1 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL -- 7 November 1990 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL -- 7 November 1990 1
OFFICIAL REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 7 November 1990
The Council met at half-past Two o'clock
PRESENT
HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR (PRESIDENT)
SIR DAVID CLIVE WILSON, K.C.M.G.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY
THE HONOURABLE SIR DAVID ROBERT FORD, K.B.E., L.V.O., J.P.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY
THE HONOURABLE SIR PIERS JACOBS, K.B.E., J.P.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE HONOURABLE JEREMY FELL MATHEWS, C.M.G., J.P. THE HONOURABLE ALLEN LEE PENG-FEI, C.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE STEPHEN CHEONG KAM-CHUEN, C.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG YAN-LUNG, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS SELINA CHOW LIANG SHUK-YEE, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MARIA TAM WAI-CHU, C.B.E., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE HENRIETTA IP MAN-HING, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHAN YING-LUN, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS RITA FAN HSU LAI-TAI, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHENG HON-KWAN, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHUNG PUI-LAM, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE HO SAI-CHU, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE HUI YIN-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LEE CHU-MING, Q.C., J.P. THE HONOURABLE DAVID LI KWOK-PO, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE NGAI SHIU-KIT, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE PANG CHUN-HOI, M.B.E.
THE HONOURABLE POON CHI-FAI, J.P.
PROF. THE HONOURABLE POON CHUNG-KWONG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE SZETO WAH
THE HONOURABLE TAI CHIN-WAH, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS ROSANNA TAM WONG YICK-MING, O.B.E., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE DANIEL TSE, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WONG WANG-FAT, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL LEUNG MAN-KIN, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT
THE HONOURABLE EDWARD HO SING-TIN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE RONALD JOSEPH ARCULLI, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN GILBERT BARROW, O.B.E. THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL CHENG TAK-KIN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE DAVID CHEUNG CHI-KONG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE RONALD CHOW MEI-TAK
THE HONOURABLE MRS NELLIE FONG WONG KUT-MAN, J.P. THE HONOURABLE MRS PEGGY LAM, M.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE DANIEL LAM WAI-KEUNG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS MIRIAM LAU KIN-YEE
THE HONOURABLE LAU WAH-SUM, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LEONG CHE-HUNG
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG WAI-TUNG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE JAMES DAVID McGREGOR, O.B.E., I.S.O., J.P. THE HONOURABLE KINGSLEY SIT HO-YIN
THE HONOURABLE MRS SO CHAU YIM-PING, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS ELSIE TU, C.B.E.
THE HONOURABLE PETER WONG HONG-YUEN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE YEUNG KAI-YIN, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER
THE HONOURABLE MRS ANSON CHAN, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES
THE HONOURABLE PETER TSAO KWANG-YUNG, C.B.E., C.P.M., J.P. SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS
THE HONOURABLE MRS ELIZABETH WONG CHIEN CHI-LIEN, I.S.O., J.P. SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE
THE HONOURABLE ALISTAIR PETER ASPREY, O.B.E., A.E., J.P. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN JOHN LEWIS, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS
ABSENT
THE HONOURABLE PETER POON WING-CHEUNG, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG
THE HONOURABLE PAUL CHENG MING-FUN
IN ATTENDANCE
THE CLERK TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
MR LAW KAM-SANG
Oath
Mr Martin John LEWIS took the Oath of Allegiance.
Papers
The following papers were laid on the table pursuant to Standing Order 14(2): Subject
Subsidiary Legislation L.N. No.
Census and Statistics Ordinance
Census and Statistics (1991 Population Census)
Order 1990.............................................................. 337/90
Road Traffic Ordinance
Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles)
(Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 1990...................... 338/90
Road Tunnels (Government) Ordinance
Road Tunnels (Government) (Amendment)
(No. 2) Regulations 1990.......................................... 339/90
Hong Kong Airport (Restricted Areas) Regulations
Hong Kong Airport (Restricted Areas and
Tenant Restricted Areas) Order 1990......................... 340/90
Legal Practitioners Ordinance
Practising Certificate (Solicitors)
(Amendment) (No. 2) Rules 1990.............................. 341/90
Electricity Ordinance 1990
Electricity Ordinance 1990 (Commencement)
Notice 1990............................................................. 342/90
Electricity (Exemption) Regulations 1990
Electricity (Exemption) Regulations 1990
(Commencement) Notice 1990................................... 343/90
Electricity (Registration) Regulations 1990
Electricity (Registration) Regulations
1990 (Commencement) Notice 1990........................... 344/90
Electricity Supply (Amendment) Regulations 1990
Electricity Supply (Amendment) Regulations
1990 (Commencement) Notice 1990........................... 345/90
Electricity Supply (Special Areas) (Amendment)
Regulations 1990
Electricity Supply (Special Areas) (Amendment) Regulations 1990 (Commencement)
Notice 1990............................................................ 346/90
Sessional Papers 1990-91
No. 19 -- The Hong Kong Industrial Estates Corporation
Annual Report 1989-1990
Address by Member
Hong Kong Industrial Estates Corporation -- Annual Report 1989-90
MR CHEONG: Sir, as the Chairman of the Board of the Hong Kong Industrial Estates Corporation, I am pleased to table the Annual Report of the Corporation for the year
1989-90. During this period, 7.7 hectares of land was granted to eight companies. While this figure is less than the result for the two preceding years, it is considered to be quite satisfactory in the light of the political and economic events affecting Hong Kong during the year.
Apart from one small site which was granted in Tai Po, the remaining seven gran ts were made on the Yuen Long Estate. The three hectares of land still available on the Tai Po Estate, plus the possible additional two hectares scheduled to be granted to the Corporation by the Government during this financial year, are reserved for high technology applications. The Yuen Long Estate now has 19 factories in operation and 12 sites being developed with new factories being opened almost every month. About half of the land on the Estate has now been granted, leaving little more than 30 hectares of industrial land available for applicants over the next few years. We hope that the third industrial estate at Tseung Kwan O will be able to come on stream on time. The consultancy for the design and supervision of engineering works for the third industrial estate was awarded in August 1990. If all goes according to schedule, the first phase of the estate at Tseung Kwan O should be available by the end of 1993 at about the time when the land will be running out at both Tai Po and Yuen Long.
The Government extended the leases of the industrial estates from 1977 to 2007 on 4 May 1990. The Corporation accordingly is extending the same terms of the subleases to the existing companies on the estates. For new grantees, the subleases are already being granted up to 2047. Investors are now able to plan up to the middle of the next century.
The Board, Sir, regularly reviews the land premiums, and taking into account the overall market trend and the need to preserve the capital invested in the existing estates, the premiums for sites on both estates accordingly were raised by $100 per square metre in May this year; that only represented a modest increase of about 8.5% to 9%.
Recognizing the changing nature of Hong Kong's industries, the Board decided that industrial activities, other than purely manufacturing processes, could be accepted as the main operations for the grant of a site provided they cannot be accommodated in ordinary multi-storey factory buildings, and that of course they have introduced new and improved technologies and products to Hong Kong. This revision of the
selection criteria should enable companies offering supporting services for
manufacturing industry to be considered for sites on the estates. These services might include research and development, technical centres and prototype design.
During the financial year 1989-90, $112 million were repaid to the Loan Fund, leaving a balance of $108 million still outstanding. This amount, together with Letters B valued at $72 million due to Government, is expected to be fully repaid by the year 1992-93. This is slightly longer than the previous forecast due to lower land sales in the year 1989-90 and a revised cautious target of seven hectares of land for 1990-91 as compared with the previous plans of 10 hectares.
To finance the development of the third industrial estate, I would like to report that the Government approved a loan of $900 million from the Loan Fund, at an interest rate of 5% per annum, which is expected to cover about 90% of the estimated cost. The Corporation will cover the remainder from surpluses achieved from the marketing of the first two estates. Drawdowns from the new loan will soon be made when works commence.
I would like to place on record, Sir, my appreciation of the support given by all members of the Corporation's Board, and my thanks also go to the Industry Department for its co-operation and assistance, and naturally to the staff of the Corporation for all their untiring efforts.
Oral answers to questions
Wastes disposal
1. MRS TU asked: Will Government inform this Council whether consideration will be given to using incinerators with highly sophisticated pollution control equipment, in place of landfills, for the disposal of wastes?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Sir, our present strategy for disposal of wastes is based on three very large landfills, sited in remote areas, and serviced by a network of urban refuse transfer stations. We have laid this strategy down in our White Paper on Pollution and our Waste Disposal Plan, and it is already in
operation. This allows us to promptly phase out our offensive urban landfills and incinerators, which have caused much adverse comment in this Council.
Incinerators cannot entirely replace landfills because a significant proportion
of our waste cannot be burnt. Also, incinerators produce ash which amounts to about 20% of the weight of the original waste, and requires disposal at landfills.
Modern domestic waste incinerators, even with highly sophisticated pollution control equipment, are not pollution free. Although it is possible with the use of the state-of-the-art technology to remove most of the pollutants generated, there would still be some toxic constituents in the chimney emissions. The environmental impact of these incinerators would be further aggravated by our topography and
proliferation of high rise buildings, which means that we would have to build incinerators in places far away from heavily-populated areas. These implications, and the capital intensive nature and complexity of these plants make incineration a very expensive option. A modern incineration plant would be almost three times as costly as a landfill of equivalent capacity.
Nevertheless, although incineration does not feature prominently in our current planning horizon up to the year 2001, Government will give consideration, in our longer-term strategy, to a potential role for such incinerators.
MRS TU: Sir, the latest incinerator technology, which Hong Kong has never tried out, provides precipitators and gas scrubbing equipment to deal with toxic waste while, on the contrary, transfer stations pollute the environment and probably damage the health of workers with dust, and landfills produce dangerous toxic gases and occupy more land space. On what grounds, therefore, can the Government use capital
expenditure as an excuse for neglecting methods which are increasingly used in other countries, such as Canada, Sweden, Singapore and even little Macau? Has the Government ever investigated these systems?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Yes, we have, Sir. We have got a waste disposal plan and we did not just stumble on that. It took us about six years to come up with our waste disposal plan. I would query whether refuse tran sfer stations pollute more than incinerators do and, in fact, our refuse transfe r station that we have already got in operation hardly pollutes at all. With re gard to the point about what other countries do, there is really no fixed trend throughout the world. The general trend throughout the world is towards waste minimization and waste recovery and recycling and, as far as the choice between incineration and landfills are concerned, there is no unifying trend all over the
world. Countries like the United States -- parts of it --, United Kingdom and Australia now rely heavily on direct disposal to landfill as the disposal method. I agree that other countries do different things, but I think it is up to Hong Kong to find its own solution to this particular problem. If I can take Mrs TU's other point about using landfill space, it is marginal landfill space that we use in marginal land areas. So I would not agree with her assessment of incineration plants or of refuse transfer stations and we will continue to carry out our waste disposal plan and our strategy along the present lines, although we will keep an eye on incineration as a whole.
MR NGAI (in Cantonese): Sir, given that there are emissions of methane gas from landfills, will the Secretary inform this Council: (1) whether the Government has considered taking other methods, for example, incineration, to resolve the problem of methane gas emissions and (2) whether the Government has carried out the plan of encouraging industrialists to make use of methane gas as a source of energy? If so, what is the progress of the plan?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Yes, Sir, on the first part of the question, we will be taking action to minimize any environmental problems that occur at landfills. Our three new, large landfills will be efficient and environmentally safe and we will have proper planning and detailed environmental assessment and
extensive engineering expertise. They would all be required before any waste would be accepted there. As to the other things that happen at landfills, leachates would be contained by lining materials and collected by sub-soil drains. Now, there will also be sophisticated gas extraction systems to eliminate any potential gas hazard and to make the best use of landfill gas, which brings me on to the second part of Mr NGAI's question concerning the use of methane gas. We are looking into that and we have already concluded one study on the use of methane gas and, after some
finalizing work to be done on it, we will shortly be releasing details on how best that gas can be used.
MR TAI: Sir, may I ask, in terms of policy and action, what type of encouragement and indirect assistance would the Government be giving to industries and to municipal councils in the disposal of industrial and domestic waste?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Sir, the recycling of domestic and industrial waste is a very important point, because the more recycling we can do, the more we can spin out our use of landfill. When we are asked to give advice and assistance to industry on recycling, we can really only take the lead. Government itself is not going to be involved in recycling activities. So, it is really a matter of business for industry itself to take up any recycling opportunities and there are indeed many; last year, for example, over $3 billion was made in this area.
MR McGREGOR: Sir, will the Secretary confirm that the toxic waste disposal plant scheduled for south Tsing Yi Island is still to go ahead as planned and whether he is satisfied that the emissions from the pumping off of chemical waste in that plant will not affect the people of Tsing Yi?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Yes, Sir, this is a very pertinent point. It is still scheduled to go ahead. The other point with this is that it is not a domestic waste incinerator; it is a chemical waste incinerator. As such, it has much, much higher standards than the domestic waste incinerator and it is built to a standard that removes 99.9999% of pollution. That means that, in terms of people living nearby, the effect of pollutants coming out of that incinerator will be
negligible.
MRS TU: Sir, the Secretary said that there was a network of transfer stations supplying the landfills. As far as I know, the only one in the urban area is Kowloon Bay and, in case of serious traffic jams, or damage or shutdown, the environmental situation could be very serious. May I ask why the Lai Chi Kok incinerator is being closed down in mid-December this year, two months prior to the heavy litter season which occurs at Chinese New Year?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Sir, one of the reasons is that the Junk Bay Tunnel opens tomorrow and we could send 800 tonnes through that without any trouble at all from east Kowloon. It would take between 15 and 27 minutes for the waste to reach the landfill. So, actually that could very much relieve the situation. That is why we are going to close down the Lai Chi Kok incinerator on 16 December
and, of course, people who live around that incinerator will be very much relieved because we are closing it down for environmental reasons.
MR ANDREW WONG: Sir, when does Government expect the three existing landfills to be fully filled and are new ones being identified?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Yes, Sir, this is part of the process that goes on for many years and the three landfills will have a life of between 15 and 25 years, which means that we should, in about 2010 when they come to the end of their serviceable life -- or if we do our recycling better, longer -- be switching to other sites. As to whether there are alternative sites, yes, we started off looking at 50 sites before we boiled it down to three. Now, there are other ones available that we could use but, of course, we have got to get much closer to that time before we actually start doing our planning there. We shall not rule out in that sort of time frame looking at incinerators again and their state of technology at that time.
MRS TU: My question is almost the same as the previous one, but I would like to ask it. The Secretary in the last paragraph of his main answer said that consideration would be given to the potential role of incinerators and that we would have to wait until 2001. Is there any reason why we have to wait more than 10 years and can the pace be speeded up?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Sir, as I have said, our waste disposal plan already sets out what we are going to do in the short term. We are not going to build any more incinerators in the near short term, but we are not going to preclude thinking about whether they do have a role. So, as to speeding it up, we are keeping them on the backburner, so to speak, but we are not going to build any very quickly.
MR McGREGOR: Sir, could the Secretary confirm that the roads into the areas to be used as rubbish dumps are going to be very carefully looked at as well? My thought is that if 800 tonnes of rubbish are going to pass through a brand new tunnel, there could be considerable difficulty with what is left behind, both the smell and the filth from the various vehicles going through. Could that be looked into, please?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Certainly, it could be looked into, Sir. The 800 tonnes going through the Junk Bay Tunnel was answered in the context of an emergency situation. Obviously, one cannot have a new landfill without a road of a high enough standard to get to it. So, it will and it has been looked into.
Compulsory voting for the 1991 elections
2. MR TIEN asked: Since the response to the Voter Registration Drive 1990 so far is not as favourable as expected, will the Government inform this Council whether consideration will be given to introducing compulsory voting for the Legislative Council, municipal councils and district boards elections in 1991?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Sir, the Government has not set a target for this year's voter registration exercise. We are simply trying to encourage as many people as poss ible to register. By 1 October about 430 000 application forms had been receive d, but many of these were notifications of change of address from those already registered or were duplicates. The provisional register of electors will be published in two days' time, that is, on 9 November 1990. We expect that it will have 241 530 new voters in addition to the existing 1 597 567. After we have taken into account deletions on account of death, emigration or loss of contact, the provisional register will contain about 1.8 million electors. We are however still getting late applications, which if received before 20 November will be included in the final register to be published in January next year. By projection, we expect to add another 50 000 new voters onto the final register. This would bring the total number on the register to about 1.85 million, that is a net increase of 252 000 over the number in the existing register. This increase compares favourably with the aggregate net increase from 1985 to 1989 of 156 000.
It is highly debatable whether democracy should be practised through compulsion. With a few exceptions, most democracies in the world do not compel people to turn out to vote by law. In Hong Kong, we recognize that it is the right of our people to vote at elections. In a free society such as ours, we firmly believe that it should be left to the free, conscious choice of the individual to exercise this right. The Government will not therefore introduce compulsory voting for the 1991 elections.
MR TIEN: Sir, will the Chief Secretary please inform this Council how the Government came to the assessment that Hong Kong people would object to compulsory voting as an infringement of their rights, rather than as their duty and obligation to achieve the objective of Hong Kong people governing Hong Kong towards 1997? And secondly, will he tell this Council whether a survey will be conducted to see if the majority of our people object to compulsory voting?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Sir, it was not a question of coming to a conclusion as to whether people would object. We simply took the example of what is done in most other countries around the world and came to the conclusion that compulsion is very much the exception rather than the rule. Indeed, we have only discovered three other countries that practise compulsion and we firmly believe, Sir, as I have said, that it is the people's right to vote but that they should not be compelled to do so. It is not our intention, Sir, to carry out a further survey at this stage.
MISS LEUNG (in Cantonese): Sir, for what reasons does the Government not compel eligible people to register as voters when some other democracies already have such a practice?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Sir, as I have said, I think there are very few countries that compel people to either vote or to register and it is for that reason that we believe that we are on the right track.
MR ARCULLI: Sir, will the Chief Secretary inform this Council of those exceptions that he has referred to, and whether voters in those countries are compelled to vote or simply compelled to attend at the ballot box with the option to spoil their ballot paper and thereby preserving their entitlement, or their right, to vote or not to vote?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Sir, my understanding is that people in those countries are required to attend and to fill in a ballot paper. We have done some research on the two
countries' statistics published; they are Australia and Belgium. Members may be interested to hear some of the results of that. In Australia, there is an electorate of 9.9 million; there were, at the last election, 8.7 million valid votes cast; there were 630 000, or 6.4%, invalid votes, that is, spoiled ballot papers, and 5.8% of the people, that is, 575 000, did not vote for one reason or another. The other example we have, Sir, is Belgium. There is an electorate there of 7 million; 6 million cast valid votes; 488 000, that is, 7%, cast invalid votes; 7.3%, that is, 512 000, did not vote at all.
MR ANDREW WONG: Sir, I do not really follow the logic of the original question. It started out with the preamble on voter registration and then went on to voting. I think Miss LEUNG asked the appropriate question of compulsory registration. May I ask whether or not the Government will consider introducing automatic registration?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Sir, it is very difficult to institute automatic registration making use of the existing records we have. The records retained by the Registration of Persons Office, I am afraid, are not up to date in terms of addresses. People in Hong Kong are not very diligent in keeping the Registration of Persons Office informed as to where they are currently living. That is the first point. And secondly, of course, as I made clear in my speech last week, Sir, the Register of Persons does not include reference as to whether people are eligible to vote or not; it is simply a name and address, and therefore one has to provide a new register if one is going to produce something which is relevant to our electoral laws. We do not believe, Sir, that we should make that a matter of compulsion, either to register or to vote. MRS TAM: Sir, will the Chief Secretary inform this Council how many among the 241 530 new voters belong to young people between the age of 21 and 25? Are there any signs of improvement over the previous registration exercise, and if not, what effort will the Government plan to encourage young people to register?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Sir, I do not have that information available but I will try and find it and let Mrs TAM know. (Annex I)
MR PETER WONG: Sir, is the Administration satisfied with the result of this last registration process, and also what can be done to improve upon that rate for the
next exercise?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Sir, as I said in my main reply, we are satisfied that this exercise is a substantial improvement over the last exercise. The last exercise produced an additional number of registered electors of 156 000; this one produced an additional number of 252 000. So we are reasonably well satisfied with the result. I think Members would all agree that we have, in terms of publicity, made a major effort in order to get people to register; we have spent some $5.5 million on a very
comprehensive campaign. Clearly, it would be possible to do more but there is a limit to the resources available.
Sir, one other thing which we are doing, which Members are aware of, I believe, is that we are extending the period of registration under the law to a time much closer to the Legislative Council elections, that is, August of next year. So there will be an opportunity for people to register for the Legislative Council elections right up until August of next year.
MR McGREGOR: Sir, recognizing that compulsion in political matters is abhorrent to many people, how will the Government promote a high turnout of registered voters in 1991?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Sir, we do have plans to mount a major campaign to encourage people to vote next year. Subject to financial approval, the total cost of our publicity campaign is going to be no less than $18 million, of which $9.8 million will be for direct elections to the Legislative Council. This clearly represents a major increase over what we have been doing before; for example in 1988-89 we spent a total of $2.6 million on our publicity campaign. It will have all the normal attributes of a
government publicity campaign using all the media and some other innovative ideas as well.
Sir, the other thing we are doing is that, as Members will know, a decision has been taken that the polling will be held on Sunday. We hope this will facilitate voter turnout. In the final analysis, of course, the turnout will depend upon many other factors, such as the appeal of candidates to the electorate, the competitiveness of the elections, and candidates' own efforts in canvassing support. Even the
weather has some impact upon the outcome.
MR MARTIN LEE: Sir, has the Government studied how voluntary or compulsory registration is effected in other countries, so as to follow them in Hong Kong?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Sir, we have not carried out a detailed study in the time available to us.
MR TIEN: Sir, will Government consider last-minute registration, say, within a few weeks before the polling date next year, to enhance voter turnout? And, secondly, as against the 1.85 million that are registered to vote, what is the total number of eligible voters in Hong Kong right now?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Sir, as I have mentioned previously, Members will note that in the Electoral Provisions (Amendment) Bill 1990, proposals have been made to bring the registration cycle much closer to the Legislative Council election, so that the final register can be published in August, starting from next year, instead of January. So that should take account of Mr TIEN's point.
Sir, from memory, the number of eligible voters is, I believe, 3.6 million.
HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT: Can I, with reference to that last supplementary question, again remind Members, please, not to ask, or to avoid double-barrelled questions? It is a good way of getting two into one but supplementary questions are better as single questions, please.
MRS CHOW: Sir, with 252 000 additional registrations, the Government may not be disappointed. But given the size of the campaign, I think that it is a rather disappointing figure to most of us. Now that the Chief Secretary has said that the final register for the Legislative Council elections next year would close as late as August, could I ask what package of measures Government is going to take, apart from the large-scale publicity campaign, to facilitate the registration of as large
a number as possible of eligible voters?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Sir, in addition to the publicity campaign, much of our effort has been directed towards house-to-house calls by members of the City and New Territories Administration staff. I think that this personal contact has been at the heart of our contact with people directly, and certainly we will consider extending that
programme provided that resources are made available for that purpose.
Immigration clearance at Lo Wu Terminal
3. MR EDWARD HO asked: Will Government inform this Council whether there are plans to shorten the delays presently experienced by train passengers in obtaining immigration clearance at the Lo Wu Terminal during peak hours and festive periods?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Sir, we aim to complete immigration clearance of all passengers within a maximum of 30 minutes. This standard is generally achieved, including at the Lo Wu Terminal. However, during peak hours and festive periods, particularly at the Lunar New Year, some passengers may have to wait for more than 30 minutes.
To cope with the volume of passenger traffic at times of peak demand, the Immigration Department deploys additional staff to man as many immigration counters as possible in the direction where demand is highest.
The daily average passenger flow through 1990 to date is 73 000 which is 2 000 less per day than in 1988. However, future growth in traffic must be expected. We have under planning a project which will provide additional waiting space of about 1800 sq m and an increase in the number of counters for passenger clearance from 88 to 160.
MR EDWARD HO: Sir, with respect to the first paragraph of his reply, is the Secretary for Security aware that the average waiting time at Lo Wu Terminal during festive periods is considerably more than 30 minutes, and is more like two to two-and-a half hours with possibly up to 8 000 passengers waiting inside the station and on
the platform? Will he inform this Council whether all immigration counters will be manned to enable waiting time to be kept to the target of 30 minutes?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Sir, I am advised that on a normal weekday the average waiting time for most passengers would be around 15 minutes, on Saturdays and Sundays it would be about 20 minutes, and on festive days it would be about 30 minutes. There are certainly occasions of peak demand, particularly at the Lunar New Year, when that period of 30 minutes would be exceeded. The Immigration Department takes a number of steps to cope with peak demand. It deploys additional staff and adopts a shift pattern to achieve maximum coverage where necessary. It imposes a contra-flow system
whereby arrival counters are used to process departing passengers or vice versa depending where the demand is greatest. It maintains a close liaison with the Chinese side in an attempt to avoid bunching of passengers, and of course it does reinforce its staff at Lo Wu to the extent possible during such periods.
MR ARCULLI: Sir, will the Secretary for Security please inform this Council whether the project to increase the number of counters from 88 to 160 will be carried out in phases and when it will be completed?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Sir, I cannot give a date for the completion of that project. There is an item in the Public Works Programme. It is under planning at the moment; it has not yet been funded.
MR CHENG HON-KWAN: Sir, will the Secretary inform this Council whether there is a need to modify the layout, in addition to the enlargement of the waiting space, to ease queuing which is most difficult at present during peak hours?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Sir, I believe that the extension which we have under planning to the terminal at Lo Wu would include, in addition to more counters, also additional waiting space.
MRS CHOW: Sir, the Secretary's information regarding the enlargement of waiting
space is indeed worrying because that seems to signify a possible increase in the size of the crowd waiting. But may I ask the Secretary whether the necessary staff will be provided to man these additional counters?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Sir, I would certainly hope so.
MR EDWARD HO: Sir, my information differs from the Secretary for Security's as to the congestion time, and furthermore the counters are not all manned at present. And if it is not possible to increase manpower due to zero-growth policy, would the Administration consider a departure tax to finance employment of adequate personnel?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Sir, at present the Immigration Department, on a normal basis, deploys some 330 officers at the Lo Wu Terminal. This is sufficient for clearance of passengers during normal periods. I agree that it is not sufficient to meet heavy demand during certain peak periods and also during certain festive periods. On those occasions, staff are redeployed from other sections of the department and all the counters are fully manned during major festive periods such as the Chinese New Year holidays.
Written answer to question
Overcharging of taxi fares
4. MR TIEN asked: Will the Government inform this Council of the number of complaints received by the authorities concerned about over-charged taxi fares as a result of taxi meters being tampered with and the number of prosecutions instituted against taxi operators on account of this in the past two years?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Sir, in the two years since October 1988, the Transport Complaints Unit (TCU) received a total of 476 complaints concerning overcharging as a result of suspected tampering of taxi meters. Of these, 243 cases were referred to the police for investigation after the complainants had indicated their
willingness to further pursue their complaints.
The number of complaints concerning taxi meter offences received by the police during the same period was 615. This figure included the 243 complaints referred to the police by the TCU.
The number of prosecutions made since October 1988 was 14. The relatively low rate of prosecution was attributable to either insufficient evidence or the complainants' unwillingness to testify in court. However, many of the complaints originally reported under this category have resulted in prosecutions being instituted under other sections of the Road Traffic Ordinance (Chapter 374), such as the Road Traffic (Construction and Maintenance of Vehicles) Regulations, upon further investigation by the police.
Apart from acting on complaints, the police also take active steps to prevent taxi meter offences by conducting random roadside checks. The total number of prosecution cases, including action on complaints and arising from random checks, was 331 during the same period.
Statement
Importation of labour
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Sir, on 4 July this year, during the debate in this Council on the Government's intention to relax its policy on importation of labour, I gave an undertaking to inform Honourable Members of the progress made on implementing various schemes for importing labour into Hong Kong. As I mentioned to this Council last week, the Government is now ready to allocate quota. It seems timely, therefore, that I should give Honourable Members an account of the action the Government has taken to date.
Invitation to apply
On 13 July, the procedures and criteria for two of the three schemes of importation -- namely, the scheme for importing up to 2 700 technicians, craftsmen and supervisors, and the scheme for importing up to 10 000 experienced operatives -- were announced to the general public. Three days later, on 16 July, applications were invited, with a closing date of 31 August.
Applications
At the end of the six-week period, 4 524 companies applied for permission to import 57 558 workers, made up of 15 823 skilled workers and 41 735 experienced operatives. These figures show that the schemes have been over-subscribed by nearly six times in the case of skilled workers and over four times in the case of experienced
operatives. The majority of applications came, not unexpectedly, from the garments industry, followed closely by construction, and by the hotels, catering and tourism group of industries.
Rejections
Many applicants have been contacted and interviewed by the Immigration Department. Altogether, 20 091 applications, representing some 35% of the total, were rejected for a variety of reasons: they offered wages below the published median levels, involved workers whose attributes fell outside the scope of the two schemes, involved labour not required for the business concerned, or involved companies showing a loss.
The first three grounds for rejection are clear and incontrovertible. As regards the fourth reason, the Steering Group on Importation of Labour took the view that loss making companies, unless they are newly established, are in greater danger of going out of business. If they did they would leave behind a substantial number of unemployed workers. There is the further problem that their inclusion would have had the effect of quota being spread very thinly among eligible applicants. This could result in substantial quota under-utilization.
Quota allocation
These rejections and the withdrawal of 842 applications left us with a balance of 10 174 job applications for skilled workers and 26 451 job applications for experienced operatives. This still represented an excess of demand over available quota of 3.8 times and 2.6 times respectively. In the circumstances, the steering group has had to scale down eligible applications involving excessive numbers, and to rank all applications in some order of merit. With the exception of a very small reserve, virtually all quota has been allocated, and no industry has an allocation lower than 12% of the number of skilled workers applied for, or below 15% of the number
of experienced operatives applied for.
Notifications
Letters informing successful applicants of their quota allocation will be issued by the Immigration Department tomorrow, 8 November. Employers will be given four months within which to recruit workers, conclude contracts of employment and arrange for the workers to obtain visas. All quota should be filled within this four-month period. Unless an extension is granted, failure to comply will result in quota being withdrawn.
Monitoring
Both the Immigration Department and the Labour Department are now geared up to implement these two schemes. I can assure Honourable Members that the Immigration Department will move quickly to deal with visa applications. No application that is in order will take more than four weeks to be approved. Similarly, the Labour
Department will interview employers who need guidance and guest workers after they arrive, so that they may fully understand their rights and obligations under the Employment Ordinance. Needless to say both departments will exercise due vigilance: they will act swiftly on any complaints they receive about breaches of visa conditions and employment legislation.
Review
The Steering Group on Importation of Labour has carefully considered whether or not it should recommend to the Government that the quota limits of these two schemes should be raised. Given that real demand exceeds available quota by nearly three times, there is on the face of it a case for recommending that the quotas should be increased. Before we consider taking this step, however, we will need to gain some experience with the operation of these schemes, particularly as regards quota
utilization and the extent to which the scheme could be policed. We will also need to assess conditions in the labour market, and the effect of imported labour on both local workers and the businesses involved.
Motion
TEMPORARY CONTROL OF DENSITY OF BUILDING DEVELOPMENT (KOWLOON AND NEW KOWLOON) ORDINANCE
THE SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS moved the following motion:
"That the Temporary Control of Density of Building Development (Kowloon and New Kowloon) Ordinance shall expire on 31 December 1993."
He said: Sir, I rise to move a motion to make and pass a resolution to extend the Temporary Control of Density of Building Development (Kowloon and New Kowloon) Ordinance 1989, which is due to expire on 31 December 1990, for a further period of three years.
The Hong Kong Airport (Control of Obstructions) Consolidation (Amendment) (No. 2) Order of 1989 permits the relaxation of airport height restrictions. The Tem porary Control Ordinance, enacted on 14 July 1989, restricted buildings to the d ensities achievable under the former airport height restrictions, but allowed gr eater flexibility in building design by permitting the erection of taller buildi ngs up to the revised Airport Height Restrictions. When this Ordinance was firs t enacted it was expected that the areas where permanent density limitations wou ld be necessary would be few and that the limitations would be capable of imposi tion through the amendment of a limited number of Outline Zoning Plans. Since e nactment, however, it has become apparent that the redevelopment potential in mo st areas is far greater than can be provided for satisfactorily with the existin g infrastructure. Moreover when Kai Tak Airport is removed and there is no furt her justification for height limitations under the Hong Kong Airport (Control of Obstruction) Ordinance, the redevelopment potential would be limited only by th e Building (Planning) Regulations or the Statutory Outline Zoning Plans and Lease Conditions, if applicable. It is envisaged that there is an overall potential for developing accommodation in the urban area for a population at a level which far exceeds any reasonable planning intention. For example, the Metroplan aims at a population of not more than 4.2 million, a level at which with proper control at district level a reasonable environment and an adequate infrastructure can be
achieved. But to set the levels of control sensibly and equitably needs extensive study -- far more extensive than we foresaw when the Ordinance was first enacted. These studies and the preparation and approval of the Outline Zoning Plans to implement their results will take a further three years. This period will be taken as the target towards which the Government will complete all the necessary tasks and
we have no intention of proposing any further extension beyond the period.
Sir, the land market in Kowloon has all along been based on the level of densities permitted under the original orders for over 30 years; this order merely continues to retain the densities at that level, it does not reduce them. On the other hand I should also make it clear that it is not Government's intention that all forms of density or development control will be lifted at the expiry of the proposed extension period of three years. Some degree of control will be necessary and inevitable so as to provide guidance for development to be compatible with our long-term planning strategy for the region as a whole and for individual areas. Furthermore, we also have to ensure that development will be made without exceeding the capacity of
infrastructural support.
Sir, I so move.
Question on the motion proposed.
MR CHENG HON-KWAN: Sir, an ad hoc group was formed on 19 October 1990 to study the motion under the Temporary Control of Density of Building Development (Kowloon and New Kowloon) Ordinance 1989. At its meeting with the Administration on 29 October 1990, the group was briefed on the background to the proposed extension of the
Ordinance, due to expire on 31 December this year, for three more years. It was understood that the purpose of the legislation was to retain control on building density previously imposed on airport safety ground, now essential for planning reasons.
The ad hoc group sought clarification on this proposed extension and the Administration explained that as a result of a formal decision being made on the relocation of the airport to Chek Lap Kok and the completion of the Metroplan, a
comprehensive consultancy study on Kowloon and New Kowloon was required. The proposed study would take some 18 months to complete, to be followed by the preparation and gazetting of Outline Zoning Plans, which would take another 18 months.
In reply to the ad hoc group's enquiry about any possibility of including an exemption clause in the Ordinance for GIC sites, the Administration explained that there would be difficulties because if all GIC users were to be exempted, the cumulative effect on the infrastructure would be difficult to fully assess. Since
developments under such exemptions might have far-reaching implications for existing and planned infrastructure, members of the ad hoc group agreed that this would not be desirable.
In order not to mislead the public further, members suggested and the Administration agreed that the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands should spell out in moving the motion in this Chamber that in view of the Metroplan being aimed at thinning out density and subject to the outcome of the consultancy study, the building density in the controlled areas might not experience significant relaxation in three years' time after the expiry of the Ordinance when, as the Administration confirmed, no further extension would be necessary. The ad hoc group's recommendation for support to the motion has been endorsed at the In-House meeting.
Whilst it is a pity that many developers may be disappointed by the proposed extension of the Ordinance, it is desirable that the future planning of Kowloon and New Kowloon should conform closely to the objectives of the Metroplan. We should appreciate the overall aim to restructure our city to create a better and a more desirable place to live and work.
Sir, with these remarks, I support the motion.
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Sir, I would like to acknowledge the comments of the convenor and his ad hoc group and I thank them for their interest and diligence.
Question on the motion put and agreed to.
First Reading of Bills
BUILDINGS (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1990
TOWN PLANNING (AMENDMENT) BILL 1990
ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVING-OFFENCE POINTS) (AMENDMENT) BILL 1990
PUBLIC HEALTH (ANIMALS AND BIRDS) (AMENDMENT) BILL 1990
Bills read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 41(3).
Second Reading of Bills
BUILDINGS (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1990
THE SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS moved the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Buildings Ordinance."
He said: Sir, I move the Second Reading of the Buildings (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 1990.
It is necessary to amend the Buildings Ordinance to empower the Building Authority in certain prescribed circumstances to demolish unauthorized buildings and building works expeditiously, after successful application to the District Court.
At present, except in cases of extreme emergency, it normally takes about four months to demolish unauthorized buildings or building works. This is because we have to follow time-consuming legal procedures to identify the persons responsible, issue orders and allow time for them to rectify the situation. During this period, an unauthorized building may have been sold and occupied by an unsuspecting purchaser, causing the Building Authority greater difficulty in carrying out the demolition or alteration works in default of the owner's action. In certain circumstances, it is important that unauthorized buildings and building works are demolished in a matter of days for reasons of public safety.
The Bill therefore proposes that the existence of one or more of the following prescribed circumstances would warrant an application by the Authority to the District Court for a priority demolition order --
(a) where there is an imminent danger to life or property;
(b) when the unauthorized building is erected or the building works are being carried out with a view to sale, letting or disposal;
(c) where the building is situated, or the unauthorized building works are being carried out, in a common area of a building or on land in multiple ownership and such building works are seriously detrimental to the amenities of the neighbourhood; and
(d) where the unauthorized building or building works constitute a public nuisance.
An aggrieved person will have the opportunity to be heard in court and the making of an order for priority demolition will be subject to the discretion of the court.
Another major objective of the Bill is to expedite the carrying out of remedial works on dangerous hillsides. Due to the present cumbersome procedures prescribed in the existing legislation, the Building Authority is experiencing considerable delays in enforcing the order which requires the owner to carry out investigation and remedial works to render safe potentially dangerous hillsides. Clause 4 of the Bill seeks to avoid this unnecessary delay by enabling the Building Authority to serve two orders, the first requiring investigation and the submission of remedial works proposals, and the second requiring the carrying out of the works specified in the proposals. If the owner does not carry out the investigation by a date specified in the first order, the Building Authority may step in and carry out the investigation and necessary works to make the land or structure safe without sending the second order. These new procedures would speed up the necessary remedial works on dangerous hillsides, thus ensuring public safety.
Since 1985, more than 460 appeals have been lodged against the Building Authority's order under section 24 of the Buildings Ordinance requiring demolition of unauthorized buildings or building works. Clause 9 of the Bill now seeks to deter frivolous appeals by empowering the Appeal Tribunal to award costs for these appeals. It also enables the Appeal Tribunal to hold its hearings in public and publish its decisions if the Tribunal considers the subject of the inquiry to be of importance or interest to the public.
Also included in the Bill are some miscellaneous amendments to update and improve the effectiveness of the Buildings Ordinance. Clause 2 of the Bill seeks to correct a textual error by replacing an old term "authorized architect" with a new term "authorized person". Clause 5 seeks to make the Commissioner of Rating and Valuation the sole authority for allocating building numbers throughout the territory. Clause 7 enables members of an Appeal Tribunal to be remunerated at a rate approved by the Governor, instead of having remuneration determined in each case.
The amendment Bill, if enacted, will enable the Building Authority to control the problems of unauthorized building activities and dangerous hillsides more effectively, as well as strengthening the application of the Ordinance in other miscellaneous areas.
Sir, I move that the debate on this motion be now adjourned.
Question on the adjournment proposed, put and agreed to.
TOWN PLANNING (AMENDMENT) BILL 1990
THE SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS moved the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Town Planning Ordinance."
He said: Sir, I move the Second Reading of the Town Planning (Amendment) Bill 1990.
Last week in this Council the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands spoke at length on points of principle relating to this Bill. I do not propose to repeat those points today, but will concentrate on the technical aspects of the Bill.
The present Town Planning Ordinance was enacted in 1939 to provide for the systematic preparation and approval of zoning plans for future layout of existing and potential urban areas. It provides for the appointment of a Town Planning Board; specifies the contents of the plans that the Board may make; establishes an exhibition and objection procedure for draft plans; and sets up a procedure for amendment and approval of plans, the granting of planning permission and the right of review of the Board's refusal.
Control in all the rural and village areas is carried out through lease conditi ons and administrative means. Such control is, however, limited to the construc tion of buildings on agricultural land and noxious activities, and does not appl y to situations when a landowner changes the use of his land. During recent yea rs, we have seen changes in the character of a considerable portion of the New
Territories land area, mainly due to conversion of land for open storage purpose, which in turn has given rise to other environmental and infrastructural support problems. The indications are that such activities are likely to continue to
increase. The Government recognizes that there is a strong demand for open storage, and accepts that such activities serve an economic need in Hong Kong. However, it is equally necessary for such activities to be planned and provided through proper management of land use and to meet certain environmental, infrastructural and
planning requirements. The Administration has examined all relevant existing Ordinances with a view to the introduction of suitable amendments to achieve the control. It has been concluded that only the Town Planning Ordinance is a suitable vehicle for such a purpose but in its present form contains no such powers.
The amendments contained in the Bill would make the following main changes to the Town Planning Ordinance --
First, clauses 2 and 5 remove the constraints in the Ordinance restricting its provisions to urban and potential urban areas; and adds to the Town Planning Board's duties the designation of development permission areas;
Secondly, clause 4 allows the Board to delegate some of its duties to committees appointed by the Governor, or to public officers;
Thirdly, clause 6(a) expands the types of zoning which the Town Planning Board may include in a draft plan; and
Fourthly, clause 8 creates provision for preparing draft plans designating areas within which a permissive system of development control would then apply, and powers to enforce compliance with this system.
The Bill also proposes a number of amendments to improve the operation of the Ordinance. Clause 3 introduces a series of definitions needed for the efficient implementation of the Ordinance. Clause 7 prescribes the period within which a person may appeal to the Governor in Council when he is aggrieved by the decision of the Board on a review. Taking into account the comments received during the consultation period, the Administration would consider extending this period to 60 days.
Sir, the principal intention of extending proper town planning to the rural are as is to assist orderly development in the same way as the legislation has effectively been applied to guide development of the urban areas. In having a statutory planning system, we shall be able to provide an open process which would give a clear indication
of what development is desirable and where it should go, thus helping landowners and developers in planning the use of their property and in making investment decisions. As it will take some time for outline zoning plans to be prepared to cover all the rural areas where they are needed, the Town Planning Board will be empowered to
designate, as directed by the Governor, development permission areas within which all proposed development, unless otherwise specified in the plan, will require planning permission. The development permission area plans will be gazetted and exhibited in the same manner and subject to the same objection procedure as the current statutory outline zoning plans.
As control through development permission areas is intended to be an interim measure only, pending completion of an outline zoning plan, the development permission area plan will be replaced by an outline zoning plan within three years (subject to one year's extension), but enforcement powers would continue to apply even when the development permission area plan is replaced by an outline zoning plan. There is, however, no intention whatsoever to introduce development permission area plans to areas covered by outline zoning plans.
Under the proposed system, the Director of Planning will be given powers of inspection and enforcement. Non-compliance with the requirement to discontinue an unauthorized development or reinstate the land will, on conviction, be liable to punishment by fine or imprisonment. However, in view of the comments the Administration has received during the consultation exercise on the Bill, I shall be putting forward proposals for a reduction in fines and the removal of the imprisonment sentence.
As existing uses prior to the gazetting of development permission area plans wi ll be permitted to continue, this could have the effect of encouraging development in anticipation of the operation of the Bill. Section 25 of clause 8 of the Bill therefore provides for an interim development permission system, whereby as from the date of gazetting (that is 27 July 1990), the Director of Planning is empowered to publish plans of interim development permission areas as directed by the Governor. The Director of Planning may approve or refuse applications for change of use within interim development permission areas. Pending the passage of the Bill,
contravention of the interim plan cannot be enforced. But if the Bill is passed by this Council, and if the areas covered by the interim development permission plans become part of a development permission area within six months of the enactment of the legislation, the Director of Planning's approval will be honoured and
developments in contravention of the plan will be enforceable.
Sir, let me stress again that the main intention of this amendment Bill is to ensure that development in the rural areas will proceed under the right conditions in the right place. The Bill is a positive measure whereby developments beneficial to the New Territories will be able to take place, both in the short term and in the years to come.
Sir, I move that the debate on this motion be adjourned.
Question on the adjournment proposed, put and agreed to.
ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVING-OFFENCE POINTS) (AMENDMENT) BILL 1990
THE SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT moved the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Road Traffic (Driving-offence Points) Ordinance."
He said: Sir, I move that the Road Traffic (Driving-offence Points) (Amendment) Bill 1990 be read a Second time.
The Bill makes certain technical amendments, the main purpose of which is to clarify the circumstances when liability to a fixed penalty arises, ceases or revives, and to improve the operation of the Driving-offence Points System. No policy changes are involved.
At present, when a person becomes liable to a fixed penalty for a scheduled offence, he incurs Driving-offence Points. However, the circumstances when liability to a fixed penalty arises, ceases or revives are not clearly defined. This has led to difficulties in interpretation of the law. The Bill clarifies all the circumstances to avoid future difficulties.
The Bill also seeks to improve the operation of the Driving-offence Point Scheme in two aspects.
First, at present, when a person is disqualified from driving for having incurred 15 or more Driving-offence Points within two years, he is required to surrender only his Hong Kong driving licence. But he may still drive using his international and
foreign driving licences or permits during this period. This breaches the spirit of the Driving-offence Points Scheme. To rectify this, the Bill provides that all driving licences and permits held by a disqualified person must be surrendered to the court upon disqualification, but these will be returned to him upon either his departure from Hong Kong or the expiry of the disqualification period, whichever occurs earlier.
Secondly, when a person has incurred 15 or more Driving-offence Points, the Commissioner for Transport must apply to a magistrate for a summons. In deciding whether a person has incurred 15 or more points, the magistrate must calculate such points according to section 8(5) of the Driving-offence Points Ordinance. This provides that where two or more offences have arisen out of the same act, only the offence attracting the highest number of points should be counted; and where they attract the same number of points, only one of the offences should be counted. However, the Commissioner is not at present empowered to use this method of calculation and must record all multiple offences and refer cases to the magistrate, thereby creating unnecessary work. The Bill remedies this situation by empowering the Commissioner to calculate Driving-offence Points according to the method used by magistrates.
Sir, I move that the debate on this motion be now adjourned.
Question on the adjournment proposed, put and agreed to.
PUBLIC HEALTH (ANIMALS AND BIRDS) (AMENDMENT) BILL 1990
THE SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES moved the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Public Health (Animals and Birds) Ordinance."
She said: Sir, I move that the Public Health (Animals and Birds) (Amendment) Bill 1990 be read a Second time.
The Bill seeks to provide powers to enable the setting of hygiene standards for untreated milk and to extend the existing enabling powers relating to the licensing of animal traders and their business premises. It also proposes an increase in the ceiling for penalties under the Public Health (Animals and Birds) Ordinance.
Milk must be heat-treated to destroy bacteria and other micro-organisms before
it can be marketed. Standard forms of heat treatment, such as pasteurization, require the input of reasonably hygienic milk and cannot be relied upon to make heavily contaminated milk completely safe. It is therefore important to ensure that untreated milk is kept free from contamination so that the milk and milk products sold to the public will be safe and hygienic.
The Dairies Regulations provide for the licensing and control of dairies but they do not set hygiene standards for untreated milk or provide for its bacteriological examination. The Bill therefore provides for powers to enable additional regulations to be made allowing the taking of milk samples for bacteriological examination, setting statutory standards for bacterial contamination and prohibiting the sale of contaminated milk. The standards to be set will be the same as those specified in the Milk By-laws of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance, which apply to the sale of treated milk or milk beverages.
The Bill also provides for more comprehensive enabling authority to provide an adequate degree of control over the standards maintained by persons or businesses engaged in the trading, boarding or exhibition of animals and birds. For example, whereas at present only a person engaged in the trading of animals and birds has to be licensed, the Bill will enable regulations to be made extending the licensing requirements to premises where animals and birds are kept for the purpose of the business.
In addition, the Bill seeks to raise the ceiling for penalties for offences against the regulations from $2,000 to $5,000 to maintain their deterrent effect. The penalties were last revised in 1970.
Sir, I move that the debate on this motion be adjourned.
Question on the adjournment proposed, put and agreed to.
MERCHANT SHIPPING (REGISTRATION) BILL 1990
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 4 July 1990 Question on Second Reading proposed.
MR BARROW: Sir, the Bill seeks to replace its extended United Kingdom's legislation with Hong Kong's own legislation.
It is provided in the Joint Declaration that "the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be authorized by the Central People's Government to continue to maintain a shipping register and issue related certificates under its own legislation in the name of 'Hong Kong, China' ". The Bill is aimed to implement this provision.
In view of the importance of the Bill for the development of the shipping industry in Hong Kong, a Legislative Council ad hoc group was formed to study the Bill.
We have held five meetings and have met both the Administration and the Shipowners Association to exchange views on the legal as well as the drafting aspects of the Bill. As a result of this work, various amendments will be moved by the Administration, my colleague Mrs Miriam LAU and myself at the Committee stage.
In the course of our work, we have noticed some concerns of the shipping industry arising from the Bill.
Taxation of shipping profits
Sir, it is understandable for the shipping industry to be concerned about taxation of shipping profits under the new legislation. The lack of a clear policy in this regard would generate uncertainty in the trade and would, in turn, affect the success of the new register. The ad hoc group has made this point and we are pleased to note the Administration's readiness to make known its policy intentions regarding
exemption of Hong Kong registered ocean-going vessels from profits tax.
The Administration has also given the assurance that the preparation of the draft legislation to amend the Inland Revenue Ordinance has been accorded top priority and that the proposed exemption will be granted with effect from the date of establishment of the new register. We are satisfied with the undertaking given by the
Administration and have urged the Administration to explain its policy intentions to the shipping industry.
Fees and charges
Secondly, the ad hoc group is concerned about the level of fees and charges to
be imposed on ships registered in Hong Kong, since it is an important consideration for shipowners in choosing the most appropriate register for their operations. We are pleased to note that the Administration is fully aware of the need for competitiveness in this regard. The proposed level of fees and charges has been set to recover as much as possible the operating costs of the new register without undermining its competitiveness against other shipping registers. I fully agree with the Administration's objective, but would like to stress the importance of maintaining the competitiveness by keeping the system under constant review.
Publicity plans
Finally, Sir, the promotion of the new register both locally and overseas will be an important factor contributing to its success. I am pleased to note the publicity plans lined up by the Administration to present the new register to the shipping industry. I am sure that efforts in this area will bring worthwhile results.
With these remarks, Sir, and subject to the amendments proposed, I support the Bill.
SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES: Sir, I am grateful to my honourable colleagues for their support of the Merchant Shipping (Registration) Bill 1990 and particularly so to the members of the Legislative Council ad hoc group for completing their study of the Bill in time to allow Hong Kong's new shipping register to be launched on schedule.
Sir, our aim has been to ensure that Hong Kong's shipping register maintains a high reputation while being competitive enough to attract new tonnage. It bears repeating that Hong Kong registered ships will be operated in accordance with all relevant international conventions and that we have no interest in seeing Hong Kong become a "flag of convenience". This would be detrimental to our existing hard-earned position as a leading centre of shipping and maritime commerce. At the same time, we have constructed a package of fees and charges to be payable by shipowners which we believe will enable us to compete with other registers of similar standing. We intend to submit the draft regulations containing our proposed fees and charges to the Executive Council immediately after the Bill is passed by this Council. We also intend to keep the fees and charges structure under review to ensure that the register remains competitive.
The proposed charges include, for the first time, an annual tonnage charge. In response to representations from shipowners that the combination of this charge and the existing provisions for the taxation of shipping profits would seriously affect the attractiveness of the Hong Kong register, the Administration has decided that, subject to enactment by this Council of the necessary amendments to the Inland Revenue Ordinance, exemption from profits tax will be granted in respect of profits derived from the carriage of passengers, mail, livestock and goods uplifted in Hong Kong by ocean-going ships registered on the new register. This exemption, which we intend will take effect from the establishment of the new register, will also apply to the charter hire of ocean-going ships, irrespective of whether the ships are registered in Hong Kong. It will not apply to income arising from journeys within the waters of Hong Kong, and between Hong Kong and Macau and other places in the Pearl River delta.
Sir, as Mr BARROW has pointed out, we need to make sure that the register is well publicized and actively promoted. The official launch will take place on 23 November, when the Director of Marine and his professional staff will host two seminars for shipowners, shipping management companies, bankers, marine lawyers, insurers,
shipbuilders and ship classification societies to introduce the new register to them in detail. The register will open for business on 3 December. Thereafter, we will embark on an extended programme of visits to individual shipowners and ship management companies to encourage and assist them to make use of our register. There will also be much general publicity, both locally and overseas.
Sir, there is every reason to believe that our own shipping register will succeed in enhancing Hong Kong's position as a major centre of trade and shipping and that it will play an important role in promoting Hong Kong's economic identity overseas.
Sir, with these remarks, I commend the Merchant Shipping (Registration) Bill 1990 to this Council.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to. Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
IMMIGRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1990
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 17 October 1990 Question on Second Reading proposed.
MRS FAN: Sir, Hong Kong is currently suffering from its highest influx of illega l immigrants across the border since 1980. The majority of these illegal immigrants come to seek employment. The prosecution policy of illegal immigrants has been progressively tightened to provide a deterrent. But the deterrent is losing its effect due to the attraction of employment opportunities. Nearly 38% of our prison population are illegal immigrants. The cost of keeping them in prisons is about $312 million per annum. The sentencing guideline on illegal immigrant workers, as laid down by the Court of Appeal, is 15 months. Employers of illegal immigrants, on the other hand, are liable to a fine of $50,000 and to imprisonment of one year under section 17I of the Immigration Ordinance. While the majority of illegal immigrant workers were found on construction sites, section 17I is ineffective against construction site employers because the employer-employee relationship is difficult to establish for construction sites. Clearly, a problem exists.
The Legislative Council ad hoc group to study the legislation on Chinese illegal immigrant workers was formed on 6 July to study this problem, with particular attention to construction sites. The ad hoc group was of the view that the problem has to be tackled at source. If the employment opportunities for illegal immigrant workers dry up, the incentive for illegal immigrant workers to come will diminish; then the influx can be expected to reduce.
Even before the introduction of the Immigration (Amendment) Bill 1990 into this Council, the ad hoc group held three meetings with the Administration to exchan ge views and to look into the feasibility and equity of the suggestions arising out of representations to the ad hoc group or from members of the group. The group also had meetings with the Hong Kong Construction Association Limited and the Hong Kong Construction Industry Employees General Union to receive their representations. As expected, and also understandably, the Hong Kong Construction Association had strong reservation on holding the principal contractors liable for any illegal immigrant present on the construction site, while the Construction Industry Employee General Union considered that principal contractors should be held legally
responsible. Representations were also received by OMELCO Members through our Complaints Division. Of particular significance is the representation by a deputation of six industrial associations objecting against the strict liability placed on employers of illegal immigrant workers, regardless of whether the employer had exercised due diligence in checking the immigration status of the job applicant.
After the Bill was gazetted on 5 October 1990, the ad hoc group held meetings a
gain with the Hong Kong Construction Association and the Construction Industry E mployees General Union to hear their views and suggestions on the Bill. The group also received representations from the Hong Kong Institute of Personnel Management and the Chinese Manufacturers' Association. The group is grateful to all these
organizations for coming forward with their opinions, all of which received our careful consideration. A total of 11 meetings were held. Up to this morning, we are still receiving communication from the Hong Kong Construction Association. They remained unconvinced that this Bill will be effective in achieving its purpose and they felt that they have not been adequately consulted. While I respect their views and only time can prove the effectiveness of this piece of legislation, I do not agree that they have not been given sufficient opportunity to express their views. I am however pleased to note that they have adopted a code of practice for their members to prevent illegal immigrant workers on construction sites.
Sir, I now turn to some specific issues.
Definition of "construction site controller"
There is considerable public concern that those who employ illegal immigrants or allow illegal immigrants to work on their site are at present escaping punishment. Practical difficulties have been experienced in bringing successful charges against contractors and subcontractors in construction sites under section 17I due to the complicated system of subcontracting prevalent in the industry.
In order to effectively solve the problem of illegal immigration which places heavy burden on our penal institutions and the public purse, the new section 38A puts liability on the construction site controller for any illegal immigrants found on his construction site to ensure that he will exercise better management control over his subcontractors. However, there is a defence against this offence if he has taken all practicable steps to prevent illegal immigrants from being on the site.
The Administration assured members that the definition of construction site controller was so drafted that the liability was placed on the principal or main contractor irrespective of whether he was physically in control or in charge of a construction site. To cater for cases where a main contractor has sublet the whole site to a subcontractor, a Committee stage amendment would be moved by the Secretary for Security to include subcontractors under the definition. The word "head" contractor would be amended to "main" contractor in order to be consistent with the common use in the industry. The ad hoc group agrees with these amendments.
Effectiveness of the $250,000 fine under section 38A(2)
Some members have reservation on the maximum fine of $250,000 as a deterrent on main contractors as the maximum penalty will only be imposed on the worst imaginable cases and usually the fine could be very small in comparison to the value of contracts. Even if a fine of $250,000 is imposed, it might not be able to cover the cost paid by taxpayers for imprisoning the illegal immigrants arrested for 15 months. Stepped penalty was suggested in order to subject repeated offenders to heavier fines. The Administration however considered that the proposed level of penalty should be an effective sanction and assured the group that the effectiveness of the entire piece of legislation would be monitored and reviewed.
I would like to add here that the inclusion of prison sentence under this provision was also examined but the group concluded that it would not be appropriate to impose imprisonment on an offence of a vicarious nature.
Guideline on "all practicable steps" in section 17I(b)(1A)
The existing section 17I of the Immigration Ordinance places strict liability on employers who employ illegal immigrants, regardless of whether the employer has exercised due diligence in checking the immigration status of the job applicant. This has been the subject of a representation of six industrial associations and there is strong concern among employers.
This new provision is added at the suggestion of the ad hoc group to offer a defence of reasonable care to employers who have acted in good faith. Understandably, employers wish to have some guideline on what constitutes "all practicable steps" under the defence clause to assist them to discharge their duties under this provision.
The Administration indicated that it would carry out discussion with interested organizations such as the Hong Kong Institute of Personnel Management over the next few months if requested to provide advice and guidance on what measures constitute "all practicable steps". It is to be noted, however, that an exhaustive guideline covering all possible circumstances in different places of work is impossible and it is ultimately for the Court to decide each case basing on the particular circumstances.
Requirement on workers to wear identity cards on construction sites
The Hong Kong Construction Association has suggested that construction site con trollers be given statutory power to demand the show of identity cards or any ot her recognized documents upon entry to construction sites, the display of identi ty cards or any other recognized document at all times by workers on site, and w orkers who fail to comply with this proposed legal requirement will commit an of fence and will be liable to a fine of $5,000. The Hong Kong Construction Industry Employees General Union opposes the proposed statutory requirement for workers to display their identity cards, but they are not opposed to displaying work permits or show of identification documents. They assured the group that they would continue to encourage their members to co-operate and comply with the regulations laid down by the main contractor. Having carefully examined the proposal and the views of both the association and the union, the ad hoc group and the Administration concluded separately and independently of each other that the site controller already has enough management power to demand the show of identity card and/or any other documents
recognized by the site controller at construction site entrances and within the site. The law also allows the use of reasonable force by any person in control of a premises to refuse the entry of anyone who fail to produce identification document upon request.
Review of illegal immigrant prosecution policy
Some members have expressed concern over the 15-month imprisonment passed on illegal immigrants found in places of work and considered that first offenders should be repatriated right away, just like any illegal immigrants found on the street.
In order to avoid sending the wrong message to potential illegal immigrants at this stage, the Administration undertook to review its prosecution policy after six months when, if the legislation was effective, the supply of job opportunities would
have reduced and an opportunity exists to reconsider the policy. Conclusion
Sir, it is hoped that through the new provisions to be enacted in this Council this afternoon, the pull force on illegal labour can be reduced and the problem of illegal immigration put under control. On the other hand, police efforts in enhancing border security and co-operation with the Chinese authorities are equally essential in combating the problem.
Sir, with these remarks, I support the Bill.
MR MARTIN LEE: Sir, I rise to support this Bill.
In recent months, there has been widespread public outcry against the hefty sentences of imprisonment meted out by the courts to illegal immigrants from China who had been arrested in groups of three or more on construction sites. Just as illegal immigrants face a maximum prison sentence of three years, so this Bill would establish a similar punishment for employers of these illegal immigrants in terms of imprisonment though the maximum fine is naturally much higher for employers than employees.
I think I should inform this Council first that I have recently been acting for a group of such illegal immigrants from China in the Court of Appeal when I was instructed by the Director of Legal Aid to oppose the application made by the Attorney General that the sentences imposed by various magistrates should be increased by following the tariff or standard sentence of 15 months of imprisonment.
Sir, if we really want to deter illegal immigrants from China from seeking employment in Hong Kong, we must make sure that they will not be able to find employment even if they get here. For once we can achieve that, there will no longer be any reason for them to seek to enter into Hong Kong.
The most effective way therefore is to give power to our courts to imprison employers of such illegal immigrants. For then no employer would employ such illegal immigrants and every employer will take all practicable steps to ensure that none of their employees is an illegal immigrant.
This Bill seeks among other things to do that, and I therefore support it.
But in the course of deliberations between the ad hoc group and the Administration, a number of my colleagues including myself expressed the view that illegal immigrants found in places of work should be repatriated to China right away just like illegal immigrants found in our streets unless they have been arrested and repatriated before.
To enable my colleagues who are not members of the ad hoc group to understand this point better, I think I should give a little background.
The Attorney General's Chambers have adopted a prosecution policy whereby only selective groups of illegal immigrants from China will be prosecuted including s econd-timers, those prosecuted with other offences, and those found in groups of three or more in work places including construction sites. These total about 2 5%. As to the other 75% of illegal immigrants from China found in Hong Kong, th ey are simply repatriated without any prosecution. But for those who are prosecuted and convicted, the tariff sentence is 15 months' imprisonment. From time to time, some compassionate magistrates have given more lenient sentences. But whenever that happens, the Attorney General will seek to have such sentences reviewed by the Court of Appeal so that the sentences would be increased. Bearing in mind that the only justification for such hefty sentences is to deter would-be immigrants from coming into Hong Kong illegally to seek employment, the repatriation of 75% of all illegal immigrants would clearly have the opposite effect, particularly when the Government has not taken any effective steps to warn these would-be illegal immigrants from China of the consequences of their being found in groups of three or more on a construction site either by publicizing such prosecution policy in China or at least by putting up notices to that effect on construction sites.
In face of the recent widespread public outcry against these hefty sentences of imprisonment which are only imposed upon the illegal immigrant employees and not their employers, and in view of the increasingly large numbers of such illegal immigrants seeking and getting employment in Hong Kong, particularly on construction sites, the Administration had no option but to acknowledge that its present policy to deter illegal immigrants from China has failed. And hence this Bill before this Council today.
Nevertheless, the Attorney General still insists on prosecuting selective
illegal immigrants and insists that the courts should impose the tariff sentence of 15 months of imprisonment.
The Attorney General has sought to justify his stance during his speech made to this Council last Wednesday by putting the blame on the courts, saying "It is the courts which apply the law. It was the courts which set down sentencing guidelines for these offences, and it is the Crown whose duty, and I emphasize the word duty, it is to seek review when guidelines set by the courts are not implemented, in other words, where sentences are manifestly inadequate or wrong in principle. Whether a sentence is in fact inadequate or wrong in principle is a matter for the courts and the courts alone." What the Attorney General did not tell this Council, and what he has apparently forgotten, is that it was the Attorney General who had asked the Court of Appeal to impose the tariff of 15 months of imprisonment on these illegal immigrant employees. This was first done in the case of The Queen v. SO Man-king and others (1989) 1 HKLR 142.
And as recently as 31 July this year, in Review No. 5 of 1990: The Queen v. NG Kin-hung and others, the Attorney General still argued, through his Acting Director of Public Prosecutions, that the tariff sentence of 15 months' imprisonment should be upheld by the Court of Appeal so as to deter illegal immigrants from entering Hong Kong. The Attorney General could have relented in light of the open acknowledgement that this prosecution policy had failed, but he did not.
And in spite of the concern expressed in the ad hoc group, the Administration has merely undertaken to review its prosecution policy after six months, but has decided against doing anything immediately about it because it says it does not wish to send the wrong signal to potential illegal immigrants at this stage. I find this totally bewildering. For all we are asking is not to prosecute illegal immigrants found on construction sites in numbers of three or more unless they are second-timers. And we know our prisons are overcrowded by 37% according to the South China Morning Post report on 10 July this year and 36% of the penal population are illegal immigrants from China, the bulk of whom are serving 15-month sentences for working here.
What possible wrong signals will we be sending when 75% of all the arrested illegal immigrants from China are repatriated without trial anyway? If this persistence is not due to consideration of face as claimed by the Attorney General, then I see no other possible explanation for it. Surely the right thing to do is to send these illegal immigrant employees back to China together with the other 75% of illegal
immigrants, but giving all of them a notice in Chinese that if they should ever come again to Hong Kong illegally, they will be prosecuted and they can expect a hefty sentence of imprisonment.
But if the Attorney General chooses not to right the wrong now, but continue to prosecute these illegal immigrants, the courts would be bound by the tariff sentence of 15 months of imprisonment first laid down by the Court of Appeal in 1988 and confirmed by the Court of Appeal of five judges in August this year. During the hearing of the review on 31 July this year, it was said by the President of that Court that they would only lower the tariff if the Legislative Council were to lower the maximum sentence in section 38(1)(b) of the Immigration Ordinance for first offenders.
I therefore give notice that unless the Administration gives a clear undertaking that these illegal immigrant employees who are first-timers will not be prosecuted during the six months that the Administration has asked for before conducting a review on its prosecution policy, I will feel compelled to move for an amendment to reduce the maximum sentence in section 38(1)(b) in respect of illegal immigrant employees who are first offenders.
With these observations, Sir, I support this Bill.
MR McGREGOR: Sir, I oppose this legislation because I believe that the policy that makes it necessary is seriously flawed. For a great many years our economic strength and growth was predicated upon the very substantial movement of Chinese immigrants into Hong Kong. They formed the backbone of our hard working workforce and as time went along they also provided much of the personal vigour and corporate innovation that took our economy from rags to riches.
We were perhaps too successful and became a Mecca for all these in China who wanted a better material life and were prepared to make the sometimes perilous journey to get it. The numbers became impossible for Hong Kong to absorb and the present restrictive immigration policy was applied progressively. This has now become, in my view, far too restrictive and, in the face of trade union pressure, the Government appears to have closed down its recent policy modification which has permitted a limited number of skilled workers to come from China. This on again off again, hot then cold immigration policy towards contract labour from China has created, and now
maintains, very large economic and social problems, which will not go away.
The construction industry needs thousands of additional workers, many of them relatively unskilled. Hong Kong cannot provide the numbers required. Improved productivity cannot reduce significantly the demand for these workers. Only China can supply them. Immigration policy will not permit these unskilled workers to come here in the numbers required.
The result is inevitable. Supply seeks to meet demand and workers pour in from China illegally, seeking honest employment and willing to risk a great deal to obtain it. Contractors and subcontractors, knowing or otherwise, gratefully accept these workers whose labour contributes to the development of Hong Kong's infrastructure.
The law, expressing the policy, seeks out the workers and puts them in jail for 15 months, a degrading and, in my view, quite unnecessary humiliation for people whose only crime has been to fill a real need in the Hong Kong workforce. I am told that over 30% of our prison population is composed of these unfortunate young men.
Sir, we have created a situation which denies our construction industry the workers it must have to maintain our infrastructural growth within reasonable time and cost parameters. We have also created a situation which has made criminals of thousands of honest young men seeking to work. We dismiss magistrates who do not agree with either the policy or its resultant procedures, who apply commonsense rather than bad law. This savage deterrent of imprisonment having failed, we now seek to cure the problem by making the law even more draconian and casting the net even wider.
Does it not occur to the Government that it is the policy that is wrong, that the construction industry must have immigrant workers and cannot possibly find them here? Of course, Sir, it has occurred to the Government. They have admitted that immigrant workers, obviously from China, will be allowed to work for the successful contractors making our new airport. These workers will not have to go to jail nor will the contractors be heavily fined or imprisoned.
Why the special arrangements for the airport? The Government may claim that these are necessary for the very reasons I have set out in describing the problems now faced by the construction industry. The airport project is huge and needs more workers than Hong Kong can supply if cost and time parameters are to be met.
There is no difference, Sir, in the two situations. The aggregate unrequited demand for semi-skilled and unskilled workers in the construction industry right now and in the near-term future is at least as great as the likely demand for such labour in airport construction.
The policy is wrong and should be changed as soon as possible to permit Chinese workers to help meet the demand which Hong Kong labour cannot satisfy.
In the meantime, illegal immigrants should be returned to China as soon as they are apprehended. They should not be treated as common criminals.
As a matter of principle and because I believe that our economic interests demand a change in immigration policy, and also that our penal institutions are for criminals not honest workmen, I do not support this Bill. I ask those of my colleagues in this Council who believe as I do to reject the Bill. Thank you, Sir.
MRS TU: It is hoped that this Bill will cause employers to think twice before employing illegal immigrant workers, especially on construction sites where the law has been flouted by some.
Having said that, I must add that I think the main value of the Bill is a cosmetic one because it conceals some deep-rooted problems. Two questions need to be answered if we really want to get at the root of wide-scale illegal immigration of workers from China.
The first question is whether or not there is really a shortage of construction workers. If so, then that is the question to which we should address ourselves, because punitive laws will not solve labour shortages. If there is no shortage of labour, we need to know why employers claim that there is.
The second question is whether the root cause of illegal immigration is purely a triad one, whether triads are recruiting workers for personal gain, and at the same time forcing contractors to pay for supplying cheap labour. Throughout my 40 years in Hong Kong, I have been informed about triad pressures on building contractors, and this is a serious matter that must be resolved by criminal law enforcement and not by immigration laws. Fining employers and sending workers to prison will solve no problems unless efforts are made to catch the organizers of this trade in human
beings. I am concerned that sometimes laws seem to be made to control or punish victims but allow the criminals to escape.
And that brings me to the point in this Bill that deeply disappoints me, and I am sure disappoints many members of the public. Our colleague, Mrs Selina CHOW, wishes to be associated with this remark because she too is greatly disappointed and shares my views. I am referring to the fact that the law is to remain unchanged in respect of illegal immigrant workers, and they will still be imprisoned according to the guidelines set down by five Appeals Court Judges and originating, as Mr Martin LEE asserts, by the Attorney General. The Legislative Council briefing admits that the existing Bill is unfair to workers, yet it retains the very thing that has caused public outrage. The strange reason given for retaining this draconian treatment of groups of three or more workers is that to change it would send the wrong signals to others in China seeking employment in Hong Kong. At the same time, the Legislative Council briefing admits "that large-scale prosecution of illegal immigrant workers is no longer having the deterrent effect as intended."
The argument for retaining a measure that has proved ineffective as being admit tedly unjust is totally illogical. Is it not equally likely that the present sy stem of imprisoning workers for long periods is taking back the wrong message to intending immigrant workers? It is most unlikely that the syndicate organizers will explain to new recruits that other workers are in prison, and the absence of imprisoned workers from their homes in China may be misrepresented by the syndicates as proof that they did indeed get a job that kept them here in Hong Kong. I have been told that some prisoners are ashamed to write home to say that they are in prison. A quicker deterrent, in my estimation, would be to repatriate illegal immigrant workers in the same way as we repatriate illegal immigrants. We in this Council have always argued that repatriation of illegal immigrant Vietnamese takes back a message to others in Vietnam. Why should we change the argument to suit the law in the case of Chinese illegal immigrant workers? We could warn Chinese illegal immigrant
workers that repetition of the offence would result in a stiff penalty.
No matter what the arguments may be, the fact remains that there is no justice in repatriating some illegal immigrants and imprisoning others who come here to work.
In fact, imprisoning illegal immigrant workers is fair to no one. First, it discriminates against honest people who come here seeking work. Then it is unfair to the Correctional Services Department staff who are already overburdened by extra
duties placed upon them by Vietnamese boat people, as well as an increasing number of local criminals. It is also unfair to the police who are already understaffed and need to face a growing triad problem. And it is unfair to the public that the prisons are packed to overflowing, threatening disorder, while at the same time the public has to pay for the livelihood of able-bodied people who can and want to work to support themselves.
Sir, I support the Bill, but only half-heartedly, because I believe that it will not be very effective, and because it leaves whole areas of injustice that have not yet been addressed.
And I hope that Mr. McGREGOR's recommendations that the policy should be changed immediately be taken notice of.
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Thank you, Sir, for giving me permission under Standing Orders to speak again in this debate. I take this opportunity to explain the prosecutions policy which I announced to this Council on 17 October when this Bill was introduced. Sir, I do not need to restate what has already been said very forcefully, both on that occasion and this afternoon, that the policy of prosecuting illegal immigrants has had a reduced deterrent effect. It is perfectly clear that the initial effect of the first 12 to 15 months of that policy was effective, but, as the Secretary for Security made clear, that effect reduced and has been reducing and it is those
considerations that have brought the Bill before this Council. I think it is right to say to the Council that had there not been a policy of prosecuting illegal immigrants it is clear that the numbers coming here seeking employment would have been very much greater indeed.
The policy that I undertook two years ago was, I believe, a wise one and I have no cause whatsoever to regret it. Sir, I have explained in this Council last week in another debate that the principles on which the courts determine sentence are within the parameters laid down by this Council. I will not repeat now what I said then. I would only like to say, by way of amplification, that in seeking a review of sentence I do so in the public interest on tightly circumscribed grounds and that is that I believe the sentence is manifestly inadequate or wrong in principle.
It is for the court, or the Court of Appeal, to decide whether or not it accepts my submissions on sentence. That is a matter entirely for the court. It hears my
submissions and it hears submissions from those on the other side and it takes a view. It is worth restating that principle cardinal to our legal system that it is for the courts ultimately to decide sentence.
I have listened with great care to the suggestions that have been made in this Council this afternoon that the policy which I announced on 17 October should be modified and that in future illegal immigrants found on construction sites in groups of three or more should be repatriated to China without prosecution, but that if they come back, having been warned, then all should be prosecuted.
When the Secretary for Security introduced this Bill into this Council on 17 October, he said that the object is to reduce the employment opportunities available to illegal immigrants and thus to reduce the flow at source. The prosecutions policy, of course, meshes in with that legislative aim. A prosecutions policy, which would seek to repatriate all illegal immigrants, would, I believe, very seriously undermine that objective, an objective which we all support. Such a policy would be, in my view, a virtual invitation to all illegal immigrants to come flooding into Hong Kong -- the very situation that we are seeking to avoid. The policy which I announced in this Council on 17 October is designed to deter those who come here for employment.
I am prepared to review that policy carefully after six months, but I believe that it is right that the provisions in the Bill and the policy deserve a fair chance to work. As I said when I spoke to this Council on 17 October, I will not hesitate to change the policy if it does not work. Under those circumstances it would, I suggest, be premature and unwise to give the undertakings that have been sought this afternoon that we should abandon that prosecutions policy. And I repeat, Sir, that I will carefully review my policy after six months to see how well it has worked.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Sir, I am grateful for the support given to this Bill by most Members and, in particular, the Legislative Council ad hoc group. The Attorney General has dealt with points raised by Members on the prosecution of illegal immigrants. I will limit myself to replying to other points raised.
We propose to monitor the effectiveness of the Bill by reference to the number of illegal immigrants arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned and to review where we stand in six months' time. It has been suggested that it would be desirable to reduce the maximum sentence for the offence of entering and remaining unlawfully in Hong Kong,
particularly for first offenders, and that it would also be desirable not to prosecute illegal immigrants or certain categories of illegal immigrants found at places of work. These and other matters can be reviewed then, but we must be careful not to send the wrong message. It is important that we have in place laws which effectively deter illegal immigration. Our experience has been that our policies on illegal immigration
are very well and very quickly known to prospective illegal immigrants on the other side of the border.
I now turn to the measures which employers and those in charge of construction sites should take to ensure that illegal immigrants are not employed on their pr emises. The amendment to section 17I now provides a defence for employers where all practicable steps were taken to determine that the employee was lawfully em ployable. A similar defence is available to a construction site controller char ged with an offence under the new section 38A. Several Members have requested t hat detailed guidelines be laid down as to what constitutes "all practicable ste ps". The steps that can be taken will vary from industry to industry, factory to factory and construction site to construction site. It is not possible to satisfy all practicable steps that would be applicable in all circumstances. Such measures could include checking the details of the identity card of a potential employee or other form of identification, to institute checks on site at random times and to make it a condition of entry to the site, factory or other workplace that a person must identify himself. Practical advice to employers and to those in charge of
construction site will be available on request from crime prevention officers in each police district. In addition, the Administration will, on request, be glad to give assistance and guidance to representatives of the construction industry and employers generally. But whether the measures taken constitute an arguable defence will be for the court to determine in each case.
I agree with Mr McGREGOR and Mrs TU that there is a need for the present, at least, to import labour into Hong Kong, but I believe strongly that this immigration must be controlled in the interests of all, including in the interests of the workers themselves, so as to reduce the opportunity for exploitation. We have to this end in the past two years introduced schemes to permit the importation of labour and, as the Secretary for Education and Manpower says in his statement earlier this
afternoon, these schemes will be reviewed in the light of demand and conditions in the labour market. Sir, I beg to move.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put.
Voice votes taken.
The President said he thought the "Ayes" had it.
MR McGREGOR: Sir, I seek a division.
HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT: I am sorry I did not catch you saying that before I made the ruling. However, I will take it that you did seek a division. But the voices to me were quite clear. I will remind the Council of
the procedures. I have two alternatives: either if I believe that the voices are clear I seek a view from Members of this Council about whether or not they support that ruling, or I order a division. In this case I am going to seek the advice of the Members of this Council on whether or not the voices and therefore my
interpretation of them was clear. What I will do is to ask Members of this Council first of all to stand in their places if they agree with my preliminary ruling and I will put it now on a preliminary ruling that the "Ayes" have it. I will then ask Members of the Council to stand if they disagree with that ruling. I hope that
procedure is clear. I will now ask Members of this Council who support the preliminary ruling from the Chair that the "Ayes" have it to stand in their places.
Thank you. Please sit down.
I will ask those who disagree with that ruling to stand in their places. Thank you.
I declare that the view of this Council is clear, that the preliminary judgment that the "Ayes" have it is correct and I therefore confirm that the "Ayes" have it.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill agreed to.
Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1). 4.35 pm
HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT: Members of the Council might wish to have a short break.
5.00 pm
HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT: Council will now resume.
Committee stage of Bills
Council went into Committee.
MERCHANT SHIPPING (REGISTRATION) BILL 1990
Clauses 1, 3, 7 to 10, 12, 15, 19, 20, 24, 26 to 28, 32, 36, 38 to 41, 43, 46, 51 to 53, 60, 65, 73, 77 to 80, 84, 85, 87, 91 to 93, 95, 97, 98 and 102 to 104 were agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 50
MR BARROW: Sir, I move that clauses 2 and 50 be amended as set out under my name in the paper circulated to Members.
Proposed amendments
Clause 2
That clause 2 be amended --
(a) by renumbering the clause as subclause (1);
(b) in subclause (1) --
(i) in the definition of "certificate or declaration of marking" by adding "or by the demise charterer" after "owners";
(ii) in the definition of "demise charterer" by adding ", and in relation to a registered or provisionally registered ship means a person registered as demise charterer under this Ordinance" after "charter";
(iii) by adding after the definition of "Director" --
""foreign certificate of deletion" (外㆞終止註冊證明書), in relation to a ship, means a certificate or other
document issued by the relevant authority of a place outside Hong Kong and certifying or stating, as the case may be, to the effect that the ship has been deleted from the register or ships in that place;";
(iv) in the definition of "owner" by adding "or provisionally registered" before "ship";
(v) by deleting the definition of "the Registrar" and substituting --
""the Registrar" (註冊官) means any person appointed as a
Registrar of Ships under section 4(1) and, where the term is used in connection with a power or function for the time being exercised by the Director pursuant to section 4(3), includes the Director;"; and
(c) by adding after subclause (1) --
"(2) Where in relation to a ship or to any matter
connected with a ship any provision of this Ordinance --
(a) imposes a duty or liability on either of the owner
or demise charterer of the ship; or
(b) provides for the service of notice on either of the
owner or demise charterer of the ship, the provision
shall be construed as imposing the duty or liability or
providing for the service of notice --
(i) in the case of a ship registered or to be
registered by virtue of section 11(1)(a), on
the owner; or
(ii) in the case of a ship registered or to be
registered by virtue of section 11(1)(b),
on the demise charterer,
but nothing in this subsection shall prejudice or
affect the operation of that provision in so far as it
imposes the duty or liability, or provides for the service of notice, as the case may be, on any person other than the owner or demise charterer.".
Clause 50(1)
That clause 50 be amended by deleting ", in the specified form or as near thereto as circumstances permit," and substituting "in the specified form".
Question on the amendments proposed, put and agreed to.
SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES: Sir, I move that clauses 2 and 50 be further amended as set out under my name in the paper circulated to Members.
Proposed amendments
Clause 2
That clause 2 be further amended --
In the definition of "builder's certificate" --
(a) in paragraph (c) by deleting "(if any)"; and
(b) by deleting paragraph (d).
Clause 50
That clause 50 be further amended --
(a) in subclause (1) by adding "or mortgagee" after "mortgagor"; and
(b) by adding "or mortgagee" after "mortgagor" where it first occurs in subclauses (2) and (3).
Question on the amendments proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clauses 2 and 50, as amended, proposed, put and agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 6, 11, 14, 21, 25, 31, 35, 48, 58, 59, 61 to 63, 70, 74, 75 and 82
MR BARROW: Sir, I move that the clauses specified be amended as set out in the paper circulated to Members.
Proposed amendments
Clause 4
That clause 4 be amended --
(a) by deleting subclause (1) and substituting --
"(1) The Director shall in writing appoint one or more
public officers to be Registrars of Ships."; and
(b) by adding after subclause (2) --
"(3) Without prejudice to subsection (2), the Director shall have and may exercise the powers and functions of the Registrar referred to in that subsection.".
Clause 5
That clause 5 be amended by deleting subclause (3) and substituting --
"(3) Where in this Ordinance there is reference to a specified form or manner --
(a) that form or manner may be specified by the Director
in instructions; and
(b) if the instructions so provide, deviations from the
specified form or manner not affecting the substance thereof shall not invalidate that form or manner.".
Clause 6
That clause 6 be amended by deleting the clause and substituting -- "6. Protection of public officers
(1) No public officer shall be personally liable for any damage, injury or loss suffered or incurred by any person as a result of any act done or omission made by the public officer in good faith in the exercise
or performance or purported exercise or performance of any power, function or duty under this Ordinance.
(2) The protection conferred on public officers by subsection (1) in respect of any act or omission shall not in any way affect any liability of the Crown in tort for that act or omission.".
Clause 11(2)
That clause 11 be amended by deleting paragraph (c) and substituting --
"(c) the ship is taken in war or hostilities, as a result of which the owner or demise charterer has lost control over the operation of the ship;
(ca) the ship is broken up, or is an actual or constructive total loss such that it is no longer capable of being used in navigation;".
Clause 14(1)(b)
That clause 14 be amended by adding "or demise charterer" after "owner". Clause 21
That clause 21 be amended by--
(a) in subclause (1)(a) by deleting subparagraphs (i) and (ii) and substituting --
"(i) a builder's certificate, bill of sale in favour of the owner or court order vesting title to the ship in the owner;
(ii) evidence, to the satisfaction of the Registrar, of deletion of the ship from the registry of the place outside Hong Kong
where the ship was last registered (if any) or, if the ship was last registered concurrently in more than one such place, from the registry of each such place;"; and
(b) in subclause (3)(a) by deleting subparagraphs (i) and (ii) and substituting --
"(i) a builder's certificate, bill of sale in favour of the owner or court order vesting title to the ship in the owner;
(ii) evidence, to the satisfaction of the Registrar, of deletion of the ship from the registry of the place outside Hong Kong
where the ship was last registered (if any) or, if the ship was last registered concurrently in more than one such place, from the registry of each such place;".
Clause 25
That clause 25 be amended--
(a) In paragraph (e) by adding ", bill of sale in favour of the owner or court order vesting title to the ship in the owner, as the case may be" after "certificate";
(b) by deleting paragraph (f); and
(c) by deleting paragraph (g) and substituting --
"(g) any foreign certificate of deletion delivered to the Registrar whether pursuant to section 58 or otherwise;".
Clause 31
That clause 31 be amended --
(a) in paragraph (e) by adding, ", bill of sale in favour of the owner or court order vesting title to the ship in the owner, as the case may be" after "certificate";
(b) by deleting paragraph (f); and
(c) by deleting paragraph (g) and substituting --
"(g) any foreign certificate of deletion delivered to the Registrar whether pursuant to section 58 or otherwise;".
Clause 35
That clause 35 be amended --
(a) by adding ", demise charterer" after "owner" where it first occurs; and
(b) by adding "or demise charterer" after "owner" where it occurs for the second time.
Clause 48(1)(a)
That clause 48 be amended by deleting "or as near thereto as circumstances permit". Clause 58
That clause 58 be amended by deleting the clause and substituting -- "58. Delivery of foreign certificate of deletion
(1) Subject to subsection (2), the owner or demise charterer of a ship that becomes registered in Hong Kong shall, within 30 days after the date of the ship's registration, deliver to the Registrar a foreign certificate of deletion in respect of the place outside Hong Kong where the ship was last registered (if any) or, if the ship was last registered concurrently in more than one such place, in respect of each such place.
(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply where the certificate or
certificates referred to in that subsection are delivered to the Registrar prior to the time of registration of the ship.".
Clause 59(1)(b)
That claused 59 be amended by adding "and to the demise charterer (if any)" after "Registrar".
Clause 61(1)
That clause 61 be amended by --
(a) by deleting paragraph (c) and substituting --
"(c) the demise charterer of the ship has failed to comply with section 56(1), 57(1) or 58(1); or";
(b) by adding ", demise charterer" after "owner" where it occurs for the second time; and
(c) in paragraph (ii) by adding "or demise charterer" after "owner". Clause 62(1)
That clause 62 be amended --
(a) by adding ", demise charterer" after "owner" where it first occurs; and (b) in paragraph (b) by adding "or demise charterer" after "owner". Clause 63(1)
That clause 63 be amended --
(a) in paragraph (b) by adding "or demise charterer" after "owner" in both places where it occurs; and
(b) in paragraph (i) by adding ", demise charterer" after "owner". Clause 70(1)(a)
That clause 70 be amended by adding "or demise charterer" after "owner". Clause 74(2)
That clause 74 be amended by deleting paragraph (b) and substituting --
"(b) the ship is taken in war or hostilities, as a result of which the Government has lost control over the operation of the ship;
(ba) the ship is broken up, or is an actual or constructive total loss such that it is no longer capable of being used in navigation;".
Clause 75
That clause 75 be amended by deleting paragraph (c) and substituting --
"(c) evidence, to the satisfaction of the Registrar, of deletion of the ship from the registry of the place outside Hong Kong where the ship was last registered (if any) or, if the ship was last registered concurrently in more than one such place, from the registry of each such place;".
Clause 82(2)(b)
That clause 82 be amended by adding ", demise charterers" after "owners". Question on the amendments proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clauses 4 to 6, 11, 14, 21, 25, 31, 35, 48, 58, 59, 61 to 63, 70, 74, 75 and 82, as amended, proposed, put and agreed to.
Clauses 13, 17, 18, 29, 30, 33, 34, 42, 44, 57, 64, 68, 69, 71, 72, 81, 83, 88, 89, 99 and 101
MR BARROW: Sir, I move that the clauses specified be amended as set out under my name in the paper circulated to Members.
Proposed amendments
Clause 13(1)
That clause 13 be amended by adding "tonnage" after "register" where it occurs in paragraphs (c), (e) and (f).
Clause 17
That clause 17 be amended by adding "or demise charterer" after "owner" where it occurs in subclauses (2), (4)(b), (5) and (7).
Clause 18
That clause 18 be amended --
(a) in subclause (3) by adding "or demise charterer" after "owner"; and (b) in subclause (5) by adding ", demise charterer" after "owner". Clause 29(2)
That clause 29 be amended by adding "or demise charterer" after "owner".
Clause 30
That clause 30 be amended by adding ", demise charterer" after "owner" where it occurs in subclauses (4) and (5).
Clause 33
That clause 33 be amended by
(a) by deleting subclauses (1) and (2) and substituting --
"(1) No person having possession or control of a certificate of registry of a ship shall --
(a) detain such a certificate by reason of a claim by an
owner, mortgagee, charterer or other person to any title
to, lien or charge on, or interest in, the ship; or
(b) fail, without reasonable excuse, to deliver the certificate on request to the person entitled to custody of it for the
purpose of the lawful navigation of the ship, or to the
Registrar or any other person entitled by law to require
its delivery."; and
(b) in subclause (3) by deleting "or (2)".
Clause 34
That clause 34 be amended --
(a) by deleting subclause (1) and substituting --
"(1) The master, owner or demise charterer of a ship shall not use, or permit the use of, for the purpose of the navigation of the ship, a certificate of registry not legally granted and in force in respect of the ship."; and
(b) in subclause (2) by adding "or demise charterer" after "owner" Clause 42(1)(b)
That clause 42 be amended by deleting ", or as near thereto as circumstances admit". Clause 44(2)(a)
That clause 44 be amended by deleting "or as near thereto as circumstances permit". Clause 57
That clause 57 be amended by --
(a) In subclause (1) --
(i) by deleting paragraph (a) and substituting --
"(a) is taken in war or hostilities, as a result of which the owner or demise charterer has lost control over the
operation of the ship;
(ab) is broken up, or is an actual or constructive total
loss such that it is no longer capable of being used
in navigation; or";
(ii) by deleting "every owner of the ship or of a share in or part" and substituting "the owner or demise charterer"; and
(b) in subclause (2) by adding "or demise charterer" after "owner". Clause 64
That clause 64 be amended --
(a) in subclause (1) by deleting "owner or the" and substituting "owner, demise charterer or";
(b) in subclause (2)(a) by deleting "owner or the" and substituting "owner, demise charterer or";
(c) in subclause (3) --
(i) in paragraph (c) by adding "or demise charterer" after "owner" where it occurs for the second time;
(ii) in paragraph (i) by deleting "owner or the" and substituting "owner, demise charterer or"; and
(d) in subclause (4)(b) by adding "or demise charterer" after "owner". Clause 68
That clause 68 be amended --
(a) by adding "or demise charterer" after "owner" where it occurs in subclauses (1), (4) and (6);
(b) in subclause (2)(a) by deleting "(but an individual may not, except in relation to a pleasure vessel, be the representative person)"; and
(c) by deleting subclause (3).
Clause 69(1)
That clause 69 be amended by adding "or demise charterer" after "owner" where it occurs for the second time.
Clause 71
That clause 71 be amended --
(a) in subclause (1) --
(i) by adding "and demise charterer" after "owner" where it occurs for the first and second times;
(ii) by deleting paragraph (a) and substituting --
"(a) accept service of all documents in respect of legal proceedings against the owner or demise charterer of the
ship, which may be served on the representative person
pursuant to section 88(2);";
(iii) in paragraph (b) --
(A) by adding ", demise charterer" after "owner" where it occurs for the first time;
(B) by adding "or demise charterer" after "owner" where it occurs for the second time;
(b) in subclause (3)(a) by adding "or demise charterer" after "owner"; and (c) in subclause (4) by adding "or demise charterer" after "owner". Clause 72
That clause 72 be amended --
(a) in subclause (1) by adding "or demise charterer" after "owner" where it occurs for the second and third times; and
(b) in subclause (2) by adding "or demise charterer" after "owner". Clause 81
That clause 81 be amended --
(a) in subclause (1) by adding ", demise charterer" after "owner"; and (b) in subclause (4) by adding "or demise charterer" after "owner". Clause 83
That clause 83 be amended --
(a) in subclause (1) by adding ", demise charterer" after "owners" in both places where it occurs;
(b) in subclause (2) by adding ", demise charterer" after "owner"; and (c) in subclause (3) by adding ", demise charterer" after "owner". Clause 88
That clause 88 be amended --
(a) In subclause (2) by adding "or demise charterer" after "owner" in both places where it occurs; and
(b) in subclause (5) by adding ", demise charterer" after "owner". Clause 89
That clause 89 be amended by adding "or demise charterer" after "owner" where it occurs in subclauses (1) and (2).
Clause 99
That clause 99 be amended --
(a) in paragraph (b) by adding ", bill of sale in favour of the owner or court order vesting title to the ship in the owner, as the case may be" after "certificate"; and
(b) by deleting paragraph (c).
Clause 101
That clause 101 be amended by deleting paragraph (b) and substituting --
"(b) the ship is taken in war or hostilities, as a result of which the owner has lost control over the operation of the ship;
(ba) the ship is broken up, or is an actual or constructive total loss such that it is no longer capable of being used in navigation; or".
Question on the amendments proposed, put and agreed to.
MRS LAU: (in Cantonese): Sir, I move that the clauses specified be further amended as set out under my name in the paper circulated to Members.
The ad hoc group proposes that clauses 13(1)(j), 17, 18, 30(5), 33(3), 34(2), 5
7(2), 68(6), 69(2), 72(2), 81(4), 83(3), 88 and 89 be amended by replacing "犯罪 " with "犯法". The group has carefully considered what Chinese expression would best represent the English term "offence" which is used in the English text of the Bill to denote various breaches. According to the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap 1), "offence" covers both serious criminal offences and minor breaches of the law. The group takes the view that the expression "罪" in the Chinese text of the Bill would mean, to most people, relatively serious criminal offences. Hence it has reservations as to the propriety of "罪" being used generally to denote
"offence" in the Chinese text of the Bill. It has reached agreement with the Law Drafting Division that if "offence" in a Bill or Ordinance refers to a serious offence, the term "犯罪" may be used; otherwise "犯法" is to be preferred. The breaches relating to shipping registration provided under the present Bill would, in the view of the group, be best expressed in Chinese as "犯法". It is therefore proposed that the term "犯罪", wherever it occurs in the Bill, be replaced by "犯法".
Another point of concern to the ad hoc group relates to the expressions employe d in clauses 42, 83 and 101 of the Chinese text of the Bill to denote "transfer of ship" and "transmission of ship". "Transfer" is given as "移轉" and transmis sion as "轉傳". In law, both "transfer" and "transmission" connote the passing of legal rights or interests from one party to another. But "transmission" prin cipally refers to a passing effected otherwise than upon the volition or initiat ive of one or either of the parties. Examples would be dispositions upon bankruptcy or upon grant of representation in respect of a deceased's estate. The group accepts "移轉" as being an appropriate term to denote "transfer". However, as "transmission" involves a direct passing of rights or interests between two parties only and " 轉傳" might give the impression of a third party being necessarily involved, the group
suggested that "傳交" should be a more appropriate term for "transmission". But the Law Drafting Division pointed out that as "transmission", more often than not, is effected otherwise than upon the volition of one or either of the parties involved, and bearing in mind that in the majority of cases the passing might not be effected by hand from one party to another, the word "交" might not therefore be appropriate. In the event, the ad hoc group decided to use "傳轉" with "傳" being the key word to convey the meaning implicit in "transmission".
For "註冊官" in clause 64(4)(b) of the Chinese text of the Bill, the English counterpart term as a matter of fact means the Director of Marine. To accord with the meaning of the English text, it would be in order to replace "註冊官" with " 處長".
In clause 81 of the Bill, the law drafting staff have used "改建" to denote "alterations to ship". The group is of the view that the counterpart expression for "改建" should be "rebuild". It therefore proposes that "改裝" be used to denote "alter".
Sir, with these remarks, I beg to move.
Proposed amendments
Clause 13(1)(j)
That clause 13 further be amended by deleting "犯罪" and substituting "犯法". Clause 17
That clause 17 further be amended, in subclauses (6) and (7), by deleting "犯罪" and substituting "犯法".
Clause 18
That clause 18 be further amended, in subclauses (3), (5) and (6), by deleting " 犯罪" and substituting "犯法".
Clause 29(1)
That clause 29 be further amended by adding "先" after "情況". Clause 30(5)
That clause 30 be further amended by deleting "犯罪" and substituting "犯法". Clause 33(3)
That clause 33 be further amended by deleting "犯罪" and substituting "犯法". Clause 34(2)
That clause 34 be further amended by deleting "犯罪" and substituting "犯法". Clause 42
That clause 42 be further amended by deleting "轉傳" wherever it occurs and substituting "傳轉".
Clause 44(1)
That clause 44 be further amended by adding "任何" after "履行". Clause 57(2)
That clause 57 be further amended by deleting "犯罪" and substituting "犯法". Clause 64(4)(b)
That clause 64 be further amended by deleting "註冊官" wherever it occurs and substituting "處長".
Clause 68(6)
That clause 68 be further amended by deleting "犯罪" and substituting "犯法".
Clause 69(2)
That clause 69 be further amended by deleting "犯罪" and substituting "犯法". Clause 71
That clause 71 be further amended --
(a) in subclause (1) --
(i) by deleting "尤其" and substituting "但";
(ii) by adding "尤其須" after "原則㆘,";
(b) in subclause (4), by deleting "詮釋作" and substituting "詮釋為". Clause 72(2)
That clause 72 be further amended by deleting "犯罪" and substituting "犯法". Clause 81
That clause 81 be further amended --
(a) in subclause (1), by deleting "改建" wherever it occurs and substituting "改裝";
(b) in subclause (4), by deleting "犯罪" and substituting "犯法". Clause 83
That clause 83 be further amended --
(a) in subclause (1)(c), by deleting "轉傳" wherever it occurs and substituting "傳轉";
(b) in subclause (3), by deleting "犯罪" and substituting "犯法".
Clause 88
That clause 88 be further amended, in subclauses (4) and (5), by deleting "犯罪 " and substituting "犯法".
Clause 89
That clause 89 be further amended, in subclauses (1) and (2), by deleting "犯罪 " and substituting "犯法".
Clause 99
That clause 99 be further amended by deleting paragraph (e) and substituting -- "(e) 所有根據法令作出的擁有權聲明書 ".
Clause 101(a)
That clause 101 be further amended by deleting "轉傳" and substituting "傳轉". Question on the amendments proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clauses 13, 17, 18, 29, 30, 33, 34, 42, 44, 57, 64, 68, 69, 71, 72, 81, 83, 88, 89, 99 and 101, as amended, proposed, put and agreed to.
Clauses 16, 94 and 96
SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES: Sir, I move that the clauses specified be amended as set out in the paper circulated to Members,
Proposed amendments
Clause 16(1)
That clause 16 be amended --
(a) by adding after paragraph (a) --
"(aa) empowering the Registrar to reserve a name for a ship;"; and
(b) in paragraph (b)(i) by adding "or is reserved," after "ship". Clause 94
That clause 94 be amended by adding "immediately before the commencement date" after "Hong Kong".
Clause 96
That clause 96 be amended --
(a) by renumbering the clause as subclause (1); and
(b) by adding after subclause (1) --
"(2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall affect any liability to pay any fee or charge pursuant to regulations made under section 90.".
Question on the amendments proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clauses 16, 94 and 96, as amended, proposed, put and agreed to.
Clauses 22, 37, 45, 47, 49, 54 to 56, 66, 67, 76, 86 and 100
MRS LAU (in Cantonese): Sir, I move that the clauses specified be amended as set out under my name in the paper circulated to Members.
Clause 45(3) permits the holders of registered mortgages to agree in writing to the priority of obligations under other mortgages. These holders of mortgages are described in the text of the Bill as "其優先權在該宗抵押之後". The ad hoc group suggests that it would be better to rephrase it thus "其優先權低於該宗抵押 ".
With regard to the proposed replacement of "犯罪" with "犯法" in clauses 37, 54, 55, 56, 66, 86 and 100, and of "轉傳" with "傳轉" in clause 49, the reasons for amendment are the same as those applicable to clause 13 and 42, which I shall not repeat here.
Sir, with these remarks, I beg to move.
Proposed amendments
Clause 22(3)(b)
That clause 22 be amended by adding "被" before "任用".
Clause 37
That clause 37 be amended, in subclauses (5) and (7), by deleting "犯罪" and substituting "犯法".
Clause 45(3)
That clause 45 be amended --
(a) by deleting "在該宗抵押之後" and substituting "低於該宗抵押"; (b) by deleting "," after "持有㆟".
Clause 47(3)
That clause 47 be amended by deleting "該" where it first occurs and substituting "表示該抵押權".
Clause 49
That clause 49 be amended by deleting "轉傳" wherever it occurs and substituting " 傳轉".
Clause 54(2)
That clause 54 be amended by deleting "犯罪" and substituting "犯法". Clause 55(2)
That clause 55 be amended by deleting "犯罪" and substituting "犯法". Clause 56(3)
That clause 56 be amended by deleting "犯罪" and substituting "犯法". Clause 66(2)
That clause 66 be amended by deleting "犯罪" and substituting "犯法".
Clause 67(1)
That clause 67 be amended by deleting "註冊抵押的" and substituting "的註冊抵押". Clause 76
That clause 76 be amended by deleting "獲".
Clause 86
That clause 86 be amended --
(a) by deleting "犯罪" and substituting "犯法";
(b) by deleting "定罪" wherever it occurs and substituting "裁定犯法". Clause 100(2)
That clause 100 be amended by deleting "犯罪" and substituting "犯法". Question on the amendments proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clauses 22, 37, 45, 47, 49, 54 to 56, 66, 67, 76, 86 and 100, as amended, proposed, put and agreed to.
Clauses 23 and 90
MRS LAU (in Cantonese): Sir, I move that the clauses specified be amended as set out under my name in the paper circulated to Members.
The proposed amendments are meant to improve the way the clauses are worded in order to bring out their meaning clearly.
Proposed amendments
Clause 23
That clause 23 be amended by deleting "獲".
Clause 90(1)(c)
That clause 90 be amended by deleting "轉傳" wherever it occurs and substituting " 傳轉".
Question on the amendments proposed, put and agreed to.
SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES: Sir, I move that clauses 23 and 90 be further amended as set out under my name in the paper circulated to Members.
Proposed amendments
Clause 23
That clause 23 be further amended, in paragraph (e)(i), by adding ", address" after "name".
Clause 90
That clause 90 be further amended --
(a) in subclause (l)(g) by adding "fees for" before "any matter"; and (b) by adding after subclause (3) --
"(4) Fees or charges payable pursuant to regulations made under subsection (1) may be recovered from the owner or demise charterer in the District Court as a civil debt, notwithstanding that the amount is in excess of the sum mentioned in section 33 of the District Court Ordinance (Cap. 336).".
Question on the amendments proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clauses 23 and 90, as amended, proposed, put and agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 4 were agreed to.
Schedule 5
SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES: Sir, I move that schedule 5 be amended as set out under my name in the paper circulated to Members.
Proposed amendment
Schedule 5
That schedule 5 be amended --
(a) in Part 2, by deleting item 7; and
(b) in Part 3, item 1 by adding "except for sections 73 and 74 in so far as they relate to ships or boats other than registered or provisionally registered ships" after "Hong Kong".
Question on the amendment proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on schedule 5, as amended, proposed, put and agreed to.
IMMIGRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1990
Clauses 1 to 3 were agreed to.
Clause 4
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Sir, I move that clause 4 be amended as set out in the paper circulated to Members.
Proposed amendment
Clause 4
That clause 4 be amended --
In the proposed section 38A(1) --
(a) in the definition of "construction site controller" by deleting "head contractor and includes an" and substituting "main contractor and includes a subcontractor,";
(b) by deleting the definition of "construction work" and substituting --
""construction work" has the same meaning as in the Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance (Cap. 59) but does not include redecoration, renovation, alteration, maintenance or repair of domestic premises by --
(a) an occupier of the premises; or
(b) an owner of the premises if that is the only premises
owned by him in the building which contains the
premises;"; and
(c) by adding after the definition of "construction work" --
""domestic premises" means premises used or intended to be used solely or principally for residential purposes and constituting a separate household unit.".
Question on the amendment proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clause 4, as amended, proposed, put and agreed to. Council then resumed.
Third Reading of Bills
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL reported that the
MERCHANT SHIPPING (REGISTRATION) BILL 1990 and
IMMIGRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1990
had passed through Committee with amendments. He moved the Third Reading of the Bills.
Question on the Third Reading of the Bills proposed, put and agreed to. Bills read the Third time and passed.
Member's motion
DRAFT WHITE PAPER ON SOCIAL WELFARE INTO THE 1990s AND BEYOND Mr HUI moved the following motion:
"That this Council takes note of the Draft White Paper on Social Welfare into the 1990s and Beyond, and calls on the people of Hong Kong to express their views on the draft."
MR HUI (in Cantonese): Sir, I rise to move the motion standing in my name: "That
this Council takes note of the Draft White Paper on Social Welfare into the 1990s and Beyond, and calls on the people of Hong Kong to express their views on the draft".
In studying a policy paper, the first and foremost consideration is whether it is farsighted and comprehensive enough. The Draft White Paper on Social Welfare into the 1990s and Beyond (the draft White Paper) has been prepared by a working party comprising experienced social workers, academics and experts from various fields. Nevertheless, with its "untimely" release, the White Paper has regrettably been
subjected to much criticism from social workers and the public. The reasons are as follows:
(1) Broadly speaking, social welfare encompasses the various existing welfare services, including social security. All these services which come under the definition of social welfare fall within the purview of the Health and Welfare Branch insofar as the allocation of funds is concerned. However, policies relating to community development, rehabilitation services and retirement benefit schemes are not examined in the review because they fall outside the ambit of the Secretary for Health and Welfare. Under such an extremely unreasonable constraint, the working party simply cannot map out an all-embracing blueprint for social welfare in the 1990s. It follows that members of our community are unable to get a full picture of the overall needs of our community for social welfare.
(2) The working party's review was undertaken at a time when local economic growth began to slow down and when Government has to curtail public expenditure in a bid to combat inflation. As a result, social welfare is the first to bear the brunt though it is badly in need of further development. In a discussion paper submitted to the Social Welfare Advisory Committee, the Health and Welfare Branch states clearly that there will probably not be any provision for introducing new services or improving existing ones for the coming year. The draft White Paper has echoed this approach by twice emphasizing that the "availability of resources" must be taken into account.
(3) Another reason why the publication of the draft White Paper is untimely is that it coincides with the new port and airport development which will incur the expenditure of over $140 billion in the next 10 years. Although the Administration has stressed time and again that the Government has adequate financial resources to support the "rose garden" project, it is becoming more and more apparent that there will be tax increases and reduced commitments to social welfare. The claim that the Government has "adequate financial resources" is thus seen to be made on the basis