consolidated, possible locations for re-provisioning, implementation framework and the future uses of the vacated sites, and so on, would be subject to further study. The idea of consolidating and relocating correctional facilities has no association with the past proposal from the Government to construct a prison complex at Hei Ling Chau, and the Government has no plan to review together the distribution and planning of all correctional facilities in the territory.

(3) The Government promulgated the "Revised Concept Plan for

Lantau" (the Revised Concept Plan) in 2007. The overall vision of the Revised Concept Plan is to balance the needs of development and conservation, and to promote the sustainable development of Lantau. Along with the development of Hong Kong, the Government has announced some decisions having far-reaching impacts on the planning circumstances of Lantau after the publication of the Revised Concept Plan. They include the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB), Tuen Mun-Chek Lap Kok Link, development of North Commercial District on Airport Island, topside development at the Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities Island of HZMB, the Airport Third-Runway System, and so on. Together with the Tung Chung New Town Extension to be taken forward soon and the studies for reclamation at Siu Ho Wan and Sunny Bay, all these have brought new development circumstances to Lantau. At the same time, with the increasingly closer connection between Hong Kong and the Greater Pearl River Delta, the HZMB would induce more and better development opportunities for Lantau as a regional hub. Besides, in consideration of the long term social and economic development need of Hong Kong beyond 2030, the Government considered it necessary to review the development strategy of Lantau and established the LanDAC to take forward the concerned work. As shown in the aforementioned evolution of the planning concepts for Lantau, it can be seen that the latest overall development direction of Lantau is still striving to strike a balance between the two important directions of development and conservation.


Plan

1: S

patia

l Pla

nnin

g C

once

pts f

or L

anta

u


31

Plan

2: C

onse

rvat

ion,

Rec

reat

ion

and

Tour

ism

Con

cept

s for

Lan

tau


MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): According to its main reply, the Government seems to attach great importance to the concept of the conservation of Lantau Island. But if we refer to the minutes of meetings of the LanDAC, many people would notice that its members mainly spoke in favour of the development of Lantau Island at its meetings and what is more, quite a number of members have interests relating to land on Lantau Island. I would like to declare an interest. I am a member of the LanDAC, and I am always the only member who put forward different views. This has aroused concern that the existing composition of the LanDAC and the results of its discussion will influence the Government in the future development direction of Lantau. Concerning the existing composition of the LanDAC, I would like to ask whether the Government will consider appointing more individuals who value conservation highly as LanDAC members, so as to balance the current situation within the LanDAC where the mainstream view is tilting towards the direction of taking forward development on Lantau. SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): I thank Mr WU Chi-wai for his follow-up question. President, I declare that I am the Chairman of the LanDAC. It is normal for members to put forward different views at meetings of the LanDAC; so is it for contentions to arise in the course of discussion. As to what final decisions are made by the LanDAC and how its meetings have proceeded, the minutes of meetings of the LanDAC are all open for public information, and some documents will also be made public after decisions are made. We will submit a report to the Chief Executive later this year and then we will start conducting more in-depth discussion with various sectors of the community and encourage their participation. As regards the point about the composition of the LanDAC brought up by Mr WU, the LanDAC aside, there are also several different subcommittees under it, and we will incorporate members from various sectors as far as practicable. Concerning the appointment of members, the first term of the LanDAC will expire at the end of January next year. Mr WU's views will be put on record for our reconsideration in due course when making appointments for the next term. IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, according to the 2011 Population By-Census carried out by the Census and Statistics Department, of the 37 000 working population in Tung Chung, only 9.4% could work within the district whereas 72.7% had to work in another district, which is not in line with the plan made originally. The future ELM and the development on Lantau will


33

increase the population substantially and I am concerned that the past mistake of imbalanced planning would be repeated. Hence, I wish to ask the Secretary whether the Government will adopt a target-specific approach to enhance the community facilities in Tung Chung and attract local and overseas companies to set up offices in the district, thereby providing adequate education and development opportunities for local residents, especially the young people, so as to reduce their need to study and work in another district? SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): I thank Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok for his supplementary question. President, the development of Tung Chung New Town has its historical background and I believe Members in this Chamber all know it very well. Back in those years when planning was first made, it was originally planned that reclamation would be carried out in Tung Chung, so that the entire Tung Chung New Town would accommodate a population of over 200 000. This plan was later adjusted significantly due to the economic conditions and the situation of the property market at the time. Tung Chung has a population of about 90 000 now and as the construction of some public housing estates are underway, the completion of the existing projects will increase the population to around 110 000; however, this is not an ideal size of population for a new town. This is why we have proposed the extension of the new town. We have carried out three rounds of public engagement activities and in the light of views in the community, adjustments are made to the new town extension plan which has commanded general support in the community. There will be a population of about some 200 000 after the new town extension and two additional MTR stations will also be provided. Under the current plan, apart from increasing the housing supply and population in the district, we have also earmarked quite a large area for developing employment opportunities by designating land for various uses, such as business, hotel, service apartments, and so on. According to our estimation made from our experience, and by making reference to the statistics in other districts, the floor area to be made available can provide about 37 000 employment opportunities. The airport also has quite a lot of job openings now, and they have been experiencing some difficulties in recruiting staff. I believe when the matching transport facilities are further rationalized in the future, coupled with the completion of the Tuen Mun-Chek Lap Kok Link, the job opportunities in the district will be greatly increased, and to residents in such districts as Tuen Mun and Yuen Long in New Territories West, it will also be more convenient for them to work on Lantau Island.


MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): President, the Government has given much weight to the development plan on East Lantau and has recently made introductions to the media many times. However, the speech made by the Secretary today has given people the feeling that the plan is still in its preliminary conceptual stage. This "celestial mountain" really lies in somewhere imaginary. I would like to ask the Secretary this: Since the Government has high expectations for the ELM, does it have an actual timetable? How much is the cost of development? How expensive will the land cost when it will be put up for sale in the future? Moreover, if artificial islands will be constructed in the central waters to link up Hong Kong Island with East Lantau, what will be the impact on the shipping routes, ecology and even the vista to residents on Hong Kong Island and Lantau Island? SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): I thank Mrs Regina IP for her supplementary question. President, the development of Lantau Island roughly consists of two major aspects. One is development in the short to medium term, and the other is development in the longer term. In the short to medium term, efforts will be mainly concentrated on the Northern Lantau Corridor, and after the completion of the HZMB, there will be topside development on the boundary artificial islands. Despite a height limit for the topside development, as the area will measure about 130 hectares, our preliminary estimate is that upon completion of this development, a floor area of 300 000 sq m to 400 000 sq m can be provided. However, this area will not be designated for building housing flats but for business, convention and exhibition, or other uses. We are currently conducting market studies in this connection. Besides, the progress of the development in the north of the Airport Island has been quite smooth. As far as I understand it, the Hong Kong Airport Authority will put to auction some of the land later this year, and the land will be used for developing hotel or similar projects. Apart from these two areas of development in North Lantau, there is also the Tung Chung New Town Extension which I have explained earlier on. Moreover, we have invited the MTR Corporation Limited to conduct studies on taking forward housing development above the Siu Ho Wan Depot because … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, the Member's question was mainly about the ELM. Can you focus on it in your reply?


35

MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): President, my question was about East Lantau, and what is he doing in talking on and on about North Lantau? SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, just now when Mrs IP asked her question she said that the development plan was in somewhere imaginary and so, I wished to point out that the development in North Lantau is comparatively concrete and we have a better grasp of the timetable. With regard to East Lantau, as I said in the main reply, we need to plan for the future of Hong Kong, and we are referring to the supply of and demand for land in 2030 and beyond, as well as the needs of the development of society as a whole. As for the development of the ELM, we did not succeed in applying for funding from the Legislative Council last year and as I said in the main reply, we have to seek funding from the Legislative Council again to carry out strategic studies before we can further confirm the feasibility of development and various technical details. Our preliminary view is that the development of artificial islands in central waters and the subsequent construction of connecting transport facilities will require massive investment and the infrastructure projects required would be awesome. Therefore, we must exercise great care. In the main reply we have also mentioned that when making long-term planning, apart from these considerations, we are also looking into the development of the northern part of Lantau. When we have come up with preliminary findings and obtained funding from the Legislative Council for these studies, we will make public our plans for public scrutiny and then discussion can be held in concert on what projects should be implemented or which projects should be taken forward with priority. MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): The Secretary did not answer my supplementary question. How about the timetable? When will it be announced? I was talking about the "celestial mountain on the sea" or more precisely, the artificial islands in central waters, not … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs IP, as far as I understand it, just now the Secretary was saying that the Government did not have the answer to the series of specific questions that you asked. Secretary, do you wish to add anything? SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, when we put forward this proposal, certainly we had carried out some preliminary work internally; however, as this development will have a far-reaching impact in many


areas such as the environment, the fisheries industry, the operation of ports, water flow, shipping routes and connecting transport facilities, at this stage it is necessary for us to seek funding from the Legislative Council for carrying out technical studies. I appeal to Members for their support when we put up the funding requests, and even if we will be granted funding to carry out studies, it will take at least two years before work can be further taken forward more specifically. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The Member can ask the same question in the next term. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has not answered our supplementary questions but only kept saying that they would come to the Legislative Council to seek funding. Members of the LanDAC are mostly their cronies. Many of them are land owners whose interests are intricately related. Now that the Government is going to develop East Lantau and what is more, to squeeze 1 million people into it without telling us how much this will cost. President, as the Secretary also said earlier, this development will have an impact on various aspects including water flow, the environment, and so on. Projects which have cost us hundreds of billion dollars but have yet been completed included the Express Rail Link, the HZMB, and so on. Now, there is even the Airport Three-Runway System. Must the Government squander away all the money of Hong Kong people on some "false, big and hollow" infrastructure before it will stop? Worse still, this will destroy our environment and the land to be made available will be so costly that it is affordable only by the richest people. To the majority of Hong Kong people, what benefits will they obtain? President, my supplementary question to the Secretary is this: To many Hong Kong people, apart from they being made to pay for these projects, what actual benefits will they obtain? SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): I thank Dr KWOK Kai-ki for his supplementary question. Regarding the interests of members of the LanDAC, including the point raised by Mr WU Chi-wai in his question earlier on, I believe Members are aware that we have in place a stringent system for declaration of interests, and all the relevant interests declared by members are available on the Internet for public information, and the minutes of meetings which recorded their speeches at meetings are also made public, and public monitoring is welcome. This is the first point.


37

Second, property prices and land are so expensive nowadays precisely because of a shortage of land supply, and to address this shortage, we must make available land but it takes time to do it. I can tell Members frankly that we have a grasp of the source of land from now till 2030 and put it more precisely, it will be the various new development areas, extension of new towns, Yuen Long South, Kam Tin South, and so on. But we must make plans for the source of land beyond 2030. As we all know, it takes time to make available land, and from the concept being putting forward to the conduct of preliminary feasibility studies, to be followed by planning and engineering studies and various stages of public consultation, coupled with many necessary statutory procedures, it will take at least 10 years or over 15 years. The process will also involve many technical assessments, including assessments of the environment, transport, water supply and sewage disposal, and so on. Therefore, in order for Hong Kong people to enjoy more spacious living environment and prevent property prices and land prices from rising to exorbitant levels, we must map out plans for the source of land supply in the future. It is from this angle that we make planning on the development of Lantau, which can also be taken as long-term planning. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, I was asking the Secretary what benefits Hong Kong people could obtain, and I actually wish to ask him how much we have to pay and who can have the means to buy those flats upon their completion. He did not answer my question, President. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK, the Secretary has answered your supplementary question. Members who hold different views please follow up this issue on other occasions. We have spent over 22 minutes on this question. Third question. Regulations Under Mass Transit Railway By-laws 3. MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): President, it has been reported that last month, some staff members of the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) disallowed a secondary school student carrying a guzheng to enter the paid areas and issued a warning letter to a university student riding MTR with a cello on the grounds that the lengths of the musical instruments they carried exceeded the luggage size limit. Moreover, MTRCL staff drove away a young man singing


and playing the guitar on a footbridge outside Kwun Tong MTR station. According to MTRCL, the relevant site is a public area under MTRCL's management. Such incidents have aroused public concern as to whether the regulations under the Mass Transit Railway By-laws and the Mass Transit Railway (North-West Railway) Bylaw are reasonable and still suit the present circumstances. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it knows the respective numbers of verbal and written warnings issued by MTRCL each year since January 2012 to members of the public for unlawful acts committed in areas under its management, as well as the number of convicted cases and the relevant penalties, with a breakdown of such information by unlawful act (including carriage of musical instruments and sporting goods the sizes of which have exceeded the allowed limit as well as unlawful acts committed in the public areas outside MTR stations);

(2) of the channel through which the public and this Council may

monitor the reasonableness of the luggage size limit implemented by MTRCL, and the ways to find out and monitor the regulations concerning MTRCL's management of the public areas outside MTR stations and the areas under its jurisdiction; whether it knows the details of the guidelines issued by MTRCL to its staff for discharging the relevant duties, including whether or not its staff may exercise discretion; and

(3) given that MTRCL submitted some 70 pages of draft amendments to

the aforesaid two sets of bylaws to the Subcommittee on Matters Relating to Railways of this Council in June 2010, but it indicated in April last year that no amendment was necessary, whether the Government has reviewed the decision made by MTRCL last year, and whether it will request MTRCL to submit afresh to this Council proposals for amending the bylaws (including the regulations concerning the luggage size limit and the management of the public areas outside MTR stations)?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, my reply to the various parts of Mr James TO's question is as follows: Pursuant to Section 34 of the Mass Transit Railway Ordinance, the MTRCL may make by-laws for the purpose of prescribing the conditions relating


39

to the use of its service. By-laws made in this way are subject to the approval of the Legislative Council. The MTRCL may also, following the stipulations of the by-laws, promulgate detailed prescriptions on routine matters relating to train operations and conduct of passengers by way of notices. These matters include restriction on size of luggage, areas within railway premises where entry of passengers is forbidden because of safety and where smoking is prohibited. These arrangements allow the MTRCL to timely respond to community expectations in view of actual operational environment and passengers' needs. Should the matters involved in the notices attract wide public attention, the MTRCL will conduct consultation and take heed to the views of the community, and receive monitoring by the public. This has proved to be an effective arrangement that all along suits the operational needs of railway services. During the rail merger in 2007, the original by-laws which were respectively applicable to the ex-MTR and ex-KCR heavy rail systems were combined (that is, the current Mass Transit Railway By-laws), while Light Rail, because of its significant operational differences with the heavy rails, continued to adopt, largely, a separate set of by-laws as before (that is, the Mass Transit Railway (North-west Railway) Bylaw). The two sets of by-laws provide comprehensive and effective regulation to facilitate safe, reliable and efficient daily railway operations. The MTRCL submitted to the Subcommittee on Matters Relating to Railways of the Legislative Council Panel on Transport in January 2009 and June 2010 proposals on amendments of the by-laws, including amendments to achieve consistency and enhance clarity (see Annex 1 for relevant areas), and reconciling different penalties. At that time, the Subcommittee had not arrived at a clear position on the proposed amendments after heated discussion. Views were especially diverse over the definition and scope of certain terms such as "abusive language" and "improper dressing" in the original provisions. No further discussion was carried out on the amendment exercise by the Legislative Council. Based on years of railway operations experience since the rail merger, the MTRCL concludes that, in general, the by-laws can effectively serve their purposes and no amendments are necessary. Nevertheless, the Government and MTRCL will continue to listen to and consider any opinions of the Legislative Council as well as the general public, and review matters concerning safety and reliability of railway services in a timely manner. Oversized or excessively long objects might obstruct or trip passengers, prevent train doors from opening and closing, or even obstruct evacuation in times of emergency. It will also be dangerous if these objects are too close to


overhead lines. The MTRCL has therefore formulated restriction on luggage size and set a limit(1) to ensure safety of railway services and that passengers would not be affected. The existing size limit has been adopted for years before the rail merger and was formulated having regard to factors including the design of stations and trains running on various railway lines as well as passenger flow. Enforcement of the luggage size limit is non-discretionary. The MTRCL explains that it is because the MTR network is so huge that it carries over 5 million passenger trips per day, and there are about 4 000 MTR staff members who may enforce the by-laws. Authorizing front-line staff to exercise discretion in enforcement will easily obscure the enforcement standards and lead to differential treatment that varies with individuals. This will cause confusion and unfairness. Nevertheless, the MTRCL mentions that the Corporation provides operational guidelines which set out the clauses of the by-laws and procedures to be observed by staff when handling passengers who breach the by-laws. Generally speaking, front-line staff will give verbal advice in the first instance, and take enforcement action where necessary against persons who do not take the advice. Figures on enforcement actions are at Annex 2. The MTRCL currently does not maintain separate records on the numbers of verbal warnings given, penalties of convicted cases, and a breakdown by type of oversized and over-weight objects. In response to recent incidents where passengers carrying oversized musical instruments and sports equipment were prohibited from travelling on the MTR, there are public views suggesting that the MTRCL should relax the restriction so as to facilitate citizens (students in particular) to take part in relevant activities. The MTRCL announced on 25 September that it would conduct a review of the size limit on personal objects allowed in the MTR network, followed by a public consultation exercise. Yesterday, the MTRCL announced that a trial scheme would be launched within November this year. Under the scheme, passengers may carry large musical instruments when travelling on the MTR during non-peak hours (including the time before 8.15 am and most other operating hours) with prior registration. The MTRCL will make appropriate arrangement to ensure that passengers are fully aware of the rules and matters which should be observed when carrying large musical instruments, hence minimizing the safety risks. The MTRCL is now working on the operational details and will make further announcement shortly. Depending on the effectiveness of this trial scheme, the MTRCL will also consider exploring the feasibility of including large sports equipment in the trial scheme. (1) Each passenger may carry a piece of luggage or a hand-carried item with total dimensions (that is, length,

width and height) not exceeding 170cm, and the length of any one side not exceeding 130 cm.


41

The Government welcomes the MTRCL's decision and hopes that the new measures can meet passengers' reasonable needs, on the premise that the safety, reliability and efficiency of railway services can be maintained. Some MTR stations are linked with nearby buildings for the convenience of passengers. The ownership of and management responsibilities for a particular pedestrian walkway (such as a footbridge or pedestrian subway) are subject to specific provisions in land lease and hence cannot be generalized. Generally, MTR by-laws apply to any area which falls under the definition of "railway premises" provided by section 2 of the Mass Transit Railway Ordinance. The land leases will set out the areas which are managed by the MTRCL. According to the MTRCL, station staff are required to familiarize themselves with the boundaries of areas managed by the MTRCL as part of their training. Nevertheless, we agree that the MTRCL should strengthen the issuance of notices, with a view to facilitating passengers' better understanding of the areas managed by the Corporation. As regards the case of a young person's guitar performance at a footbridge outside the MTR Kwun Tong Station mentioned in Mr TO's question, the MTRCL has advised that the location concerned is part of the railway premises where the MTR by-laws apply.

Annex 1

Areas of proposed amendments for achieving consistency and enhancing clarity of the two sets of by-laws

Offences By-laws

Wrongfully entering or leaving trains

Section 9(2) of MTR By-laws Section 16(c) of MTR (North-west Railway) Bylaw

Eating or drinking Section 27(b) of MTR By-laws Section 25(b) of MTR (North-west Railway) Bylaw

Intoxication Section 28F of MTR By-laws Section 23 of MTR (North-west Railway) Bylaw

Abusive language Section 28H(1)(a) of MTR By-laws Section 22(1)(a) of MTR (North-west Railway) Bylaw

Bill posting, and unauthorized display of materials for the purpose of advertisement

Section 32 of MTR By-laws Section 32A of MTR By-laws Section 26 of MTR (North-west Railway) Bylaw

Carriage of firearms Section 38 of MTR By-laws Causing nuisance Section 25 of MTR By-laws


Annex 2 Enforcement actions taken by the MTRCL against breaches of the MTR by-laws

Figures on cases prosecuted under the Mass Transit Railway By-laws:

2012 2013 2014 2015 (as at

August)

Offences relating to the conduct of passengers

Written warning 12 129 10 692 9 839 7 390 Prosecution 823 427 294 217 Conviction 492 318 216 20

Offences relating to fares and tickets


Offences relating to hawking, loitering and posting of bills

Written warning 412 55 106 124 Prosecution 37 6 14 16 Conviction 28 4 10 1

Offences relating to trespass and damage to railway premises


Luggage exceeding size or weight limits


Others Written warning 10 24 14 4 Prosecution 277 185 115 106 Conviction 208 145 82 14

Figures on cases prosecuted under the Mass Transit Railway (North-west Railway) Bylaw:

2012 2013 2014 2015 (as at

August)

Offences relating to the conduct of passengers


Offences relating to fares and tickets



43

2012 2013 2014 2015 (as at

August) Offences relating to hawking, loitering and posting of bills


Offences relating to trespass and damage to railway premises


Luggage exceeding size limit


Others Written warning 0 0 0 0 Prosecution 9 19 15 20 Conviction 8 16 12 3

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): President, I have been following up on the by-laws of the two rail companies for eight years, and I see a dereliction of duty on the part of the Secretary. The luggage size limit is just a tip of the iceberg. There are actually other unreasonable by-laws that call for amendment, and a government review is indeed warranted. At that time, in requesting the Council to pass the relevant legislation first, the Government has promised to review and introduce amendments a year later; but then, it failed to honour the pledge and did not follow up on the around 70 pages of text regarding the amendments. Discussion on the relevant by-laws in this Council is not carried out through direct legislative procedures. President, the around 70 pages of text regarding the amendments mentioned just now cover matters like loitering, abusive language or luggage size. My supplementary question to the Secretary is this: is it the Government's intent that a review will be carried out only after an incident has caused a huge public outcry, and there will be no review if nothing has happened? Is it how the Government is going to handle the draft amendments to the MTR by-laws? SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I am aware of the documents about amending the two sets of by-laws at the time. As Mr TO said, the documents are voluminous and extensive in scope as well, and some of the contents are stated in the annex submitted. As I understand it, during the discussions of the relevant subcommittee then, members


have argued contentiously over the definitions of various areas, scope of certain terms, and so on; as such, no clear direction was identified towards the end of the discussions. Of course, as mentioned in my main reply, we will continue to take heed to the views of the community, and the MTRCL is willing to do so. If Members see the necessity to discuss afresh issues then raised in relation to the by-laws, we may arrange relevant discussion at a panel of the Legislative Council. MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): President, according to the MTR by-laws, it is an offence to drink water within MTR premises. Yet, when one looks at the wording of the by-laws more closely, it is stipulated that no beverage, including alcoholic one for sure, may be consumed, but water is not included in the definition of "beverage". Hence, I wrote to the MTRCL to inquire if water was not counted as beverage by definition. Two weeks later, the MTRCL replied that they were still consulting legal opinions. Is it not a joke? This is exactly like what Mr James TO has said, an issue will not be tackled until controversy emerges. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms MO, please raise your supplementary question. MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): My supplementary question is: given these all confusing by-laws of the MTRCL, I really have no idea how MTRCL's staff members are going to enforce the by-laws in relation to "abusive language". Indeed, what kind of language should regarded as abusive. The term "improper dressing" is even more ridiculous … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms MO, please raise your supplementary question. MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Can the Secretary promise that, first of all, these by-laws, upon amendment or review, will be submitted to this Council for endorsement; second, fair enforcement by front-line MTRCL staff members is guaranteed, such that they will not allow mattresses in train compartments while banning cellos?


45

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, as I put in the main reply, the MTRCL says that no discretion is allowed when staff members enforce the by-laws at present. Of course, as the MTRCL explains, given the daily patronage of 5 million-odd, some cases may go unnoticed by staff members. In any event, if front-line staffers are allowed to exercise discretion, we may imagine how it is like when 4 000 or so front-line staffers adopt different discretion criteria, and yet the confusion thus caused is hard to imagine. This is what the MTRCL needs to consider as well … MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): The Secretary should not distort my supplementary question. I asked him to guarantee or promise fair enforcement … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms MO, please let the Secretary reply first. Secretary, please go on. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): The MTRCL has told the Government that its staff members will enforce the rules fairly with no discretion, and the MTRCL will issue a code of practice issued to front-line staffers. Members may have also noted that on a radio programme aired two days ago, two staff union representatives from the MTRCL remarked that they did not favour the use of discretion in view of the enforcement difficulties that might follow. MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): My supplementary question is: is it necessary to review the by-laws and submit them to this Council afresh? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members may only raise one query in a supplementary question. Secretary, please reply. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): As regards all the by-laws, they would certainly be submitted to the Legislative Council should the MTRCL see any need of amendment, as they require examination and approval by the Council. As I mentioned in my reply to Mr TO earlier, if Members have strong views over certain parts of the current by-laws, it


is certainly my pleasure to arrange an occasion for the MTRCL to give an account to them. MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, in this case, the MTRCL leaves an impression that they have tightened up the conditions for enforcing the by-laws, thus resulting in complaints. What I wish to ask is, does the Government know the reasons behind the MTRCL's bid to tighten up the yardstick for enforcing the by-laws? I also wish to know if any accident has happened. Does the Government have a tally of the accidents or injury cases caused by carriage of large musical instruments or sports equipment over the past few years? SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, in fact, the luggage size limits set out in MTRCL's by-laws or notices have all along existed and are being implemented. In view of the community's strong views concerning parallel traders carrying large pieces of luggage within rail stations in recent years, the Government has requested strict enforcement of the by-laws by the MTRCL. As regards luggage size limits, places around the world may vary in the light of the unique situations of different rail systems. In comparison with other countries or regions, I believe Hong Kong is somewhere in the middle, while Singapore's relevant limit is more stringent than Hong Kong's. I believe that places around the world get to address one fundamental issue, namely how to ensure the safety of passengers in a mass rail system. Furthermore, as far as carriage of large objects is concerned, when an accident occurs and evacuation is needed, oversized objects may get in contact with electricity lines and thus pose safety risks. These are the factors rail operators across the world may need balance in considering the luggage size limit. DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, it is stipulated in the existing by-laws of the MTRCL that eating or drinking is not allowed in the paid areas of MTR stations or train compartments; and it has been reported that a Hong Kong passenger was once fined $2,000 for drinking water in a train compartment or paid area. My supplementary question is this: does the Government think that the MTRCL should review and amend their by-laws in order to make it clear whether the consumption of water is not allowed? Schools are now so plagued by lead


47

contamination in water that even the Government and Eddie NG are urging students to bring to school their own water bottles in the wake of the water supply problems in schools. As a result, parents buy big water bottles for their kids, and so the kids have to take with them the water bottles and big school bags when riding the MTR on the way to school. Then, if a student drinks water on the train to quench the thirst following an after-school ball game, should his parent be fined $2,000 for that? Given that the authorities have yet to tackle the issue of drinking water, should the MTRCL amend the by-laws to exempt the penalties regarding consumption of water … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr WONG, you have asked your supplementary question. Please let the Secretary reply. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, with regard to some rules, if they are not stipulated in the by-laws, the MTRCL will put the restriction in place through notices or other means. Therefore, it depends on whether the rules refer to the restriction stipulated in the by-laws, or one put in place by way of notices. If any amendments are to be made to the by-laws, they have to be submitted to the Legislative Council. If the restriction is not stipulated in the by-laws, the MTRCL may adjust accordingly in the light of what really happens or the needs of passengers. Take the luggage size limit in question as an example, what if a large musical instrument exceeds the limit? The MTRCL will notify the public by way of notices, so there is no need to amend the by-laws. Two Members has mentioned about consumption of water just now, with Ms Claudia MO saying that the MTRCL needs to consult legal opinions. The intention of the by-laws is probably to ban all other beverage, and water may not necessarily be included. Given the rule in its current form, I believe the MTRCL has to figure it out how it should be explained. In our view, passengers may actually have the need to drink water in train compartments at times, like taking medicine, and so on. I believe MTRCL staff members are able to offer assistance in this regard at present. As for the areas raised by Members where clarification may be needed, I will ask the MTRCL later on to see how they are to be handled.


MR TANG KA-PIU (in Cantonese): President, on the question of whether one carrying large objects is allowed to enter the paid areas, we have actually seen a good example of how the MTRCL handled the matter concerning cycles a few years ago. A more intriguing question posed in the incident this time around is how the community as a whole should handle the situation when disputes and disagreements arise. In the past, things would not go like this. Why is the ambience these days so disharmonious that everyone has to insist on their own stance all the time, allowing no room for concession? This is what we need to reflect on. However, what I particularly wish to convey is that, as the Secretary pointed out just now, the Hong Kong Railway Federation of Trade Unions has emphasized the need to rule out discretion. In the age where everyone can be a journalist or a judge … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TANG, please raise your supplementary question. MR TANG KA-PIU (in Cantonese): … it is very risky to exercise discretion. Hence, I would like to ask the Secretary how those 4 000 staff members are protected. Because the unions and staff members have recounted the immense pressure in work nowadays, like always being filmed and rebuked. I would like to ask the Secretary what initiatives will be introduced to ensure that these staff members are able to serve the public happily and professionally in the MTRCL? SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, first, as I have pointed out in the main reply, the MTRCL does not embrace discretion; and as I explained in my reply to Members just now, I also agree to practice. Staff members certainly have their own concerns. If discretion is allowed in enforcement, it will likely give rise to passengers' perception that they act unfairly or use different yardsticks. Under the existing MTRCL policies, a set of standardized limit on luggage size is in place, and staff members are not allowed to exercise discretion; yet, in view of the community's reaction to the carriage of certain objects, in particular musical instruments, the MTRCL has just announced a trial scheme to be introduced in November. Its details, including the types of musical instruments allowed, size requirements, and so on, are of course yet to be worked out, and it will be implemented by way of prior registration arrangement. Then, in enforcing the rules, staff members


49

will have a clearer idea of what objects are allowed in and what objects are still subject to the general luggage size limit. MS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): President, this question is asked because a secondary school student carrying a guzheng was not allowed to take the MTR, and the incident has since become an object of ridicule globally. Apart from students, many musicians also ride the MTR with their musical instruments. President, they have been allowed to do so throughout the years in the past; besides, riding on rail with musical instruments is also allowed in other metropolises. And now, the MTRCL says that the rules will be minimally amended, and this move is welcomed by the authorities. Yet, President, passengers are still not allowed to carry guzheng even after the rules are amended. All through the past years, guzhengs, cellos or other large musical instruments were allowed in, and now they stir up trouble for no reason with the ban, and the authorities say they welcome the move. Secretary, what do the authorities welcome the move for anyway? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms LAU, please ask your supplementary question. MS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): Why can they not ask the MTRCL to adopt its past practice which allowed musicians and students to carry with them musical instruments? SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, we welcome the flexible arrangement adopted by the MTRCL to address the community's recent call regarding the carriage of large musical instruments. Ultimately, what we need to balance is the question of whether the safety of passengers and trains within the MTR system is more important, or the types of luggage passengers are allowed to carry with them is. After a basic limit is set out taking into account safety issues as well as passengers' interests, how much room for flexibility will be left? At the moment, the MTRCL hopes to grant exception for certain objects, namely large musical instruments, on top of the prevailing basic luggage size limit. The MTRCL is also considering whether the exception can be extended to sports equipment in the future. These are all special arrangements. Without any restrictions, anyone will be allowed to carry any object into the stations. Is it what Members wish to see? How should staff members handle this? If staff members are free to exercise discretion, probably


staff members across the stations may have different views and approaches with regard to discretion. How should such confusion be tackled? These are very practical issues. MS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): The Secretary has not answered my question. In the past, passengers were allowed to carry large musical instruments like guzheng to the station without any trouble. Why is there a ban now all of a sudden? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add? SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, as I understand it, the MTRCL has in place a set of luggage size limits all along, and no discretion has ever been allowed under their policies. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We have spent more than 23 minutes and 30 seconds on this question. Fourth question. Development of Lantau Island and East Lantau Metropolis 4. MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): President, it has been reported that the Government is currently carrying out studies on the development of Lantau Island and the formation of artificial islands with a reclamation area of about 600 to 800 hectares in the central waters between Lantau Island and Hong Kong Island for the development of an East Lantau Metropolis, i.e. the third core business district of Hong Kong. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council of:

(1) the land planning details of the artificial islands, and the job opportunities to be provided upon the completion of the third core business district;

(2) the transport infrastructure projects (including roads and railways)

to be implemented to connect Hong Kong Island, Lantau Island, New Territories West and the artificial islands; and


51

(3) the respective percentages of green areas, commercial and residential areas in the existing planned land sites on Lantau Island; whether it has plans to increase the residential land area of Lantau Island for the construction of more residential units; if it does, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, Honourable Members, good morning. To match with the long-term social and economic development of Hong Kong, the Chief Executive announced in the 2014 Policy Address to explore ways to develop the eastern waters off Lantau Island and neighbouring areas with a view to developing an East Lantau Metropolis (ELM) for accommodating new population. It will become the third core business district of Hong Kong for promoting economic development and providing job opportunities. At the same time, it was also decided to establish the Lantau Development Advisory Committee (LanDAC) to draw up the development strategy for Lantau. After nearly two years of work, the LanDAC has drafted a set of "Overall Spatial Planning and Conservation Concepts for Lantau" (the Concepts) which include the proposals to carry out reclamation in the waters near Kau Yi Chau and Hei Ling Chau Typhoon Shelter and to enhance the development potential of Mui Wo, with a view to creating a smart, innovative, environmentally-friendly and diversified ELM. My reply to the three parts of Mr LAM's question is as follows:

(1) The proposed ELM is still at a preliminary conceptual stage. Since it would involve large-scale reclamation and substantial infrastructural works and investment, the proposal must be carefully considered. As funding could not be secured in the last Legislative Session, the concerned strategic study was unable to commence. The Government will re-apply funding from the Legislative Council for commissioning the concerned study to investigate the feasibility of constructing artificial islands in the central waters and the scale of the development. According to initial analysis and making reference to the scale of existing new towns, we preliminarily estimate that the ELM may have potential to accommodate a population of about 400 000 to 700 000 and provide a large amount of employment opportunities. Such amount of population and economic activities could create economies of scale and critical mass, leading to a diversified and vibrant new development area. Only very preliminary crude estimate of anticipated employment


opportunities is available at the current stage. Should all the major development projects in Lantau be implemented, including the medium- to long-term items like Tung Chung New Town Extension, airport North Commercial District, topside development at the Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities Island of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, Siu Ho Wan Reclamation, Sunny Bay Reclamation as well as the ELM, the number of jobs in Lantau will possibly increase from the current 94 000 to around 470 000. However, the above figure is only a preliminary estimate, the specific use, development scale, feasibility and implementation arrangement of the development projects still need further study.

(2) Since the ELM may accommodate several hundred thousands of

living and working populations, it needs to be supported by a comprehensive strategic traffic and transport network. Our initial idea is to use railway as the backbone of the traffic and transportation network for the ELM, supplemented by comprehensive road network. Apart from connecting the interior areas of the ELM, the proposed traffic and transport network would also connect ELM with Lantau, northwest New Territories (NWNT), western Hong Kong Island and western Kowloon, forming a NWNT-Lantau-Metro Area traffic and transport corridor. However, the proposed railway and road networks are a very preliminary concept only, the initial feasibility, specific development scale and time frame of which are still subject to investigation under the strategic study concerned. Also, depending on the actual need, further feasibility study would be conducted before a decision can be made.

Lantau and NWNT are the important nodes for Hong Kong's future

population growth and economic development. The Tuen Mun New Town together with the future Hung Shui Kiu New Development Area and Yuen Long South Development will be the major population growth areas providing a large amount of workforce. On the other hand, the proposed Three-Runway System of the Airport and various strategic economic development projects in northern Lantau would add a large number of employment opportunities. Hence, the aforementioned traffic and transport corridor could attract working population outside Lantau (the NWNT in particular) to travel to Lantau to work. This could reduce the traffic demand by population in the New Territories to


53

travel to the urban areas for work, thus improving the current imbalance in the population and jobs between the urban area and the New Territories.

(3) About 63.5 sq km of area on Lantau (excluding outlying islands and

the Airport) is currently covered by statutory town plans (including part of the bay and water areas for proposed reclamation of individual projects). Among them, about 4% and 0.04% of land are zoned "Residential" and "Commercial" respectively while another 26.5% of land is zoned "Green Belt". In addition, another 1.2 sq km of land on the Airport Island is zoned "Commercial" on the draft Chek Lap Kok Outline Zoning Plan, equivalent to about 5.6% of the planning scheme boundary area of the subject plan. The future supply of residential land under planning is mainly about 70 hectares of private and public housing land as recommended under the Tung Chung New Town Extension Study, and the residential development atop the existing Siu Ho Wan Railway Depot being studied. In the long run, the proposed ELM would be one of the options of major sources of land supply in Hong Kong beyond 2030 providing the needed land for housing, social and economic developments.

MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): President, in mentioning the ELM just now, the Secretary has pointed out the need to secure funding from the Legislative Council for studies to be conducted. However, we can see that the Legislative Council is now highly politicized with some Members calling on the Government to develop more sites expeditiously on the one hand, but making things difficult on the other. As a result, all major development projects find it difficult to stride forward in seeking to "get through the gate". I would like to ask the Secretary: What solution does the Secretary have and is he confident that the ELM can secure prompt support from Members when the ELM studies and planning work are submitted to this Council for funding in future? SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr Jeffrey LAM for his question. President, we will get in touch with Members from different political parties or groupings later to explain the specific details of this project and listen to their views in the hope that, through more explanation and communication, they can have a better understanding of the significance of


this long-term plan to Hong Kong and thus support this funding application submitted by the Government. MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): President, the agriculture and fisheries sector hopes to work out a win-win solution together with society and pursue sustainable development in tandem with the development of our society. The development projects mentioned by the Secretary in part (1) of the main reply, namely the artificial Island of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, Siu Ho Wan Reclamation, Sunny Bay Reclamation as well as the ELM, are all reclamation projects. I have to tell the Secretary that these major development projects carried out by the Government and its policy towards the fishermen are outdated. I would like to ask the Secretary this: How is the Government going to establish a fairer mechanism for the fisheries industry and formulate a policy on the restructuring of the industry while pursuing the development of the aforesaid sites? SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr Steven HO for his supplementary question. President, as I understand it, my colleagues have all along been maintaining communication with stakeholders in the fisheries industry. As we all know, the Government currently has an established compensation mechanism. We are also concerned about the possible impacts of the reclamation projects mentioned just now on members of the fisheries industry. We will maintain contact and communication with them in this regard to keep them informed of these projects and, in the course of communication, seek to reach a consensus on how both parties can deal with this issue properly. MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): The Secretary has not answered my question concerning the policy on the restructuring of the fisheries industry because even though it is certainly easy for fishermen to switch to other industries now, I do hope the fisheries industry … I have to clearly point out the need for the fisheries industry to restructure because I hope the Government can ensure that fishermen can make a living. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, has the Government formulated any policy on the restructuring of the fisheries industry?


55

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, we will continue to follow up this matter proactively after the meeting. Time is needed for communication between us. MISS ALICE MAK (in Cantonese): President, I have to declare that I am a member of the LanDAC. However, when I attended its meetings, I did not see the situation mentioned by Mr WU Chi-wai earlier, that is, he was the only one who raised issues about conservation at the meetings. In fact, a number of discussions have been held by the LanDAC on such issues. I think we should all be fair. Just now the Secretary mentioned that he would seek to lobby different stakeholders to support the ELM, including reclamation programmes, however, I wish to point out that we are still not clearly informed of the positioning of the ELM. While the Secretary has indicated that many economic and commercial development opportunities would arise, will the ELM turn later on into a mishmash comprising commercial developments and a variety of other developments? Can the Secretary clearly inform us of the positioning of the ELM? Why is reclamation required? Why is there a need to develop the ELM? What is the purpose of doing so? If we are to develop the ELM, traffic and transport are a crucial part of the development ― Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG has just left the Chamber ― how is the Secretary going to convince Secretary Prof CHEUNG to provide good external transport links? SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, regarding the positioning of the ELM, as I have referred to in replying to the second supplementary question just now, this project is aimed at matching with the social and economic development of Hong Kong beyond 2030. Currently, our preliminary site is Kau Yi Chau, which is relatively close to Hong Kong Island. The distance is about 4 km, approximately the length of the Tate's Cairn Tunnel. According to our preliminarily estimate of the ELM, if reclamation is carried out there, an area of about 600 hectares to 800 hectares can be yielded to accommodate a population of about 400 000 to 700 000, as stated in the main reply, and at least 100 000 to 200 000 employment opportunities will also be created. Concerning the proposed ELM, as we all know, while many New Territories residents have to go to Kowloon or Hong Kong Island to work, it is indeed not at all easy to further identify large plots of land in Central, Wan Chai


and Causeway Bay for commercial development. This explains why the Government's current task is to develop the second core business districts in Kowloon East, Kwun Tong, Kowloon Bay and Kai Tak, whereas the ELM will be developed into the third core business district. After the completion of Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, the flows of people and goods into Hong Kong from the western Pearl River Delta will be more convenient. Furthermore, we are currently working on the planning for Hung Shui Kiu, and the relevant public engagement activities have just concluded. In addition to Hung Shui Kiu, development will also be carried out in Yuen Long South to facilitate the flow of goods from Shenzhen into Hong Kong. Generally speaking, if the job opportunities in the central, eastern and western parts can be distributed more evenly, more local residents will be able to live and work in the same district, and the pressure on infrastructure along the South-North traffic axis can be relieved as well. This is our general positioning for the time being. As regards the specific use of land, President, we have to first secure funding from the Legislative Council before a relatively detailed technical study can be conducted, and then concrete proposals will be put forward for discussion in the community. The study will take a couple of years. MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, New Territories West residents were quite excited when they heard this plan proposed by the Government because the West Rail had almost reached its full capacity. If these proposed artificial islands can link up New Territories West and Hong Kong Island, the problem of the entire traffic and transport problem can undoubtedly be resolved. Moreover, New Territories West residents will find working across districts much easier. Nevertheless, this idea is still at a very preliminary stage, and the relevant studies have yet to commence. Even if it is feasible, we still have to wait for a long period of time. Moreover, given that many people have much reservation about the reclamation works, we still have to resolve the environmental impacts. Under such circumstances, does the Secretary have confidence in convincing those people who are resistant to reclamation or take the environment very seriously and refuse to face so many changes? I recall that a similar proposal put forward by the Government years ago was aborted in the end, too. SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr TAM Yiu-chung for his supplementary question. President, the impact of the reclamation proposed to be carried out in the current site on dolphins and marine ecology is less than that in North Lantau. Certainly, the current site also


57

has to face challenges because it is situated in the central waters. To conduct reclamation of such a scale, we must consider its impacts on the fairway and current. After securing the funding, we hope to commence a more detailed technical study in tandem with a relatively objective scientific research study on the concerns raised by various parties. Moreover, some of the impacts and assessment outcome will be shared with members of the community, so that everyone can study together whether or not the proposal is feasible. MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): President, during the discussions held last year by the Public Works Subcommittee of the Legislative Council on the central waters, some Members initiated filibusters and non-cooperation movements. As a result, even though numerous discussions have been conducted on the relevant development studies, the Government still had to reluctantly withdraw its proposals in the end. Now, one year down the line, we have two questions today concerning the development of the central waters and pinpointing the details, but I heard a Member pointed out in the second oral question that the land to be reclaimed in the central waters in future would be very expensive. Could the Secretary tell us whether or not he can say for sure that this plot of land will be very expensive even before the studies are conducted? If so, what can the Secretary do? SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, the costs currently needed for large-scale land development projects are actually not low, be they the projects in Kwu Tung North, Fanling North or the ones in Hung Shui Kiu in future,. In addition to engineering and infrastructure investments, these sites also involve quite a number of problems concerning clearance and replacement facilities. For instance, a special multi-storey design has to be adopted to match with the operation of certain businesses in Hung Shui Kiu, whereas such considerations need not be taken if reclamation is undertaken. Nevertheless, Members do understand, and we fully agree, that the impact produced by reclamation on the ecological environment should be minimal. From the engineering perspective, the cost of reclamation is not going to be too low. I dare not comment on the central waters because this project requires detailed technical studies and other factors must be taken into joint consideration before a decision can be made. In the case of Tung Chung New Town Extension, for instance, reclamation has to be carried out in Tung Chung East as well as in Sunny Bay, and the cost of carrying out reclamation in these similar places will not be higher than the costs of development in other new development districts. Nevertheless, if reclamation is to be carried out in the eastern waters, we still have to make investment in the infrastructure link, though this investment


project is not targeted purely at the ELM. As pointed out by Mr TAM Yiu-chung earlier, if proper transport infrastructure links are provided as a result of this project development, New Territories West residents can actually be benefited. MR NG LEUNG-SING (in Cantonese): President, it is mentioned in part (2) of the main reply that the NWNT development project is just a very preliminary concept. During the vetting and approval of the NWNT development project, even though such problems as which banks would have their branches set up there had not yet occurred, some Members chose to overplay the matter and stage filibusters with conflicts of interests among Members as their excuse. As a result, such preliminary concepts were delayed repeatedly. The specific scale and timetable of the relevant development project is still awaiting policy studies. However, such kinds of delay will inevitably lower the project's cost-effectiveness. I would like to ask the Secretary: If these Members delay the project and at the same time condemn other Members and the Government, should the authorities explain to the public beforehand the losses possibly incurred as a result of the delay caused by these Members? SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr NG Leung-sing for his question. President, as I pointed out in my replies to other Members earlier, we will strive to communicate with, explain to and lobby Members from different political parties or groupings in the hope that they can understand the importance of this project to Hong Kong's long-term social and economic development. We also hope that Members can support the expeditious implementation of this project. MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I would like to ask the Secretary this: In order to match with the completion of Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge and the future development of Lantau, will the enhancement of the transport links within Lantau be implemented expeditiously, including the widening and construction of roads, and enhancement of the point-to-point connections within Lantau Island by, for instance, connecting Disneyland with Tung Chung and the future crossing of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, with a view to facilitating the daily lives and employment of the residents and attracting tourists to visit Lantau for pleasure, thereby giving play to the function of a bridgehead economy?


59

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr Christopher CHEUNG for his question. President, the composition of the Traffic and Transport Subcommittee under the LanDAC comprises, apart from LanDAC members, individuals from other sectors, including the District Council members, employed persons and public bus employees of the respective districts. We appreciate Members' grave concerns about the transport links on Lantau (particularly Tung Chung and its vicinity), and there are colleagues from the Transport Department (TD) in the LanDAC. Regarding the short run, the LanDAC has put forward some improvement proposals, and they are being implemented proactively. In the long run, such efforts need to be taken forward further because they are involved in the transport links of different development projects in Lantau in future. Insofar as the relatively large projects are concerned, technical studies will be conducted. Examples are the links between the north of Airport Island and the topside of the boundary artificial island of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, as well as the transport link between Northern Lantau and New Territories West. On the other hand, regarding some of the transport improvement measures in Lantau, we have been closely liaising with the TD and putting in our best effort. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We have spent almost 23 minutes on this question. Fifth question. Impact of Economic Downturn on Employees 5. MR POON SIU-PING (in Cantonese): President, it is learnt that with the recent global economic slowdown, the business environment of Hong Kong has gradually worsened and the demand for labour has shown a downward trend, affecting the employment as well as the rights and interests of some employees. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) given that the authorities have implemented further enhancement measures under the Supplementary Labour Scheme since May this year to allow contractors to apply for the importation of skilled workers to work in the various public sector works projects under such contractors, so as to enhance the flexibility of worker deployment and to make better use of workers' productivity, of the number of such applications received by the authorities so far and, among them, the numbers of approved cases and workers involved, with a breakdown of the relevant information by post;


(2) given the recent economic downturn of Hong Kong, whether the authorities will consider abolishing the aforesaid enhancement measures to safeguard the employment of local workers; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(3) as I have learnt that tour guides are often required by their

employers to make advanced payments on their behalf to meet the costs of receiving inbound mainland tour groups, and some travel agencies have closed down in recent months due to the decrease in mainland tourists visiting Hong Kong, quite a number of tour guides have thus been owed wages and advanced payments, how the authorities assist such employees in recovering the advanced payments, which are not protected by labour legislation?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, my reply to the question raised by Mr POON Siu-ping is as follows:

(1) In January 2015, the Chief Executive announced in the Policy Address that the Government, having regard to the unique characteristics of the construction industry, would implement flexibility enhancement measures under the Supplementary Labour Scheme (SLS) to allow public sector works contractors to have more flexibility in deploying imported workers to work across more than one public sector works contract. The resulting synergy effects would reduce the total number of imported construction workers and lead to more effective utilization of productivity. The Government, after discussing with the industry through the Construction Industry Council (CIC), drew up detailed flexibility measures and briefed the Labour Advisory Board (LAB) twice on the content of various measures to take into account its views. These new measures were introduced in May this year.

Under the new flexibility measures, new applications from public

sector works contractors are still subject to the prevailing SLS mechanism. These contractors need to launch open recruitment locally, offering salaries not less than the median monthly wages and not less than the monthly market wages as promulgated by the CIC for the 26 manpower shortage trades, for the purpose of upholding the priority in employment for local workers and their income levels.


61

In addition, the relevant public sector works departments will continue to exercise stringent control, ensuring that each application is made on the merit of genuine construction needs. The LAB will continue to offer views to the Commissioner for Labour on the labour importation applications concerned. Since the implementation of these flexibility measures, the Labour Department has so far received a total of two applications. These applications are under processing.

(2) The overall construction expenditure of both public and private

sectors was around $200 billion in 2014, representing an increase of about 10% over 2013. According to the forecast published by the CIC in September 2014, the overall construction expenditure will remain at a high level in the coming years.

The CIC conducts regular telephone surveys on the employment

situation of construction skilled workers. According to the latest survey findings of March to May 2015, construction skilled workers engaged in the manpower shortage trades worked about five days a week on average, similar to the figures surveyed in the past two years. Given that the construction work is physically demanding, these workers were considered fully engaged.

Moreover, according to information of the Census and Statistics

Department, the median monthly employment earnings of construction workers increased by around 8% in the past year (that is, from May to July 2014 to May to July 2015), illustrating the sustained stringency of construction manpower.

The Government will continue to keep in close contact with the

industry, the labour sector and the LAB. On the premise of upholding priority in employment for local workers, an appropriate amount of construction skilled workers will be imported to facilitate completion of various public sector works projects, thereby ensuring sustainable development of the Hong Kong economy and community. After the aforesaid flexibility measures have accumulated practical operational experience for a certain period of time, the Government will review their effectiveness as appropriate. At present, the Government has no plan to abolish these measures.


(3) The Government is always concerned about the remuneration of front-line staff in the tourism industry. One of the 10 measures which the Travel Industry Council of Hong Kong (TIC) has implemented since February 2011 for enhancing the receiving arrangement of the Mainland inbound tour groups is to require local receiving agents of such tours to remunerate the tourist guides and sign agreements with them that stipulate the agreed remuneration. This requirement applies to both travel agents' employees and self-employed tourist guides engaged to provide such service. This measure helps ensure that the tourist guides could receive an expectable income and avoid their reliance only on commission. To further strengthen protection for tourist guides, the TIC implemented another measure to prohibit local receiving agents of Mainland inbound tour groups from asking tourist guides to share or advance unreasonable payment for the receiving cost.

Under the Employment Ordinance (Cap. 57), wages do not include

special expenses incurred by an employee by the nature of his/her employment. In general, the expenses so incurred by the employee for various reasons, including advance payment, are not remuneration payable in respect of work and do not form part of the wages. The Government does not encourage employees to advance payments for employers or for work.

Expenses paid in advance by a tourist guide for leading tours are not

wages. If an employee wishes to pursue his/her claim against a closed travel agent for advance payments, he/she may, when a winding-up order or bankruptcy order is made against his/her employer by the Court, file a proof of debt under the Companies (Winding up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 32) or the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap. 6) with the Official Receiver's Office or the liquidator for recovery of his/her debts in future.

MR POON SIU-PING (in Cantonese): According to the reply given by the Secretary just now, while this so-called enhanced labour importation scheme has been implemented for six months, so far only two applications have been received. The response is not quite enthusiastic. In the Government's view, what is the reason for that? How many imported workers are involved in these two applications, and what are the posts filled by such imported workers?


63

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, these two applications were received after the implementation of the flexibility enhancement measures in May. In my view, it cannot be said that the response is poor just because only two applications have been received within as short as a few months. The manpower requirement of works projects need to tie in with their respective schedules, we will handle each application earnestly in a pragmatic manner. Since the two applications are under processing, usually we will not disclose the actual details and how many trades are involved. In April last year, the CIC and the industry, including the labour sector, identified 26 trades with manpower shortage, and on the whole, the applications made under the enhanced scheme are based on these 26 trades. MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): President, the economic downturn referred to by Mr POON Siu-ping has in fact emerged, making the business sector rather worried. At the moment, the biggest impact of economic downturn is confined to the retail, catering and tourist industries. I have not seen any major impact on the construction industry, especially when the third runway project is going to commence. I believe in the coming 10-odd years, there will not be any big impact on the employment situation of construction workers. At present, quite a number of projects are underway in the construction industry. May I ask the Secretary, have the authorities compiled any statistics on the shortfall of construction workers for these projects? If these workers can be imported at one go, to what extent can they help to expedite the current infrastructural projects, and will it be able to improve the issue of cost overrun which is our present utmost concern? SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr CHUNG for his question. According to an assessment conducted by the CIC in October last year, it is estimated that in the next few years, the shortfall in the supply of construction skilled workers in Hong Kong will reach 10 000 to 15 000. Certainly, it means the shortfall situations in different stages. Nevertheless, the authorities have put in place corresponding measures in various aspects such as training, but since this question is not about training, I do not intend to provide further information here at the moment. I would like to point out that we will scrutinize labour importation applications in a pragmatic manner in light of the development progress and actual needs of infrastructural works. In considering whether there is a shortage


of local workers, we will first conduct a four-week open recruitment exercise, and we will also examine if manpower can be provided through training. After that, we vet and approve the application in accordance with the established mechanism. Through the enhancement measures, the vetting and approval time for applications under the SLS has been shortened. Recently, the vetting and approval time for a labour importation application is about six months. In the past, the time taken was longer and far exceeded six months. Hence, the enhanced measures have expedited the vetting and approval process and facilitated the timely importation of skilled workers to Hong Kong by the industry when such need arises. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHUNG, has your supplementary question not been answered? MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary said the shortfall of construction workers would exceed 10 000, but we did not see so many applications put forward by construction companies in the industry … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHUNG, the Secretary has already answered your previous supplementary question. Now you are raising another question. Please wait for your turn again to ask your question. MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): President, in September this year, the number of registered Mainland inbound tour groups dropped more than 20%, it would be inevitable for some travel agents dealing exclusively with this type of tour groups to encounter difficulties in business and even close down. Although the TIC stipulates that tourist guides must be remunerated and prohibits tourist guides from making unreasonable advance payments, many members of the industry are concerned that some people may not abide by the law. I would like to ask the Secretary if the authorities will proactively find out or even investigate whether non-compliance with the aforesaid requirements is serious, and at the same time offer recommendations to the TIC to prevent the livelihood of a large number of tourist guides from being adversely affected should there be waves of business closures.


65

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Which Secretary will reply? Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, please. SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, since 2011, the TIC has received a total of 16 complaints about travel agents requesting tourist guides to make advance payments or bear costs unreasonably. Five of the cases were referred to the Compliance Committee under the TIC for follow-up and consideration. These five cases were related to the same travel agent which had requested the tourist guides to bear or make unreasonable advance payments for the cost of receiving Mainland tour groups and failed to remunerate the tourist guides concerned. The total amount involved was $650,000. The amount involved in each case ranged from $57,000 to $230,000. The travel agent was fined $33,000 for each case with 10 demerit points by the committee. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr YIU, has your supplementary question not been answered? MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): President, what I have heard just now is that the authorities will not handle the matter until someone lodges a complaint. My supplementary question is, will the authorities proactively find out and investigate the seriousness of the situation? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, do you have anything to add? SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, at present, the TIC will handle the relevant case after it has received a complaint. So far, as I have mentioned earlier, a total of 16 such cases have been received and handled. MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): President, although the decision on the relevant enhanced scheme was made by the Development Bureau, I would like to ask if the Secretary knows that the LAB did not reach any consensus during the discussion on this issue. Strictly speaking, the enhanced measures were launched forcibly. At that time, despite the very strong objections raised by the


LAB, the Development Bureau was bent ongoing its way. I consider such an act rather disrespectful to the LAB. May I ask the Secretary, given such a problem, will the future enhanced scheme still require the consent of the LAB before its launch? Or will the Development Bureau be allowed to maintain its high-handed manners? SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, I thank Miss CHAN for her supplementary question. Before the launch of the flexibility enhancement measures, the Development Bureau had visited the LAB twice to explain the content of the new measures to its members. In July, the employee representatives of the LAB communicated and talked with the relevant senior officers in the Development Bureau again. We understand the concern of the labour sector, and that is why we have formulated the regulatory measures in a very stringent manner during the process to ensure that they are watertight. Should there be any non-compliance by the applicant, the Government would immediately apply sanctions. Such messages are loud and clear. Under the present flexibility enhancement measures, so far we have received only two applications which are still under processing and have not been approved. Hence, there is no need to worry. We will definitely process these applications impartially, vetting and approving them in a pragmatic manner in accordance with the present stringent benchmarks. MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has not answered my question. My question is quite clear. Should the authorities consult members of the LAB and obtain their consent prior to the implementation of each enhanced scheme? President, the Secretary has not answered my question. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Labour and Welfare, Miss CHAN asked whether the authorities will have to consult the LAB and obtain its consent. SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, I have made it very clear just now. As stated in my main reply, the Government has explained the relevant measures to the LAB twice. Our colleagues in the Development Bureau have briefed LAB members clearly on the content of the new measures and further communicated with them in July.


67

IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, a basic principle of economics and public finance is that when economic downturn arises and private investment weakens, the Government should make bigger injections of resources to strike a balance. May I ask the Secretary, facing economic downturn, will the Government consider expediting the planned infrastructural projects, such as the third runway project and various local railway projects, and at the same time, by drawing reference from the experience in the construction of the Chek Lap Kok airport back then, set up a special mechanism for importation of labour which can promote and dovetail with local employment on the one hand, and satisfy development needs on the other? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ir Dr LO, the first part of your question is not directly related to the main question. As for the part concerning the labour importation policy, may I ask the Secretary for Labour and Welfare to reply? SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Sure. I thank Ir Dr LO for his concern about this matter. Some Members have proposed, as it has also been brought up in the community, drawing reference from the special scheme which was set up for the airport back then. What we are doing now, like the phrase I have used from time to time, is working in a pragmatic manner. First of all, in April last year, the Government introduced an enhanced measure called C26 to expeditiously process labour importation applications involving the 26 manpower shortage trades for public sector works and compress the vetting and approval time. At present, it will take us only some six months to complete vetting and approving an application. Recently, the vetting and approval work for individual applications could be completed within six months. The flexibility enhancement measures currently adopted can further enhance the scheme and produce synergy effects to the full. As regards whether we need to follow the practice of the airport construction project, in fact, if Members remember, the situation of the then airport project was different from the present. While the construction of the airport was a huge project, these current measures may involve various projects and different approaches. Nevertheless, we will hold an open attitude. Most importantly, every scheme, no matter how it is conducted, must uphold priority in employment for local workers. Neither can it suppress the wages of local workers. On this premise, we keep exploring and enhancing the scheme non-stop. That is why we have done such work again this year after doing it last year.


MR TANG KA-PIU (in Cantonese): As pointed out by Miss CHAN Yuen-han earlier, actually the employee representatives of the LAB had not reached any consensus on the new flexibility measures and had not given their consent. They had taken the initiative to approach the Development Bureau to express their dissenting views. I would like to ask, as two applications are now under consideration, if, under the existing operation system of the LAB, the six employee representatives do not consent to these applications, will the Commissioner for Labour, in his capacity as the Chairman, exercise his power by casting the 13th vote to approve the applications? SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): I thank Mr TANG for his supplementary question. This is a hypothetical question. I believe it is too early to anticipate that all the six employee members of the LAB will object to the applications, and I do not wish to see such a situation either. I would like to stress that over the years, the SLS has been working effectively, and its operation is as follows: The Labour Department will conduct stringent preliminary vetting on any application and then submit it to the LAB for advice. The LAB consists of six employee representatives and six employer representatives. The Commissioner for Labour is the ex officio Chairman and the approving officer for the executive arm. That means the power to grant final approval for importation of labour lies with the Commissioner, not the LAB. Nevertheless, LAB members will offer advice to the Chairman, that is, the Commissioner, who will consider such advice before making any decision. That is to say, the 13th vote does not exist. As a matter of fact, the Commissioner will always take the views from all parties into account and consider various justifications before making the final decision. MR TANG KA-PIU (in Cantonese): I would like to further ask the Secretary if there was any actual case where the Commissioner for Labour still approved the application despite the objection clearly indicated by the six employee members. SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, I have already answered the supplementary question. The relevant applications are now under our consideration and have not been referred to members of the LAB yet. I believe it is indeed too early to conjecture at the present stage that the employee members will raise objection. As I have mentioned earlier, we will examine the data objectively and see whether there is an actual need, whether the applications are worth our support, whether a local four-week recruitment exercise has been conducted, and whether there is really a shortage of local workers. I think applications should be assessed on the basis of these facts.


69

MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary said earlier that there was a shortfall of more than 10 000 construction workers. If there is indeed a shortfall of more than 10 000 construction workers, why are there only two applications? Is it because the chance for an application to succeed in getting approval is actually not high under the watertight regulatory measures referred to by the Secretary earlier on, so much so that the works contractors would rather not make any application? The Secretary also said that applications would be handled with flexibility. I find the watertight measures and flexibility he referred to contradictory to each other. I would like the Secretary to expound on them clearly. SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, the two are not contradictory at all. In fact, they are complementary. The "watertight" measures are to ensure the measures will not be abused during the process. This is our duty as the regulatory authority. As regards "flexibility", under the concept of flexibility, if, for instance, a contractor has another public sector works project apart from the public sectors works in hand, we must ensure that both projects lack workers when we allow the contractor to import workers. Let me cite an example. Each part of work in the construction industry is interlinked with one another, for a certain worker responsible for project A, if due to some reasons such as overdue delivery of materials, unfinished construction site or unavailability of formwork, the worker's work procedure in relation to project A cannot be proceeded for a period of time, the worker may go to work at the site of project B. This is the flexible synergy effect, but it cannot be abused throughout the process. Hence, the two are complementary and not contradictory at all. I would like to respond to another point. Why are there so few applications despite the shortfall of 10 000 to 15 000 workers as indicated by the CIC? Please do not forget that these shortfall figures also serve as an indicator for the provision of training. Over the past few years, the Government has allocated $320 million to the CIC for training purposes, and 17 000 people have received such training presently. Of course, some of them left halfway and did not join the industry, but after all, there are several thousand new entrants serving in the industry. Hence, we should look at the whole picture from a macro perspective. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council has spent more than 23 minutes on this question. Last question seeking an oral reply.


Collection of Enrolment Deposits and Tuition Fees for Self-financing Post-secondary Programmes 6. MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): President, it has been reported that apart from applying for admission to funded post-secondary programmes (funded programmes) through the Joint University Programmes Admissions System, quite a number of candidates sitting for the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination also apply for admission to certain self-financing post-secondary programmes (self-financing programmes) as a fallback. Upon being admitted to a self-financing programme, they are normally required to pay an enrolment deposit and the first instalment of tuition fees immediately. Different programmes have different refund arrangements, which also depend on the reasons for application for refund. If the reason is that they have enrolled in other programmes, whether they will receive a refund depends on whether the programmes in which they have switched to enrol are funded or self-financing ones. Some students consider that as the fees range from as high as tens of thousand to several tens of thousand dollars, the no-refund practice not only poses considerable burden to students from grass-roots families but also gives rise to unfairness. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) given that for students who have paid the enrolment deposits and the first instalment of tuition fees for self-financing programmes, they may generally get a full or partial refund if they switch to enrol in funded programmes, but they will not get any refund if they switch to enrol in other self-financing programmes, and the latter may feel being discriminated against, what measures the authorities will take to rectify such situation;

(2) as I have learnt that some institutions will at their discretion refund

students who have enrolled in self-financing programmes the fees they have paid, but such discretion is often confined to refund applications made for the reason of suffering from critical illnesses, whether the authorities will request the institutions concerned to revise the refund guidelines to refund students from poor families on a discretionary basis; and

(3) whether the authorities will rationalize the admission procedures for

funded and self-financing programmes and align the dates for announcing admission results of both types of programmes so that


71

students can select their most favourite programmes and pay tuition fees after learning the admission results of the various programmes concerned; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): President, self-financing post-secondary institutions in Hong Kong enjoy a high degree of autonomy in academic development and administration. Except for some self-financing post-secondary programmes of which the places are allocated via the Joint University Programmes Admissions System (JUPAS), institutions offering other self-financing programmes may devise their own admission arrangements. We understand that there is a genuine need for institutions to collect enrolment deposits to ascertain the number of students for making arrangements for academic staff, resources, supporting measures, and so on, as early as possible, so as to effectively provide high quality teaching to students, and also to the greatest extent possible discourage students from unnecessarily keeping more than one place which may affect the timely allocation of places to other students. We consider that institutions should take into account, apart from their own operational needs, students' circumstances and needs as well in order to draw up reasonable and appropriate arrangements regarding the amount and timeline of collecting enrolment deposits. My main reply to Mr WONG's question on the application arrangements for candidates of the Hong Kong Diploma in Secondary Education (HKDSE) Examination enrolling in self-financing post-secondary programmes is as follows:

(1) and (2) To enhance the support for candidates of the HKDSE Examination

and facilitate the processing of application and admission in an orderly and efficient manner, the non-JUPAS post-secondary institutions in general have adopted common application and admission arrangements since 2012 under the co-ordination of the Education Bureau. Such arrangements include the following:

(i) setting the deadline for payment of enrolment deposits at noon

of the fourth working day from the date of the release of the HKDSE Examination results, so as to enable institutions to announce the first round of admission results by the deadline, and allow students to make a more informed choice of


programme. After the deadline, remaining places will be allocated to other applicants on waiting lists;

(ii) most of the institutions agreed to set their enrolment deposits

or registration fees at $5,000 or below; and (iii) most non-JUPAS institutions allow applicants who are

subsequently admitted to a full-time undergraduate programme funded by the University Grants Committee (UGC) via the JUPAS Main or Clearing Round of offer to apply for refund of enrolment deposits. Starting from 2015, this refund arrangement also applies to students who are admitted to a subsidized undergraduate programme under the Study Subsidy Scheme for Designated Professions/Sectors (SSSDP) via the JUPAS Main or Clearing Round of offer.

A summary of the relevant arrangements has been uploaded onto the

Information Portal for Accredited Post-Secondary Programmes for access by teachers, students, parents and the public at large.

Institutions generally require students to settle the first instalment of

tuition fee before the commencement of a programme. We understand that institutions have different schedules for collecting the payment, yet we are of the view that institutions should not collect the first instalment of tuition fee at a too early stage so as not to impose unnecessary financial burdens on students. Most institutions' arrangements for the refund of the first instalment of tuition fees are in line with that for the refund of enrolment deposits. To our understanding, apart from the aforesaid arrangements, self-financing post-secondary institutions would consider, with discretion, refunding any enrolment deposits and first instalment of tuition fees paid by students who submit such request with full justifications of health issues or financial difficulties.

The aforementioned refund arrangements have struck a balance

between the circumstances and needs of students, as well as the equity among self-financing post-secondary institutions in respect of their admission arrangements. In view of the opinions of students and parents, the Education Bureau will continue to liaise with the institutions to explore ways to further improve the arrangements.


73

(3) At present, the first round of admission results for the non-JUPAS self-financing programmes are generally announced on the date of release of the HKDSE Examination results or within a few days afterwards. Candidates of the HKDSE Examination may also be given conditional offers by non-JUPAS institutions prior to the release of the HKDSE Examination results. The deadline for payment of enrolment deposits for those non-JUPAS programmes is generally set at noon of the fourth working day from the date of the release of the HKDSE Examination results, in order to facilitate students' payment of enrolment deposit to his most preferred self-financing programme. Places of UGC-funded post-secondary programmes are allocated via the JUPAS and the allocation results of the Main Round are usually announced in the first half of August, whereas the allocation results of the Clearing Round are announced in the second half of August. Students enrolled in self-financing programmes with enrolment deposits paid may claim refund of their enrolment deposits according to the aforesaid refund arrangements, provided that they are admitted to UGC-funded full-time undergraduate programmes. The prevailing arrangements have avoided the wastage of enrolment deposits paid by students due to varying admission timelines.

As the mode of operation differs among the UGC-funded institutions

and most self-financing post-secondary institutions, and that the latter also enjoy a high degree of autonomy in administration, it is difficult to align their admission arrangements. That said, the non-JUPAS institutions have as far as possible taken into account both the needs of students and the institutions' autonomy in administration when devising the arrangements for the refund of enrolment deposits and the first instalment of tuition fees. We will continue to liaise with the institutions to facilitate arrangements that are more convenient to and in the interest of students.

MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): President, just now the Secretary said that to the understanding of the authorities, the institutions would, with discretion, refund any enrolment deposits and first instalment of tuition fees paid by students who submit requests for refunds with full justifications of health issues and financial difficulties. Regarding this reply given by the Secretary, I believe either the Secretary was fooled or the institutions lied. Today before the


meeting, I was outside the Legislative Council Complex receiving petition letters. Some parents told me, crying, that this was not the truth. In a single-parent family, while the mother works as a security guard for a monthly salary of $8,500, the son needs to pay over $50,000 as tuition fee and enrolment deposit. Also there is another family whose father is unemployed and has gone bankrupt, yet this family is not refunded the relevant fees. In the past three years, the institutions have collected over $63 million in related fees. May I ask the Secretary, regarding this sum of over $63 million of enrolment deposits and first instalment of tuition fees obtained by fraud, how many refund applications have been granted on grounds of justified financial difficulties and how much has the refund amounted to? If no refund has ever been granted, can the Bureau be taken as not monitoring the institutions effectively? SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): President, regarding the refund arrangements for enrolment deposits, just as I have pointed out, the institutions have put in place a refund arrangement for students who are admitted to UGC-funded undergraduate programmes. As regards other refund arrangements, the institutions will make refunds depending on the circumstances of individual students, such as health issues or financial conditions. It is difficult for me to explain here why refunds were not made for certain cases. Regarding the figures, I believe the amount provided by the Education Bureau which stands at over $60 million, has counted out the enrolment deposits which have been refunded. Therefore, this sum of over $60 million does not contain any fees that have been refunded to students. MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has not answered my question. With respect to individual cases with justifications of financial difficulties, he said he is not able to give an answer now. I would like to ask the Secretary, through the President, whether he can follow up on these specific cases referred by me.


75

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): President, just like Members, we all care about the conditions of students. Hence, should some Members want us to follow up on some individual cases, we would be pleased to enquire with the self-financing post-secondary institutions as a middleman. DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): Secretary, the problem here is: what is education for? Should post-secondary institutions, universities and we being members of the teaching profession, when facing students and their families, tell them that education per se is not any form of commodity or business? These self-financing programmes often have problems simply because it is just not right to use universities as places for doing business. Secretary, do you understand? Just then when Members were pressing the Secretary for an answer, I suddenly also wanted to ask this: should we call the Secretary's office or the Consumer Council for assistance? It seems that it is more effective to call the Consumer Council. This summer, three programmes offered by the School of Professional Education and Executive Development of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University were plagued by under-enrolment, affecting over 100 students and their families. Eventually I had to intervene to negotiate with the institution so that the students could continue to take the programmes they had originally chosen, instead of being forced to take back the enrolment deposits or tuition fees, or being forced to enrol in programmes which they did not want to take. As the Hong Kong Government lacks the vision and capacity to support the costly post-secondary education programmes, various kinds of problems have arisen … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, please raise your supplementary question. DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): … Secretary, do you admit that this is the responsibility of the authorities? The authorities have now turned the pursuit of education into a consumption behaviour. Is it better to call the Consumer Council than to ask you for help? SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): President, the authorities' policy of post-secondary education is one such that funded programmes and self-financing programmes can complement each other. With self-financing


programmes, the Government can flexibly cater for the interest or needs of different students. Therefore, it is our view that the policy does not intend to commercialize education. DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I need to further press the Secretary for an answer. While he has mentioned about taking care of the situation with flexibility, the Education Bureau is in fact at a complete loss when problem arises … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have to remind Members once again that no debate is allowed during the oral question session. Mr CHAN, just then you have mainly expressed your comments on government policies. You can give these comments on other occasions, for example, in the Panel on Education or during motion debates. MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): President, just now Dr CHAN has not only voiced his criticisms but also done some publicity work for more than a minute. President, what I would like to ask is this: Regarding the remark made by the Secretary in his main reply that "self-financing post-secondary institutions enjoy a high degree of autonomy in administration", I think it is inappropriate for the Education Bureau to shirk responsibility by just making such a statement. According to point (ii) under parts (1) and (2) in the main reply, "most of the institutions agreed to set their enrolment deposits or registration fees at $5,000 or below". It sounds quite good but the problem lies in the word "most", meaning not all. For this reason, I would like to ask the Secretary, in order to eradicate the unfair situation of some institutions overcharging enrolment deposits, will the authorities consider amending the code of practice so as to ban the institutions from collecting high fees before the commencement of programmes, no matter in what name the fees are collected? Are the authorities capable of doing so to ensure that all the institutions will not charge high enrolment deposits or other fees? SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): President, I have already pointed out in my main reply that there is a genuine need for the institutions to collect enrolment deposits so as to ascertain the number of students earlier for


77

manpower and resources allocation. Hence, I believe it is reasonable to request institutions to collect no enrolment deposit at all. As regards not collecting an exorbitant amount of enrolment deposits, just now Mr KWOK has already pointed out and I have also mentioned in my main reply that according to the existing information the authorities have in hand, most of the institutions, the absolute majority of them, are charging $5,000 or below for enrolment deposits. Regarding Mr WONG's concern about the first instalment of tuition fees, the authorities are liaising with all the post-secondary institutions on this matter to look at their arrangements and then offer more ways of handling that give convenience to students. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWOK, has your supplementary question not been answered? MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): President, just now I asked if the Education Bureau was capable of requiring all institutions to refrain from charging exorbitant administration fees or enrolment deposits. And the Secretary has answered that currently the absolute majority of the institutions can do so. But is the Education Bureau capable of making sure the rest can do so too? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, could the Government ensure that all the institutions will not charge exorbitant administration fees and enrolment fees? SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): President, I have to point out here that, just as I have said in my main reply, self-financing institutions enjoy a high degree of autonomy in administration, admission and fee collection. However, some arrangements have been made through the review and liaison between the authorities and the institutions. In fact, the authorities have implemented a refund arrangement for enrolment deposits with the institutions in 2012. In the future, we believe through similar work we can discuss with the institutions Members' concern about the various kinds of fees collected before the commencement of programmes, and make reasonable and appropriate arrangements as far as possible.


MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): President, just now the Secretary has mentioned about the issue of enrolment deposits and said it is difficult to not collect enrolment deposits but the amount should not be exorbitant. We learnt that while the total enrolment deposits collected by institutions last year was close to $150 million, the total sum of forfeited enrolment deposits amounted to more than $19 million. It was the money of numerous students. Are these fees exorbitant? Here is my supplementary question: Could the Bureau negotiate with all the institutions to charge a flat fee of $5,000 or even lower? Is $5,000 a reasonable fee? SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): The current fee was set in 2012 after many years of discussion. But is there still room for adjustment? When we next discuss with the institutions we can of course raise this issue again. Yet I would like to point out that post-secondary institutions are actually non-profit-making organizations and the fees they collect are used for teaching and learning, programme development, student scholarships, research activities or provision of facilities. Even though part of the enrolment deposits is not refunded to students in the end, the money is still used on teaching and learning. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP, has your supplementary question not been answered? MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has only told us such a fee is reasonable to the institutions; but then, is this $5,000 a reasonable fee as far as students are concerned? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add concerning whether the amount of enrolment deposits is reasonable? SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): President, when we discuss with the institutions later on we will definitely take into account the views of parents and students.


79

MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): President, while the Secretary has explained the refund arrangements for enrolment deposits, a number of Honourable colleagues have also pointed out that self-financing universities charge high fees, which include, in addition to tuition fees, other miscellaneous fees. Secretary, to my understanding, there are eight to 10 self-financing post-secondary institutions in Hong Kong offering several hundreds of programmes with a total enrolment of several tens of thousands of students. Some programmes are more practical and good for job-hunting. Some programmes contain syllabuses that are the same as university programmes funded by public coffers but not as comprehensive or in-depth. Will the Secretary worry about the future of students as there are too many graduates from these self-financing post-secondary institutions, and that their income will not be directly proportional to their efforts, thus resulting in more discontent in society? SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): President, before approving self-financing institutions to introduce new programmes, we will require the institutions to consider some factors, such as the future demographic changes, demands for the programmes, as well as the career paths of their graduates. The institutions must give detailed consideration to these few aspects before submitting their views to the Government. MR TANG KA-PIU (in Cantonese): President, while the Bureau keeps saying there is a mechanism, the fact remains that many students cannot benefit from the protection provided by the mechanism. For example, for those students of self-financing top-up degree programmes who are associate degree holders, repeaters and students enrolled in The Open University of Hong Kong through the JUPAS, they are not protected by the mechanism. Moreover, what we are now talking about is not $5,000 but a first instalment of tuition fees of $50,000. I would like to ask the Secretary, is it possible to handle the enrolment deposits and the $50,000 first instalment of tuition fees separately? By that I mean the institutions are allowed to collect enrolment deposits but forbidden by a mandatory requirement to collect the first instalment of tuition fees on the grounds that $50,000 is indeed too excessive an amount. Also, is it possible to set the relevant requirement as one of the conditions set out under the grant


schemes offered by the authorities? That way, self-financing programmes which are accepted into the grant schemes will not collect the first instalment of tuition fees rashly. SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): President, it is a common practice for all the post-secondary institutions to collect tuition fees before the commencement of programmes. I believe the question seems to be how early the fees are collected, meaning how long before the programmes start we allow the institutions to collect the first instalment. We have noticed that some of the institutions may collect the first instalment of tuition fees at a too early stage, and we have started discussing the matter with them this year. We are now collecting from all the institutions information in this respect. Through rounds of discussions with the institutions in the coming year, we hope to come up with more reasonable arrangements regarding the timeline of collecting the first instalment of tuition fees and the amount of the fees. MR TANG KA-PIU (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has not answered my question on whether or not the Government will introduce a mandatory requirement to forbid institutions to collect the first instalment of tuition fees too early. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add? SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): President, I have repeatedly pointed out today that self-financing post-secondary institutions enjoy a high degree of autonomy in administration. On this matter it seems that we cannot introduce any mandatory requirement. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We have spent over 23 minutes and 30 seconds on this question. Oral questions end here.


81

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS Installation of Air-conditioning Systems for Schools 7. MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Chinese): President, under the existing policy, the Government will install double-glazed windows and air-conditioning systems for aided schools affected by traffic noise, such that the noise levels in classrooms are reduced to 60 dB(A) or below. If schools decide to have air-conditioning systems installed in their classrooms and halls on grounds such as preventing mosquitoes and pests, lowering indoor temperature and improving air quality, etc., they have to raise funds on their own from parents or other persons for meeting the capital and recurrent expenditure so incurred. Some members of the education sector have pointed out that as students of special schools will have more physical and emotional problems in a sweltering environment, there is a pressing need for such schools to be installed with air-conditioning systems in their classrooms and halls. However, owing to the small numbers of students in such schools, it is often difficult for such schools to raise sufficient funds to meet the relevant expenses. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it has compiled statistics on the respective numbers of aided schools which at present do not have air-conditioning systems installed in (i) all their classrooms and (ii) their halls, with a breakdown by primary and secondary schools; if it has not, whether it will compile such statistics;

(2) of the grounds, other than traffic noise, based on which the

Government will install air-conditioning systems for existing schools; and

(3) whether, in order to improve the teaching environment of schools, it

will review the existing policy on installation of air-conditioning systems for schools; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Chinese): President, my reply to Mr IP's question about installation of air-conditioning systems for aided schools in Hong Kong is as follows:


Air-conditioning systems are not considered as standard teaching facilities under the prevailing policy. The Government will normally install insulated windows and air-conditioning systems for classrooms and special rooms exposed to traffic noise or fixed noise source as noise mitigation measures in accordance with the noise standards stipulated in the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines. Some special rooms, such as computer-assisted learning rooms, language rooms and libraries, are fitted with air-conditioning systems because the equipment or devices contained therein and the function of such rooms require so. Generally speaking, the above policy on provision of air-conditioning to aided ordinary schools is also applicable to aided special schools. In view of the special needs of the students in special schools for children with physical disability and severe intellectual disability, where many of them are wheel-chair bound and need strapping around their bodies for proper positioning, while some have to wear gaiters and flexion mitts during lessons, air-conditioning is provided to the classrooms, special rooms and student activity centres of all such schools irrespective of the noise level to alleviate students' physical discomfort caused by the fittings. All 17 special schools for children with physical disability and severe intellectual disability have been benefited. Under the principle of proper use of public resources, we must consider carefully the implications of providing air-conditioning in classrooms or special rooms of aided schools across the board, which not only involves a huge amount of resources but also goes against environmental-protection principles. We will continue to review the existing policy from time to time and, where resources permit, assist schools in upgrading their facilities to provide a better learning environment for students. Handling of Complaints About Water Seepage in Buildings 8. MR PAUL TSE (in Chinese): President, in the past several years, I have incessantly received complaints about the handling of water seepage in buildings by the Joint Office (JO) of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) and the Buildings Department (BD). It is learnt that at a seminar held in East Kowloon last month, an official of JO said that in most cases, it was difficult to ascertain the causes of water seepage and the time needed for concluding an investigation, the success rate of colour water tests in identifying the sources of water seepage was just about 50%, and the use of infrared cameras for identifying the sources of water seepage had yet to be formally put


83

into use after years of trials conducted by JO. Residents attending the seminar were dissatisfied with such remarks given by the official concerned. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the current staff establishment and expenditure of JO; (2) of the respective numbers of (i) complaints about water seepage in

buildings received, (ii) cases in which investigations were concluded, and (iii) cases in which the sources of water seepage were ascertained, by JO since 1 April this year, and among those cases in which investigations were concluded, of the average investigation time and expenditure involved in each case;

(3) of the number of complaints from residents of the Kwun Tong and

Wong Tai Sin districts about water seepage in buildings currently handled by JO and the manpower deployed for such work;

(4) given that I have learnt that some members of the public have

switched to lodge complaints with the Office of The Ombudsman, FEHD or BD about water seepage in buildings on the grounds that JO does not handle such complaints effectively, whether the authorities know the respective numbers of complaints received by such organizations each year since the 2013-2014 financial year;

(5) given that it has become a common practice in the community to

investigate the causes of water seepage in buildings by using infrared cameras, which are more time-saving and quicker than colour water tests, whether the authorities have compiled statistics on the number of cases, since the 2013-2014 financial year, in which applications for civil claims were submitted by members of the public, to the Small Claims Tribunal or the Court after they had found the causes of water seepage by using infrared cameras; if they have compiled, of the numbers of such cases; if not, whether they will compile the relevant statistics as soon as possible;

(6) of the time taken and public money spent by JO on studying the use

of infrared cameras to identify the sources of water seepage in buildings, and the reasons why this method has not yet been adopted by JO;


(7) given that JO is collaborating with the Hong Kong Applied Science and Technology Research Institute to explore more effective methods for investigating the causes of water seepage, and JO is also preparing for the commissioning of a consultancy study to examine the latest technology in identifying the sources of water seepage in buildings, of the estimated expenditure of the relevant work and the expected completion time;

(8) of the number of cases in which investigations into the sources of

water seepage have been outsourced by JO since 1 April this year and the total expenditure so incurred; the average time and expenditure involved in each outsourced investigation; and

(9) how the investigations into the sources of water seepage in buildings

conducted by outsourced contractors in the past two financial years compare, in terms of the expenditure and time taken as well as the success rate in identifying the sources of water seepage, to those conducted by JO staff members?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, proper management, maintenance and repair of buildings are the responsibilities of building owners. If water seepage is found in private buildings, the owners should first arrange their own investigation of the cause of seepage and, as appropriate, co-ordinate with the occupants and other owners concerned for repairs. However, where the water seepage poses a health nuisance, a risk to the structural safety of the building or results in wastage of water, the Government would intervene and handle the case in accordance with the powers conferred by the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap. 132), Buildings Ordinance (Cap. 123) or Waterworks Ordinance (Cap. 102) respectively. Currently, the Joint Office (JO) set up with the staff of Buildings Department (BD) and Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) provides "one-stop" service in dealing with reports on water seepage. In general, there are three stages in the investigation of a water seepage case conducted by JO. Stage I (confirming the existence of water seepage nuisance) and Stage II (initial investigation including colour water tests on drainage pipes or reversible pressure tests on water supply pipes) are carried out by the staff of JO. Where the source of seepage cannot be identified in Stage II, Stage III (professional investigation) will be required. In Stage III, an outsourced


85

consultant is engaged to assist in conducting detailed investigation including the carrying out of moisture content monitoring of seepage area, water ponding test, water spray test and reversible pressure tests on water supply pipes to identify the source of seepage. Once the source of seepage has been identified at any stage of the investigation, JO will issue a Nuisance Notice to the person concerned under the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance, requiring the abatement of nuisance within a specified period of time. My reply to the nine-part question is as follows:

(1) In the 2015-2016 financial year, the operation of JO involves 64 professional and technical staff from the BD as well as 219 investigation staff from the FEHD. The estimated expenditures for staffing provision and departmental expenses incurred by the BD and the FEHD for the operation of JO are $30 million and $81 million respectively.

(2) From 1 April to 31 July this year, JO had received 10 667 water

seepage reports and handled 8 587 cases. The statistics in respect of those reports handled are set out as follows:

Number of Cases

Cases screened out(1) 4 297 Cases with investigations concluded 4 290

- Source of water seepage identified 1 573 - Source of water seepage could not be identified 1 194 - Seepage ceased during investigation 1 523

Note: (1) There are cases such as unjustified cases and withdrawn cases, for which

no investigation will be conducted by JO. As explained above, there are three stages in the investigation of a

water seepage case. The staff of JO are involved in all investigation of water seepage reports, while the outsourced consultant is responsible only for the professional investigation in Stage III. JO does not compile separate statistics on the time for handling each water seepage case or the number of cases concluded at different stages of investigation. However, the time required for


investigating each individual case varies due to a number of factors, including the nature and complexity of the case and whether the relevant owners and occupants are co-operative. Therefore JO is not able to provide the average investigation time and expenditure involved in each case.

(3) The statistics on the numbers of water seepage reports received and

handled by JO in the past three years in respect of Kwun Tong and Wong Tai Sin districts are tabulated below:

District Number of reports 2013 2014

2015 (as at the end

of July) Kwun Tong Received 2 123 1 948 1 349

Handled(1) 2 179 2 147 1 164 Wong Tai Sin Received 1 224 1 119 758

Handled(1) 698 720 521

Note: (1) The figures do not necessarily correspond to the number of reports

received in the same year. JO staff responsible for these two districts include 10 BD staff and

24 FEHD staff. (4) The statistics on the numbers of complaints about "water seepage in

buildings" lodged with the Office of The Ombudsman involving the BD and the FEHD since the 2013-2014 financial year are tabulated below:

2013-2014 2014-2015 2015 (First 6 months)

BD 82 51 20 FEHD 86 61 23

The BD and the FEHD have not compiled statistics on the number of

complaints lodged with them by members of the public in relation to the ineffective handling of water seepage reports.


87

(5) JO does not maintain statistics on the number of applications for civil claims submitted by members of the public to the Small Claims Tribunal or the Court after infrared cameras were used for identifying the source of water seepage. As such statistics may not be able to assist in handling seepage reports, JO does not have present plan to compile them.

(6) and (7) JO keeps abreast of the latest technologies with a view to exploring

more effective methods for water seepage investigations. Since late 2013, the JO has commissioned a consultant to employ infrared camera and microwave tomography scanning device on a trial basis to facilitate identification of the source of water seepage in complicated cases. Up to now, the consultant has completed 64 cases. In six cases the consultant succeeded in having the source of water seepage identified, and nuisance notices have been issued to the owners of the units concerned. The related expenditure was about $900,000.

However, infrared or microwave tests are indirect testing methods.

The accuracy of these tests may vary with site circumstances, and they have to be supplemented by other tests or data in order to effectively confirm the source of water seepage. Therefore JO has engaged a consultant at the end of 2014 to conduct a study on the latest technological methods for identifying the source of water seepage in buildings. The study will research on the technological development both locally and overseas, and carry out field tests on selected cases. It will also assess and recommend the most suitable testing methods for use in private buildings, as well as formulate technical guidelines formulated for JO. It is expected that the study will be completed in 2016 and the total expenditure is estimated to be around $4.5 million.

In parallel, JO is conducting a study with the assistance of the Hong

Kong Applied Science and Technology Research Institute, which aims at exploring the feasibility of using real-time monitoring technique in tracing the source of water seepage. This study involves experimental trials in the laboratory and subsequent field


tests on the performance of the technology concerned. It is premature to estimate the completion date of the study at this stage. The study is funded by the Innovation and Technology Support Programme under the Innovation and Technology Fund. JO is not required to provide any funding.

(8) and (9) From 1 April to 30 September this year, the expenditure on

outsourced consultancy for investigation of source of water seepage is $12.5 million.

As stated in part (2) of this reply above, JO staff and the outsourced

consultant are responsible for different stages of investigation work. As such, JO is unable to make direct comparison of the time and expenditure involved in the investigation work carried out by the outsourced consultant and the JO staff as well as their rates of success in identifying the source of water seepage.

Phasing out Pre-Euro Diesel Commercial Vehicles 9. MR FRANKIE YICK (in Chinese): President, to improve roadside air quality, the Government is phasing out pre-Euro IV diesel commercial vehicles (DCVs) in phases. The relevant measures include the offer of ex-gratia payments to vehicle owners who have scrapped such vehicles and retiring such vehicles by ceasing to issue licences for them. The deadline for applications for ex-gratia payments and the retirement date of pre-Euro DCVs fall on 31 December this year and 1 January next year respectively. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number of pre-Euro DCVs to date in respect of which the authorities have granted ex-gratia payments, together with a breakdown by vehicle class; the respective percentages of the numbers of such vehicles in the total number of vehicles eligible for applying for ex-gratia payments; the total amount of ex-gratia payments granted by the authorities so far;


89

(2) whether it has studied the reasons why the owners of some pre-Euro DCVs have not replaced their vehicles to date, and whether such reasons include (i) new vehicles of the relevant models being out of stock, (ii) shortage of vehicle builders to convert new vehicles to meet their operational needs and (iii) vehicle owners planning to close down their businesses upon retirement of the vehicles concerned due to high operational costs; if it has, of the outcome; if not, whether it will conduct the relevant study; and

(3) as it is now less than three months away from the retirement date of

pre-Euro DCVs, whether the authorities have measures in place to expedite replacement of such vehicles by vehicle owners, and whether they will consider deferring the deadline for applications for ex-gratia payments and the retirement date of pre-Euro DCVs; if they have such measures, of the details; if they will not defer the relevant deadline and retirement date, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Chinese): President, diesel commercial vehicles (DCVs) are one of the major sources of roadside air pollution in Hong Kong. To improve roadside air quality and better protect public health, the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) launched an incentive-cum-regulatory scheme in March 2014 with an aim to phasing out, by end 2019 progressively, some 82 000 pre-Euro IV DCVs with $11.4 billion set aside for ex-gratia payment to assist the affected vehicle owners. In order to ensure all pre-Euro IV DCVs to be phased out by end 2019 as scheduled for improving roadside air quality as soon as possible, the Air Pollution Control (Air Pollutant Emission) (Controlled Vehicles) Regulation (the Regulation) was passed by the Legislative Council on 18 December 2013. It stipulates the timetable for phasing out these DCVs, among which pre-Euro DCVs should be phased out by the end of this year. My specific responses are as follows:

(1) 18 113 pre-Euro DCVs are eligible for applying for the ex-gratia payment. Since the launch of the scheme in March 2014, about 14 100 pre-Euro DCVs as at the end of September 2015, accounting


for about 78% of the eligible vehicles, have been retired under the scheme. About 13 800 applications involving $1.79 billion of ex-gratia payment have been approved. Statistics on the pre-Euro DCVs that have participated the scheme by vehicle types are shown in the following table.

Distribution of applications of pre-Euro DCVs for the ex-gratia

payment (as at the end of September 2015)

Vehicle Type

Number of pre-Euro DCV's applications

for ex-gratia payment (Take up rate)

Number of pre-Euro DCVs

eligible for ex-gratia payment

Light goods vehicles 7 636 (78%) 9 744 Medium goods vehicles 5 584 (78%) 7 182 Heavy goods vehicles 458 (67%) 680 Public light buses 12 (80%) 15 Private light buses 262 (83%) 314 Non-franchised buses 126 (71%) 178 Total 14 078 (78) 18 113

In addition, among those about 4 000 eligible pre-Euro DCVs that

have not applied for the ex-gratia payment, about 1 600 of them had stopped renewing the vehicle licences on or before August 2013. The registrations of these vehicles had been cancelled by the Transport Department as their vehicle licences had not been renewed within two years from the expiry date of the vehicle licences. Thus, it is likely that these vehicles have been retired by their owners before the scheme. Excluding these vehicles, nearly 90% of eligible pre-Euro DCVs have been phased out.

(2) In formulating the final plan of the ex-gratia payment scheme, the

Government had accepted the suggestions from the transport trades to delink the ex-gratia payment from whether the vehicle owners would procure replacement vehicles, such that vehicle owners are free to choose whether and when to buy a replacement vehicle (new or second-hand) taking into account their personal circumstances. The decision for procuring a replacement vehicle and the future


91

operational mode of business are commercial decisions of the vehicle owners, and they may also be affected by various factors such as economic prospect and vehicle prices. We therefore cannot estimate the number of vehicle owners who decide to buy a replacement vehicle (new or second-hand) and when they will buy it; and the reason why some vehicle owners still have not replaced their vehicles. As at the end of September 2015, nearly 90% pre-Euro DCVs have been phased out.

(3) Before the launch of the scheme, the EPD had extensively consulted

the transport trades, relevant stakeholders and the Panel on Environmental Affairs of the Legislative Council. In light of the views collected, we had revised the original proposal by increasing the level of ex-gratia payment, and extending the retirement deadline for Euro I, Euro II and Euro III DCVs. The ex-gratia payment level remains the same throughout the scheme so as to give extra impetus to encourage vehicle owners to phase out their old vehicles earlier. The ex-gratia payment scheme and the legislation on stipulating the timetable for phasing out DCVs have been passed by the Legislative Council.

The timetable for phasing out pre-Euro IV DCVs has been

announced in the Regulation. With the active participation of the vehicle owners, nearly 90% pre-Euro DCVs have been phased out. The EPD will implement the scheme according to the Regulation and will not revise the phasing out timetable.

In order to facilitate the vehicle owners and transport trades to

understand the application details and make early preparation for phasing out their DCVs, we have launched a series of publicity activities immediately after receiving the funding approval of the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council for the ex-gratia payment. Publicity activities include issuing press releases, broadcasting of the Announcements for Pubic Interests at television and radio, displaying posters, distributing leaflets and organizing public briefing sessions. We have also issued letters with the leaflets to eligible vehicle owners.


In early 2015, we have stepped up publicity work including sending out letters to vehicle owners who have not applied for the ex-gratia payment, issuing press releases, placing advertisements in newspapers, broadcasting of the advertisements at radio and displaying posters as well as sending out letters to the transport associations, to urge pre-Euro DCV owners to make early preparation and remind them to submit applications on or before the application deadline (that is, 31 December 2015). In order to ensure that owners of pre-Euro DCVs will not miss the chance of applying for ex-gratia payment, we will continue urging them to submit applications by end of this year through various publicity means.

Regulation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems 10. IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Chinese): President, with the relevant technology maturing gradually, the prices of unmanned aircraft systems (UASs) have been on continuous decline, and they have become increasingly versatile. Flying UASs has now become a recreational activity for quite a number of members of the public. At the same time, the popularization of UASs has brought about quite a number of new problems, including issues of public safety. For instance, in July this year, a teenager in the United States conducted an experiment in which he succeeded in remotely firing four shots in a row from an automatic handgun mounted on a UAS, and he uploaded the clip of his experiment onto the Internet for showing off, leading to the worry that lawbreakers may follow suit. Also in the same month, an incident occurred in Taipei in which a UAS hit the external wall of Taipei 101. Regarding the regulation of UASs, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) given that under the existing legislation, flying UASs weighing not more than seven kilograms (without its fuel) for recreational purpose can be classified as flying radio-controlled model aircraft, and no application to the Civil Aviation Department (CAD) is required, but prior permission from CAD is required for flying UASs exceeding this weight for recreational purpose, whether the Government will consider amending the relevant legislation expeditiously to standardize the regulation of flying UASs of different weights for


93

recreational purpose, and drawing up the relevant codes of operation of UASs; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(2) as UASs have become increasingly versatile, whether the

Government will consider regulating the manufacture, import and sale of UASs used for different purposes, so as to safeguard public safety on the premise of not thwarting the healthy development of the relevant industries; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(3) whether it will consider collaborating with the relevant professional

bodies to step up publicity and education on issues such as the uses and operation of UASs, the avoidance of privacy infringement and the safeguarding of public safety, etc.; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, our reply to Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok's question is as follows:

(1) Unmanned aircraft systems (UASs) are one kind of aircraft, and its flight safety is regulated by the civil aviation legislation. Articles 3 and 7 of the Air Navigation (Hong Kong) Order 1995 (Cap. 448C, Laws of Hong Kong) (the Order) provide that an aircraft shall not fly unless it is issued with a Certificate of Registration and a Certificate of Airworthiness by the Civil Aviation Department (CAD) or the relevant aviation authority of that aircraft.

Article 100 of the Order provides that an aircraft weighing not more

than 7 kilograms (without fuel) is classified as a small aircraft. Members of the public who use this kind of small aircraft are not required to apply for a Certificate of Registration or a Certificate of Airworthiness. This policy measure, which aims to strike a proper balance between safeguarding public safety and catering to the public's recreational needs, is in line with the practice of certain overseas countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia.


Nonetheless, the operators of UASs, regardless of the types and models of UASs operated, are governed by Article 48 of the Order, which stipulates that a person shall not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property. The CAD has published a guide entitled Safety in Radio-Controlled Model Aircraft Flying and has uploaded it onto its website for the public's reference. This safety guide applies to small aircraft (including a UAS) not exceeding 7 kilograms (without fuel) used for leisure flying. Members of the public are advised not to fly a UAS in the vicinity of an airport or aircraft approach and take-off paths. As to the sites of the operations of UASs, they should be clear of buildings, people and away from helicopter landing pads, and clear of any power sources such as power lines, transformer stations, pylons and transmitter towers which might cause radio interference. The site should also be free from visual obstruction, so that the operator can see his UAS in flight, thereby avoiding any collision that may cause injuries, fatalities or damage to property. Before operating a UAS exceeding 7 kilograms (without fuel) for leisure flying in Hong Kong, the operator must lodge an application with the CAD.

(2) At present, there are still no standardized international requirements

to regulate the manufacture, import, sale and operations of UASs. With the popularization of small UASs, the CAD will, taking into account the development of regulatory requirements of overseas aviation authorities and the specific circumstances in Hong Kong, review in due course the regulatory policies on UASs and consider amending the relevant legislation, in order to ensure public safety.

(3) The CAD has been attaching great importance to publicity and

educational efforts on the safe operations of UASs. In September 2014, the CAD, through the Police Report TV programme, reminded members of the public of the points to note when operating UASs. In the video clip, the civil aviation legislation applicable to UASs was introduced and members of the public were told that UASs must not be allowed to fly over populated areas, to carry hazardous


95

materials, or to drop any objects, in order to avoid endangering any person or property on the ground.

From time to time, schools, youth organizations, professional bodies,

the aviation sector, the transport and logistics sectors, charitable organizations, and so on, pay a visit to the CAD's Education Path. All visitors have the opportunity to watch a promotional video clip on the safe operations of UASs, and will be specifically briefed by a docent from the CAD. Noting the growing application of UASs, the CAD will continue to strengthen its publicity and educational efforts through different channels, so as to raise the safety awareness of the relevant sectors and organizations, as well as the general public, about the operations of UASs.

On privacy protection, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for

Personal Data issued the Guidance on CCTV Surveillance and Use of Drones(1) to remind users of drones (that is, UASs with cameras) of their duty in privacy protection in March 2015. The guidance note reminds users of drones that the use of UASs in recording is also regulated by the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (including the Data Protection Principles therein). Users of drones should be particularly mindful of the need to respect people's privacy. They should also have due regard to and have understanding of public perception and the reasonable privacy expectations of the individuals affected. Suggestions on such aspects as recording, retention and encryption of image transmission by drones are given in the guidance note.

While UASs must be operated safely in accordance with the relevant

civil aviation regulations, their other activities should also be in compliance with other Hong Kong laws. If a UAS is used for illegal purposes, the government departments concerned will take follow-up action under applicable legislation depending on the illegal activities involved.

(1) <https://www.pcpd.org.hk/english/resources_centre/publications/files/GN_CCTV_Drones_e.pdf>


Replacement and Rehabilitation of Aged Water Mains 11. DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Chinese): President, the Water Supplies Department commenced the Water Mains Replacement and Rehabilitation Programme in 2000 to comprehensively replace and rehabilitate about 3 000 kilometres of aged water mains in phases. The programme is expected to be substantially completed within this year. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) regarding those water mains covered by the aforesaid programme, of the respective total lengths of those water mains in various District Council (DC) districts for which works have yet to start at the present moment, and the relevant work schedules;

(2) of the details of each incident of fresh water main bursting since

January 2014, broken down by DC district, including (i) the location of the burst water main, (ii) the duration of the resultant fresh water supply suspension, and (iii) the number of years for which the burst water main had been used; among such incidents, the number of those involving water mains which had been used for less than 30 years; and

(3) whether the authorities will, upon the completion of the aforesaid

programme, gradually replace and rehabilitate water mains with relatively shorter years of usage; if they will, of the manpower and expenditure involved; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, the replacement and rehabilitation programme of water mains involves the replacement and rehabilitation of some 3 000 kilometres of aged water mains in stages. Ninety six percent of the works has been completed and the programme is anticipated to be substantially completed by the end of this year. Replies to three items of the Question are given here below:

(1) Up to September 2015, the respective total length of water mains of which relevant works are still in progress within each district of the District Council under the programme are shown in the table below. The programme will be substantially completed by the end of 2015.


97

District

Length of water mains already completed (as at 30.09.2015)

(km)

Length of water mains of which relevant

works are still in progress

(km) Central and Western 166 4 Eastern 117 5 Islands 99 6 Kowloon City 209 10 Kwai Tsing 131 6 Kwun Tong 145 4 North 223 8 Sai Kung 138 13 Sha Tin 183 13 Sham Shui Po 144 5 Southern 106 3 Tai Po 144 2 Tsuen Wan 87 3 Tuen Mun 188 6 Wan Chai 98 3 Wong Tai Sin 100 3 Yau Tsim Mong 187 4 Yuen Long 417 20 Total 2 882 118 (96.1%) (3.9%)

(2) (i) The summary of fresh water main bursts in 2014 and 2015

within each district of the District Council is tabled below:

District 2014 2015 (Up to 31 August 2015)

Central and Western 0 4 Eastern 2 2 Islands 6 0 Kowloon City 6 2 Kwai Tsing 8 6 Kwun Tong 9 1 North 3 4 Sai Kung 2 3 Sha Tin 9 5 Sham Shui Po 2 1 Southern 2 0


District 2014 2015 (Up to 31 August 2015)

Tai Po 8 1 Tsuen Wan 3 1 Tuen Mun 3 2 Wan Chai 3 0 Wong Tai Sin 3 1 Yau Tsim Mong 5 5 Yuen Long 12 4 Total 86 42

(ii) Among the 128 fresh water main burst incidents, there are 84

incidents (about 66%) with fresh water supply to premises being affected.

For the 84 incidents with fresh water supply to premises being

affected, there are 60 incidents (about 71%) with the duration of supply interruption within eight hours, and an average duration of 5.7 hours. For the remaining 24 incidents, the average duration of supply interruption is about 16.5 hours. The latter needed more time to repair because (a) it was required to confine the road closure area in order to minimize the impact on the road traffic during repair; (b) it was required to use hand tools for excavation to avoid damaging the congested underground utilities; and (c) the removal of underground concrete structures or blocks took considerable time.

(iii) Among the 128 main burst incidents, 23 cases (about 18%) are

related to water mains with service life more than 30 years; 19 cases (about 15%) related to water mains with service life less than 30 years; and the remaining 86 cases (67% approximately) related to water mains with "unknown(1)" service life.

(1) The reason for water mains with "unknown" service life: In the past, all water mains record plans were

prepared by hand and the year of construction of the water mains was not recorded. In early 80s, Water Supplies Department (WSD) started recording the construction year when preparing the water mains record plans. In late 90s, WSD commenced digitizing the water mains record plans and classified all the water mains without year of construction as water mains with "unknown" construction year. And these water mains should have been put into service for more than 30 years.


99

According to analysis, among the 19 main burst incidents involving water mains with service life less than 30 years, 18 incidents were caused by external factors, such as accidental damages by other roadworks projects or ground movement due to construction activities in the vicinity of the burst mains causing pipe damages or dislocation of pipe joints.

(3) Following the substantial completion of the replacement and

rehabilitation programme of water mains by the end of 2015, the condition of the water supply network has been improved significantly. Thereafter we will adopt a multi-pronged strategy to maintain the healthiness of the water supply network.

With reference to the overseas advanced technology and experience,

we have planned to progressively establish the Water Intelligent Network (WIN) by setting up some 2 000 District Metering Areas (DMAs) over the territory with monitoring and sensing equipment installed within the network of each DMA to collect network data. We will make use of an intelligent network management system to analyse the data collected from the monitoring and sensing equipment for continuous monitoring of the condition of the water supply network. When WIN is fully implemented, it will help us determine the most effective network management measures (including pressure management, active leak detection, re-provisioning of water mains in poor condition, and so on) according to the condition of supply network in each DMA, so as to maintain the healthiness of the water supply network.

Prior to the full implementation of WIN, the existing water supply

network will continue to age and deteriorate. Therefore it is still necessary for us to consider the replacement and rehabilitation of those aged water mains with relatively high risk of failure during the transitional period. Apart from the service life of water mains, we will continue to consider other relevant factors, for example, the pipe material, past burst and leakage records, current conditions of the water mains, and so on, to determine the probability of occurrence of burst failure of water mains and at the same time assess the degree of seriousness of consequences arising from the main bursts (for example, number of consumers affected, interruption to traffic, and so on) in identifying those water mains with relatively high risk of


failure for replacement and rehabilitation as a transitional arrangement, in order to sustain the healthiness of the water supply network.

Measures to Prevent Youth Suicide 12. DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Chinese): President, according to the statistics published by the Hong Kong Jockey Club Centre for Suicide Research and Prevention (CSRP) of the University of Hong Kong last month, the suicide rates in Hong Kong have dropped continuously since 2003. However, the suicide rate of youths aged 15 to 24 increased by 1% to 2% last year, as compared with that of the year before. Since the commencement of the current school year last month, there have already been three cases in which three students aged 11 to 21 committed suicide and died. In a telephone survey conducted in 2013 on 1 010 young people aged 12 to 29, CSRP found that 30.9% of the respondents had experienced emotional distress and 28% of them had not sought any help. On the other hand, the Education Bureau updated the School Administration Guide in this September, which reminds teachers in its "Student suicide cases" section that they should not "over-patronise [students who attempted to suicide] afterwards". Some clinical psychologists are of the view that the relevant contents of such section may mislead teachers. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the child and youth suicide statistics in the past five years, including the respective numbers of fatal and attempted cases and the number of requests for assistance made because they contemplated suicide;

(2) whether the authorities added contents on mental health to the

relevant primary and secondary school curricula in the past five years so as to raise the self-awareness of students and enable them to identify warning signals of suicide in their peers and to be more proactive in seeking help, thereby preventing suicide;

(3) whether the authorities stepped up efforts in promoting the message

of cherishing life among children and youths in the past five years, and informed them and their parents of the channels available for seeking assistance; if they did, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;


101

(4) whether the authorities allocated additional resources to the relevant non-governmental organizations in the past five years for the early provision of appropriate services to suicide-prone children and youths; if they did, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(5) whether the authorities made reference to overseas experience in the

past five years and studied ways to lower the suicide rates of children and youths; if they did, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(6) as the statistics of CSRP indicated that many children and youths

experiencing emotional distress had not sought assistance from their families and teachers, whether the authorities taught parents and teachers in the past five years, through issuing clear guidelines and organizing seminars, how to (i) identify warning signals of suicide in children and youths at an early stage, and (ii) provide them with appropriate assistance; if they did, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Chinese): President, my reply to Dr Elizabeth QUAT's question is as follows:

(1) According to the latest information provided by the Census and Statistics Department, the figures of known suicide deaths of children and youth in Hong Kong in the past five years are set out as follows:

Year

Age 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

0-24 69 72 76 69 49

Note: The suicide death figures presented here refer to the number of suicide deaths which occurred in a specified year known as at June 2015. They do not cover deaths which occurred in that year but not yet got a verdict by the Coroner's Court and registered with the Immigration Department.

There is no official statistical information in Hong Kong on

attempted suicide cases or the number of requests for assistance made by people who contemplated suicide. At present, there are


three non-governmental organizations (NGOs) providing suicide prevention hotline services. The number of calls received by these hotline services in the past five years is set in the Annex.

(2) The primary and secondary school curricula of Hong Kong cover

contents on emotion management, ways to cope with negative emotion and understanding oneself, and so on.

At primary level, the strand of "Health and Living" in the subject of

General Studies helps students understand the importance of living in responsible ways to reflect a loving regard for life. Related topics at junior primary level include: understanding oneself and personal emotion, dealing with stress and frustration, and so on. At senior primary level, the curriculum of General Studies helps students learn how to express their anxieties, tension and doubts. Also, they will learn to seek assistance when needed, on behalf of their friends or themselves, from family members, counsellors or relevant organizations.

At secondary level, the curriculum of Life and Society

(Secondary One to Three) includes topics which help promote students' mental health, such as "self-understanding, self-esteem and self-confidence", "healthy lifestyle and self-management" and "coping with adversities", and so on. The subject of Liberal Studies (Secondary Four to Six) covers contents on adolescents' developmental changes and challenges, coping with pressure and interpersonal relationship, and healthy lifestyle, and so on. It is conducive to deepening students' self-understanding, nurturing the development of their positive attitudes, and developing their capacity to handle frustrations and adversities that they may encounter in daily situations.

Schools also strengthen students' capacity to handle adversities

through the provision of experiential learning experiences. The Education Bureau encourages schools to establish a caring and harmonious school environment and strengthen home-school co-operation and peer support, with the aim of helping students adopt a positive attitude when facing and handling difficulties and challenges in life. In addition, schools will utilize class teacher periods, moral and civic education classes, and so on, for helping


103

students to cope with their personal growth and development, and prepare them to deal with life changes. Many primary and secondary schools have collaborated with tertiary institutions, governmental and NGOs to develop school-based curricula aimed at enhancing the qualities of students' mental health and their capabilities to cope with adversities through experiential learning experiences or engaging students in life planning.

(3) On publicity and public education, the Social Welfare Department

(SWD) has all along been collaborating with the relevant government departments to promote positive messages like "There are always more solutions than problems" and "Embrace your hopes, Cherish your love", and so on, through different programmes and media, such as promotional items and short videos, and so on, with a view to strengthening resilience towards adversity for people from all walks of life. It also aims to encourage persons who are in distress or facing adversity, including children and youth, to seek help early to cope with their problems. In 2014, the SWD produced a series of short animations titled "Wisdom of Parenting" to disseminate useful information on effective parenting and the ways to promote resilience in children. The animations were broadcast in public transportation systems and promoted through DVD distribution. Apart from promoting positive messages, the short videos also provided clear information on the various channels and hotlines from which help could be sought. The SWD has uploaded the short videos produced in recent years onto YouTube for viewing by the general public. Since 2011-2012, the Committee on the Promotion of Civic Education (CPCE) has adopted the theme of "Cherish yourself and your family, Love Hong Kong and your country", which encourages members of the community to develop a positive and resilient attitude to life and the perseverance to pursue one's goals in life. CPCE has also included "passion for life" in the content of the promotional theme since 2012-2013.

(4) Since 2005, the SWD has been subventing the Suicide Crisis

Intervention Centre (SCIC) of the Samaritan Befrienders Hong Kong to provide different dedicated services including outreaching, crisis intervention, intensive counselling services, and so on, to persons beset with suicidal problems. The SCIC targets at young people by


implementing the cyber services of regular blog search to identify blog authors with suicidal thoughts in recent years. Under the Web-engagement Service, forums, email-boxes and chat-rooms have been set up to reach out to Internet users with suicidal ideation to facilitate their ventilation of negative emotion, and help them gain emotional support and deter their ideations of committing suicide. Besides, case stories and videos are uploaded to promote positive life attitude and information on related social services was provided to the service users. In the light of the service demand, the SWD has increased the subvention for SCIC since 2014-2015 and the Web-engagement Service will be regularized and incorporated into SCIC's regular service starting from 2016-2017.

Besides, the SWD subvents the Hong Kong Federation Youth Group

in setting up the "Hotline Service for Youth at Risk" for young people aged six to 24, with the objective of providing a safety net to assist them in facing different crises during their development and to strengthen their problem solving skills. Through telephone contact, the hotline helps stabilize the emotion of young people facing crisis (especially youngsters with risk of suicide), and counselling and referral services will also be provided to them.

(5) With reference to the experience of adopting community-based

interventions in other countries, the SWD commissioned, in 2011, the Hong Kong Jockey Club Centre for Suicide Research and Prevention of the University of Hong Kong to implement a pilot project on community-based prevention of youth suicide in North District with a view to facilitating the formulation of effective measures for combating youth suicide. The SWD is reviewing the pilot project with the consultancy team, and will examine if the good practices can be replicated in other districts with high suicidal risk so as to strengthen its efforts on prevention of children and youth suicide. The SWD has all along been encouraging NGOs to make reference to overseas suicide prevention experience. For example, having regard to the popular use of Internet service among young people and overseas experience, the SWD subvents SCIC to implement the Web-engagement Service for early identification of youth with suicidal ideation.


105

(6) The Education Bureau is committed to enhancing the capability of teachers and school personnel to understand, identify early and support students with emotional distress. The Education Bureau has issued an "eBook on Student Suicide for Schools: Early Detection, Intervention and Postvention" (2011). The School Administration Guide also includes a guideline entitled "How can schools help students with mental health problems?". The Education Bureau recommends schools to adopt a Three-tier Support Model to provide different levels of detection and support by teachers, guidance personnel and specialized professionals respectively who, with close communication with parents, help students who have emotional distress and are possibly at risk of committing suicide.

Every year, the Education Bureau provides structured training to

teachers, including "Certificate Courses on Student Guidance and Discipline for Teachers of Primary and Secondary Schools" and 120-hour "Effective Strategies for Managing Students' Challenging Behaviour: A Psychological Approach". A territory-wide thematic seminar on "Supporting Students with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties" is organized annually for primary and secondary schools. Professionals like psychiatrists, educational psychologists, school social workers, and so on, are invited to share their experience in identifying and supporting these students. In addition, from the 2011-2012 to 2014-2015 school years, the Education Bureau collaborated with the Hospital Authority to organize a number of regional seminars on various mental health topics for teachers/guidance personnel in order to enhance their awareness of students with emotional distress and promote early identification of students in need and provide appropriate support.

To support parents, the 65 Integrated Family Service Centres

operated by the SWD or welfare NGOs, 22 Family Life Education Units and the two Integrated Services Centres in the territory have been organizing programmes such as seminars, talks, groups and exhibitions, and so on, on family life education, the contents of which include advice to parents on early identification of children's emotional problems and suicidal thoughts and seeking timely intervention from relevant welfare service units if in need.


Moreover, school social workers work closely with school disciplinary/guidance teachers and other welfare service units/stakeholders in the community through organizing different activities to enhance parents' understanding of suicide problems so as to facilitate their early identification of suicidal symptoms and render appropriate assistance to the students. The Education Bureau publicizes information from time to time through such channels as the "e-Bulletin" and the "Guidance and Discipline Newsletter", and so on, to remind parents and the public to help their children face difficulties.

Annex

Number of Calls Received by Suicide Prevention Hotline Services

Financial Year Agency

2010- 2011

2011- 2012

2012- 2013

2013- 2014

2014- 2015

Suicide Prevention Services 31 259 29 721 34 426 36 573 38 099 The Samaritans 24 Hours Suicide Prevention Hotline

26 427 29 110 28 900 31 018 30 623

The Samaritan Befrienders Hong Kong 15 631 16 972 17 737 18 213 17 851

Note: The hotline services serve persons of all ages, including children and youth. Stray Dogs 13. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Chinese): President, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number of complaints lodged by members of the public in the past 12 months about nuisances caused by stray dogs, with a breakdown of that by District Council districts in which the places frequented by the stray dogs were situated;


107

(2) of the number of stray dogs caught by the authorities in the past 12 months, and the respective numbers of such dogs which were subsequently adopted and euthanized; and

(3) whether it knows the effectiveness of the "Trap-Neuter-Return" trial

programme for stray dogs recently implemented by animal welfare organizations; if the programme is remarkably effective, whether the authorities will implement it comprehensively; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, the Government has been striving to promote in the community a culture of care for animals with a view to protecting and promoting animal welfare. To this end, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) has established a dedicated team to devise, implement and fortify public education and publicity programmes for disseminating messages that help promote care for animals and a responsible attitude for keeping pets. We have also been encouraging members of the public to adopt stray animals and co-operating with animal welfare organizations on the provision of animal adoption services. In addition, according to the Rabies Ordinance (Cap. 421), a keeper of any animal who, without reasonable excuse, abandons that animal commits an offence and is liable to a maximum fine of $10,000 and imprisonment for up to six months. My reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:

(1) From September 2014 to August 2015, the AFCD received a total of 6 537 complaints involving stray dogs. The AFCD does not keep breakdown of the figures by district.

(2) At present, all stray animals caught, including lost pets loitering on

the street, will be sent to the animal management centres (AMCs) of AFCD and kept there for observation. For animals with a microchip implanted, the AMCs will try to locate their owners based on the information on the microchips. In general, these animals will stay in the centres temporarily for about 10 to 20 days. Those without a microchip will stay in the centres for at least four days, allowing time for their owners to reclaim them. In those cases where the animals in question (be they animals handed over by pet


owners or left unclaimed) are in good health and assessed by a veterinary surgeon as having a gentle temperament and suitable for adoption, the AFCD will arrange for their transfer to animal welfare organizations (AWOs) for adoption by members of the public. Only animals that remain unclaimed or not adopted at the end of the process will be euthanized. In fact, a number of international animal organizations, including the World Organization for Animal Health, agree that in situations where various measures for managing stray dogs have been implemented but stray dogs caught remain high in number or not fit for adoption, euthanasia would be an appropriate solution. There are also cases where animals that are ill or hurt need to be euthanized to relieve them of their suffering.

From September 2014 to August 2015, the number of stray dogs

caught by AFCD was 2 747 (including lost pet dogs loitering on the street). Over the same period, 699 dogs(1) were adopted via the AFCD's partner AWOs, while 1 649 needed to be euthanized.

(3) In recent years, some AWOs advocate the Trap-Neuter-Return

(TNR) concept to gradually reduce stray dog population. The advocates consider that TNR can slow down the continuous reproduction of stray dogs, and with the death of stray dogs by natural causes over time, their population will gradually decline. In this way, the number of stray dogs may be controlled without resorting to euthanasia. As neutered dogs are generally less aggressive, the nuisance caused by dogs fighting may also subside. Nevertheless, according to overseas experience and data available, whether TNR as a measure for reducing stray dog population and the associated nuisance is able to achieve the effectiveness as that suggested by the advocates has yet to be proved scientifically.

The AFCD agreed earlier to assist the Society for the Prevention of

Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) and the Society for Abandoned Animals (SAA) in implementing a three-year TNR trial programme in designated zones with a view to assessing the effectiveness of TNR in Hong Kong. The trial programme was launched in January 2015 after the exemption provisions in the relevant legislation had been

(1) Dogs adopted include stray dogs caught, and dogs handed over by owners and received via other means.


109

brought into effect. As the Programme Co-ordinators of the trial zones in Cheung Chau and Tai Tong, Yuen Long respectively, SPCA and SAA are responsible for implementing the trial programme according to the operational procedures agreed with AFCD.

The AFCD will closely monitor the progress of the trial programme.

An independent consultant has been commissioned for timely assessment of the programme's effectiveness. The sustainability of the trial programme will hinge on a number of factors, including the continued support of local residents, the potential nuisance and/or danger to the public in the vicinity, and the successful prevention of dog abandonment by irresponsible owners in the area. The AFCD will review the situation regularly during the three-year trial period and sum up the experience upon completion of the programme. As the programme is still in the first year of the trial period, we are not able to evaluate its effectiveness at this stage.

Enforcement of Professional Accountants (Amendment) Ordinance 2013 14. MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Chinese): President, the Professional Accountants (Amendment) Ordinance 2013 (the Amendment Ordinance), which has come into operation since 24 January 2014, contains provisions prohibiting a body corporate not being a corporate practice to use misleading descriptions such as "certified public accountant", the initials "CPA" and the characters "會計師". Recently, some members of the industry have relayed to me that accounting practices suspected to be in breach of the Amendment Ordinance or the existing code of practice are still prevalent in the market. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it has formulated policies and operational objectives for enforcing the Amendment Ordinance; if it has, of the details, including the government department responsible for the enforcement; if not, the reasons for that;

(2) whether it has assessed the effectiveness of the law enforcement

efforts in respect of the Amendment Ordinance; if it has, of the details;


(3) whether the authorities have allocated additional resources to step up law enforcement efforts since the Amendment Ordinance came into operation; if they have, of the details;

(4) of the government departments/organizations to which members of

the public may report suspected cases of illegal use of misleading descriptions; the number of such reports received by the authorities since the Amendment Ordinance came into operation; whether the authorities have conducted investigations and instituted prosecutions in respect of such cases; if they have, of the respective numbers of prosecutions and convictions, as well as the sentences imposed by the court on the convicted persons; and

(5) whether it has plans to step up efforts in enforcing the Amendment

Ordinance; if it does, of the details; if not, the reasons for that? SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Chinese): President, the Professional Accountants (Amendment) Ordinance 2013 (the Amendment Ordinance) was enacted through a Member's Bill and came into operation on 24 January 2014. The Amendment Ordinance has amended the Professional Accountants Ordinance (Cap. 50) (PAO) by, amongst other things, adding a subparagraph (iv) to section 42(1)(ha) of the PAO. On the basis that section 42(1)(ha) already prohibits a body corporate which is not a corporate practice to use in its name certain descriptions which are reserved for professionals, the new section 42(1)(ha)(iv) further prohibits a body corporate which is not a corporate practice from using the description "certified public accountant", the initial "CPA" or the characters "會計師" in its name with the intention of causing, or in a way which may reasonably cause, a person to believe that it is a practice unit registered under the PAO. The aforementioned amendment can plug the loophole and prevent members of the public from being misled. The Companies Registry (CR) has issued guidelines on the use of the description "certified public accountant", "CPA" or "會計師" in company names. The CR has also tightened the requirement for approving the use of the description "certified public accountant" or "會計師", and so on, in company names when processing applications for incorporation and change of company names. Currently, the CR would approve the registration of a company name


111

containing the description "certified public accountant" or "會計師", and so on, only if the applicant is able to provide a letter issued by the Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants (HKICPA), proving that HKICPA has given approval for the registration of the proposed company as a corporate practice under the PAO. On the other hand, the HKICPA actively co-operates with the Police in the latter's enforcement work relating to the PAO. The HKICPA also protects the interests of the public and the profession by taking the following actions:

- reporting relevant contraventions to the Police (from the beginning of 2014 to the end of June 2015, the HKICPA reported to the Police 19 cases which were suspected to have contravened the PAO, but none of these cases were suspected to have contravened section 42(1)(ha)(iv) of the PAO);

- keeping and regularly updating the register of certified public

accountants for public inspection so as to enable any member of the public to ascertain whether he is dealing with an accountant registered with the HKICPA;

- regularly publicizing and providing guidance on matters regarding

the appropriate use of names by practice units registered with the HKICPA;

- reporting relevant cases to the CR for follow-up actions, including

directing the relevant companies to change their Chinese and/or English names;

- issuing letters to unregistered practices requesting change of

inappropriate names; - requesting unregistered practices to remove misleading information

from their websites; and - in cases where members of the HKICPA are identified as having

possible connections with the unregistered practices, reporting their improper conduct to the HKICPA's Professional Conduct Committee for consideration of appropriate actions.


For the aforementioned cases referred by the HKICPA, the Police took appropriate actions in accordance with the circumstances of individual cases, including initiation of prosecutions. The Police have not maintained statistics on information such as prosecutions and convictions in relation to the cases. The Government encourages members of the public to report to the Police cases which are suspected to have committed the aforementioned offences. The Government will also maintain close liaison with the HKICPA to review from time to time the enforcement work concerning the relevant provisions of the PAO. Public Healthcare Services 15. MR GARY FAN (in Chinese): President, as pointed out in the review report released by the Steering Committee on Review of Hospital Authority (HA) in July this year, there is a priority need for HA to provide additional funding for three hospital clusters, namely the New Territories East Cluster (NTEC), the New Territories West Cluster and the Kowloon East Cluster, to serve the continuously growing population in these catchment districts, and to echo the concerns expressed by hospital staff on under-provision of resources for some hospitals in the three clusters. In addition, according to the latest report on the Surgical Outcomes Monitoring and Improvement Programme released by HA, among the 13 public hospitals which provide emergency surgeries, North District Hospital (NDH) in NTEC is the only hospital the performance of which has been rated as unsatisfactory. HA considers that the relevant outcome is related to the manpower shortage of surgeons in NDH and the increases of cross-boundary patients and elderly patients. In connection with public healthcare services, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it has any plan to consolidate the data on transient population, so as to grasp the demand of Hong Kong residents residing on the Mainland for local healthcare services; if it does, of the details;

(2) whether it knows, in each of the past five years, the respective

attendances at various public hospitals of Hong Kong residents residing on the Mainland for (i) using the services of the accident


113

and emergency departments, (ii) receiving surgical operations and (iii) staying in hospitals for treatment; if it knows, of a breakdown of the figures by hospital name and the cluster to which the hospital belongs;

(3) whether it knows, in respect of the Hong Kong residents residing on

the Mainland, (i) their attendances at public general out-patient clinics to seek consultations for the first time, (ii) their attendances at these clinics to seek follow-up consultations and (iii) the number of referrals to specialist out-patient clinics made for them by these clinics, in each of the past five years; if it knows, of a breakdown of the figures by clinic name and the cluster to which the clinic belongs;

(4) given that the aforesaid review report pointed out that the

Government would allocate a time-limited funding of $300 million for the next three financial years from 2015-2016 to enhance the existing services of the three aforesaid clusters, whether the authorities know the details of the allocation of such funding, including the considerations to be given to the demand of Hong Kong residents residing on the Mainland for local healthcare services in the process of resource allocation;

(5) whether it will expeditiously implement the expansion projects of

Alice Ho Miu Ling Nethersole Hospital (AHNH) and NDH, so as to improve the provision of public healthcare services in New Territories East and meet the demand of Hong Kong residents residing on the Mainland for local healthcare services; and

(6) given that among the various police posts set up in the accident and

emergency departments of public hospitals, only the police posts in AHNH and NDH in NTEC do not operate round the clock, whether the authorities will allocate additional resources to enable the two police posts to operate round the clock in order to strengthen the protection of the personal safety of patients and healthcare personnel?


SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, my reply to the various parts of the question relating to public healthcare services raised by Mr Gary FAN is as follows:

(1) to (3) All eligible Hong Kong residents can use the public healthcare

services subsidized by the Government. As eligible Hong Kong residents residing in the Mainland may not necessarily declare to the Hospital Authority (HA) their residence in the Mainland when seeking medical consultations, the HA does not maintain relevant statistical figures on eligible Hong Kong residents residing in the Mainland who have used the HA's services.

Nevertheless, in projecting the demand for public healthcare

services, the HA will fully consider the needs of all eligible persons based on the demographic data and population projections by the Government and through survey and research. Therefore, the healthcare service demand of Hong Kong residents who have moved to the Mainland will not be overlooked because of their relocation. Looking ahead, we will continue to monitor the demand for various healthcare services and plan the service development having regard to factors like the demographic growth and changes, medical technology advances and healthcare manpower, so as to meet the needs of the community at large.

(4) For the three financial years starting from 2015-2016, the

Government would allocate an additional time-limited funding of $300 million to the HA for the enhancement of services in the New Territories East Cluster, New Territories West Cluster and Kowloon East Cluster. About $80 million of this time-limited funding has been deployed to the three clusters in 2015-2016. Around 70% of such an amount deployed was used to hire additional staff (including nursing and supporting staff) while the remaining amount was used to replace and purchase equipment, so as to provide better services for Hong Kong residents (including those who have moved to the Mainland and returned to Hong Kong for medical treatment). In the coming two financial years, the HA will continue to use the


115

remaining portion of the funding to further improve the services provided by the three clusters having regard to the service needs of the relevant clusters.

(5) Having regard to the demand for healthcare services in Tai Po, the

HA has deployed resources to enhance the in-patient service of Alice Ho Miu Ling Nethersole Hospital (AHNH). These include the provision of an additional medical ward in the third to fourth quarter of 2015, the development of a joint replacement centre and the installation of a magnetic resonance imaging machine. Besides, in order to meet the future healthcare demand of the entire population in the North District, the Government has reserved a site of 30 000 sq m adjacent to the North District Hospital (NDH) for expansion projects to provide additional beds and increase service capacity when necessary.

(6) The Police have provided round-the-clock service in the police post

in the accident and emergency (A&E) department of NDH since September 2015. At present, there are police officers on duty from 7 am to 11 pm every day in the A&E department of AHNH. AHNH has also arranged security guards to station at the A&E department round-the-clock to provide assistance at all times. Furthermore, AHNH and the Tai Po Police Station have established a notification mechanism to ensure close liaison on security arrangements. At the same time, the Police will examine the feasibility of deploying police officers to station at the A&E department of AHNH round-the-clock.

Safety of Lifts and Escalators in Public Places and Public Housing Estates 16. MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Chinese): President, in recent years, a number of lifts and escalators installed in public places and public housing estates were involved in repeated incidents. For instance, incidents in which escalators suddenly broke up while in operation occurred at Times Square as well as the MTR Quarry Bay Station and Wong Tai Sin Station in August and September this year respectively. The newly-installed lifts and escalators at Sha Kok Commercial Complex have broken down frequently, and serious lift incidents


have often occurred at Tin Yee House, Tin Cheung House and Tin Hor House of Tin Ping Estate in Sheung Shui over the past two years (including the incidents in July this year in which residents of that Estate were trapped in a lift and a lift was suspected to have plunged). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether, in the past two years, the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department stepped up its efforts in monitoring the periodic examinations as well as the repair and maintenance work for lifts and escalators in public places managed by private organizations; if so, of the relevant operational procedures and follow-up measures; if not, the reasons for that; and

(2) of the respective percentages of the lifts installed in public housing

estates which have now been in use for more than 10 years, 20 years and 30 years; the latest details and progress of the Hong Kong Housing Authority's lift modernization programme in public housing estates?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, for the escalator incidents that occurred at Times Square, MTR Quarry Bay Station and MTR Wong Tai Sin Station on 2 August, 17 September and 20 September 2015 respectively, the findings by Electrical and Mechanical Services Department (EMSD) confirmed that these incidents were caused by tiny foreign metal objects caught between the escalators' combplates and steps. These objects damaged both the steps and combplates which, in turn, triggered the safety device that brought the escalators to a halt. There was no injury in these incidents. As for the failure of two escalators in Sha Kok Commercial Centre at Sha Tin on 14 May 2015, the EMSD's findings revealed that the malfunction was caused by serious ponding underneath the escalators. A serious leakage from a drainage pipe near the escalators has generated a continuous stream of sewage that pooled under the escalators. Subsequently, a rainwater pipe inside the ceiling above the escalators burst and rainwater splattered onto the escalators. As a result of these two incidents, key parts of the escalators were soaked and damaged. They had to be repaired or completely replaced. The mechanical failure in these incidents was not caused by poor maintenance.


117

There are a total of 18 lifts, aged about 30 years, in Tin Yee House, Tin Cheung House, and Tin Hor House of Tin Ping Estate, Sheung Shui. Over the past two years, the EMSD has received repeated failure notifications about these lifts, which mainly involved lift stoppage or entrapped passengers caused by faulty lift control or signalling system. In accordance with its risk-based approach, the EMSD has stepped up inspections for the lifts in Tin Ping Estate. It has not found any instance of non-compliance with the code of practice or breach of law by the contractor concerned. As these lifts have been in service for nearly 30 years, their reliability might be compromised by ageing parts. As regards the incident involving Lift No. L1 in Tin Ping Estate on 2 July 2015, the findings of EMSD indicated the lift was stopped by an automatic safety device activated by a fault signal. The signal was triggered by a bad connection with a locking device of the landing doors during the descent of the lift car at normal speed. The investigation confirmed that there was no lift plunge and all suspension ropes of the lift were intact. The EMSD has briefed the Owners' Corporation of Tin Ping Estate on its findings. My reply to the two parts in the question is as follows:

(1) Lifts and escalators in Hong Kong, including those installed in public places under the management of private organizations, are governed by Lifts and Escalators Ordinance (Cap. 618) (the Ordinance). As the enforcement authority of the Ordinance, the EMSD has adopted a risk-based approach in conducting sample checks on lifts and escalators. This means that the lifts and escalators under complaint, involved in accidents, in service for longer years, or under the maintenance of contractors with poor track records are subject to more stringent inspection. The EMSD has also stepped up inspections on lifts and escalators under private management in the past two years and conducted around 9 500 and 11 000 inspections in 2013 and 2014 respectively. A person convicted of an offence under the Ordinance will attract a maximum penalty of a fine of $200,000 and imprisonment for 12 months. The EMSD has also implemented the Contractors' Performance Rating System in 2009 and revised its rating mechanism after a review in January 2014. Under the system, ratings are derived from inspection results and contractors are accorded performance monitoring points for poor performance or non-compliance with the codes of practice. The contractors' performance ratings on safety and service quality are presented in the format of a star rating


system, which is simple and easy to comprehend. The rating results are posted onto the EMSD website every three months for easy reference of the public. Persons responsible for selecting contractors for quality service may also make reference to the rating results.

(2) Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) noted that it has always

attached great importance to the safety of lifts and escalators in the public housing estates and shopping centres under its management. The design, installation, acceptance inspections as well as regular checks and maintenance of these lifts and escalators are also conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance and its subsidiary regulations, the Code of Practice on the Design and Construction of Lifts and Escalators and the Code of Practice for Lift Works and Escalator Works issued by the EMSD, and the relevant technical guidelines. The HA has also followed the requirements of the Ordinance, regulations and relevant codes of practice in engaging registered contractors for the maintenance and repair works of lifts and escalators to ensure safety and reliability.

There is a total of 5 268 lifts in the public housing estates and

shopping centres under the HA management. The age distribution of these lifts is as follows:

Age 10 years and below

Over 10 years to 20 years

Over 20 years to 30 years

Over 30 years

Number of lifts 1 585 2 166 1 023 494

In addition to the mandatory inspections, maintenance and repair

works required under the Ordinance, the relevant regulations and codes of practice, the HA has implemented an ongoing lift modernization programme for lifts in public housing estates to further enhance their safety, efficiency, reliability and comfort. Under the programme, the HA would review the condition of lifts that have been in service for over 25 years, set replacement priorities and undertake the replacement work according to schedule. Having replaced over 500 lifts in the past five years, the HA plans to replace about 60 to 70 lifts each year on average in the coming years. The


119

HA will continue to conduct regular reviews of lift conditions and monitor the progress of the modernization programme so as to ensure lift safety and reliability.

Baggage Delivery Service of Hong Kong International Airport 17. MR YIU SI-WING (in Chinese): President, some members of the public have complained to me that the time taken by the Hong Kong International Airport (the Airport) for delivering passenger baggage from arriving aircraft to the Baggage Reclaim Hall (baggage delivery time) has been getting longer and longer in recent years, and some members of the public could only reclaim their baggage more than 90 minutes after flight landing. As shown by the annual report of the Airport, the percentages of the first and last pieces of baggage of arriving aircraft being delivered to the Baggage Reclaim Hall within 20 minutes and 40 minutes after landing respectively fell from 98.1 and 96.9 in 2010-2011 to 91.5 and 92 in 2013-2014. Although the performance improved slightly in 2014-2015, it still lagged behind the level in 2010-2011. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it knows if the Airport Authority Hong Kong (AAHK) has drawn up any performance pledge on baggage delivery time; if AAHK has, of the details, and whether the authorities have introduced penalties on AAHK's failure to meet the performance pledge; if they have, of the details;

(2) whether it knows the respective percentages, in each of the past five

years, of the last piece of baggage of arriving aircraft being delivered to the Baggage Reclaim Hall within 60, 90 and 120 minutes as well as more than 120 minutes after landing (set out the relevant figures in the table below); and

Time of the last piece of

baggage being delivered to the Baggage Reclaim Hall

Percentage 2014-2015

2013-2014

2012-2013

2011-2012

2010-2011

within 60 minutes within 90 minutes within 120 minutes more than 120 minutes


(3) given that construction works are being carried out by AAHK to enhance the passenger handling capacity of the Airport, whether it knows the measures to be implemented by AAHK to enhance the efficiency of baggage delivery?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, our reply to the question raised by Mr YIU Si-wing is as follows:

(1) The Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA) is one of the busiest airports in the world. It handles over 1 100 flight movements and 170 000 passengers every day. Responsible for managing the HKIA, the Airport Authority Hong Kong (AA) strives to maintain the service quality of HKIA in different areas, and attaches great importance to baggage handling service. Over the years, the AA has been putting in resources to enhance the operational efficiency of the baggage handling system.

The AA has set up performance indicators in respect of baggage handling service at the HKIA. The first and last piece of hold baggages from an arrival flight must be delivered to the Baggage Reclaim Hall respectively within 20 and 40 minutes after landing. However, there are various factors, such as weather conditions and manpower deployment, and so on, which may affect baggage delivery performance.

Currently, ramp handling operators (RHOs) employed by airlines are generally responsible for handling and delivering passengers' hold baggage. Operators providing ramp handling service are required to obtain operation licences issued by the AA, and are subject to monitoring. Airlines can choose any RHO which possesses a valid licence to provide service. To maintain the quality of baggage delivery service, the AA has established a monitoring mechanism, which includes conducting regular review with the RHOs on their baggage handling service. For the operators who are unable to meet the service standard, the AA will issue warning letters demanding them to ensure service quality. Otherwise, the operators' opportunity for bidding future service contracts at the HKIA will be affected.


121

(2) The performance of baggage delivery service at the HKIA from financial year 2010-2011 to 2014-2015 is set out in the table below:

Financial year

2014-2015

2013-2014

2012-2013

2011-2012

2010-2011

The first piece of baggage delivered to the Baggage Reclaim Hall within 20 minutes (%)

92.8% 91.5% 95.8% 97.7% 98.1%

The last piece of baggage delivered to the Baggage Reclaim Hall within 40 minutes (%)

94.5% 92.0% 94.8% 96.3% 96.9%

Note: Currently, as the AA collects information based on respective service performance indicators, further breakdown asked by Mr YIU cannot be provided. According to the above statistics, the percentage of the last piece of hold baggage delivered to the Baggage Reclaim Hall in excess of 40 minutes after landing is very low.

(3) In response to the increase in air traffic movements and passenger

throughput, the AA regularly reviews the existing baggage handling process. It also actively discusses with airlines and the RHOs on ways to improve the overall performance of baggage handling at the HKIA, with a view to ensuring its smooth operation and efficiency.

The AA has implemented various measures to improve the quality of baggage handling service. Starting from the end of last year, the number of dollies that a baggage tractor can tow has been increased from four to six to enhance the handling capacity of each tractor. In early his year, the AA has implemented a "Ground Service Equipment" driving qualification scheme at Airport Restricted Area. The scheme aims to encourage more staff members with the prerequisite experience to acquire the certification to drive a baggage delivery vehicle, which will increase the number of such vehicles that can be operated. Furthermore, an automated baggage system is being designed to shorten the time needed for baggage handling.


Meanwhile, the AA has been maintaining contact with business partners to understand their operations at the airport. Apart from enhancing system efficiency, the AA also organizes job fairs in different districts to help its business partners, including the RHOs, to recruit manpower. Between 2011 and 2015, the AA organized the "Hong Kong International Airport Job Expo" four times at the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre to attract talents to join the aviation sector for a variety of career opportunities with a view to enhancing the overall service quality of the HKIA.

Regulation of Vehicle Emissions 18. MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that recently a German vehicle manufacturer was found to have installed software in the diesel private cars it manufactured so as to cheat on vehicle emission tests. According to the information from the Environmental Protection Department (EPD), there has not been any registration of diesel private cars of the relevant models in Hong Kong, but EPD will further look into the incident and gather information. At present, all imported vehicles must comply with Euro V emission standards and, in processing the registration of imported vehicles, EPD requires the applicant to provide an emission testing report issued by an independent and recognized third-party testing organization or a certificate issued by a foreign official regulatory body after testing to prove vehicle emission compliance with the statutory standards in Hong Kong. Regarding the regulation of vehicle emissions, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether the authorities have held a meeting with the Hong Kong agent of the vehicle manufacturer concerned in relation to the aforesaid incident; if they have, of the information obtained, including details of the cheating tactics; whether the authorities have studied the possibility of other vehicle manufacturers cheating with similar tactics; and

(2) whether the authorities will review the existing system for regulating

vehicle emissions, including conducting vehicle emission tests when processing vehicle type approval; if they will not, of the reasons for that?


123

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Chinese): President, diesel vehicles emit more Respirable Suspended Particulates (RSP) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) than petrol vehicles, both of which are major roadside air pollutants. To improve our roadside air quality, the Government has required since 1998 that the emission performance (including RSP and NOx) of newly registered diesel private cars should not be worse than that of newly registered petrol private cars. Due to the stringent emission requirements of diesel private cars, only about 10 diesel private car models are available for sale in the local market. My specific responses are as follows:

(1) The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has recently revealed that a vehicle manufacturer has installed illegal software in its diesel private cars to enable them to comply with the specified emission standards while being tested in the laboratory but their on road emissions would far exceed the emission standards. After the news was published, the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) has immediately contacted the relevant regulatory authorities in the United States and European Union (EU) as well as the vehicle manufacturer to understand the situation.

Based on the current information, the affected diesel private car

models announced by USEPA and the vehicle manufacturer concerned have not been registered for use in Hong Kong. Local representatives of the vehicle manufacturer concerned has pledged to co-operate with the EPD's investigation and follow up with the manufacturer to provide information regarding the diesel private car models on sale in Hong Kong.

In addition to the vehicle manufacturer concerned, the EPD has also

met representatives of other vehicle manufacturers with their diesel private cars with emissions approved. We have expressed our grave concerns on the issue and requested the manufacturers to confirm whether similar defeat device has been installed in their diesel private cars in Hong Kong. We will continue to closely monitor the development of the case.


(2) All vehicles imported for use on road in Hong Kong have to comply with the emission standards as stipulated in the Air Pollution Control (Vehicle Design Standards) (Emission) Regulations (Cap. 311 sub. leg. J). The prevailing statutory emission standards are equivalent to Euro V. In processing emission approval for newly registered vehicles, the EPD has all along been following international practices and requires the applicant to provide test reports issued by a recognized independent third party testing agent after witnessing the laboratory test on-site, or a certificate issued by a foreign official authority after conducting the laboratory test, to demonstrate that the vehicle can comply with our local statutory emission standards.

For ensuring consistency of emissions from vehicles when running

on roads and tested in laboratories, the EU has planned to introduce on road emissions tests when implementing Euro VI emission standards. The EU has started implementing on road emissions tests for heavy duty vehicles (design weight above 3.5 tonnes) and will announce the relevant requirements for light duty vehicles at a later stage. The EPD will continue to closely monitor the development and study the feasibility of introducing these new testing requirements. The EPD also plans to consult the Legislative Council and relevant stakeholders on the proposal of further tightening the statutory emission standards for newly registered vehicles to Euro VI level by the end of this year.

Accountable Operating Expenses Reimbursement for Members of District Councils 19. DR KENNETH CHAN (in Chinese): President, currently, members of the District Councils (DCs) are provided with an accountable Operating Expenses Reimbursement (OER) to meet operational expenses incurred in discharging DC duties. The Home Affairs Department has formulated the Guidelines on the Remuneration Package for Members of the District Councils of the HKSAR (the Guidelines) for DC members to follow. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:


125

(1) whether, according to the Guidelines, DC members may claim reimbursements for the operational expenses involving conflicts of interests (e.g. procurement of goods or services from companies the shares of which they own); if they may not, of the details; if they may, the reasons for that;

(2) of the number (with a breakdown by DC) and nature of cases of

contravention of the Guidelines identified by the authorities in the past three years, as well as the follow-up actions taken by the authorities in respect of such cases;

(3) given that reimbursement claims submitted by DC members are

processed by the secretariats of the DCs to which the DC members belong, how the authorities ensure that the various secretariats adopt the same yardsticks in processing these claims; whether the authorities will consider introducing an independent audit system to review such reimbursement claims; if they will, of the work plan and timetable; if not, the reasons for that; and

(4) whether it will consider amending the Guidelines to prevent the

occurrence of a conflict-of-interests/roles situation when DC members make procurement in discharging DC duties; if it will, of the work plan and timetable; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Chinese): President, District Council (DC) members are provided with Operating Expenses Reimbursement (OER) to cover expenses incurred for discharging DC duties. The Home Affairs Department (HAD) has formulated the Guidelines on the Remuneration Package for Members of the District Councils of the HKSAR (the Guidelines) to provide clear guidance for DC members to follow, setting out claimable items, eligibility criteria, reimbursement procedures, and so on. All DC members are required to observe the Guidelines. The OER is reimbursed on an accountable basis. Related claim forms, supporting documents and declaration forms (including copies of tenancy agreements and rental receipts), will be made available for public inspection. The four parts of the question is replied as follows:


(1) According to the Guidelines, a DC member should exercise prudence and uphold the principles of openness, competitiveness and value for money in making procurement to be paid by public funds. A DC member or his staff should not engage a contractor or supplier whose business he or any of his relatives has financial interest or is in control. Neither should a DC member nor his staff, nor any of their relatives, derive or be able to derive any financial benefits from any transaction for which reimbursement of expenses is claimed. If a DC member considers it appropriate to procure goods or services from such contractor or supplier, he should invite, where practicable, at least three quotations for prices and services comparison, and complete the Declaration Form to declare interest and state his justifications for the decision (for example, sole supplier). Reimbursement claims should be made by submitting the Declaration Form and related quotation documents (if any).

(2) and (3)

Eligibility criteria for various types of expenses reimbursements are set out in the Guidelines. All applications for reimbursement will be vetted carefully by the respective DC Secretariats, who will, if in doubt, request clarification and/or submission of supplementary materials from the DC members concerned to ensure compliance of such criteria. Seminars will also be held by the HAD for Secretariat staff to enhance their understanding of the vetting mechanism. The Management Audit Section of the HAD will conduct sampling audit on the reimbursement applications to examine if the vetting staff have acted according to the requirements of the Guidelines when processing the applications. In case of non-compliance, the relevant Secretariats will take appropriate follow-up actions. For example, for duplicate claims for expenses or claims for non-reimbursable expenses, the relevant Secretariats will require the DC members concerned to refund the related amount to the Government.

From 2013 to 2015 (as at 30 September 2015), the DC Secretariats in the 18 Districts approved 6 209, 6 641 and 4 462 OER applications respectively. Subsequent to reimbursement, 12, eight and seven


127

cases of OER not compliant with the Guidelines were identified. The relevant Secretariats have taken appropriate follow-up actions. The nature of these cases and the corresponding follow-up actions are at Annex.

(4) The prevailing Guidelines, together with the management audit

system, are effective in guarding against conflict of interest or roles when DC members make procurement for discharging DC duties. If conflict of interest is really unavoidable or has arisen, the DC members concerned, when applying for reimbursement, should make a declaration of interest, the content of which will be made available for public inspection. This requirement is more or less the same as the rules set out in the guide for reimbursement of operating expenses by Legislative Council Members. The HAD will review the Guidelines from time to time in order to ensure the proper use of public funds.

Annex

Cases of OER not Compliant with the Eligibility Criteria (i) 2015 (as at 30 September 2015)

District Number of

cases Nature Follow-up actions

Wong Tai Sin

2 - Failure to deduct charges for displaying posters for other organizations at the ward offices (involving two applications)

- The DC members concerned were required to return the related amount

Yau Tsim Mong

2 - Duplicate claim for monthly subscription fee of mobile phones

- Duplicate claim for printing expenses

Sha Tin 1 - Claim for non-reimbursable expenses


District Number of


Tuen Mun

2 - Failure to deduct "late payment charges" from the claim for electricity expenses

- Claim for "repair and maintenance expenses of photocopiers" under the OER(1)

Note: (1) Expenses on repair and maintenance of photocopiers are covered by the Setting Up

Expenses Reimbursement. (ii) 2014

District Number of


Eastern 2 - Duplicate claim for communication expenses

- Claim for non-reimbursable expenses

- The DC members concerned were required to return the related amount

Wan Chai

3 - Duplicate claim for staff salaries

- Duplicate claim for provident fund contribution of staff

- Duplicate claim for office rentals

Sai Kung 1 - Claim for non-reimbursable expenses

Sha Tin 2 - Failure to deduct rebate on telephone service from the claim for communication expenses

- Duplicate claim for expenses of printing leaflets


129

(iii) 2013

District Number of cases Nature Follow-up actions

Central and Western

1 - Inclusion of information about the DC member's occupation in printed materials

- The DC members concerned were required to return the related amount Wong

Tai Sin 2 - Failure to deduct the

non-reimbursable part of the expenses for producing the DC member's work report

- Claim for expenses of producing banner(s) not showing the DC's name or logo

Yau Tsim Mong

1 - Duplicate claim for staff salaries

Sha Tin 1 - Failure to have the tenancy agreement stamped pursuant to the Stamp Duty Ordinance

- The DC member concerned was required to have the tenancy agreement stamped pursuant to the Stamp Duty Ordinance

Tai Po 7 - Claim for reimbursing salaries of two assistants to the DC member concerned by using fake salary receipts, violating the principle of making reimbursement claims "on an accountable basis"

(involving seven applications)

- The DC member concerned was prosecuted by the Independent Commission Against Corruption for fraud in September 2014, convicted on 31 March 2015, and sentenced to five months of imprisonment on 14 April 2015. Pursuant to section 24(1)(d)(i)


District Number of cases Nature Follow-up actions

of the District Councils Ordinance (Cap. 547), the DC member concerned was disqualified from holding office as an elected DC member with effect from 31 March 2015.

Retail Prices of Auto-fuel 20. MS EMILY LAU (in Chinese): President, according to the information from the Census and Statistics Department, during the two-year period from August 2013 to July 2015, the import prices of unleaded petrol, diesel and liquefied petroleum gas dropped from their peak levels by 40% to 50%, but their retail prices decreased by a mere 10% to 20%, showing inconsistent rates of decrease. In addition, there were about 30 occasions in the past two years in which three or more oil companies adjusted the retail prices of auto-fuel on the same day, thus arousing suspicion of collusive price-fixing by the companies in order to make the auto-fuel market lack competition. In this connection, will the Executive Authorities inform this Council:

(1) whether they have assessed if the local oil companies have justifications for not lowering the retail prices by an extent corresponding to the drop in the import prices of auto-fuel; if they have made such an assessment, of the criteria adopted; if the assessment outcome is that the oil companies do not have justifications, of the measures the authorities have in place to urge the oil companies to lower the relevant prices;

(2) whether they have studied if the adjustment of retail prices of

auto-fuel on the same day by various oil companies involved anti-competitive practices; if they have conducted such a study, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;


131

(3) whether they will consider stepping up the monitoring of the auto-fuel retail pricing mechanism of oil companies to enhance the transparency of the relevant price adjustments; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(4) whether they have studied ways to improve the open tender system

for petrol filling station sites to remove barriers to the auto-fuel market, so as to encourage new operators to enter the market, thereby promoting competition and enhancing economic efficiency; if they have conducted such a study, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(5) whether they have studied the formulation of a new monitoring

mechanism with a view to more effectively promoting competition in the auto-fuel market; if they have conducted such a study, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Chinese): President,

(1), (3) and (5)

In assessing whether the prices of local auto-fuels are adjusted in tandem with the changes in import prices of auto-fuels, we should consider the portion of import price of auto-fuels in the pump price, and should not take into account other components (that is, tax and other operating costs) in the pump price. When the import prices drop, if tax and other operating costs are unchanged, the percentage change of pump price must be lower than that of import price. On the contrary, when the import prices rise, the percentage increase in pump price will be lower than that of import prices. Therefore, it is not appropriate to simply compare the percentage change of auto-fuels pump prices with that of import prices. Besides, as oil companies generally provide various kinds of discounts and promotions to consumers, the actual prices paid by consumers are effectively lower than the pump prices listed at petrol filling stations (PFSs).


According to our analysis, the import prices of auto-fuels have dropped by around 40% from their peak levels between August 2013 and July 2015. During this period, oil companies, in response to falling import prices, have adjusted the pump prices of auto-fuels downwards, with accumulated reduction of around $2.5 per litre, which represents around 40% of the peak level import prices of auto-fuels (the peak level import prices of unleaded petrol was $6.47 per litre in June 2014; while that of diesel was $6.31 per litre in December 2013). Therefore, the magnitude of the pump prices adjustments is generally in line with the trend movement of import prices.

In a free market economy, retail prices of auto-fuels in Hong Kong are determined by oil companies having regard to commercial practices and their operating costs. In addition, we do not consider that the Government should set an appropriate profit level for the auto-fuels industry or other consumer products industries. The role of the Government is to endeavour to ensure a stable fuel supply, maintain market openness, and remove barriers to enter into the market to enhance competition. We also endeavor to improve the transparency of the prices of auto-fuels products to facilitate consumers to make choices. We appreciate the impact of the auto-fuels prices on the public and have been monitoring the changes in local retail prices of auto-fuels and comparing them with the trend movements of international oil prices (benchmarked against the Singapore free-on-board (FOB) prices (that is, Means of Platts Singapore) for unleaded petrol and motor vehicle diesel). We will urge the oil companies to promptly reduce their retail prices whenever there is room to do so in order to lessen the burden of the general public.

Also, the Government has endeavoured to improve the transparency of auto-fuels products prices to facilitate consumers to obtain sufficient information for making choices. In this regard, we have posted onto Environment Bureau's website, on a regular basis, the movements in local import prices, retail prices as well as the Singapore FOB prices of unleaded petrol and motor vehicle diesel. We have also added the linkage to the statistics on import and retail


133

prices of major oil products on Environment Bureau's website. We have also commissioned the Consumer Council (CC) to launch the "Auto-fuel Price Calculator". The CC posts onto its website and smartphone applications daily the local auto-fuels retail prices and information on various types of cash and non-cash discounts offered by oil companies. Consumers can make better use of the relevant information to patronize a suitable PFS.

(2) The Competition Ordinance (the Ordinance) enacted in June 2012

provides a legal framework to tackle anti-competitive conduct (including price fixing, abuse of market power, and so on) in various sectors, with a view to maintaining fair and sustainable competition in the market. The Competition Commission, which is established as an independent statutory body under the Ordinance, is empowered to investigate into an alleged anti-competitive conduct, either on receipt of complaints, on its own initiative, or on referral from the Government or a court, and to bring enforcement actions before the Competition Tribunal. According to our understanding, the Competition Commission will conduct study on whether the oil companies are engaged in anti-competitive behaviour in setting the prices of auto-fuels. We will collaborate with the Competition Commission to facilitate their work in this regard as appropriate.

(4) In order to enhance competition, the Government has since 2003

retendered all existing PFS sites upon expiry of their leases, instead of renewing the leases with the existing operators. Also, we have removed the previous requirements that bidders of PFS sites have to hold auto-fuel import licence and supply contract. Since the introduction of these tendering arrangements, two new operators have successfully entered the market. The share of the three biggest incumbent operators in terms of the number of PFS has dropped from over 90% to about 70%. At present, there are over 180 PFS in Hong Kong, operated by six companies. Given the size of the Hong Kong market, these tendering arrangements can effectively promote the competition in auto-fuels retail market and enhance economic efficiency.


Regulation of Health Food Products Containing Chinese Medicines 21. MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that some traders have sold products containing western herbs and Chinese medicines as health food products. As the packaging and names of such products are very similar to those of registered proprietary Chinese medicines (pCm), it is difficult for consumers to differentiate between them. Since such products are not required to meet the requirements in respect of safety, quality and efficacy applicable to registered pCm, consumption of them by members of the public may be harmful to their health. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether the authorities received complaints about pCm and health food products in the past three years; if they did, of the number and details of such complaints; whether they instituted prosecutions against the persons concerned; if they did, of the number of such prosecutions;

(2) whether the authorities uncovered cases in the past three years in

which traders sold products originally required to be registered as pCm as health food products by using tactics such as adding non-Chinese medicines to the products, changing product names and packaging, etc.; if they did, of the number of such products;

(3) whether any legislation is currently in place to regulate the sale of

health food products whose names and packaging are very similar to those of pCm; if so, of the details; and

(4) whether the authorities will conduct studies on formulating specific

legislation and framework to regulate health food products containing Chinese medicines, so as to protect the health of consumers and prevent the reputation of Hong Kong's pCm trade from being tarnished?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President,

(1) From January 2013 to end-September 2015, the Department of Health (DH) received a total of 128 complaints about suspected contravention of the Chinese Medicine Ordinance (Cap. 549)


135

involving unregistered proprietary Chinese medicines (pCm), failure to comply with pCm labelling and package insert requirements, adulteration of pCm and engagement in pCm wholesale/manufacture business without a licence. The DH has already followed up on all the complaints, among which 22 cases are still under investigation. The types of cases are set out as follows:

Suspected cases of contravention

Number of cases

Number of prosecution and convicted cases

Unregistered pCm 104 10 Failure to comply with pCm labelling and package insert requirements

4 0

Adulteration of pCm 10 1 Engagement in pCm wholesale/manufacture business without a licence

9 0

Others 1 0 Total 128 11

Centre for Food Safety (CFS) of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department received a total of 115 complaints about food products with health claims from January 2013 to end-September 2015, and issued warning letters for three of these cases which have been confirmed with failure to comply with the food labelling requirements of the Food and Drugs (Composition and Labelling) Regulations (Cap. 132W). Subsequent follow-up investigations discovered that the labelling of the food products of the cases concerned has been rectified.

(2) The provisions governing the mandatory registration of pCm came

into force on 3 December 2010. The provisions stipulate that all pCm must be registered with the Chinese Medicine Council of Hong Kong (CMCHK) before they can be imported, manufactured or sold in Hong Kong. Offenders are liable to a maximum fine of $100,000 and to imprisonment for two years. To get registered, all pCm must meet the registration requirements of the CMCHK in terms of safety, quality and efficacy. Provisions governing the


labelling and package inserts of pCm also came into force on 1 December 2011. The provisions stipulate that no person is allowed to sell, or have in his possession for the purpose of selling, any pCm without a label or a package insert which complies with the prescribed requirements. Offenders are liable to a maximum fine of $100,000 and to imprisonment for two years. As products vary in their ingredients, the DH will consider each suspected case of unregistered pCm according to the actual circumstances. When it is found that a product on the market does not comply with the Chinese Medicine Ordinance, the DH will take prompt actions, including tracing the source of the product in question, instituting prosecution, requiring the shops involved to recall the product immediately and informing the public, the trade or the relevant overseas drug regulatory organizations about the incident as and when necessary. Depending on the circumstances, the DH will refer the Chinese medicines traders concerned to the CMCHK to consider whether disciplinary action should be taken. From January 2013 to end-September 2015, the DH received a total of 104 complaints relating to unregistered pCm. Among the 84 cases with investigations completed, there are 10 cases in which prosecution was instituted and the offenders were convicted. The remaining 20 complaints are still under investigation.

(3) The orally consumed products sold on the local market are classified

into two categories, namely, medicine and food, according to their ingredients and the content of their claims. These products are subject to more specific regulation under different sets of legislation. While currently there is no international standard for naming and defining health food products, the Government has implemented a number of measures to monitor the relevant products on the market to ensure their safety and quality with a view to protecting public health. The relevant measures include:

(i) Chinese Medicine Ordinance

All products that fall within the definition of pCm under the Chinese Medicine Ordinance, that is, products which are composed solely of Chinese medicines as active ingredients,


137

and for treatment or health maintenance purposes, are regulated by this Ordinance. Such products should meet the relevant requirements in respect of safety, quality and efficacy before they can be registered. The Chinese Medicine Ordinance also requires that the labels of registered pCm should contain information such as main ingredients, method of usage, dosage, packing specifications and place of production. The DH has put in place a market surveillance system to monitor if there are any unregistered pCm sold on the market and to regularly collect samples of pCm from the market for testing. To safeguard public health, the DH has also established a mechanism for reporting adverse incidents relating to Chinese medicines to collate information through various channels, so as to conduct risk assessment, management and reporting. If any substandard pCm are found, the DH may take actions such as requesting the Chinese medicine traders concerned to recall the products and referring the cases to the CMCHK for follow-up actions, and issuing relevant press statements.

(ii) Pharmacy and Poisons Ordinance (Cap. 138)

Health products which contain medicines are regulated by the Pharmacy and Poisons Ordinance. These products must meet the requirements in respect of safety, quality and efficacy, and must be registered before they can be sold on the market. They should also be labelled with particulars such as ingredients, dosage and method of usage. Inspectors of the DH conduct regular inspection of pharmacies and medicine stores to see if the medicines for sale are registered, or whether they have particulars different from those as approved at the time of registration. Besides, the DH will take samples of medicines and health products sold on the market for tests from time to time. Moreover, the DH has put in place a mechanism for reporting adverse drug reactions and a complaint mechanism against any persons violating the above Ordinance. If a product is found to contain unregistered western medicines after investigation and testing, the DH will take legal actions and, where necessary, require the shops to


recall such products immediately. The DH will continue to maintain close surveillance and take appropriate follow-up actions where necessary.

(iii) Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap. 132) and Food and Drugs (Composition and Labelling) Regulations

For food products which do not fall under the scope of Chinese medicines, pCm or western medicines, they are regulated by the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance like other general food products. Prepackaged food, other than those exempted, must be appropriately marked or labelled according to the Food and Drugs (Composition and Labelling) Regulations. In addition, according to section 61 of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance, if a label attached on any food falsely describes the food or is calculated to mislead, the person selling the food is guilty of an offence. The Ordinance also provides that any person who publishes an advertisement which falsely describes any food or is likely to mislead shall be guilty of an offence. The CFS will take appropriate follow-up actions in respect of food products that do not comply with the above legislation.

(iv) Undesirable Medical Advertisements Ordinance (Cap. 231)

To protect the public from being induced by advertisements or health claims to seek improper self-medication, which may result in delay in seeking treatment, the Undesirable Medical Advertisements Ordinance prohibits the publication of any advertisement likely to lead to the use of any medicine, surgical appliance or treatment for the purpose of prevention or treatment of certain diseases or conditions specified in the schedules to that Ordinance. Since 1 June 2012, the Undesirable Medical Advertisements Ordinance has been extended to prohibit or restrict the use of six types of health claims as specified in the newly added schedule in advertising orally consumed products. In addition, the DH has established a system to regularly screen advertisements


139

published in newspapers. Actions would be taken against persons who violate the relevant legislation.

(v) Other relevant legislation

The claims of health products are also subject to regulation by the Trade Description Ordinance (Cap. 362). The Customs and Excise Department (C&ED) has been taking rigorous enforcement actions against the retail, distribution, storage, manufacture, import and export of counterfeit goods (including counterfeit health products) according to the provisions against counterfeiting under that Ordinance. The C&ED has also been maintaining close liaison with the business sector and trade mark proprietors for joint surveillance of the market situation so that prompt enforcement actions can be taken against shops which have breached the law. In addition, the claims of health products are also subject to regulation by the relevant provisions or codes under the Broadcasting Ordinance (Cap. 562) and the Broadcasting (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 391). The C&ED and the Communications Authority will take law-enforcement and regulatory actions in accordance with the relevant provisions and codes.

(4) Health products containing medicines are regulated by the Pharmacy

and Poisons Ordinance. Such products must meet the requirements in respect of safety, quality and efficacy, and must be registered before they can be sold on the market. Since the establishment of Drug Office of the DH in September 2011, one of the important tasks is to step up publicity and education for the general public. This includes strengthening efforts in issuing safety alerts and announcements on drugs or health products which do not comply with the relevant requirements, updating the Drug Office's website to enhance information dissemination, and providing more health information on different categories of drugs and health products. It also disseminated messages about the safe use of medicines to the general public, the trade and other stakeholders through various channels. In 2012, the DH conducted four exchange sessions on the content of the Undesirable Medical Advertisements Ordinance.


In addition, all products falling within the definition of pCm in the Chinese Medicine Ordinance are subject to regulation by that Ordinance. Such products must meet the relevant requirements in respect of safety, quality and efficacy before they can be registered. The regulatory regime of Chinese medicines specified in the Chinese Medicine Ordinance, including the establishment of a sound regulatory framework by the DH to safeguard public health, was fully implemented in 2011. The Government will continue to step up law-enforcement actions under the existing legislation. If the DH receives any complaints about unregistered pCm, it will conduct investigation and take follow-up actions according to the Chinese Medicine Ordinance. The Government will also step up publicity and education to enhance public understanding of pCm products.

Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems for Photography Purpose 22. MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Chinese): President, in recent years, the use of unmanned aircraft systems (UASs) by members of the public for photography purpose has become increasingly common. According to the existing legislation, flying UASs weighing not more than seven kilograms (without its fuel) for recreational purpose can be classified as flying radio-controlled model aircraft, and no application to the Civil Aviation Department (CAD) is required. However, permits must first be obtained from CAD for flying UASs exceeding this weight for recreational purpose. On the other hand, if UASs are used for reward, such as photography work, regardless of their sizes or weights, an application must be made to CAD prior to their operation and, in the provision of services, the conditions stipulated in the permit granted by CAD must be complied with. Regarding the regulation of using UASs for photography purpose, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of CAD's current procedures and staff establishment for processing applications for the aforesaid permits; the number of such applications received by CAD in the past three years and, among such applications, the respective numbers of approved and rejected cases;

(2) of the channels available for members of the public to lodge

complaints against the problems caused by flying UASs; the number of related complaints received by CAD in the past three years; the


141

respective numbers of cases in which the persons under complaint were warned, prosecuted and convicted; apart from CAD, the other government departments which are responsible for law enforcement and the legislation involved;

(3) given that CAD has stipulated the location parameters for flying

UASs, of the penalties for contravening the relevant parameters; (4) given that members of the public upload UAS footage onto the

Internet from time to time, whether CAD will examine such footage to see if it contains evidence of illegal flying of UASs and institute prosecutions using such evidence;

(5) as I have learnt that some employers require their employees to

learn and use UASs for undertaking photography work, whether the authorities have assessed if the employees concerned will be held criminally liable in case an accident occurs in the course of operating the UAS; if the assessment outcome is in the affirmative, of the details of the criminal liabilities; and

(6) given the advancing and changing technology in the use of UASs for

photography purpose, whether the authorities will consider strengthening regulation in order to protect public safety; if they will not, of the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, the use of unmanned aircraft systems (UASs) is becoming more popular and versatile in recent years. Apart from leisure pursuit, UASs nowadays are also used for aerial surveillance and photography, search and rescue, and so on. With the advance in technology, UASs have grown in types with a greater variety, and user groups have also expanded from professionals or veterans to include the general public. Since UASs are one kind of aircraft, improper use will pose danger to the public and they are thus governed by the relevant civil aviation legislation. Any person operating a UAS must comply with related requirements. Our reply to Mr LEUNG Che-cheung's question is as follows:


(1) Since UASs are one kind of aircraft, its flight safety is regulated by the civil aviation legislation. In particular, any person using a UAS for reward, such as providing aerial photography service, must comply with the requirement stipulated in Regulation 22 of the Air Transport (Licensing of Air Services) Regulations (Cap. 448A, Laws of Hong Kong). He must lodge an application with the Civil Aviation Department (CAD) before operating a UAS and he must abide by the conditions stipulated in the permit granted by the CAD in providing the service. Generally speaking, conditions of the permit will include the requirements that the operators must put in place adequate safety measures to ensure aviation safety, and they must be able to present documents issued by an insurance company, stating that their UASs are duly protected by applicable insurance coverage.

The processing of applications for operating UASs is part of the normal duties of the CAD. The department will review its staff establishment from time to time in the light of the development of relevant policies and the trend of applications received. In the past three years, the number of applications for the aforesaid permit received by the CAD and the figures of approved and rejected applications are shown in the following table:

2012 2013 2014 Applications approved 3 8 24 Applications rejected 0 5 1 OthersNote 1 6 16 Total number of applications 4 19 41

Note: Examples include applicants' withdrawal of applications and pending submissions of further information by the applicants.

(2) and (4)

Currently, members of the public can make enquiries or lodge complaints with the CAD regarding the operations of UASs in


143

writing and through the government hotline 1823. The table below shows the cases received by the CAD demanding follow-ups to the operations of UASs in the past three years: 2012 2013 2014 Number 0 0 6

In general, after receiving enquires or referrals via different channels (including UAS video clip uploaded onto the Internet), the CAD will follow up the cases based on the available information. Follow-up action includes obtaining further information from the parties concerned for analysis, urging the parties concerned to comply with the flight safety regulations of UAS flights and requesting the relevant police division to step up patrol. Also, the CAD has been liaising with the Police and providing technical support to the Police in its enforcement action. Members of the public should report to the Police without delay any suspected contravention of the abovementioned legislation for its further investigation.

(3) and (5)

All operators of UASs have the responsibility to ensure flight safety. Those who operate UASs (employers and employees alike) are all governed by Article 48 of the Air Navigation (Hong Kong) Order 1995 (Cap. 448C, Laws of Hong Kong), which stipulates that a person shall not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property. Offenders are liable to prosecution and upon conviction face a fine and up to two years' imprisonment. Article 48 of the Air Navigation (Hong Kong) Order 1995 applies regardless of the weight of the UAS involved or the purpose of the flight.

With a view to enhancing the public's awareness of the safe operations of UASs, the CAD has published a guide entitled Safety in Radio-Controlled Model Aircraft Flying for the public's reference. This safety guide applies to UASs not exceeding 7 kg (without fuel) used for leisure flying. Members of the public are advised not to


fly a UAS in the vicinity of an airport or aircraft approach and take-off paths. As to the sites of the operations of UASs, they should be clear of buildings, people and away from helicopter landing pads, and clear of any power sources such as power lines, transformer stations, pylons and transmitter towers which might cause radio interference. The site should also be free from visual obstruction, so that the operator can see his UAS in flight, thereby avoiding any collision that may cause injuries, fatalities or damage to property.

(6) At present, there are still no standardized international requirements

to regulate the operations of UASs. Nevertheless, the CAD has noted that certain overseas countries such as the USA, Canada and Japan are now developing their respective regulatory framework in regard to the operations of UASs. With the popularization of small UASs, the CAD will, taking into account the development of regulatory requirements of overseas aviation authorities and the specific circumstances in Hong Kong, review the operational parameters of and the regulatory policies on UASs and consider amending the relevant legislation as appropriate, in order to ensure public safety.

BILL First Reading of Bill PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Bill: First Reading. COMPANIES (WINDING UP AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL 2015 CLERK (in Cantonese): Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Bill 2015. Bill read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Rule 53(3) of the Rules of Procedure.


145

Second Reading of Bill PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Bill: Second Reading. COMPANIES (WINDING UP AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL 2015 SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, I move the Second Reading of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Bill 2015 (the Bill). To improve and modernize Hong Kong's corporate winding-up regime, the Government has conducted a comprehensive review of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (CWUMPO) (Cap. 32 of the Laws of Hong Kong) and its subsidiary legislation, and has proposed to amend the CWUMPO. The Bill has put forward a number of proposals which can improve the business environment in Hong Kong. An effective corporate winding-up regime can ensure that the value of the remaining assets of the insolvent company will be preserved as far as possible and that the assets will be distributed amongst the creditors of the company, including its employees, suppliers and contractors, in a fair and orderly manner. The last major amendments to the corporate winding-up regime were made by the Government in 1984. Since then, a number of other amendments have been made to various provisions on corporate insolvency at different times focusing on specific issues. However, over the years, some major common law jurisdictions have reformed their statutory provisions on winding-up. Therefore, we have made reference to the relevant overseas experiences and formulated the Bill. The policy objectives of the Bill are to increase protection of creditors, streamline the winding-up process and further enhance the integrity of the winding-up process. The key proposals put forward in the Bill in respect of increasing protection of creditors include the following:


(1) providing for the power of the Court to set aside "transactions at an undervalue" entered into by a company within five years before the commencement of its winding-up. A "transaction at an undervalue" is defined as a transaction entered into by a company within the five-year claw-back period where the company received no consideration or a consideration which is significantly less than the value of the subject of the transaction. The five-year claw-back period is formulated by making reference to the existing provisions in the personal bankruptcy legislation.

(2) the existing CWUMPO has empowered the Court to set aside

transactions which are "unfair preferences" in the course of a winding-up. However, as the CWUMPO currently applies by reference the provisions on "unfair preferences" in the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap. 6 of the Laws of Hong Kong) applicable to personal bankruptcy, there will be anomalies when applying the relevant provisions in the corporate winding-up context. The Bill introduces standalone provisions on "unfair preferences" to enhance the clarity of the relevant provisions.

(3) where a provisional liquidator or liquidator has been appointed by

directors or members of the company being wound up respectively and before the first creditors' meeting is held in a corporate voluntary winding-up, there will be new measures to restrict the powers of the provisional liquidator and liquidator concerned to minimize potential abuse in the process.

As for streamlining the winding-up process, the Bill introduces a number of measures to improve the proceedings of committees of inspection (COIs), promote court-free procedures and simplify other related procedures, so as to save time and costs for administering winding-up cases. The key proposals include:

(1) allowing the bills of costs or charges of the liquidators' agents in a court winding-up to be approved by the COI, in which case the matter would not need to be put to the Court for examination and determination as currently required.

(2) enabling the liquidator in a court winding-up to exercise the power to

appoint a solicitor to assist in performing the liquidator's duties by


147

giving seven days' advance notice to the COI instead of the current requirement for obtaining the sanction of the Court or the COI.

(3) allowing the use of technology by the COI for performing its duties,

such as allowing the liquidator to communicate with COI members by electronic means, allowing remote attendance of COI members at meetings, allowing COI members to send resolutions by electronic means, and so on.

As for further enhancing the integrity of the winding-up process, the key proposals put forward in the Bill include the following:

(1) aggrieved parties may apply to the Court for an order to enforce liabilities arising from the liquidator's misfeasance or breach of duty or trust, notwithstanding that the liquidator has applied to the Court for and obtained an order releasing him/her as liquidator after completion of the relevant winding-up case.

(2) suitably expanding the list of persons disqualified for appointment as

a provisional liquidator or liquidator to also cover persons with potential conflicts of interest, and so on.

(3) there will be a new disclosure requirement for prospective

provisional liquidators and prospective liquidators to disclose specified relationships between him/her and their immediate family members and the company being wound up. This will enhance transparency of the appointment process and will ensure that the creditors make appointment decisions in an informed manner.

The Government launched a public consultation on the legislative proposals in 2013 which received an overwhelming support from the public and relevant stakeholders. In 2014, the Government published the consultation conclusions and adopted the relevant proposals made by some respondents while proceeding to prepare the Bill. We have maintained communication with the relevant stakeholders during the formulation of the provisions to listen to their opinions. With these remarks, President, I hope Honourable Members will support and endorse the Bill as soon as possible. Thank you, President.


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Bill 2015 be read the Second time. In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the debate is now adjourned and the Bill is referred to the House Committee. MEMBERS' MOTIONS PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members' motions. Mr Andrew LEUNG will move a motion under Rule 49E(2) of the Rules of Procedure to take note of three regulations relating to the control regime for the import of eggs, which were included in Report No. 1/15-16 of the House Committee laid on the Table of this Council. I will first call upon Mr Andrew LEUNG to speak and move the motion, and then call upon the chairman of the subcommittee formed to scrutinize the relevant items of subsidiary legislation, Mr Steven HO, to speak, to be followed by other Members. Each Member (including the mover of the motion) may only speak once and may speak for up to 15 minutes. Finally, I will call upon the public officer to speak. The debate will come to a close after the public officer has spoken, and the motion will not be put to vote. Members who wish to speak on the motion will please press the "Request to speak" button. I now call upon Mr Andrew LEUNG to speak and move the motion. MOTION UNDER RULE 49E(2) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE MR ANDREW LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, in my capacity as Chairman of the House Committee, I move the motion as printed on the Agenda under Rule 49E(2) of the Rules of Procedure to enable Members to debate on the following three items of subsidiary legislation included in Report No. 1/15-16 of the House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments:

- Import and Export (General) (Amendment) Regulation 2015;


149

- Imported Game, Meat and Poultry (Amendment) Regulation 2015; and

- Food Business (Amendment) Regulation 2015.

President, I so submit. Mr Andrew LEUNG moved the following motion:

"That this Council takes note of Report No. 1/15-16 of the House Committee laid on the Table of the Council on 14 October 2015 in relation to the subsidiary legislation and instrument(s) as listed below:

Item Number Title of Subsidiary Legislation or Instrument

(4) Import and Export (General) (Amendment) Regulation

2015 (L.N. 105/2015)

(5) Imported Game, Meat and Poultry (Amendment) Regulation 2015 (L.N. 106/2015)

(6) Food Business (Amendment) Regulation 2015 (L.N. 107/2015)."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Andrew LEUNG be passed. MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): President, in my capacity as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Three Regulations Relating to Control Regime for the Import of Eggs (the Subcommittee), I report the main deliberations of the Subcommittee. The Administration proposes to introduce a statutory control regime for the import of eggs by way of the aforesaid three regulations. According to the Administration, this statutory control regime requires importers of eggs to produce a health certificate issued by an issuing entity of the place of origin


recognized by the Director of Food and Environmental Hygiene (DFEH) to certify that the eggs are fit for human consumption. Some members are concerned about whether there are any discrepancies among places that supplied eggs to Hong Kong in their standards for assessing whether the eggs were fit for human consumption. The Administration has advised that to ensure consistency of health standards among certificates from different places of origin, DFEH will require issuing entities concerned to comply with the health standards set by relevant international organizations. Noting that the Centre for Food Safety (CFS) has taken some 1 500 egg samples for testing in the past three years and all samples were found to be satisfactory, members belonging to the Liberal Party consider that the risk of eggs being contaminated with Avian Influenza is low and thus it is unnecessary to make the aforesaid three regulations. Nevertheless, other members have no strong views against the regulations. The Administration has explained that according to the World Health Organization, eggs from infected birds can be contaminated with Avian Influenza. Although the measures taken by CFS to regulate the import of eggs through administrative means have been working effectively, they are far from satisfactory. The World Organization for Animal Health has recommended that an international veterinary certificate should accompany the import of eggs for human consumption for control of Avian Influenza. Such an import requirement has been imposed in many jurisdictions including the European Union, the United States of America and Singapore. (THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair) Some members have urged the CFS and the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) to obtain detailed and updated information on imported food items prior to their arrival at Hong Kong. They consider that the existing requirement on import declaration is too lax. They have suggested that the Administration should consider making it mandatory that all importers of food must submit in advance cargo information to the Customs and Excise Department (C&ED), the CFS or the FEHD so as to effectively monitor food safety. As the proposed control regime empowers the Administration to require


151

importers of eggs to provide advance information that the FEHD considers essential for tracing the eggs imported, these members urge the Administration to consider introducing a similar control regime for the import of other high risk food items. According to the Administration, ongoing efforts have been made to enhance safety of food products imported by sea. The CFS has been proactively exploring ways to strengthen the inspection of food consignments imported into Hong Kong by sea, including discussion with the C&ED on the proposed setting up of a CFS food inspection checkpoint at the Kwai Chung Container Terminals for testing of food products imported by sea, with a view to further enhancing the food surveillance and safeguarding food safety. The Subcommittee agrees that enhancement of inspection of food items imported into Hong Kong by sea, including the proposed food inspection checkpoint, should be referred to the Panel on Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene for follow up. Some members consider that the existing food safety-related penalties do not have sufficient deterrent effect. They also note that the maximum penalty for contravention of restriction on the import of certain meat, meat products, poultry and eggs under regulation 4(1) of the Imported Game, Meat and Poultry Regulations is a fine of $50,000 and imprisonment for six months, while that for the import of meat and poultry without an import licence under the Import and Export (General) Regulations is a fine of $500,000 and imprisonment for two years. The maximum penalty levels are different. In this regard, the Administration has undertaken to separately conduct a comprehensive review of the food safety-related penalties under the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance and its subsidiary legislation, as well as the Food Safety Ordinance. The Subcommittee suggests that the Administration should revert to the Panel on Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene on the progress of the aforesaid review. Deputy President, the Subcommittee will not propose any amendment to the regulations. Next, I wish to talk about the views of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) and my personal opinion. On the whole, the DAB is in favour of the proposal to introduce statutory control for the import of eggs. We also subscribe to the view that one food incident is still too many. Hence, we have put forward the following proposals.


To a certain extent, the overall views of the DAB have been incorporated in the report of the Subcommittee mentioned earlier. The discussion today provides a good platform to draw the attention of the public, the Legislative Council and even the DAB to the regulatory requirements relating to food safety. Hence, we have also proposed certain issues in the hope that the Panel on Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene may have further discussions. First, the CFS under the FEHD should enhance the sample inspection and testing on eggs and other food items, particularly at the import level, so as to ascertain that such food items were fit for human consumption. In this way, further stringent safeguards can be imposed on egg products after the enactment of these regulations and omissions can be prevented, thus enabling people to consume food with peace of mind. We have no objection to this. However, as mentioned in the report of the Subcommittee, are there any discrepancies in the testing standards of the C&ED for food imported into Hong Kong from other places and ports by sea and by land? In this regard, I think the Government should consider the actual situation of various food items. For example, if live and fresh produce can only be imported after the testing results are available, the freshness of the produce may be affected. Can we introduce some techniques or technologies to reduce food safety risk? Nevertheless, for other kinds of food such as packaged food, no serious problems will arise even for prolonged storage. For food items with longer shelf life such as biscuits, noodles or even eggs as mentioned by us, when the Government takes samples for testing, can the consignment be withheld first and only be released into the market when the testing results are available and people feel assured? These different approaches can strike a balance in various aspects. The Government may conduct feasibility studies in this regard. To conclude, our overall direction is to ensure, as far as possible, that consistent and strict standards are adopted in sample testing of food products imported by land, by sea or by air on the premise of balancing local food safety, food trading and supply. Second, as mentioned by me just now and stated in the report of the Subcommittee, the existing penalty for contravention in relation to the import of certain meat products, poultry and eggs is a fine of $50,000 and imprisonment for six months, and under the Import and Export (General) Regulations ― I will not repeat that part ― the relevant penalty is a fine of $500,000 and imprisonment for


153

two years. There is a tenfold difference in terms of the amount of fine and a fourfold difference in terms of the period of imprisonment. Members and the DAB are worried about such a significant discrepancy. Hence, we urge the Government to thoroughly examine the deterrent effect of the regulations enacted this time around and review the food safety-related penalties under the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap. 132) and its subsidiary legislation, as well as the Food Safety Ordinance (Cap. 612), so that we can explain the contents of these regulations to the public and ensure that the spirit of legislation can be upheld, thereby safeguarding our food safety and preventing … it is because we do not know how the Government will react in case of food safety incidents, and how the Judge will rule when cases are taken to court. Will the Judge invoke the legislation which imposes a lighter or heavier penalty? This will give the public, especially lawbreakers, an important message. I hope these grey areas can be clarified, so that we can enjoy safe food in a more secure and better environment. To sum up, food safety is vital to Hong Kong people's health. But food safety surveillance, food price and supply are interconnected. I hope the Government will thoroughly and carefully study the proposals put forward by the DAB, other members and me, so as to ensure Hong Kong people's health. Deputy President, I so submit. DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I am a member of the Subcommittee on Three Regulations Relating to Control Regime for the Import of Eggs. I speak in support of the relevant proposal put forward by the Government to introduce statutory control regime for the import of eggs, including requiring importers to produce a health certificate issued by an issuing entity from the place of origin recognized by the Director of Food and Environmental Hygiene (DFEH) to certify that the eggs are fit for human consumption, and to provide various information considered essential for tracking the importation of eggs into Hong Kong, including the type, quantity and details of the consignments, as well as the expected date and time of arrival, means of transport and container number, and so on, of the eggs to be imported, so as to enhance the inspection of imported eggs, ensure food safety and prevent the introduction of Avian Influenza.


Nevertheless, during the scrutiny of the regulations, we considered that the legislative amendments unilaterally introduced by the Administration could not in fact adequately address our concerns because we need to have a clear picture of the quantity of eggs imported into Hong Kong by sea, land and air. During the scrutiny, I have requested the Government to provide the relevant information on how eggs are imported into Hong Kong, the percentages of eggs imported by sea and land, and whether the Centre for Food Safety (CFS) has taken samples from eggs imported by sea and land for testing. As shown by the figures obtained by us, in the past three years, more than 65% or even 70% of eggs were imported into Hong Kong by container vessels or river-trade vessels and landed at Kwai Chung Container Terminals. As for eggs imported by land via Man Kam To, they only accounted for some 30%, and only a small number of eggs were imported into Hong Kong by air, accounting for less than 10%. Based on the information provided by the Government on the number of egg samples taken for testing, we have estimated the relevant percentages in the past three years. The number of testing samples taken from eggs imported into Hong Kong by air accounted for 8.4%, while that by land via Man Kam To accounted for 33.6%. As for other testing samples taken from eggs imported into Hong Kong at wholesale and retail levels, they accounted for 58%. These figures show that the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) has not taken any testing samples from eggs imported into Hong Kong by sea at Kwai Chung Container Terminals. Hence, as far as assurance of food safety (certainly including eggs) is concerned, we can say that there is no monitoring on eggs imported by sea. The FEHD has neither deployed staff to station at container terminals, nor set up any inspection checkpoints to conduct on-site testing on food items imported by container vessels. Moreover, Hong Kong's clearance system for imported food is also lax. According to the information provided by the Customs and Excise Department (C&ED), declarations can be lodged within 14 days after the importation or exportation of goods. Hence, we now know where the problem lies. If the Secretary for Food and Health really hopes to perform a good gate-keeping role to ensure food safety, he should consider if it is necessary to amend the declaration system for food items imported into Hong Kong by sea, land or air, so that the authorities can obtain information on food items transported by vessels, aircrafts or goods vehicles prior to their arrival at Hong Kong. Such information


155

should be input into the Government's centralized system before loading of food items for importation to Hong Kong, so that the FEHD and the C&ED will know what types of goods to be imported. As far as I understand, an Electronic System for Cargo Manifests is now in place to handle goods imported by air and land. For example, before cargoes are loaded to aircrafts, we already know the types of goods ― especially food items ― to be delivered to Hong Kong on a particular flight. As for foods imported by land via Man Kam To, we learnt from the Government during the scrutiny of the regulations that such foods are also handled by the Electronic System for Cargo Manifests, under which the C&ED and the FEHD will know in advance the types of foods to be imported into Hong Kong, thereby facilitating the taking of samples from vegetables and chicken, and so on, at control points for testing. Nevertheless, this pre-notification electronic declaration system cannot adequately handle food items imported by sea. As far as I know, about 90% of carriers of ocean-going vessels and river trade vessels furnish the C&ED in advance information of food items to be imported into Hong Kong through the Electronic System for Cargo Manifests, but about 10% of small-sized vessels will not inform the Government in advance. In other words, in respect of gatekeeping for goods imported by sea, land and air, we now fail to concurrently improve the advance declaration system for food items imported by sea. What worries us more is that the CFS of the FEHD has neither deployed staff nor set up office at Kwai Chung Container Terminals to conduct on-site random testing on food items unloaded by vessels. According to government information, no samples have been taken from food items imported by sea for testing. While it is certainly better to enact these three regulations now than doing nothing, the Government must, as mentioned by us repeatedly during the scrutiny of the regulations, properly conduct testing on food items (including eggs) imported by sea. I raise this issue to draw Members' attention. We have discussed this issue at meetings of the Panel on Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene, requesting the Government to expeditiously plug this loophole in respect of food safety, especially targeting the situation at container terminals. As no officers have been deployed to station there for conducting tests, we can say that the door is thrown wide open. Although the Government has indicated that the authorities are not actually turning a blind eye to the situation because goods


unloaded at the terminal will be transported to warehouses and FEHD officers can go there to take food samples for testing, this way of thinking is actually rather naïve. Although we have prohibited the importation of fruits and vegetables from certain radiation-affected areas in Japan, some carrots coming from those areas had still been imported. The imported fruits and vegetables will expeditiously be transported to the Yau Ma Tei Fruit Market for sale. Secretary Dr KO, if the authorities conduct testing after 14 days, those food items may be sold out in three days. As fresh foods imported to Hong Kong by sea have to be put on sale as soon as possible, how will it be possible to wait for testing by the Government? Having noticed such a loophole in food safety at present, we very much hope that the Government can advise us how to plug the loophole, including whether it is necessary to set up a food inspection checkpoint at the Kwai Chung Container Terminals and deploy staff from the CFS to station there to conduct on-site testing on food items, instead of conducting tests after all eggs have been transported to retail outlets. Hence, gate-keeping at source is actually most important. But now, the water route, a source for food items to be imported into Hong Kong, is not subject to any testing, and eggs are mostly imported into Hong Kong by sea. Deputy President, we have raised this point time and again, hoping that the Government can advise us when efforts can be made in this regard, which includes setting up an inspection checkpoint for food items imported into Hong Kong by sea. Although the Government has indicated that efforts will be made, it still cannot provide us with a timetable. The Government is aware that this is a loophole in food safety, and despite our repeated requests at the meetings of the Subcommittee, the Government has yet to provide us with a timetable; it only indicates that it will proceed with the task as soon as possible. So, how much longer do we have to wait? In addition, regarding the food safety-related penalties, I think a review is also necessary as the relevant penalties of the regulations are rather light and do not have significant deterrent effect. However, government officials told us that the regulations could not be dealt with one by one, but have undertaken to conduct a comprehensive review of the penalties under all food safety-related legislation and introduce amendments concurrently in one go. Nevertheless, in respect of this issue, we also do not know whether the Food and Health Bureau has a timetable and when this task can be completed. In terms of penalties, when compared with places such as Taiwan or even Mainland China which attach


157

great importance to food safety incidents, the penalties imposed in Hong Kong really have no deterrent effect. Hence, in respect of this issue, I hope Secretary Dr KO can provide us with a more concrete timetable stating when the existing food safety-related legislation in Hong Kong can be improved and when the loopholes can be plugged. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? (No Member indicated a wish to speak) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members have already spoken. I now call upon the Secretary for Food and Health to speak. The debate will come to a close after the Secretary has spoken. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Deputy President, first of all, I would like to thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Three Regulations Relating to Control Regime for the Import of Eggs (the Subcommittee), Mr Steven HO, as well as its members for giving valuable opinions and support during the scrutiny of the legislation regulating the import of poultry eggs. To begin with, I would like to briefly explain the policy objectives and principles of the amendments. To further safeguard Hong Kong against Avian Influenza, the Administration has amended the Imported Game, Meat and Poultry Regulations to regulate the import of poultry eggs. Under the new regulatory arrangements, a person is required to produce a health certificate issued by an issuing entity from the place of origin recognized by the Director of Food and Environmental Hygiene to certify that the poultry eggs are fit for human consumption before importing poultry eggs into Hong Kong; and to provide the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department with relevant information on the import of poultry eggs so that the Centre for Food Safety (CFS) can track the actual importation of the poultry eggs and conduct sampling tests, thereby further safeguarding food safety and public health as well as aligning with the regulatory arrangements of the international community.


We believe that when the relevant legislation come into effect on 5 December this year, the protection of public health will be further enhanced by strengthening the regulation of importing poultry eggs and controlling Avian Influenza while the regulatory arrangement for the import of poultry eggs into Hong Kong can also align with that of the international community. Let me now respond to the questions raised by Members and members of the Subcommittee during the scrutiny process. First of all, regarding the necessity to enact legislation on the import of poultry eggs, as the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Mr Steven HO, has already given a clear explanation, I will not repeat. Regarding the second question, Members (including Mr HO and Dr WONG) were concerned about the food inspection checkpoint for food items imported by sea. I am aware that Members were quite concerned about this issue during the scrutiny process. I would also like to take this opportunity to report to Members that the CFS and the Customs and Excise Department (C&ED) have, after deliberations, planned to set up a food inspection checkpoint for food items imported by sea in Kwai Chung Customhouse within October so as to strengthen the monitoring of food items imported by sea and further enhance the food regulatory system in Hong Kong. In fact, the CFS has all along been conducting sampling tests on food items imported into Hong Kong by land, air and sea according to a risk-based principle. Although the CFS did not have any food inspection checkpoint at the Kwai Chung Container Terminals in the past, it does not mean that the CFS had not conducted sampling tests on food items imported by sea. Actually, the Food Surveillance Programme implemented by the CFS takes food samples at import, wholesale and retail levels regardless of how the food items concerned are imported. The CFS also adopts a risk-based principle in determining the types of samples to be collected, the testing frequency, the number and locations of samples to be taken for testing, as well as the types of laboratory analysis to be conducted. Therefore, there is no loophole in respect of random testing. However, we agree that there is room for improvement in the relevant food regulatory measures. Hence, in view of the global outbreak of food safety incidents and the increasing challenges of safeguarding food safety, the CFS will review the relevant testing measures from time to time in order to enhance the regulatory arrangement for food safety on a continuous basis. I would also like to point out that to ensure food safety, the interaction and co-operation among regulatory bodies, the industry and consumers are essential. Only by establishing a regulatory system as the basis and complemented by


159

monitoring, self-discipline, education and publicity can food safety be effectively guaranteed. The CFS had conducted briefings in September and will conduct similar briefings in the future to brief the industry about the enhanced food regulatory measures and the arrangements to be implemented at the Kwai Chung Container Terminals, as well as to seek their active support. We also believe that the enhanced regulatory measures will increase the effectiveness of the inspection of food items imported by sea, raise public confidence in the safety of such food items and consequently benefit the industry. We plan to report to the Panel on Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene in November on the item of "Enhancing the surveillance and monitoring of food trading and imports", including the operation of the food inspection checkpoint in Kwai Chung. Members are also concerned about the provision of information prior to the importation of food items. At present, the CFS collects and analyses information on imported food items by imposing regulatory requirements and referring to the cargo manifests forwarded by the C&ED. As for sea transportation, most of the carriers of ocean-going vessels currently submit advance cargo information to the C&ED through the Electronic System for Cargo Manifests. The C&ED can also request carriers who do not use the aforesaid approach to submit advance cargo manifests. Furthermore, to ensure the safety of imported food, we also impose additional requirements on certain high-risk food items. For example, food items such as milk, dairy products, frozen confections, game, meat and poultry, as well as poultry eggs in the future, are regulated by the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance and the relevant subsidiary legislation. Food importers are required to submit the relevant information to the CFS and obtain its prior permission before importing the aforementioned food items into Hong Kong. Moreover, the CFS imposes import control on specific food items and will collect further information on such imported food from relevant importers. As regards whether it is necessary to further enact legislation to mandatorily require food importers to submit additional information on imported food to the CFS prior to their arrival at Hong Kong or whether it is necessary to empower the CFS to collect more information on imported food from food importers at an early stage, we have to study these issues in detail. In this regard, let me provide some factors for consideration. The CFS will adopt a risk-based principle in analysing the information, intelligence and notification


received from various sources and in carrying out food surveillance measures at the import level. The mechanism for testing imported food covers those imported by sea, land and air, as well as those purchased online. Specifically, the CFS will in future conduct tests on food imported into Hong Kong by sea in the food inspection checkpoint at the Kwai Chung Container Terminals; it now conducts tests on fresh food imported by land from the Mainland at the Man Kam To Food Control Office; conducts tests on food imported by air at the Airport Food Inspection Office of the CFS, as well as monitor the trading activities of online food business. These measures align with those of other countries. Monitoring at the import level is just one of the measures on safeguarding the safety of imported food under the whole food safety monitoring system, other measures on regulating the importation of food are equally important and indispensable, such as imposing control at source, monitoring the procedures and conducting tests. For instance, exporting countries and exporters are required to comply with the laws and regulations of Hong Kong for exporting food to Hong Kong and gate-keeping measures implemented in the exporting and importing countries are also very important; local importers, carriers, distributors and the catering industry should also operate in accordance with the law and actively dovetail with the relevant measures. As I have mentioned earlier, everyone will benefit if all stakeholders duly play their roles and take adequate measures to ensure food safety. Owing to the aforesaid measures, we should be able to monitor the safety of imported food effectively. As the proposal of mandatorily requiring food importers to submit food information to the C&ED and the CFS prior to the importation of food entails amending the relevant legislation, we will examine and study the proposal in detail. Mr HO has also expressed concerns about penalties. The Government has also noticed the differences in penalties imposed on importing various food items without permission under different food safety-related legislation. We have taken the initiative to inform the Subcommittee that we will review the statutory food safety-related penalties, and upon the completion of the review, report to the Panel on Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene on our recommendations. With these remarks, Deputy President, I would like to thank Members and members of the Subcommittee once again for their opinions. Thank you.


161

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): In accordance with Rule 49E(9) of the Rules of Procedure, I will not put any question on the motion. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Two motions under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. Mr Gary FAN and Ms Cyd HO have respectively given notice to move motions under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. As I have ruled that the contents of the two motions are substantially the same, I will only call upon Mr Gary FAN to move his motion. Then, this Council will proceed to a joint debate on the two motions. After the joint debate, this Council will put to vote Mr Gary FAN's motion. Irrespective of whether Mr Gary FAN's motion is passed, Ms Cyd HO may not move her motion. The joint debate now begins. Members who wish to speak on the two motions will please press the "Request to speak" button. I will first call upon Mr Gary FAN to speak and move his motion, and then call upon Ms Cyd HO to speak. MOTIONS UNDER THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (POWERS AND PRIVILEGES) ORDINANCE MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, after the lead-in-water scandal was uncovered in July this year, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung and I respectively requested President Jasper TSANG in mid-July to convene a special meeting during the summer recess of the Legislative Council to discuss whether the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) should be invoked to conduct a thorough inquiry into the lead-in-water scandal. At that time, Mr IP Kwok-him said that no meeting should be convened during the summer recess of the Council unless catastrophic incidents were involved. Subsequently, the President rejected our request, and thus this motion under the P&P Ordinance has been delayed for as long as three months before it is formally proposed today for discussion at the Council meeting. The Government, however, has not made good use of these three months to tackle the problem at


root and right the wrongs. Instead, more problems with its governance have been exposed. Over the past three months, the issue of lead in drinking water has gradually extended from public housing to private buildings, hospitals, schools and even kindergartens. The scope of impact has exceeded that of the short piling scandal in 1999. In my opinion, this is the most serious crisis since the establishment of the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA). Deputy President, during these three months, the Government has set up three committees to conduct inquiries, namely, the Task Force led by the Water Supplies Department (WSD), the Review Committee formed by the HA and the independent Commission of Inquiry appointed by the Chief Executive. Among them, the WSD and the HA have submitted interim reports, but their reports did not touch on or examine the issue of who should be held responsible. In reply to my question at the special meeting of the House Committee of the Legislative Council on 1 September about pursuing responsibility, Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie LAM made it very clear that the terms of reference of the independent Commission of Inquiry appointed by the Chief Executive did not include finding out who should be held responsible. Chief Secretary Carrie LAM further indicated that the cause of the lead-in-water scandal was simply a problem with the system. She did not see any inadequacy on the part of public officers in implementing the system. Although the inquiry has yet to commence, Carrie LAM already drew the conclusion for the report to be released in the future, that is, whatever faults there are, the faults just lie with the system. Being the head of the Civil Service, Chief Secretary Carrie LAM has disseminated a strong message to all public officers with such an irresponsible attitude, that is, even if we see any loopholes in the system or procedure, so long as we do nothing, we will not be liable as the fault does not lie with us. In fact, Deputy President, since the lead-in-water scandal was uncovered, government officials have given Hong Kong people the impression that they are anxious to shirk the responsibility. At first they attempted to pass the buck to a plumber. Later, as the scandal heated up, they came up with the present view that it is merely a flaw in the system. Some so-called experts have even openly stated that the first draw of overnight water is known to be toxic, so anyone who still drinks such water is stupid. A senior government official in the Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government, namely Secretary for Education Eddie NG, further said that it was necessary to "step up teaching students the correct attitude on drinking water". Deputy President, it turns out that all in all, the problem of lead in drinking water is Hong Kong people's fault.


163

However, we know that systems cannot bury our common sense. The general public clearly know that it is unreasonable and unacceptable for the first draw of overnight water to contain lead. Moreover, the Waterworks Ordinance has explicitly provided that no leaded solder shall be used in waterworks, and the WSD shall conduct inspections to ensure that the water quality in waterworks is up to standard before the building concerned can be issued with an occupation permit. The absence of lead tests in the WSD's water test procedures proves that the WSD has only conducted a superficial inspection without exercising due regulation over the materials used in waterworks. The problem is not simply a lack of awareness of lead content. Otherwise, the WSD would not have named a scapegoat in such a high profile manner shortly after the scandal was exposed, claiming that the plumber had violated the regulations since licensed plumbers have to sign their names to undertake responsibilities for waterworks. However, as the WSD merely checked on the signatures without conducting any thorough inspection, how could the WSD not assumed responsibility for failing to charges its duty? Deputy President, the WSD has now hurriedly capped the number of soldering works to be undertaken by a plumber, trying to right the wrong in respect of inadequate monitoring in the past. To put it more directly, it is making up for its mistakes. Procedures cannot conceal common sense. How would the officials in charge not know in the past that a plumber could not concurrently attend to plumbing works in five or even six housing estates? In fact, the WSD staff have indirectly admitted negligence in their past practice. Similarly, Deputy President, it has long been expressly stated in the public housing construction contract between the Housing Department (HD) and the main contractor that drinking water in buildings shall not contain lead. As revealed by the interim report of the HA's Review Committee, during the whole monitoring process, the government departments had as many as six opportunities to prevent the scandal of excess lead in drinking water, including the HD's preliminary acceptance tests and checks on the materials submitted by the main contractor for the water supply system, as well as the HD's and the main contractor's supervision over the site works. Yet to our surprise, HD officers had not identified the use of non-conforming leaded solder during the entire construction process. The saying that no human factor on the part of HD officers was involved is not convincing to the public. Such a comment is both incomprehensible and unacceptable.


However, Deputy President, in the interim reports submitted respectively by the WSD and the HA, it was simply stated that a lack of awareness and failure of the system to fully tie in with the situation were the causes for the lead-in-water scandal. The Government's approach of using systems and procedures to exonerate the officials in question from all responsibilities and let them get off the hook is an exact replica of what happened last year in the inquiry into the cost overrun and delay of the Express Rail Link (XRL). Last year, I also proposed in the Legislative Council to invoke the P&P Ordinance to inquire into the reasons for cost overrun and delay of the XRL and who should be held responsible. The pro-Government Members present at that time sang the same tune, saying that the inquiry had better be conducted by the Government, thus condoning the Government to investigate its own peers. In the end, the inquiry report released by the Government simply pointed out problems with the system, such as inadequacies with the Entrustment Agreements and defects in the regulatory regime. Now the Government and the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) still stick to their own views on who should be held responsible for the delay and cost overrun, making the XRL a "white elephant" project which cannot be completed. So far, not only has the Government not formally demanded the MTRCL to pay a penny for the cost overrun, it has even been requested by the MTRCL to raise the project management fees. Seeing such a situation, Hong Kong people are astounded. A similar unreasonable case had actually taken place in the Commission of Inquiry into the maritime disaster off Lamma Island. Over the past three years, the Government had never agreed to disclose the full reports of the Commission of Inquiry as well as the internal inquiry of the Marine Department. The disclosed contents only focused on the inadequacies of the system. In the end, most of the public officers involved were not prosecuted. Deputy President, in management studies there is a famous theory called Murphy's law, which reads, among other things, "Anything that can go wrong will go wrong." A sound system is certainly important, but no matter how perfect a system is, failure to check on the details in implementation will give rise to loopholes in the system. Hence, while Chief Secretary Carrie LAM blames the system for the problem of lead in drinking water, I have to tell the Chief Secretary that all systems are formulated and implemented by people. At present, the Government does have a regulatory system for construction works,


165

but any human errors in implementation will lead to flaws and breakdown of the relevant system or even any system. The HA had time and again been seriously negligent in monitoring works projects in the past. In the 80s, the scandal of public housing built with seawater revealed that some corrupt officers in the HD had allowed contractors to do shoddy work and use seawater instead of fresh water in the construction process, resulting in the demolition of 26 blocks of public housing owing to risk of collapse. In 1999, the short piling scandal broke out, causing a furore. At that time the objective of the Investigation Panel on Staff Discipline set up by the Government rightly included inquiring into whether there was dereliction of duty on the part of the HD. Although the Investigation Panel proposed to take disciplinary action on 17 officers of the HD, eventually the HD only penalized one of them. For this reason, Deputy President, at that time the Legislative Council successfully invoked the P&P Ordinance to set up a Select Committee to conduct an inquiry. Dr Rosanna WONG, the then Chairperson of the HA, stepped down because the Legislative Council passed a motion of no confidence. Back then, the two reports released by the Select Committee of the Council explicitly pointed out that senior management staff, including the Director of Housing, should be held responsible. The reports further named and censured the contractor for being totally irresponsible and unreliable. A number of members of the Select Committee who took part in writing the reports at that time are present in the Chamber of the Legislative Council today. In the lead-in-water scandal of public housing faced by us today, the residents affected and the government departments and contractors involved outnumber those in the short piling scandal at that time. Why do the pro-government Members oppose the invocation of the P&P Ordinance today? Mr TAM Yiu-chung has even written an article in the newspaper today. I believe it is a prelude to his later speech. Furthermore, Deputy President, I would like to point out that the Government still has not taken any active action against the four main contractors involved. So far it has only decided to suspend them from tendering for any new works project from March to September and exclude them from the list of Premier League Contractors, but such mild punishment which seemingly holds each contractor responsible is merely a superficial act. Many members of the public who have been affected in the incident are rather concerned that the


Government will harbour these contractors. Such concern is well-founded because at present, the four major contractors have secured half of the projects contracted out by the HA in the past three years. Individual members of the HA have also pointed out that these four major contractors are familiar with the construction workflow of public housing. Suspending them from participating in tenders will weaken market competition. Such a comment is exactly the same as the MTRCL's remark that since they are familiar with railway works, they have secured the XRL project. The Government has to act gingerly if any punishment is to be imposed on these big enterprises. For this reason, no wonder members of the public would suspect connivance. To tackle the problem at root, the Legislative Council must invoke the P&P Ordinance to clarify the contractors' responsibilities and review whether there are any problems with the Government's procedures for selecting and monitoring the main contractors, including whether it is reasonable to award the HA's projects exclusively to four major contractors, and whether transfer of benefits is involved. Deputy President, the Government has set up a Commission of Inquiry to take up the relevant work, but since the Legislative Council is an institution that monitors government administration, we have a constitutional duty to invoke the P&P Ordinance to conduct an inquiry. We should not easily give up our right to monitor the executive authorities. When facing the affected residents in the districts, the pro-government Members fervently expressed the need to take follow-up action, but here in the Legislative Council today, they just protect and defend the Government for its mistakes. Hence, we have to pursue responsibilities and right the wrongs. We have to tackle the problem at root, cut through the red tape and try to restore Hong Kong people's confidence in the safety of drinking water and even in the Civil Service. We cannot just let the present SAR Government turns the Civil Service, highly acclaimed in the past, into a machine which indiscriminately executes procedures, such that Hong Kong people's health will continue to be affected by lead in drinking water. Deputy President, I so submit. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, please move your motion.


167

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I now move my motion. Mr Gary FAN moved the following motion: (Translation)

"That this Council appoints a select committee to inquire into the incident of lead in the drinking water samples taken from public and private buildings exceeding the World Health Organization's standard, including the cause(s) of lead in drinking water, the responsibilities that must be borne by the contractors, whether there are any problems with the Government's procedures for selecting and monitoring the main contractors of public buildings, and whether the relevant government departments have properly discharged their monitoring responsibilities in the incident and all other related matters; and based on the results of the above inquiry, to make recommendations to the Government for improvement; and that in the performance of its duties the committee be authorized under section 9(2) of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap. 382) to exercise the powers conferred by section 9(1) of that Ordinance."

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Gary FAN be passed. MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I speak in support of the appointment of a select committee by this Council under section 9(2) of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to exercise the powers conferred by section 9(1) of the Ordinance for the purpose of inquiring into the lead in drinking water incidents as well as pursuing responsibilities. Deputy President, I reckon that the Legislative Council should actually apologize to the public. Since Dr Helena WONG uncovered the incident concerning lead in drinking water in Kai Ching Estate on 5 July, this Council should have followed up immediately. Regrettably, we could only hold the first meeting at the Housing Panel on 22 July. It was not until 1 September, which was almost two months after the incident was made public, that the Legislative Council invited the Chief Secretary for Administration to come over with other officials from relevant bureaux and departments to answer Members' enquiries at an open meeting.


Though the Legislative Council goes into summer recess every year, members of the public still have to drink water during our summer break. People continue to be affected by lead in drinking water as they still drink such water each day. Therefore, Deputy President, why do Members of the democratic camp want to take over the chairmanship of some committees? If some of us were the chairmen, we would certainly convene a special or an urgent meeting in the first instance, say within one week, and we would not be indolent because of the summer break. Against this background, the issue of chairmanship has nothing to do with struggles among different political parties. All we should do is to fulfil our constitutional duties and act as gate-keepers to protect people's interests. Deputy President, although Members of this Council can only raise questions at meetings, these questions, which are broadcast live, can still exert some pressure on the Government, so that the officials dare not be indolent and have to react urgently. The select committee proposed to be established also serves a similar purpose. So far, apart from those public housing estates announced to be affected, we still have no idea how many other estates are affected. Quite a number of private buildings may be affected as well, and we already know that the water supply of certain kindergartens in private buildings has already been affected. It has been confirmed that drinking water in some hospitals contain excess lead and university student hostels also have similar problems. At first, the Government intended to play down the incident. First of all, there were disputes over the water sampling tests for lead content, that is, how the results of such tests would meet the scientific standards. The whole issue has been in dispute for quite some time. Consequently, a number of tests have confirmed that excess lead was found in drinking water of many housing estates, and it was only until then that the Government was determined to follow up the incident. The whole incident was uncovered by the community but the Government had intended to play it down. It only treated the matter seriously in view of overwhelming public outrage. Does the Government intend to tell the public that it will never respond to gentle expression of views by writing letters or handing out petitions, and it will only respond to widespread indignation and discontent? Does it mean that the Government will only react when social conflicts and public discontent have become increasingly acute?


169

As a matter of fact, the lead-in-water incident has significant impact on the public, in particular families with children, pregnant women and lactating women. After 2000, incidents of excess lead in drinking water happened in Washington, the United States. According to their reports, the intellectual development of children who have an excess intake of lead will be permanently impaired. As drinking water is used to prepare infant's formula, infants, especially those under two years of age, are more seriously affected than adults as they live on drinking water and powdered formula. This being the case, if the impacts on these families cannot be stopped immediately or if follow-up actions cannot be duly taken, those families will suffer a lifelong burden and regret. However, when the incident was first uncovered, the Government had reacted slowly and the incident had not been formally followed up after a long period of time, which was extremely outrageous. At the last meeting of the House Committee, Chief Secretary Carrie LAM remarked that she did not see any inadequacies of civil servants in policy implementation, and hence nobody should be held responsible, and the incident was attributable to the inadequacies of the system. To a certain extent, we really cannot ask front-line civil servants who are responsible for implementing policies to be accountable for the system devised by some other people. This had been the long-standing stance of the Civil Service system in the colonial era prior to 1997. It was considered at that time that the Civil Service should be politically neutral, and civil servants were solely responsible for implementing established policies and procedures, and should not be held politically accountable. This view has been passed down from the colonial era. However, if the Chief Secretary adopts this logic to justify herself, she simply pays no regard to the systems of political appointments and political accountability. If there are inadequacies in the system, we will then ask: Who designed such a system in the first place? Who gave approval to such ineffective procedures and who should be held responsible? In fact, it has been stipulated in the contract signed between the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) and the contractors that drinking water should be lead-free. Since there is such a provision in the contract, someone should be responsible for monitoring if the contractors have complied with the requirement. At the same House Committee meeting, the Permanent Secretary for Transport and Housing told us that according to the risk-based approach, all of them ― their identities unknown ― considered that the risk was not high and hence, the procedures were so designed that only random document checks were conducted while checks on the physical items were not conducted. Nevertheless, given an


increasing number of poisonous food and fake products over the past decade, officials should actually stay alert. They should examine if there are areas of inadequacies in the procedures and conduct a review accordingly. This motion on setting up a select committee is intended to pursue responsibilities, that is, to find out who is responsible for devising such a system, and who is responsible for formulating the procedures that lack adequate regulation. The persons involved should indeed be held responsible. At the last House Committee meeting, I raised the above question to the Chief Secretary. However, owing to the non-written rule that the time for each question and answer should be limited to five minutes, the Chief Secretary did not answer this part of my question on that day. For this reason, I hope that the Chief Secretary will answer this question later on and tell us who should be responsible for the inadequacies of the system. The Chief Secretary also said that the problem was attributable to a lack of awareness. As in the case of the outbreak of SARS some 10 years ago, even though we had no idea what had happened, we did try every possible means to tackle the problem. To be frank, it is understandable that in tackling a new issue, one may fail to handle properly due to inadequate knowledge or the solution devised may not be comprehensive. Nonetheless, the issue of lead in drinking water is by no means a matter that we should lack awareness because the World Health Organization has already laid down the relevant standards. There are also precedents of drinking water being contaminated by lead in other countries, which can be drawn for reference. If officials are not alert enough, thinking that the risk is low and random document check is sufficient, someone should be held responsible for the incident. In my opinion, a lack of awareness should not be used as an excuse. For instance, if a cross-boundary visitor, who is not aware that laws in Hong Kong strictly prohibit people from urinating and defecating in public places, urinates and defecates in public places, that does not mean he has not committed any offence. The Police can arrest him and hold him legally liable. This being the case, I reckon that a lack of awareness cannot be used as an excuse, not to mention the reason for evading responsibilities. Deputy President, there are always a lot of arguments in this Council every time when we request to invoke the P&P Ordinance to follow up policy blunders or wrong-doings of the Government. Members of the pro-establishment camp will very often be partial to the Government and put forward numerous excuses, for example, the officials are very busy at the moment and it is not desirable to set


171

up a select committee to trouble them, and we should give them some time to work on the matter. As evident from previous examples, such as SARS or other crises, we had all along followed up the matter in this Council and were able to draw on collective wisdom to provide many useful advices, so that the Government could follow up the matter in a better way and could easily win community support. As a matter of fact, the lead-in-water incident has yet to conclude, as we do not know to what extent the territory has been affected. In other places which have problems of drinking water being contaminated by lead, even if they have identified the actual cause and have consequently found the solutions, it still takes almost 10 years to completely solve the problem. Hence, one cannot say that we should not bother the officials who are working on the solution, as they may take quite some time to handle the incident. Are we going to pursue responsibilities after one or two decades when everything is settled? Deputy President, obviously we cannot adopt this approach. Both the Government and the pro-establishment camp say that three committees have been set up, namely the Task Force set up by the Water Supplies Department, the Review Committee set up by the HA, as well as an independent Commission of Inquiry appointed by the Government, comprising a Judge and Mr Alan LAI, the former Ombudsman. These three committees have something in common, that is, they will not pursue responsibilities. Although we trust that the High Court Judge Andrew CHAN and Mr Alan LAI will conduct a fair investigation having regard to their previous track records, we maintain that the investigation will be far from adequate as the terms of reference of the Commission of Inquiry do not include pursuing responsibilities. A select committee set up by the Legislative Council will hold open meetings during which members of the public can see, through live broadcast by media organizations, how officials of relevant departments answer Members' questions. They will then have a better understanding of the situation, as well as the ins and outs of the incident, and hence when we formulate remedial policies, the community at large will collaborate with the Government in a proactive and positive way. If the approach of black-box operation is adopted with all inquiries or discussions held in camera, the report submitted in the end can in no way win the trust of the community and the recommendations proposed in the report can hardly win public support.


Lastly, Deputy President, I must reiterate that the lead-in-water incident has significant implications on a family, and even one such case is too many. It is imperative for us to conduct an extensive inquiry immediately, so as to identify what other places are affected by lead in drinking water, thereby adversely affecting the health of those who drink such water. Deputy President, I hope all Members will truly fulfil their constitutional duties by making the best effort to monitor the executive authorities and supporting today's motion on setting up a select committee. Thank you, Deputy President. CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the meeting today is just the first Council meeting in the 2015-2016 Legislative Session, yet we already have to deal with the motions proposed by Members under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance). This indeed makes me feel a bit helpless. In regard to the drinking water samples from certain public rental housing (PRH) estates with lead contents exceeding the standards set by the World Health Organization (WHO), Mr Gary FAN and Ms Cyd HO, the movers of the motions, have expressed their concern and criticized the departments concerned. I guess other Members will express similar opinions when they speak later on. I fully understand that as this incident of drinking water safety is of widespread public concern, Members are obliged to pose questions to government officials and monitor the Government. In fact, we have been fully co-operative. For instance, during the summer recess of the Legislative Council, colleagues from the relevant government departments and I attended two special meetings of the House Committee to give Members an integrated and comprehensive briefing on the latest development of the incident and our follow-up actions. By the way, the Government did not have any summer recess, so we were on standby and ready to take Members' questions all the time. We accept criticisms. We admit that there are deficiencies in the system, and we are determined to make continuous improvement to ensure the safety of drinking water in Hong Kong. However, regarding the Members' motions on invoking the P&P Ordinance to form a select committee to inquire into the incident despite the comprehensive investigations already commenced by the Government, we do not consider such a proposal necessary. The lead-in-fresh water incident has always been a deep concern of the Government. Hence, I totally disagree to and refuse to accept Ms Cyd HO's


173

earlier criticism that the Government has tried to downplay the incident, nor can I accept her saying that the Government has been sluggish, refusing to take any actions until public discontent and grievances boil up. In the evening of 10 July, the Housing Department (HD) announced that the lead content of drinking water samples collected from Kai Ching Estate could not comply with the WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. In the morning of the following day, 11 July, which was a Saturday ― we did not even dare to have a weekend holiday that day ― I convened a high-level inter-departmental meeting. In other words, I already started to co-ordinate follow-up work within 15 hours after the announcement. By now, this inter-departmental mechanism has held 17 meetings. Except the two meetings from which I was absent for reasons of an overseas duty visit and a brief vacation leave of one week, I personally chaired all the meetings, reviewing the development of the incident and expeditiously rolling out various measures in conjunction with colleagues from eight Policy Bureaux, 11 departments and the Hospital Authority. And, numerous front-line colleagues have also rendered their assistance in handling the incident. It may be an exaggeration to say that they have worked without any rest or sleep, yet they certainly have worked very hard with full co-ordination, demonstrating the spirit expected of a government team. As I pointed out at the meeting of the House Committee on 1 September, at the early stage of the incident, I already declared the three main principles upheld by the Government in the handling of this incident: openness and transparency, a people-oriented approach, and full-scale investigation. The fact is that the upholding of these fundamental principles has effectively averted policy inco-ordination among different departments and greatly reduced the unnecessary panic arising from the incident. Upholding the principle of openness and transparency, the Government has been giving very frequent updates to the media and the public on the development of the incident. Whenever there are new findings, new measures or new development, we will make announcement as soon as possible. We have been handling the incident very pragmatically, so as to enable the affected PRH residents to know what to do, and to let the public grasp the latest development. Since 11 July, the relevant Policy Bureaux and departments have held 15 press conferences to update the public on the latest development and to take questions from reporters. Moreover, 41 press releases have been issued to explain the details. The government officials concerned, including myself, have responded


around 60 times to reporters' questions about the incident of lead in drinking water on various public occasions. The presence of lead in drinking water was first discovered in PRH estates of the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA). Some three months have since passed, and excessive lead content has been found in the drinking water of totally 11 PRH developments. Since 28 August, no more PRH projects have recorded excessive lead in drinking water, indicating that the situation has stabilized. We have also formulated an integrated strategy in response to the situation, under which systematic water tests will be conducted for different types of buildings, including PRH estates, schools, welfare facilities, hospitals and other facilities. Members must be concerned about who should be held responsible for the lead-in-fresh water incident. Hence, I must reiterate that the construction, maintenance and repairs of water supply systems are always undertaken with a very clear division of responsibility and work. Water pipes that join water mains of the Water Supplies Department (WSD) to the connection point at the lot boundary are maintained by the WSD. The communal service including the service pipes from the building's lot boundary to the building as well as those communal pipes inside the building are maintained by the developer and the agent (usually the property management agent or the owners' committees). The inside service of a flat or property is maintained by the property owner. Hence, if private organizations or the public are concerned about the lead content in the drinking water of their housing estates or buildings, they should engage an accredited laboratory to take water samples for testing. As for other facilities under the Government and the HA, follow-up work will be arranged by the Government and the HA accordingly. The incident has caused inconvenience in daily life to the 29 000 tenants of the 11 public housing estates, making them worry about the possible health impact. We are deeply concerned about this. Hence, we have all along put in place contingency and follow-up measures based on the people-oriented principle. For instance, every time when the Government confirmed there was excessive lead in the drinking water of a housing estate, the HD and the WSD immediately arranged the provision of bottled water and temporary water supply for the estate. On the night of the announcement, representatives from the HD, the WSD and the Department of Health (DH) also attended a residents' forum to give them an update of the latest situation and understand their concerns. To


175

alleviate the inconvenience caused, the four main contractors of the affected housing estates have heeded the request of the HA and implemented a number of alleviation measures, including the extension of connection pipes from the roof-top water tanks of each building to each building floor, the installation of lead-reduction filters with NSF 53 certification from the United States National Sanitation Foundation, and free replacement of filter cartridges within two years. Moreover, the HA will continue to follow up with the main contractors on water pipe replacement. The Secretary for Transport and Housing will give a more detailed account of the follow-up work later on. Furthermore, the DH has set up a hotline for answering public enquiries on the health impact of lead and providing health advice. It has also arranged blood test appointments for households with excess lead found in their water samples, and three groups of more vulnerable residents in the affected PRH estates, namely children aged six and below (children aged eight and below since the adjustment on 3 August), pregnant women and lactating women. The DH has also provided health assessment and follow-up services to people with borderline raised blood lead levels. When giving his concluding remarks later on, the Secretary for Food and Health will provide detailed information about these tests and the follow-up work. As for schools, we announced on 1 September that water sample tests would be conducted for close to 1 000 kindergartens as a matter of priority, and then for about 80 public-sector and Direct Subsidy Scheme schools built with public funding and completed in 2005 or after (Priority is accorded to primary schools and special schools with boarding facilities). We expect to complete these tests in three months. We have already completed water sample tests for 310 kindergartens and 14 schools (including five special schools and nine primary schools), and the water samples from the wall-mounted kettles of three kindergartens were found to contain excessive lead. One of the kindergartens confirmed that the water in the kettle concerned was for staff consumption only, and no pregnant or lactating woman was involved. As for the other two kindergartens, the Education Bureau, after liaison with the DH, has made arrangements for students to receive blood tests in hospital. So far, 87 students have received blood lead testing and the results indicate that the blood lead levels of all the students concerned are normal.


As for welfare facilities, an arrangement commencing on 5 October has been made to conduct water sample tests in batches for some 200 welfare services units where children aged six and below will consume drinking water due to their long hours of stay. So far, we have completed water testing for nine welfare services units, and all the water samples can meet the standards set by WHO. The Hospital Authority has conducted water testing for some of the hospitals serving mainly paediatric patients. We have also conducted water testing for four government quarters, and all samples can meet the WHO standards. Deputy President, the third principle we adopt in handling the lead-in-fresh water incident is that thorough investigations must be carried out to identify the causes of excessive lead in drinking water and to examine the existing system, so as to introduce practicable improvement measures. In this connection, the Government has set up three bodies to conduct investigation in different areas and segments.

(1) The WSD set up a Task Force on 15 July 2015 with membership including external independent experts and professionals from the relevant departments. The Task Force announced the preliminary findings on 25 September, confirming that leaded solder joints were the source of excess lead in drinking water, and proposed a number of improvement measures. The Task Force will strive to submit the investigation report by the end of October. The Secretary for Development will give a detailed account of the work of the Task force later on.

(2) The HA established the Review Committee on Quality Assurance

Issues Relating to Fresh Water Supply of Public Housing Estates (Review Committee) on 24 July 2015 to review comprehensively the systems for quality control and monitoring in relation to the supply of fresh water in public housing estates. On 6 October, the Review Committee announced its report on interim findings. The Review Committee considers there are inadequacies on the part of the HA in the quality control of water supply systems, and that the awareness about the consequences of leaded solder material within the industry and its implications for drinking water quality is inadequate in general. The Review Committee plans to submit the final report to the HA by the end of this year. Later, the Secretary for Transport and Housing will provide additional information about this.


177

(3) On 13 August 2015, the Chief Executive in Council approved the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry into Excess Lead Found in Drinking Water (the Commission) as proposed by the Chief Executive on 17 July. The terms of reference of the Committee include ascertaining the causes of excess lead found in drinking water in public rental housing developments; reviewing and evaluating the adequacy of the present regulatory and monitoring system in respect of drinking water, as well as making recommendations with regard to the safety of drinking water in Hong Kong. The terms of reference of the Review Committee are very extensive, and the scope of review covers the existing water supply systems used in various types of buildings in the territory.

The Commission is now conducting investigation and hearings, including collecting information and documents from the relevant government departments regarding the drinking water in Hong Kong and PRH estates, and the present system for regulating drinking water quality. On 21 August, the Commission inspected the water treatment facilities of the WSD and the Government Laboratory to gain a better understanding of the water treatment processes, and water quality testing and monitoring. On 27 August, the Commission placed a notice in newspapers to invite the public to submit to it any information and documents relevant to the subject matter of the inquiry. The Commission is collecting and considering other evidence relating to the hearings and will commence the hearings on 20 October. The hearings will be open to the public in general, and the Commission will announce the detailed arrangement on its website, including the time of hearings and witnesses. I must stress one point here. I must highlight this point particularly after hearing Mr Gary FAN's remark that these committees are all engaged in "peers investigation". This is absolutely wrong. The Commission is an independent statutory body established under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance (Cap. 86). It is tasked to conduct independent and comprehensive inquiry into the incident. The Commission has the statutory powers to mandatorily require persons to give evidence and disclose documents, and it can also examine witnesses under oath. At the same time, Mr Justice Andrew CHAN, Judge of the Court of First Instance of the High Court, has been appointed as the Chairman and Commissioner, and Mr Alan LAI has been appointed as Commissioner of the Commission. The independence of the Commission is thus indisputable. We trust that the Commission will definitely conduct the inquiry and hearings impartially and independently.


The two reports of the Task Force led by the WSD will provide reference for the Commission, and the relevant Policy Bureaux and departments will support the inquiry and hearings of the Commission on all fronts. Honourable Members, this incident reveals that the inadequate awareness of lead in drinking water and its implications on health has resulted in systemic deficiencies in the construction of drinking water supply systems for PRH estates and the monitoring system of water supply facilities. At present, it is most important that appropriate remedial measures are implemented to ensure the safety of drinking water. Actually, the relevant departments dare not take the matter lightly and have introduced a number of remedial measures to address the problems immediately. I have also requested the WSD to conduct a comprehensive review on matters relating to the safety of drinking water, including the regulation of water-consuming appliances like wall-mounted kettles and water dispensers. To minimize the level of lead in drinking water, we need the common commitment and efforts of all stakeholders, including the Government, property developers, building contractors, authorized persons, licensed plumbers, plumbing workers, pipes and fittings suppliers, property owners, property management agents and customers. To enhance people's understanding of lead in drinking water and the relevant health advice, we have made proactive efforts to step up public education. A booklet titled "Hong Kong's Water Supply ― Reducing Lead in Drinking Water" is published and distributed to all tenants of affected housing estates. The public may obtain and refer to the booklet which has been uploaded to the designated website and placed in the Public Enquiry Service Centres in all Home Affairs Department District Offices and all estate management offices of the HD. The Information Services Department has designed a designated website for the matter, whereas the DH and the Hospital Authority have produced short videos on the topic respectively. Finally, I promise Members that the Government will not evade the problem. At present, the independent statutory Commission is conducting the inquiry and hearings. We will definitely study and follow up the recommendations of the Commission, including giving consideration to amending the laws or introducing administrative measures to enhance the regime. Water testing and blood lead testing will be carried out step by step continuously. We will continue to listen to the views of Honourable Members and various


179

sectors, keep the media and the public informed of the development of the incident and take all appropriate actions to ensure the safety of drinking water. Mr Gary FAN and Ms Cyd HO have both mentioned the question of who should be held responsible. I believe that Members will express their views on this issue when they speak later. I will respond to the issue in my concluding speech. Because of follow-up actions, investigation and review work mentioned above, we consider it unnecessary for the Legislative Council to invoke the P&P Ordinance to set up a select committee to investigate the lead-in-fresh water incident. I implore Members to oppose Mr Gary FAN's motion. Thank you, Deputy President. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, since the water samples of Kai Ching Estate were tested and found to contain excess lead, we have all along attached great importance to taking follow-up and remedial measures on various fronts, and we immediately kicked start the process of crisis and risk management. The occurrence of these incidents has deeply upset and caused anxieties to the staff at all levels in the departments concerned, and they have also asked why this would happen. The incidents have affected and caused inconvenience to some public rental housing (PRH) tenants in their daily living and I, as Chairman of the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA), once again tender an apology to them on behalf of the HA. As I have said before, we take an attitude of not underestimating the risks and not creating panic, while adopting a pragmatic approach to respond to the immediate needs and aspirations of the affected PRH tenants. In the meantime, we have pursued responsibilities from the relevant contractors by, among other things, requiring them to take remedial measures and address the problem thoroughly, and urging them to ascertain the scope involved and the cause of the problem by comprehensively reviewing the quality control and monitoring system of the housing projects of the HA, in order to identify inadequacies. The Housing Department (HD) and the Water Supplies Department (WSD) have completed systematic water sampling tests for PRH estates completed in or after 2005. Tests were conducted for 46 PRH estates, involving 83 PRH developments. Among them, the lead content in water samples taken from 11


PRH developments was found to have exceeded the World Health Organization (WHO)'s standard of not more than 10 micrograms per litre. However, of a total of 4 740 water samples being tested, only 91 were found to have excess lead, representing 2% of the total number of samples. While these data show that the incidence of excess lead in water samples is not high, we understand that we must not treat these incidents in a light-hearted manner and neglect the existing problems in the monitoring of drinking water. Certainly, the test results reflected the lead content in drinking water of the systems in the common area only, not the situation inside individual units where the fresh water supply systems are installed by non-domestic tenants. The Education Bureau and the Social Welfare Department have been taking and testing water samples for education and welfare facilities under their purview with the target of service being children under six years old, including the relevant facilities in PRH estates, in order to ascertain whether or not the water supply systems in these facilities contain lead. To provide assistance to residents in the 11 affected PRH developments, the HD and the WSD have arranged for the supply of bottled water and temporary water supply right after excess lead was found in their water. As mentioned by the Chief Secretary for Administration just now, the four main contractors of the affected housing estates have adopted measures to alleviate the problem. In Kai Ching Estate, Kwai Luen Estate (Phase 2) and Wing Cheong Estate, the water supply system on each floor has commenced operation. The relevant works have also commenced in the remaining eight housing estates where the water supply system is expected to start operation within this month. As for the installation of water filters, apart from the last housing estate announced to be affected, namely, Ching Ho Estate (Phase 1), where the installation of water filters has been completed for about 71% of the tenants, the installation work has broadly been completed for each household in the remaining 10 housing estates, except for a small number of households that we have not been able to contact. In view of the demands of the residents of the affected estates, we have been providing bottled water for the residents on the "people-based" principle. We have so far supplied about 5.11 million bottles of water in total, involving an expenditure of about $31 million. Given that water filters have been installed for the households gradually, the HD will, in the light of the actual situation and conditions, gradually reduce the supply of bottled water.


181

To address the problem at root, the HA established the Review Committee on Quality Assurance Issues Relating to Fresh Water Supply of Public Housing Estates (Review Committee) on 24 July this year to comprehensively review the supervision of works by the HA at different stages of construction, as well as quality control and monitoring in relation to the installation of fresh water supply system. The Review Committee submitted an interim report to me on 6 October and the report was uploaded onto the webpage of the HA on the same day for public information. As Chairman of the HA, I have already given my support to the view of the report that the HA and the HD have inadequacies in their knowledge and in the mechanism. We have also admitted on various occasions before that there are indeed inadequacies in the monitoring system. The Review Committee pointed out that while the past mechanism that was in place before the "excess-lead-in-water" incident was consistent with the industry's practice and compliant with the law and the requirements of the Water Authority (WA), it had been geared towards known issues about safety and quality of fresh water in the past, such as the physical performance of water pipes, the risk of Legionnaires' disease, and so on, without focusing on the presence of lead in water and failing to target soldering materials as a high risk item. Under the past mechanism of the HA, the building contracts did not require the contractor to supervise the use of soldering materials; checking of soldering joints for lead was not included in the various inspection guides developed to assist HD's site inspection teams to conduct in-process inspection; despite the fact that a mechanism was in place for in-process supervision and testing, the system failed to check for presence of lead in soldering joints; and on completion of projects, the HA's system only followed the then WA's requirements on tests of water samples, without taking the initiative to carry out additional tests on the lead content in water. As pointed out in the preliminary findings of the Task Force on Investigation of Excessive Content Lead in Drinking Water (Task Force) of the WSD, the industry has inadequate knowledge about the consequences of leaded solder material. The Review Committee of the HA also considered that the contractors, plumbing subcontractors and licensed plumbers had all failed to pay due attention to the source and use of the soldering material, as well as the associated risks in areas under their charge respectively. In this connection, the Review Committee agreed that the HD should implement enhancement measures immediately by, among other things, requiring the testing of water samples for


heavy metal content (including lead) in accordance with the WSD's latest requirements adopted since 13 July 2015; requiring the main contractor to submit and comply with a management plan and making the main contractor responsible for the procurement of soldering materials and monitoring of the delivery, storage and usage of soldering materials; and requiring the HD and the main contractor, at any time during construction stage, to use quick test methods to check for the presence of lead in soldering joints. Certainly, the HD will also study the use of pipes connected not by soldering in future developments as far as practicable. As the next step, the Review Committee of the HA will continue to listen to the views of the industry and professional organizations and explore other relevant issues, which include raising the safety standard of other fittings and materials in fresh water plumbing systems. The Review Committee will submit a full report by the end of 2015. Deputy President, after excessive lead content was found in water in PRH estates, the HA has stated that the responsibilities of the relevant contractors will be definitely pursued. The four contractors involved have also actively provided support for the follow-up work of the HA. Apart from the immediate measures taken to alleviate the problem that I have just mentioned, the expenditure on these measures will all be shouldered by the contractors. The HA has demanded the contractors to rectify the problem thoroughly because they have to take their responsibilities. The contractors have submitted packages for carrying out inspection comprehensively and replacing substandard water pipes. The HD and the WSD are studying their proposals in detail. As the work procedures, relevant techniques and manpower arrangement involved are rather complicated, it will take some time for the replacement works to be completed. The contractors plan to first carry out tests for a number of PRH housing blocks affected by lead in drinking water and then draw up a detailed work plan and timetable based on the actual experience. It remains to be their plan that substandard pipes in the common areas will be replaced first, to be followed by those inside the units. While it will be inevitable for the replacement works to bring inconvenience to the PRH tenants, we will ask the contractors to minimize the effects of the works on the tenants by all means. The specific arrangements will be announced as soon as possible after they are finalized. Moreover, the Tender Committee of the HA decided on 30 September to take regulatory actions against four building contractors and two related


183

companies. The HA will not consider any new works tenders submitted by these six building contractors during the seven months from 1 March to 30 September this year. These actions involve seven contracts and about 18 000 PRH units for rental and sale. There are still views in the community that the tender restrictions on these contractors should be further extended to impose a heavier penalty on them, but there are also views that the consequences should be carefully considered, including those relating to the cost of housing production, the use of public coffers, the target and timetable of housing production, and whether there will be sufficient contractors with the necessary strength to bid for the future projects. The Tender Committee will give careful consideration to various factors and reach a decision within this month. Deputy President, next, I wish to give an account of the progress of work in testing water samples taken from PRH estates completed before 2005. The preliminary findings of the Task Force of the WSD have confirmed that the leaded-solder joints are the source of excess lead in drinking water in PRH estates. Given that soldering was not adopted for water pipe connections in PRH estates completed before 2005, this major risk factor can be ruled out. Besides, water sampling and testing have been carried out in housing estates where soldering materials were not used, including nine PRH estates completed in or after 2005 and an additional 17 PRH estates completed before 2005 which were also selected for the tests. Results showed that all the samples met the WHO standard. Under the "risk-based" principle, we will adopt a two-step approach in conducting water sampling tests for PRH estates completed before 2005 by batches. As the first step, the HD and the WSD will conduct a representative screening for these estates by batches. Depending on the size of the estates, we will select several blocks from each of the estates and take water samples from each of the selected blocks. If, in the first stage, no sample is found to contain excessive lead content, it will be unnecessary to extend the test for that estate. If individual estates are found to have water samples containing excessive lead content in the first stage, we will conduct systematic water sampling tests for each block within that estate, covering every independent fresh water supply system located within each block, in order to determine the overall lead content in the drinking water of that estate and investigate whether the reasons causing excessive lead content are confined to the samples concerned.


If there are estates where the water samples are confirmed to have excessive lead content in the second stage, the HA will, by making reference to the past practices, take appropriate relief measures as soon as possible. Unlike PRH estates completed in or after 2005, PRH estates completed before 2005 involve many kinds of building design and so, it may not be technically possible to provide downpipes to each floor directly from the roof water tanks. However, we believe these estates completed before 2005 have a lower risk of excessive lead content in water and even if the water samples of some of these estates are really found to have excessive lead content, these may only be individual problems which are confined to the samples concerned. Therefore, we will adopt the quick test methods to identify the substandard pipe parts and expeditiously arrange for replacement. Depending on the situation of each estate, the replacement of pipe parts may take about three to five weeks. As the procurement and installation of water filters will also take a certain time and may take even longer than the works for partial replacement of water pipes, we will assess the complexity of the replacement works and the time required for their completion before making a decision on the need to install water filters for the affected households. We have started to carry out water sampling and testing for PRH estates completed before 2005 by batches in accordance with the approach that I have explained above. Results will be announced later today. All the 519 water samples taken from 24 PRH estates met the WHO standard (see Annex). We will continue with such work and carry out water testing by batches. After the results are made available, we will announce them to the households concerned and the community as soon as possible. Hopefully we can complete the work of water testing by the end of 2015. Deputy President, as also mentioned by the Chief Secretary for Administration at the special meeting of the House Committee on 8 October, some residents of the affected estates are concerned about whether the water filtered by water filters installed by the contractors can meet the WHO standard. We understand that the United States National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) 53 certification for lead reduction is a stringent process, which includes the testing of the effectiveness of lead reduction and supervision of the production process, so as to ensure that filters of particular models can reduce lead persistently and effectively.


185

The Government Laboratory has also carried out tests which confirmed the effectiveness of these filters. Having said that, we understand that some residents may still have concerns. To ease residents' concern, we have decided to carry out further tests for those PRH units in the 11 affected estates with water samples being found to contain excessive lead content before and which have subsequently installed water filters, in order to ascertain that their filters function properly. Certainly, it will be difficult to carry out further water tests for households which have not accepted the installation of water filters. We will strive to complete water testing within this month but the time it will actually take obviously depends on whether we can promptly get in touch with the households concerned and whether they agree to let us conduct further water tests in their units. Deputy President, I believe the Commission of Inquiry into Excess Lead Found in Drinking Water (the Commission) set up by the Chief Executive in Council will put forward views on the responsibilities of the people and organizations concerned in the incidents. In the coming days, the HA and the Transport and Housing Bureau will certainly take responsibilities. The HA will be fully committed to assuming its responsibility as the owner of PRH units and provide full support for the work of the independent Commission in conducting public hearings, and we will make the utmost effort to implement the recommendations on water safety made by the independent Commission, the Task Force and the Review Committee of the HA. If the independent Commission considers it necessary to follow up the responsibility of the people concerned (including public officers), we will definitely handle it solemnly in accordance with the established mechanism. Thank you, Deputy President.

Annex

Test results of water samples taken from public rental housing estates completed before 2005

The Housing Department (HD) and the Water Supplies Department (WSD) are conducting a representative screening for public rental housing (PRH) estates completed before 2005, in which the fresh water supply systems were installed by


the Hong Kong Housing Authority, to determine whether the lead content in drinking water exceeds the World Health Organization (WHO)'s provisional guideline value of not more than 10 micrograms per litre. In general, the HD and the WSD are taking water samples for testing by batches in accordance with the completion year of the PRH estates, starting with newly completed estates and working back to the older ones. Once a batch of water sample tests is completed, the HD will immediately announce the testing results.

(Results announced for 41 PRH estates involving 887 water samples up to 14 October 2015)

Lead content in water samples complying with WHO's provisional guideline value Tsui Ping (South) Estate

Lee On Estate

Butterfly Estate

Choi Fai Estate

Sai Wan Estate

Choi Yuen Estate

Tin Yan Estate

Tsz Lok Estate

Oi Tung Estate

Kwai Shing (East) Estate

Kin Ming Estate

Tin Yuet Estate

Po Tat Estate

Lei Yue Mun Estate

Tin Heng Estate

Tin Chak Estate

Sau Mau Ping Estate

* Fu Tai Estate

* Wang Tau Hom Estate

* Ap Lei Chau Estate

* Lei Muk Shue (I) Estate

* Chun Shek Estate

* Pak Tin Estate

* Ka Fuk Estate

* On Yam Estate

* Sheung Tak Estate

* Cheung Hang Estate

* Yiu Tung Estate

* Tsz Man Estate

* Wah Sum Estate

* Shek Lei (I) Estate

* Tin Wan Estate

* Ko Yee Estate

* Wan Hon Estate

* Sheung Lok Estate

* Tsz Ching Estate

* Kwai Fong Estate

* Chung On Estate

* Ho Man Tin Estate

* Ko Cheung Court

(the PRH portion)

* Upper Wong Tai Sin Estate

Note: * 24 estates announced on 14 October


187

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President and Members, the Government is extremely concerned about the incident of lead in drinking water samples exceeding the World Health Organization (WHO)'s standard. The Development Bureau has established a Task Force in July to investigate the causes of excess lead in drinking water and recommend measures so as to prevent recurrence of similar incidents. The Task Force is chaired by the Deputy Director of Water Supplies and composed of three experts and academics outside the Government as well as professionals from the relevant government departments. In the past two months, the Task Force held seven meetings and visited Kai Ching Estate and Kwai Luen Estate Phase 2 where excess lead in drinking water samples was found. It dismantled more than 100 components from the water supply chains for testing. The Task Force adopted scientific and objective methodologies for the investigation, including leaching tests, elemental analyses of various components, mathematic modelling and lead isotopic analysis. The Task Force announced the preliminary findings on 25 September and confirmed that leaded-solder joints are the source of excess lead in drinking water in Kai Ching Estate and Kwai Luen Estate Phase 2; and that copper alloy fittings also leach a very small amount of lead but do not result in excess lead in drinking water. The preliminary findings also indicated that various stakeholders in the industry, including the Water Supplies Department (WSD), have inadequate awareness on the possible consequences of excess lead in drinking water. The Task Force also made recommendations to prevent recurrence of similar incidents, which mainly include:

(1) enhancing the system for site inspection and testing during construction of plumbing works;

(2) stipulating the testing of four additional heavy metals (lead,

chromium, cadmium and nickel) for water samples and testing of the lead content of solder joints in newly completed inside service by Licensed Plumber and Authorized Person;

(3) exploring the use of other pipe materials, such as using silver brazing

or compression joints for copper pipes or using stainless steel pipes, to prevent the misuse of leaded joints in plumbing works; and

(4) considering a review of the relevant legislations, and so on.


The Task Force has also drawn public attention to some points to note. For example, if water has been standing in pipes for a long time, run water at the tap for about two minutes before using it for drinking or food preparation; and as hot water increases the amount of lead that may leach from the pipe materials, use only water from a cold-water tap for drinking or cooking. Deputy President, I think the Task Force has provided objective and reliable findings on the causes of excess lead in drinking water. It has also made impartial and effective recommendations for improvement to prevent recurrence of similar incidents. Furthermore, the Review Committee on Quality Assurance Issues Relating to Fresh Water Supply of Public Housing Estates (the Review Committee) set up by the Hong Kong Housing Authority has also made recommendations for improvement in respect of the incident of lead in drinking water to tighten the control on the quality of construction works. The independent Commission of Inquiry (the Commission) appointed by the Chief Executive in Council under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance will also conduct a detailed investigation into the incident to ascertain the causes of the incident, review and evaluate the adequacy of the present regulatory and monitoring system in respect of drinking water in Hong Kong and make recommendations with regard to the safety of drinking water in Hong Kong. The Commission is led by a Judge and has the statutory power to compel persons to give evidence and disclose documents. It can also examine witnesses on oath. It is indeed unnecessary for the Legislative Council to further appoint a select committee to duplicate the work of the Task Force, the Review Committee and the Commission. Deputy President, in response to the incident of lead in drinking water exceeding the WHO's standard and having regard to the recommendations made by the Task Force, the WSD has implemented a number of measures, which mainly include:

(1) issuing circular letters to all Licensed Plumbers and Authorized Persons requiring that if soldering is used for jointing copper pipes for drinking water, supporting document of lead free soldering has to be submitted;

(2) requiring that parameters on lead, cadmium, chromium and nickel

should be added in the testing of water samples for newly installed inside service; and


189

(3) the WSD, during inspection of the inside service, requiring the Licensed Plumber to carry out non-destructive tests on solder joints to check whether the solder materials contain lead and ensure the safety of drinking water.

Deputy President, the WSD has all along attached great importance to the quality of drinking water. For example, it has managed the source of water supply, kept abreast of the latest developments and revisions of the Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality published by the WHO and updated the standards for drinking water in Hong Kong accordingly. Regarding the source of water supply, under the water supply agreement signed between the WSD and the Government of Guangdong Province, the quality of Dongjiang water supplied to Hong Kong should conform to the national standard set out for Type II waters in the Environmental Quality Standards for Surface Water GB3838-2002, which also stipulates that the lead content in water should be less than the standard limit of 10 micrograms per litre. The WSD has been closely monitoring the quality of Dongjiang water through the 24-hour online water quality monitoring system set up at the Muk Wu Pumping Station where Dongjiang water is received. It also takes Dongjiang water samples regularly for testing on various items, including lead. According to the previous data on routine water quality monitoring results, the lead content of Dongjiang water has fully met the standard. Although the existing Waterworks Ordinance and the Waterworks Regulations have not stipulated any standard or requirement for drinking water, the WSD has adopted the Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality published by the WHO as the performance indicator for the water supply connection points between water plants and the lot boundaries of consumers, that is, the pipes between government water mains and inside service. The WSD also gave an undertaking in this regard in its 1994-1995 Controlling Officer's Report. According to the monitoring results, the WSD has fully fulfilled its undertaking since 1994 and completely complied with the Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. Since excess lead was found in drinking water in some public rental housing estates in Hong Kong in early July this year, the WSD has increased the number of water samples taken for testing on lead content in the existing territory-wide routine tests on drinking water. As at late September, 460 water samples have been tested and the results indicated that the lead content in all water samples were below the level of 10 micrograms per litre as stipulated in the WHO's Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality.


Deputy President, the Commission has commenced its work on the excess lead in water incident. It is expected that the Commission will report to the Chief Executive within nine months from the date of its appointment. I have directed the WSD to fully assist the work of the Commission, which will conduct a hearing on 20 October. When the Commission completed the report, we will examine the findings in detail and follow up the relevant recommendations. Deputy President, the most important tasks of the WSD at present are to provide the affected public housing residents with easy access to safe and reliable water for consumption, assist the Housing Department to duly handle the inside service in housing estates where problems have been found, enhance public understanding on lead content in drinking water and prevent recurrence of similar incidents. I have directed the WSD to pool together resources and work in concert with various stakeholders in the industry to complete these tasks. Deputy President, I will give a response again in my concluding remarks after listening to Members' concerns carefully. I so submit. DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the lead-in-water incident is a scandal related to waterworks in Hong Kong. It is also a scandal involving Hong Kong's food safety and public health. Even children know that lead is a toxic heavy metal which is of no use to our blood. Yet, royalist Member Mr NG Leung-sing from the pro-establishment camp blatantly asked public officers in this Council whether drinking appropriate amount of water containing lead would prolong one's life. This is also a scandal of this Council. The Democratic Party uncovered on 5 July that excess lead was found in water samples taken from four flats in Kai Ching Estate. At first, the Government denied and after a lapse of three months, it is now time to draw a preliminary conclusion and review on the work undertaken by the Government. The case of excess lead in drinking water is not an isolated incident. At first, we also thought that only the water samples taken from several flats in Kai Ching Estate contain excess lead. However, after urging the Government to conduct a comprehensive water sampling test, it was discovered that the problem was not only confined to Kai Ching Estate. So far, drinking water samples taken from at least 11 housing estates were found to have excessive lead content in the water sampling tests conducted by the Government and by political parties. Apart from these housing estates, there are actually some other places found to


191

have similar problems after testing conducted by us, but the Government is reluctant to confirm the result. These places include Shui Chuen O Estate as well as some other Home Ownership Scheme estates and private buildings. Subsequently, the lead-in-water incident has even spread to hospitals, schools and kindergartens. All these incidents manifest a failure in the entire structure of our construction projects. At first, the Government tried to shirk responsibilities by shifting all the blame of the lead-in-water incident to a licensed plumber, and it even disclosed his name. However, the eyes of the people are discerning. When the scope of and problems related to the lead-in-water incident have become more and more extensive, the truth can no longer be concealed. The whole incident has unveiled many problems related to the Government's quality control system in respect of water safety and construction projects. In terms of supervision, government officials fail to perform their duties; their competence in respect of public service such as providing safe and lead-free drinking water is unbelievably low, not to mention their poor knowledge. This being the case, we should not ridicule Mr NG Leung-sing. Do government officials not have an equally low level of awareness? After the outbreak of the lead-in-water incident, the Government has set up three committees one after another, with higher and higher levels. But what is the result of the inquiry conducted by such committees? To date, the Task Force on Investigation of Excessive Lead Content in Drinking Water, led by the Water Supplies Department (WSD), announced its preliminary findings on 25 September, and its investigation is basically more of a technical nature. In the report, it is stated that after examining the components from the water supply chains dismantled from Kai Ching Estate and Kwai Luen Estate Phase 2, the Task Force was of the view that leaded solder joints installed in the inside service was the main cause of excess lead in drinking water. Yet, the problem is, it is also pointed out in the report that lead leaching can also be found in other components from the water supply chains. On 6 October, the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA)'s Review Committee on Quality Assurance Issues Relating to Fresh Water Supply of Public Housing Estates also released the report on its interim findings. The HA admitted that it did not carry out any test on water pipes, and the report was drafted based on the test results from the relevant group of the WSD. Similarly,


the HA has also attributed the problems to soldering materials for pipe connections and to the fact that there has been a lack of awareness among the main contractors, subcontractors and the Housing Department (HD) of the presence of lead in soldering materials. The problem is, after reading the preliminary reports released by the two committees, we have identified an obvious problem, that is, if the focus of the problem of excess lead in drinking water is placed entirely on leaded solder joints and the problem in question is considered to be resolved by central procurement of materials and stringent monitoring, that is really wrong. As pointed out in the investigation report released by the WSD, problems are also found in other components from the water supply chains. That being the case, what do we expect the inquiry to be conducted by the Government? It is our hope that the Government will inquire into the cause of the lead-in-water incident and uncover the truth. Regrettably, the Government only mentioned the source of lead in drinking water. The Chief Secretary has a high English standard, definitely higher than mine. She referred to the source of the lead, while we are inquiring into the cause. Nonetheless, the reports released by both committees all focus on the source, saying that the lead in drinking water came from solder joints as well as some components from the water supply chains. This is basically out of focus and misleading the public. How can we know the truth under these circumstances? We, the Democratic Party, have proposed to the Government to set up a commission of inquiry pursuant to the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance to conduct an inquiry, so as to prevent the WSD from adopting the practice of "investigation by peers". The WSD will certainly say that there is nothing wrong with this practice. When the HD adopted the practice of "investigation by peers", the HA will also say there is nothing wrong with the HD's practice. Then, after reading the two reports, the Chief Secretary will again harbour the civil servants, claiming that there is nothing wrong with the officials, and the problem only lies with the system. Is the system something from heaven? Who devises the system? Who implements the system? Against this background, it is our wish to set up an independent commission of inquiry. However, is it no longer necessary for the Legislative Council to intervene after an independent commission of inquiry has been set up?


193

Let us take a look at the terms of reference of this Commission of Inquiry (the Commission). In fact, there have been some changes in its terms of reference from the initial announcement in mid-July to the eventual appointment of two Members on 13 August. There are only three areas of work mentioned in the Commission's terms of reference: firstly, ascertaining the causes of excess lead found in drinking water in public rental housing developments; secondly, reviewing and evaluating the adequacy of the present regulatory and monitoring system in respect of drinking water supply in Hong Kong; and thirdly, making recommendations with regard to the safety of drinking water in Hong Kong. Among the three areas of work, there is no mention of finding out who have been in dereliction of their duties, whether anyone should be held responsible and how to ascertain the relevant responsibilities and make a ruling. The Commission will not handle these issues as they do not fall within its terms of reference. When we asked Prof Anthony CHEUNG, Secretary for Transport and Housing, why the HA's report did not mention which government officials should be held responsible, Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG said that this task was not included in the scope of the HA's inquiry and that we should wait for the report to be released by the Commission. However, the Commission is also not tasked to carry out such work. That is to say, even though three committees have been set up by the Government, none of them will make a judgment on the relevant responsibilities of the parties involved. Does it mean that no one should be held responsible for the incident? I absolutely have no idea why the Chief Secretary is of the view that Members should not support this motion. From the development of the current lead-in-water incident, we can see that people who oppose pursuing responsibilities will normally say that we should look ahead, and the most important task at the moment is to handle those housing estates where lead is found in drinking water; arrange medical treatment for and follow up with the residents, in particular children, who are found to have an elevated blood lead level, as well as improve the entire monitoring system. We will certainly raise no objection to such work which, in our view, is also of great importance. However, that does not mean we can simply put the issue of accountability aside. Recently, a child living in Kai Ching Estate is found to have a blood lead level significantly exceeding the reference value upon receiving a blood test arranged by the Government. I am very worried after hearing this. The blood lead level of this child is as high as 15.3 micrograms per decilitre, which is two or three times higher than the prescribed standard for children under eight. If we say it is not necessary to pursue responsibility, how can we be


accountable to these parents and children? How can we seek justice for the victims affected by the lead-in-water incident? Are we going to abandon them? Can we just ignore them? For this reason, if the Chief Secretary asks Members not to support this motion, this is actually tantamount to absolving the responsibilities of those officials who are at fault, as well as letting the four contractors involved in the lead-in-water incident off the hook and refraining from pursuing responsibilities. Ms Cyd HO has, on behalf of the pan-democratic camp, brought up two issues concerning responsibilities in her motion: firstly, pursuing the responsibility of the contractors; and secondly, ascertaining and pursuing the responsibility of government officials. Let me start with the responsibility of the contractors first. We have learnt that leaded solder joints are commonly used by the industry, but in the HA's report, it has pointed out that there had been a lack of awareness of the soldering materials. I think "a lack of awareness" should not be used as an excuse in this incident as it is stated in paragraph 7 of the HA's report on its interim findings that "Members noted that copper water pipes, fittings and soldering materials are governed by relevant British Standards as stipulated in HA's specifications". While the British Standards governing the pipes and soldering materials used by the WSD and HD are relatively outdated, they have clearly stipulated that the materials should be lead-free or the upper limit for lead content is given. As there are relevant standards and contracts for compliance, why could the contractors provide sub-standard leaded soldering materials and fittings? In paragraph 31 of the HA's report on its interim findings, it is stated that "although the main contractors, who are responsible for continuous supervision and accountable to HA as the contractual party with HA, were well aware of HA's specification of using lead-free solder for copper pipe connection, they failed to pay due attention to the soldering materials used, and never put in place sufficient safeguards to ensure that the soldering materials used on-site conform to the approved samples". Since the contractors have failed to put in place sufficient safeguards, why not ask them to take the blame? We feel particularly worried upon reading another report released by the WSD. It is pointed out in the WSD's report that some valves, taps and copper alloy valves installed on-site in Kai Ching Estate were not submitted to the WSD


195

before commencement of plumbing works, although they were on the directory list accepted by the WSD. Some valves and taps installed were found to have failed to comply with the British Standards in the testing. Since they did not comply with the British Standards, why are they on the WSD's directory list of fittings? More ridiculously, in the application submitted by the contractors before the commencement of plumbing works, it was said that the fittings to be installed in Kai Ching Estate belong to two Taiwanese brands, namely Waterfront and Ring. After the installation, however, it was found that the fittings belong to Victory, a Mainland brand, instead of the brands initially submitted by the contractors. Despite the existence of contracts and reporting system, why was the fittings eventually installed stealthily replaced by other brands and why were the authorities unaware of the situation? Is there really no one who should be held responsible? There are numerous problems which we cannot understand and thus warrant further inquiry. What are the responsibilities of officials? The Accountability System for Principal Officials, which has been introduced in 2006, has clearly stated that Principal Officials are to be held accountable. They may have to step down for serious failures in policy implementation or formulation, or for grave personal misconduct. Obviously, we can see that there are problems in the formulation of policies and failures can be found in policy implementation. May I ask the Chief Secretary why our officials should not be held accountable in this case? Why does the Chief Secretary only care about harbouring these officials? Even though the Chief Secretary performs so well as "nanny", she should refrain from harbouring her subordinates because when the system is fraught with problems, there will be problems in policy implementation. Furthermore, even before the commencement of work by the Commission, the Chief Secretary has stated that no officials should be held accountable; the problem only lies with the system, not the people. It appears that people and system are not interrelated and that officials have nothing to do with the system. Is this our executive-led Government? Deputy President, just now the Chief Secretary expressed her objection to setting up a select committee by the Legislative Council, and she also said that she had already come to this Council many times. Even though the Chief Secretary has come over many times, I still do not have a chance to ask her any questions. It has already been three months since the outbreak of the


lead-in-water incident, but I still do not have the chance to discuss with WSD staff or the Director of Water Supplies and raise my questions. The authorities have also taken a long time to reply to our letter. This being the case, I hope that Members of the pro-establishment and pan-democratic camps will support our motion today, thereby a select committee can be set up by this Council to look into the lead in drinking water incident. According to a public opinion poll conducted by the Democratic Party recently, 75% of the respondents opined that the issue of lead in water is a very serious incident; 55% of them are dissatisfied with the Government's performance, and over 41% of them consider that officials from the HD and the WSD should be held accountable for the incident. As a result, this issue cannot be taken lightly and I call upon everyone to face the matter squarely. MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, if a government official went to a restaurant and after drinking some seriously polluted water, he had to be transferred to the accident and emergency department, and when the official wanted to hold someone accountable, the owner of the restaurant said, "You're right, our system has gone wrong but none of us should take the blame", will you find such a remark acceptable? If you find it unacceptable, I believe the officials and Members present today will understand why we must get to the bottom of the problem. Deputy President, I support the setting up of a select committee by this Council under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to inquire into the lead-in-water incident. All along, I believe many people, like me, take it for granted that drinking water in Hong Kong is safe. Hong Kong claims to be Asia's World City and a highly developed city. I believe all of us would assume that in such a city, no problems will arise in connection with drinking water, basic facilities and basic necessities. Yet, the lead-in-water incident has revealed the feeble monitoring of the Government in respect of the city's water quality, and that the whole water supply system is fraught with problems. I can hardly accept that drinking water from the tap at home and at schools contain lead or even other toxic metals or substances. What is even more unacceptable to me is the unsatisfactory response of the Government to the lead-in-water incident; I can only describe it with two words, that is, "extremely bad".


197

At last week's special House Committee meeting, the Chief Secretary for Administration advised that no civil servants should be held personally responsible for the lead-in-water incident, the problem only highlighted the inadequacies of the system. It turns out that the system is the "mother" of society while personal responsibility is of no importance. Once the "mother" has assumed responsibility for the lead-in-water incident, no other people should take the blame. At present, there are altogether three review committees, including the Review Committee set up by the Hong Kong Housing Authority, the Commission of Inquiry chaired by a Judge and a Task Force set up by the Water Supplies Department (WSD), but none of them has been authorized to pursue responsibilities. In this case, who should be held responsible for the lead-in-water incident? Does this issue not require any follow-up? Why not empower these three committees to undertake such an important task? Deputy President, even if various systems in society have become better and better, if someone fails to fulfil his responsibility by implementing the requirements of the system, no matter how good the system is, it still fails to function effectively. The Legislative Council is responsible for monitoring the administration of the Government. If the Government puts the blame on system inadequacy whenever there is a policy blunder and the Legislative Council voices no objection, how can this be acceptable? The present incident awakens us to the fact that members of the public are drinking unclean water every day, that drinking water in public rental housing (PRH), private buildings, hospitals and schools may contain lead, and that some children may have consumed water containing lead for a few years. This incident is important to people's livelihood and it is incumbent upon the Government to conduct a thorough investigation and give a clear account to the public. With regard to the culprit of the current lead-in-water incident, according to the preliminary report released by the WSD's Task Force on Investigation of Excessive Lead Content in Drinking Water, the incident is mainly caused by leaded solder joints in copper pipes, and lead is also found to have seeped and deposited into water pipes. Furthermore, it has also been pointed out in the report that some pipes and fittings currently in use are not in compliance with the required standards, and it is also found that some parties have failed to comply with the requirements in respect of material specifications, vetting and approval procedure, as well as the monitoring and testing specified in the Buildings Ordinance. However, none of them has to assume responsibility because it is the system which is at fault. If this reason is considered to be valid, what kind


of a world is this? The PRH contractors who have contravened the contractual terms are only suspended from tendering for a period of time. Is such a penalty sufficient to reflect the responsibility they should take? How about our civil servants? Deputy President, although the system is indeed inadequate, officials who work under the system, people who are responsible for executing the instructions and those who have failed to comply with contractual requirements cannot evade responsibility. The most important problem is, given the loopholes in the system, should the officials concerned be more alert so as to prevent the recurrence of similar problems in the future? If we do not tackle this problem, the lead-in-water incident probably will not be the last problem which we have to address. I am a member of the education sector. Since the discovery of excess lead in drinking water at schools, the Education Bureau has failed to give a satisfactory account to the academic sector of the various faults identified following the review of the lead-in-water incident, not to mention assuming responsibility. Regulation 45 of the Education Regulations specifies that "[a]n adequate and wholesome supply of water shall be provided in the premises of every school". It is the statutory responsibility for the Government to ensure that drinking water consumed by students is clean and toxic-free ― let me stress that it is the "statutory responsibility". Has the Government honoured this statutory commitment? Has the Education Bureau implemented this requirement? Since the first school was found to have excess lead in drinking water in mid-August, the Education Bureau just planned only one step ahead without devising a comprehensive plan. While schools were busy taking self-rescue measures by taking the initiative to conduct water tests and install water filters, the Education Bureau had gone missing during the period. The Government conducted water tests immediately when any public or private buildings were found to have excess lead in drinking water. Yet, to our dismay, the Education Bureau discouraged schools from conducting water tests, and it was only until the Chief Secretary made an order later that the Education Bureau made a U-turn and agreed to arrange water tests for schools. Consequently, the water samples of several kindergartens were found to have excessive lead content. The Government is now arranging water tests for PRH


199

estates completed in 2005, but what about schools? Schools completed before 2005 were also found to have excess lead in their drinking water samples, but the Education Bureau has yet to arrange water tests for them. Apart from the slow progress in conducting water tests, the Education Bureau has not taken the initiative to tackle other problems arising from the lead-in-water incident. First of all, comprehensive testing had never been conducted for schools upon completion, in particular those completed after 2005, and the school had been built for some 10 years. It was not until the outbreak of the lead-in-water incident that the Education Bureau realized its failure in providing a wholesome supply of water to schools. Is there a lack of effective communication between the Education Bureau and the Architectural Services Department or the Housing Department? Did the Education Bureau fail to ensure the safety of water pipes used by schools in the course of construction? Had the Bureau conducted any reviews to assess if any procedure could be further improved? Second, according to a questionnaire survey on kindergartens conducted by the Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union (HKPTU) recently, the annual average expenditure on filter cartridges and maintenance upon the installation of water filters at kindergartens is around $4,000. Will the Bureau provide any subsidy to kindergartens? Who should be held responsible for children drinking lead-contaminated water? What long-term measures will be taken to follow up school children with elevated blood lead level? Third, will the authorities help those schools in need to replace their water pipes? What long-term support will be provided to schools to ensure safety of drinking water? So far, the Bureau has yet to respond to the series of problems mentioned above. The Government has kept shifting the responsibility and attributed the problem to the system, claiming that no one should be held responsible. According to the findings of the questionnaire survey on safety of drinking water at schools conducted by the HKPTU last month, over 40% of schools are of the view that the Government should formulate more comprehensive measures with regard to safety of drinking water. I would like to take this opportunity to tell the Education Bureau that the Government is again one step behind! As a


matter of fact, one of the important tasks that the Government has to do is to kick start immediately a long-term preventive work, so as to prevent the recurrence of the lead-in-water incident. Regrettably, there are still no signs that the Education Bureau will undertake such work. I really cannot accept the saying that "the problem lies with the system, but not the people". In this connection, the proposed select committee should identify the faults of the system and furthermore, to ascertain which officials should be held responsible. (THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair) Concerning the responsibilities of officials, our ultimate aim is not to ask everybody to take the blame. In addition to ascertaining responsibilities, we have to examine how to prevent the recurrence of similar incidents. This is indeed one of our objectives in ascertaining responsibilities. After all, members of the public need a better system, more responsible officials as well as contractors who strive to do better, so as to ensure that drinking water for school children, water for hospital patients or water from taps at homes is clean and toxic-free. In my opinion, the Government should formulate a detailed water safety strategy, as well as establish a systematic database and a reporting mechanism. In the long run, the establishment of an inter-departmental working group can ensure that Hong Kong people are able to consume safe drinking water. President, I very much hope that in reviewing the inadequacies, officials from different government departments will put in more vigour and capabilities in ensuring the safety of drinking water in the long run. It is also my hope that the Legislative Council will perform its functions properly by supporting the setting up of a select committee to inquire into the lead-in-water incident, so as to identify responsibilities and other problems. Most importantly, the Government should propose subsequent improvement plans. It must not think that drinking water will be safe once the lead-in-water incident is settled because some other problems may be undetected. We hope that through serious inquiry into the matter, we can find out new problems, or tackle newly identified problems or


201

even long-standing problems which have been put aside. Officials may or may not be held responsible for the incident. But why does the Government claim that no people should be held responsible before the commencement of the inquiry? I so submit. MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): President, today I rise to speak in support of the motion on conducting an inquiry into the incident of lead in drinking water. At first when we disclosed the discovery of lead in drinking water in public housing estates, many people, though shocked, still considered the matter as sporadic or individual cases. Later, as the matter had aroused social concern, drinking water tests were conducted in more housing estates. Only then did we realize that the impact of the whole problem is profound and extensive. Not only is drinking water in some housing estates contaminated by lead, the problem also affects schools, such as kindergartens, as well as social welfare organizations, such as homes for the elderly, hospitals and public bodies. All of a sudden, everyone seems to feel himself in danger. The whole matter concerns the safety of the water supply system and risk management of the system in Hong Kong, an international metropolis. It concerns the health impact of drinking water consumed by millions of people every day. It is a personal safety issue. President, facing such a significant issue, the opposition parties in the Legislative Council have a strong consensus that as representatives of public opinion, we should join hands to find out the truth of the whole matter. We should examine various aspects, including the causes of the problem and how the problem is handled, as well as what improvements should be made in the future, so as to avoid the recurrence of the problem, and to pursue responsibilities. This is the bounden duty of Members. It is also a constitutional duty vested in Members by the Basic Law. Under certain circumstances, we may conduct inquiries to find out the facts in certain cases. So I hope public officers will understand that the executive authorities and Members have their respective roles and duties. It should be up to us to decide whether something is a duty to be discharged by us because constitutionally, we have the right to make such a decision. The Government should not make the decision for us. According to the Government, since the executive authorities have already set up a dedicated commission to prepare a report or have appointed today a judge with high


credibility to conduct an inquiry together with the former Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, the problem can be readily resolved. Hence the Legislative Council does not need to worry and Members do not need to bother, for the matter can be solely handled by the Government. That should not be the case. In my opinion, this issue should not be handled with such kind of mentality. The Chief Secretary said at the start that she had a strong sense of helplessness having to debate on this subject at today's meeting, the very first meeting in this Session. I think she should not have such a deprecatory attitude that shows disrespect for the legislature's right to exercise its constitutional power. Whether the motion can be passed is another matter. Yet I hope the Chief Secretary will respect us in exercising our constitutional power or expressing the need to exercise such a power. President, as I have said earlier, the inquiry to be conducted by us may overlap with the present or upcoming inquiry. This is not surprising. The inquiry to be conducted by the Commission of Inquiry led by the Judge may also overlap with part of the work of the Task Force of the Water Supplies Department (WSD) or the Review Committee of the Hong Kong Housing Authority, but the focuses of their inquiries may not be the same. Moreover, after reading some reports, we find it necessary to follow up a number of issues which have further aroused our queries, not to mention that in the inquiry which the authorities have currently planned to conduct or the inquiry which is underway and still not completed, certain areas are definitely left untouched, including the reasons for having such flaws under the existing regulatory system, and whether it is purely a problem with the design of the system. The Chief Secretary claimed with certainty that it is a problem with the design of the system. Actually that is not the case. I will quote some examples later. As a matter of fact, the implementation of a system will involve negligence, that is, whether the persons concerned have properly performed their duties in accordance with the established code of practice and reviewed from time to time whether such a code can achieve the designed purpose of the system in its implementation. Problems seem to have arisen in these areas. President, the preliminary inquiry carried out by the Task Force of the WSD seems to conclude that the soldering material of the water pipes contains lead which has contaminated drinking water. This is the present preliminary view. As mentioned by Dr Helena WONG earlier, the report has uncovered


203

another problem, that is, the installed fittings, such as valves, are inconsistent with the specifications. The department had required the use of certain brands and compliance with certain standards, but that was not the case in the end. The fittings had been stealthily substituted or replaced by some other brands. Why was such a situation unnoticed or undetected? This is a big question. Yet regarding the whole existing system, I had participated in the inquiry into the short piling incident and we raised a similar question back then. The Government, especially the Housing Department, has its own regulatory system for each site and each construction project. Last time in the incident of short piling in public housing, we strongly criticized the authorities for relying on documents in conducting monitoring work. Very often, the officers concerned just conduct document checks in their air-conditioned office and made assessments based on the face value as shown in the documents, without carrying out adequate on-site inspections or spot checks. This time the same problem arises. Why did the Government not learn from the previous lesson? If spot checks or on-site inspections had been conducted … What does on-site inspection include? It includes inspection on the materials purchased to see whether there is any problem with the so-called soldering material, whether the material has been tested, and whether there was anything wrong with the then installation procedure. It seems that no on-site inspection had been carried out in any of these aspects. Why have we not learnt a lesson from the incident of short piling in public housing? This is the first question. The second question is, as I have just mentioned, how could the goods be stealthily replaced, and why was the inconsistency of the goods with the specifications undetected? As for the third question, I consider it even more important. As I know, the legal sector has raised a question and demanded the Government's response. At present, the whole Waterworks Ordinance, the relevant regulations and the code of practice therein have clearly provided that the whole process of installing pipes and water supply systems must be handled, supervised and implemented by licensed plumbers. Such work shall be carried out by licensed plumbers who are authorized by the government departments. However, to our surprise, we have now found that pre-cast units are used in many housing estates. The use of pre-cast units means that the whole service system had been produced in advance, or at least the sub-system in the flats had been produced in advance. After this


sub-system was delivered to the flats, it was then connected to the main system of the whole building. The sub-system actually involves a lot of installation and connection works, but since it had been prefabricated, there was nothing the local licenced plumbers could do, as all the connection works in the sub-system had already been done on the Mainland. For this reason, people in the legal sector now challenge the Government for failing to fulfil its duties under the Waterworks Ordinance as the whole system has been prefabricated. In fact, the Government has tied its own hands for it cannot possibly monitor the installation of waterworks. All these matters need to be examined. For the time being, I agree that the work carried out by the WSD is urgently needed. As immediate risks are entailed, we should take all possible measures so that members of the public will not have to face such risk any longer or they will no longer have to consume lead-contaminated toxic water. This is the right thing to do and should be done immediately. In this regard, we will not oppose the Government. I am not talking about whether the officers are investigating their own peers or who is to blame. The work must be done right away to eliminate the risk and it should be done. Nevertheless, it cannot replace a comprehensive inquiry, which includes the causes of the whole incident, all the ins and outs, why the problem was undetected and how we will follow up in the future, as well as who should take the responsibility, so and so forth. President, next, I would like to say that a number of significant events had actually taken place in Hong Kong in the past, arousing much concern in society. Examples are the incident of short piling in public housing in 1997 to 1998, the incident of the new airport at the time of reunification, the subsequent outbreak of SARS, the storm over The Hong Kong Institute of Education, the incident involving Robert CHUNG of the University of Hong Kong in conducting opinion polls, and the LEUNG Chin-man incident in relation to matters of retirement of civil servants. There was also the incident about whether Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying was involved in conflict of interests when he was a member of the jury in a competition. We had reasons or felt obligated to repeatedly request the intervention by the Legislative Council. I forgot to mention the Lehman Brothers incident whose impact was even more far-reaching.


205

In all these incidents, the Government never agreed that we should conduct our own inquiry. On each occasion, it told us that we did not need to undertake the task, just leave it to the Government. In the Lehman Brothers incident which involved so many banks, the Government still remarked that their inquiry would suffice. It seemed to imply that we did not have any expert in this field and we had no such knowledge. I have the impression that the Government regards an inquiry by the Legislative Council a waste of public officers' time. In fact, in the Lehman Brothers incident, there was nothing special about the report prepared by the Government. It was the inquiry conducted by the Legislative Council that was trustworthy. Had the Council not spent so much time then ― though I found many inadequacies with the approach adopted at that time ― we would not be able to put forward comprehensive recommendations. In my view, our report also pointed out quite fairly who and which public officers had to bear considerable responsibilities. President, we are simply performing our duty as representatives of public opinion with this kind of mentality. As the whole community considers that interests of the general public are involved in this matter, they want their representatives to directly participate in an inquiry and find out the truth. This inquiry, to be carried out under public supervision, will become a kind of public engagement. Such is the design of the whole system. Although we do not have a democratic system, this is part of a relatively open accountability system. We really wish to make good use of it so as to fulfil our duty. I hope the Government will not hold a negative attitude. I further hope the pro-establishment camp will no longer think that we should trust the Government in all matters and that the Government will take care of us. To put it bluntly, the Government is our "nanny" who will help us solve all the problems. Mr TAM Yiu-chung asked us not to smear them (The buzzer sounded) … As a matter of fact, they are smearing themselves. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HO, your speaking time is up. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, no livelihood issue is too trivial. This Government has explicitly stated this principle once it took office. However, let us look at what has happened so far in the lead-in-water incident. In the limited blood test exercise conducted by the Government, the blood lead


levels of a total of 162 citizens were found to be above the normal standard. Among them were 127 children, 28 lactating mothers and four pregnant women. Last week the Chief Secretary for Administration Mrs Carrie LAM made a statement at the meeting of the House Committee of the Legislative Council that enraged Hong Kong people. She said, "no civil servant needs to be held responsible for the incident". In fact, in saying those words, Chief Secretary Carrie LAM once again rubbed salt in the wounds of these families, children and their parents. This Government is so despicable in that it does not need to accept responsibility and it does not need to be held responsible for the incident. The only apology for the incident I have heard just now was from the Secretary for Transport and Housing, Prof Anthony CHEUNG. But did this incident involve only the Transport and Housing Bureau? Have the Director of Water Supplies and the Secretary for Development, who should be monitoring water quality, duly shouldered their responsibility? The Chief Secretary has to co-ordinate with all the departments on this matter. As Members may still remember, after the outbreak of the lead-in-water incident in Kai Ching Estate on 5 July, other public housing estates were found to be affected one after another, including Shui Chuen O Estate, Lower Ngau Tau Kok Estate, Wing Cheong Estate, Shek Kip Mei Estate and Lei Tung Estate. How did the Government respond at the beginning? It pointed its finger at a plumber, and the public spotlight was directed at the fault of one single plumber, Mr LAM. When we looked into the system, we found that a single person can be contracted for the plumbing works of more than five public housing estates and a few individual plumbers are responsible for the water pipes of tens of thousands of households. The system is obviously flawed. Further investigation revealed that the soldering material was the cause of the problem. In fact, at the outset of the incident, as Members may still remember, the first contractor being disclosed to have undertaken the faulty plumbing works was China State Construction Engineering (Hong Kong) Limited (China State Construction). And what happened back then? At the time, the Director of Housing even forgot the name of the contractor at the press conference. Afterwards, the offices of many royalist Members from the pro-establishment camp arranged to conduct water tests for a number of public housing estates. At first they said the results did not exceed the standard, but later it was found that there were excessive lead content in drinking water in a number of public housing estates. All these moves were made to protect and shield certain people. When it was found that the incidents involved not only China State Construction but


207

also contractors including Yau Lee Construction Company Limited and Paul Y. Engineering Group Limited, they seemed to have slacked off, because the construction company with the word "China" in its name was not the only target of attention. But let us take a better look. Since the onset of the incident, thousands of residents have been affected. What had been done by the Government? Just now the Chief Secretary stressed the people-oriented principle. I believe members of the public only saw that the Government's principle is to shirk responsibility. The investigation and review initiated by the Government, including the investigation led by the Deputy Director of Water Supplies and that conducted by the Housing Department, both brushed aside the responsibility of public officers and shifted all the responsibility to workers not having adequate awareness. They said that it was all because the workers responsible for soldering, or those at the most elementary level, lacked awareness. The entire monitoring system, consisting of the Director of Housing, site supervisors and chief engineers, has no responsibility to bear. The whole Water Supplies Department, from the Director, the Water Authority to the engineers at the most elementary level, does not have much responsibility to bear. The responsibility fell on the most elementary solderers because they lacked the knowledge. I do not understand how those representatives of organizations championing for labour rights, such as the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions, can oppose a thorough inquiry into the incident. Obviously the Government and some people with ulterior motives intended to evade their responsibility. How is it possible that in the entire system the responsibility rests with those at the bottom? What is the responsibility of the main contractors, including China State Construction? They were spanked softly and banned from tendering for one month or seven months. Then the authorities went further to say that they should not be banned for too long as there are only a few contractors. Our system simply fattens these contractors who provide water containing lead for public consumption recklessly. The Government is helpless too, as the punishment cannot last too long because the cost will increase. When the system is flawed, the authorities targeted actions not on the system, but on the construction workers at the bottom. There are multiple levels of monitoring in the system. The Government also said that there were six chances to set things right, and that momentary mistake could have been rectified. But given six chances, the authorities still had not done its job properly. The Government has made two moves to investigate its own peers and then appointed


Mr Justice CHAN, and this, we think, is what should be done. But does it mean the Legislative Council can wash its hand off this incident? Why could some Members, especially those from the pro-establishment camp, made such apathetic remarks of: "drinking water containing lead can extend one's life"? This is why Chief Secretary Carrie LAM and other public officers can continue to display their arrogance in the Legislative Council, for they know too well that they are safe under such a perverted and morbid political system. Concerning the independent inquiry, if it is put to vote at the Legislative Council, the result is obvious to all, that is, it is impossible for such an inquiry to be effective. The public, especially residents of the public housing estates, will then see how these royalist Members from the pro-establishment camp are covering up the wrongdoings of the Government, while the Government will gladly keep staying inside its protective shield and feeling good about itself. Let us look at how other countries have dealt with the lead-in-water incident. The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention of the United States introduced a programme in 2010. The Centre estimated that approximately 4 million households in the United States were exposed to high levels of lead in their daily life. In an effort to especially protect the health of children in these households, the programme has kept track of their blood lead levels over a long span of time and examined if there are problems with their learning and development. In contrast, how has our government responded? Well, it turns out that the amount of lead found in drinking water is not calculated per day, but per lifetime, and then the blood lead tests have been delayed by all means. We all know that the half-life of lead is 30 days. At the time of the tests, some members of the public had already been affected by lead-contaminated water for more than 30 days or even longer. Is it fair to limit the targets for blood tests to such a narrow group of people? What about people with chronic illness? What about renal patients? Has the Government paid any attention to them? The entire Government has been making different moves in an attempt to cover up mistakes and clear its name as far as it can, and does it think that people will just let the authorities off? The Government can feel good about itself because a lot of people in this Chamber are ready to shield the Government's shortcomings. But the Chief Secretary, being such a "good fighter", should go outside and talk to the affected residents, children and parents in Kai Ching Estate. The Secretary and the Director should better talk to them. Indeed we all understand that it is not about making someone (including the Chief Secretary) take the


209

blame. She is just a civil servant or the head of Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux. We are not asking her to do something embarrassing. But as a responsible government, should it have the courage to step forward to accept supervision by the Legislative Council and acknowledge that the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance empowers us to set up a select committee to conduct an inquiry? The truth speaks for itself. Why would they be afraid if they have not done anything wrong? If they have nothing to hide, what can a select committee of the Legislative Council do to them? Why does the Government keep finding ways to evade this issue? I believe members of the public will make their own judgment as the Government is unfair. In the course of the incident, first the Government hoped to get away and took limited actions to tone down the incident. But later, it realized that the situation had gone quite wrong. Not only public housing estates, but even schools and universities, including the hostels of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, SKH St Thomas' Primary School, St Francis of Assisi's Caritas School, CCC Heep Woh Primary School, Diocesan Boys' School and Hop Yat Church School, were found to be affected one after another, and then the lead-in-water incident spread to kindergartens. Knowing that it could not get away with it, the Government then took some actions. But does it mean the Legislative Council can give up its rights and responsibility? This is our responsibility as we are elected to the Legislative Council by the people. We are duty-bound to identify the causes for the unclear issues and the problem-plagued system, and then make recommendations for improvement to the Government in the future. Our work is not pointless. Mr Justice CHAN can continue to do his job but it does not mean that the Legislative Council should abandon its responsibility and give up on finding the truth for the incident and hunting the culprits. Certainly, under the system of the Government, even if the culprit is found, he does not need to take too much responsibility. As we all know, under the strong protection of the Government, he just needs to step forward and admit his wrongdoing at the most. But this is not the most important point. It is most important to find out the areas in which changes need to be made. This world-class Asian city of ours, which we claim to be on a par with New York and London, has fully exposed its stupidity by committing such silly blunders. The World Health Organization (WHO) has already formulated a set of standards, but we have not fully complied. The WHO has explained clearly what needs to be done but we have not yet done anything. The WHO has named several clean water centres in Asia, including Singapore with which we always


like to compare, Japan and even Thailand. But Hong Kong is not even on the list. We should feel ashamed. With such an affluent government having a surplus in thousands of billions of dollars and the protection of so many high-ranking officers, capable people, scholars and engineers, such situations should not have happened, drinking water should not have been contaminated by lead, such silly mistakes should not have been committed and undertrained elementary workers should not have been made responsible for performing these tasks when supervision was inadequate. Let us take a look again at what has happened. In the lead-in-water incident, a subsidiary of China State Construction, namely, Shenzhen Hailong Construction Products Company Limited, was in charge of the fittings and provided 6 200 pieces of pre-fabricated fittings. It was explicitly stipulated in law that water pipe fittings must not contain lead. Leaded fittings are illegal. But will anyone still raise this point today? Of course not, for the subsidiary of China State Construction is a state-owned enterprise. Who dares laying hands on it? Our society has become what it is like now. After 1997, both the governance and the sense of responsibility of public officers have been deteriorating and going downhill. If we do not step forward and try to reverse these trends, what will be the result? Today we have the lead-in-water incident, and from a wider perspective, the incident of the Express Rail Link and the incident of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge are just the tip of the iceberg. There may be problems with more fittings; there may be problems with the sub-contracting system and the supervision of construction works. Do not forget that the Government has said that it will spend $100 billion or $200 billion on infrastructure and housing projects every year. And next we need to use more than $100 billion to build the third runway and continue to waste God knows how many hundreds of billions of dollars on the reclamation in central waters and construction of artificial islands on Lantau Island. These are all hard-earned money of the people and what do they get in return? In return, their health conditions have deteriorated and lead-in-water incidents happen time and again. I do not hope that the Government can get away with it this time. I hope all of you will support that the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance be invoked to bring justice to the people in the lead-in-water incident. Thank you, President.


211

MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I rise to speak against the motions proposed by Ms Cyd HO and Mr Gary FAN respectively. I hold that the two Members' motions to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance for setting up a select committee to follow up on the lead-in-water incident and pursue responsibilities are both meaningless and unnecessary. Moreover, the motions are set to politicize the lead-in-water incident immensely and give rise to unnecessary disputes that are of no help to those affected by water containing lead at the end of the day. As Members can see, since the occurrence of the lead-in-water incident which has caused a furore, government officials have responded swiftly to fix things up in a multi-pronged approach, and three committees have been set up for inquiry and follow-up purposes. One of them is the Task Force set up by the Water Supplies Department (WSD), one is the Review Committee set up by the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA), and the other is the independent Commission of Inquiry into Excess Lead Found in Drinking Water chaired by a Judge as announced by the Chief Executive. Among them, the WSD's Task Force and the HA's Review Committee have respectively submitted their interim reports to give the public an account of the causes of the lead-in-water incident, penalties imposed on the contractors as well as their views on monitoring, responsibilities, and so on. Meanwhile, hearings of the independent Commission of Inquiry are set to begin on 20 October, and witnesses will be summoned to give evidence. That the Government has set up three committees in a row to follow up and inquire into the lead-in-water incident is an indication of the importance it attaches to the incident. More importantly, each of the three committees has its own role to play in following up and inquiring into the lead-in-water incident in an orderly, scientific and comprehensive manner. Relevant government departments have taken timely measures to supply water to those affected and arrange check-ups and medical treatments for them. Therefore, I do not in any way see the need to set up a fourth committee to follow up the incident. Are the water supply experts of the three government committees as well as the inquiries led by the HA and the Judge so incapable of probing into the lead-in-water incident that the truth will not be uncovered without the pan-democrat Members' bid to set up a fourth committee? Even if a fourth committee is established, it is believed that it will just repeat what the three government committees are doing. Why bother then? The pan-democratic Members always criticized the Government for wasting public money in the past, and now they are proposing motions to set up a fourth committee while the three


government committees are working concurrently. Is it not a waste of public money, time and resources? President, both Mr Gary FAN and Ms Cyd HO have highlighted the need to pursue responsibilities for the lead-in-water incident and to hold public officers accountable for it, a gesture indicating that they will not stop until someone is "beheaded". Undeniably, the lead-in-water incident has exposed the lack of knowledge of and monitoring on lead contamination in water on the part of relevant government departments and various parties. Yet, as the independent Commission of Inquiry chaired by a Judge has yet to begin its hearings and no determination has yet been made, what is the point of the pan-democratic Members pointing their fingers at anyone in haste? At the same time, I hope the pan-democratic Members will not forget that the lead-in-water incident is an instance of water contamination involving public health, and is intricately linked to people's livelihood. As regards this type of livelihood issue, emphasis should be put on medical treatment, remedies, to be followed by inspection and improvement, instead of going all out to politicize the incident and then taking advantage of the situation endlessly with a view to seizing political capital for oneself. If the pan-democratic Members really care about people's health and livelihood, what they should do at this stage is to think about ways to co-operate with the Government to better help those affected by lead-contaminated water to solve their problems and prevent a repeat of similar incidents, rather than politicizing the issue by trying to take advantage of the lead-in-water incident to "grab votes" for the District Council elections, or point fingers at public officers with a view to dealing a blow to the Government's credibility. President, after the summer recess of about three months, there are a lot of outstanding issues for handling by this Council, such as the proposal for establishing the Innovation and Technology Bureau, which has been put off for nearly three years. Instead of causing further complications by calling for the setting up of a select committee on lead-contaminated water, the effectiveness of which is unknown, why do the pan-democratic Members not focus their energy on expediting the examination of proposals that have been put off, such as the proposed establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau, so as to do something that really contributes to people's livelihood? Livelihood issues are by no means trivial. I have to emphasize that my opposition to the motions proposed by Ms Cyd HO and Mr Gary FAN is no indication that I attach little importance to the lead-in-water incident. I am just


213

against politicizing the incident. As for the follow-up work, I think the Government's most pressing task right now is to take effective remedial measures, in order to ensure the safety of drinking water consumed by the affected residents. Medical treatment and follow-up initiatives should be made available to those found to have an elevated blood lead level. The Government's three committees tasked to inquire into the lead-in-water incident should also press on with their inquiries and release the results in a timely manner, so as to review and patch up the inadequacies in the current water supply system and prevent the recurrence of similar incidents. I believe this is the only way to stop people from dealing a blow to the Government's credibility by overplaying the lead-in-water incident, so as to restore people's confidence in the Government. I so submit. Thank you, President. MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): President, the incident of lead in drinking water in public housing estates, which has been widely reported by the media since July this year, has indeed caused much inconvenience and worries to many people. The Government is duty-bound to monitor that the drinking water quality in Hong Kong meets the required standard, and to ensure that the public are able to consume safe and reliable drinking water. Since the incident poses health threat to the public, it is most pressing for the Government to identify the cause and source of lead in drinking water and take effective remedial measures to prevent the recurrence of such incident. It is also a responsible act to be taken by the Government. However, Members should understand that such remedial and preventive measures require a large amount of manpower and resources of the Government. Hence, at the present stage, resources should be focused on ensuring the safety of drinking water and restoring public confidence in the safety of drinking water. This should be the top priority task. To be fair, after the lead-in-water incident was uncovered, the SAR Government has responded immediately, including arranging water sampling tests for public housing estates, kindergartens, schools and hospitals, arranging blood tests for persons in need and installing filters for the households affected. I have contacted the government officials concerned to understand the incident. I have written to Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG on behalf of my sector, members of which include young architects and surveyors, to express our views and proposals on the incident. This indicates that many professionals are deeply concerned about this incident.


In fact, the Government and the Civil Service have made tremendous effort in the past three months to identify expeditiously the cause and source of the lead-in-water incident, so as to prescribe the right remedy and minimize the impact on the public. I also note that some progress has been made in this respect. Hence, I would like to take this opportunity to boost the morale of the Civil Service, as I believe their workload must have increased significantly in the past three months. Moreover, they have been under intense pressure as drinking water is vital to health. I hope they will not be dejected but will remain steadfast in their duties and continue to provide highly efficient and quality services to Hong Kong people. President, in respect of the incident of lead in drinking water, apart from a number of inter-bureau and inter-departmental meetings convened by the Chief Secretary in the past three months to discuss solutions to the problem and follow-up work, the Government had announced in succession the establishment of three relevant task forces and committees, including the Task Force on Investigation of Excessive Lead Content in Drinking Water (Task Force), which is mainly tasked to trace the source of lead in drinking water and propose recommendations to prevent the recurrence of such incident. The Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) has also set up the Review Committee on Quality Assurance Issues Relating to Fresh Water Supply of Public Housing Estates (Review Committee) to comprehensively review the arrangements for quality control and monitoring in relation to the installation of fresh water supply system in public rental housing, and to recommend any improvement in procedures and guidelines. As for the independent Commission of Inquiry (Commission) led by Mr Justice Andrew CHAN appointed by the Chief Executive ― as mentioned by the Chief Secretary earlier ― it will conduct the first hearing next Tuesday. The Commission is mainly responsible for reviewing the incident of lead in drinking water and the overall safety of drinking water, including public housing and private buildings, and it will make rulings and recommendations. Owing to the rather extensive terms of reference of the statutory independent Commission, I consider it inappropriate to say at this stage that the relevant report will not cover the issue of accountability. Hence, if the Legislative Council sets up a select committee to inquire into the lead-in-water incident, will there be an overlapping of work? In my view, there is no practical need to set up the select committee. The interim reports submitted by the Task Forces and the Review Committee of the Government both confirmed that the excess lead found in drinking water in public housing estates should be attributed to leaded solder joints. A number of specific measures for improvement and follow up have also


215

been proposed, which include preventing the use of leaded material for soldering joints and non-conforming pipes and fittings, appointing qualified persons to conduct inspection, and requiring main contractors to submit a management plan covering plumbing subcontractor supervision and on-site monitoring (including the measure of central procurement of soldering materials by the main contractor). I consider these measures practical and pragmatic, and I trust that the implementation of these measures can effectively alleviate the problem of lead in drinking water and prevent the problem from recurring. Last week, when the Chief Secretary for Administration gave an account of the latest development of the lead-in-water incident at the Legislative Council, she pointed out that the incident revealed the inadequate awareness of various sectors about the problem of lead in drinking water, as well as the impact of lead on health, resulting in inadequacies of the system. I agree with her on this point. To ensure the safety of drinking water, apart from the Government, plumbers, contractors and site supervisory personnel all have their respective roles and responsibilities, and they are regulated by relevant laws and regulations. In the course of works, if the person in charge of any process does not have correct and adequate knowledge of the materials used and the procedures, various problems may arise. Hence, apart from carrying out each aspect of the waterworks projects cautiously, it is vital for the personnel concerned to have knowledge about the materials used and the safety of drinking water. To handle the work properly in this respect, training of the relevant personnel must be reinforced. Moreover, the systems involving procurement, monitoring, inspection and testing should also be enhanced to ensure the safety of drinking water. Furthermore, I would like to draw the attention of Members to one point, that is, whether each aspect of the waterworks project, including the design of pipes and fittings, the procurement and testing materials, and so on, has been put under the supervision and assessment of independent authorized professionals? In building construction and maintenance and repair works, a lot of waterworks is involved. Yet the Water Supplies Department (WSD) is mainly concerned about the conformity of the drinking water quality with the required standard. As regards what kind of capital works should be included under waterworks, whether the charges involved are reasonable, and so on, they do not fall within the scope of concern of the WSD. Hence, if the tasks of monitoring and assessment in the course of works are handed over to independent authorized professionals, it will rightly plug the loophole in this respect and thereby enhancing safeguards to the safety of drinking water. I hope the Government will consider this point.


President, many members of the public and newspaper editorials query whether the opposition camp has any hidden agenda by proposing to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to set up a select committee to inquire into the incident of lead in drinking water and pursue responsibility at the first meeting of the new Legislative Session. Are they trying to get more votes, or even trying to undermine the governance of the SAR Government? President, I definitely will not jump to a conclusion on these remarks arbitrarily. No matter what, I hope Members will act in accordance with the greatest interest of the public and be practical and pragmatic, so that resources can be focused on implementing expeditiously relevant improvement measures, replacing problematic pipes, resolving the problem of lead in drinking water and preventing the recurrence of such incident. These are the pressing and essential tasks to be carried out by the Government now. With these remarks, President, I oppose invoking the P&P Ordinance to set up a select committee to inquire into the incident of lead in drinking water. MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the Liberal Party is deeply concerned about the incident of excess lead in drinking water that happened in recent months. Like other members of the public, we are deeply worried about the widening scope implicated by this incident. Hospitals, schools and even private housing estates have been found, upon testing, to have lead in drinking water. We are absolutely convinced that it is incumbent upon the authorities to address and rectify this problem expeditiously and solemnly. Shortly after the disclosure of the incident, the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) convened an emergency meeting on 16 July to discuss the incident. At the meeting, I pointed out, in the capacity of a HA member, that a review committee set up by the HA might fail to convince the public. The Government must instead set up an independent panel of inquiry and it is appropriate to appoint a Judge to lead the inquiry so as enhance the legal, independent and professional levels. At a meeting held the following morning, I mentioned this proposal again when I met with the Chief Executive. I was very pleased that the Chief Executive responded promptly that afternoon by announcing the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance to conduct an independent and comprehensive inquiry. This is indeed a right move. Although it has taken some time to identify a Judge to lead the Commission of Inquiry, Mr Justice Andrew CHAN, Judge of the Court of First Instance of the High Court, was eventually invited to join the Commission of Inquiry as Chairman, and Mr Alan LAI, a former Commissioner


217

of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), as member. The Liberal Party is of the view that these two persons will help enhance the credibility of the Commission of Inquiry. In particular, Mr Alan LAI was highly praised when he was the Commissioner of the ICAC and The Ombudsman. As we all know, the Commission of Inquiry into Excess Lead Found in Drinking Water (Commission) will start work shortly, and a preliminary hearing is scheduled to be held on 20 October. The fact that members of the public are allowed to observe the hearing reflects that the Commission has adequate transparency. In fact, the nature, functions and procedure of the Commission set up under Cap. 86 is similar to that of a court of law. The investigations and inquiries conducted by the Commission are regarded as judicial proceedings, and the Commission is vested with the authority of a judge to summon witnesses as well as obtain evidence. However, it has been pointed out that the direction of work of the Commission does not include pursuing the question of responsibility. Moreover, it is subject to section 7 of Cap. 86: "Evidence given by any person before the Commission shall not be admissible against him in any civil or criminal proceedings by or against him". Simply put, the evidence obtained in hearings cannot be directly adduced for the purpose of civil or criminal proceedings. However, this does not imply that the setting up of the Commission is non-conducive to pursuing the question of responsibility. Let me cite the Lamma ferry incident as an example. The Commission of Inquiry into the Collision of Vessels near Lamma Island was set up under the same Ordinance. Subsequent to the submission of a report by the Commission of Inquiry, the Department of Justice had instituted prosecutions against the captains and ferry companies involved, whereas family members of the victims had filed civil claims against the captains, ferry companies and the government departments involved. As one of the major directions of work of the Commission is to ascertain the causes of the incident, the various units and departments involved will definitely be investigated during the course of hearings, thus providing a lot of useful information when criminal or civil proceedings are instituted in the future to pursue the question of responsibility. As the independent Commission set up by the Government is credible and transparent, acts in accordance with judicial proceedings and is conducive to verifying the case, its functions do not basically differ greatly from the select committee proposed to be set up by the two Members today under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance). On the contrary, a select committee set up under the P&P Ordinance usually takes months before it


can commence work. Moreover, this term of the Legislative Council, which has less than one year to go, will end in mid-July next year. It is anticipated that many meetings will be convened, and the situation of filibustering will also worsen. It is still uncertain whether meeting rooms can be arranged. Even if the select committee fails to complete its work before the end of the term, the uncompleted work cannot be handed over to the next term of the Legislative Council. Instead of finishing the work rashly at that time, should we handle this matter in a rational manner by allowing the Commission headed by the Judge to conduct the inquiry first? In addition to the Commission, we still have a Task Force on Investigation of Excessive Lead Content in Drinking Water led by the Water Supplies Department (WSD), as well as a Review Committee on Quality Assurance Issues Relating to Fresh Water Supply of Public Housing Estates set up by the HA. Despite the different focuses of work of these three committees, they have given people an impression of duplication and redundancy. At the present stage, we think there is really no need to take great pains to set up another select committee. However, if the final report submitted by the Task Force to investigate the cause of excessive lead content in drinking water is found to be unsatisfactory and fails to respond to people's aspirations, the Liberal Party does not rule out the possibility of supporting the setting up of a select committee under the P&P Ordinance to conduct afresh an inquiry. The Liberal Party is of the view that at present, people most earnestly hope that remedies can be proposed and effective measures be taken to prevent the recurrence of the problem, with a view to ensuring the safety of drinking water. As Dr KWOK Ka-ki will propose a relevant motion debate later on, I will not go further here. All in all, since the incident of excess lead found in drinking water came to light, the inspection of high-risk housing estates has basically been completed. However, there is still a long way to go with regard to the ensuing reviews and the follow-ups to the persons affected. As stated in the report compiled by the Task Force of the WSD, the incident has exposed the failure of the Waterworks Ordinance in Hong Kong to keep abreast of the times and a review is warranted. At the same time, the HA, contractors, and so on, have low awareness of possible content of lead or other heavy metals in components. Such being the case, it is imperative for the authorities to enhance quality monitoring at various stages to ensure that drinking water meets international safety standards for the purpose of safeguarding public health. President, I so submit.


219

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, the problem of lead in drinking water and increase in blood lead level caused by leaded water is getting worse and worse. This is really a cause for concern. From beginning and up to date, the Government has adopted a high-profile approach in handling the crisis. The Chief Secretary and several Directors of Bureaux have come forward to meet the media on a number of occasions. Seemingly, the Government has acted in a very serious, proactive and responsible manner. But regrettably, these are mere empty gestures. When it comes to the way of handling, the Administration actually tends to be unduly lenient and lax in identifying the roots of the problem and pursuing accountability. I must say that this is the attitude generally adopted by the Government in tackling problems recently. Many government officials have made mistakes time and again, yet they are left intact in their incumbent posts. Also, the Government does not have to be held accountable for its blunders in governance and step down as a result. As such, we are not surprised to see how the incident has evolved to such a present stage. I would say that it is not realistic at all to expect the Government to identify the faults through its administrative investigations. I earnestly hope that law-enforcement agencies, particularly the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), will make a determined effort to identify the roots of the problem as it did in the short piling incident some years ago, and identify the culprits and bring them to justice. President, let us examine the problem as a whole. Some time ago, when the problem was uncovered, contractors and government officials of the Housing Department (HD) coincidentally pointed the finger at the plumbing contractor, and the accountability officials took the same line, probably based on the information as advised by officials of the HD. However, President, it is interesting that on 13 July this year, a man dining at Yan Toh Heen in the Intercontinental Hotel overheard a conversation among three men. Those men talked so loudly and arrogantly that people nearby could hear their dialogue clearly. One of them told the other two in a confident and authoritative tone, "Do not worry as I have agreed with the HD, and I have asked them to divert the attention to LAM Tak-sum." ― President, this man said he had asked "them" to do so. Comments made by government officials about the incident at different times were identical with this man's remarks. This man asked the other two not to worry as he had already asked the HD to do what he said. President, who has such an authority to do so? Had the Director of Housing given that order? But this man was not the Director. The one who


overheard the above conversation was smart. He had not only video-recorded the whole conversation but had also taken photos showing the faces of those three men. Later, the photos had been posted to Facebook and disseminated around. The reporters were even smarter. They managed to identify the man who told the other two not to worry. It turned out that the man was the person in charge of an engineering company. Since the results of the investigation are not yet available, I am not in a position to make public the names of the company and that man. Yet this has already been reported in the press. In other words, in the whole incident, contractors did have communication with certain people in the HD, which I would say was kind of collaboration between the private and public sectors. President, this can well be described as a perfect example of public-private partnership. Their collaboration has gone to such an extent that they can shift the focus of the incident on a certain person at will, and the private contractor has the authority to direct officers of the HD to execute his order. I think he is more powerful than LI Ka-shing. I was told by a former senior government official that a number of years ago, LI Ka-shing's son had approached him to discuss some issues and put forth some proposals to him, yet the official had tacitly turned them down to demonstrate the independence of government officials. However, under the administration of LEUNG Chun-ying, it seems that such a collaboration marks a new milestone of public-private partnership. It is so disappointing that the investigation led by the "good fighter" Chief Secretary concluded that no government officials should be held responsible for these problems. Has she not regularly browsed the news on current affairs online? Have her subordinates not kept her informed of the current circumstances? In the whole incident, has she ever suspected that the government officials concerned may have been involved in acts of corruption? President, when we look back on the inquiry into the short piling incident in the past, the problem was uncovered upon completion of the buildings and when residents were about to move in. After facts finding and comprehensive investigations, the authorities found that certain procedures of foundation works had been omitted and certain requirements overlooked. This was the short piling incident back then. At that time, contractors were required to drive pre-stressed precast hollow concrete piles into the foundation according to the specifications in the contract to support the residential buildings, and the contract had specified that the depth of those piles must comply with the required


221

standard. However, the ICAC found in its investigation that staff of the contractor responsible for the piling works were suspected of tampering the piling design of a number of residential buildings. They had by hook or by crook misled the engineering consultant to believe that the length of those piles was in compliance with the standard specified in the contract. Let us return to the incident of lead in drinking water. A lot of contractual issues are involved in the incident. When I first noted the incident of lead in drinking water, I thought that it was quite similar with the short piling incident. At that time, I openly requested the ICAC to investigate the case and government officials to track down the facts regarding each and every procedure, including the reasons for concluding contracts in such a manner. When comparing the comments made at a later stage with those remarks made by certain government officials at the beginning, we would find that they were not telling the whole truth in the first place. There were remarks that sampling check would not be done for precast segments, for they were manufactured by contractors and the authorities trusted their products. As such, the HD did not carry out any sampling check. Chief Secretary, should not those government officials be held responsible? President, regarding these precast segments manufactured on the Mainland, an ordinary citizen will consider it necessary to do sampling check and testing, for everything can be fake on the Mainland. To the Communist Party of China (CPC), fake democracy is simply "proper and right". President, on the Mainland, you can find poison choy sum, fake salt, and the problem has become so serious that even Buddhist monks and nuns may be fake. The problem in question now is closely concerned with the daily life of people, involving works worth billions to tens of billions of dollars. Even though knowing that the precast segments are manufactured on the Mainland, the Government has not carried out comprehensive inspections, including the testing of the substance, materials and safety of the segments. Drinking water is vital to the daily life of people, and the water supply system forms part of the major infrastructure, so why should the Government consider it unnecessary to inspect water quality and pipes and ensure that such facilities are in compliance with the safety standards? If the contracts concerned were so designed by the government officials concerned, they must bear the professional liability. They have committed mistakes and misconduct in their professional capacity, and thus should be dismissed.


President, let us look at the short piling incident again. Back then, while the investigation conducted by the Government failed to identify any criminal liability in the incident, certain government officials had been subjected to disciplinary action. The Government stated at the time that some government officials were too complacent, simply lacking a sense of crisis and due alertness. President, between 2001 and 2003, the Legislative Council set up a select committee to inquire into the short piling incident. I believe that certain Members opposing the proposed inquiry into the lead in drinking water incident by the Legislative Council today were members of the select committee on the short piling incident. In terms of implications, the incident of lead in drinking water is definitely more serious than the short piling incident in that its impact on the public are more widespread and far-reaching. Regarding the present situation in the legislature, first, Members from the pro-government camp may be echoing the appeal of Beijing for co-operation among the three branches of government. Yet when the legislature co-operates with the executive, the legislature can no longer fulfil its function of monitoring the executive. If co-operation prevails, the executive will take control of everything. In other words, once the legislature co-operate with the executive, it does not have to perform its responsibilities and duties. Just like the co-operation between the contractor and the HD, all the responsibilities can be shifted to the plumber and no investigation will be needed. This is what they call co-operation. As XI Jinping calls for co-operation among the three branches of government, the pro-government camp simply follows the conductor's baton. Even for Members who supported the setting up of a select committee to inquire into the short piling incident back then, they do not accept the proposal that the Legislative Council should set up a select committee to inquire into the incident of lead in drinking water. As such, do the people really have to bear with the lousy deeds of this legislature? The public may find this unacceptable. If they are given the chance to hold a referendum to decide whether an independent inquiry into the lead in drinking water incident is necessary … Just like what is taking place in the universities, a referendum is held to decide who should be the president or whether the relevant regulations of universities should be amended to kick out "689", for they do not want the Chief Executive to be the Chancellor. If Hong Kong people are given the chance to decide by a referendum, I firmly believed that a majority would definitely support the setting up of a select committee.


223

However, to the pro-government camp and the CPC, referendum is their greatest fear as public opinion is what haunts the CPC most. Before the CPC came to power, public opinion was the weapon it used to topple the ruling party, the Kuomintang. However, after its rise to power, the CPC used its administrative and governing powers to reap benefits and make a big fortune. Am I right? People are saying that China is now the place with the largest number of billionaires around the world. Yet at the United Nations arena, it pretends to be poor, claiming itself as a developing region which cannot afford to contribute a substantial sum. It is so ridiculous. If the deposits of the second generation of the rich, the second and third generation of the Red and the family members of officials and people in power reaped through corruption and placed in the United States are pooled together, I believe that the amount would be sufficient to partially solve the poverty problem in China. President, the nature of the problem is crystal clear. Obviously, serious mistakes have been made by the Government in terms of policies, procedures and administration and by certain government officials in terms of personal conduct. The mistakes may be attributed to their slothful, lockstep and biased attitude, yet possibility of corruption cannot be ruled out. In the incumbent Government, there are corrupt acts of various scales, just that "the more junior ones are involved in smaller ones". In fact, the corruption case of Donald TSANG is nothing in comparison with that of LEUNG Chun-ying. Recently, many people have expressed to me their sympathy towards Donald TSANG ― some people know that I reported the case of Donald TSANG, yet I had also reported the case of LEUNG Chun-ying ― for they think that the one involved in the most serious corrupt act, that is, receiving a bribery payment of $50 million, has not been arrested, yet this "Little Greedy" who craves small favours is being clamped down as if he is the "Big Tiger". As for the real "Big Tiger" cum bully, the authorities condone him to continue to do whatever he likes. Even his lackeys and trusted aides are acting in the same manner. The Secretary for Development is implicated in the incidents of sub-divided units and land hoarding, while the former Chairman of the Urban Renewal Authority is plagued with the liquidation of his company and found to be involved in other issues. We all see that this group of government officials under LEUNG Chun-ying gives us the impression as a clique of corruption. In the case of the short piling incident, there was no reason that the persons concerned were not suspected when the people in power were involved in corrupt acts and relatives of the Members concerned were the directors of certain companies. Am I right?


We see that they are entangled in a labyrinth of relationship, and the system has become a hotbed of corruption. Therefore, the opposition by some Members to the setting up of a select committee only serves to prove that the whole incident is a matter of corruption, and officials are simply shielding one another. MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): President, just now I heard a representative of the Liberal Party point out that we should handle the inquiry relating to the lead in drinking water incident in a rational manner. What he said seems to imply that every time there is a proposal for the Legislative Council to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to set up a select committee to conduct formal discussions and summon witnesses, such an approach is not rational. Then he added that now a number of independent committees are already in operation to conduct investigations. Let me quote his words. He said, "it is not necessary to shell out time and effort to do this." He also knows that the inquiry into the lead in drinking water incident will actually take a lot of time to complete. Yet our duty is to monitor the Government. We have to look into even the smallest detail, such as who should take the responsibility and be held accountable. It is indeed necessary to shell out time and effort to deal with the matter, but he has expressly stated that he is unwilling to undertake this task. Nevertheless, in closing, he mentioned the view of the Liberal Party, saying that if they later find the Government's work ineffective, they will support invoking the P&P Ordinance to inquire into the incident of lead in drinking water in the Council. What kind of attitude is that? It can be summed up in three words: "wait and see". However, Members of the Legislative Council are supposed to share the public's urgent concern. They cannot just remain seated in the Chamber to "wait and see". The Liberal Party gives us the impression that it is a more liberal group in the pro-establishment camp. I have hoped they would concur with us, but even if they concur, we still may not be able to pass this motion. We all know it very well. However, if they put up lame arguments even when they are simply expressing their stance, it is tantamount to condoning and conniving at the Government's misdeeds. This is grossly unacceptable. I hope Hong Kong people can look carefully. Do not believe in those who talk irresponsibly, loudly and casually reproaching others, slamming LEUNG Chun-ying and criticizing Carrie LAM's unacceptable behaviour. It turns out that these critics themselves are not competent either. A lot of things


225

are easier said than done. When it comes to actual work, we need to show the people that we will honour our promises. In English, the word is "deliver". We need to put words into practice rather than giving empty talk. He is condoning and conniving at this Government's arbitrary actions. There is no "if" in history. He said he would wait and see how the situation will unfold later, but we can never go back in time. By then, everything will have been finalized in the way it is. Then we will express our deep regret as though the matter is over and consider that everything has been settled. This morning, Secretary Anthony CHEUNG remarked here that he apologized to members of the public on behalf of the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA). Such an apology is indeed better than nothing. At least it indicates his willingness to shoulder the responsibility. However, he merely said that he represented the HA, which seems to suggest that he himself is not responsible. Technically, the Secretary would not go to inspect the sites and see what materials were used for pipes because he was not responsible for such work. Nevertheless, in a modern society, given his position at the highest level, he is bound to take the responsibility for the implementation of policies. He should not speak in such a way as if he was a victim who simply apologized on behalf of the HA, indicating that the HA had made a mistake and had to admit the mistake. If he does not admit it was his mistake, why does he have to apologize? He must have thought he has done something wrong. However, as the HA is not a person, we cannot request the HA to take the responsibility or be held accountable as a person. We need to find out who should be held responsible. On 25 July, Anthony CHEUNG said that the matter of affixing the responsibility could be dealt with separately in terms of the contract and the legislation. He said if it was proved that the main contractor had done shoddy work and used inferior materials, the HA, being the majority owner, will take civil action based on the terms of contract. This is what the HA should do. Yet how will it explain to members of the public who are the real victims? Anthony CHEUNG added that the contractor would be requested to make rectification. Needless to say, rectification has to be made for sure. Besides, he stated that the Water Supplies Department (WSD) should take action against the licensed plumber in accordance with the Waterworks Ordinance. The HA would also conduct a review in the future to extend the water sampling tests to more areas, enhance the acceptance standards for buildings, and so on. Again, Anthony CHEUNG seemed to describe the WSD as a victim, like it was the plaintiff who could take legal action against other parties. Certainly, this is one


of the proceedings. The WSD may take legal action against other parties. However, to Hong Kong people, especially those victims in public housing, what explanation can Anthony CHEUNG offer after all? Chief Secretary Carrie LAM pointed out that the comment made by Mr Gary FAN here about the Government investigating its own peers was inappropriate on the grounds that the commission now set up by the Government is independent. Buddy, the governing council of the University of Hong Kong (HKU), consisting of members appointed by LEUNG Chun-ying, is supposed to uphold academic independence, but now it has stirred up a big mess. What is wrong with it? President, you are also a HKU graduate. The governing council is an independent body, but Members may listen to what the President of the Students' Union said ― fortunately, the President of the HKU Students' Union, who is capable of independent thinking, has come forward ― he told us the reasons behind the veto of Johannes CHAN's appointment. It really turns out to be a big joke. Chief Secretary Carrie LAM said that the matter has now been left to an independent commission to conduct an inquiry. Yet we may ask the family members of the victims in the Lamma Island marine disaster whether they accept such an arrangement and whether they consider the matter has been brought to a "closure" ― I am really unable to express this word in Chinese. Has the matter been brought to a "closure"? They need to work out the way themselves, while fireworks display will now be held as usual. Every time we propose to invoke the P&P Ordinance to conduct an inquiry, we will hear the same nonsense that it is an "imperial sword" which cannot be drawn indiscriminately. Are the lead in drinking water incidents not important enough? Is the impact not extensive and far-reaching enough to astonish us? Although the issue may not be as serious as to cause public panic, it represents a blunder in the implementation of policies concerning the public's most basic need, since we are now talking about fresh water. If my memory does not fail me, Secretary Anthony CHEUNG or Secretary for Development seems to have said, like a king bestowing a big mercy, that he had acted fast with a correct focus, distributing more than 5 million bottles of water. Certainly, the distribution of bottled water is better than nothing. How much was spent? $31 million of the public funds. It might be better if this sum of money was handed out to people living in poor areas such as Sham Shui Po and Tin Shui Wai. This Government will act only when it hears criticisms from the people. We must remember that when cases of excess lead in drinking water were discovered in Kai Ching Estate,


227

the press and the media were sceptical because the Government made a loud and clear denial, claiming that was not the case ― this was the news on pages A3 and A4. Quite without shame, the Government said that it did not hide the truth and did not cover up anything either, but eventually, it could not but admit the truth. After the announcement, it was even more awesome. The Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux lined up in a row with an imposing look. Right now, our question is who should be held accountable and responsible. Mr Albert CHAN has mentioned certain situations and cases earlier. Has Hong Kong really become "Mainlandized" now? Are there cases of corruption, backdoor practice, getting favours by networking, cronyism and even deals under the table? Why not let the Legislative Council conduct an inquiry? Anyone who does not wish to take part may refrain from attending the meetings. Some people are very willing to shell out time and effort looking into this issue. At first when the problem with tap water was exposed in public housing estates, the authorities promptly installed filters or connected hoses for the residents so that they could consume clean water and have no need to worry. First of all, the distribution of bottled water was very environmentally unfriendly ― Secretary for the Environment is not here today ― the amount of water used to produce bottled water is 10 times more than the water produced. That means it takes more than 10 litres of water to produce one litre of distilled water. This is really no joke. I hope the government officials will not treat this as their official job. It has already shown enough of their ludicrous performance. While there are problems with tap water in public housing estates, residents in private buildings are also highly concerned. Of course, speaking of luxury flats, the residents concerned can only seek blessings on their own and sort out solutions by themselves. However, with regard to grassroots living in six-storey or eight-storey tenement buildings, there is simply no owners' committee, not to mention any owners' corporation, and no one knows who is responsible for the affairs of the buildings. The Government said that old buildings were unlikely to be affected, but in some relatively new buildings which have not yet formed any owners' corporation, the residents are only grass-roots people and most of them are tenants. When everyone is feeling anxious, the Government will only say it has no idea or there is no problem. I also know that numerous departments are involved in this case, and the responsible officials whom we can think of work at various tiers. If the Legislative Council wishes to assist the Government in inquiring into the incidents now, what problem is there? We can examine the items one by one. What problem is there? As usual, the


pro-establishment camp remarked that we must not set up a select committee. Anything that will embarrass the Government must not be carried out in the Legislative Council either. Almost none of the motions we have proposed before to invoke the P&P Ordinance could be passed. The pro-establishment camp will definitely not allow such a motion to be passed, since they are in the majority. Just now when I took a taxi to come here, the taxi-driver said, "What is the point in arguing in the Legislative Council anymore? All the chairmanship and deputy chairmanship have fallen into the hands of the pro-establishment camp. You know they are in the majority." That is true. However, how come they are in the majority? They were not elected by Hong Kong people. The question lies with functional constituencies. Functional constituencies are nothing good. They are evil. Members who are returned through election among their own peers occupy half of the seats. That is the case. They always get the upper hand. However, will functional constituencies last forever? The Government very much hopes so, and so does the pro-establishment camp. They certainly will not let them go. All in all, President, here we are not simply discussing how much work the Government has done. No matter how much work there is, the Government should do it because we have paid the tax. This is the Government's most fundamental and basic duty. They should stop telling me how many million bottles of water have been distributed or how many tens of millions of dollars from the public funds have been spent, as though the work has been done properly then, because this saga should never have happened in the first place. We need to ask, after all, who should take the responsibility? Who should be held accountable? What penalties should be imposed? Even if the matter is not referred to the Court, what can we do if civil servants and public officers are involved? They cannot merely say that the problem has been rectified and they can almost guarantee it will not happen again in the future and then treat the matter as settled. In this matter, we must first find out who should be responsible. They cannot just blame the system in a free, modern and civilized society, otherwise how can they teach the young people? From now on, if a young man does anything wrong, all he needs to do is to say "This is the fault of society". He will not regard it as his fault. It has nothing to do with him, and it has nothing to do with his parents either. All he needs to do is to say out loud and clear, "This is the fault of society." This is unacceptable. Thank you.


229

MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, the Government's announcement on 10 July that four tap water samples collected from Kai Ching Estate were found to contain excessive lead marked the beginning of the lead-in-water incident. Three months into the incident, about 30 000 residents from a total of 11 public rental housing (PRH) estates have been affected. Among them, there are at least 127 children, 30 or so women and three adults whose blood lead level is confirmed to have elevated, which has given cause for concern. The lead water saga is definitely still rolling on. A great number of residents are waiting to have their blood tested, and there is a need to carry out water tests for most of the kindergartens as well as primary and secondary schools completed after 2005. As the incident involves the safety of drinking water available to the public and is still being unfolded, the SAR Government has to stick to the people-oriented principle by attending to their urgent needs and taking special measures to address this special problem. The Government has many more things to do. First of all, I urge the Government to follow these up: first, water tests should be conducted for housing estates installed with water filters immediately and release the results expeditiously, with a view to illustrating to the public with scientifically sound data how effective such filters are in separating lead. Second, as for the 11 PRH estates where the Government has promised to replace all of the water pipes, the Government has to come up with the work schedule and detailed arrangements with the contractors so as to inform the public early and facilitate their early preparation. Third, the coverage of the priority blood tests should be further extended to children not reaching the age of six when they moved in. Fourth, children found to have an elevated blood lead level should be provided with long-term follow-up healthcare and other support initiatives. Fifth, a fund should be set up to support those affected because, as reported in newspapers, since the contractors involved in the lead-in-water incident were "banned from the game", the Government has lost $1 billion to the decision. As for the loss suffered by the Government, the community as well as those affected, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) considers it necessary for the contractors to make further commitment. Therefore, I urge the Government to require the contractors involved to set up a fund to support the households affected by the presence of lead in water, especially residents found to have an elevated blood lead level. Sixth, water charges or rentals of the affected households should be reasonably waived. Seventh, various investigations should be concluded expeditiously to find out the truth and plug the loopholes.


President, looking back at the incident, which involves drinking water consumed by the public daily, people were initially apprehensive as they might have a lot of queries, like the scope of impact caused by the presence of lead in water, the number of people affected as well as the health implications after consumption. The DAB is highly concerned about the matter. On the day the Government announced the news of excessive lead found in water, we arranged a professional team to collect water samples from Kai Ching Estate for testing as well as from other districts to find out the scope of impact caused by lead water. Three days later, we took 100 water samples with us to petition the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) and stated our two demands in clear terms to the Government: first, a thorough investigation should be carried out to identify the source of lead; second, water testing should be conducted for all PRH estates to address the residents' concern. In addition, the DAB has done a lot of follow-up work across the districts, such as conducting water testing for more than 150 public and private housing estates; meeting with Chief Secretary Carrie LAM, Secretary Eddie NG and Under Secretary YAU Shing-mu respectively to convey residents' demands to the Government directly, including comprehensive water testing for housing estates and schools, extending the scope of blood tests, waiving water charges or rentals, and so on. We also convened a number of residents' meetings where experts were invited to talk with members of the public directly to answer residents' questions. President, these efforts and aspirations are indicative of the pragmatic steps taken in response to the lead-in-water incident in the hope that the public will feel at ease; and some of our proposals have been accepted by the Government and are being put in place. To be fair, since the occurrence of the incident, the Government has endeavoured to attend to the needs of the public. Relevant civil servants have to undertake a great deal of work on the heels of the incident and embrace much more pressure in work. Here, I would like to cheer for the Civil Service and wish that they would keep up the effort to effectively follow up the incident. In mid-July, the Chief Executive set up three working groups or committees, including an independent Commission of Inquiry headed by a judge, to follow up the lead-in-water incident in three directions with a view to uncovering the truth. It indicates how much importance the Government has attached to the incident. The Task Force led by the Water Supplies Department (WSD) and the HA's Review Committee have recently released their respective interim reports, which conclude similarly that the presence of lead in drinking water is mainly


231

caused by the leaded solder materials used for water pipes. Despite it being expressly stipulated in legislation, neither does the industry nor the Housing Department (HD) have adequate knowledge of leaded solder materials over a long stretch of time, and the main contractors, the WSD and the HD have neither put a monitoring mechanism in place nor truly carried out inspection to check against the requirements stated in the contracts. As a result, it is estimated that soldering materials containing lead might have been in use since at least 2005, with no one knowing it or taking the initiative to test them. President, the incident has actually revealed a big loophole in the past practice that the authorities relied solely on the documents of proof produced by contractors. As long as there is human negligence or someone cutting corners at will, people's health will be at stake. Supervisory efforts of the WSD and the HD on the safety of drinking water are both acutely inadequate and impertinent. To avoid a recurrence of the incident, the two reports have included a number of recommendations with regard to the system. They include: the HD is required to ask the main contractors to test drinking water based on the WSD's latest requirements; the main contractors and the HD are required to use quick test methods to check for the presence of lead in solder joints; the HD is required to state in the contract central procurement of soldering materials by the main contractors and recording of the use of solder joints as well as the workers in charge to facilitate follow-up work, and so on. President, the recommendations raised in the interim reports are focused. However, I have to make it clear here that people's concerns are yet to be completely addressed. I expect the Government to continue to focus on the following matters in the ensuing investigations. Since the lead-in-water incident occurred, the general public is worried if lead contamination in drinking water is just a tip of the iceberg, questioning if there are other potential safety hazards that are hidden in our monitoring system but go unnoticed, as in the case of lead contamination in drinking water. Are drinking water, food as well as other necessities really as safe as what members of the public think? They are surely worried about this. For their peace of mind, I urge the SAR Government to grasp the opportunity to conduct a safety overhaul of the current monitoring system to review if it can really play its role as expected. In addition, housing is a top priority of the current-term Government, and increasing the supply of public housing is also most pressing. Nevertheless, in catching up with the progress, quantity should never be pursued at the expense of


quality, and residents' health should never be compromised. The public is still puzzled by another point, for which I urge the SAR Government to go on identifying the real underlying causes. That is, in the current lead-in-water incident, the scope of impact is concentrated in PRH estates and government buildings, including hospitals. Private properties are not immune from the problem, but the tally is obviously lower, with just a handful of cases. The reason may be that private properties have better quality control, or that the number of sampling tests conducted is fewer, so is the number of cases reported. There may be other reasons as well. For example, as regards government projects, a common tendering practice is that a project is awarded to the lowest tender. In this connection, will contractors quote lower prices in order to win the bid, and as a result the materials used as well as the quality of construction and work supervision are compromised? I hope that the reasons behind so will be looked into in the ensuing investigations. Lastly, since the occurrence of the incident, we can all see that one of the causes for the confusion of information is the lack of a uniform safety standard for testing drinking water. Since the lead-in-water incident occurred, various political parties, organizations and buildings have flocked to conduct testing on water, but the sampling methods used may vary, and the reports on the tests are actually incomparable if not contradictory to each other. In this connection, I urge the SAR Government to grasp the opportunity to look into the prospect of unifying the standard for testing, such that it can be used to test the safety of drinking water from new or newly refurbished buildings for the peace of mind of the public. President, it is a basic duty of the Government to safeguard the safety of drinking water. Once there is an issue with water safety, it is necessary for the Government to keep working to set things right and identify the causes through painstaking investigations in order to alleviate residents' concerns. Hearings of the independent Commission of Inquiry headed by a judge will begin this month. This is one way to find out the answers to the above questions through a credible commission of inquiry. Some Members may hold that this kind of independent commission of inquiry will merely focus on factual investigation instead of the responsibilities of public officers, so it is necessary to resort to the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to thoroughly look into their responsibilities. Does this argument sound reasonable?


233

President, civil or criminal liability of any person or organization should be decided upon by court in an impartial manner, and this does not fall under the purview of either a statutory commission of inquiry or a select committee established by this Council. Furthermore, be it in terms of professionalism or credibility, judges are better than Members of this Council from the public point of view. And being free of political considerations, judges leave no room for doubt in terms of objectivity and neutrality, and the results from their investigations are thus more credible. President, in essence, this Council is by no means an investigative body. In general, Members are not as good as judges and expert witnesses in terms of related professional knowledge as well as the experience and skills of questioning. Hence, we have to be cautious when it comes to invoking the P&P Ordinance to avoid turning this Council into a political court. This is the principle we need to hold fast to. President, up to this stage of the lead-in-water incident, pan-democratic political parties have kept stirring things up through the incident to serve their own political purposes. Defaming Members from the pro-establishment camp continuously through a call for an inquiry under the P&P Ordinance is really very lowly and despicable. The DAB's stance is actually unequivocal. In mid-July, we called for a thorough investigation into the incident by the Government. The Government has since set up three investigative committees to look into the incident and review the system from different perspectives, and two of them have already submitted their preliminary or interim reports. Under this circumstance, we really see no urgent need for this Council to start another investigation; a better approach is that we will not consider invoking the P&P Ordinance until after the release of the conclusions made by those investigations. As for finding out who are to be held responsible, the Government has openly stated that they will follow up the results from the investigations. It is unnecessary for opposition Members to make any conclusion prematurely. President, a lesson is learnt from past mistakes. I hope that the Government or relevant departments will learn a lesson and strengthen the various monitoring systems comprehensively in order to avoid the recurrence of similar incidents and fully restore the confidence of the public.


With these remarks, President, I am against invoking the P&P Ordinance to look into the lead-in-water incident. MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, at last Friday's meeting where an election for chairmanship was held, 40 to 50 Members were present, vis-à-vis only 10 in this Council meeting, so I hope you can summon Members back to the meeting. Thank you. Please do a headcount. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, please speak. IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, the theme of this debate is related to the motions proposed by Ms Cyd HO and Mr Gary FAN respectively. These two motions, the substances of which are basically similar, seek to call on this Council to appoint a select committee to conduct an inquiry authorized under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) into the incident of lead in the drinking water samples taken from public and private buildings exceeding the World Health Organization's standard and, based on the results of the inquiry, make recommendations to the Government for improvement. President, quite many members of the community regards the P&P Ordinance as an "imperial sword", which is a symbol of supreme power. It is a pity that the "imperial sword" in Members' hands appears to be gradually reduced to a panacea for all diseases. Whenever major incidents occur in Hong Kong society, certain Members will scramble to propose wielding this sword to conduct an inquiry. Let me cite the lead-in-water incident as an example. At a special meeting held by the Panel on Housing of the Legislative Council on 22 July, a pan-democratic Member took the lead in moving a motion on seeking support from the Panel for the Legislative Council to appoint a select committee to


235

inquire into the incident, though the motion was negatived. At a meeting held by the House Committee on 9 October, a pan-democratic Member again made a similar request, though it was similarly rejected upon voting after the expression of their respective stances by Members from different political parties and groupings. The same issue is now being debated again at this Council meeting. Regardless of whether Members support or oppose the proposal in question, I believe they are very unlikely to advance new arguments which are more compelling. No wonder some critics question Members for allegedly "taking advantage of" the lead-in-water incident. I must emphasize that I do not mean that this "imperial sword" cannot be used. It is just that Members should weigh the pros and cons and use the "imperial sword" discreetly. It can only be used when an incident is considered by the majority of the public to be involving significant public interest and there is a need to straighten out the full story, when in-depth follow-up actions cannot be taken in accordance with the normal procedure. Only under such circumstances can an inquiry be considered necessary and appropriate. According to this principle, the use of the "imperial sword" at this stage to deal with the lead-in-water incident is obviously unnecessary and inappropriate, because Members should not disregard the latest developments. In fact, I oppose the two motions under discussion precisely because of the latest developments of the relevant incidents. Since mid-July, the authorities have set up three dedicated bodies one after another to inquire into the lead-in-water incident at different levels, with two of the committees set up having published their preliminary or interim findings. I now declare that I am a member of the Review Committee on Quality Assurance Issues Relating to Fresh Water Supply of Public Housing Estates set up by the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) on 24 July. Meanwhile, I am also a HA member as well as a member of its Tender and Building Committees, but no substantial pecuniary benefits are involved. Under the existing system, the HA is required to monitor the water supply materials, including water pipes, fittings, soldering materials, and so on. However, the water supply system in the developments is subject to the regulatory regime under the Waterworks Ordinance. The Review Committee set up by the HA seeks to review the present systems for quality control and works monitoring in relation to the installation of fresh water supply systems in public rental housing (PRH) estates. The inquiry should focus on material specifications and the clarification of the responsibilities of various stakeholders during the course of construction, actual operational flows, and possible loopholes.


The Review Committee has held a number of meetings, including meetings with representatives from the Water Supplies Department (WSD), relevant professional bodies and stakeholders of the industry and, based on its preliminary findings, an interim review report was published on 6 October. In respect of the findings of the systematic random tests on water conducted by the Housing Department (HD) in collaboration with the WSD for PRH developments completed after 2005, several major discoveries have been made. Firstly, the incident of excess lead found in drinking water has nothing to do with pre-fabricated components. Secondly, only a small fraction of the drinking water samples tested are found to have excessive lead content. Moreover, a number of main contractors, plumbing subcontractors, and licensed plumbers are involved. Furthermore, none of the water samples taken from housing estates where soldering materials are not used is found to have excessive lead content. After reviewing the HA's mechanism for quality control of the water supply system prior to the occurrence of the lead-in-water incident, the Review Committee opined that the mechanism was geared towards known issues about safety and quality of fresh water in the past, though there had been a lack of awareness of the risk of lead in drinking water. In order to prevent the recurrence of similar incidents in the future, the Review Committee proposed the introduction of a series of improvement measures by the HD, including: Firstly, for newly completed PRH developments, the HD will require the main contractor to test water samples for heavy metal content, including lead, in accordance with the WSD's latest guidelines. Secondly, the HD will contractually require the main contractor to submit and comply with a management plan to improve plumbing subcontractor supervision and on-site monitoring, as well as ensuring that workers receive sufficient training before work starts. Lastly, with respect to testing, the main contractor will be required during the construction stage to use quick test methods to check for the presence of lead in solder joints. Meanwhile, the front-line staff of the HA will step up random checks, too. The Review Committee will continue to maintain communication with stakeholders of the industry in the future and review the effectiveness of various new measures. It is expected to submit its final report by the end of this year. On the other hand, a Task Force to investigate the cause of excessive lead content in drinking water was set up by the Development Bureau on 15 July to conduct an inquiry into the lead-in-water incident to analyse scientifically fittings and materials dismantled from problematic water supply systems, so as to ascertain the case of lead in water and propose measures to prevent the recurrence of similar incidents in future. According to the preliminary inquiry and analysis


237

findings published by the Task Force on 25 September, the main cause of the incident is the presence of leaded soldering materials, which coincides with the relevant findings of the aforesaid Review Committee. The Task Force has also put forward a number of specific proposals, including requiring the industry to avoid using leaded soldering materials and pipe installations not in compliance with specifications and to adopt central procurement of soldering materials. Moreover, the Water Authority is required to examine the use of other pipe materials and review the relevant legislation. The Task Force is expected to publish its final report in October. President, perhaps some members of the community consider that the aforesaid Review Committee and Task Force emphasize more on an inquiry into the dedicated departments or the technical aspect, and having regard to the experience of setting up commissions of inquiry in the wake of incidents relating to matters of public importance, the Chief Executive in Council approved on 13 August the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry into Excess Lead Found in Drinking Water. Its terms of reference include ascertaining the causes of excess lead found in drinking water in PRH developments; reviewing and evaluating the adequacy of the present regulatory and monitoring system in respect of drinking water in Hong Kong; and making recommendations with regard to the safety of drinking water in Hong Kong. In my opinion, it is noteworthy that this Commission of Inquiry (CoI), which was set up under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance, has statutory power to mandate the relevant persons to testify and disclose documents and interrogate witnesses on oath. Moreover, the inquiry hearings may also be regarded as judicial proceedings. Mr Justice Andrew CHAN, who has been appointed as Chairman and Commissioner, is Judge of the Court of First Instance of the High Court, whereas Mr Alan LAI, who has been appointed as Commissioner, was the Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption and The Ombudsman. Their qualifications and credibility are beyond question. As such, we should trust that the CoI is capable of conducting the inquiry in an independent and impartial manner and reveal the truth in an unbiased manner without political interference. The CoI has recently published a notice in a number of newspapers in Hong Kong that a preliminary hearing will be conducted on 20 October. It is anticipated that a report can be submitted to the Chief Executive in nine months. I propose that an interim report be published by the CoI in due course to enable the public to understand the latest progress of the inquiry.


President, it is thus evident that the aforesaid three inquiry frameworks involve different levels, including the professional, technical and statutory inquiry levels. Each of them has their own scope of inquiry and emphases to achieve complementarity. Unfortunately, the pan-democratic Members appear to have neglected these developments. Their repeated calls for the Legislative Council to use its "imperial sword" to conduct inquiries are undoubtedly akin to turning a blind eye to changes in circumstances. President, for any inquiry to achieve concrete and reliable results within a specific time frame, we must first consider carefully the purpose and focus of the inquiry: Should we seek to examine the cause of excessive lead in drinking water and find solutions, or should we focus on identifying a couple of people involved to take the blame as the solution? Should the engineering problems be resolved by engineering means, or should everything be resolved by political means? Perhaps some people may make temporary achievements by resolving everything by political means or focusing on holding a couple of people accountable expeditiously. However, they often neglect issues that really warrant attention and obstruct us from seeking pragmatic solutions. Given that the aforesaid three inquiry frameworks have already commenced work one after another, Members would be jumping to a conclusion should they question whether or not these frameworks could find out the truth of the incident at this stage. Although it is directed that the determination of any criminal or civil liability of any party (whether individual or legal entity) shall be outside the terms of reference of a commission of inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance, I believe appropriate judgment will be made by the public having regard the final report published by the CoI. Under the present circumstances, the setting up of a select committee under the P&P Ordinance to conduct an inquiry, as requested by the Members, will not only lead to duplication and redundancy, but also waste the resources of this Council and the parties concerned. According to the rough estimation made by the authorities, the total sum required by a commission of inquiry ranges from $47 million to $56 million. Furthermore, judging from their wordings and focus, namely the so-called issue of accountability, the two motions proposed today may easily be targeted at persons rather than events, which is not conducive to resolving the problems effectively. Such being the case, my fellow colleagues from the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong and I are of the view that it is neither necessary nor appropriate to invoke the P&P Ordinance to set up a select


239

committee to inquire into the lead-in-water incident. President, we should focus on a comprehensive review of the incident through the aforesaid three inquiry frameworks, which are conducting an inquiry in three different directions, to pursue the source and cause of lead content in drinking water, administer the right remedies, take remedial or improvement measures in a timely manner on the one hand, and examine the inadequacies of the systems, review the monitoring and acceptance regimes for housing construction works, enhance the inspection and regulation of water safety and improve the relevant ordinances on the other, so as to ensure that the quality of drinking water in Hong Kong complies with the standards, such that restore public confidence in water safety can be restored in accordance with the interests and aspirations of Hong Kong people. With these remarks, President, I oppose the two motions proposed by Mr Gary FAN and Ms Cyd HO respectively. MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): President, Hong Kong is a cosmopolitan city as well as an international finance centre, with advanced city design and highly efficient management system that is reputed in the world. It is really unbelievable and unacceptable that such a serious incident of drinking water safety has occurred in our city. Hong Kong people are prompted to doubt whether there are other unnoticed inadequacies in the social administration systems in the territory. President, lead is a heavy metal hazardous to health. When lead is absorbed in excess amount, it may cause serious impairment to many organs and functions of human body. In Hong Kong, there is legislation for monitoring waterworks and prohibiting the use of any leaded components and soldering materials for water pipes. In addition, as stipulated in the Handbook on Plumbing Installation for Buildings, only pipes and fittings meeting the British standards or other standards on a par with the British standards will be accepted. It has been the responsibility of government departments to perform the monitoring role and ensure the supply of quality drinking water to the public. However, in the past three months, the drinking water samples of 11 public housing estates were found to have lead content exceeding the standard prescribed in the World Health Organization's Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. It is reported that four contractors and three licenced plumbers are involved so far. This incident of collective breaches of regulations has exposed


the many loopholes in the existing monitoring system. For instance, lead content testing is not a required item for water sampling tests conducted prior to the occupation of new buildings; the procurement and use of soldering material for pipes are not subject to any regulation; the waterworks fittings in public housing estates contain excess lead; the brand of the valves reported differs with the brand actually used, yet the Water Supplies Department (WSD) has no knowledge of such discrepancies, and so on. We have only become aware recently that the drinking water supply systems are required to be constructed with lead-free materials, and this requirement has been in force for several decades. Yet, by now, the community's awareness about the risk of lead in drinking water is still inadequate. It reveals that the basis of the public's confidence in the monitoring system of drinking water in Hong Kong is so fragile. It is shocking to everyone. According to the preliminary report of the Task Force, solder joints of taps of Hong Ching House at Kai Ching Estate released lead to a level of 41%, which is 585 times the British standard of 0.07%. Moreover, tests show that the blood lead levels of over 100 children, pregnant women and lactating women are higher than the normal level. Among them, nine children has been confirmed suffering from developmental delays. Some schools, including nursery schools and kindergartens, dental hospitals, private buildings and community centres, and so on, have indicated that excess lead is found in their drinking water. The impact of the lead-in-water incident this time around goes across sectors and strata in the community. What worries me most is that the actual number of households, schools, public organizations and private buildings being affected has not been confirmed so far. We do not know when more water supply facilities will be found containing excess lead. Residents living in those so-called "lead-water" public housing estates are worried about their health, but due to a shortage of resources and the limited capacity of blood testing services, the authorities can only arrange blood testing for the most affected groups, such as households whose drinking water is found containing excess lead, children under the age of six and pregnant women, and so on. No wonder the panic about excess lead in drinking water has not subsided. Undoubtedly, we all hope that the authorities concerned will carry out investigations in an impartial and just manner to find out the causes and circumstances leading to the incident, and ascertain the extent and scope of the


241

problems as practicable as possible, so that the right remedy can be identified and the public can rest assured that they can continue to enjoy safe drinking water. Upon the Administration's confirmation that drinking water in certain public housing estates was found to contain excessive lead, the authorities concerned have set up three committees to investigate the incident of lead in drinking water. The Administration and the Housing Authority (HA) have taken the lead to set up the Task Force on Investigation on Excessive Lead Content in Drinking Water and the Review Committee on Quality Assurance Issues Relating to Fresh Water Supply of Public Housing Estates, and the two committees have recently announced their preliminary findings and interim report respectively. The reports unanimously conclude that soldering material used for pipe connection is the main source of lead in drinking water found in public housing estates. Moreover, a series of improvement measures have been recommended to plug the loopholes of the existing regulatory system. Some of these measures have already been implemented, with others being under discussion with the relevant sectors. Furthermore, the Chief Executive has appointed a Commission of Inquiry (CoI) under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance. The scope of investigation, specifications and powers of the CoI are pitched at the highest level among the three committees. The CoI will review the drinking water supply systems of various types of buildings in the territory. In addition to ascertaining the causes of excess lead found in drinking water in public housing, the CoI will also review and evaluate the adequacy of the present regulatory and monitoring systems in respect of drinking water in Hong Kong. The CoI is conferred with the power to summon witness, take evidence and conduct hearings, and it is scheduled to commence operation next week. Although some people in the community may not understand the reasons for conducting all these investigations and inquiries, and they may be getting impatient, I trust we all agree that a comprehensive and thorough investigation is a course which takes some time. However, Mr Gary FAN and Ms Cyd HO consider these investigations either making a slow progress or lacking the mandate to impose punishment, so they propose invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to inquire into the incident.


As a matter of fact, given the severity of the lead-in-water incident and the significant overall public interest involved, the Legislative Council may consider invoking the P&P Ordinance to conduct an inquiry if necessary. It is true that we may consider using this "imperial sword", but the point at issue is whether it is necessary to do so at this stage. Members moving the relevant motions probably consider that the three committees already set up will neither seek to identify responsibility, nor seek to impose punishment, so the it is necessary for the Legislative Council to conduct another investigation by invoking the P&P Ordinance. Mr Gary FAN even said that the three committees would only downplay the incident with a view to settling disputes with a watered-down approach. Yet if these Members request the Legislative Council to set up a select committee and invoke the P&P Ordinance to conduct an inquiry merely out of this untenable justification, I am really surprised because, just like the three committees concerned, a select committee set up under the P&P Ordinance is not conferred with the power to impose punishment on the persons concerned based on the findings of the inquiry. Such power is not stipulated under the P&P Ordinance. I trust that the CoI will find out the facts and the truth. As for the issue of accountability, it should be a matter for the executive and the judiciary to decide. Besides, as shown by cases in the past, if statutory investigation committees or other organizations set up for major incidents have identified significant human errors or inadequacies in the system after investigation, particularly when irregularities or breaches are involved, the Administration will act to follow up. Moreover, this Council as well as the whole community will monitor closely whether the authorities concerned have meted out appropriate punishment. Take the Lamma Island ferry disaster in 2012 as an example. The authorities had conducted an internal investigation, and an independent statutory body had published a report. Recently, the Department of Justice has decided to institute prosecution against two implicated incumbent and former government officials from the Marine Department. As for other implicated officials who will not be charged due to a lack of evidence, they have to face disciplinary hearings. Family members of the victims of the ferry disaster may continue to pursue through other channels, including legal means. As to whether the existing three committees will water down the incident, it may be too early to make a judgment at this stage. The Task Force led by the


243

WSD is expected to present a full report by the end of this month. The Review Committee under the HA also plans to submit its final report by the end of this year. The independent statutory commission is expected to submit the report to the Chief Executive in May next year, and it will submit an interim report if necessary. The scientific investigations conducted by these organizations have been the most systematic since the lead in drinking water incident was uncovered. The independence of the CoI should be well recognized in the community, particularly as the Judge of the Court of First Instance of the High Court is appointed as its Chairman, and the former Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption cum the former Ombudsman as its member. Why should we discredit the findings of the CoI before its report is available? If any Members can prove that the investigation lacks impartiality, they should show the evidence to the public. Moreover, Ms Cyd HO and some 20 Members from the pan-democratic camp wrote to the Chairman of the House Committee this August to request the invoking of the P&P Ordinance to set up a select committee to inquire into the incident of lead in drinking water. They expressed their dissatisfaction with the "examination and evidence collection work of the Government which took an unduly long time", saying that "the CoI's work and conclusion had failed to address the public's pressing needs as the investigation was expected to take nine months." For an incident with such an extensive scope, who can guarantee that if the Legislative Council conducts an inquiry by invoking the P&P Ordinance, it can be completed within a time frame of less than nine months? Members should bear in mind that the committee set up by the Legislative Council to study of the issues relating to the mini-bonds of Lehman Brothers had spent a record-breaking total of three years and eight months to complete the inquiry. Regarding the relationship between invoking the P&P Ordinance to inquire into the incident by the Legislative Council and addressing the pressing needs of people affected, I think this is a matter requiring further verification. President, the truth cannot be denied. No matter how long it takes to find out the truth, the issue of accountability arising from this major incident of drinking water safety will not be overlooked or covered up. However, at the present stage when the final findings of the three investigations are still pending, some Members from the pan-democratic camp have hastily proposed another avenue for investigation. In fact, this approach will not be conducive to solving the problem in a quicker and more satisfactory manner, but instead will make things more complicated.


President, a wiser approach is to plan properly before we take any action. As I said earlier, since the incident involves significant public interest, while conducting an inquiry by way of a select committee may be an option for consideration, I do not think that the Legislative Council will have greater powers than the CoI in conducting such an inquiry, this Council will be more efficient in doing such work, and there will not be a duplication of efforts and resources. I take the view that we should first read the report of the CoI before deciding whether the Legislative Council should set up a select committee by invoking the P&P Ordinance to conduct a further investigation. President, for the above reasons, I will not support these two motions ― at least for the time being. I so submit. MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): President, in its handling of the entire incident of excess lead in water, I would say that the Government has been perfunctory in attitude, slow in response and caught in a quandary. From the Chief Executive to the Water Supplies Department (WSD) and the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) responsible for monitoring and the Department of Health (DH) responsible for public health, all have either sought selfish political interests or shifted the blame to others, and all that have been done is entirely wide of the mark. From the very outset the Chief Executive already sought to exculpate the state-owned contractor, remarking that there was no evidence that water pipes manufactured in Hong Kong were fine whereas those manufactured outside Hong Kong were problematic. A position was made before investigation into the incident and this is all nonsense. He was using the art of hypocritical rhetoric to curry favour and to lick the boots of some Mainland enterprises. The WSD nevertheless sought to pass the buck to the plumbers by wasting no time to make public the name of the plumber in an attempt to shift the media's focus onto the worker and hence find a scapegoat for itself. The DH is even more outrageous. In order to water down the incident, the doctor-in-charge went so far as to tell the public that it is alright to drink water containing lead because this should not be a problem over a lifetime consumption. These people are indeed "way above the ground". It is tantamount to saying that it is alright for people to eat a spoonful of cyanide because this should not be a problem over a lifetime consumption of 100 years.


245

This is the best manifestation of "what the superior favours will receive excessively enthusiastic responses from his subordinates". The policy administration by "689" has degenerated to such a sorry state. The Government's handling of the crisis of excess lead in water has been so messy precisely because the superior is geared towards wrong directions, acting with ulterior motives and failing to go by things according to rules and regulations, resulting in the rites and music of decorum being in tatters, while his subordinates has aggravated the problem, turning a minor problem into a big problem and a big problem into a bad one. This is fully consistent with the scandalous, unscrupulous and vicious things of all kinds that LEUNG Chun-ying has done since he came to power, plunging Hong Kong into even greater troubles and chaos. This is most tragic and has prompted the people to ask in sigh why Hong Kong has come to such a plight. They said that they can no longer recognize that this Hong Kong today is the Hong Kong where they used to live in. If those people in power are concerned about people's health, they should have come forth a long time ago to assume their responsibilities and extend the scope of water tests and blood tests across the board. They should have probed into the root of the problem before the crisis and problem spread further in society; they should have undertaken to conduct a thorough investigation and pursue responsibilities. Regrettably, the Government's awareness is entirely belated, and the whole strategy adopted in response to the crisis is slow. The Government has been indecisive, fearing that the contractors would be offended, that the Government itself would have to take responsibilities, that the problem would spread further and above all, that panic would be caused. The Government has acted with misgivings and fears, knowing only to water down the incident and to shift public attention, completely falling behind political parties in the community. Subsequently, it was only under enormous pressure from the public and political parties that the Government was willing to draw up plans for carrying out across-the-board water tests in public rental housing (PRH) estates and set up a Task Force led by the WSD as well as the Review Committee on Quality Assurance Issues Relating to Fresh Water Supply of Public Housing Estates (Review Committee) under the HA. However, these investigations are neither fish nor fowl and far from independent. The public, therefore, called for the setting up of an independent committee of inquiry led by a Judge but the Government again dragged its feet, and it was after much exasperated and prolonged waiting that a decision was made on its membership, and despite repeated calls, hearings have yet been conducted so far.


The reports of both the Task Force and the Review Committee that I have just mentioned are disappointing. The Task Force under the WSD has confirmed that the soldering materials are the cause of excess lead in water, but who should be made responsible? No one knows. The Review Committee of the HA has published its interim report in which the contractors are criticized for never taking measures to prevent the use of leaded soldering material, but it is found that the HA itself had not carried out checks on the soldering materials; nor had it checked the presence of lead in water. Without any risk management whatsoever, the Chief Secretary made a final conclusion by attributing the cause to "a lack of awareness" and then made no mention on who should be held responsible, not bothering to probe into the reasons. On the point that no presence of lead should be allowed as stipulated in the contract, they can address the problem by attributing it to "a lack of awareness". As a result, no one has to take the blame and no one has to be held responsible. Although the cause has been identified, there is no murderer, and there is no way for us to pursue responsibilities. "A lack of awareness" has become the reason for shirking responsibilities. If this reason of "a lack of awareness" is put forward in court, do Members think that the Judge will accept it? Is it a reason for defence? President, I can say that restrictions are imposed on these committees set up for investigation. For example, the Commission of Inquiry set up by the Government under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance (Cap. 86) has made it clear that it will not pursue responsibilities and that it is set up to serve only three purposes: to ascertain the causes of excess lead found in drinking water in public rental housing developments; second, to review and evaluate the adequacy of the present regulatory and monitoring system in respect of drinking water in Hong Kong; and third, to make recommendations with regard to the safety of drinking water in Hong Kong. Members of the community certainly wish to know the source of lead content in water; they certainly wish to know what improvement the Government will make in future; and they certainly wish that the mistake will not be repeated. But with regard to this incident of such great importance and with regard to this problem affecting the health of so many people, the Commission of Inquiry can nevertheless be excused for pursuing responsibilities. President, let me tell a joke here. This is like the police investigating a murder case but they can only probe into the cause of death, not the murderer, still less bringing the murderer to


247

justice. How would you comment on these policemen and such a police force? If that is the case, why do we need policemen and police stations? This is indeed ridiculous. What message will be put across to society if investigation is conducted in such a way? The message is that at the end of the day, it is unnecessary to take responsibilities for the mistakes made and for the bad things done. All the bitter fruits will be shoved down the throat of the public and drunk up by the public, whereas the people involved can take to their heels and continue to get promotions and make a fortune. President, is this our society of Hong Kong? In order to save money, some contractors and subcontractors used materials and fittings of a poor quality, whereas people responsible for monitoring kept an eye shut and did not reveal the full picture to the neglect of public health. But we must bear in mind one thing: It is stated in the contract that no presence of lead is allowed. Is this in any way different from the past incidents of "gutter oil" and "tainted food" that occurred in the Mainland? Nobody was to take the blame; nobody should be held responsible; and no punishment was needed. The investigation concluded so long as the truth was found out. Is this in line with the core values upheld by the Hong Kong Government and us over the years? To plug this loophole, it is absolutely necessary for the Legislative Council to conduct an inquiry into the lead-in-water incident under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. I hope that the royalist pro-establishment camp will not stand in our way by shielding those people who have gained benefits and refusing to do justice for the residents in this lead-in-water incident, which is a major problem affecting the health of the residents. President, a fact that must be recognized is that the Government and the HA, being owners of PRH units, must take the ultimate responsibility in the end, and in order to be responsible, they should take the initiative to negotiate with the residents on the compensation and stop saying, "We are very busy and do not have the time and as investigation is underway, let us talk about it later". There is no undertaking, no step taken to deal with the problem, and no discussion whatsoever. In fact, many residents do not care much about the amount of compensation or how much they can be compensated, or whether they can be waived from rent or water tariffs as a form of compensation. What we need is


that the Government can demonstrate its commitment and willingness to assume responsibility. Hong Kong is still under your management. I do not wish that the Government will wait until the residents have to bring their cases to court. The Government must not shirk its responsibility on the pretext that technical issues in law are involved, and it must not think that it can evade its responsibility and make no commitment because the general public cannot afford the legal fees and hence cannot and even dare not make a charge. What progress has been made by the Government in respect of compensation? Compared with the effects of lead poisoning on infants, these petty favours of a waiver of rent and water tariffs are indeed negligible, but the residents would have been satisfied if the Government is willing to shoulder this responsibility. Why does the Government completely turn a blind eye to them? At every meeting the Government always replied that people should wait for a longer while, that they are busy, that this is so troublesome, and that since many committees have been set up, just wait for their reports and then decide what further steps to take. The Government has been stalling. If it is only willing to address the problem until the public have taken the Government to court or legal proceedings have started and exorbitant legal fees are involved … This has actually happened as two residents have sued China State Construction Engineering (Hong Kong) Limited (China State Construction) in the Small Claims Tribunal because they had purchased water filters at their own expense before China State Construction provided filters for the residents and they, therefore, demanded compensation. Why should actions be taken only when things have come to the present state? Since they are willing to pay for the costs, why not pay those residents who have bought their own water filters? Is the Government the same as China State Construction? I hope that the Government will immediately review and revamp the entire mechanism for monitoring water supply systems. Emphasis should be put on the construction of water pipes as well as the procurement and use of materials, which are all areas that warrant supervision, in order to raise the requirements of water safety, including the upper limits for heavy metal contents, and so on. President, I support both motions.


249

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): As it is quite unlikely for us to finish all the business on the Agenda before 10 pm tonight, I will suspend the meeting at around 8 pm. The meeting will resume at 9 am this Friday. MR ALAN LEONG (in Cantonese): President, no matter whether Members will cast their votes at 8 pm or 10 pm tonight or on Friday, I think Hong Kong people and I know that all our hopes have been put out like a candle, and the two motions moved under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to set up a select committee will definitely be negatived. We are completely hopeless simply because, no matter how attractive their speeches are in pointing out that both the Housing Department (HD) and the Government have unshirkable responsibilities and so on, when discussions were held on the setting up of a select committee under the P&P Ordinance, the pro-establishment Members would say that the "imperial sword" could not be used arbitrarily or a decision could only be made after the completion of the inquiries conducted by the three committees. President, you might still recall that at the meeting held by the Panel on Housing of the Legislative Council on 22 July, the pro-establishment Members voted 10:8 against the motion on the invocation of the P&P Ordinance to inquire into the lead-in-water incident. The second defeat was met on 1 September even though the motion proposed by the pan-democratic Members at a special meeting held by the House Committee of the Legislative Council to discuss the lead-in-water incident merely sought to call on the Government to come up with a specific contingency proposal and timetable for the incident within 14 days rather than setting up a select committee under the P&P Ordinance. This motion merely sought to call on the Government to present a specific proposal and timetable to prevent people affected by lead water or worrying that the water they consumed at home happened to be the life-prolonging water from sitting on pins and needles all day long. Nevertheless, the motion was again negatived by Members 25:20. I believe the President still vividly recall a recent incident that occurred on 9 October when the House Committee of the Legislative Council discussed the motion proposed by Mr Gary FAN in his personal capacity and Ms Cyd HO, the convenor of the pan-democrats, on behalf of 26 pan-democratic Members to set up a select committee under the P&P Ordinance. At that time, we hoped that Mr Andrew LEUNG as Chairman of the House Committee could propose the


motion at a Legislative Council meeting, though it was eventually negatived with 35 votes in favour and 24 votes against. While the pro-establishment Members criticize the pan-democrats for making a mountain out of a molehill, I actually consider it more accurate to describe the pro-government camp as making a mountain disappear. President, today I have heard the speeches delivered by a number of pro-establishment Members, who questioned why we should take the matter so seriously given that three committees had already been set up to conduct inquiries. We were even described by them as acting ultra vires. President, these matters must be clarified. Currently, there are three committees, namely a Task Force set up under the Development Bureau and chaired by the Deputy Director of Water Supplies, a Review Committee set up by the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA), and a Commission of Inquiry (CoI) appointed by the Chief Executive under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance (Cap. 86) for Mr Justice Andrew CHAN and Mr Alan LAI to conduct an inquiry. I have not heard any Member say ― I think they dare not say ― that the Task Force under the Development Bureau and the Review Committee under the HA can be compared to the select committee sought by the pan-democratic Members because the Task Force and the Review Committee are insignificant when compared with the proposed select committee. Most of the pro-establishment Members said that Members should believe the Judge and Mr Alan LAI, for the CoI served by them is more comprehensive, and its scope appears to be quite extensive. President, I wonder if Members who have spoken today have examined carefully the difference between the select committee sought under the P&P Ordinance by Mr Gary FAN in his personal capacity and Ms Cyd HO on behalf of the 26 pan-democratic Members and the CoI set up under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance and taken charge of by Mr Justice Andrew CHAN and Mr Alan LAI in terms of the scope? I might as well explain it to Members here. Before all else, President, private buildings will be included in the scope of inquiry conducted by the select committee we hope to set up. I believe the President must be most familiar with the related matters and aware of the fact that a CoI set up under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance covers only public rental housing (PRH) buildings but not private buildings in its inquiry. This is the first major difference. As for the second one, President, the select committee currently sought by the pan-democratic Members will inquire into the responsibility borne by the contractors. In fact, this point was briefly mentioned


251

by the Chief Executive when he initially indicated that a CoI would be set up under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance. Nevertheless, this issue was apparently omitted from an announcement made on the setting up of the CoI, that is to say, the responsibilities borne by the contractors were not mentioned. This is the second crucial difference. As regards the third difference, the select committee sought by the democratic camp will inquire into whether or not there are problems with the procedures adopted by the Government in selecting and monitoring the main contractors involved in the construction of public housing. I would like to invite the pro-establishment Members to tell me before the casting of votes ― if they have not looked at this matter closely, it is not too late to do so now, as the debate will not be concluded today ― in what areas the CoI established under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance will clarify whether the Government has encountered problems with its procedures of selecting and monitoring the main contractors involved in public housing. (THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair) Fourthly, the select committee sought by the democratic camp will inquire into whether the various related departments have properly discharged their monitoring duties in relation to the incident. As regards the CoI set up under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance and the charge of a Judge and Mr Alan LAI, the Chief Executive has directed in a dedicated paragraph in a letter sent to them that the determination of any criminal or civil liability of any party (whether individual or legal entity) shall be outside the terms of reference of the CoI. Deputy President, just in case your goodself did not hear me, let me emphasize once again that it shall be outside the terms of reference of the CoI. On the contrary, we wish to inquire into this area. Just now, a Member said that even after reading Cap. 86, he still could not see how the select committee set up by the Legislative Council under the P&P Ordinance could impose punishment. He was playing around with concepts, for imposing punishment and identifying or clarifying responsibility are two completely different concepts. Is it because the pro-establishment Members have too many contacts with LEUNG Chun-ying that they are badly influenced by him? Not only do they employ "hypocritical rhetoric", but they also play around with concepts. It is not going to work. Perhaps I can accept that


Members are not allowed to impose punishment. How can I determine the responsibilities of the Director of Water Supplies or deduct three months' salary of his? Although I do not have the power to do so, why can I not seek clarification of his responsibility? Perhaps the Deputy President is also well versed with our Public Accounts Committee, which is a standing committee of the Legislative Council. Each time when a public hearing is conducted under the P&P Ordinance on reports submitted by the Director of Audit, we will seek clarification of responsibility. There is no need for me to elaborate on this point as it is pretty obvious. Certainly, the pro-establishment Members may get the Government a piece of cloth to cover up its shortcomings, but they should find a nicer one. They should not present the matter in contradiction to the facts, thinking that they have an excuse by playing around with concepts. Should the pro-government Members wish to wear a helmet, would they please choose a nicer one. Deputy President, it is crucial to identify responsibility. The Chief Secretary has repeatedly stated that it is a question of awareness, but I actually have no idea of what she means. For a PRH resident who has been poisoned by lead, all persons involved in the water supplies chain and have a role to play in making him drink the "life-prolonging" water, certainly including the main contractor, the staff of the Water Supplies Department, the HD staff who have failed to examine heavy metal during their acceptance of buildings, welders and suppliers of soldering materials, must be held accountable. Assuming 10 persons are to be held accountable, should the poisoned resident take his or her case to court, the Judge will clarify the responsibility of each of the 10 respondents and point out their respective share of responsibility. I agree that the Chief Secretary is right. In other words, if it is specified in the Government's principal contracts that the water pipes supplied by the main contractor must be free of lead, then the remaining nine persons may pass the buck to the contractor, even though they have been ruled by the Court that they should bear different degrees of responsibility. It is right to do so. However, in the face of the poisoned residents, the authorities should be accountable to all of them. What does awareness mean? Can it be used as an excuse for not being held accountable? In fact, its remarks have clearly shown that the Government is seeking to evade responsibility. How can we, being Members of the Legislative Council who have to listen to Hong Kong people, allow such


253

things to happen? Who would have known that the faces of colleagues from the pro-establishment camp will not turn red and their ears will not feel hot when delivering their speeches, as they think that they have every justification in opposing inquiries to be conducted by the Legislative Council. Can we have another interpretation apart from an attempt to conceal the Government's responsibility? Actually, their excuses sound annoying without an interpretation for Hong Kong people because they could really say anything and make rash comments. Deputy President, the Civic Party supports the motions proposed by Mr Gary FAN in his personal capacity and Ms Cyd HO on behalf of the 26 pan-democratic Members to set up a select committee under the P&P Ordinance, because it is the bounden duty of the Legislative Council to clarify responsibility and do justice to the affected members of the public. Moreover, it is obliged for Members of the Legislative Council to do so as they must listen to Hong Kong people. I so submit. MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, "no livelihood issue is too trivial". A problem with drinking water is of even greater importance. But the recent performance of the Government is disappointing. The Water Supplies Department (WSD), the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) and the Government have respectively set up a task force, the Review Committee on Quality Assurance Issues Relating to Fresh Water Supply of Public Housing Estates and the Commission of Inquiry into Excess Lead Found in Drinking Water to investigate the incident. But it seems redundant to set up three committees for one single issue and this has aroused suspicion that the purpose is to divert attention. Last Thursday Chief Secretary Carrie LAM remarked in the meeting of the House Committee that the Government will adopt the principles of being "open and transparent" and "people-oriented", and "conducting an investigation in a comprehensive and thorough manner" for the investigation on the lead in drinking water incident. I think the work of the three committees is not in line with these principles. Since the three committees were established, there has been no way for the public to access the minutes of meetings and to find out about their modus operandi and investigation methods. Two of the three committees have submitted reports which are more or less the same, giving the impression that their investigation was carried out selectively. They worked behind closed


doors to such an extent ― maybe we have not yet read the final reports ― but up till today, how can it be considered "open and transparent"? The three committees worked separately and released repetitive and confusing information. They even procrastinated on conducting water testing for all kindergartens in Hong Kong as a priority and introduced a scheme only after the Democratic Party had repeatedly pushed for it. They could not handle even the most urgent water testing efficiently and took actions only after much nudging and pleading. How can this be "people-oriented"? The most important purpose of setting up the three committees, apart from tracing the source of lead contamination and working out solutions, is to pursue responsibility and give an account of all the facts to the public. However, the committees have limited powers and responsibilities, thus rendering it difficult for them to hold public officers accountable and identify the responsibilities of government departments and contractors. Chief Secretary Carrie LAM even said that there have been inadequacies in the system and no civil servant would need to take any responsibility. The investigation is not completed yet and the Secretary has already concluded that the flaws in the system are to be blamed. Given the limited powers and responsibilities of the committees, how can they "conduct an investigation in a comprehensive and thorough manner"? Responding to the remarks made by the Chief Secretary Carrie LAM that "there have been inadequacies in the system and no public servant would need to take any responsibility", I consider these remarks utterly irresponsible. Laws and systems can change with time. Various ordinances in Hong Kong are subject to amendment from time to time, and indeed the Government has to be held responsible for not amending the laws. In the recent decade, European and American countries have enacted legislation for safety of drinking water. Yet, the Waterworks Ordinance in Hong Kong still follows the British standards established 24 years ago in 1991. The Government cannot just shift the blame to the flaws in the system. Instead, I think at least some public officers are devoid of an enterprising spirit, refuse to change and lack a sense of crisis while failing to keep abreast of the current circumstances. They cannot discern the changes of time and propose timely amendments to legislation. Such being the case, the system will never be comprehensive and how can it respond to public aspirations?


255

According to the report prepared by one of the committees, namely, the task force under the WSD ― here I have a copy of the PowerPoint slides of the report ― the public housing estates found to have lead-contaminated drinking water were all built after 2005, whereas in those estates built before 2005, the drinking water has not been found to contain any lead because at the time of their construction, the water pipes were connected by fittings. I think there is a need to find out why the previous method is not used and instead pipes are connected by soldering. Under the premise of ensuring the safety of citizens, we welcome that the water pipes be connected by fittings in all housing construction projects. But before switching to a new method, the HA has the responsibility to conduct risk assessments. This is like people purchasing new mobile phones, as they will not ignore news about handsets produced by a neighbouring economic power having exploded, and what is more, they will evaluate the performance of different brands and models as well as the users' comments before making a purchase. Even citizens will have such considerations for buying mobile phones. When the Government considers such important issues as housing construction and safety of drinking water, should it not carry out even more meticulous assessment? Meanwhile, I wonder if the cost of pipe connection by soldering is lower than that of connecting water pipes by fittings. In this connection, I request the HA and the contractors to make public the accounts and tell us the proportion of pipe connection in the entire public housing construction projects and the cost difference between connection by fittings and connection by soldering, in order to examine if the HA or the contractors abandoned the conventional connection method to achieve cost saving. But according to the statement made by the Chief Secretary last week, such a possibility seemed to have been ruled out. And the contractors said that ― I am not sure if the Chief Secretary accepts this reason ― each tender usually involves over a billion dollars and they will not connect water pipes by soldering for the reason of saving just a little amount in the cost as the loss they have suffered this time is far greater than the cost they could save. Then, what are the reasons for changing the connection method? Is it for cost saving? Of course, the remarks made by the Chief Secretary last week seemed to have excluded such a possibility. Is it inevitable for the contractors to use pre-fabricated fittings manufactured in the Mainland? What is important is whether the products are up to standard regardless of the country of origin. Take the manufacturing of toys as an example. Toys on sale in Hong Kong must, according to the Toys


and Children's Products Safety Ordinance, meet the standards of EN71 and ASTM F963 for them to be safe for children. Apart from the above standards, buyers will arrange for their quality inspectors to examine the toys before shipment by the manufacturers, with a view to ensuring that the toys are safe to be put on sale in the market. The production of safe toys is absolutely no child's play, let alone water pipe fittings. The Democratic Party discovered that in Lei Tung Estate and Yue On Court, water in individual units was found to contain lead because their pipes had been replaced before. It shows that water pipes connected by soldering materials may contain lead. Chief Secretary, simply put, the current problem is not only confined to such a narrow scope currently under investigation, because there is also this problem when people buy materials from the market and replace the pipes by themselves. There has not been a sound system to regulate water pipes or fittings available on sale in the market. The WSD can hardly absolve itself of the blame for the lack of regulation of water pipe fittings. A lot of buildings will be completed in the future, and Wah Fu Estate will possibly be redeveloped. As regards how to ensure that drinking water is "lead-free", I think the Waterworks Ordinance has to be amended first, in order to formulate afresh the standards of materials used for drinking water. The WSD can consider banning the import of water pipe fittings and soldering materials containing lead by making reference to section 80 of the Air Pollution Control Ordinance enacted in the 90s by the Environmental Protection Department for banning the supply and import of asbestos, as well as compiling a register of suppliers of materials used for drinking water to provide information to the industry and the public such that all sectors in the community can look for suppliers from this register. Deputy President, it is not difficult to find a solution. But the focus of our discussion today is to set up a select committee to identify the source of lead in drinking water at the present stage and then pursue responsibilities. As I have said just now, the Government has already set up three committees to investigate the incident on the technical front. As regards whether the procedures for selection and regulation of main contractors of public housing projects were in order, whether all relevant government departments had properly performed their monitoring duties in this incident and other related matters, these three committees do not have the powers to conduct in-depth investigation. In a nutshell, the focus is to ensure accountability. To achieve the principles of being "open and transparent" and "people-oriented", and "conducting an investigation in a comprehensive and thorough manner" stated by Chief Secretary Carrie LAM, the only way is to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and


257

Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to set up a select committee. We have no time to waste but if we are to do so, with the concerted efforts of Members and the support of the pro-establishment camp, we can commence work as soon as possible and it is not at all impossible that it cannot be completed within this year or 10 months. It is deeply regrettable that Members from the pro-establishment camp would vote down on the invocation of the P&P Ordinance to investigate the lead in drinking water incident. They did not bother to distinguish right from wrong in order to support the Government. It is bizarre that just now some Members said that we have taken advantage of the lead in drinking water incident. Honestly, how have we taken advantage of it? It is impossible to take advantage of it. If they support our proposal, we can work in concert to carry out the investigation. So how can we take advantage of it? But they do not support our proposal. Why? Because the focus is to ensure accountability. And just as I have explained, the three committees cannot achieve the objective of ensuring accountability. By invoking the P&P Ordinance to investigate the incident, the powers of the select committee to be set up will override those of these three committees. Therefore, setting up a select committee to conduct an inquiry will allow the public to observe the hearings and the release of accurate information. It will enable urgent issues to be handled swiftly and more in-depth investigation can be conducted. To the public, it is far more reliable than the three committees. Deputy President, our focus is not to find out the source of lead in drinking water, for this is more of a technical task which should be the job of experts. What we are talking about now is the entire system. The focus of the inquiry is on the system and accountability. Sadly though, at the meeting of the House Committee last week, the pro-establishment Members voted down this motion proposed by the Deputy Chairman of the House Committee on behalf of the House Committee. In other words, I believe the majority of the pro-establishment Members will vote down this motion today. It is indeed a pity that this happened shortly after the resumption of the Legislative Council, thus making it impossible for us to address people's pressing needs. Lead poisoning has a long history both in the East and the West. In ancient China, many emperors liked to practise alchemy for pursuing perpetual rejuvenation. Qin Shi Huang allegedly died of lead poisoning after taking


medicine which claimed to have the effect of attaining longevity. Emperor Guang Zong, ZHU Changluo, in the Ming Dynasty suffered from lead poisoning after taking the "red pills" and suddenly died after reigning for only 29 days. Emperor Yongzheng had a passion for concocting immortality pills and died at 56 years of age of poisoning, which was very likely related to lead poisoning. According to the website of the Department of Health, lead can enter the human body by ingestion, inhalation and skin absorption. When lead is absorbed into the body in excessive amount, it is toxic to many organs and systems. Under prolonged exposure, chronic lead poisoning can cause anaemia, arthralgia and muscle pain, as well as brain and renal impairment. Children are more prone to the damaging effects of lead poisoning. Common symptoms include learning difficulties, abnormal behaviours and disorder in intellectual development. History and science both show us the scourges brought by lead, which can cause organ impairment in minor cases and death in severe cases. No one can ever extend his life by consuming lead. It is the wish of the public to thoroughly investigate the lead in drinking water incident. The task force under the WSD, the Review Committee on Quality Assurance Issues Relating to Fresh Water Supply of Public Housing Estates set up by the HA, and the Commission of Inquiry into Excess Lead Found in Drinking Water do not have the power to conduct more in-depth investigation, for they can only investigate or report on technical issues. Only by invoking the P&P Ordinance to set up a select committee can we investigate into whether the Government and public officers were derelict in their duties. Therefore, we plead for your due consideration, so as to uncover the truth to the public and bring justice to those affected by lead contamination. Deputy President, we support the motion proposed by Ms Cyd HO and hope all of you support setting up a select committee. MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, before all else, I have to declare that I was appointed as a member of the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) in April 2015, I have also participated in the Review Committee on Quality Assurance Issues Relating to Fresh Water Supply of Public Housing Estates set up by the HA. Deputy President, the endless supply of drinking water in Hong Kong has laid down the foundation for social development and addressing people's needs.


259

Meanwhile, drinking water is also a low-cost public service, and our water quality fully conforms to the Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality recommended by the World Health Organization. Both the Government and people in various sectors are shocked by the revelation in July of the lead-in-water incident by a member of a political party who was informed of the incident a long time ago. The tainted water has not only compromised the health of the persons affected, but also plunged the public into panic. This prompted private buildings and public rental housing (PRH) tenants to conduct water tests, and the test fees have also doubled within a short period of time. As a result, government departments have introduced a series of remedial measures, including taking immediate steps to provide safe drinking water, conduct blood tests and connect temporary feeding water mains for the affected residents and, in response to the request made by Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions, conduct water tests for PRH estates all over the territory in batches while conducting thorough investigation and pursuing responsibility on various fronts in a solemn manner. Deputy President, I will raise several points to explain why we oppose the setting up of a select committee at the present stage. Firstly, the establishment of another select committee will only slow down efforts to follow up the incident. Deputy President, over the past two months, a Task Force on Investigation of Excessive Lead Content in Drinking Water led by the Water Supplies Department (WSD), a Review Committee on Quality Assurance Issues Relating to Fresh Water Supply of Public Housing Estates set up by the HA, and an independent Committee of Inquiry set up by the Chief Executive under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance and chaired by a High Court Judge have made concerted efforts, with the Task Force and the Review Committee having published preliminary inquiry reports and confirming that the solder joints are to blame. Since the revelation of the lead-in-water incident more than three months ago, various panels have stepped up efforts during the Legislative Council recess, and some of their proposals have already been put into implementation. The additional select committee proposed to be set up by the pan-democratic Members today will, however, not only lead to duplication and redundancy in conducting the inquiry, but also bring the entire inquiry back to square one, thereby dragging the progress of the incident backward and delaying the opportunity for improvement to be made. In fact, I really cannot think of any better reason for a fresh call for the need to set up an additional


select committee to conduct another inquiry when a major investigation has already been completed except a political attempt to make up blunders committed by the Chief Executive and the accountability officials in governance while rallying support for the elections to be held in the future. Secondly, it was pointed out by a colleague just now that the participants of the existing committees are "investigating their peers" behind closed doors. I cannot agree with this. Deputy President, the pan-democratic Members fabricated the facts at the meeting held by the House Committee a couple of days ago as well as in their speeches just now by alleging that the committees are investigating their peers since they are set up by the Government, and all of their participants will try every possible means to downplay major issues, thus failing to perform their function of pursuing accountability. As a result, the Legislative Council should conduct an inquiry on its own. I find such accusations simply untenable and unjustifiable. Not only are these Members using a political pretext to deal a blow to the Government, they are also giving those pan-democratic Members who are also participants of these inquiry panels a slap on the face. In fact, it is impossible for the government officials in these several committees to "investigate their peers" because of the participation of quite a number of professional and independent persons to ensure the fairness and professionalism of the inquiries. For instance, the Task Force set up by the WSD comprises professors from the Department of Chemistry of The Chinese University of Hong Kong and the Department of Mechanical Engineering of the University of Hong Kong, as well as academics. The Review Committee set up by the HA, of which I am a member, is also participated by my two pan-democratic colleagues, Mr Dennis KWOK and Prof Joseph LEE. I truly believe these two colleagues are definitely not the type of persons who is willing to downplay major issues. However, the queries raised by the pan-democratic Members and their calls for the setting up of another select committee are actually akin to denying the efforts made by Mr Dennis KWOK and Prof Joseph LEE. The independent Commission of Inquiry appointed by the Chief Executive is even chaired by Mr Justice Andrew CHAN, Judge of the Court of First Instance of the High Court, and the entire inquiry is conducted under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance in full compliance with the law. Do the pan-democratic Members not believe in the Judge? If that is really the case, I believe the pan-democratic Member who has been dominating the Legal Functional Constituency should take follow-up actions.


261

As far as I can remember, the Review Committee under the HA has continuously held meetings during the summer recess to meet with various stakeholders and conduct site inspections just to prevent and ameliorate the lead-in-water problems. However, these motions proposed by the pan-democratic Members seek to negate all the efforts made, as if they think that they are the only ones who are capable of accomplishing the task. I think they have done a great disservice to these professionals, department representatives and Members who have been working painstakingly. I hope the colleagues from the pan-democratic camp can explain clearly: On what ground do they believe a fresh inquiry will be better than the ones being conducted now? Thirdly, the scope of the inquiries being conducted now has already covered the responsibility of the department concerned. Even if heads have been rolled, the issue will still not be resolved. Deputy President, the colleagues from the pan-democratic camp has sought to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to conduct an inquiry owing to the existing committees' failure to pursue the question of responsibility, particularly whether or not the departments are in dereliction of their duty. Their purpose is simply to create an atmosphere of failure in governance until some government officials have their heads rolled. Since they heard the Chief Secretary say last week that no civil servant should be held accountable personally, they had been making an issue of the matter. In fact, we understood during the course of investigation that the acceptance inspection regime of the WSD and the Housing Department (HD) had been put in place for a long time, only that the buried "bomb" happened to explode at that point. If the incumbent civil servants are made to bear all of the responsibilities, a culture of "putting the blame on someone" will take shape. In fact, the existing three committees have already conducted in-depth inquiries into the incident and identify its causes. Chief Secretary Carrie LAM has also undertaken to conduct a comprehensive inquiry to pursue the incident, so the question of responsibility can definitely be pursued. We clearly see from the existing information that the contractors must bear the biggest responsibility because of their breach of the Waterworks Ordinance and the agreements signed with the HD by using leaded soldering material. Obviously, the blame has been put on them for the filters, replacement of pipes and even civil claims. They can simply not evade their responsibility. Although the Review Committee set up under the HA has named and criticized in its interim report the WSD and the HD


for their improper supervision, we have not seen any report attributing the lead content in drinking water to personal misconduct. During the course of investigation, we had met with the Construction Industry Council and the Hong Kong Construction Industry Employees General Union in the construction sector. We also found out workers receiving apprentice training only knew that the only basic requirement of the examination was to ensure that the water supply chains were leak-proof, so they would struggle to fulfil this requirement. Among the numerous areas, however, the passing rate of meeting this requirement turned out to be the lowest because of its extremely high standard. As such, we cannot possibly hold these front-line workers accountable for the lead-in-water incident. Likewise, the inconspicuous soldering material was not included in the acceptance forms used by the WSD and the HD in the past. So, these two departments would actually be made to suffer by sheer misfortune should they be held accountable for the loopholes in the old system. In my opinion, the more in-depth the inquiries are conducted, the more convinced we are that the regulatory problem encountered by the construction sector as a whole, particularly the multi-layered sub-contracting system, is to blame for the lead-in-water incident. The big row stirred up as a result of the lead-in-water incident was actually caused by the inconspicuous soldering, rather than negligence on the part of government officials or bribery, as expected by the pan-democratic Members. Certainly, the three inquiry committees will continue to conduct inquiries. If further information involving misconduct or negligence of duty is found, the persons concerned will definitely not be spared. However, if the P&P Ordinance is invoked just because no one is "condemned", thereby putting the blame on an individual or a group of civil servants, I believe the whole Civil Service will not approve of the culture of putting the blame on someone, as advocated by the pan-democrats. Fourthly, the work mentioned in the motion has already been included in the existing inquiries. Deputy President, the three existing committees have actually dealt with the contents of inquiry sought by the two motions, including the cause(s) of the incident, the contractors' responsibilities, the problematic monitoring procedures, and whether or not negligence of duty is involved. There is simply no need for an additional select committee to be set up. For instance, the inquiry conducted by the WSD pinpoints the source of lead and the making of recommendations. Meanwhile, the inquiry conducted by the HA


263

pinpoints the quality inspection of the drinking water supply installation and the monitoring system. Finally, the independent Commission of Inquiry will make a comprehensive evaluation of the cause(s) and the existing regulatory system of drinking water, including the delineation of responsibilities. Given that their terms of reference are similar, why should the Legislative Council make an unnecessary move by interfering in the process of inquiry? Deputy President, as representatives of public opinion, Legislative Council Members should pursue the question of responsibility as a matter of course. However, we must look at the facts closely rather than acting on pure imagination. Meanwhile, we must resolve problems for the public and carry out remedial work properly, thereby enabling the affected people to restore a normal life expeditiously. Obviously, "putting the blame on someone" will not help the persons affected restore a normal life expeditiously. The motion proposed by the pan-democrat this time around merely seeks to invoke the P&P Ordinance to achieve his political end, promote the culture of "putting the blame on someone", deal a blow to the governance of the Government, or rally support for the upcoming election, thereby achieving the political effect of "harbouring an ulterior motive". People with a clear mind should not look on with folded arms. I hope Members can see clearly that the motion proposed today will politicize a livelihood-related incident indefinitely. This approach is not consistent with the public's reasonable expectation for this Council. Nor can the problem be resolved in a pragmatic manner. In particular, I hope pan-democratic Members who have participated in the inquiries and reviews can share our work in the committees. Were the painstaking efforts made by us in attending meetings during the summer recess completely futile, so much so that a select committee as proposed by the pan-democratic Members has to be set up before an inquiry can be conducted? I hope the two Members can give us a response. As such, based on the aforesaid reasons, I disapprove of the setting up at this stage of a select committee which will slow down the action to follow up the incident. Deputy President, I would also like to make an additional point here. Just now, a colleague mentioned the suggestion of passing the buck to workers. Actually, Mr CHOW Luen-kiu, the workers' representative of the Hong Kong Construction Industry Employees General Union, and other colleagues in the industry have pointed out that many families members of the construction workers, including their friends and relatives, are PRH tenants. Hence, they will absolutely not break the rules with the relevant knowledge, thereby jeopardizing


the health or lives of their family members or friends and relatives. As such, such remarks are entirely untenable. On the contrary, we have seen some professionals failing to fulfil their professional responsibility, thereby leading to the occurrence of this incident and affecting quite a number of families. As such, I hope that Members can make concerted efforts in enabling the various committees to carry out their inquiries properly and respect the efforts made by members of these three committees. With these remarks, I oppose the motion. Thank you, Deputy President. DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I speak in support of Mr Gary FAN and Ms Cyd HO. I hope their motions will be passed today, so that a select committee will be set up under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to inquire into the incident of lead in drinking water. Deputy President, having listened to Members' speeches for half a day, I tried very hard to collate the reasons of the pro-government colleagues in the Legislative Council for opposing these motions. For example, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok or Mr KWOK Wai-keung both said earlier that they do not agree to setting up a select committee rashly at the present stage to probe into the truth and identify who should be held responsible. While we heard them say that they disagreed with it at the present stage, at what stage will they agree to it then? Why did they say the first half but not the second half? This is so unfair. They are like saying that at the present stage, you had better not get me involved and I will not let you do it either, or I have no idea about what to do or how to do it, or I do not have the guts to do it or I have been asked not to do it and so, you should also refrain from doing it for the time being. Then, what do they mean by "the present stage"? If they do not tell us clearly under what conditions or circumstances and based on what facts the pro-government colleagues may support the need for an inquiry … Please also tell us the latter half. If you say only the first half but not the latter half, you are like saying, "I do not like you to do it; nor do I agree to your doing it, but I may change my mind later and agree to it and so, do not say that I am defending the Government because I am not." This is a bad-loser approach. Some Members said that we proposed these motions with an ill intent of dealing a further blow to the governance credibility of the LEUNG Chun-ying


265

Administration and his ruling team. When there is such a lame and frail ruling team with such weak governance credibility, there will be these overwhelming royalist pro-establishment Members embracing and defending them. But is that a reason? Governance credibility is not what we can destroy and topple by invoking the P&P Ordinance to conduct an inquiry, is it? From the opinion poll results published weekly or from time to time, this is there for all to see and the facts are all in front of our eyes, so what is the point of making these remarks? The Government itself is bad; it has performed poorly, and it is weak. To identify inadequacies and make improvement through an inquiry focusing on the system and the awareness or knowledge … as Chief Secretary Carrie LAM remarked that there were inadequacies in awareness and the system, we should look into how inadequate they are, so as to find out the truth and who should be held responsible. Insofar as the role and expectation are concerned, obviously the Government is not up to standard in this incident of lead in drinking water. This incident of lead in water should not have happened in Hong Kong but it did happen. This is a scandal. In the beginning people were uncertain about what happened; some people also made direct denials, and some cited discrepancies in water sampling and testing methods to challenge some of the findings on excessive lead in water samples taken at an early stage. Of course, some Members have repeatedly questioned whether some people aimed to amass political capital, grab votes, cause panic, and make fabrications, or an even more outrageous accusation is to say that the incident was first covered up on purpose and brought to light only at an appropriate time. In this Chamber today when this incident is debated, we should discuss it most solemnly and seriously, not with grins and grimaces, and Members must not go so far only to defend the Government, just as several Members did when giving their speeches just now. When we conduct research or investigation, we often ask questions. Since the Government or the Chief Secretary have admitted inadequacies in the system and in knowledge, we will certainly ask which aspect of the system or which area of knowledge is inadequate, or who and which departments they are referring to, or which parts of the work process in the entire construction industry are, in their view, inadequate. Then, we will certainly ask about responsibilities. Responsibilities, of course, include political responsibilities, executive responsibilities, or others, which may be business or contractual responsibilities. All these are what we need to know, and only in this way can we see a serious attitude and sincerity.


Therefore, I absolutely do not accept a remark made by Chief Secretary earlier in response to Members who proposed the motions. She said that they felt helpless about this debate today. I think they should not feel helpless, though this may be an expression of their feeling as they may think to themselves: What am I sitting here for? Why should our time be wasted when the motions obviously will not be passed? We have so much work to do and so many issues to follow up, and we do not handle only the incident of lead in drinking water, so please let us do our other jobs. However, the entire process of accountability requires us to find out the truth regarding water safety, public health and why the incident happened when it should not have happened. Through this process, we must lay bare before the eyes of the public all these details, and this is also a very important part of the constitutional duty of this Council, while the Government should know, understand and respect the relationship of mutual checks and balance between the executive and the legislature. They should not be feeling helpless, but they should be positive; they should be receptive, and they should be happy to see this. But much to our regret, they have not reacted this way. Some officials said outside this Chamber, "I have no idea about what to do; this is so annoying and a waste of time". This is what they said, and seeing these officials acting in such a way and making a monthly income of more than $300,000, I would say that they are indeed a waste of taxpayers' resources. Being a taxpayer myself, I do feel helpless. If they take this attitude towards their job, how can they command trust from the people? Do you think we need to do these things to destroy your credibility? The entire Government has destroyed its own foundation by itself long before. Deputy President, some pro-establishment colleagues have recently been cheeky and playful to the extent that Mr NG Leung-sing, for instance, put a question in a reverse way, asking whether drinking water that contains lead can improve one's health or extend one's life. These pro-government Members are indeed going too far. Their clown-like behaviours and irresponsible remarks are unacceptable to us and warrant rebuttals by the Government. It is true that several committees have been set up, but it does not mean that the legislature itself should not set up an independent select committee to follow up this incident. On hearing the word "committee", Members may say that three committees have been set up and setting up an additional committee will increase the number to four, which they think is redundant and a waste of public coffers. Some pro-establishment Members have distributed on the street pamphlets promoting these views too. They have distributed these pamphlets everywhere,


267

telling the residents that it is a waste of time to set up a select committee, that the pan-democratic Members are trouble-makers who are not serious about their job. I think this is a most despicable thing to do with the aim of muckraking. It is extremely normal for different committees to have different functions, duties, emphases and directions, and there may not necessarily be any conflict in nature. If the facts are facts, they remain to be facts even though they are repeated for 100 times. They can also come to the Legislative Council to give an account of the same set of facts for public information and reference. Some Members said that they had a hard time as they had to attend meetings throughout summer. They hope that we can understand their good intention. They said that they had done such a lot of work but they have now become targets of muckraking. This is not what a responsible Member of the Legislative Council should say. Members have heard the remarks made by Mr KWOK Wai-keung just now. He was almost saying, "I have done so much work, so why do you not show your appreciation for me? Why do you not give me an applause as encouragement? It is fine if you do not give me an applause, but at least you should not have done this." This most peculiar attitude which is close to childish and naive should not be the attitude taken to handle the problem of lead in water, which is a solemn issue relating to the water safety of Hong Kong people. Three committees have been set up, which include the Task Force under the WSD, and their experts have also pointed out the reason for excessive lead in water in Kai Ching Estate and Kwai Luen Estate and put forward enhancement proposals. However, its terms of reference do not include determining the responsibilities for this incident. Members may have their own judgment. For example, a Member has jumped to a conclusion in one go, saying that this is correct because no government department should be held responsible, and there should be no finger-pointing and no one should be made to bear the brunt or step down, but then he made a volte face and said that somebody definitely has to be held responsible and somebody definitely has to step down. What are they trying to say? They drew a conclusion by themselves and then tried to find ways to spare themselves the need to do so many things, but they told us that this is the conclusion. How interesting this is. Are they writing a novel? Are they telling a bed-time story to us? I think this attitude should not be adopted towards this scandalous incident of lead in drinking water which is of great concern to the entire community and which should not have happened in the first place.


The Review Committee set up by the HA, members of which include my party comrade, Mr Dennis KWOK, has published an interim report recently. There will be a motion debate on water safety later at this meeting. When Dr KWOK Ka-ki proposes the motion, I will have the opportunity to once again go through with Members this interim report which I have already read. Even though some pro-establishment Members also sit on this Review Committee, they may not have read too clearly the details, and some of the remarks that he made just now are, in fact, biased, and despite that he is a member of the Review Committee or had taken part in the work of the Review Committee during summer, his remarks seem to show that he does not understand too well certain problems revealed in the interim report of the Review Committee. The commission of inquiry set up by the Chief Executive under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance does not have the duty to identify responsibilities either. Although the Government told the public not to worry because the inquiry, when completed, will definitely find out the truth and identify persons to be held responsible, adding that actions will be taken, in view of these vows which are all determined by the Government itself, why, at the level of the legislature, do the pan-democratic Members propose the setting up of a select committee? It is precisely because we are worried that the Government will renege on its promise in the course of investigation. This is why we wish to see solemn investigation, so that we can conduct an inquiry and take follow-up actions with the series of powers conferred by the P&P Ordinance. This is a way for the legislature to exercise checks on the executive, and together with the series of investigation work carried out by the other committees, we can achieve a synergy effect and complement each other's efforts. Therefore, I think even though three committees have been established to conduct investigation from different angles and in different directions, the setting up of a select committee by the Legislative Council with powers conferred by the P&P Ordinance can actually fill up what is left blank by the three committees as I have just explained. From this angle, such arguments as having too many committees or being redundant and wasteful of public coffers actually do not hold water, for they are made only in an attempt to distort the nature and the actual meaning of this debate and to mislead the public. Deputy President, over a period of time in the past, I have, in various communities, including private buildings and PRH estates, provided assistance in following up the incident of lead in drinking water and carrying out water


269

sampling and testing for the affected residents who were concerned about water safety, and when some kindergartens and schools turned to us for assistance, we performed our roles and did our utmost to help them. Therefore, actually it is not true that we care only to play with politics to the neglect of the people's livelihood as alleged by the pro-establishment Members. These political gimmicks of distortion, muckraking and labelling have been used over and over again. I wish to ask Hong Kong citizens this: Who are the people actually resorting to the art of hypocritical rhetoric, political labelling and muckraking in an attempt to absolve themselves from this important constitutional duty or function of accountability with various outrageous, substandard, and inferior reasons? Why does the Government not take a positive, proactive and serious attitude towards this debate but feel helpless about it instead? Regarding the standard and quality of governance of Hong Kong, how much poorer can they be? No doubt this debate today is conducted only for the sake of debate, because it is certain that the pan-democratic colleagues ultimately will not obtain sufficient votes to endorse the setting up of a select committee. But could it be that Hong Kong people have resigned to fate to such an extent, like players in a ball game knowing that they will definitely lose the game and choosing not to take the field and even giving way to their rivals? Certainly not. We will continue to act positively and be accountable to the public in a responsible manner. This is also our constitutional spirit, and a sacred duty of us as directly-elected Members. With these remarks, I support the motions on setting up a select committee under the P&P Ordinance proposed by the two Members. Thank you, Deputy President. MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I speak in support of Ms Cyd HO's motion proposed on behalf of the pan-democrats meeting which seeks to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to inquire into the incident of lead in drinking water. The Chief Secretary for Administration said earlier that she felt helpless in the face of these motions. I think, however, it should be the people of Hong Kong who feel most helpless. They are really helpless. For residents living in


the housing estates and public housing blocks completed after 2005, they have been drinking such water since the time they moved in. I wonder how many years they have been drinking such water. Members may do some calculation. From 2005 up to now, the residents concerned have drunk such water for a decade, or 10 years. They are just feeling helpless, aren't they? They are indeed helpless as they have no choice but to drink leaded water for 10 years. They are feeling extremely helpless as the blood lead tests indicate that some pregnant women and children are affected by the lead in drinking water, and nine children have been found to develop signs of developmental delays. (THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair) When it comes to helplessness, I urge Members to think about how helpless this vulnerable group of people may feel. I think it is really ridiculous for the Government to confess a feeling of helplessness. If the Government in power says that it feels helpless, what will it be for those vulnerable people who have been left no choice but to drink leaded water for 10 years? Today, these vulnerable people probably have to say once again: they feel helpless when the legislature behaves like that. They hope that the legislature will invoke the P&P Ordinance to investigate the incident, but the relevant motions are doomed to be vetoed, which can be known from the speeches made by Members earlier. So, once again, the public will be left helpless. They cannot but only wait and count on their luck, hoping the situation will not deteriorate further. To pursue responsibility for the incident is something out of the question. The public are left in such a state of helplessness. As serious as the issues of drinking leaded water and lead poisoning may be, the Legislative Council may conclude at the end that an inquiry is uncalled for and the investigations initiated by the Government will be sufficient ― those investigations conducted by the three committees set up by the Government should already suffice. This is the current mindset and stance of the pro-establishment camp in the Legislative Council. President, you have heard the reasons they stated repeatedly. Whenever it comes to invoking the P&P Ordinance, they will repeat those few reasons. Certainly, the President may say that our camp is also repeating the few reasons for invoking the P&P Ordinance. No matter how, we note that when talking about invoking the P&P Ordinance, they can only cite a few simple reasons. Today, they can only give these few


271

reasons, which they have put forth on similar occasions in the past. First, the Legislative Council should not use this "imperial sword" indiscriminately. Second, Members should not politicize a people's livelihood issue. They even say that we are "taking advantage" of the incident of lead in drinking water this time around. Third, we should not conduct a duplicated investigation, which is wasteful of resources. Fourth, it is not helpful to "pin the blame" on someone. Over the years, they have only been able to put forward these reasons. Yet, it all boils down to one single reason, that is, all political parties in the pro-establishment camp, namely the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions and the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong, are in the "Let-it-go Party". No matter what mistakes the Government has made, they will just "let it go", and their most important mission is to "let it go". They are the best partner of the Government. Carrie LAM is the team captain of the cleaning team and they are the ambassadors. When any scandals about the Government are uncovered, they will sweep things under the carpet by all means. No matter what kinds of rubbish are involved, they will simply sweep them all under the carpet and cover them well. This is the current approach of political parties in the pro-establishment camp, that is, the "Let-it-go Party". Even in this serious case of lead poisoning, they are adhering to this approach. Mr Martin LIAO is a relatively fair person. Earlier on, he said that it is shocking that such a scandal has occurred in this cosmopolitan city, yet he eventually concluded that an investigation by this Council was unnecessary for the time being and we should wait and see. He is relatively fair indeed. Others have simply paid little regard to the incident at issue. They say that the Government has already implemented comprehensive remedial measures, so the public need not worry, and that they are now working with the Government to rectify the situation. They consider that remedial measures should be placed at the top of the agenda. They even urge Members not to pursue the issue and not to "pin the blame" by picking on someone for accountability. As they see it, pursing accountability is tantamount to "taking advantage" or politicization. That is the logic of the pro-government camp and the "Let-it-go Party". In fact, I really want to discuss with each of them what they mean by using the "imperial sword" discriminately. In fact, it is fortunate that the Legislative Council has this "imperial sword", for it can serve certain functions even if we have not used it. Why has the Government set up so many investigation committees now? Why has it decided to set up an independent Commission of


Inquiry chaired by a Judge? Frankly speaking, it is because the authorities know that if they do nothing, the Legislative Council will have full justification to invoke the P&P Ordinance to set up an investigation committee. It is for this reason that the authorities have set up these committees to pre-empt the Legislative Council's invoking of the P&P Ordinance, the "imperial sword". So, this "imperial sword" is most important. However, if not used in the event of any major incident, this "imperial sword" will rust. If the Government clearly see that we have buried this "imperial sword" deep below a huge iceberg and will never use it, and if the Government fully know that we dare not use it, or the "Let-it-go Party" will help the Government and let it go, the "imperial sword" will gradually be reduced to nothing at the end of the day. The "imperial sword" is highly important in serving the function of monitoring the Government. But if we never use the sword, putting it aside on every occasion, the rusted "imperial sword" will only be left idle. Besides, there is no question of using it discriminately. Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok said earlier that it was unreasonable and inappropriate to use it this way. He stated three principles on which he adopted to decide whether the use of the "imperial sword" is reasonable and appropriate. First, whether the incident involves significant public interest ― the current incident is of great importance and I believe no one dare to say that no public interest is involved. Second, whether the investigation is necessary ― I believe it is necessary. Third, the investigation cannot be carried out through normal channel ― perhaps he considers the use of the "imperial sword" unnecessary and inappropriate based on this principle, for he considers the three existing investigation committees can already serve this purpose. However, in my view, even though the three committees have proceeded with their investigations, they are not mandated and hence will not seek to investigate the circumstances of private housing estates, as a number of colleagues have mentioned earlier. Moreover, there is also the question of who should be held responsible, that is, the issue of accountability, which involves the regime or the system. Here two fronts are involved: one is about the system and the other is about human errors. We need to conduct a thorough investigation on both fronts. What are the problems with the system? What are the human errors involved? These are areas not being covered by the three investigation committees. For these reasons, we consider it essential for the Legislative Council to conduct an inquiry into the circumstances of private housing estates and find out who should be held responsible.


273

Regarding the point raised by Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok that the Legislative Council should conduct an inquiry only when normal procedure cannot apply or is inadequate for any effective investigation, it is obvious now that the normal procedure is simply inadequate for the purpose. However, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok's logic is very simple, that is, he will fully trust the Government as long as it has carried out investigations. In other words, whatever LEUNG Chun-ying has done, everything will be fine and they will surely support him. Given his mentality of supporting the Government, I would say that he has fulfilled his duties as a member of the pro-government camp by adopting a "pro-government" stance and choosing to "let it go" and sweep the problems under the carpet. As a Member from the engineering sector, he should tell engineers honestly that he will protect the Government. Sometimes, when we dispute with Members from the functional constituencies, Mr CHAN Kin-por tends to speak for the functional constituencies. He often says that they are participating in politics in their professional capacities. If that is the case, the present incident should be pursued from a professional perspective. Then why should some professionals have chosen to refrain from getting involved in politics now? There are such professionals in this Council, and one of them is Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok. I would like to ask electors in the engineering functional constituency: Do you think that your representative is bringing shame on you? In such a serious incident involving engineering issues, he is trying to cover up the truth. But on second thought, perhaps many "accomplished" engineers with vested interests may want him to cover up the truth. In that sense, he has fulfilled his responsibility of representing the engineering functional constituency by helping to cover up the truth. The present case is comparable to the Lehman Brothers incident involving the banking sector back then. At that time, David LI had also helped the banking sector to cover up the incident and the banks to shirk their responsibilities. In the incident this time around, is the engineering sector going to do the same? But I trust that electors of the engineering sector will not act this way. They are all righteous at heart. They have every hope that people will respect their profession, while least wishing to see that there would always be a cover-up once problems are uncovered. The second reason for opposition is that they consider some people are politicizing the whole issue and "taking advantage" of the lead-in-water incident. This reason is even more ridiculous. Those who put forward such a reason may hope that the lead-in-water incident should have never happened, as this seems to


be the best scenario after all. However, there may only be two possibilities that the incident of lead in drinking water should have never happened. The first possibility is that no one has uncovered the problem and people continue to drink leaded water. Do they want this to be the case? Do they really want Hong Kong people to continue to be poisoned by leaded water until everyone is poisoned? Do they think that the non-disclosure of such an incident will be the most welcomed scenario? The second possibility is not that the case has not been uncovered, but only that all Members stop discussing the problem at issue upon the disclosure of the incident, as they think any discussion will be regarded as "taking advantage". Have not they "taken advantage" of the incident? They have. They have done it in a greater extent. They have gone all in a rush to do water tests and then announced that the samples of drinking water tested were alright. Regrettably, the Government subsequently said that there were actually problems with the drinking water. In other words, the intended "advantage" has eventually backfired on them. While being a victim of their own act, they should not criticize others for "taking advantage". In fact, Members should refrain from criticizing others for "taking advantage" or doing something, as the incident at issue is of utmost importance to people's livelihood. There is nothing wrong to pursue the responsibility for the incident, right? They say that the incident is being politicized, but if the Legislative Council is not going to discuss political issues, what else should it discuss? They criticize us for politicizing livelihood issues, yet such issues are politics too. Are they saying that politics do not involve people's livelihood? I just do not know what they are talking about. The third reason for opposing the motion is that the proposed inquiry is a duplicated one. They have pointed out that the three committees are now conducting the investigations, so the setting up of a select committee by this Council will be a duplicated effort and wasteful of resources. As I said earlier, they put forth this reason for they do not want to conduct the inquiry. They want to "let it go", and can surely let it go. But we consider it necessary to conduct the inquiry and determine responsibility. If the three committees will not seek to find out who should be held responsible, then there is no question of the proposed inquiry being a duplicated effort. Of course, the Government has indicated that if the findings of the investigations can determine responsibility and accountability, they will follow up by then. Members should still remember another committee led by a Judge, that is, the committee examining whether the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance should be extended to cover the Chief


275

Executive, so that the Chief Executive will not have a transcending status. What is the outcome? The Government has done nothing over the past few years. It has gone back on its words! What is the point of asking the Government to follow up then? Should we trust their words? A lesson should be learnt from history. We know that when the incident have died down, the Government would pretend as if nothing has ever happened. If we do not pursue the incident now, do Members believe that the Government will pursue the issue of responsibility in the future? Certainly, the pro-government camp will believe that anyway as they always believe the Government, regardless of whether they understand the situation. They will "trust" no matter what. The fourth reason they put forth is that "pinning the blame" will not help. However, the remarks made by Mr KWOK Wai-keung earlier on are laughable. In the beginning, he did not say that "pinning the blame" did not help. He said at the start of his speech that it is fully justifiable for Members of the Legislative Council, as the mirror of public opinion, to pursue the issue of responsibility. How can we determine responsibility without identifying who should be held responsible? What should we do? To pursue responsibility does not necessarily mean "pinning the blame" on someone. However, after knowing who should be held responsible, we should then decide whether it is necessary to subject them to disciplinary action. But if we do not determine responsibility, how can we get to know who should be held responsible? So "pinning the blame" is not necessarily the only consequence, and indeed to pursue responsibility is our unshirkable responsibility. If Mr KWOK Wai-keung considers it necessary and reasonable to pursue responsibility, why did he say after going about the bush that we should not "pin the blame", and why did he say it was most important at the time to rectify the situation by implementing follow-up and remedial measures? However, if we do not seek to identify accountability and responsibility as well as the problems with the regime and the system, how can we formulate remedial measures to rectify the situation? President, let me reiterate that the public really feel helpless. Recently, I have met with officials of the Department of Housing (HD) on another issue, and I have discovered another serious problem. The case is concerned with Yau Oi Estate. Our community officer working in the district has found that due to the connection of sewage pipes of flats in the estates, the foul smell giving off in one flat spreads to the other. For instance, when a person uses the toilet in one flat, the foul smell will spread to another flat. This is the problem with the system. The Government says that all the sewage pipes have already been inspected


during the outbreak of SARS. When discussing further with the HD, we get to know another problem which has not been made known for several decades. We have found that certain iron pipes in the housing estates should have been replaced by copper pipes, but the works have not yet been carried out. The HD says that the works will be carried out now, but first it has to find out which housing estates have not carried out the copper pipe replacement works and then make the necessary arrangements accordingly. This incident has been covered up for a dozen of years. After all these years, the HD has not, and still not yet, addressed the problems arising from connection of sewage pipes. If the HD does not want to see more cases like these to be uncovered, it should act expeditiously to deal with the problems. Thank you, President. MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, the purpose of the two motions under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) today is to set up a select committee to inquire into whether government departments and public bodies have properly performed their duties in the lead-in-water incident and make recommendations based on the results of the inquiry. However, while the two motions are about the major concern of all Hong Kong people which is also closely related to every member of the public, sadly, as mentioned by a number of colleagues earlier on, we believe these two motions will meet a similar fate to our proposal to set up a select committee under the P&P Ordinance to inquire into certain matters on 10-odd occasions over the past several years. They cannot be passed today due to opposition from the pro-establishment Members. It does not just concern me. I think this is not only frustrating but also disappointing and regrettable to the general public, just as what Mr LEE Cheuk-yan said. Undoubtedly, the Government stresses that three committees have been set up to conduct an investigation, among which one has identified the causes of the presence of lead in water, pointing out in particular that it was caused by soldering and revealing certain details of the incident. For this reason, a number of Members in this Chamber have asked why the Legislative Council still needs to set up a select committee to conduct an inquiry. Is it redundant and a waste of resources? If not, then it must be intended to take political advantage of the situation.


277

President, whether some people are taking political advantage of the situation is a matter of opinion, and I do not wish to dwell on it here. However, this is not the first time for the pro-establishment camp to level such criticisms at us. We had repeatedly proposed to set up a select committee under the P&P Ordinance before, and they invariably made such remarks every time, criticizing us, the pan-democratic Members, for taking advantage of the situation. President, no matter what, taking advantage of the situation actually has its pros and cons. In the negative sense, if someone attempts to take advantage of the situation, he has to bear the negative results brought about by his own action. He has to bear the consequences and pay a price. However, if taking advantage of the situation brings positive results, then it is a reflection of the general public's approval and recognition for this action. What do such approval and recognition imply? They imply the people's consent. Such consent represents public opinions and sentiments. Then what is the problem with it? If a Member raises some issues which can command public approval, agreement or even support, what is wrong with it? Someone may interpret taking advantage of the situation in the derogatory sense, saying that it all boils down to interests, but what interests are involved? The interests involved are that we can obtain public support and enjoy higher popularity, and a combination of popularity and support indicate that the issue itself has commanded public recognition and attention. If an issue raised by the Legislative Council or its Members can command public support and attention, what is wrong with it? President, maybe let me stop talking about the issue of taking political advantage. I will discuss the inquiry into the lead-in-water incident. First, earlier on at the beginning, the Chief Secretary for Administration mentioned that their colleagues had not only taken no leave, but also done a lot for the lead-in-water issue to address the many needs and aspirations of the affected citizens. She indicated that all public officers and even she herself were more than willing to respond to Members' questions anytime. President, this is no doubt the truth. Many front-line government staff members have really spared no effort and done a lot to address many residents' aspirations and requests in respect of the lead-in-water incident. The public officers concerned have also attended our special meeting during which they responded to some questions raised by us. But President, does it mean that such a major issue has been resolved?


President, as revealed to us by the committee concerned so far, the most important cause for the lead-in-water problem is the presence of lead in the soldering materials. We believe this is undoubtedly the truth, and it is supported by facts. But the question is whether it is the only source. This is the most important point because many news media have revealed that the causes of the presence of lead in water are not just related to problems with soldering. Other parts or fittings also contain lead, thus resulting in an extremely high level of lead in water. Hence, we have pointed out that the problem is not simply related to soldering. Other possibilities do exist, and if we do not look into them, we will not be able to find out the real answer. However, if an inquiry is really conducted, the Government may be worried that the incident will unveil more deceptive acts. Therefore, the Government deliberately produced news to divert public attention at the outset, passing the buck of the lead-in-water problem to those responsible for the connection works sent by the plumbing works contractors, including the plumber, LAM Tak-sum. As we all know, while this incident has aroused the concern of the whole community, it is unbelievable that the authorities identified LAM Tak-sum as the person to be held responsible and even publicized it widely at the very beginning. But is it really the truth? President, the Government has not just done this to get the ball rolling. Next, it has also continuously maintained a uniform set of lines-to-take. What are these lines-to-take? They claim that the incident is actually attributed to inadequate awareness about the problem of lead. President, it is not only a claim made by the public officers. Even the committees responsible for carrying out investigation have also talked about inadequate awareness. As pointed out by many of our colleagues, the Government attributed the problem to inadequate awareness in an attempt to eliminate the responsibilities of officials in government departments, or even end this matter on such pretext. President, regarding this, I think the reason of inadequate awareness is hardly convincing to the general public, and it will also render us unable to find out or unearth the truth. While we are public opinion representatives, why do we not find out the causes? President, can it be simply attributed to inadequate awareness? President, apart from digging up the real causes for the lead-in-water problem, an even more important question is why it has occurred. Earlier on,


279

the Secretaries and Chief Secretary for Administration under the accountability system have repeatedly stressed the reason of inadequate awareness as mentioned by me, and cited examples illustrating that certain front-line staff members were unaware of the presence of lead in the soldering materials, adding that had they known it, they definitely would not have used them. I do not know if this is the truth. But this is not just said by the Chief Secretary. Even Mr KWOK Wai-keung also repeatedly cited this example, pointing out that if a worker is actually aware of the presence of lead in the soldering materials, there is no reason for him to use them for the soldering works as he himself also lives in a public rental housing estate. If he uses such soldering materials, he will also fall victim to it, so there is no reason for him to do such foolish things. President, I certainly would not say that these cases cited by both of them are fabricated, or that these examples are deliberately used as defence. But the question is whether this kind of situation is only a drop in the ocean or only the minority of people behaved this way while the majority of them did not. Have we conducted an in-depth inquiry? If, in the absence of thorough investigation, we cite one or two examples to cover up the whole truth, is it a proper thing to do? Hence, I do not consider inadequate awareness a good reason. Nevertheless, the Government could not care less and just uses inadequate awareness as an excuse. However, President, actually we all know that those who are cultivated and educated with expertise or profound knowledge will not say that they have perfectly adequate awareness. No one will ever say that. Normally people just say that they do not know much or only have a fair knowledge. Everyone will say things that way, right? Now the public officers have surprisingly spoken in such a modest way, telling us that their awareness is inadequate and their performance unsatisfactory, in the hope that we will pardon them. Having said that, President, in respect of this incident, we do not expect the public officers or certain parties to have profound knowledge of the lead-in-water issue. Instead, we only expect them to have some general understanding or an average standard of knowledge and that is all. In fact, colleagues of the Housing Department have already had such understanding because they made it clear to the contractors in the contracts that all plumbing parts must not contain lead, indicating that they understand the impact of lead on the general public's health. So, they made stipulations on the relevant requirements or criteria in order to impose regulation through the contracts. But it is outrageous that the public


officers have repeatedly talked about inadequate awareness, using it as an excuse in their explanation to pass the buck to others. If we do not conduct an inquiry to find out whether inadequate awareness is really a good reason and solve the problems, we would be irresponsible to the general public. Even worse, those parties, public officers or departments that should be held responsible will be able to get away with it. I think this is an even bigger mistake. President, I do not know whether the absence of an effective regulatory regime is a blunder, and whether the absence of proper supervision is dereliction of duty on the part of public officers. We really have no idea, and do not intend to make an arbitrary judgment hastily. I am worried that if we do not find out where the problems lie when carrying out supervision and regulation, it will bring about far-reaching consequences, and it will be unfair and irresponsible to some residents or members of the public. Hence, I consider it necessary to set up a select committee to conduct an inquiry. President, earlier on, quite a number of pro-establishment Members kept criticizing the pan-democratic Members for hyping up the incident in proposing to invoke the P&P Ordinance to conduct an inquiry with the aim of gaining votes and undermining the governance credibility of the Government. President, is it actually meant to hype up the incident? The general public have discerning eyes. They can make their own judgment, and there is no need for me to make a defence. Moreover, is it intended to gain votes? As what I said earlier on, what is wrong with taking advantage of the situation? What is wrong with gaining votes? Members of the public will give you votes only if they approve of what you do. If they do not approve of it, is it possible that they will give you votes? It is impossible. Today the pro-establishment Members oppose the motions proposed by us. I can also say that they aim to gain votes. I can also criticize them for that, but I will not do so because I think it is for individual voters to judge what is right and wrong, as well as who should be given votes and who should not. As Dr Kenneth CHAN has said, criticizing others for gaining votes is mud-slinging and vilification. But Dr Kenneth CHAN, I do not think it matters. We do not need to care about the so-called mud-slinging and vilification because members of the public, especially the voters, will make their own judgment with their own eyes and know how they should look at things.


281

Furthermore, in respect of the governance credibility of the Government, I think others can bestow honours on us but humiliation is always the result of our own making. The same applies to governance credibility. It is not to say that you will be defeated whenever others attack you. If the Government itself has governance credibility, it can naturally govern with credibility. If the governance credibility of the Government can be undermined so easily, it means that its credibility is basically weak and cannot stand the tests. In other words, if they stop us from setting up a select committee to look into the incident on the ground that it will undermine the governance credibility of the Government, such argument actually cannot hold water. Rather, it will adversely affect the Government. Why? Because it implies that the governance credibility of the Government is basically weak and vulnerable, and unable to endure even a slight blow. If that is the case, what is the use of the Government? If the governance credibility of the Government is strong and solid, why bother to worry about being attacked? And why bother to feel scared? I think the pro-establishment Members have not put themselves in the Government's shoes in saying such things. MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): President, had the incident of excessive lead in drinking water in public rental housing (PRH) estates not come to light as a result of the water tests conducted by political parties and PRH tenants, the Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government would still be in the dark, whereas members of the public would keep drinking contaminated water every day. The lead-in-water incident has exposed the major loopholes of the SAR Government in monitoring water safety, as well as its random tests and preventive work. In the Interim findings of the Review Committee on Quality Assurance Issues Relating to Fresh Water Supply of Public Housing Estates, which was set up by the Government afterwards, it is pointed out that the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA)'s system "failed to specifically require the main contractor to put in place a management plan", "failed to check for presence of lead in solder joints" and "did not include tests for lead". Meanwhile, it is pointed out by an expert that the Quality Water Supply Schemes administered by the Water Supplies Department (WSD) do not include tests for heavy metal such as lead. Given that the Government's monitoring merely relies on the certificates provided by contractors and material manufacturers, how can a regulatory approach relying on self-discipline exercised by businessmen prevent the problem of contaminated drinking water? What is it if it is not a man-made disaster? Should the Government blame it on the system, Chief Secretary, who


was responsible for devising the system? It was devised by "dog officials" like you. If it is not a man-made disaster, what is it? Is it really the case that no one should be held responsible? I must point out that members of the public have all along been in a passive position since the revelation of the lead-in-water scandal. It is not only impossible for them to find out whether the Government has announced the information, it is also difficult to pursue the responsibility of the Government. Since the amount of information accessible to the public depends solely on the amount of information released by the Government, the conclusion of the incident can only be made by the Government which is responsible for the collection and release of information. Since the truth is yet to be dug out and the matter is pending clarification, Members of this Council must adopt the attitude of "casting doubt even when there is apparently little doubt for progress to be made", in order to uncover the truth and get to the bottom of the incident. Given that the autocratic government of the SAR is entirely lack of a popular mandate, it is absolutely reasonable and sensible for Hong Kong people to be skeptical of the executive power. Although the contents of the motions proposed respectively by Mr Gary FAN and Ms Cyd HO to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) are virtually the same, Members are still obliged to uncover the truth and monitor the Government, which I must support. After the revelation of the scandal involving excessive lead in drinking water in PRH estates, which is characteristic of the Third World as well as our economically strong neighbour, the Chief Executive in Council immediately set up a Commission of Inquiry into Excess Lead Found in Drinking Water chaired by a Judge of the High Court and participated by Mr Alan LAI, former Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption. Furthermore, the HA has set up a Review Committee on Quality Assurance Issues Relating to Fresh Water Supply of Public Housing Estates, whereas the Development Bureau has set up a Task Force on Investigation of Excessive Lead Content in Drinking Water led by the WSD. In addition to the water tests arranged by the SAR Government for a number of PRH estates and kindergartens, the Tender Committee under the HA also decided earlier that the tenders submitted between March and September this year by the four contractors involved would not be considered, and three of them would have their names struck off the Premier League Contractors list. All this is the large number of remedial work referred to by the Government.


283

In their eloquent speeches just now, the pro-establishment Members listed the amount of work done by the Government, though it is obliged to do so. What sort of Members are they? Given that such work ought to be done by the Government, do they need to heap praises on the Government here? Although the pro-establishment Members may advance arguments for opposing this motion or conduct debates here, all of them have chosen to stand on the side of the Government and heap praises on it. Why do they not go home and sleep? What sort of Members are they? They might as well join the Government, right? Do they feel ashamed for defending the Government in this manner? Can the Government be really considered to have done a great deal of work? Hong Kong people will not forget that the Government is solely to blame for the lead-in-water incident. As pointed out at the beginning of my speech, this is a man-made disaster. Although Hong Kong people have absolutely no confidence in every act committed by the Government, Carrie LAM has not yet sobered up. "689" deserve the severest punishment possible! How can Members run into luck should they follow such a Chief Executive? Following the University of Hong Kong, it is now Lingnan University's turn. He is really fond of confronting Hong Kong people. We really feel helpless, for all our efforts will be futile. All scandals and fraud cases involving the executive can only be dealt with two ordinances under the law, namely the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance and the P&P Ordinance. Regarding the marine disaster occurred off Lamma Island, the delay and cost overruns of the Hong Kong Section of Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link, and the lead-in-water incident that occurred in recent years, the Government has set up commissions of inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance to conduct inquiries. However, their chairmen and members were appointed by the Chief Executive, their terms of reference and even the resources and approach of the inquiries were determined by the Government, and the degree of disclosure of the inquiry reports would be decided by the Government, too. As such, members of the public can only one-sidedly hope that the Government can inquire into the incident in a fair and impartial manner. Hong Kong is a modern society in appearance only. Not only does the Government fail to fully discharge its obligation of informing the public, but members of the public also have no right to be informed. While Hong Kong people are unable to obtain official information freely and conveniently, the Code


on Access to Information allows the Government to determine on its own the information that cannot be made public, including "information the disclosure of which would inhibit the frankness and candour of discussion within the Government", "information which would harm or prejudice the management of the public service", and so on. In short, such information will not be made public. Let me cite the marine disaster off Lamma Island that occurred on 1 October 2012 as an example. The fact that the full disclosure of the relevant inquiry report was delayed until 30 September this year demonstrates that the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance cannot protect the public's right to know. The autocratic government of the SAR and the pro-establishment camp of the Legislative Council often opt for Commissions of Inquiry while preventing the use of the P&P Ordinance. This is an act of "castration" because everyone loves to be a eunuch. It appears that the Government has brushed aside the recent lead-in-water incident slightly with such excuses as "poor monitoring" or "poor awareness". How can Members tolerate such an act of the Government? Can Mrs Regina IP, who seeks to stand in the Chief Executive election, put up with such an act of the Government? She certainly cannot tolerate, right? However, she will "lick the boot" of the Government later on. The Government must be run by someone. However, given that human nature has an evil side, the person in charge of the Government will naturally have an evil side, too. Due to his evil and authority, the power-that-be can do even more harm than ordinary people. We have always described the Government as a "necessary evil" because of the evil side of human nature, which makes it necessary for the ruler as a "necessary evil" to sanction the ruled for their evil. Although both parties are evil, the ruled have to be sanctioned by the ruler. Everyone is evil, right? But we have no power, can you not tell the difference? While we the ruled are subject to sanctions easily, the ruler is not subject to sanctions for his "necessary evil". All democratic countries, and even human rights academics in the past, have come up with a way of enabling mutual sanctions to be imposed on the ruler and the ruled, which is actually a political system that must be tried and tested. Similar to the congressional hearings conducted in the United States, we can set up select committees under the P&P Ordinance. However, each time when a motion on the establishment of a select committee was tabled for debate in the Legislative Council, it would be negatived. So, does such a system exist in form


285

only? Why did such a system come into being? I hope Members can behave in a more knowledgeable manner. Why did such a system come into being? Why was the P&P Ordinance enacted? One of the provisions of the P&P Ordinance empowers the Legislative Council to set up select committees to conduct independent inquiries into major fraud cases. Why did such a system come into being? Some Members accuse certain Members of invoking the P&P Ordinance indiscriminately. I confess that I do so every now and then, but I only wish to remind other Members that this Council has an "imperial sword". We would be "game over" should Legislative Council Members see eye to eye on everything. Not only will we have divergent views from time to time, but the structure of this legislature is "inherently handicapped". Under section 9(2) of the P&P Ordinance in Hong Kong, the Legislative Council is empowered to set up select committees, summon any person to attend before such committee to testify on oath and, what is more, define the scope of inquiry on their own and make full disclosure of the relevant documents and reports. Is such a select committee more transparent than the commission of inquiry set up by the Government? From 2005 onwards, the completion of PRH flats is only around 10 000 per annum, which is not a large number. In 2006-2007, the completion of PRH flats stood at only 7 000 or so. However, the lead-in-water problem occurred despite the small number of PRH units completed. The Government's indifference to the monitoring of the materials and components used by contractors, as well as the buildings and waterworks facilities is obviously a major defect in the system, or so-called "poor planning" ― Chief Secretary, do you know what I mean? You should go back and look up the dictionary. This is what I mean by a "man-made disaster"! We must find out the persons responsible for devising the relevant measures, regulations and guidelines, as well as the implementation by the relevant departments. In my opinion, only through the establishment of a truly independent select committee under the P&P Ordinance can we ensure access to the information that the public would like to, ought to and should know, understand why the Housing Department and the HA have failed to conduct lead tests on drinking water, get to the bottom of the incident, and examine the mistakes made by the executive in the lead-in-water incident to avoid the recurrence of similar incidents. Only in doing so can the problems be nipped in the bud. However, poor awareness, which is used by the Government as an


excuse, sounds like the right and proper thing rather than a defect. If the Government has poor awareness, it should all the more stay cautious and alert and pursue the question of responsibility. Recently, Chief Secretary for Administration Mrs Carrie LAM has repeatedly reiterated the same stance (I quote): "The poor awareness of the relevant sectors of the lead-in-water problem, the effect of lead on health, and so on, has resulted in … inadequacies in the system." Chief Secretary, can you explain the logic? I really do not understand how this Chinese paragraph of your speech should be interpreted. Does the Chief Secretary mean that the poor awareness of the lead-in-water problem and the effect of lead on health are to blame for the inadequacies in the system? Does she imply that all government officials are ignorant, but how can they have poor awareness? The lead content in drinking water should be governed by international standards, right? There is a system for water tests in other countries, right? How can government officials have poor awareness? Can the Chief Secretary justify herself by saying that the system has inadequacies because of her ignorance? Who is responsible for writing the script for you, Chief Secretary? Can you explain the logic? Will the Chief Secretary please let me know. The Chief Secretary still insisted in the Legislative Council last week that she did not see any question of individual civil servants being held accountable. Certainly, there was no such question because you, Chief Secretary, were not prepared to pursue the question of responsibility. I even received a dressing-down from the Chief Secretary when I demanded an apology from her. I did not mind at all. Anyway, Members witnessed her response. Of course, I was dissatisfied with her speech. If I were satisfied, the whole world would have been at peace. When I demanded an apology from the SAR Government for the lead-in-water incident at a special meeting held by the House Committee on 1 September, the Chief Secretary replied (I quote): "Had Mr WONG read paragraph 30 of my script carefully … certainly, the Government has its responsibility, but contractors, plumbers, water pipe and installation suppliers, owners and even tenants also have their responsibilities." What responsibilities should tenants assume? They have been forced to drink contaminated water every day. What was the Chief Secretary talking about? I have to borrow a catch-phrase of "Long Hair". Such an attitude of passing the buck and putting the blame on others is really shameful. Being a government official with power and in charge of public resources, how could the Chief Secretary have made such comments. As regards who should be held responsible, we had better borrow


287

the remark of government officials ― no one will be disappointed for everyone has a share. This implies that government officials are merely one of the stakeholders. How dreadful! The P&P Ordinance was once invoked by this Council to conduct an inquiry into the occurrence of a substandard piling works incident involving Home Ownership Scheme flats in 2001. So, why did the pro-establishment Members of this Council opt for the approach of "being harsh in shouting for sanction, but lenient in imposing punishment" when faced with this lead-in-water scandal involving PRH flats, even though its scope of impact is even more extensive? Although these Members knew how to put up a show during their district visits by demanding water tests, and so on, they choose to defend the Government with a poker face here. During their district visits, however, they would become "alive" again by demanding water tests, fighting for this and that, and so on ― as the Election is around the corner. The pro-establishment camp should stop condemning the pan-democratic camp for gaining political advantage. Likewise, the pot should stop calling the kettle black. If we are to take political advantage, let us take liberties with the government officials by telling them to go to bed! MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): President, the Water Supplies Department (WSD) of Hong Kong has all along been renowned for providing quality drinking water. Just browse the website of the WSD and we can find a lot of information pointing to the high quality and reliability of the drinking water supply in Hong Kong. It is regrettable that the incident of lead in drinking water has damaged the reputation of the WSD and heavily burdened many relevant departments. The most distressing problem is that the incident of lead in drinking water has caused great panic in Hong Kong society since July. Nonetheless, President, I have to explain this a bit. From our contacts with the public, residents of public housing estates are more worried while those living in private buildings are not really anxious. I do not know why the residents of private buildings are less worried. It is probably because they believe the owners' corporations of their buildings or the reliable management companies arranged by private developers will ensure the safety of drinking water. President, one of my co-workers in our district office in Shui Chuen O Estate got sick because of a heavy workload. Worse still, the incident of lead in drinking water even spread to kindergartens and hospitals later, causing great panic in the community. Relatively few members of the public were indeed confirmed to have excessive blood lead levels, the causes of which may not be determined until more scientific


investigations are completed. Although Secretary Dr KO said that only a small number of people have excessive blood lead levels, I believe we all agree that even one such case is too many as some members of the public have actually suffered in the incident. We attach great importance to this incident and consider it highly regrettable. Government efforts are required in several areas of work. First, the Government as a whole, instead of individual public officers, should offer an apology to Hong Kong people for causing such a great panic in the past few months. In fact, the Government should also apologize to political parties. We have no intention to take advantage of the situation, though we were said to be doing so by Mr WONG Yuk-man. Who would actually want to be burnt out at work and get sick? It would be best if such an incident did not happen at all. Through putting forward our platform ― the Establishment Subcommittee already asked me to explain my platform just this morning ― we wish to win votes through our positive platform. Who would actually want to take advantage of the situation? First of all, I think the Government as a whole should offer a formal apology to the public and political parties. Second, the Government should give an account of the incident. I think the Government has made quite a lot of efforts in this regard. I have read the press releases published on the websites of several relevant departments and found that in fact, public officers have kept coming forth to give an account of the incident, such as making public the test results of blood and water samples. They have actually given quite a lot of explanation on the incident. It is certainly a matter of opinion as to whether the Government has given a comprehensive account of the incident. Third, the Government should carry out investigations. The Government has conducted quite a number of investigations and set up three committees for the purpose. Many Members have also pointed out that the WSD set up the Task Force on Investigation of Excessive Lead Content in Drinking Water on 15 July. The Hong Kong Housing Authority established the Review Committee on Quality Assurance Issues Relating to Fresh Water Supply of Public Housing Estates on 24 July, which already submitted an interim report in early October. The Government even established at a higher level the Commission of Inquiry into Excess Lead Found in Drinking Water under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance on 13 August. Therefore, investigation work has been carried out in full throttle and better still, with statutory powers.


289

Let us look at the terms of reference of these committees. For instance, regarding the statutory Commission of Inquiry into Excess Lead Found in Drinking Water (the Commission) recently established by the Government, first, it will ascertain the causes of excess lead found in drinking water in public rental housing developments; second, it will review and evaluate the adequacy of the present regulatory and monitoring system in respect of drinking water in Hong Kong; and it will make recommendations with regard to the safety of drinking water in Hong Kong. It is expected that the Commission will report to the Chief Executive within nine months. Therefore, even if the Legislative Council invokes the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to investigate the incident, I am afraid the scope of investigation can hardly exceed that of the Commission. The investigation will be looking into the same questions: Why was there lead in drinking water? Why did the Government overlook the need to conduct tests on the lead content in drinking water? I believe the public officers concerned actually know the answers, and I hope they will reiterate in public that the Government did overlook the possible presence of lead or other heavy metals in drinking water. I have always noticed that the water tests conducted by the Government mainly focus on testing for disease-causing bacteria, such as Escherichia coli (E. coli), in drinking water while the content of heavy metals is neglected as there is no precedent for similar incidents. However, the fact that it has not occurred in the past does not mean it will not happen in the future. I believe the Government will learn a lesson from this incident in that apart from paying attention on the level of heavy metals, the Government may also have to set up dedicated teams for studying and handling crises, so as to think about whether there will be problems which we have never encountered before. This is what lateral thinking means. In fact, a lot of these efforts were made during the colonial period. These good practices should not be "decolonized" indeed. A proper approach is to conduct studies on how to handle potential problems that have never occurred before. If the Legislative Council sets up a select committee, I think firstly, it will duplicate the work currently undertaken by the Government. Secondly, there is only one year left before this legislative term comes to an end. I remember that when Members of the Legislative Council just took office in 2008, the Lehman Brothers incident occurred which gave rise to a public outcry. We therefore wielded this "imperial sword" to conduct an investigation in a serious manner. In the end, we realized that the investigation process was really lengthy as the


Legislative Council, with the statutory privileges and powers conferred on it, would be virtually turned into a court. Legal Adviser of the Legislative Council would provide a lot of advice in respect of procedural matters while those people who were summoned … I remember the then Chairman of the Securities and Futures Commission also hired a barrister for giving responses. Therefore, the investigation process was really lengthy and the workload was heavy. I recall that the committee tasked to investigate the Lehman Brothers incident completed the report in haste in 2012 when the previous legislative term was about to end, so it nearly failed to complete the report on time. Therefore, even if we can invoke the P&P Ordinance, I believe it will take one to two months for the Secretariat to organize manpower resources for arranging meetings. When meetings can be finally held, we have to summon witnesses according to the procedural requirements. We simply cannot achieve any result before this legislative term comes to an end, and this will probably just worsen the panic within the Government and community as well as increase the workload of this Council. Certainly, we are not worried about a heavier workload. We only think all of our efforts made may be eventually in vain. Therefore, I oppose invoking the P&P Ordinance. As for the question of accountability, I believe Members need not worry about this as the aforesaid committees will definitely provide a lot of facts in the future. Quite a number of Members have mentioned earlier that certain public officers or contractors should be held responsible and accountable. In fact, Members who understand the actual situation should know that those contractors, plumbers or all relevant construction companies have already sustained heavy losses. It would be easy for us to make criticisms and urge the Government to revoke their licences. But think about this: How many construction companies in Hong Kong can actually carry out public housing projects? If we revoke the licences of some plumbers or experienced contractors casually, who will carry out those projects? Is it that imposing penalties on them casually can be a solution to the problem? As for penalty, I hope Members will not worry too much about it. The lead in drinking water incident is very serious indeed. When the reports were released … If similar incidents happen in the United States, I believe there will be many cases of class action, which means initiating litigation and taking actions by a group of people. Certainly, while those people whose health is allegedly damaged by drinking water containing lead may not have sufficient evidence to sue the Government now, I do not rule out the possibility that when the reports


291

have disclosed all the truth to the public in the future, many members of the public can, on the basis of the report of the Government's statutory Commission, pursue responsibilities from the contractors or the Government. In fact, the public officers concerned have faced enormous public pressure in recent months and they have been extremely busy arranging water supply, water tests and blood tests for the public. They are already exhausted and have probably learnt a hard lesson from the incident. All in all, President, I do not think it is appropriate for the Legislative Council to use its limited resources to duplicate the work currently being undertaken. Even if we can invoke the P&P Ordinance to set up a select committee, it will be impossible for us to complete such solemn investigation work before this legislative term ends unless we do it in a hasty manner, and I do not approve of such an approach of compiling a report for the sake of making criticism. President, I believe it is best for the statutory Commission set up by the Government to carry out investigation into the incident. The Commission is chaired by a senior Judge and its Commissioner is an acclaimed former senior official, Alan LAI. I believe they will competently submit a report to society and give a full account of the incident or provide facts to enable the victims to seek reasonable compensation from the relevant parties. President, the New People's Party opposes this motion. I so submit. SUSPENSION OF MEETING PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 9 am this Friday. Suspended accordingly at 8.03 pm.

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Wednesday, 14 October 2015 ...

Documents