- -
2 -
* secondly, and more importantly, the great majority of fees to be made under the Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) (Fees) Regulation falls under a new piece of primary legislation which is the Seafarers' Ordinance. The coming into force of this Ordinance is entirely reliant on there being in place a comprehensive body of supporting regulations. These regulations, I believe have already been agreed by members with the exception of the three regulations. If we are unable to set fees for the services to be provided by the Marine Department under the new ordinance, then clearly that puts in doubt the wisdom of bringing into effect the new Ordinance. We would have then to continue to rely on using an old and outdated piece of legislation. The primary, the new ordinance whose purpose is to regulate the welfare of seafarers then cannot come into effect notwithstanding that it has, in its entirety, the support and backing of Hong Kong's maritime community. This Ordinance provides for the legal backing of various international conventions, including those of the International Labour Organisation as they apply to the seafarers. It cannot be, I suggest the intention of the Legislature when they actually approved the Seafarers' Bill in June 1995, that such a circumstance could be allowed to happen.
I would also like to point out that none of the fees involve any real livelihood dimension - in dollar terms the proposed increases are modest and will have a minimal impact if any on inflation. For example, the fee
in relation to Engine Room Watch Rating Certificates and Navigational Watch Rating Certificates will increase from $140 to $155. In percentage terms, around 10% similar to that which is proposed for the majority of the items involved. There will only be a handful of items which will have a greater rate of increase but in respect of most of these items there have been no increases since 1966, 30 years ago, and 1975.
ד
Mr. President, I know some Members have strong feelings on the matter of Government fees. I can assure Members that the Administration has been very cautious and reasonable in proposing the fees for the Seafarers' Ordinance. Indeed, the Administration will still only recover less than 30% of the costs for this group
of services even if the fees are implemented. Let me say again these are not livelihood issues many of the fees concerned are paid by employers, not seafarers; it would be sad if Members were, in rejecting the fees, forcing us to put on the back burner a piece of modern legislation designed to protect the seafarer, his employer and the industry as a whole; a piece of legislation agreed in all aspects by the seafarers themselves.
End
Mr President, I am afraid I have to urge Members, to reject the Motion.