39
+
Shortcomings of the Ordinance
Mr President, the present Public Bus Services Ordinance was enacted in 1975. Much has changed over the past 20 years. In particular, bus companies have grown substantially. The existing legislation simply does not provide adequate safeguards to allow the Administration to cope with situations in which a major bus company may cease to operate.
Power to take temporary possession of property
When a franchised bus company fails to maintain a proper and efficient service, there are provisions in the existing Ordinance for the Governor in Council to revoke its franchise and to take temporary possession of its property for a period not exceeding one year. However, this period of time and other existing provisions are out of date. Let me briefly explain why. The Government has no intention whatsoever of operating bus services on a permanent basis. The Government will need to find a replacement operator and ensure that the replacement operator has sufficient time to gear up for operations. What does this involve? Acquiring buses, spare parts and depots to say the least. Given the size of the fleet of major bus companies, there is no way the replacement operator can acquire all these within a year. In practice the new operator may well have no option but to lease buses from the outgoing operator.
Accordingly, clause 4 of the Bill seeks to extend the one-year period to two years, with a provision for the Administration to seek the Executive Council's approval to extend the period for a further year. Although this means that the maximum period for taking temporary possession will be three years, I can assure Hon Members that the Administration will make every effort to ensure that the period of time during which a bus company's property is leased is kept to the minimum.
The existing Ordinance is silent on the situation where, for some reason, a bus company may choose not to renew its franchise which is due to expire shortly. Clause 4 also covers such an eventuality with the arrangements for temporary possession also being applicable.
The Honourable Zachary Wong and the Honourable Lee Wing-tat have argued for additional parts for the Administration to lease a purchase property used or kept by bus companies even only when some of the bus routes are revoked. As I have explained to the Bills Committee, there are other considerations and logistical aspects which need to be taken into account. For example, bus depots cannot be divided and shared among different operators. Furthermore, with the downside consequences be greater since this may well limit the existing operators' ability to maintain and improve its services. This is a complex issue and given the Honourable Members' concerns, the Administration is prepared to assess this particular suggestion very carefully in the coming months.