At the Second Reading of the Bill, Mr F K HU regretted that there had been an apparent anomaly in the understanding given to DB members when they elected their representatives to the Provisional Regional Council. While acknowledging the Administration's intention to maintain continuity for the new Regional Council, he considered that the right of the District Boards to elect their first representative members to the new Council should not be deprived. On the appointment of members, Mr HU agreed with the Administration that an element of flexibility needed to be maintained. These points were supported by Mr YEUNG Po-kwan.
Mr CHEUNG Yan-lung, as Chairman of the Provisional Regional Council, spoke in support of the Heung Yee Kuk and urged that statutory provision should be made for the appointment of three Kuk members to the Regional Council. He also asked that qualified privilege against slander and libel should be granted to members of the Regional Council.
On the relationship between the Bill and the Urban Council Ordinance, Dr Kim CHAM expressed his concern over the possibility of inconsistencies between the two Ordinances and warned that amendments might have to be made in future for the purpose of resolving such inconsistencies.
In reply, the Secretary for District Administration reiterated that the Administration's intention to provide continuity for the new Council was based on logical and sensible grounds. However, he agreed with the points made by Unofficial Members and thanked them for their support.
The Bill was read the third time and passed on 10.7.85.
Travel Agents Bill 1985
First Reading: 24.7.85
Second & Third Readings: 7.8.85
The Bill sought to establish a system of licensing for travel agents and to provide for the creation of a Travel Agent's Reserve Fund from which ex-gratia payments might be made to clients of licensed travel agents in the event that the latter were unable to satisfy any judgment awarded against them.
The Bill was studied by the LegCo Economic Services Working Group under the convenership of Mr Allen LEE. The Group held a meeting with the
representatives of the Travel Industry Council of Hong Kong. While expressing support for the Bill, the representatives of the Council suggested a number of minor amendments to the Bill. The amendments were accepted by Members and were later moved by Mr Allen LEE at the Committee Stage of the Bill.
At the debate on the Second Reading, Mr Allen LEE spoke in support of the Bill. He said the general public and the travel industry alike should welcome this Bill, as it not only gave the public a degree of protection from bogus or insolvent travel agents, but also provided the basic framework on which the industry could develop its own standards and self-regulation. He believed that as an increasing number of people spent their holidays outside Hong Kong each year, the Bill was a much-needed and timely piece of legislation.
In reply, the Secretary for Economic Services thanked Mr Allen LEE and other Members for their support of the Bill and emphasised that the spirit of the Bill was to strike the right balance between, on the one hand, the protection of consumers and, on the other hand, healthy competition in the travel industry.
At the Committee Stage, Mr Allen LEE moved amendments to two clauses to limit the scope of payments that could be made out from the Reserve Fund.
The Bill was read the third time and passed on 7.8.85.
Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill 1985
First Reading: 24.7.85
Second & Third Readings: 7.8.85
The purpose of the Bill was to allow private garages to carry out annual inspections of older private cars to check that they were roadworthy. The registered owner of a private car over six years old would be required to have the car examined at a testing centre before it was licensed. The Commissioner of Transport could designate any place as a car testing centre to be operated in accordance with a code of practice and other specified conditions.
The Bill was studied by the Leg Co Community Services Working Group convened by Mr F K HU and a number of clarifications were sought from the Administration.
At the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, Mr F K HU said that private cars maintained in good
condition would contribute greatly to road safety and reduce traffic congestion due to breakdowns. The utilisation of private sector car testing centres for examining older cars under a properly monitored scheme could achieve this goal without any net expenditure from public funds. He was satisfied that the administrative procedure for handling appeals against a car testing centre's decision of not issuing a certificate of roadworthiness would provide a practical and realistic solution to an aggrieved car owner. He also said the Administration had to ensure that the private sector garages approved under the scheme had adequate capacity to carry out all the necessary inspections. In case there was insufficient capacity, the Unofficial Members suggested a step-by-step implementation of the scheme requiring the examination of older cars first and then gradually reducing the age limit.
Mr Andrew SO also spoke at the debate. He recounted his previous experience in sending his car for examination and the cumbersome process involved. He regretted that Government did not concede to his proposal that only private cars of seven years or older should be subject to inspection and those which passed the test should be inspected annually only from the tenth year onwards. Although the Code of Practice provided for appeals by aggrieved car owners, he believed that the inspection scheme would be subject to abuse and inconvenience could not be avoided. Hence he abstained from voting.
In reply, the Secretary for Transport said that to limit annual inspections to cars over 10 years old would conflict with the objective laid down in the 1979 White Paper on Internal Transport Policy, which was to examine annually all cars over six years old. More important, there would be a potential loss of road safety. Inconvenience to car owners would be greater if inspections were to be conducted by government garages. The right of motorists to appeal was provided under the Code of Practice rather than the Bill itself because legally the appeal would have to be to the Transport Tribunal which had to take a decision on the basis of an inspection by the Transport Department. The procedure would then be slower and more cumbersome.
The Bill was read the third time and passed on 7.8.85
22
21
Page 225Page 226
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.