- 14
-
Last but not least, I would like to mention that according to the legal advice of the Attorney General's Chambers, the proposed amendment to the Regulation is ultra vires as mentioned by Members. Under section 12 of the Sewage Services Ordinance, may which was passed in this Council on 14 December 1994, the Governor-in-Council make a regulation to prescribe 'the rate' to be used for sewage charges and, under section 3 of the Ordinance, a consumer shall pay to the Government `a sewage charge at a prescribed rate', based on the volume of water supplied by the Water Authority. There is no provision under the Ordinance to allow the imposition of different sewage rates for different service users.
In concluding my remarks, Mr President, I invite this Council, once again, to accept that the time has come for the community to meet its responsibility and to support a sewage charging scheme which is modest and which is in line with the polluter pays principle. As I have said, most other modern cities pay these charges now it is Hong Kong's turn.
-
The sewage charges we now propose are modest and affordable - less than twenty-five cents per day for an average household. These levels are, I am sure, acceptable to this Council and to the community as a whole.
Thank you. Mr President.
End/Wednesday, April 19, 1995
Bills seeking to provide greater protection for vulnerable witnesses
Two bills seeking to provide greater protection for vulnerable witnesses when giving evidence in criminal courts were introduced into the Legislative Council today (Wednesday).
Moving the second reading of the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Bill 1995 today, the Attorney General, the Hon Jeremy Mathews, said vulnerable witnesses, including children, the mentally handicapped and those who feared for their safety if they gave evidence, might feel intimidated by the atmosphere of the court; upset by the presence of the offender and dismayed at having to give an account of the facts firstly to the police and secondly in court.
He said an additional problem was caused by the rule that a defendant could not be convicted on the unsworn evidence of a child, no matter how reliable it might be, in the absence of corroboration.