XN000022-1995-07-27 — Page 14

- 6 ·

We have always made it very clear that there would be certain necessary provisions in the primary legislation. These are reflected in the contents of the Bill to be discussed today. Far from being an empty shell, the Bill does what it is intended to do. It provides a framework on which we can build. It establishes the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority. It provides for a Compensation Fund, and for the establishment of a Residual Provident Fund Scheme. The MPF Schemes Bill tells employers, employees and the self-employed how much they need to contribute, and what their future obligations will be. It is clear from the Bill and it will be clearer still after we move a number of CSAS later on who is covered, and who is exempt.

-

This is no empty shell, and there is definitely no reason to defer debate on such spurious grounds.

On the other hand, it is equally unreasonable to demand that debate be adjourned because the Bill appears to be too complicated, and that there has been inadequate time to consider it in detail. The main points of the primary legislation have been known for some months now. We have made it very clear that the specific components of the MPF will be dealt with in the context of discussing the subsidiary legislation. There have been many rounds of discussion, both with Members of this Council and with concerned groups and individuals, on the principles and main points of the legislation. It is patently absurd to claim, as some have done, that the Bills Committee to study the MPF Schemes Bill had inadequate time and opportunity to carry out its deliberations. The Bills Committee met on ten occasions. Some clauses were debated ad nauseam. In addition, there was a session to go through the Administration's Committee Stage Amendments, and a meeting of a sub-group to examine the Bill clause by clause. The fact that the meetings were held within a short time-frame does not detract from the fact that the Bill was discussed in great detail and with great care, a reflection of course of the due responsibility of Members of this Council to study it in great detail and care. In fact, the only area of the Bill that was not put under the microscope were the CSAS proposed by Members of this Bills Committee!

It is clear to me, Mr President, and I hope it is clear to most Members of this Council, that this attempt to derail discussion of this most important subject on the grounds of "over-complexity" is nothing more than a smokescreen by those who are against the MPF, and who clearly do not want the Hong Kong workforce to have a retirement protection system anytime in the near future.