XN000022-1995-07-27 — Page 28

- 20

-

Amendments to clause 41(1) are in line with Members' helpful suggestion that the offences should refer back to the relevant requirement in the Bill. I am also taking this opportunity to include a new clause 41(1A) which says that any statement or declaration made to the MPF Schemes Authority for the purpose of clause 22, i.e. the clause that deals with the Residual Provident Fund Scheme, shall not be evidence against the person making that declaration or statement.

Finally, Mr Chairman, I am moving a technical amendment to clause 41(3) by substituting the words "scheme member" and "scheme members" for "relevant employee" and "relevant employees", and adding a new clause 41(4) to provide for an offence where a trustee fails to comply with a limitation or prohibition made under section 28.

|

CSA to sub-clause 2 of clause 1, to be moved by the Hon Henry Tang

Mr Chairman,

The Bills Committee CSA is based on the fallacious assumption that the Administration does not know what it is doing, and would act in an arbitrary manner in bringing into operation the provisions of the Bill. Such doubts or fears are totally unfounded, and are unworthy of Members. It is unthinkable that the Administration would act in a way which is contrary to the public interest. Furthermore, it would not be possible in practice for the Ordinance to be brought into effect until relevant items of subsidiary legislation are in place. As part of this process, we would wish to see the early establishment of the MPF Scheme Authority so that it can be fully involved in the preparation of the necessary subsidiary legislation.

Some Members have suggested that this additional resolution requirement is necessary as they do not know the shape of the subsidiary legislation to come, and they have no confidence that the MPF system in its entirety will actually work. May 1 remind them that we received detailed expert advice from consultants on the technical aspects of the MPF Scheme. May I also remind them that there are similar retirement protection systems operating abroad successful. Furthermore, as I said in my earlier speech, the Governor would not exercise his powers under section 6 of the Ordinance until everything is in place. Subsidiary legislation would be enacted only by resolution of this Council. Given that Members would need to be fully satisfied with the subsidiary legislation before it could be enacted, I see neither logic nor purpose in requiring the effective date of operation to be subject to an additional resolution of this Council, unless it is an attempt to undermine the executive-led nature of this Government.