LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4357

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Wednesday, 24 March 2021

The Council met at Eleven o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

THE PRESIDENT THE HONOURABLE ANDREW LEUNG KWAN-YUEN, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE ABRAHAM SHEK LAI-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE YU-YAN, G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE KIN-FUNG, G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE WONG TING-KWONG, G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE STARRY LEE WAI-KING, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAK-KAN, B.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN KIN-POR, G.B.S., J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE PRISCILLA LEUNG MEI-FUN, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-KIN, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE MRS LAU SUK-YEE, G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE PAUL TSE WAI-CHUN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL TIEN PUK-SUN, B.B.S., J.P.

4358 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN, B.B.S.

THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING, B.B.S.

THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK, G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, B.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG, S.B.S., M.H., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE ALICE MAK MEI-KUEN, B.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG WAH-FUNG, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, B.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG-KONG, G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE POON SIU-PING, B.B.S., M.H.

DR THE HONOURABLE CHIANG LAI-WAN, S.B.S., J.P.

IR DR THE HONOURABLE LO WAI-KWOK, S.B.S., M.H., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN

THE HONOURABLE JIMMY NG WING-KA, B.B.S., J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE JUNIUS HO KWAN-YIU, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE HOLDEN CHOW HO-DING

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-FAI, J.P.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4359

THE HONOURABLE WILSON OR CHONG-SHING, M.H.

THE HONOURABLE YUNG HOI-YAN, J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE PIERRE CHAN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHUN-YING, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE LUK CHUNG-HUNG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE LAU KWOK-FAN, M.H.

THE HONOURABLE IP-KEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE CHENG CHUNG-TAI

THE HONOURABLE VINCENT CHENG WING-SHUN, M.H., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE TONY TSE WAI-CHUEN, B.B.S., J.P.

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

THE HONOURABLE WONG KAM-SING, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

THE HONOURABLE JOHN LEE KA-CHIU, S.B.S., P.D.S.M., J.P. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

THE HONOURABLE FAN, J.P. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING

PROF THE HONOURABLE SIU-CHEE, J.P. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH

4360 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

THE HONOURABLE TANG-WAH, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL WONG WAI-LUN, J.P. SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT

THE HONOURABLE YUN-HUNG, J.P. SECRETARY FOR

THE HONOURABLE WING-HANG, J.P. SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY

THE HONOURABLE CHING-YU, J.P. SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY

DR BERNARD CHAN PAK-, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

DR RAYMOND SO WAI-MAN, B.B.S., J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

MR KENNETH CHEN WEI-ON, S.B.S., SECRETARY GENERAL

MS DORA WAI, DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL

MS MIRANDA HON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MR MATTHEW LOO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4361

PRESIDENT (in ): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members to the Chamber.

(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members entered the Chamber)

LAYING OF PAPERS ON THE TABLE OF THE COUNCIL

The following papers were laid on the table under Rule 21(2) of the Rules of Procedure:

Subsidiary Legislation Legal Notice No.

Sewage Services (Sewage Charge) (Amendment) Regulation 2021 ...... 36 of 2021

Waterworks (Amendment) Regulation 2021 ...... 37 of 2021

Designation of Libraries (Amendment) Order 2021 ...... 38 of 2021

Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Public Pleasure Grounds) (Amendment of Fourth Schedule) Order 2021 ...... 39 of 2021

Admission and Registration (Amendment) Rules 2021 ...... 40 of 2021

Employees Compensation Assistance Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 4) Notice 2021 ...... 41 of 2021

Other Papers

HKSAR Government Scholarship Fund Financial Statements for the year ended 31 August 2020 (including Report of the Director of Audit)

4362 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

Self-financing Post-secondary Education Fund Financial Statements for the year ended 31 August 2020 (including Report of the Director of Audit)

The Prince Philip Dental Hospital 2019-20 Annual Report by the Board of Governors (including Audited Financial Statements and Auditor's Report)

Report No. 14/20-21 of the House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Questions. First question.

The governance and management of Radio Television

1. MS YUNG HOI-YAN (in Cantonese): Last month, the Commerce and Economic ("CEDB") released the Review Report submitted by a dedicated team to review the governance and management of Radio Television Hong Kong ("RTHK"). Regarding the governance and management of RTHK, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the details of RTHK's plan for implementing the recommendations made in the Review Report in respect of its mechanisms for editorial management and complaints handling, performance measurement and evaluation, as well as management of its workforce (including the implementation priority and schedule of the various recommendations);

(2) whether CEDB has comprehensively reviewed its role and performance in monitoring RTHK, and if any senior staff of CEDB and RTHK should be held responsible for RTHK's previous governance and management problems; how CEDB will strengthen its role in monitoring RTHK in future; and

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4363

(3) how CEDB will, in the coming three years, instruct the Director of Broadcasting to lead RTHK to strictly comply with (i) the Charter of Radio Television Hong Kong ("the Charter") (in particular to fulfill the following purposes of RTHK as the public service broadcaster as stipulated in paragraph 4 of the Charter: providing accurate and impartial news, information, perspectives and analyses; promoting the public's understanding of "One Country, Two Systems" and its implementation in Hong Kong; and engendering a sense of citizenship and national identity through programmes that contribute to the understanding of the community and nation), (ii) the Communications Authority's code of practice on programme standards, and (iii) RTHK's internal Producers' Guidelines; whether CEDB has plans to update the Charter in order to reflect the latest situation of Hong Kong (including the National Security Law for Hong Kong having been implemented in Hong Kong)?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Ms YUNG Hoi-yan for her question. My consolidated reply to the three parts of Ms YUNG Hoi-yan's question is as follows:

The roles of Radio Television Hong Kong ("RTHK") are clearly defined in the Charter of Radio Television Hong Kong ("the Charter"). RTHK is both a government department and the only public service broadcaster in Hong Kong. The Charter specifies RTHK's relationship with the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau ("CEDB") and the RTHK Board of Advisors ("BoA"), as well as the role of the Communications Authority ("CA") in regulating RTHK's programme contents. The three parties will discharge their respective functions and responsibilities.

CEDB has been overseeing whether RTHK, as a government department, complies with all applicable government rules and regulations, including those on financial control, human resources management and procurement matters. BoA advises the Director of Broadcasting ("D of B") on all matters pertaining to editorial principles, programming standards and quality of RTHK programming, and receives reports on complaints against such matters. In addition, RTHK must ensure that all of its programmes comply with the relevant codes of practices issued by CA for regulating the standards of programmes broadcast by broadcasting licensees. CA adopts consistent standards and procedures in 4364 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 handling complaints about programmes of commercial as well as public service broadcasters in accordance with the established mechanism.

The management of RTHK and individual RTHK programmes have been a cause of public concern in recent years. RTHK's programmes have been subject to complaints repeatedly and ruled by CA to have breached the relevant codes of practices in the past two years. In light of the above, CEDB established a dedicated team to review the governance and management of RTHK last year. The Governance and Management of Radio Television Hong Kong Review Report ("the Review Report") was released on 19 February this year and passed to RTHK for follow up. CEDB and D of B also briefed and discussed with Legislative Council Members about the Review Report at the Legislative Council Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting.

As regards the follow-up work, CEDB has requested RTHK to study in detail and implement the recommendations of the Review Report by drawing up priority improvement measures, an action plan and a timetable so as to fully implement the recommendations, and to seek advice from BoA and other stakeholders in a timely manner. RTHK has already commenced the implementation work, which includes enhancing editorial management, devising a clearer editorial process and improving the complaint handling mechanism. On the recommendation of enhancing editorial governance, RTHK has introduced a new editorial management mechanism under which D of B and RTHK's senior management would hold editorial meetings so as to ensure the programmes comply with the requirements stipulated in the Charter and the Producers' Guidelines. Other recommendations will be implemented progressively.

The roles and functions of RTHK are clearly stipulated in the Charter. The Charter has also specified RTHK's public purposes and mission, including promoting the public's understanding of "one country, two systems" and its implementation in Hong Kong, and engendering a sense of citizenship and national identity. To enhance the public's sense of national identity and their understanding of national security, RTHK has recently produced a new programme chronicling the modern history of China over the past 100 years. Since the promulgation of the Hong Kong National Security Law, RTHK has introduced programmes to explain its provisions. In the coming year, RTHK will produce programmes on life in the Greater Bay Area, Lingnan culture as well as scenery of our country to further cultivate the sense of national identity and improve the understanding of our national culture.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4365

RTHK and its staff, as the whole society, have to abide by all Hong Kong laws. In this connection, it is not necessary to make changes to the Charter arising from new legislation.

MS YUNG HOI-YAN (in Cantonese): President, I have made it very clear in my main question that I would like to know and understand what CEDB has done in this respect. The Secretary explained in the main reply that CEDB established a dedicated team last year to review the governance and management of RTHK, but we wish to know what exactly the authorities have done, what the details are and what objectives have been accomplished.

It would obviously be difficult for the Secretary to offer a clear elaboration in such a concise and brief answer like the main reply, but I hope CEDB would continue strengthening its supervisory role, and explain to the public how it will do so, what goals it has achieved and what differences this has made as compared with the situation before the establishment of the dedicated team last year. I hope the Secretary can give us an explanation in his reply in respect of each of the above questions, and seize the limited time available now to elaborate on the differences between the current and past situations. How will the Government strengthen its supervision in the future in order to prevent RTHK from becoming a breeding ground for elements opposing China and creating chaos in Hong Kong?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, in addition to the information contained in the main reply, I and D of B also briefed and discussed with Members in great details about the Review Report at a meeting of the Legislative Council Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting held more than a week ago. Before the meeting, we released the Review Report on 19 February, and it is a very comprehensive report with nearly 100 pages, which covers six major areas, especially RTHK's initiatives in editorial management and complaints handling, as well as issues concerning personnel management and resources.

As its title suggests, the Review Report is the latest report on a relatively comprehensive review of the governance and management of RTHK, and there are various reasons in several aspects behind. First of all, as regards the recommendations made previously by the Audit Commission in its report on the 4366 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 management of RTHK, while some have already been implemented, further actions are still required to follow up on the others. Furthermore, as I have said in the main reply, in view of recent concerns about RTHK, as well as the criticisms from CA after it had found that some complaints against RTHK were substantiated, actions are also required to follow up on the related issues.

As explained in the main reply, CEDB has the responsibility to oversee policy matters and the management of RTHK as a government department in accordance with the requirements of the Charter. However, in another area of work related to CEDB, we should ensure that RTHK would act in accordance with the Charter to cooperate with BoA, and comply with the codes of practices issued by CA. This is the reason why we have, apart from following up on issues in the three areas mentioned above, spent seven months on this comprehensive Review Report, and set out specifically therein the inadequacies and deficiencies identified, as well as the specific recommendations put forward on all of the six major areas covered.

As I have clearly pointed out in the main reply, some follow-up work has commenced, especially in editorial management. I hope Members would get a full understanding of the contents of the Review Report, and we will brief Members in a timely manner at the relevant Panel on the implementation progress made in this respect.

MR WILSON OR (in Cantonese): One of the important findings highlighted in the Review Report is that there are deficiencies relating to RTHK's editorial management system. Not only have editorial processes and decisions not been well-defined and properly documented, a clear delineation of the authorities and responsibilities of various editorial staff has also not been established, and the awareness of accountability in RTHK is described as low. RTHK is empowered to exercise editorial independence, but it has failed to meet the requirements in respect of its management and accountability. While trying every day to hold others accountable, it has shown no spirit of accountability at all, thus resulting in such an unmanageable situation today.

Secretary, I consider it the responsibility of the Bureau to supervise and urge RTHK to implement the recommendations made in the Review Report, rather than demanding in a rhetorical manner follow-up actions from RTHK. Secretary, my supplementary question is: What measures will the Bureau actually LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4367 take in this respect? There is no mention of the specific implementation timetable in the main reply, but the authorities should be more transparent in letting the public know how the recommendations made in the Review Report will be implemented.

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, first of all, as I have said in the main reply, CEDB is playing an overseeing role, and when replying to Ms YUNG Hoi-yan's supplementary question just now, I have also explained that the Bureau should perform its supervisory functions and role over the government department in question.

The Review Report is a serious, comprehensive and focused report which lists in detail the areas which need improvements in six aspects of the management and governance of RTHK. Apart from highlighting certain responsibilities which RTHK should fulfil, including complying with the requirements specified in the Charter or the Producers' Guidelines, the Review Report has also touched on some of the issues mentioned by Mr OR.

In this connection, a detailed elaboration has already been made in the Review Report, and as we have publicly stated, the Government has accepted the report and passed it to RTHK for follow up. In order to address the issues concerning editorial principles as well as programme quality, and to ensure RTHK's compliance with the requirements of the Charter, which, as pointed out by my main reply and Mr OR, are the most important issues in the six major areas, the new D of B has implemented a series of measures together with the management after assuming office. They are not only important considerations but also RTHK's due responsibilities, which RTHK should discharge in its daily operation as a public service broadcaster. In this respect, we notice that RTHK has already commenced the relevant work, and as I have mentioned in my replies to other questions just now, RTHK will implement the recommendations of the Review Report, and the Bureau will also provide timely updates on the implementation progress.

MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): President, RTHK programmes have frequently been criticized for being biased. The Review Report focuses only on its administration and management, but the sharpest criticism against RTHK is 4368 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 its failure to maintain an objective and impartial editorial stance, and thus its inability to discharge its duties and responsibilities as both a government department and a public service broadcaster. Therefore, a correct positioning must first be established for RTHK before a reform can be launched.

The Secretary once said that as RTHK operated in accordance with the Charter, the Government had no intention to privatize RTHK or let it cooperate with the Information Services Department, but the Charter was promulgated as early as in 2010. The Secretary also said in his reply just now that it was not necessary to make changes to the Charter arising from individual new legislation, but in the face of the tremendous changes in our social and political environments, will the authorities consider afresh the positioning of RTHK and establish a new positioning for it? If the answer is in the negative, the so-called reform will be nothing more than cosmetic changes to the administration and management of RTHK, and I am afraid this will not be able to respond to the aspirations of the general public.

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): I thank Mr Martin LIAO for his supplementary question, but there is one point which I cannot agree with. Mr LIAO commented that the Review Report sought only to introduce reform to the administration of RTHK, but this is not the case. Just take a detailed look at the entire Review Report, and one can simply note from the discussion of editorial management which is the most important part at the beginning of the report that the subject itself is by no means an administrative issue, but a core function of RTHK under the Charter. There is editorial independence in RTHK, and this is a function provided under the Charter since RTHK is a public service broadcaster, but RTHK is also required to shoulder its editorial responsibilities.

This is exactly the reason why many pages of the Review Report have specifically been filled with the discussion of the subject of editorial management in RTHK, and administrative arrangements like exercising management through referral mechanisms established at various editorial levels are of course included. Yet, more importantly, the relevant discussion has highlighted the need for RTHK to fulfil its due responsibilities in respect of editorial management, especially the fact that when it comes to the editorial principles as well as the production standards and quality of RTHK programmes as stipulated in the existing Charter, RTHK may rely on the input from BoA in addition to making its own decisions, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4369 because it is specified in the Charter that BoA has a certain role to play in this respect and may provide views on such matters.

Hence, as far as the entire Review Report is concerned, a comprehensive review has actually been conducted on the six areas concerned with a view to enhancing the governance and management of RTHK, thereby achieving the highest standards of justness, fairness, objectivity and impartiality as required under the Charter or as pledged by RTHK in its Producers' Guidelines.

With regard to the point raised by Mr LIAO just now concerning the need to make changes to the Charter or the positioning of RTHK in order to reflect the implementation of certain legislation or the latest changes in circumstances, we have already made it clear in the Review Report that RTHK has a dual status as a government department and a public service broadcaster, and this is actually the positioning established back then in a review conducted in 2006 and the promulgation of the Charter in 2010. The Government does not consider it necessary to make changes to the positioning, but in respect of its positioning, dual status and specified functions under the Charter, RTHK should make its best endeavours to discharge its duties on the one hand, and strive to maintain an appropriate balance on the other. The focus therefore does not be on the positioning of RTHK, but on the issue of compliance with the relevant requirements, as well as meeting the standards set out in the Charter and drawn up by RTHK on its own. We will deal with the matter from this perspective.

As for the implementation of new legislation, since RTHK, be it as a government department or a public service broadcaster, must abide by the laws of Hong Kong, it is not necessary to make changes to the Charter arising from any individual new legislation. This is exactly why I have stated clearly in my reply to Ms YUNG Hoi-yan's main question that we would not update the Charter simply because of the enactment of new legislation today, and I hope this could address the views expressed by the public and Members in this respect.

MR LAU KWOK-FAN (in Cantonese): The Secretary has repeatedly mentioned the Charter just now, but it seems that RTHK has failed to interpret and implement the Charter accurately. The services rendered by RTHK in recent years have been deviating further and further away from the requirements of the Charter, and the number of complaints has also kept increasing. Although the new D of B indicated recently his willingness to undertake his responsibilities as 4370 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 the Editor-in-chief and discharge the duty of conducting review on programme production, so that there will not be any deviation from the stipulations and requirements of the Charter, his efforts alone can only bring about short-lived effects and cannot be regarded as a final solution. Moreover, the Editor-in-chief will thus be made to bear all the pressure. Hence, the correct direction is that we should introduce reform to the editorial management system and the editorial work of production officers. I would therefore like to ask the Secretary: What support can the authorities provide to the incumbent D of B? Does he know what reform is being carried out now in RTHK, and how can the general public be clearly informed of the relevant reform initiatives?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr LAU for his supplementary question. In fact, my reply just now to Mr Martin LIAO's supplementary question can also serve to answer part of the question raised by Mr LAU. First of all, we have never put all the responsibilities on one single person, and being the Head of Department of RTHK or the Editor-in-chief under the Charter does not imply that D of B has to shoulder all the responsibilities by himself, because RTHK has a large number of staff members. However, D of B should carry out the relevant work through joint efforts with the entire management, production officers and all staff of RTHK.

We have therefore specifically stated in the Review Report that the responsibility in this regard does not rest solely with a particular person. As I mentioned in my reply just now to Mr LIAO's question, BoA does have a role to play under the Charter, and may provide views on editorial principles as well as the standards and quality of programme production. RTHK should listen to these views, and an explanation must be given for not doing so. Besides, the standards prescribed by CA can provide us with another set of codes of practice, and rulings were also made in the past two years by CA in respect of some cases of serious violations. These are objective decisions with public credibility, and they were made on the basis of facts and in accordance with the codes of practice drawn up for the whole broadcasting sector.

Regarding internal improvements within RTHK, as I have mentioned in the main reply, the Editor-in-chief, RTHK's senior management and frontline staff have recently started addressing individual problems by holding departmental editorial meetings. In particular, it is pointed out in the Review Report that there LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4371 are in fact referral mechanisms in RTHK all along for dealing with certain sensitive editorial issues or issues requiring thorough discussion and examination, and such an arrangement is clearly prescribed in the Producers' Guidelines. It is also pointed out in the Review Report that as efforts might have not been made previously to make the best use of such referral mechanisms, some frontline production staff have made editorial decisions on their own without paying heed to the many important principles or even occasionally breached the requirements prescribed, thus arousing concern from the public.

I am therefore of the view that if RTHK can make optimum use of its referral mechanisms, and coupled with the improvement measures (including holding editorial meetings) currently adopted in the editorial process, RTHK can definitely handle the relevant matters properly. I believe BoA will also provide RTHK with the necessary assistance within the scope prescribed in the Charter.

MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary pointed out in the main reply that CEDB had been overseeing whether RTHK, as a government department, complied with all applicable government rules and regulations, including those on financial control, human resources management and procurement matters, while BoA was mainly tasked with handling matters relating to editorial responsibilities. In the ending part of the main reply, it is even stated that they did not consider it necessary to make changes to the existing legislation or the Charter.

I would like to ask the Secretary: As a principal official under the accountability system and the Bureau Director in charge of the policy in this area, what is your understanding of the performance of the Bureau under your purview in overseeing RTHK over the past few years before the Review Report was released? Have CEDB as mentioned earlier and BoA, which mainly consists of members nominated and appointed by the Secretary, properly discharged their duties and responsibilities so that it is not necessary at the moment to review the Charter? In my opinion, if there is really no need to review the Charter, it would imply that something must have gone wrong in the overseeing of the compliance of RTHK with the requirements of the Charter in the past. What then is the Secretary's understanding of the performance of the Bureau under his purview over the past few years?

4372 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, let me first clarify that by saying in the main reply that it was not necessary to make changes to the Charter, I was actually trying to respond to the enquiries made in Ms YUNG Hoi-yan's main question. As she has asked if it was necessary to update the Charter after the enactment of the National Security Law for Hong Kong, I tried to explain clearly in the main reply that just like other government departments or as a public service broadcaster, RTHK had to abide by all Hong Kong laws, and it was therefore not necessary to make changes to the Charter arising from individual new legislation or any legislative amendments.

Another question raised by Mr MA is that whether it is necessary to update the Charter under the current circumstances, and in this connection, I have already pointed out in my reply to Mr OR's question just now that with regard to the positioning of RTHK, especially its mission and purposes as specified in paragraph 4 of the Charter, we do not consider it necessary to make any changes. As for the issue raised by Mr MA concerning the relationship between the Bureau and the government department in question, I have given a response in the main reply.

I think that the comprehensive review conducted by the Bureau on RTHK in the last two years, including the past seven months, is adequate to address public queries about the relationship between the Bureau and the government department concerned. The Review Report was prepared by the Bureau, which has also deployed its staff to carry out a comprehensive and thorough review beforehand on the management and governance of RTHK. It is the Bureau's hope that the problems related to RTHK can be handled in a relatively complete and comprehensive manner, while the relevant problems arising from RTHK's failure to fulfil its due responsibilities under the Charter can be tackled as early as possible.

Let me reiterate that the Bureau will continue to perform its gatekeeping and overseeing functions, and ensure that RTHK will, apart from keeping on complying strictly with the Charter and its own codes of practice, follow up on the recommendations made in the Review Report.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Second question.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4373

Extension of fibre-based networks to remote areas

2. MR KENNETH LAU (in Cantonese): President, the Government launched the Subsidy Scheme to Extend Fibre-based Networks to Villages in Remote Areas ("Subsidy Scheme") in 2018 to subsidize fixed network operators ("FNOs") to extend fibre-based networks to 235 selected villages located in remote areas, so that the villagers therein can enjoy broadband services of speed of at least 25 megabits per second ("Mbps"). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it knows, among the villages covered by the Subsidy Scheme, the names of those villages for which the works to roll out fibre-based lead-in connections have been completed by now, as well as the respective expected completion time of such works for the remaining villages;

(2) given that the selected FNOs are only subsidized to roll out fibre-based lead-in connections to the entrances of the villages, and the villagers need to negotiate with service providers on their own the roll-out of fibre-based networks within their villages, whether the Government has measures in place to assist the villagers in overcoming the relevant difficulties, so that they, just like residents in the urban areas, can enjoy fibre-to-the-home broadband services; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(3) of the villages with a broadband speed not reaching 25 Mbps but not yet covered by the Subsidy Scheme at present; the measures that the Government has put in place to enable the villagers of such villages to enjoy broadband services with a higher speed?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr Kenneth LAU for his question. President, in the past, many remote villages in the and outlying islands were not covered by fibre-based networks and could only rely on copper-based networks for basic telecommunications services with unsatisfactory Internet access speed. A policy breakthrough was made in 2017 when the Government decided to subsidize the laying of fibre-based cables for those remote villages with a reasonable number of residents. Subsequently, we obtained the approval 4374 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 of the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council in 2018 for a funding of $774.4 million to implement the Subsidy Scheme to Extend Fibre-based Networks to Villages in Remote Areas ("Subsidy Scheme"). The Subsidy Scheme aims to provide financial incentives for telecommunications operators to extend their fibre-based networks to remote villages in order to provide residents with better broadband services.

After securing the funding, six fixed network operators ("FNOs") selected through tender are laying and extending the fibre-based networks in phases. The entire project will benefit 235 villages in remote areas and about 110 000 villagers. The laying of fibre-based networks for about half of the villages is expected to be completed by 2022-2023, and the rest by 2025-2026. A list of the villages covered by the Subsidy Scheme is at Annex for Members' reference.

The Subsidy Scheme aims to subsidize selected FNOs to extend their fibre-based networks to the entrances of eligible villages, so that the FNOs are in a position to make use of the subsidized fibre-based cables to lay their networks within the villages.

As regards fibre-to-the-home, since the wiring and installation works will involve private land and properties, they could only proceed when the relevant owners have reached a commercial agreement with the FNO. This arrangement is the same as for subscribers in urban areas.

The Subsidy Scheme requires participating FNOs to open up at least half of the capacity of the subsidized network facilities for free use by other FNOs. In other words, other FNOs can share the use of the subsidized network facilities and provide broadband services to the villages concerned, thereby providing villagers with more choices of suitable broadband services.

President, with the implementation of the Subsidy Scheme, connection to fibre-based network would be made available to over 200 villages which previously did not have such a service. Notwithstanding, some remotely located or sparsely populated areas, including some islands without sufficient electricity supply to support the operation of telecommunication facilities, are not included in the Scheme for the time being.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4375

Annex

Subsidy Scheme to Extend Fibre-based Networks to Villages in Remote Areas

List of Villages Covered under Projects 1 to 6

Project 1: North District (60 villages)

Number District Sub-district Village Name 1 North Cheung Lek 2 North Sheung Shui Liu Pok 3 North Sheung Shui Ma Tso Lung Shun Yee San Tsuen 4 North Tak Yuet Lau 5 North Ta Kwu Ling Lo Wu 6 North Ta Kwu Ling Ping Che (including Ping Che and Ping Che Kat Tin) 7 North Ta Kwu Ling Lei Uk 8 North Ta Kwu Ling Chow Tin Tsuen 9 North Ta Kwu Ling Wo Keng Shan 10 North Ta Kwu Ling Ping Yeung 11 North Ta Kwu Ling Nga Yiu Ha 12 North Ta Kwu Ling Tong Fong 13 North Ta Kwu Ling Kan Tau Wai 14 North Ta Kwu Ling Nga Yiu (including Muk Wu Nga Yiu and Nga Yiu) 15 North Ta Kwu Ling Chuk Yuen 16 North Ta Kwu Ling 17 North Ta Kwu Ling Tsung Yuen Ha 18 North Kai Kuk Shue Ha and Nam Hang Mei 19 North Sha Tau Kok 20 North Sha Tau Kok Wo Hang Tai Long 21 North Sha Tau Kok and Pok Tau Ha 22 North Sha Tau Kok 23 North Sha Tau Kok Shek Chung Au (including Lap Wo Tsuen) 4376 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

Number District Sub-district Village Name 24 North Sha Tau Kok Tong To (including Tong To Ping Tsuen) 25 North Sha Tau Kok San Tsuen 26 North Sha Tau Kok Shan Tsui 27 North Sha Tau Kok Kau Tam Tso 28 North Sha Tau Kok Wu Kau Tang (including San Uk Tsuen, San Uk Ha, Sam Ka Tsuen, Ho Pui, Leng Pui, Lo Wai and Tin Sam) 29 North Sha Tau Kok 30 North Sha Tau Kok Kap Tong 31 North Sha Tau Kok 32 North Sha Tau Kok Sai Lau Kong 33 North Sha Tau Kok Mui Tsz Lam 34 North Sha Tau Kok 35 North Sha Tau Kok Wang Shan Keuk San Tsuen 36 North Sha Tau Kok Sha Tau Kok Market (West Upper) 37 North Sha Tau Kok Sha Tau Kok Market (West Lower) 38 North Sha Tau Kok Ma Tseuk Leng (including Ma Tseuk Leng Sheung and Ma Tseuk Leng San Uk Ha) 39 North Sha Tau Kok Nam Chung (including Luk Keng Lam Uk, Nam Chung Lo Uk, Nam Chung Cheng Uk, Nam Chung Yeung Uk, Nam Chung Lei Uk, Nam Chung Cheung Uk and Tai Wan) 40 North Sha Tau Kok Luk Keng Chan Uk 41 North Sha Tau Kok Luk Keng Wong Uk 42 North Sha Tau Kok Tai Tong Wu 43 North Sha Tau Kok Ap Chau 44 North Sha Tau Kok Kat O 45 North Sha Tau Kok 46 North Sz Tau Leng 47 North Fanling (including Tan Chuk Hang Lo Wai) 48 North Fanling Leng Pei Tsuen LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4377

Number District Sub-district Village Name 49 North Fanling Leng Tsui (including Ma Mei Ha Leng Tsui) 50 North Fanling San Uk Tsai 51 North Fanling Kan Tau Tsuen 52 North Fanling San Tong Po 53 North Fanling Lau Shui Heung 54 North Fanling Hok Tau Wai (including Hok Tau Pai) 55 North Fanling Ko Po (including Ko Po and Tai Wo) 56 North Fanling Shung Him Tong (including Shung Him Tong (East) and Shung Him Tong (West)) 57 North Fanling Wa Mei Shan 58 North Fanling Hung Leng 59 North Fanling Ma Mei Ha 60 North Fanling Kwan Tei North

Project 2: Part of District and part of (30 villages)

Number District Sub-district Village Name 1 Tai Po Sai Kung North Ko Tong Ha Yeung 2 Tai Po Sai Kung North Hoi Ha 3 Tai Po Sai Kung North Pak Sha O 4 Tai Po Sai Kung North Pak Sha O Ha Yeung 5 Tai Po Sai Kung North Ko Tong 6 Tai Po Sai Kung North Lai Chi Chong 7 Tai Po Sai Kung North Sham Chung 8 Tai Po Sai Kung North Pak Tam Au 9 Tai Po Sai Kung North Tai Tan 10 Tai Po Sai Kung North Tan Ka Wan 11 Tai Po Sai Kung North Uk Tau 12 Tai Po Sai Kung North 13 Tai Po Sai Kung North Chek Keng 14 Sai Kung Sai Kung Sai Wan 15 Sai Kung Sai Kung Tai Long (including Tai Long Wai and Ham Tin Wai) 4378 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

Number District Sub-district Village Name 16 Sai Kung Sai Kung Pak A 17 Sai Kung Sai Kung Pak Lap 18 Sai Kung Sai Kung Tung A (including Sha Kiu Tau) 19 Sai Kung Sai Kung Pak Tam 20 Sai Kung Sai Kung 21 Sai Kung Sai Kung Ping Tun 22 Sai Kung Sai Kung She Tau 23 Sai Kung Sai Kung Shek Hang 24 Sai Kung Sai Kung Tai Po Tsai 25 Sai Kung Sai Kung Tam Wat 26 Sai Kung Sai Kung Wong Mo Ying 27 Sai Kung Sai Kung Tsak Yue Wu 28 Sai Kung Sai Kung Wong Keng Tei 29 Sai Kung Sai Kung Wong Yi Chau 30 Sai Kung Sai Kung Yim Tin Tsai

Project 3: Part of , part of , District, District, and (44 villages)

Number District Sub-district Village Name 1 Sha Tin Sha Tin Kau To 2 Sha Tin Sha Tin Ma Liu 3 Sha Tin Sha Tin Wong Chuk Yeung 4 Sha Tin Sha Tin Kwai Tei New Village 5 Sha Tin Sha Tin Pai Tau (including Tin Liu) 6 Tai Po Tai Po Ying Pun Ha Tsuen and Chuk Hang Tsuen 7 Tai Po Tai Po Lin Au Cheng Uk and Lin Au Lei Uk 8 Tai Po Tai Po Mui Shue Hang 9 Tai Po Tai Po Po Sam Pai 10 Tai Po Tai Po Cheung Uk 11 Tai Po Tai Po Tai Yeung Che 12 Tai Po Tai Po A Shan 13 Tai Po Tai Po Yuen Tun Ha LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4379

Number District Sub-district Village Name 14 Tai Po Tai Po Lai Pek Shan San Tsuen 15 Tai Po Tai Po Ta Tit Yan 16 Tai Po Tai Po Pun Shan Chau 17 Tai Po Tai Po San Tau Kok 18 Tai Po Tai Po Tin Liu Ha (including Sheung Tin Liu Ha and Ha Tin Liu Ha) 19 Yuen Long Ha Tsuen Pak Nai Village 20 Yuen Long Ha Tsuen Ha Pak Nai Tsuen 21 Yuen Long Pat Heung Kap Lung Tsuen 22 Yuen Long Pat Heung Lui Kung Tin Tsuen 23 Yuen Long Fung Ka Wai 24 Yuen Long Ping Shan Sha Kiu Tsuen 25 Yuen Long Ping Shan (I) 26 Yuen Long San Tin Ha Wan Tsuen 27 Yuen Long San Tin Lok Ma Chau 28 Yuen Long San Tin Tai Sang Wai 29 Yuen Long San Tin Yau Tam Mei (I) 30 Yuen Long Shap Pat Tai Kiu Heung 31 Tuen Mun Tuen Mun Tin Fu Tsai 32 Tuen Mun Tuen Mun Fu Tei Tsuen (including Fu Tei Sheung Tsuen and Fu Tei Ha Tsuen) 33 Tuen Mun Tuen Mun Fuk Hang Tsuen (Upper) 34 Tuen Mun Tuen Mun Ho Tin Tsuen 35 Tuen Mun Tuen Mun 36 Tuen Mun Tuen Mun Tsing Shan Tsuen 37 Tuen Mun Tuen Mun Tseng Tau Tsuen (Lower) 38 Tsuen Wan Ma Wan and Fa Peng Northeast Lantau 39 Tsuen Wan Ma Wan and Luk Keng Northeast Lantau 40 Tsuen Wan Tsuen Wan Chuen Lung (Wang Lung Tsuen) 4380 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

Number District Sub-district Village Name 41 Tsuen Wan Tsuen Wan Ha Fa Shan 42 Tsuen Wan Tsuen Wan Pai Min Kok 43 Tsuen Wan Tsuen Wan Tsing Fai Tong New Village 44 Kwai Tsing Kwai Chung Kau Wa Keng

Project 4: Part of Sha Tin District and part of Sai Kung District (34 villages)

Number District Sub-district Village Name 1 Sha Tin Sha Tin Kong Pui 2 Sha Tin Sha Tin Kwun Yam Shan 3 Sha Tin Sha Tin Mau Tat 4 Sha Tin Sha Tin Mau Tso Ngam 5 Sha Tin Sha Tin Shap Yi Wat 6 Sha Tin Sha Tin Mui Tsz Lam 7 Sha Tin Sha Tin To Tau Wan 8 Sai Kung Hang Hau Po Toi O (including Tai Wong Kung) 9 Sai Kung Hang Hau Tai Wan Tau 10 Sai Kung Sai Kung Ma Nam Wat 11 Sai Kung Sai Kung Man Wo 12 Sai Kung Sai Kung Tai Lam Wu 13 Sai Kung Sai Kung Lung Mei 14 Sai Kung Sai Kung Shan Liu 15 Sai Kung Sai Kung O Tau 16 Sai Kung Sai Kung Wo Liu 17 Sai Kung Sai Kung Hoi Pong Street 18 Sai Kung Sai Kung Main Street (East) 19 Sai Kung Sai Kung Main Street (West) 20 Sai Kung Sai Kung Man Yee Wan New Village 21 Sai Kung Sai Kung Po Tung Road (East) 22 Sai Kung Sai Kung Po Tung Road (West) 23 Sai Kung Sai Kung Sai Kung Road (North) 24 Sai Kung Sai Kung Sai Kung Road (South) 25 Sai Kung Sai Kung See Cheung Street LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4381

Number District Sub-district Village Name 26 Sai Kung Sai Kung Sha Tsui New Village 27 Sai Kung Sai Kung Tai Street (East) 28 Sai Kung Sai Kung Tai Street (West) 29 Sai Kung Sai Kung Tak Lung Back Street 30 Sai Kung Sai Kung Tak Lung Front Street 31 Sai Kung Sai Kung Kak Hang Tun 32 Sai Kung Sai Kung O Long 33 Sai Kung Sai Kung Sha Kok Mei 34 Sai Kung Sai Kung Tsiu Hang

Project 5: Lamma Island (13 villages)

Number District Sub-district Village Name 1 Islands Lamma Lo Tik Wan Island (North) 2 Islands Lamma Pak Kok Kau Tsuen Island (North) 3 Islands Lamma Pak Kok San Tsuen Island (North) 4 Islands Lamma Tai Peng Tsuen Island (North) 5 Islands Lamma Tai Wan Kau Tsuen Island (North) 6 Islands Lamma Tai Wan San Tsuen Island (North) 7 Islands Lamma Lo So Shing Island (South) 8 Islands Lamma Luk Chau Island (South) 9 Islands Lamma Mo Tat (including Mo Tat Old Village and Island (South) Mo Tat New Village) 10 Islands Lamma Mo Tat Wan Island (South) 11 Islands Lamma Sok Kwu Wan Island (South) 4382 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

Number District Sub-district Village Name 12 Islands Lamma Tung O Island (South) 13 Islands Lamma Yung Shue Ha Island (South)

Project 6: Lantau Island, Cheung Chau and Peng Chau (54 villages)

Number District Sub-district Village Name 1 Islands South Lantau Mong Tung Wan 2 Islands South Lantau Shap Long (including Shap Long Kau Tsuen and Shap Long San Tsuen) 3 Islands South Lantau Tai Long 4 Islands Mui Wo Ngau Kwu Long 5 Islands Mui Wo Pak Mong 6 Islands Mui Wo Tai Ho 7 Islands Mui Wo Man Kok Tsui 8 Islands Mui Wo Chung Hau (North) (including Chung Hau, Wang Tong and Tung Wan Tau) 9 Islands Mui Wo Chung Hau (South) (including Lai Chi Yuen Tsuen, Yue Kwong Tsuen, Round Table Village and Wan Tsai) 10 Islands Tai O Fan Lau 11 Islands Tai O Leung Uk 12 Islands Tai O Nam Tong Sun Tsuen 13 Islands Tai O Yi O 14 Islands Tai O Keung Shan, Lower 15 Islands Tai O Keung Shan, Upper 16 Islands Tai O Luk Wu 17 Islands Tai O Tai Long Wan 18 Islands Tai O Ngong Ping 19 Islands Tai O San Tau 20 Islands Tai O Sha Lo Wan (including Sha Lo Wan San Tsuen) 21 Islands Tai O Sham Shek 22 Islands Tai O Shek Tsai Po (East) LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4383

Number District Sub-district Village Name 23 Islands Tai O Shek Tsai Po (West) 24 Islands Tai O Kat Hing Back Street 25 Islands Tai O Kat Hing Street 26 Islands Tai O Tai O Country Side (including Wan Hang Village, Hang Mei and San Tsuen) 27 Islands Tai O Tai O Market Street 28 Islands Tai O Tai O Tai Ping Street (I) 29 Islands Tai O Tai O Tai Ping Street (II) 30 Islands Tai O Tai O Wing On Street (I) 31 Islands Tai O Tai O Wing On Street (II) 32 Islands Tung Chung Tei Tong Tsai 33 Islands Tung Chung Lam Che 34 Islands Tung Chung Nim Un 35 Islands Tung Chung Chek Lap Kok New Village 36 Islands Tung Chung Tei Po New Village 37 Islands Tung Chung Wong Nai Uk 38 Islands Tung Chung Ma Wan Chung 39 Islands Cheung Chau Tai Kwai Wan San Tsuen 40 Islands Cheung Chau Pak She San Tsuen 41 Islands Cheung Chau Tung Tai San Tsuen/Bela Vista Villa 42 Islands Cheung Chau Nam She Tong 43 Islands Cheung Chau Round Table 1st Village 44 Islands Cheung Chau Round Table 2nd Village 45 Islands Cheung Chau Round Table 3rd Village 46 Islands Cheung Chau Care Village 47 Islands Cheung Chau Lutheran Village 48 Islands Cheung Chau Lung Tsai Tsuen 49 Islands Cheung Chau Fa Peng 50 Islands Peng Chau Tai Lung Tsuen 51 Islands Peng Chau Chung Tsai Tsuen 52 Islands Peng Chau Ho King Toi 53 Islands Peng Chau Tai Wo 54 Islands Peng Chau Nim Shu Wan

4384 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

MR KENNETH LAU (in Cantonese): President, under the pandemic, people rely more heavily on technology and it is imperative to extend fibre-based networks to remote areas. However, with the extremely slow progress of the Subsidy Scheme at present, residents of the rural areas will have to wait for a very long time before they can enjoy Internet services through fibre-based networks. Besides, it is now often due to ownership problems that fibre-based networks can only be extended to the entrances of villages, without reaching individual households inside the villages. Fibre-to-the-home broadband services are just within sight but beyond reach for villagers. This present reply from the Government seems to say that there is not any concrete measure to help those villagers. I would like to ask the Government whether it can take an extra step to take up the responsibility of setting up a special committee which will play the role of an organizer or coordinator in facilitating communication between villagers and FNOs so that fibre-to-the-home can be made available to villagers.

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr LAU for his views. We understand the importance of fibre-based networks or broadband services to the people of the whole territory, and it was precisely due to this reason that we submitted an application to the Legislative Council in 2018 for a funding of over $700 million for laying fibre-based networks. There are two stages under this project, and the first stage is tendering. The New Territories as a whole is divided into six zones and for these six projects, FNOs have been invited to participate in the tender exercise. However, many kinds of works are actually involved. For instance, in some remote areas, the works like digging up the roads to lay the fibre-based cables are warranted, and some works also need to be conducted on outlying islands. In this exercise, a large proportion of these 200-odd villages are located on outlying islands and the works, which involve the laying of submarine cables or fibre-based cables, need some time to be completed. As I said earlier in the main reply, the works for about half of the villages are expected to be completed in the coming two years, and the rest by 2025-2026.

As regards the situation mentioned by Mr LAU concerning the laying of fibre-based networks only to the entrances of villages, we need cooperation from villagers or Rural Committees. It is because our job of laying fibre-based networks to remote villages is usually conducted on Government land, normally LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4385 up to the entrances of villages. Nevertheless, from the entrances of villages to individual households, normally many different lots of land are involved. In this respect, FNOs have been negotiating with the Rural Committees concerned on how to lay the networks within the villages. We will continue our efforts in this regard and it is my hope that at the end, an overwhelming majority of villagers can enjoy the services through fibre-based networks.

In regard to the last supplementary question raised by Mr LAU, which is about whether an organization is needed to play the role of a coordinator, for the time being, the Office of the Communications Authority is responsible for such coordination work. Through FNOs, it will discuss such issues with Rural Committees. I believe that in this respect, the Heung Yee Kuk N.T. and Mr LAU have been giving us great support, and with this approach, we wish to continue to improve our work together with village representatives.

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): We learn from an information paper of our Council that in June last year, the Bureau attended a meeting of the Council, telling us that under the Subsidy Scheme in relation to extending fibre-based networks to villages, the tendering exercise on six projects had already been finished. But after reading this paper today, we find that its content is very similar to that of the paper nine months ago. However, in June last year, the Government promised … those six contractors or FNOs should have a specific timetable, especially on projects no. 4, 5 and 6, which are conducted on Lamma Island, Cheung Chau and Tai O. The Government must have a timetable to tell us and other FNOs when it will assign them with the zones for the provision of network services. May I ask the Secretary whether he thinks that this paper is acceptable, or whether the Government has more information which, however, is still unknown to you at this moment? Is it owing to the pandemic that in these nine months, you are unable to take any follow-up actions?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, as mentioned by Dr CHENG Chung-tai, we just finished the tendering exercise last year. During this tendering exercise, one project was rather difficult to deal with. While there was a certain level of difficulty in this tender, other problems like cost-effectiveness were also involved. But generally 4386 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 speaking, most of the tendering work was smooth, and I recall that the tender for only one project needed more time to handle. After the tendering exercise was completed, the works would be commenced. As I said earlier when answering Mr LAU's question, certain works are not as simple as those conducted in the urban areas where we only need to dig up the roads to lay the fibre-based cables. Some of our works are to be conducted in certain remote areas and even on outlying islands. Therefore, the projects concerned will need some more time to complete.

We allocate different zones into six projects and FNOs do need a timetable. In general, they will draw up their own timetables, in which they will, for example, set targets for the progress of the works in the first two to three years. Generally speaking, in terms of their progress, I see that they are working in accordance with our original plan, and our Bureau will continue to monitor the progress of the works.

MR JIMMY NG (in Cantonese): When it comes to improving the network coverage in remotes areas, I wonder if the Secretary has learnt that recently, Starlink, a company under the charge of Elon MUSK, the titan in technology, has already started providing the globe with high-speed Internet services. Theoretically speaking, in the future, no matter on the Himalayas or in Admiralty where we are now situated, you should be able to enjoy Internet services of the same speed. Recently, some of my friends were invited by Starlink for pre-registration of services under its network which will cover Hong Kong in 2022. This is the publicity leaflet concerned, and it already has an office in Hong Kong. The technology of Starlink is indeed something novel. If it can be smoothly introduced into Hong Kong, I believe that it can thoroughly resolve the problem of poor Internet access in remote areas. In this connection, I would like to ask the authorities whether Starlink will need a licence for market access, whether it will be subject to the regulation of the existing Telecommunications Ordinance, and whether we will need to amend the Telecommunications Ordinance to welcome its market access. Besides, since the service charge of Starlink, which is US$99 per month as shown on the publicity leaflet, is rather expensive, will the Government consider expanding the Subsidy Scheme to cover the services of Starlink? If so, what are the details; if not, what are the reasons?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4387

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I do not have such information with me right now. I will provide a reply after the meeting. (Appendix I)

MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the extension of fibre-based networks to rural villages in remote areas is a benevolent measure. During the pandemic, in particular, when many children cannot go to school and have to study at home, if there is no Internet access, they basically are unable to attend any online classes. Therefore, I think the best way is for the Government to expedite the progress of such work.

The biggest shortcoming of the present approach of laying fibre-based networks by FNOs is that the networks can only be extended to, for example, the entrances of villages. If the networks are further extended, some private land may be involved. And since certain villages are scarcely populated, FNOs may not even be interested to extend the networks. Hence, the Government has to pay attention to the progress or situation in future.

In this exercise, some villages are not covered by the Subsidy Scheme but these villages are not too remote. It is very easy to extend the networks there, but the Government does not plan to do so. For example, Hilltop Garden, Sha Po Tsai and Tsung Tsai Yuen Garden in Tai Po, and Ki Lun Tsuen in Yuen Long are not covered by the Subsidy Scheme. The Government does not deal with these places which are not recognized as villages. In my view, since the Government is now willing to do something for the residents in remote areas, why does it neglect those residents? Does the Government exclude them from the Subsidy Scheme simply because they are not villagers? May I ask whether the Secretary will, following the Subsidy Scheme, further extend fibre-based networks to cover the whole territory so that all citizens can have access to fibre-to-the-home services?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): I thank Mr LEUNG Che-cheung for his supplementary question. When we introduced the Subsidy Scheme, we had discussed this problem with the Heung Yee Kuk N.T. and the Rural Committees on the district level. Of course, our policy objective is to extend the coverage, the wider the better. However, in 4388 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 the process, we have some restrictions since public money is involved and there are also some difficulties during actual execution of the policy. As I pointed out in the main reply, we are somewhat held back in those areas which are really extremely remote or in lack of electricity supply. Therefore, after the Subsidy Scheme was proposed and discussed by us, the outcome of our discussion is that for the time being, the focus of the Subsidy Scheme is on those 235 villages.

An issue was also raised earlier, and it is about the distribution of villages. If most of the households are geographically rather concentrated, basically when fibre-based networks are extended to the entrances of villages, the villagers therein are able to enjoy broadband services, no matter by way of direct wiring or other wireless modes. In regard to the places beyond these 235 villages, I understand that there are surely some omissions. For the places which are not covered by the Subsidy Scheme for the time being, we will consider them after checking the result of the Scheme. Nonetheless, this proposal for the inclusion of 235 villages was rather aggressive back then and we hoped that they could be covered as far as possible.

MS ALICE MAK (in Cantonese): President, my question is similar to that just raised by Mr LEUNG. In fact, during the pandemic last year, many schools needed to switch to online teaching, and our women association had given free tablets to 1 000 students so that they could attend online classes. At the same time, we also conducted some home visits and found that many children living in village houses had experienced sudden disruption of broadband service in the middle of the class due to inadequate coverage of network or weak network signal. One secondary student that we interviewed told us that he was preparing for a test during the class when the network could not be connected, and he was unable to continue with the class. Some students also could not submit their homework on time due to network disconnection. These situations do pose some learning problems to students. If our network coverage is not extensive enough, there will really be a digital gap, adversely affecting the learning of children.

Therefore, I would like to ask the Secretary whether he will consider covering other villages upon completion of this Subsidy Scheme. Besides, if certain villages are not covered by the networks … we are also aware that in some villages, if fibre-based networks are to be extended from the entrances of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4389 villages to individual households within, there will be a lot of arguments which may render the extension impossible or the charges will be particularly expensive―some villagers really have to pay exorbitant fees―how can villagers be charged less or how can they have easy access to fibre-based networks? If this cannot be done, will the Government consider providing them with government Wi-Fi so that they can at least use public Wi-Fi?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): I thank Ms MAK for her supplementary question. Firstly, she mentioned the situation of many villages which are precisely the areas that we want to include into this Subsidy Scheme. In 2018, we noticed that although the fibre-based networks in the urban areas in Hong Kong were rather extensive, many remote areas indeed were still unable to have access to broadband services. Hence, the extension of fibre-based networks to villages is fundamental so that villagers can enjoy broadband services of higher speed―for example 500-1 000 Mbps―which can sustain the online learning activities mentioned earlier by Ms MAK. Thus I think the first step is for the villages just mentioned by her to have access to broadband services in the coming few years.

Secondly, as regards fibre-to-the-home, this actually is not only a problem to villages. Because in urban areas, the issue of ownership is also involved in the extension of fibre-based networks from downstairs or the entrances of buildings to the households within, and the situation is even more difficult to villages as land ownership may be involved. Our present approach is to negotiate with local resident groups and we will see whether it works. We aim to have our target attained as far as possible. This Subsidy Scheme also offers a certain degree of flexibility as FNOs may take an extra step to gradually extend their networks to as many households as possible, but we really need to negotiate with local resident groups―especially the relevant owners. Therefore, concerning the situation that I just highlighted, we may need to work together with village representatives and Rural Committees. In this regard, I undertake that we will discuss again with FNOs through the Office of the Communications Authority.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Third question.

4390 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

Improving policy implementation

3. MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, last year, the Government injected $27.3 billion into Cathay Pacific Airways Limited ("CX") which had fallen into financial difficulty, and later disbursed around $0.6 billion of wage subsidies to CX under the Employment Support Scheme. However, CX still recorded a record-breaking deficit of $21.6 billion and needed to reduce approximately 8 500 positions last year. Some members of the public have criticized that the public money involved in the injection is sufficient for handing out $5,000 each to all members of the public in Hong Kong, or making contributions to MPF schemes on behalf of all employers and employees in Hong Kong for half a year. There have been comments that the Government has made policy blunders, such as disbursing wage subsidies to supermarket chains whose business has bloomed amid the epidemic, reducing tax concessions for the current financial year by half, proposing to issue electronic consumption vouchers with all sorts of restrictions, refusing to allow members of the public to withdraw the accrued benefits in their MPF accounts to help themselves, and failing to publish vaccination guidelines in a timely manner, which have resulted in the Government's persistently low popularity. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it has reviewed if the Government's practice of spending, without consulting the public, huge amounts of public money on injecting money into CX and disbursing wage subsidies to supermarket chains with huge profits but ignoring that more and more members of the public have fallen into financial difficulty amid the epidemic, will give members of the public a perception of not helping those who should be helped, and deal a blow to public confidence in the Government's governance;

(2) as it is learnt that the level of Mainlanders' satisfaction with the Central Government has remained persistently high in recent years, whether it has studied which of the relevant reasons are of reference value to the SAR Government to facilitate its review and adjustment of the existing policies on developing the economy and combating the epidemic; and

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4391

(3) whether it will change the practice of helping individual enterprises and instead adopt a fairer and more cost-effective approach for assisting all enterprises and employees who have fallen into financial difficulty, such as considering afresh the proposal of the Government making contributions to MPF schemes temporarily on behalf of all employers and employees in Hong Kong, so as to ensure the proper use of public money?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I am thankful for the opportunity of responding to the oral question raised by Mr Paul TSE today to elucidate the Government's efforts in alleviating people's hardship, supporting the enterprises and fighting against the pandemic in the past months. In consultation with relevant Policy Bureaux, my reply to the various parts of the question raised by Mr TSE just now is as follows:

(1) and (3)

Same as other economies, the COVID-19 pandemic has dealt a very severe blow to the Hong Kong economy. We have been committed to controlling the pandemic, and at the same time endeavoured to help those hard-hit business sectors and citizens to tide over the difficult times having regard to the epidemic situation and changes in the economic environment.

Considering that job security of employees and business operation are inter-dependent, we have been steadfast in supporting both the enterprises and employment. To this end, the Government has introduced targeted relief measures amounting to over $300 billion, through the 2020-2021 Budget and the four rounds of injections into the Anti-epidemic Fund ("AEF"), that covered a wide range of industries and groups in need. As at mid-March 2021, over $140 billion of subsidies have been disbursed under AEF, benefiting over 6.5 million persons and around 850 000 applications submitted by enterprises and businesses. On the premise that no layoffs were allowed, employers had been subsidized by the two tranches of the 4392 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

Employment Support Scheme to the benefit of around 1.95 million employees and over 120 000 self-employed persons.

The aviation industry plays a strategic role in the economic development of Hong Kong, and is the cornerstone of Hong Kong's status as an international aviation hub. Before the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, Cathay Pacific Airways Limited ("Cathay") accounted for 57% and 41% of the overall passengers and freight carried by the Hong Kong International Airport respectively. Cathay is key in driving different types of economic activities within the industry, supporting many in the downstream and providing job opportunities. With a view to supporting Hong Kong's aviation industry to ride out the storm, the Government decided in June 2020 to invest in Cathay in the public interest.

At the individual level, the Government has spared no efforts to relieve people's hardship. The Budget announced by the Financial Secretary last month introduced a host of counter-cyclical measures costing over $120 billion. Apart from general measures including tax and rate reductions, increasing social security allowance and provision of one-off electricity charges subsidy of $1,000, the Budget also proposed to issue electronic consumption vouchers with a total value of $5,000 and create around 30 000 time-limited job positions. In addition, the Budget proposes to set up a time-limited Special 100% Loan Guarantee for Individuals Scheme, with a view to providing an additional financing option for the unemployed.

Regarding the suggestion for the Government to make Mandatory Provident Fund ("MPF") contributions, we announced in January 2020 to pay in future the 5% MPF contributions on behalf of employees whose salary is lower than the minimum relevant income level. As for Mr TSE's suggestion for the Government to make MPF contributions for all employers and employees in Hong Kong, this is a measure with much wider implication. The Government has carefully analysed the impact of the proposal. Given the finite public resources at present, we consider it not appropriate to implement the suggestion.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4393

We forecast that the consolidated deficit this year will be the highest on record, and the deficit in the coming year will remain high at around $100 billion. In the coming years, we expect great volatility in the economic environment and the external political situation. While we will strive to make available mitigation measures for our people, we also need to maintain certain level of fiscal reserves for meeting other future needs.

(2) The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR") Government has remained vigilant and committed to curbing the COVID-19 pandemic. We have made references to the advice from experts in Hong Kong, the Mainland and the rest of the world in formulating suitable anti-epidemic strategy based on science. There are regular exchanges between the Department of Health of the HKSAR Government and the National Health Commission on the anti-epidemic experience in the Mainland. By drawing on the Mainland's successful anti-epidemic strategy and experience, it is hoped that the epidemic in Hong Kong could be put under control as soon as possible.

Over the past year, our country has achieved major strategic achievement in curbing COVID-19 and is the world's only major economy to achieve positive economic growth. Meanwhile, the approved 14th Five-Year Plan sets out the blueprint and action agenda for the social and economic development of the country in the next five years. We will be a proactive participant and facilitator of the development blueprint, thereby bringing continuous impetus to our economy.

To enhance governance capability, which is also the topic Mr Paul TSE was of concern just now, it is pivotal for HKSAR to dutifully implement the decision of the National People's Congress to improve the electoral system and the principle of "patriots administering Hong Kong". Once the loophole in our current electoral system is plugged, we can effectively resolve the predicament of over-politicization as seen in the Legislative Council in recent years. 4394 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

Taking the recent resolution of the Vote on Account as an example, this is a well-established procedure in the budgetary process. Whilst we welcome Members' views during the deliberation of the resolution, the process was delayed by a number of unreasonable amendments last year. In recent times when rationality is restored in the Legislative Council, the resolution this year was passed smoothly as in the past. We hope that once the electoral system is improved and "patriots administering Hong Kong" is implemented, there will be larger room for cooperation with the Legislative Council and different sectors of the community to develop the economy and improve people's livelihood.

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, I have no intention to target individual enterprises. Cathay is involved in many public interests, but I do not want to over-criticize the approach adopted by the Government in the past. However, the United States has launched three rounds of cash handouts, with the latest round amounting to US$1,400 to each person. As for Macao, as tiny as it may be, it has also dished out a $10,000 handout and later discount vouchers. Their elderly residents can spend the money using their senior citizen cards. We cannot help but have a perception that Hong Kong is inferior to them in this regard. President, the biggest problem with the HKSAR Government is not about its failure to achieve, but about its attitude. Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong expressed his concern earlier that helping only the unemployed might encourage people to become unemployed. His remark is mean and unsympathetic. I thus believe that on the whole it is an attitude issue.

President, in his reply to part (2) of the main question, the Secretary says that once the electoral system is improved and the principle of "patriots administering Hong Kong" is implemented, the HKSAR Government can work more efficiently. But the opposition camp is no longer here for quite some time to stir up troubles. We have been counting on ourselves to do as much as we can for more than half a year. When the Government is not people-oriented and maintains a defensive attitude against its people as if defending against thieves, and when it is generous and lax with enterprises in handling their requests without any screening, members of the public will find such an attitude of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4395

Government a problem. So, if the Government does not change its attitude, I am afraid we can never catch up with our country in the level of satisfaction of its people with the Central Government even if we truly implement the principle of "patriots administering Hong Kong" in the future. Is there any means to enable different government departments to take immediate actions in a smarter and faster way, instead of taking actions after the political reform?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): I thank Mr TSE for his question. Mr TSE's supplementary question just now has a key, and that is attitude. In other words, how we can be more people-oriented when we formulate, execute and promote our policies. Actually, this is also the principle that has been guiding our work.

I often say that we should strive for three "haves" in doing our work. First, we should have a heart and truly do something good for Hong Kong. The policies we formulate should truly be able to help people. For instance, the Financial Secretary recently announced the Budget. The measures he has proposed will cost more than $120 billion. It is because he is aware of the present condition of the economy and people's livelihood. Second, we should do things that would bring benefits. Apart from having a heart in what we do, we should also do things that are useful to Hong Kong. This includes things that benefit the long-term development of Hong Kong, such as supporting the aviation industry and further establishing Hong Kong as an aviation hub, something Mr TSE mentioned in his main question just now. All these are beneficial to the long-term development of Hong Kong. We are duty-bound to do work that is beneficial to Hong Kong. Third, apart from having a heart and bringing benefits to Hong Kong, we need to have justifications in what we do. In other words, it is about how to clearly explain for the understanding of the public the logics behind what we do, what we think or the work we take forward.

In fact, I am thankful to Mr TSE in this regard, and also many pro-establishment Members. They have been actively explaining different areas of government policies in the community, as well as among their voters. We should not stop communicating with the people. Communication is always the more the merrier. It is incumbent upon us to continually explain our logics fully, so that people understand them. This is what we should continue to do.

4396 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

Certainly, the approach aside, what have we actually done? The Budget has taken care of the needs of different levels of society through different aspects, including extending loan schemes for enterprises and launching other concessionary measures for individuals. We will actively implement these measures and look into ways to help Hong Kong.

MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): President, I asked the same supplementary question last week, but my question was answered by Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong last week. I believe no one understood his reply because his reasoning was fallacious. He described taking no pay leave as a form of job sharing. I thus wish to ask Secretary HUI the same question and I hope he can give us a sensible reply.

The Government forecasts that the unemployment rate will continue to rise and that the economy is unlikely to rebound. An important means for enterprises to remain viable and not to lay off employees in the coming time is to support employment. As mentioned by the Secretary just now in his main reply, over $140 billion of subsidies have been disbursed to support employment. Indeed, the money has been spent, but we are yet to see any signs of economic recovery. Indeed, the money has been spent, but the time ahead of us remains very difficult. Should the Government consider launching another round of measures to support employment and save the unemployed? Will the Secretary reconsider this option?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): I thank Member for putting his supplementary question.

Indeed, as can be seen from our entire anti-epidemic strategy, we, having considered the development of the pandemic, provide specific help through suitable measures to the people or industries affected.

As mentioned in my main reply just now, and also to the knowledge of Mr CHUNG, we have launched the Employment Support Scheme. But the development of the epidemic is constantly changing. And under the present situation, the financial implication is another factor we need to consider. Hence, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4397 after holistic consideration, we launched the targeted measures. We hold that it is more tenable to formulate targeted measures for individual enterprises and people affected by the epidemic.

As Members may be aware, the Financial Secretary has launched a variety of measures in the Budget. For enterprises, he has, among others, enhanced the SME Financing Guarantee Scheme and extended the application period of another scheme. For individuals, his measures include a loan scheme for the unemployed. We will soon submit the funding proposal to the Legislative Council, and we hope that it will be supported by Members. Another measure that will benefit even more people is the $5,000 consumption vouchers. So Members can see how we have introduced measures in tandem with the changing epidemic and economic development. Actually, we have not stopped, but rather, we have been launching new and suitable measures in the light of the changing time and the latest situation.

Apart from efforts to support employment which Members just mentioned, and the measures in the Budget I just introduced, there are measures that seek to create employment opportunities. It is because apart from preserving employment opportunities, we also need to find new positions. There are some more arrangements mentioned in the Budget that seek to create employment opportunities, including employment opportunities in the Greater Bay Area and locally in Hong Kong. These arrangements are multi-pronged, involving enterprises and individuals, as well as existing and new employment opportunities. We hope that the basket of proposed measures can work in tandem with the measures already announced to further invigorate the economy and enable Hong Kong to quickly recover when the epidemic ends.

MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Cantonese): President, I notice that the Secretary has talked at great length about the justification for the Government to launch the Employment Support Scheme. But I wish to raise a question about the two major supermarket chains, which have been making handsome profits, in hundreds of millions of dollars, over this period of time. Given that these two supermarket chains have been making profits and do not need the wage subsidies under the Employment Support Scheme, will the Government consider exercising its discretion to stop giving the subsidies under the Scheme to them but giving the subsidies to people in greater need? May I ask whether the Government has 4398 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 considered exercising this discretion so that people feel that the subsidies go to people in genuine need, rather than being aimlessly given to people who do not need them?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): I thank Mr CHOW for his supplementary question. Let me reply from several aspects. In fact, my main reply is not entirely in "past tense". Part of it is in "future tense". The measures that cost over $100 million in the Budget, including tax concession, are yet to be implemented. So, these are the "future tense" measures. Not all measures are looking in retrospect. This is the first point.

Second, regarding the Employment Support Scheme, if we refer to the statistics, the two supermarket chains applied for considerable amounts of wage subsidies in the second tranche of the Scheme. Based on the give-back principle laid down by the Government earlier, they are required to offer rebate to their customers. Perhaps let me provide Members with some specific data here. Wellcome and PARKnSHOP respectively received wage subsidies of $184.5 million and $161.96 million under the second tranche of the Employment Support Scheme. According to the give-back principle we laid down earlier, their minimum rebate amounts should be no less than $92.25 million and $80.98 million respectively. In this connection, the two supermarket chains already completed the giving of rebates before the end of December 2020 and made public for public scrutiny the list of benefiting organizations, the number of beneficiaries and the corresponding amounts of rebates they received. Mr CHOW and the Government are like-minded here. We are both concerned about how to help people in need in a more appropriate and focused manner. And this was also our major consideration when we proposed the measures in the Budget.

MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary expressed his hope for the early end of the epidemic, so as to facilitate the recovery of the economy. However, we cannot quite see the end of the epidemic. Worse still, the Government announced today the suspension of BioNTech vaccination. So, when can we actually stop the epidemic? We cannot find an answer. Besides, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4399 if the Government would only sit on its hands and rely on luck, thinking that the economy would automatically revive and people would have peace of mind after everything is settled, then may I ask how long we have to wait? In part (2) of his reply just now, the Secretary mentioned the need to draw on the Mainland's successful anti-epidemic strategy, and one of its successful strategies is supporting enterprises. So, will the Secretary continue to sit on his hands and try his luck and let enterprises save themselves?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr CHUNG for his supplementary question. We definitely will not sit on our hands and do nothing, and we are not sitting on our hands now. We prefer working quietly and diligently. The fact that so many measures have been proposed in the Budget is precisely because of our understanding of the present economic condition and the state of the epidemic. I thus wish to use this platform to urge the public to get vaccinated. Vaccination is one of the keys in fighting the epidemic. But of course, the development of the epidemic is always changing. That is why we have launched so many measures under AEF and in the Budget.

To reply Mr CHUNG's question just now, the Budget is not without any measures for enterprises. Just now, I said that the application period for a loan scheme would be extended; and I also mentioned some other measures on the long-term development of enterprises. At the end of the day, we need to consider the comprehensive needs of individuals or society. While taking care of present needs, we cannot disregard the future. Hence, we need to properly deal with the present and prepare for the future.

In this regard, we hope that we can have more exchanges with Members and explore proposals that we can take forward together to meet the needs at the present stage. We can work together on how to revive the economy and social development for Hong Kong after the end of the epidemic.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fourth question.

4400 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

Ordering teachers alleged to have breached the law to be suspended from duties

4. MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Cantonese): During the disturbances arising from the opposition to the proposed legislative amendments, quite a number of teachers were arrested for suspected participation in unlawful activities. The ("EDB") has written to schools requiring them to order an immediate suspension from duties of those teachers who were arrested for involvement in cases of serious offences, so as to protect students' safety and safeguard schools' operation. It is learnt that some schools have decided that such teachers are to be suspended from duties only upon conviction by the Court. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) given that as the conviction threshold for criminal offences is rather high, the acts, committed by those teachers who were prosecuted for taking part in a riot or an unlawful assembly but have been acquitted in a criminal trial, may still constitute professional misconduct, whether EDB will issue further guidelines to schools in the territory, stipulating that schools must enforce the arrangements for suspension from duties more stringently, so as to avoid students from being led astray by such teachers; and

(2) given that those teachers who were suspended from duties but have subsequently been acquitted by the Court may claim compensation from the schools for the losses they incurred by being suspended from duties, whether the Government will, on behalf of the schools, bear the liabilities for compensation so as to allay the concerns of the schools; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): President, schools should be places for students to concentrate on learning without disturbances. As students' role models, professional teachers are obliged to teach them, offer them guidance and emotional support, and in particular cultivate their virtues and positive values, so that they can grow up healthily and contribute to the society in the future. The Education Bureau ("EDB") has been striving ahead with schools, providing them with timely guidance, and assisting schools in adopting appropriate measures to create a safe, stable and peaceful environment for students to learn happily. In fact, the majority of teachers uphold professionalism and are LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4401 dedicated to nurturing their students. The misconduct of a few black sheep, though only a minority, has undermined the reputation of the teaching profession, while some of them are even involved in serious illegal acts. Such acts bring shame on members of the education profession, seriously affect the professional image of teachers, and undermine the society's confidence in teachers. EDB is the authority for formulation, implementation and monitoring of education policies as well as the authority for registration of teachers. We take a very serious and prudent approach in handling cases of suspected professional misconduct of teachers to maintain the confidence of parents and society in our education services.

From mid-June 2019 to late December 2020, EDB received a total of 269 complaints about suspected professional misconduct of teachers in relation to the social turmoil. We have largely completed the investigation of 244 cases, of which 95 are unsubstantiated. Among the remaining cases, we have cancelled two teachers' registration and issued reprimand and warning letters to 28 and 24 teachers respectively, reminding them to uphold professional ethics and that recidivism will definitely be met with severe punishments, including the possibility of cancelling the teacher's registration. We have also issued written advice to 27 teachers and verbal reminders to another 28 teachers, reminding them to refrain from activities that are detrimental to the image of the teaching profession, and to show respect to the behavioural norms acceptable to society. For the remaining cases that are likely to be substantiated in our initial view, we are currently handling them in accordance with the established procedures, with a view to determining the appropriate follow-up actions.

Our reply to the question raised by Mr Holden CHOW is as follows:

(1) The Codes of Aid stipulate that subject to the Employment Ordinance and other relevant provisions, a school may suspend a teacher from his/her normal duties if he/she has been involved or is likely to be involved in criminal proceedings of a serious nature or in serious misconduct.

In order to assist schools in coping with the challenges posed by social turmoil in 2019, EDB has issued letters or guidelines to schools for a number of times. In the letter we issued to schools in late December 2019, we explained our expectations of teachers and the code of conduct for them. We also clarified to schools the basic 4402 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

principles for handling teaching staff who have been arrested, pointing out that when considering whether teachers should be suspended from duties, schools should take into account students' well-being, including the impact on their personal safety, moral development and quality of learning, as a primary consideration. If a teacher is suspected of having committed a serious crime, the school should also assess the risk involved should the teacher continue to contact with the students, even if the case or the incident is not yet concluded.

Specifically, if a teacher is involved in a serious offence related to personal safety, such as arson, serious wounding, riot, possession of dangerous goods or prohibited weapons, etc., or an offence generally considered by the public to be seriously violating moral standards, such as a sexual offence, trafficking or possession of drugs, possession of child pornography, etc., taking into account students' personal safety and well-being, schools should handle the case prudently, and suspend the duties of the teacher concerned to prevent him/her from continuing to take up teaching duties or to have contact with students. As for teachers under arrest but not charged with any offences, schools should examine carefully the nature and seriousness of the cases involved and consider whether it is appropriate to allow them to continue to take up their teaching or other duties in schools.

In fact, schools, as employers, are responsible for the management of a professional team of teaching staff in school, including handling the appointment, promotion, termination, dismissal and any other staffing matters. If we learn that there are suspected cases of unlawful acts committed by teachers, we will closely liaise with the schools concerned and provide support in relation to various matters. If it is noted that the schools have deviated from EDB's instructions in the process, we will offer advice to the schools and require them to reconsider the cases.

Regardless of whether an arrested teacher is convicted or not, EDB will, upon completion of all the legal proceedings (including the appeal proceedings), review the registration status of the teacher concerned based on the information available. If EDB considers LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4403

that the teacher is no longer a fit and proper person to be a teacher, we will cancel the teacher's registration pursuant to the Education Ordinance. If the case does not warrant the cancellation of registration, EDB will take follow-up actions of different levels having regard to the nature and severity of the case. These include issuing a reprimand, warning letter or advisory letter, etc. to remind the teacher concerned that he/she should uphold professional ethics and recidivism will definitely be met with severe punishments, including the possibility of cancelling the teacher's registration.

(2) Generally speaking, if a teacher is arrested for being suspected of having committed a crime and is charged later, schools will, taking into account the aforesaid factors and the nature of the crime, suspend the teacher from his/her normal duties before the completion of legal proceedings and a judgment is delivered on the case by the Court. Some cases will take a longer time to conclude if appeal procedures are involved. To ensure students can continue with their studies without being affected by the teacher's absence from duties, a school may make use of the resources provided by the Government to hire a supply teacher to temporarily take up the duties of the teacher being suspended from duties. In making the arrangements for the teachers being suspended from duties and their salary payment, schools should observe the requirements under the Codes of Aid, Employment Ordinance, employment contract, schools' own policies and the actual situation. In general, in case the teachers concerned have not performed any duties, they will not receive salary payment. Regarding the arrangements for suspending teachers from their duties, should there be any enquiries or difficulties encountered by individual schools, EDB will provide appropriate advice and support, with a view to assisting them in making the proper arrangements and ensuring that students' learning will not be affected.

MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Cantonese): President, we can see clearly in the main reply that we absolutely have laws and rules to follow, including the Code of Aid and the Employment Ordinance, and schools do not have to wait until the conviction of the teachers concerned in criminal trials before they can impose punishment on those teachers for misconduct. The rationale behind this is, as 4404 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 mentioned in the main reply, that the school also has to assess the risk involved should the teacher concerned continue to take up teaching duties in school even if the case or the incident is not yet concluded because there may be serious consequences. If those teachers involved in professional misconduct are allowed to continue taking up teaching duties in schools, they will continue to corrupt students. Thus, their registration should be cancelled. The provisions of the law are rather clear, President, but why have schools turned a blind eye to the relevant provisions?

Now my supplementary question is: How will EDB step up the enforcement of the relevant requirements so that schools do not ignore them? It is clearly pointed out in the main reply that over such a long period of time, only two teachers' registration has been cancelled in relation to the "black-clad violence" incident. My question is: How is EDB going to step up the enforcement of such requirements?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): President, what Mr CHOW has said is very true. As stated in the main reply, when a teaching staff member is arrested, the school may decide whether the teacher should be suspended from his/her duties having regard to the seriousness of the offence involved and the impact on students. It is not an easy decision to make as schools have to consider the seriousness of the offence involved, the arrangements under the employment contract between the school and the teacher, and the views of different stakeholders in the school on the incident. What matters most, of course, is the impact on students. We must ensure the safety of students and make sure that their studies are not affected.

Therefore, if the school considers that the relevant teacher's or teaching staff member's continued contact with students in school will have an adverse impact on the students or affect their personal safety, it is obliged to take appropriate action against him/her, including suspension of duty. Some schools/school sponsoring bodies may temporarily remove the teacher concerned from a position where he/she has contact with students and, for example, let him/her help the sponsoring body with its pedagogical studies and so on.

We will certainly respect the arrangements made by school sponsoring bodies and schools, but the ultimate consideration is the safety of students, with the focus on whether allowing the teacher to continue to take up teaching duties in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4405 school will have any adverse impact on students. In this connection, as mentioned in the main reply, in case EDB finds that a teacher has been arrested for allegedly committing an offence, we will discuss with the school on each case to understand clearly what actions the school will take and whether there is any significant discrepancy between our views and the school's regarding the incident in order that follow-up actions can be taken.

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I believe the Secretary for Education is also aware that the heads, deputy heads and frontline teachers of some schools per se are unsound. And so, we noticed that some schools do not consider allowing those teachers who have been arrested or even under criminal prosecution for participating in illegal activities to continue to work in schools detrimental to students.

In view of this, if EDB still only advises schools on what to do, then I would like to ask the Secretary whether government schools are following the practice of the ("CSB") at present―I am talking about government schools first―if a civil servant is arrested, investigated and prosecuted for participating in illegal public activities, he/she must be suspended from his/or her duties immediately. Is this applicable to teachers of government schools? And is it also applicable to teachers of subsidized/grant schools? How does EDB ensure that all schools will deal with those teachers arrested and prosecuted for participating in public activities in accordance with the same clear set of criteria?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): President, as civil servants, teachers of government schools will certainly be dealt with in accordance with the criteria laid down by CSB. Therefore, when a government school teacher is arrested and prosecuted for participating in illegal gatherings or riots, we will certainly deal with it in accordance with the procedures laid down by CSB.

As to subsidized schools, they are different from government schools both in respect of the terms of employment and the employers themselves. Thus, the way a subsidized school handles the employment matters concerning the teacher being arrested and prosecuted in the end will also be different from that of civil servants. However, as I have stated in the main reply, the interests of students 4406 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 are always our primary consideration, which means we must consider the impact on students of allowing the teacher concerned to continue to take up teaching duties in school and have contact with students. In this connection, we will examine individual cases, discuss with the schools and make appropriate decisions.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Priscilla LEUNG, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): I just asked the Secretary whether government schools and subsidized schools would deal with those teachers in accordance with the same set of criteria. The Secretary seems to be evading my question.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Priscilla LEUNG, you have already pointed out the part of your supplementary question that has not been answered, please sit down.

Secretary, do you have anything to add?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): President, as I have just said, since government schools and subsidized schools are different in nature, the criteria for the two are not the same. I have pointed out just now that government schools will deal with their teachers in accordance with the Civil Service Code, whereas subsidized schools' primary consideration is the well-being of students in this respect.

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, teachers are among the professionals which―it is actually common knowledge that sometimes, the practising licences of doctors or practising certificates of lawyers may be suspended or cancelled as long as they have contravened the codes of professional conduct and not necessarily committed any criminal offences.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4407

The Code of Aid also mirrors the same common knowledge, specifying that either criminal proceedings of a serious nature or serious misconduct is involved―of course, it may take quite some time to debate what constitutes misconduct, but do take a look at some of the instances of serious offences mentioned by the Secretary in his main reply, which have something to do with drugs, personal safety, sexual offences and child pornography―these are something we understand. Since we all know that taking drugs will cause poisoning in one's body, we can take the necessary precautions. When it comes to mental poisoning through education, however, it is more difficult to tackle.

I was really shocked upon checking the relevant figures in this regard. According to the figures provided by the Secretary, among the 269 complaints lodged in the past one and a half years (i.e. from mid-June 2019 to the end of December 2020), the registration of only two teachers (i.e. 0.007%) was actually cancelled, while others were simply issued with warning letters and written advice. I want to know how many of these cases in which the schools had suspended the teachers concerned from their duties before trial, even though they were not required to be suspended or their registration was not cancelled? Should any registration or report be made with/to EDB regarding the suspension arrangements? Do the authorities have the relevant figures on record?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): President, many different situations have actually emerged during the social unrest in 2019, including those in which teachers participated in social movements (such as by committing illegal acts or attending illegal gatherings outside schools) who were detained on the spot by the Police/law enforcement agencies or even prosecuted. This is the type of instances usually included under the category of criminal cases which Mr Holden CHOW's question focused on today. As to whether schools have made suspension arrangements in relation to cases involving criminal prosecutions against teachers in order to protect students, we have already responded to this in the main reply.

In addition, we have also mentioned some cases where the teachers concerned might not have committed certain acts on the spot. For example, many of the 200-odd complaints received in the past involved teachers publishing inappropriate comments on their private websites or making inappropriate remarks during school lessons that might affect students' values in the long run. These are also the sort of complaints that we will handle.

4408 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

We will deal with the above two situations separately. In the case of a teacher who expresses himself/herself during lessons simply by using vulgar language in their teaching materials or in speech that even though this may not constitute an offence under the law, but when we judge the professional conduct of a teacher from an educational perspective―the Permanent Secretary may, in exercising her power of registration, consider that he/she may not be a suitable person to take up a teacher's post from an educational point of view and thus take what we refer to as the so-called "follow-up actions". These may include cancellation of the teacher's registration, issuing to him/her a warning or reprimand letter, etc. Some are cases after law enforcement actions, but as mentioned in my main reply, we will still follow up on them and may take actions such as cancelling registration, etc. We have not yet taken any action just because in many cases, it is necessary to wait for the court's judgment or the expiry of the time for appeal before we can make a judgment based on all the facts. Indeed, we have to deal with several different types of cases.

In the past five years, there have been about 20 cases where schools have suspended teachers from their duties as a result of the arrests effected and prosecutions instituted. If my memory serves me right, teachers of government schools accounted for three of these cases, one of which involved the suspension of a teacher's duties and the other two involved temporary removal of the teachers from their posts in the schools. Therefore, we will take different actions for different cases, and ensuring the safety of students remains the most important thing.

IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, as far as quality assurance of teaching is concerned, I think EDB should rely more on the long-established school inspection system instead of relying solely on handling complaints. Has EDB provided guidelines to its staff responsible for school inspections about the need to pay special attention to whether teachers have made inaccurate remarks during lessons and whether their remarks are politically motivated with bad intentions that will affect students' correct understanding of the country and society? In this connection, I wish to ask the Secretary whether and how EDB has carried out its gate-keeping duty through the school inspection system at present?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4409

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): President, we do attach a great deal of importance to teaching and learning. On gate-keeping, firstly, we need to have professional and responsible teachers who know how to teach students. Secondly, a school needs to have a monitoring system for supervision at all levels, under which the head, deputy head and supervising officers of the school are responsible for monitoring teachers' classroom teaching, the teaching materials used, the documents and teaching plans prepared by teachers and so on. EDB will also conduct regular school inspections, curriculum development visits and overall school inspections (including reviewing the school's curriculum planning and systems (e.g. monitoring system) to see if they are comprehensive. EDB will carry out tasks in these aspects.

However, I hope Members will understand that in many cases, the complaints received are isolated cases. I believe that the chances of teachers making highly inappropriate remarks in class during school inspection by EDB staff are rather slim. When conducting investigations in the past, we had to meet with students and teachers, and we might have to go through the relevant teaching plans and teaching materials over a long period of time before we could sort out whether there were any problems with the teaching of the teacher under complaint during that very period. Such efforts are therefore quite time-consuming. Nevertheless, it is usually difficult and practically impossible for us to examine meticulously each teacher's teaching materials during school visits. However, we will deal with every single complaint solemnly and seriously.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fifth question.

COVID-19 Vaccination Programme

5. DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): The Government authorized the Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19") vaccines "Comirnaty" and "CoronaVac" on 25 January and 18 February this year respectively for emergency use in Hong Kong. It has been reported that since the commencement of the Vaccination Programme on 26 February, a number of members of the public have felt unwell after receiving vaccination, and there have been several incidents in which members of the public died within a short period of time after vaccination. As a result, the daily number of people receiving 4410 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 vaccination has shown a downward trend. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it will urge the company which researched and developed CoronaVac to expeditiously publish the third phase clinical research data of the vaccine in medical journals, or make public the relevant data by other means; and

(2) whether the Expert Committee on Clinical Events Assessment Following COVID-19 Immunisation has studied the circumstances under which the Vaccination Programme needs to be suspended pending re-assessment of the pros and cons of receiving vaccination?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, since the launch of the COVID-19 Vaccination Programme on 26 February, more than 400 000 citizens have received the first dose of the vaccine. The goal of our vaccination programme is very clear, which is to implement the vaccination programme in a progressive and orderly manner and expand the priority groups to provide vaccine protection to all people in Hong Kong, having regard to the proposed framework on priority of vaccination by the Joint Scientific Committees under the Centre for Health Protection of the Department of Health ("DH"). With regards to Dr CHENG Chung-tai's point that some citizens felt unwell or passed away within a short period of time after receiving the vaccine, I wish to provide a simple response.

According to the assessment of the relevant experts, so far no death case has been proven to have a causal relationship with the administration of COVID-19 vaccines. From the medical professional and science perspectives, so far there is no evidence pointing to the need for us to cast doubt on the safety of the two COVID-19 vaccines (namely Sinovac and BioNTech/Fosun vaccine) now made available to members of the public. The relevant vaccines are effective and of a good quality.

My consolidated reply to the other parts of the question is as follows:

In accordance with the Prevention and Control of Disease (Use of Vaccines) Regulation (Cap. 599K) ("the Regulation"), as the Secretary for Food LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4411 and Health, after making reference to the advice of the Advisory Panel on COVID-19 Vaccines ("the Advisory Panel") and having considered the threat to public health posed by COVID-19, I considered that the authorization of the Sinovac vaccine is necessary and in the public interest. I have authorized the emergency use of the relevant vaccine in Hong Kong according to the Regulation on 18 February.

As part of the application of the relevant vaccine for emergency use in Hong Kong in accordance with the Regulation, Sinovac has provided to the Advisory Panel the Phases 1 and 2 clinical data that it had submitted to the World Health Organization ("WHO") and the National Medical Products Administration, the Phase 3 clinical information of trials conducted in Brazil, as well as the Phase 3 clinical information of trials conducted in Turkey and Indonesia. The information and data of the clinical trials submitted by Sinovac have been examined and assessed in a thorough, objective and holistic manner by the 12 experts of the Advisory Panel with reference to the relevant requirements of WHO guidelines. These experts have all participated in peer reviews in their respective academic fields. Their assessment conducted for the Sinovac vaccine is on par with the peer reviews normally conducted for academic journals, and the assessment procedures for the relevant information are not different despite the fact that the information has not yet been published in medical journals. With a view to strengthening the transparency of information regarding vaccines, the expert advice on the Sinovac vaccine given by the Advisory Panel has been uploaded to the website of the . To ensure that the Sinovac vaccine continues to fulfil the criteria of safety, efficacy and quality, I have attached conditions to the relevant vaccine authorization, including requiring the drug manufacturer to execute a relevant risk management programme, and continue to provide the latest clinical data and laboratory analysis certificates for each batch of vaccines, as well as timely updates of quality reports.

Ensuring that the COVID-19 vaccines meet the requirement of safety, efficacy and quality is the primary consideration of the Government when implementing the vaccination programme. Since the launch of the vaccination programme, DH has put in place a pharmacovigilance system for adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccines in accordance with WHO guidelines. It has continued to receive reports of Adverse Events Following Immunisations ("AEFIs") related to the COVID-19 vaccines used in Hong Kong from healthcare professionals and pharmaceutical industries. Furthermore, the Government has 4412 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 established the Expert Committee on Clinical Events Assessment Following COVID-19 Immunisation ("the Expert Committee") for the continuous monitoring of AEFIs associated with COVID-19 vaccination and the provision of expert opinions and advice on the safety monitoring of authorized vaccines. Regarding the serious adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination in Hong Kong, the Expert Committee would review the cases having regard to available information, including the medical conditions and history of the patient, as well as the relevant clinical data, available information related to the vaccine and preliminary autopsy findings, and conduct causality assessment based on the algorithm of WHO. So far, the assessment results of the Expert Committee have not indicated any causal relationship between death cases and the administration of vaccines. Put in simple terms, from the medical professional and science perspectives, so far there is no evidence pointing to the need for us to cast doubt on the safety of the two COVID-19 vaccines now made available to citizens. The relevant vaccines are effective and of good quality.

Based on science and following the principles of openness and transparency, DH published on 12 March the regular summary report on AEFIs associated with COVID-19 vaccination. The results of the report showed that the vaccination situation was in line with expectations and was similar to the experience of other places. There is no particular significant factor that raises concerns on unexpected AEFIs due to COVID-19 vaccination. In view of this, we believe that there is no basis for the suspension of the vaccination programme. We will also regularly update and publish the relevant report. Of course, if citizens have any questions about their physical condition or whether they are fit for COVID-19 vaccination, they should first consult their family doctor or attending doctor before getting vaccinated.

I must reiterate here that vaccination is an important public health measure to control COVID-19 effectively. The Government has all along been implementing the vaccination programme based on scientific evidence and in adherence to the principles of openness and transparency, and providing members of the public with the choice of vaccines from different technology platforms. Faced with the raging epidemic, the community should work together to fight the virus. We encourage citizens to actively get vaccinated so as to protect themselves, their families, the healthcare system, and even the whole population, so that Hong Kong can successfully overcome the epidemic as soon as possible.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4413

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Part (2) of my main question asks the Bureau about the circumstances governing the suspension of vaccination. This morning, the authorities abruptly suspended the administration of the Comirnaty vaccine―the suspension of vaccination was of course proposed by that company on its own initiative―and before the meeting, journalists and members of the public asked the Secretary about the number of people who had received the vaccines from batch 210102, the vaccine batch that has now been suspended. Just before entering the Chamber, the Secretary said that the exact number was still unavailable. This is inexplicable because the Bureau has only procured the said vaccine with two batch numbers and has now suspended their administration. To say the very least, Members all know that nearly 100 000 people have already received Comirnaty vaccination. Owing to confusing information at this moment, people do not know what to do, whether there are any repercussions or risks, how to deal with them, and also what to do when receiving the second dose of the vaccine.

Let me ask the Secretary very briefly. When can she tell people clearly whether those who have already received Comirnaty vaccination or those awaiting the administration of the second dose of the vaccine are under any risks? What should they do at this moment? Does the Secretary want to scare people to death?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, speaking of the vaccination programme and the relevant information, the Government has all along acted with openness and transparency. The Government received written notification from Fosun Industrial Co., Limited ("Fosun Industrial") this morning that as notifications of observed deviations in the vial seal of Comirnaty vaccine product (batch 210102) were received, BioNTech and Fosun Pharma initiated an investigation to identify the root cause of these packaging issues. For the sake of prudence, the vaccination concerned should be suspended immediately for the time being while investigation is ongoing.

So far, BioNTech and Fosun Pharma have no reason to believe that there is a risk to product safety. However, for the sake of prudence, vaccination of the batch 210102 should be suspended until the investigation is completed. Meanwhile, batch 210104, another batch of Comirnaty vaccines procured by 4414 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

Hong Kong, should also be put on hold and not be administered. This is a precautionary measure to continuously ensure vaccine safety.

As the Comirnaty vaccine procured by Hong Kong belongs to the above batches, we have informed all Community Vaccination Centres ("CVCs") that the administration of the Comirnaty vaccine must be suspended with immediate effect today until further notice. Those who have made appointments for receiving Comirnaty vaccination need not go to CVCs for vaccination.

We certainly understand that people (such as those who have received the first dose of the vaccine) may have other queries. But as I said just now, BioNTech and Fosun Pharma have found no reason to believe that there is a risk to product safety. This move on their part is for the sake of prudence.

On the question about the administration of the second dose of the vaccine, I wish to say that we still do not know the completion time of the investigation because DH is now holding an urgent meeting with Fosun Industrial to find out more about the incident and follow up the matter. Once latest update is available, I will give an account, so that people can learn about the follow-up arrangements.

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): President, I basically have one question only.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG Chung-tai, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): The Secretary has not answered my question about whether those who have received the administration of the Comirnaty vaccine are all related to that specific batch.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): From what I have heard, the Secretary has already given a reply. But Secretary, do you have anything to add?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4415

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, the vaccine batches we have are numbered 210102 and 210104. In the case of batch 210102, BioNTech is currently undertaking an investigation, and for the sake of prudence, the administration of vaccines from batch 210104 will likewise be suspended. This is our arrangements for dealing with the quality issue of the batch concerned.

As I also said just now, while those who have received the vaccine concerned may have queries, BioNTech and Fosun Pharma have found no reason to believe that there is a risk to product safety.

MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): President, if more and more incidents happen after vaccination, people who wish to receive vaccination will become more hesitant. So, the figures announced by the Government―it must not conceal anything, of course―must be accurate.

The Government often uses "adverse events" to describe the side effects of vaccination. But pain at the injection site, mild discomfort and mild fever as we commonly see are some expected side effects. Why does the Government categorize them as adverse events? As people may not understand this, they will be worried as soon as they learn about a great number of adverse events. Can the Government be more accurate in publishing the relevant figures or explain to people, so as to dispel their misunderstanding?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr CHAN for his supplementary question. Mr CHAN is right. Speaking of those "adverse events" as they are so called, the information on vaccination has already set out clearly those physical responses and side effects that are commonly seen after vaccination, so the incidents concerned are not necessarily adverse events as such.

"Adverse events" mainly involve a series of common post-vaccination abnormalities set out by WHO which require notification to DH by medical personnel. If Members pay attention, they will notice that our daily press release will mention the need for hospitalization in some cases. Such cases may involve immediate physical discomfort or responses generally of a transient nature. But for the sake of openness and transparency, we will also list out such cases. In 4416 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 those cases, it can be seen that in general, the people involved are admitted to hospital for examination, so as to find out what has happened. On the whole, their conditions are stable and they are released upon receiving treatment. Our daily press release will provide details on such cases.

In the case of those genuine adverse events, the will notify DH. If they detect any adverse events, they will likewise notify the relevant parties. But the most important question of all is whether a causal relationship exists between the adverse events concerned and vaccination. The Expert Committee has already reviewed all existing cases and adverse events and has not found any causal relationship with vaccination.

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, the problem with Comirnaty vaccines from batch 210102 this time around lies in tilted vial caps. Will this affect the thermostability of the vaccine? This incident reveals the lack of quality checks on our part. The authorities must conduct quality checks when receiving the products, and I believe that tilted vial caps are already noticeable with the naked eye.

Fosun Industrial stated in its notification that there was no safety risk. But why is it necessary to issue a notification if there was no safety risk? Undeniably, the existing 100 000 recipients of Comirnaty vaccination probably have been injected with vaccines from batch 210102 because the production date of vaccines from batch 210104 is later. In other words, some 100 000 people have been injected with the vaccine concerned. They are concerned whether anything will go wrong and whether there are any problems. Undeniably, they are worried.

Around 8:00 am this morning, the Macao authorities already announced the news, and the large number of people who had made vaccination bookings were informed about the cancellation of their administration today. Why did Hong Kong people remain unaware of the problem until they heard the news from the Macao authorities? Hong Kong might really be a bit slow in its response, with the result that over 100 people had probably been injected with this vaccine this morning. I hope the Government can give a prompt response in the future and consider, for example, whether it should convene a meeting involving the relevant parties. Actually, the authorities could have called a halt to the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4417 administration of the vaccine concerned, right? Despite all this, I support the suspension of the administration of vaccines from batch 210104.

President, I am also concerned about an issue these days. We do not know whether the Comirnaty vaccine will be imported to Hong Kong again in the days ahead. But frenzied buying for the AstraZeneca vaccine has occurred in Europe …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, you have already raised two supplementary questions. Please sit down.

Secretary, please reply.

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): I have not yet stated my question.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You have already raised two supplementary questions. Please sit down. If you want to raise a follow-up question, please press the "Request to speak" button again.

Secretary, please reply.

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, I only want to raise one supplementary question.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You have already raised two supplementary questions. Please sit down.

Secretary, please reply.

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, regarding the supplementary question raised by Dr CHIANG Lai-wan just now, I wish to say that first, we have put in place a stringent inspection process. Whether speaking of vaccine storage and transportation, or the storage, dilution 4418 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 and administration of vaccines after their arrival at CVCs, the process is very stringent, in the sense that medical doctors, pharmacists and nurses are present to oversee the whole process.

Certainly, according to the written notification we received from Fosun Industrial, its move is in fact mainly for the sake of prudence, and they found it necessary to conduct an investigation after learning about the defects in its vaccine packaging. Of course, we immediately gave a prompt response and issued a press release at 10:00 am this morning. But before we issued the press release, we had actually got in touch with all CVCs for the Comirnaty vaccine, so as to alert them to the incident and suspend the administration of the said vaccine.

We certainly understand that people may have a series of other queries. As DH is now holding an urgent meeting with Fosun Industrial, they will give us an account on the overall details right after the meeting.

MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): President, Members are all aware of the problem with the Comirnaty vaccine today. The Government urges people to receive vaccination in the long run, and as Members all know, there may be side effects after vaccination. Many people who have received vaccination have told me that the authorities should differentiate them from those who have not received any vaccination, or else there is actually no incentive for them to do so.

In this connection, I have discussed with many experts and found that they do not have much disagreement over three proposals: First, regarding those who have been injected with the second dose of a vaccine, the authorities may relax the social gathering restriction at least from four people to eight people 14 days after their vaccination; second, the authorities may relax the relevant restrictions on Hong Kong people returning to Hong Kong from low-risk regions (such as Mainland cities other than ); and third, the authorities may relax the regular testing regulation on targeted groups (including taxi drivers, construction workers and teachers). In this regard, many experts have invariably said that in the case of those who have been injected with the second dose of a vaccine, it is most easily acceptable to implement the above initiatives 14 days after their vaccination. What is the Government's position on this?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4419

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, regarding Mr TIEN's supplementary question, I wish to say that we have held discussions with experts, and we are now giving prudent consideration. Two aspects are mainly involved here: First, an individual receives vaccination not only because of his wish to protect himself and his families but also because of certain personal motivations. One example is their hope for possible relaxation of the social distancing measures now in place in Hong Kong or even the regular testing requirement on employees, just as Mr TIEN has just said. As we have also noticed, residential care homes for the elderly or hospitals have also imposed visit restrictions. So, how can all such measures be relaxed for those who have received vaccination? All this is the reason or motivation behind an individual's receipt of vaccination.

But generally speaking, when more and more people have received vaccination in the whole community, a protective barrier can be built up. We are now dealing with, discussing and examining the question of whether and how the relevant measures can be relaxed and the handling approach involved, while exploring any room for improvement or adjustment. We are now holding discussions with experts.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Last oral question.

Patients waiting at the accident and emergency departments for transfer to the wards

6. DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): Some members of the public have relayed that some patients in need of hospitalization for further treatments after receiving diagnoses and treatments at the accident and emergency ("A&E") departments of public hospitals needed to wait for quite a long time before they were transferred to the wards. Recently, a patient even died while he was waiting at the A&E department for transfer to the ward. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council if it knows:

(1) in respect of the patients who were admitted to the public hospitals via the A&E departments last year, the average time for which they had waited before they were transferred to the wards after 4420 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

completing the registration procedure at the A&E registries, with a breakdown by the triage category to which the patients belonged;

(2) whether the Hospital Authority ("HA") will take new measures to shorten the time for which patients wait at the A&E departments for transfer to the wards; if HA will, of the target waiting time; if not, the reasons for that; and

(3) whether HA will deploy healthcare personnel to regularly monitor the conditions of those patients who are waiting at the A&E departments for transfer to the wards, so as to ensure that they receive appropriate care; if HA will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, my reply to the various parts of the question raised by Dr CHIANG Lai-wan is as follows:

(1) The Hospital Authority ("HA") adopts a triage system in its accident and emergency ("A&E") departments, under which priorities for treatment are set according to the severity and nature of patients' medical conditions, so as to ensure that timely A&E services are provided to those with urgent needs. When patients attend the A&E departments, an experienced and specially trained triage nurse will first assess their conditions, with priority for treatment to be given to emergency cases. Patients are classified into five categories based on their clinical conditions, namely Triage Category I (critical), Triage Category II (emergency), Triage Category III (urgent), Triage Category IV (semi-urgent) and Triage Category V (non-urgent).

HA has set performance pledges to ensure that patients who need urgent medical attention are treated within a reasonable time. Patients triaged as critical will be treated immediately by healthcare staff without having to wait, while those with non-urgent conditions may have to wait longer. Healthcare staff of A&E departments would arrange admission of patients for further treatment and care according to their individual conditions as necessary. In 2019-2020, the average waiting time for admission of A&E LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4421

patients after diagnoses was about 67 minutes. HA does not maintain breakdown of the average waiting time for admission of A&E patients by triage category.

(2) Apart from adopting the triage system to ensure that patients in emergency condition would receive timely and appropriate treatment, HA is also committed to improving the overall quality of A&E services by implementing various measures, including increasing manpower of doctors, nurses, allied health professionals and supporting staff in A&E departments, as well as further augmenting A&E manpower through the provision of special honorarium and leave encashment. HA has also launched the A&E Support Session Programme with a view to recruiting additional healthcare staff to assist doctors and nurses in A&E departments in handling urgent, semi-urgent and non-urgent cases. Besides, public hospitals have enhanced geriatric support to A&E departments and set up additional observation areas in A&E departments to reduce avoidable hospitalization.

Furthermore, to shorten the waiting time of A&E patients for admission to hospital wards, HA has adopted various strategies and measures to enhance service capacity and expedite the turnover of hospital beds. Specific measures include:

(1) continuing to provide additional beds for existing and newly built public hospitals through HA's Annual Plan. For 2021-2022, HA has planned to open a total of 323 additional beds in public hospitals;

(2) flexibly deploying beds and providing more temporary beds in wards having regard to operational and clinical service needs;

(3) reprioritizing core activities such as reducing elective admissions so as to reserve capacity for meeting demand for emergency admissions via A&E departments;

(4) deploying additional healthcare and supporting staff to expedite the turnover of hospital beds and ease prolonged waiting;

4422 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

(5) transferring stable patients from acute hospital to convalescent hospital in the cluster, and enhancing ward rounds by senior clinicians and relevant support services during evenings, weekends and public holidays, as well as strengthening support to patients upon discharge from hospitals to facilitate early discharge of recovered patients; and

(6) continuing to collaborate with two private hospitals with low-charge hospital beds during the winter surge period to arrange suitable patients, who are willing to be transferred, to complete their treatment at these private hospitals.

HA will continue to closely monitor the utilization of beds in public hospitals, review the above measures in a timely manner, and make flexible arrangements and deployment of resources as appropriate to shorten the waiting time of A&E patients for hospital admission.

(3) In general, healthcare staff of A&E departments will arrange patients awaiting hospital admission to wait in the designated waiting area or on stretchers. They will also regularly attend to these patients and measure their vital signs or arrange doctors to review their conditions as necessary. Doctors will prescribe drugs or arrange appropriate examinations (e.g. electrocardiogram, blood glucose test and X-ray examination) according to the patients' conditions, whereas nurses will provide appropriate care based on patients' needs. Family members are encouraged to accompany the patients where possible, and maintain communication with the healthcare staff while waiting in the A&E departments to ensure appropriate assistance could be given to the patients.

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, my main question consists of three parts, the most important of which is about the average waiting times in A&E for hospital admission, broken down by triage category, but unfortunately HA does not have any information in this regard. In fact, this is the crux of the problem. Why?

I say this because I have recently received a request for assistance involving a patient who likewise died in A&E while waiting for hospital LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4423 admission. That patient, who was in the "semi-urgent" category, namely one of the urgent categories, stopped breathing after waiting three hours.

The Secretary said that the average waiting time for admission was 67 minutes, that is, more than an hour. However, she should be aware that every day many people are taken to hospital in critical or urgent conditions, or due to accidents and emergencies. While categorized as "emergency", "urgent" or "semi-urgent", they are actually all in urgent situations. For example, they may be coughing up blood. It is not uncommon for these patients to wait five to six hours, or even seven to eight hours. They may, as in the case I mentioned in my main question, die in A&E after waiting six to eight hours. I have no idea how many more similar cases there are, but, President, I hope the Secretary will promise me here that she will keep a record of the average post-triage waiting time in minutes for each category.

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, firstly, the A&E departments under HA have developed clinical indicators for different categories in order to triage each patient, and initial assessments are undertaken by well experienced and trained nurses. After the assessment, the first wait may be to see a doctor, which is also arranged according to the patient's category of urgency.

The second scenario is that the patient has been diagnosed by a doctor, as in the case mentioned by Dr CHIANG. If it turns out that the patient needs to be admitted to hospital―not all patients need to―the A&E department will make such arrangement for the patient as soon as possible, regardless of the patient's category, whereas the receiving ward, whichever it may be, will also accept the patient as soon as possible.

As I said earlier, in some cases, for example, the medical ward is quite crowded or unable to promptly assign a bed. That is why the average waiting time for transfer to a ward is currently about 67 minutes. Certainly, there are also cases where the patient needs to undergo some tests, such as X-ray, in the A&E department. Therefore, I consider that we need to work on two fronts: on the one hand, we should increase the A&E staff as necessary to improve the waiting times for patients to see doctors; on the other hand, we should increase the number of beds so that patients can be transferred to the wards as soon as possible. Some A&E departments are equipped with an observation ward, 4424 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 where a patient can be put under observation while waiting for transfer to the ward if the doctor deems necessary. This scenario is not uncommon.

Under HA's 10-year Hospital Development Plan, we will expand the relevant facilities in different A&E departments as necessary and increase the number of high dependency wards/units for patients who do not need to be transferred to the wards but require observation after receiving medical consultation in the A&E departments.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has not answered my supplementary question. My question is very simple: regarding these five different categories, namely "critical", "emergency", "urgent", "semi-urgent" and "non-urgent", will the Secretary consider …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, you have pointed out the part of your supplementary question that has not been answered, please sit down.

Secretary, do you have anything to add?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, at present we do not have a breakdown by category of the waiting times for hospital admission. The average waiting time for all patients is 67 minutes. However, we will ask HA to examine the existing data. If there are any data that suit the supplementary question raised by Dr CHIANG, we will definitely provide them. (Appendix II)

MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): The A&E departments are now often full, resulting in hectic workloads. Under tremendous stress at work, the nurses responsible for triage are actually prone to slip-ups despite being extensively attentive. I would like to ask whether HA has taken the initiative to study the data to see if some members of the public treat the A&E departments as clinics LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4425 for chronic diseases and are regular visitors there. If it has, I hold that it should take the initiative to contact those patients and arrange for them to receive treatment somewhere other than the A&E departments. This arrangement serves them better on the one hand, and would not hinder other members of the public in genuine need of A&E services on the other. What is the Government's view on this?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, regarding the different categories mentioned by Mr CHAN, we actually have some statistics. A look at the numbers for the past five years reveals that Triage Categories I, II and III, namely critical, emergency and urgent cases, account for about 40% of the A&E attendances. In other words, about 60% of the attendances belong to Triage Categories IV and V, namely semi-urgent and non-urgent cases. This figure also shows that some people who are not in very urgent conditions may also seek treatment at the A&E departments, one of the reasons being that A&E services are available around the clock. If we fail to do better in primary healthcare services, this situation will arise, which is exactly what we do not want to see.

For this reason, the current-term Government is vigorously promoting the development of primary healthcare services. In addition to those District Health Centres ("DHCs") already set up, we will continue to develop DHCs and DHC Express across every district in the future. We will also work with private doctors in the district and establish a network in order to hopefully deal with non-urgent cases that do not require A&E attendance.

DR PIERRE CHAN (in Cantonese): President, this question is about the situations of patients waiting in A&E departments for transfer to wards. I have noticed a recent news story that took place at the triage station of an A&E department, as well as the issue raised in this question about the waiting in A&E for transfer to wards. These issues have not arisen overnight. The first thing I have noticed is that it is our nursing colleagues who are responsible for triage at the triage stations and it is also our nursing colleagues' duty to take care of the patients during their wait for transfer to the ward after medical consultation. I would like to ask whether the Government has any guidelines, instructions or support for our nursing colleagues so that they can cope with such a huge workload, as can the Secretary. What support and guidelines does the 4426 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

Government offer to our nursing colleagues in HA in relation to, for example, such huge stress at the triage stations, their possible access to the computer system, or the patients' wait for transfer to the wards―you have said earlier that the wait is more than 60 minutes? For them, the stress is huge, because the Government will apportion blame to them if anything goes wrong.

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): I thank Dr Pierre CHAN for his supplementary question. To begin with, the triage stations in A&E departments have always been manned by experienced and trained nurses. Certainly, they have some relevant guidelines to assess the different levels of urgency. Dr CHAN is right in saying that the stress is huge. In particular, when there are a great number of patients, or when there are suddenly a lot of emergencies, the overall response of the A&E department has to be very quick. I firmly believe that HA has relevant guidelines, which will be constantly updated by A&E doctors and their teams.

Secondly, any failure to transfer a patient needing hospital admission to the ward is yet another challenge and source of stress because, generally speaking, the A&E department should arrange hospital admission for the patient as soon as possible after dealing with the emergency, so as to avoid an accumulation of patients needing care in the A&E department, considering that any patient there who cannot be transferred to the ward actually needs care, attention or sometimes a review by a doctor, which also adds to the overall stress on the A&E department. In this regard, we will certainly continue to discuss with colleagues from different disciplines (in particular, medicine) for an increase in supply of beds to such an extent that patients needing hospital admission after A&E treatment can be transferred to the wards as soon as possible. I believe that this is helpful in relieving the overall workload and stress of A&E healthcare workers.

It goes without saying that HA has also added some temporary staff, namely by implementing the A&E Support Session Programme, which can add some staff in the short term.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Pierre CHAN, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4427

DR PIERRE CHAN (in Cantonese): This question is about "patients waiting at the accident and emergency departments for transfer to the wards", and here are 2, 4, 6, 8 … 13 words. My follow-up question for the Government is: given that when patients are waiting for transfer from the A&E department to the wards, they have to wait at different places, such as the corridor or the A&E department, what guidelines and support have been provided to our nursing colleagues? My supplementary question is very clear but the Secretary has not answered it despite spending several minutes on her reply.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, regarding the situation where patients needing hospital admission still need to wait in the A&E department, take for example Kwong Wah Hospital, which was mentioned earlier. The hospital has in fact promptly implemented a series of measures. Firstly, nurses allocate badges to patients on stretchers or wheelchairs in the waiting area to identify the different stages of treatment or their overall conditions. Secondly, a number is assigned to the patients awaiting admission so that the nurses can keep track of their location and provide care. Certainly, the nurses also check the waiting area regularly to observe the patients' conditions and measure their vital signs as necessary. The A&E nurses and ward nurses also follow up on the admission progress of patients and arrange for their admission as soon as possible.

President, actually the A&E departments have provided different guidelines for different healthcare workers to cope with the heavy daily workload.

MS ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): President, in fact, I raised this issue at a Council meeting two years ago, referring to the long waiting time in A&E and the problems faced by some non-urgent patients.

President, I have also received a complaint from a member of the public who was taken to A&E because of dizziness and severe vomiting but made to wait seven to eight hours before being able to see a doctor because the A&E department said that he was not in the most urgent condition. The doctor said that he needed to be hospitalized, but the waiting time for admission was again 4428 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 several hours. Eventually, a mini-stroke in his brain was detected. This was not an isolated incident. Therefore, I do not find it a coincidence that another unfortunate incident has happened this time.

Secretary, in truth, the problem has been there all the time, not just today. Currently, the triage practice in hospitals is to distinguish "very urgent" cases from "less urgent" ones, but the so-called "less urgent" queues constantly get hijacked by someone with a more urgent condition, so their waiting time is not guaranteed and the delays go on and on. As long as there are patients being admitted, they have to keep waiting.

Honestly, will the Secretary consider reviewing the current implementation of triage? There should be a queue for "very urgent" patients, and there should be another queue even for "less urgent" ones. Besides, we should monitor what happens to the patients during their wait, because as in some complaint cases I received, it is indeed very dangerous for a severely dizzy and vomiting patient to just idly sit and wait seven to eight hours without being able to eat or drink. Therefore, I think now is the time to definitely review the triage process at A&E departments. Even for "less urgent" patients, we must make a performance pledge in respect of the time frame as it is unacceptable for the waiting to be indefinitely prolonged.

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, in fact, almost 60% of the patients attending A&E departments are semi-urgent and non-urgent, and HA is concerned about the corresponding service demand. That is why HA has launched the A&E Support Session Programme, which mainly recruits additional healthcare staff to assist in its implementation, so it involves a separate team composed of both A&E and non-A&E staff.

In 2020-2021, this programme still covers three categories of urgent cases. All along, it has been dedicated to handling non-urgent or semi-urgent cases, as 60% of the patients are involved in such cases, which will cause overcrowding in the A&E departments if not dealt with promptly.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Oral questions end here.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4429

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Subsidy schemes implemented for the catering outlets

7. MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Chinese): President, regarding the various subsidy schemes implemented for the catering outlets by the Government under the Anti-epidemic Fund, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the total number, as at the 4th of this month, of those subsidy applications for which approval has been given but subsidies have not been disbursed, and the amount of subsidies involved;

(2) when the disbursement of the relevant subsidies is expected to be completed;

(3) of the expected balances of the relevant commitments upon completion of processing the applications under the various subsidy schemes; and

(4) whether it will consider making good use of the sum mentioned in (3) to provide further subsidies for operators of nightclubs, karaoke establishments and bars whose businesses have likewise been hard hit by the epidemic and the anti-epidemic measures?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, the business of catering premises is hard hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. In view of this, the Government has launched four rounds of subsidy schemes for the catering sector under the Anti-epidemic Fund ("AEF") since February 2020 to provide instant financial relief for the trade. The total amount of subsidies approved so far is around $11.6 billion.

My reply to the question raised is as follows:

(1) and (2)

As at 4 March 2021, the Food Licence Holders Subsidy Scheme launched by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department under the first round of AEF was completed and the subsidies for all 4430 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

approved cases, amounting to around $3.7 billion, were disbursed. The Scheme has benefited about 29 000 catering premises.

The Catering Business (Social Distancing) Subsidy Scheme rolled out under the second round of AEF disburses subsidies to catering premises providing dine-in services in two tranches. The Scheme mainly seeks to assist the applicants in paying the salaries of their staff from May to July 2020 and from August to October 2020. Upon receiving the first tranche of the subsidy, the applicant has to submit, within the specified time frame, documents certifying that there was no layoff of staff from May to July 2020 and no less than 80% of the subsidy was used for payment of the salaries for staff in order to receive the second tranche of the subsidy. The first tranche of the subsidy, which involved around $2.2 billion, has been fully disbursed. The second tranche of the subsidy has been disbursed to most approved applications, which involved around $1.9 billion, and there are only 16 approved applications which are yet to be disbursed with subsidy, involving around $3 million.

As for the Catering Business Subsidy Scheme under the third and fourth rounds of AEF, around $1.4 billion and $2.1 billion have been disbursed respectively, and there are 2 and around 1 300 applications, involving around $110 million, still being processed respectively. The disbursement of subsidies is expected to complete by end of this month.

(3) The sum reserved for various subsidy schemes benefiting the catering sector under the four rounds of AEF has been adjusted according to the actual application situation. Any balance would be handled according to the established mechanism.

(4) Facing the hard hit brought by the pandemic, we understand that various sectors of the community would wish the Government to provide additional relief. Currently, fees payable for food business licences, the karaoke establishment permit/licence and the liquor/club liquor licence are waived in support of the relevant operators. In considering different demands for subsidies, the Government must ensure proper use of resources and exercise fiscal prudence.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4431

Wetland Buffer Area

8. MR LAU KWOK-FAN (in Chinese): President, in early years the Government demarcated and designated a strip of land of about 500 metres in width covering about 1 000 hectares along the boundary of the Deep Bay Wetland Conservation Area ("WCA") as a Wetland Buffer Area ("WBA"). No development project may commence in WBA unless an ecological impact assessment has been conducted with the assessment outcome being that the development project will not cause any insurmountable adverse impacts. There have been comments that as the freshwater fish farming industry has declined in recent years, quite a number of fish ponds in WBA have been left deserted at present. In view of this, the Government should conduct a re-planning of WBA to unleash the development potential of the lands concerned and optimize the utilization of land resources. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether, since the Study on the Ecological Value of Fish Ponds in the Deep Bay Area was completed in 1997, the Government has conducted studies on the ecological value of the fish ponds in that area and conducted reviews of the policies on the protection of WCA and WBA; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that, and whether it will conduct such studies and reviews; if so, of the timetable and details; if not, the reasons for that;

(2) whether it will reduce the coverage of WBA to release those lands therein with relatively low ecological value for housing or other development uses; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(3) given that at present, certain sites in WBA, albeit having been successfully rezoned as residential sites, may be used only for low-density residential developments due to the plot ratio restriction, resulting in underutilization of land resources, whether the Government will consider raising the plot ratio of the residential sites in WBA from the current figure of 0.2 to 0.4 to 2 to 3, with a view to increasing housing supply and at the same time encouraging, through providing incentives, developers to revitalize, with a new mindset, the fish ponds surrounding development projects in WBA, so as to strike a balance between development and conservation?

4432 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, the importance of the wetland ecosystems in the Mai Po Marshes, Inner Deep Bay and adjacent areas ("Deep Bay Area") was established as early as in early 1990s. The Deep Bay Area was listed as a Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention in 1995. Its main habitats include fish ponds, mudflats, mangroves and gei wais (tidal shrimp ponds). These wetlands serve as the main places for migratory birds to spend the winter or stop over, and provide foraging and roosting habitats for various species of waterbirds.

To ensure against any adverse impacts from large-scale developments on the wetland ecosystem of the Deep Bay Area, the ("TPB") laid down in 1993 the TPB Planning Guidelines No. 12 ("Planning Guidelines") to regulate developments within the Area. Revisions were subsequently made to the Planning Guidelines in 1994, 1999 and 2014, and the version currently in force is Planning Guidelines No. 12C promulgated in 2014.

After consulting the Environmental Protection Department and the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD") on the various parts of Mr LAU's question, my reply is as follows:

(1) The Government completed the Study on the Ecological Value of Fish Ponds in the Deep Bay Area ("the Study") in 1997. The Study confirmed the unique importance of the fish pond system in the area in providing foraging and roosting habitats for various species of waterbirds. In view of the recommendations of the Study, revisions were made to the Planning Guidelines in 1999, delineating the Wetland Conservation Area ("WCA") and the Wetland Buffer Area ("WBA"). Adjoining fish ponds in the Deep Bay Area were designated as WCA. Except for developments required to support the conservation of the ecological value of the area, all existing fish ponds are to be conserved. In addition, an area of about 500 m wide along the landward boundary of WCA was designated as WBA, the intention of which is to protect the ecological integrity of the wetland within WCA and ensure against disturbance on WCA caused by developments in the vicinity. Following the ecological field survey of Hoo Hok Wai, TPB further designated Hoo Hok Wai as part of WCA and WBA, as well as updated the Planning Guidelines in 2014.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4433

For the purposes of understanding the conditions and changes of the wetland habitats, AFCD has been conducting the Waterbird Monitoring Programme at the Ramsar Site and the Deep Bay Area every year since 1997, as well as the Baseline Ecological Monitoring Project in such areas every year since 2001. According to the long-term ecological monitoring undertaken by AFCD in the Deep Bay Area, no substantial ecological changes have been found in the Area. Against this background, the Government has no intention to review the existing WCA at this stage.

(2) and (3)

As regards WBA, its nature is to buffer the negative disturbances of developments on the wetlands in WCA, but not to prohibit development at all. In fact, over 40% (i.e. around 513 hectares) of land in WBA falls within land-use zones that allow residential developments according to the outline zoning plan, including "Other Specified Uses (Comprehensive Development to include Wetland Restoration Area)", "Comprehensive Development Area", "Residential (Group B)", "Residential (Group C)", "Residential (Group D)" and "Village Type Development". For any new development/redevelopment project in WBA, an ecological impact assessment report showing that such development would not have any environmental interference to WCA must be submitted. At present, the plot ratio restrictions for WBA range generally from 0.2 to 0.4 according to the relevant outline zoning plan, but the existing planning mechanism does provide a channel for application to TPB for relaxing the plot ratio restrictions for residential developments in the areas concerned. TPB has also been considering planning applications on the basis of individual merits. As a matter of fact, in some of the zones with current developments and developments with planning permissions, plot ratios may range from 1.5 to 3.

Having said the above, in view of the ever changing planning circumstances and social needs, the Government will review the Planning Guidelines relating to WBA on the premise of balancing the needs for conservation and increase of housing land supply. The Chief Executive announced in her 2020 Policy Address that the remit of the Steering Group on Streamlining Development Control 4434 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

coordinated by the Development Bureau will be expanded to review more comprehensively the development approval processes for both Government and private projects, and to rationalize the development-related requirements imposed by different bureaux. The review on WBA is carried out under this framework, and our target is to put forward recommendations on whether and how to revise the Planning Guidelines within this year.

Disciplined services quarters

9. MRS REGINA IP (in Chinese): President, some disciplined services staff have relayed to me that as there is a surplus of units of departmental quarters of certain grades (e.g. quarters for officer rank staff) but an acute shortage of units of quarters of some other grades (e.g. quarters for married rank and file staff), there is a mismatch between the supply of and demand for such quarters. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) in respect of the quarters of each disciplined services department, of (i) the number of units available for allocation, (ii) the number of applicants for such units, (iii) the number of applicants allocated such units, and (iv) the vacancy rate of such units, in each of the past three years, with a tabulated breakdown by (a) grade of the quarters and (b) district in which the quarters were located;

(2) of the current waiting time for each grade of quarters under each disciplined services department; whether the Government has (i) set a target waiting time and (ii) put in place new measures to shorten the waiting time; and

(3) whether it will put in place new measures to mitigate the mismatch between the supply of and demand for such quarters?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, civil service housing benefits are provided to eligible serving civil servants according to their terms of appointment, as well as the terms and conditions of relevant housing schemes. It is the Government's established policy to provide departmental quarters ("DQs") to married disciplined services staff, subject to the availability of resources. In LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4435 response to Mrs Regina IP's question, after consulting the Civil Service Bureau, the Government Property Agency ("GPA") and the disciplined services departments ("DSDs"), we provide a consolidated reply below:

(1) (i) and (ii)

The number of units available for allocation as well as the number of eligible staff of each DSD (with a breakdown by grade of the quarters and district) are tabulated at Annexes 1 to 6.

Regarding the number of applicants mentioned in the question, DSDs have only maintained the number of applications. Given that each staff member could submit applications for DQs more than once in a year, number of eligible staff could more accurately reflect the demand for DQs of each department. Furthermore, according to the Civil Service Regulations and Accommodation Regulations, staff of a specific rank could apply for DQs higher or lower than those of their respective salary grading (i.e. each staff member is eligible for DQs of more than one grade). Hence, DSDs have not maintained breakdown statistics of the number of applicants for each DQ grade.

(iii) The numbers of disciplined services staff allocated with DQs for the first time of each DSD in the past three years are tabulated as follows. DSDs have not maintained breakdown statistics by grade or district.

Number of disciplined services staff allocated with DQs for the first time(1) Department (Officer) 2021 2019 2020 (as at 1 March) Correctional Services 31 19 16 Department ("CSD") Customs and Excise 30 35 6 Department ("C&ED") 4436 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

Number of disciplined services staff allocated with DQs for the first time(1) Department (Officer) 2021 2019 2020 (as at 1 March) Fire Services 40 37 0 Department ("FSD") Government Flying 6 5 0 Service ("GFS") Hong Kong Police 44 32 0 Force ("HKPF") Immigration 64 58 0 Department ("ImmD") Total 215 186 22

Number of disciplined services staff allocated with DQs for the first time(1) Department (Rank and File) 2021 2019 2020 (as at 1 March) CSD 198 146 58 C&ED 204 127 13 FSD 305 61 0 GFS N/A(2) HKPF 582 534 0 ImmD 293 114 0 Total 1 582 982 71

Notes:

(1) Excluding re-allocation due to various reasons such as moving flats or promotion.

(2) All GFS staff members are regarded as "officers" for the purpose of quarters allocation.

(iv) The vacancy rate of DQs of each DSD is tabulated at Annex 7. DSDs have not maintained breakdown statistics by district.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4437

(2) As at 1 March 2021, the average waiting time of each DSD is tabulated as follows:

Year Department Overall Officer/Inspector Rank and File CSD 2.4 3.3 2.2 C&ED 3.7 0.7 4.0 FSD 3.3 1.7 5.5 GFS 1.7 1.7 N/A(2) HKPF 4.9 2.0 5.0 ImmD 4.0 2.6 4.6

As elaborated above, staff member of a specific rank is eligible for DQs of more than one grade. Hence, DSDs have not maintained the waiting time for each grade of DQs.

(i) The Government has not stipulated the target waiting time for DQs of each DSD. The waiting time for DQs is affected by a number of factors, including the department's recruitment plans, the retirement situation of staff, marriage rate, the number of eligible staff, their housing preferences and whether they would claim the other housing benefit schemes, etc.

(ii) The Security Bureau ("SB") has been working with the DSD management as well as bureaux and departments concerned to examine ways to increase the supply of DQ flats. For example, submitting applications to the Town Planning Board to relax the building height restrictions of DQ sites.

As announced in the 2014 Policy Address, the Government will expedite eight DQ projects for DSDs.(3) Currently, the construction work of four projects have been completed and most of the residents

(3) The eight projects include Blissful Villa of ImmD, Yau Yue Wan Customs Staff Quarters, Kwun Tong Disciplined Services Quarters, and Tin Wan Correctional Services Department Staff Quarters, which have been completed; as well as Fan Garden of HKPF, Pak Shing Kok Married Quarters of FSD, Tsz Wan Shan Staff Quarters of C&ED and Tseung Kwan O Area 123 Departmental Quarters of C&ED, which are under construction. 4438 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

have moved in. The remaining four projects are expected to be completed between 2021 and 2022. Besides these eight projects, DSDs are also taking forward other DQ development projects proactively.

(3) Currently, the Government has established mechanisms to handle surplus DQ units. If there are surplus units under individual departments, the Government will consider alternative uses for the units internally. GPA will also provide assistance and put the properties up for lease in the market when appropriate, to achieve better use of resources. In order to meet the demand for DQ units, especially those for Rank and File, SB will work with bureaux and departments concerned proactively, to expedite the construction progress of projects, and examine various methods such as relaxing site restrictions, so as to increase the supply of DQ units.

Annex 1

Correctional Services Department

2019 Number of units available for allocation Number of eligible staff Grade(1) Hong Kong New Territories Total AA 0 0 0 0 Officer A 0 0 0 0 392 B 21 2 1 24 C 21 9 6 36 CD 28 2 30 60 Rank and File D 32 23 18 73 2 341 E 63 12 30 105 F 119 204 143 466 G 286 144 178 608 H 585 135 337 1 057 I 1 5 9 15 IJ 4 0 60 64 J 2 0 0 2 JKL 16 0 9 25 K 0 0 0 0 Total 1 178 536 821 2 535 2 733

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4439

2020 Number of units available for allocation (1) Number of eligible staff Grade Hong Kong Kowloon New Territories Total AA 0 0 0 0 Officer A 0 0 0 0 386 B 20 2 1 23 C 19 9 5 33 CD 28 2 33 63 Rank and File D 32 23 18 73 2 364 E 63 12 30 105 F 118 204 144 466 G 286 144 179 609 H 585 135 335 1 055 I 1 5 8 14 IJ 4 0 60 64 J 2 0 0 2 JKL 16 0 9 25 K 0 0 0 0 Total 1 174 536 822 2 532 2 750

2021 Number of units available for allocation (1) Number of eligible staff Grade Hong Kong Kowloon New Territories Total AA 0 0 0 0 Officer A 0 0 0 0 382 B 18 1 1 20 C 19 9 5 33 CD 28 2 33 63 Rank and File D 32 23 18 73 2 363 E 63 12 30 105 F 118 204 145 467 G 286 144 178 608 H 585 135 335 1 055 I 1 5 8 14 IJ 4 0 60 64 J 2 0 0 2 JKL 16 0 9 25 K 0 0 0 0 Total 1 172 535 822 2 529 2 745

Note:

(1) Depending on the salary grading of each staff member, officers could be allocated with units of grade F or above, while Rank and File staff could be allocated with units of grade F or below.

4440 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

Annex 2

Customs & Excise Department

2019 Number of units available for allocation Number of eligible staff Grade(1) Hong Kong Kowloon New Territories Total AA 0 0 0 0 Inspector A 0 0 0 0 334 B 25 7 5 37 C 18 10 10 38 CD 5 10 22 37 Rank and D 7 10 48 65 File E 28 109 8 145 2 233 F 28 67 84 179 G 31 251 344 626 H 14 260 394 668 I 0 0 150 150 IJ 0 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 0 JKL 0 0 0 0 K 0 0 0 0 Total 156 724 1 065 1 945 2 567

2020 Number of units available for allocation (1) Number of eligible staff Grade Hong Kong Kowloon New Territories Total AA 0 0 0 0 Inspector A 0 0 0 0 330 B 28 7 5 40 C 18 9 9 36 CD 5 10 23 38 D 7 10 48 65 Rank and File E 28 109 8 145 2 300 F 29 67 84 180 G 29 251 344 624 H 14 260 394 668 I 0 0 150 150 IJ 0 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 0 JKL 0 0 0 0 K 0 0 0 0 Total 158 723 1 065 1 946 2 630

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4441

2021 Number of units available for allocation Number of eligible staff Grade(1) Hong Kong Kowloon New Territories Total AA 0 0 0 0 Inspector A 0 0 0 0 342 B 28 7 5 40 C 18 9 9 36 CD 5 10 23 38 Rank and File D 7 10 48 65 2 311 E 28 109 8 145 F 29 67 84 180 G 29 251 344 624 H 14 260 394 668 I 0 0 150 150 IJ 0 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 0 JKL 0 0 0 0 K 0 0 0 0 Total 158 723 1 065 1 946 2 653

Note:

(1) Depending on the salary grading of each staff member, inspectors could be allocated with units of grade E or above, while Rank and File staff could be allocated with units of grade F or below.

Annex 3

Fire Services Department

2019 Number of units available for allocation Number of eligible staff Grade(1) Hong Kong Kowloon New Territories Total AA 0 0 0 0 Officer A 2 0 0 2 317 B 19 10 1 30 C 9 4 6 19 CD 49 10 7 66 Rank and File D 16 36 21 73 5 556 E 6 51 3 60 F 62 318 108 488 G 292 1 043 489 1 824 4442 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

Number of units available for allocation Number of eligible staff Grade(1) Hong Kong Kowloon New Territories Total H 144 791 463 1 398 I 0 24 51 75 IJ 24 0 2 26 J 0 0 0 0 JKL 1 120 0 121 K 0 0 0 0 Total 624 2 407 1 151 4 182 5 873

2020 Number of units available for allocation Number of eligible staff Grade(1) Hong Kong Kowloon New Territories Total AA 0 0 0 0 Officer A 2 0 0 2 314 B 19 10 1 30 C 7 7 6 20 CD 49 10 5 64 Rank and File D 16 36 21 73 5 631 E 6 51 3 60 F 63 322 110 495 G 294 1 044 489 1 827 H 141 787 461 1 389 I 0 24 51 75 IJ 24 0 2 26 J 0 0 0 0 JKL 1 120 0 121 K 0 0 0 0 Total 622 2 411 1 149 4 182 5 945

2021 Number of units available for allocation Number of eligible staff Grade(1) Hong Kong Kowloon New Territories Total AA 0 0 0 0 Officer A 2 0 0 2 316 B 19 10 1 30 C 7 7 6 20 CD 49 10 5 64 Rank and File D 16 36 21 73 5 705 E 6 51 3 60 F 63 322 110 495 G 294 1 044 489 1 827 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4443

Number of units available for allocation Number of eligible staff Grade(1) Hong Kong Kowloon New Territories Total H 141 787 461 1 389 I 0 24 51 75 IJ 24 0 2 26 J 0 0 0 0 JKL 1 120 0 121 K 0 0 0 0 Total 622 2 411 1 149 4 182 6 021

Note:

(1) Depending on the salary grading of each staff member, officers could be allocated with units of grade G or above, while Rank and File staff could be allocated with units of grade F or below.

Annex 4

Government Flying Service

2019 Number of units available for allocation Number of eligible staff Grade Hong Kong Kowloon New Territories Total AA 0 0 0 0 86(1) A 0 0 0 0 B 1 5 0 6 C 0 3 0 3 CD 1 1 6 8 D 0 2 2 4 E 0 0 17 17 F 0 0 19 19 G 1 1 10 12 H 0 2 1 3 I 0 0 0 0 IJ 0 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 0 JKL 0 0 0 0 K 0 0 0 0 Total 3 14 55 72 86

4444 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

2020 Number of units available for allocation Number of eligible staff Grade Hong Kong Kowloon New Territories Total AA 0 0 0 0 87(1) A 0 0 0 0 B 1 4 0 5 C 0 3 0 3 CD 1 2 6 9 D 0 2 2 4 E 0 0 17 17 F 0 0 18 18 G 1 1 10 12 H 0 2 1 3 I 0 0 0 0 IJ 0 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 0 JKL 0 0 0 0 K 0 0 0 0 Total 3 14 54 71 87

2021 Number of units available for allocation Number of eligible staff Grade Hong Kong Kowloon New Territories Total AA 0 0 0 0 85(1) A 0 0 0 0 B 1 4 0 5 C 0 3 0 3 CD 1 2 6 9 D 0 2 2 4 E 0 0 17 17 F 0 0 18 18 G 1 1 10 12 H 0 2 1 3 I 0 0 0 0 IJ 0 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 0 JKL 0 0 0 0 K 0 0 0 0 Total 3 14 54 71 85

Note:

(1) All GFS staff members are regarded as "officers" for the purpose of quarters allocation.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4445

Annex 5

Hong Kong Police Force

2019 Number of units available for allocation Number of eligible staff Grade(1) Hong Kong Kowloon New Territories Total AA 0 0 0 0 Inspector A 2 0 0 2 555 B 47 19 7 73 C 33 31 18 82 CD 30 43 87 160 Rank and File D 61 33 47 141 15 044 E 29 35 10 74 F 508 748 502 1 758 G 488 4 139 1 728 6 355 H 352 1 709 1 582 3 643 I 0 1 54 55 IJ 0 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 0 JKL 5 0 0 5 K 0 0 0 0 Total 1 555 6 758 4 035 12 348 15 599

2020 Number of units available for allocation Number of eligible staff Grade(1) Hong Kong Kowloon New Territories Total AA 0 0 0 0 Inspector A 2 0 0 2 533 B 43 19 7 69 C 33 31 18 82 CD 31 43 76 150 Rank and File D 56 32 47 135 15 041 E 23 35 10 68 F 519 754 502 1 775 4446 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

Number of units available for allocation Number of eligible staff Grade(1) Hong Kong Kowloon New Territories Total G 478 4 139 1 728 6 345 H 351 1 704 1 582 3 637 I 0 1 54 55 IJ 0 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 0 JKL 5 0 0 5 K 0 0 0 0 Total 1 541 6 758 4 024 12 323 15 574

2021 Number of units available for allocation Number of eligible staff Grade(1) Hong Kong Kowloon New Territories Total AA 0 0 0 0 Inspector A 2 0 0 2 541 B 43 19 7 69 C 33 31 18 82 CD 31 44 76 151 Rank and File D 56 31 47 134 15 153 E 23 35 10 68 F 519 754 502 1 775 G 480 4 139 1 728 6 347 H 349 1 704 1 582 3 635 I 0 1 54 55 IJ 0 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 0 JKL 5 0 0 5 K 0 0 0 0 Total 1 541 6 758 4 024 12 323 15 694

Note:

(1) Depending on the salary grading of each staff member, inspectors could be allocated with units of grade F or above, while Rank and File staff could be allocated with units of grade D or below.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4447

Annex 6

Immigration Department

2019 Number of units available for allocation Number of eligible staff Grade(1) Hong Kong Kowloon New Territories Total AA 0 0 0 0 Officer A 1 0 0 1 632 B 8 2 2 12 C 48 2 8 58 CD 10 0 68 78 Rank and File D 14 3 135 152 2 015 E 69 32 17 118 F 2 191 65 258 G 36 353 259 648 H 8 52 435 495 I 0 0 152 152 IJ 0 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 0 JKL 0 0 0 0 K 0 0 0 0 Total 196 635 1 141 1 972 2 647

2020 Number of units available for allocation Number of eligible staff Grade(1) Hong Kong Kowloon New Territories Total AA 0 0 0 0 Officer A 1 0 0 1 649 B 8 3 2 13 C 42 2 8 52 CD 10 0 77 87 Rank and File D 14 3 135 152 2 035 E 69 32 17 118 F 2 193 65 260 G 36 351 259 646 4448 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

Number of units available for allocation Number of eligible staff Grade(1) Hong Kong Kowloon New Territories Total H 8 52 435 495 I 0 0 152 152 IJ 0 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 0 JKL 0 0 0 0 K 0 0 0 0 Total 190 636 1 150 1 976 2 684

2021 Number of units available for allocation Number of eligible staff Grade(1) Hong Kong Kowloon New Territories Total AA 0 0 0 0 Officer A 1 0 0 1 636 B 8 3 2 13 C 42 2 8 52 CD 10 0 77 87 Rank and File D 14 3 135 152 2 048 E 69 32 17 118 F 2 193 65 260 G 36 351 259 646 H 8 52 435 495 I 0 0 152 152 IJ 0 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 0 JKL 0 0 0 0 K 0 0 0 0 Total 190 636 1 150 1 976 2 684

Note:

(1) Depending on the salary grading of each staff member, officers could be allocated with units of grade H or above, while Rank and File staff could be allocated with units of grade F or below.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4449

Annex 7

Vacancy rate of DQs of each DSD Note: Only include flats that have been vacant for more than three months.

2019 Vacancy Rate Department Above Grade D Grade D or below Overall CSD 13.3% 0.8% 1.4% C&ED 4.5% 0.4% 0.6% FSD 6.0% 0.9% 1.0% GFS 5.9% 10.9% 9.7% HKPF 10.1% 0.1% 0.4% ImmD 4.7% 3.0% 3.1%

2020 Vacancy Rate Department Above Grade D Grade D or below Overall CSD 19.3% 5.4% 6.0%* C&ED 7.9% 0.4% 0.9% FSD 5.2% 1.5% 1.6% GFS 0% 9.3% 7.0% HKPF 10.2% 0% 0.3% ImmD 4.6% 1.4% 1.7%

Note:

* Most vacant flats have been allocated in January 2021.

2021 (as at 1 March 2021) Vacancy Rate Department Above Grade D Grade D or below Overall CSD 17.2% 0.9% 1.6% C&ED 8.8% 0.4% 0.9% FSD 6.9% 2.0% 2.2% GFS 11.8% 9.3% 9.9% HKPF 12.8% 0.7% 1.0%# ImmD 6.5% 0.5% 1.0%

Note:

# Since the Quarters Allocation Committee for Inspectors and Rank and File staff had its first meeting of this year in March, the vacancy rate above includes flats pending allocation by the Committee.

4450 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

Resumption of face-to-face classes of schools

10. MR FRANKIE YICK (in Chinese): President, since the outbreak of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic, the Education Bureau ("EDB") has, on several occasions, announced suspension of face-to-face classes of schools along with a shift to online teaching and learning. After the schools' Chinese New Year holidays this year, schools may arrange for no more than one-third of the total number of students of the school to return to school to attend classes on a half-day basis. In addition, where a school can arrange all its teachers and staff to undergo regular virus testing once every 14 days, it may apply to EDB for whole-school resumption of half-day face-to-face classes. It is learnt that the prolonged suspension of face-to-face classes has not only affected the learning progress of students, but also significantly affected the operation of support services related to school operation (e.g. school bus services provided by school private light buses, private school buses and non-franchised public buses). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the respective up-to-date numbers of applications from schools for whole-school resumption of half-day face-to-face classes received and approved by EDB, with a breakdown by school type (i.e. kindergarten, primary school, secondary school and tutorial school); the measures in place to encourage more schools to make applications;

(2) as some school bus operators have relayed that since they still need to meet expenses such as salaries for drivers and escorts despite a substantial reduction of income due to a drastic drop of 90% in the number of student passengers, and the subsidy provided by the Government is just a drop in the bucket, most of the operators have used up their savings and teetered on the brink of closing down their businesses, what measures the Government has put in place to assist school bus operators in tiding over the difficult times, so as to ensure that adequate school buses will be available for providing services in the next school year;

(3) given that following the implementation of the COVID-19 Vaccination Programme, the epidemic may hopefully be mitigated, of the circumstances under which EDB will announce the full resumption of face-to-face classes of schools; and

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4451

(4) given that some school buses have been left idle for a long time, whether, in order to ensure that such vehicles can resume operation safely, the Government will provide school bus operators with a "business resumption allowance" before the full resumption of face-to-face classes of schools, so that they can repair and maintain their vehicles to protect the safety of students, drivers and other road users; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Chinese): President, the Education Bureau ("EDB") has all along been progressively increasing the time for face-to-face classes in a pragmatic, gradual and orderly manner, as far as the epidemic situation allows. We shall continue to follow this direction and strive to strike a balance between meeting the learning needs of students and preventing and fighting the epidemic, with a view to allowing more on-campus learning time for students. Regarding administrative arrangements such as school bus services, EDB reminds schools, through various channels, to coordinate well with relevant operators and schools in the same district so as to properly arrange the schedules and routes of such services. Meanwhile, given that the class suspension arrangements arisen out of Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19") have affected the school bus sector, the Government has provided appropriate support, including financial assistance, to the affected trades.

Our reply to the question raised by Mr Frankie YICK is as follows:

(1) and (3)

Starting from the period after schools' Chinese New Year holidays, schools are allowed to arrange students (capped at one third of the total number of students of the schools) to return to campuses for resumption of face-to-face classes or examinations on a half-day basis. Besides, for an individual school that can arrange all its teachers and staff to take regular virus tests, there will be extra protection for the students and teachers and a safer learning environment will be created. EDB will consider allowing these schools to arrange whole-school resumption of half-day face-to-face classes. Up to 19 March 2021, over 1 400 schools had submitted applications for whole-school resumption of half-day face-to-face classes. Among these schools, around 750 were kindergartens, 4452 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

around 500 were tutorial schools while around 160 were primary and secondary schools. EDB has been encouraging schools to join the above scheme through different channels (including issuing letters to schools, releasing information via the media, and communicating directly with stakeholders). EDB has also been providing facilitation to the schools joining the scheme, allowing their teachers and school staff to undergo free virus tests at the 21 Community Testing Centres of the Department of Health.

Apart from the above, the Government announced on 8 March this year the inclusion of teachers and school staff as priority groups in the COVID-19 Vaccination Programme. EDB has issued a letter to schools to explain the details and encourage teachers and school staff to get vaccinated actively to protect themselves, their families and the Hong Kong community as a whole. EDB will continuously monitor the development of the epidemic, take into account health experts' advice, and maintain liaison with the school sector. When the epidemic situation has gradually shown signs of subsiding and schools are adequately prepared, we will consider further relaxation of face-to-face schooling arrangements.

(2) and (4)

The Government understands that the continuous suspension has caused severe impact on the non-franchised bus student service and school private light bus trades. In response to the needs of the trades, the Transport and Housing Bureau and the ("TD") had previously introduced various one-off relief measures through the Anti-epidemic Fund ("AEF") to help the public transport trades tide over the difficult time. In particular, to relieve the operating pressure caused to the trades, TD provided a non-accountable subsidy of $65,000 and $55,000 in total to eligible owners of each non-franchised public bus and school private light bus respectively.

Moreover, to alleviate the financial difficulties of school bus drivers, school private light bus drivers and nannies due to the suspension of school bus services caused by the face-to-face class suspension, the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council approved allocation of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4453

funding to AEF thrice in April, September and December 2020 to provide financial subsidies to each eligible serving school bus driver, school private light bus driver and nanny who provide student transport services.

In addition to the subsidies under AEF, the Government has also waived the vehicle licence fees and vehicle examination fees payable for commercial vehicles from 30 December 2019 to 29 December 2021, as well as provided rental concession for short-term tenancies of Government land to the trades for parking use from 1 October 2019 to 30 September 2021, with a view to reducing the financial burden of the operators. Besides, the Government understands that a lot of non-franchised buses and school private light buses in the market are being idled due to insufficient operation and postponement of resuming face-to-face classes of schools. In response to the situation, after discussing with the in early 2020, TD has allowed idled non-franchised buses and school private light buses to be temporarily stored on a piece of land at Container Port Road South, Kwai Chung, while the Public Omnibus Operators Association has been commissioned to manage the temporary parking space. The temporary parking space allows for the storage of around 900 non-franchised buses and school private light buses in total, and its operation date has been extended to 30 April 2021. TD will consider further extending the storage period in light of the situation of the epidemic.

The Government will closely monitor the development of the epidemic, and consider and implement policies and measures targeting the non-franchised bus and school private light bus trades as appropriate.

New railway projects

11. IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Chinese): President, the Railway Development Strategy 2014, which was released in September 2014, recommends that the Government implement the projects of (i) the of the West Rail and (ii) the Northern Link and Kwu Tung Station from 2019 to 2022 and from 2018 to 2023 respectively. Nevertheless, according to a paper 4454 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 recently submitted to this Council by the Government, the works of the two railway projects are not expected to commence until 2023. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the reasons for the delay in the implementation dates of the aforesaid two railway projects, and the measures to be put in place to prevent the occurrence of similar situations in other railway projects;

(2) of the latest details of the two railway projects, including the estimated costs and the completion dates of the works;

(3) given that the intake of residents of the housing development projects in the Kwu Tung North New Development Area is expected to commence in 2026, but the works of the Kwu Tung Station are expected to be completed by 2027 at the earliest, of the Government's measures to ensure that adequate public transport services are available to meet the demand of those residents who have moved into units of the development projects concerned before the commissioning of the Kwu Tung Station; and

(4) of the latest progress of the implementation of the proposal for establishing the Railways Department under the Transport and Housing Bureau?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, our reply to various parts of Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok's question is as follows:

(1) Railway projects involve huge capital investment, and the Government has to plan in a prudent manner. The new railway projects proposed in the Railway Development Strategy 2014 ("RDS-2014") have different degrees of complexities. As clearly stated in RDS-2014, the taking forward of individual proposed railway projects set out in the Strategy will be subject to the outcome of detailed engineering, environmental and financial studies relating to each project, as well as updated demand assessment and other factors. Moreover, for railway projects which are mainly intended to complement new development areas and new housing LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4455

developments, the implementation timetable for the development areas and new housing developments in question will be an important planning parameter for the railway projects. Therefore, the indicative implementation windows recommended in RDS-2014 may be adjusted having regard to any change in circumstances.

(2) According to the Project Proposals submitted by the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL"), the estimated capital cost of the Tuen Mun South ("TMS") Extension is about $11.4 billion (in December 2015 prices), while the estimated capital costs of the Northern Link ("NOL") Phase 1 and Phase 2 are about $3.5 billion and $58.5 billion (in December 2015 prices) respectively. The Transport and Housing Bureau invited MTRCL to commence the detailed planning and design for TMS Extension and NOL respectively last year. The Government will further ascertain the cost estimates having regard to MTRCL's detailed planning and design. Having considered the time required for the detailed planning and design of the projects, the construction of TMS Extension may commence in 2023 for completion in 2030; the construction of NOL Phase 1 (i.e. Kwu Tung ("KTU") Station on the Lok Ma Chau Spur Line) may commence in 2023 for completion in 2027 to support the first substantial population intake of the public housing in Kwu Tung North ("KTN") New Development Area ("NDA"), while the construction of NOL Phase 2 (i.e. the Main Line connecting Kam Sheung Road Station with KTU Station) may commence in 2025 for completion in 2034 to provide impetus for growth in the area, covering San Tin, Ngau Tam Mei and Au Tau.

(3) The sites along NOL are in different stages of development. NOL Phase 1 (i.e. KTU Station) mainly serves the residents of about 43 600 housing units (including about 28 000 public housing units) in the KTN NDA, thereby meeting their transport demands. According to the plan, the population intake of public housing units in NDA would commence progressively from 2026 onwards. By the time when KTU Station is expected to be commissioned in 2027, about one quarter of the public housing units (i.e. about 7 400) will have been completed. The Government will continue to follow up with MTRCL to ensure that it will closely monitor the works 4456 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

progress, with a view to completing the project for providing services as soon as possible. Before the commissioning of KTU Station, relevant departments will coordinate to ensure that adequate public transport services will be provided according to the transport demand of the residents who will have moved into KTN NDA.

(4) As pointed out in the paper provided by the Government to the Panel on Transport Subcommittee on Matters Relating to Railways of the Legislative Council in February this year, having regard to the current financial situation of the Government and the Chief Executive's general directive in her 2020 Policy Address, we propose to seek the approval of the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council in the 2021-2022 legislative session to establish the Railways Department in the 2022-2023 financial year, so that the required manpower would be in place to fully implement the enhanced monitoring and control strategies before the projects under RDS-2014 enter the construction stage progressively from 2023 onwards. In view of the complexity of the establishment of a new department, we will set up a preparation team in the Railway Development Office of the in the second half of 2021 to make necessary arrangements for the new department.

Restarting the economy amid the epidemic

12. MR YIU SI-WING (in Chinese): President, to cope with the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic, the Government has, on a number of occasions since early last year, implemented various anti-epidemic measures (including social distancing measures), which have dealt a heavy blow to the business of industries such as retail, catering, entertainment and tourism, as well as triggered waves of business closures and layoffs. There are views that as the Government has been carrying out anti-epidemic work continuously for more than a year, it should have grasped sufficient data and experience for launching a gradual restart of the economy on the premise that anti-epidemic needs are met concurrently. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it will set criteria that are more objective (e.g. the number of local confirmed cases or cases from unknown sources having LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4457

risen/fallen to a specified level) for deciding if there is a need to tighten or relax the various social distancing measures; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(2) what new measures are in place to enhance its work on tracing the close contacts of confirmed patients, so as to cut the silent transmission chains in the community; what more stringent infection prevention measures are in place to cope with a worsened epidemic situation; and

(3) whether it will formulate a plan for a gradual restart of economic activities (including tourism activities) which can meet anti-epidemic needs concurrently (e.g. allowing scheduled premises directed to suspend operation due to the epidemic to resume business and tourism activities to resume when the number of local confirmed cases or cases from unknown sources has dropped to a specified level); if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, Hong Kong has been extensively affected by COVID-19, a pandemic sweeping across the world. The COVID-19 epidemic situation in Hong Kong remains volatile. Large-scale cluster outbreaks were found at catering business premises and fitness centres, and silent transmission in the community is still active. It is essential for us to take all appropriate measures to strengthen epidemic control, and to further enhance the precision of the control measures in a bid to achieve the target of "zero infection" with the support and cooperation of the general public.

My consolidated reply to the various parts of the question raised by Mr YIU Si-wing is as follows:

(1) and (3)

Social distancing measures can effectively prevent the spread of the virus in the community and are an integral part of infection control measures. The implementation of stringent and decisive social distancing measures was the key to the Government's success in containing the third wave of the epidemic. In particular, the Prevention and Control of Disease (Requirements and Directions) 4458 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

(Business and Premises) Regulation (Cap. 599F) regulates the mode of operation of catering business and 15 types of scheduled premises, whereas the Prevention and Control of Disease (Prohibition on Group Gathering) Regulation (Cap. 599G) imposes restriction on group gatherings at public places and Cap. 599F premises. The Government has all along been adjusting our social distancing measures in a decisive and prompt manner, after balancing factors such as the protection of public health, impact on the economy and social acceptance having regard to the development of the epidemic situation. At the peaks of the previous waves of the epidemic, in order to control the epidemic situation decisively, the Government's major considerations when tightening social distancing measures were the latest overall situation of the epidemic and risk assessments, with a view to reducing social contacts and cutting the transmission chain at an early stage as soon as possible.

The Government understands that some premises under Cap. 599F and sectors related to activities that may not take place due to the restrictions imposed by Cap. 599G had been facing considerable difficulties for a period of time in the past. Also, the unemployment situation of many sectors is deteriorating. At the same time, having been engaged in the efforts to fight the epidemic for months, public adherence to social distancing measures has notably declined. Despite the severe epidemic situation earlier, there were still a large number of people out and about, and many continued to participate in cross-family gatherings. In light of the above, and having considered factors including economic situation and social acceptance, the Government has already announced that we would adopt a more precise approach in adjusting the social distancing measures, with a view to allowing resumption of normal life as soon as possible while minimizing the impact on economic activities and the sectors involved.

The fourth wave of the epidemic has been gradually subsiding earlier. Having regard to the developments of the epidemic situation and risk assessments at the time, the Government had started to gradually relax social distancing measures with conditions since 18 February by reopening seven types of scheduled premises (viz. amusement game centre, fitness centre, place of amusement, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4459 place of public entertainment, beauty parlour, massage establishment and sports premises), as well as extending the period during which catering businesses may provide dine-in services to end at 10:00 pm and increasing the number of persons per table to up to four. Compared with the relaxation of social distancing measures when the third wave of the epidemic came under control, the Government has already relaxed the relevant measures to a greater extent this time in order to resume social and economic activities as soon as possible while the epidemic situation permits.

The aforesaid arrangements on relaxation of social distancing measures is on the premise that the responsible persons of the catering business and relevant scheduled premises must adopt two new infection control measures as follows:

Measure (1): ensure that users scan the "LeaveHomeSafe" venue QR code using the "LeaveHomeSafe" mobile application on their mobile phones or register their names, contact numbers and the dates and times of their visits before they are allowed to enter the premises, with records to be kept for 31 days; and

Measure (2): arrange for all staff involved in the operation of the premises to undergo a polymerase chain reaction-based nucleic acid test for COVID-19 once every 14 days and ensure that the staff keep records of every SMS notification containing the result of the test for 31 days.

Taking into account the risks involved at catering business and scheduled premises, the Government has expanded the priority groups under the Government's COVID-19 Vaccination Programme to cover staff of these premises since 8 March 2021. If the overall uptake rate of the COVID-19 vaccine is satisfactory, together with the general public working together to strictly observe other anti-epidemic measures (such as wearing of masks, using the "LeaveHomeSafe" mobile application, etc.), the restrictions on restaurants and other commercial premises can be considered to be further relaxed, the currently closed premises can be considered to resume business, schools can be considered to fully resume classes, 4460 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

and sports grounds can fully resume normal operations, etc. On the other hand, in view of the current global trend, the overall vaccine uptake rate in Hong Kong and whether individuals have been vaccinated will be important factors when considering the future resumption of cross-boundary travel and relaxation of quarantine measures for cross-boundary travellers. If the overall vaccine uptake rate in Hong Kong is not satisfactory, it can be imagined that other places may not be very enthusiastic to resume cross-boundary travel with Hong Kong.

The Government will continue to closely monitor the latest development of the epidemic situation as well as the progress of the vaccination programme and its effect on disease prevention and control, review from time to time and suitably adjust the social distancing measures. We will, having regard to the development of the epidemic situation and subject to the epidemic situation coming under control and continuing to subside, continue to relax the restrictions imposed under Cap. 599F and Cap. 599G in a gradual and orderly manner by phases in a more precise approach, with a view to resuming economic activities further.

(2) Contact tracing is fundamental to the efforts in preventing further spread of the virus. In order to gate keep and contain the virus at the source and to cut the transmission chain as swiftly as possible, the Centre for Health Protection has tightened testing and quarantine arrangement since 27 February 2021, including quarantine of all persons who had been close contact with a confirmed case within the seven days before onset of symptoms of all locally acquired unlinked cases, and three-day quarantine for household contacts of symptomatic close contacts.

The Government has also deployed extra manpower to set up the Contact Tracing Office ("CTO") in order to enhance the efficiency of contact tracing. In response to the cluster outbreak in a fitness centre in early March, CTO took prompt action to speed up the process of identifying close contacts, making notable achievements. Since early March, the fitness centre cluster outbreak has resulted in around 140 confirmed cases. CTO successfully traced about 1 500 contacts in a few days' time and had them quarantined, and around LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4461

3 200 household contacts of close contacts were successfully traced and requested to undergo compulsory testing. In other words, for the fitness centre cluster, CTO identified an average of about 35 contacts or family members for each confirmed case, much higher than the average of four contacts identified per confirmed case during the initial operation of CTO. Such efforts have significantly helped in cutting chains of viral transmission. Over the past two weeks, the number of confirmed cases with unknown sources has largely remained at a single-digit level, proving the effectiveness of the work of CTO.

Furthermore, an internal information portal specifically designed for case investigation and contact tracing has linked up the information systems of various relevant departments and agencies for centrally and electronically collecting information needed for contract tracing, so as to streamline the procedures for information collection, input and sharing. This will help speed up the Department of Health's work in tracing contacts, as well as conducting testing and arranging quarantine or medical surveillance for such contacts.

On the other hand, virus testing is also very important in epidemic prevention and control. The Government has been refining its anti-epidemic strategies in accordance with the development of the epidemic, including following the three key principles of "compulsory testing on a mandatory basis, targeted testing on an obligatory basis and testing on a voluntary basis" to conduct large-scale COVID-19 testing for groups of different risks with a view to achieving "early identification, early isolation and early treatment", and cutting the transmission chains in the community as far as possible.

Since the Prevention and Control of Disease (Compulsory Testing for Certain Persons) Regulation (Cap. 599J) came into operation on 15 November last year, the Government has exercised the power under the regulation almost daily to issue compulsory testing notices ("CTNs") with a view to fully implementing the virus testing strategy of compulsory testing on a mandatory basis. As at 15 March 2021, the Government has required persons who had been present at some 940 specified premises (including dance 4462 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

clubs/venues, restaurants, residential buildings, construction sites, fitness centres, department store and hospitals) and 33 restricted areas; symptomatic persons; staff members of residential care homes for the elderly, residential care homes for persons with disabilities and nursing homes, day service units attached to the premises of residential care homes; taxi drivers and airport staff to undergo compulsory testing by respective deadlines.

For residential buildings, the Government has also actively expanded the coverage of compulsory testing on a mandatory basis and further lowered the threshold of compulsory testing. Currently, if one or more new confirmed cases (regardless of whether the source is unknown) are found in the residential buildings, or there are sewage samples tested positive, the buildings will be included in CTN. The Government will also delineate restricted areas and make "restriction-testing declarations" ("RTDs"). Persons within the areas are required to stay in their premises and undergo compulsory testing in accordance with the arrangement by the Government, and can only leave after the relevant test results are mostly ascertained. All buildings within the restricted areas, whether or not confirmed cases were found therein, would be included in CTN. Any person who had been present at buildings in the restricted area for more than two hours in the past 14 days, even if they were not present in the restricted area at the time when RTD took effect, also have to undergo compulsory testing.

As for workplaces, if the Centre for Health Protection considers that there is a cluster outbreak in a particular workplace, such as a construction site, apart from requiring suspension of operation and disinfection, a CTN will also be made to require persons who had been to the same workplace premises as the confirmed case to undergo testing. The testing threshold has been further lowered to that if one or more confirmed cases are found in a workplace, the workplace will be included in CTN.

The Government arranges staff to verify the testing certifications of residents at the entrances/exits of the buildings covered by CTNs, and conduct checks within buildings to ask residents to show the SMS notification of having conducted test or related certifications. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4463

The Government will also conduct enforcement operations in restricted areas to verify whether residents have complied with the requirement to undergo testing. The Government will issue a fixed penalty of $5,000 on any persons who fail to comply with CTN and/or a compulsory testing order to undergo testing within a specified period. The Government will continue to enforce the law and strictly handle persons who do not comply with CTN.

At the same time, the Government has all along been adjusting our anti-epidemic measures having regard to the latest development of the epidemic situation. If and when there are cluster outbreaks at individual types of premises, we would, taking into account the actual circumstances and the operating characteristics of individual sectors, impose new infection control measures on the relevant premises.

For instance, in view of the cluster in eateries earlier, we have implemented two new infection control measures in respect of catering premises, in order to step up infection control at such premises and reduce transmission risks: (1) starting from 4 March, all catering premises to arrange, if practicable, dedicated staff for clearing used utensils and cleaning and disinfecting used tables and partitions or suitably adopt hand hygiene measures; and (2) by end April, all catering premises must increase its air ventilation to a minimum level of six air changes per hour, and if this could not be achieved, appropriate air purifier(s) should be installed as an alternative, in order to reduce the relevant transmission risks.

There has also been a large-scale cluster outbreak in a fitness centre recently. To contain the epidemic, we have tightened the infection control measures in fitness centres with immediate effect from 12 March, reinstating the mask-on requirement. The relevant department has also been actively discussing with the industry to encourage fitness centres to enhance infection control measures on a voluntary basis. Such measures include limiting the number of customers in the premises and exploring more frequent tests of staff.

4464 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

The BUD Fund

13. MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Chinese): President, the Government launched the "Dedicated Fund on Branding, Upgrading and Domestic Sales" ("BUD Fund") in 2012 to assist small and medium enterprises ("SMEs") (including start-ups) in Hong Kong in grasping economic opportunities and boosting their competitiveness. Also, it injected funds into the Fund in 2018 and 2019 respectively to implement enhancement measures (including raising the cumulative funding ceiling per enterprise, and extending the geographical coverage from initially covering the Mainland only to also covering the Association of Southeast Asian Nations markets and all economies with which Hong Kong had signed Free Trade Agreements). As indicated in the Budget just published, the Government plans to further inject funds into the Fund to implement enhancement measures. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number of applications received since the launch of the BUD Fund and, among such applications, the number of those approved and the total amount of funding involved; the total number of enterprises involved in the approved applications, with a tabulated breakdown by enterprise scale and industry type;

(2) of the plans in the coming three years to further assist, through the BUD Fund, Hong Kong's SMEs in grasping economic opportunities; and

(3) given that in recent years, quite a number of Hong Kong enterprises which have set up factories on the Mainland or overseas are planning to relocate their factories back to Hong Kong, whether the Government will relax the application restrictions on the BUD Fund to allow Hong Kong enterprises which have proceeded with their plans for relocating back to Hong Kong to apply for the Fund, so as to promote Hong Kong's re-industrialization and enhance the "Made in Hong Kong" brand?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, having consulted the Innovation and Technology Bureau, our reply is as follows:

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4465

(1) The implementation progress of the Dedicated Fund on Branding, Upgrading and Domestic Sales ("BUD Fund") since its launch in 2012 and up to end February 2021 is as follows:

Number of applications received(1) 9 535 Number of applications approved 3 358 Total funding amount approved $1.72 billion Number of beneficiaries 2 661 (2 587 are small and medium enterprises ("SMEs"))(2) Major beneficiary sectors 1. Wholesale and Retail (710) (according to the number of 2. Import and Export Trade (323) enterprises) 3. Textiles and Clothing (179)

Notes:

(1) The figure includes applications that could not be processed due to lack of necessary information and those withdrawn by enterprises.

(2) Manufacturing enterprises which employ fewer than 100 persons and non-manufacturing enterprises which employ fewer than 50 persons in Hong Kong are regarded as SMEs.

(2) The current-term Government has injected a total of $3.5 billion into the BUD Fund, and launched rounds of enhancement measures, including extending the geographical coverage from the Mainland to the member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations ("ASEAN"), and then further to all economies with which Hong Kong has signed Free Trade Agreements ("FTAs");(3) increasing the cumulative funding ceiling per enterprise successively, from $0.5 million to $2 million, and then further to $4 million; and increasing the ratio of initial payment from 25% to up to 75% of the approved government funding. From July 2017 to end February 2021, over 2 300 applications were approved under the BUD Fund, involving a total funding amount of over $1.37 billion approved, benefiting over 2 000 enterprises.

(3) The 20 FTA economies include the Mainland, New Zealand, the four member states of the European Free Trade Association (i.e. Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland), Chile, Macao, the 10 member states of ASEAN (comprising Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam), Georgia and Australia. 4466 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

To support enterprises in exploring more diversified markets, the Financial Secretary announced in the 2021-2022 Budget a proposal to further inject $1.5 billion into the BUD Fund so as to increase the cumulative funding ceiling per enterprise from $4 million to $6 million; and further extend its geographical coverage to 37 economies with which Hong Kong has signed FTAs and/or Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements ("IPPAs").(4) Subject to approval from the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council, the Government plans to extend the geographical coverage of the BUD Fund as follows:

Phase 1 (July 2021) - to include Japan and the Republic of Korea Phase 2 (Q1 2022) - to include Austria, Belgo-Luxembourg Economic Union, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom Phase 3 (Q2 2022) - to include Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates

The geographical coverage of the BUD Fund will also be extended to new FTA/IPPA economies as Hong Kong's FTA/IPPA network gradually expands.

(3) All non-listed enterprises registered in Hong Kong under the Business Registration Ordinance (Cap. 310) with substantive business operations in Hong Kong are eligible to apply for funding support under the BUD Fund. In other words, enterprises which are interested in relocating back to Hong Kong from the Mainland or overseas can apply for the BUD Fund to undertake projects to develop brands, upgrade and restructure their business operations and promote sales for developing markets within the geographical coverage of the BUD Fund.

(4) The 17 newly added economies include Japan, the Republic of Korea, Austria, Belgo-Luxembourg Economic Union, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4467

On re-industrialization, to promote the development of advanced manufacturing industries in Hong Kong that are based on new technologies and smart production, the Government launched the Re-industrialisation Funding Scheme ("RFS") in end July 2020 to provide financial support for manufacturers on a 1 (the Government): 2 (enterprises) matching basis for setting up new smart production lines in Hong Kong. The maximum funding per project is one third of the total approved project expenditure or $15 million, whichever is lower. The applications received under RFS involve a number of industries, including biotechnology, food processing, construction, environmental protection, printing, medical appliances and nanofiber materials.

Assisting enterprises in exploring overseas business opportunities

14. MR JIMMY NG (in Chinese): President, the Chief Executive ("CE") indicated in the 2019 Policy Address that the Government would seek the policy support of the relevant Central ministries to provide Hong Kong enterprises intending to develop businesses in the nation's overseas Economic and Trade Co-operation Zones ("ETCZs") with the same incentive measures and facilitation policies as those provided to Mainland enterprises. CE subsequently indicated in the 2020 Policy Address that the State Ministry of Commerce supported the Hong Kong SAR Government in encouraging Hong Kong enterprises to develop businesses by leveraging ETCZs, and that both sides had selected five ETCZs set up by the Mainland in Thailand, Malaysia, Cambodia and Indonesia, and priorities would be given to promoting the electronics, toys and electrical appliances industries, etc. on a pilot basis. On assisting enterprises in exploring overseas business opportunities, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the details of the aforesaid incentive measures and facilitation policies as well as the latest progress of the relevant work;

(2) of the respective numbers of Hong Kong enterprises (i) whose enquiries have been answered and (ii) which have been offered assistance, by the Government and the Hong Kong Trade Development Council, and the number of enterprises which have 4468 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

succeeded in developing businesses in the aforesaid five ETCZs (with a breakdown by scale of enterprise and type of industry), since the introduction of the incentive measures and facilitation policies;

(3) given that the Department of Commerce of Guangdong Province promulgated the Support Policies of the Guangdong Province for overseas Economic and Trade Co-operation Zones on 4 August last year, of the Government's specific measures to dovetail with the implementation of the policies;

(4) in order to reduce the costs and risks faced by Hong Kong enterprises in developing businesses in ETCZs, whether the Government will consider establishing an "overseas expansion support fund", strengthening the loan guarantees for the enterprises concerned, and amending sections 39E and 16EC of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap. 112) to enable enterprises to claim tax allowances in respect of the machinery, equipment and intellectual property rights used in their production processes outside Hong Kong;

(5) of the measures in place to assist the commodities produced by Hong Kong enterprises in ETCZs in being granted preferential treatments in respect of access to the Mainland market, in order to tie in with the economic development strategy of "dual circulation" adopted by the Mainland authorities;

(6) given that the preparatory work of Hong Kong enterprises on developing businesses in ETCZs has inevitably been affected amid the epidemic, of the Government's measures to assist them in taking forward the relevant work; and

(7) whether it will strive for the support from the State Ministry of Commerce to allow Hong Kong enterprises to develop businesses in more ETCZs; if so, of the details?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4469

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, consolidated reply to various parts of the question is as follows:

Setting up production line(s) in the Mainland's overseas Economic and Trade Co-operation Zones ("ETCZs") is a viable option for Hong Kong enterprises that plan to begin production abroad. ETCZs are invested, developed and managed by Chinese enterprises, operation of which is generally based on market principles. The admission criteria and conditions for individual ETCZs vary and are subject to negotiations between the respective host countries and concerned Chinese enterprises, as well as prevailing local policies.

The Commerce and Economic Development Bureau ("CEDB") has been taking actions along the following directions since the Policy Address of 2019 and 2020 mentioned about the encouragement of Hong Kong enterprises to develop businesses in ETCZs:

(a) Enhancing Mutual Understanding between Hong Kong Enterprises and the Selected ETCZs

Having considered the views of Hong Kong enterprises and the Ministry of Commerce, five ETCZs in four member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations ("ASEAN"), namely Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, have been selected as pilot for encouraging Hong Kong enterprises to make use of them in business development. Due to prevailing travel restrictions, the original plan for organizing Hong Kong enterprises to visit the selected ETCZs last year is being deferred till when the COVID-19 epidemic situation stabilizes. Before that, the Government plans to invite the management of some of the above ETCZs to meet with Hong Kong enterprises through video conferencing within 2021 so as to enhance mutual understanding. This will facilitate the latter to better understand the investment environment of the relevant ETCZs and their host countries, and the admission criteria and applicable preferential terms of those ETCZs. In turn, the Hong Kong enterprises can conduct analyses of the feasibility and risks of developing businesses in the concerned ETCZs carefully.

4470 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

In addition, CEDB supported the Hong Kong Trade Development Council ("HKTDC") in launching the Transformation Sandbox Programme in April 2020 to assist small and medium enterprises ("SMEs") in their business transformation, including manufacturing and supply chain solutions. With a view to assisting those interested Hong Kong enterprises to invest in ETCZs or to develop business there, they are provided with related information and support through the Programme so as to enhance their understanding of ETCZs. As of February 2021, the Programme was joined by around 1 200 SME members.

(b) Working with the Ministry of Commerce to Assist Hong Kong Enterprises in Setting up Businesses in ETCZs

By virtue of the support rendered by the Ministry of Commerce which the Government greatly appreciates, the Economic and Commercial Office of the Chinese Embassy or Consulate-General where ETCZs are located would provide assistance to Hong Kong enterprises. Furthermore, relevant local Mainland business chambers are encouraged to contact Hong Kong business chambers and enterprises, or accept Hong Kong enterprises as members. Concerning admission to ETCZs, the management of the five selected ETCZs welcome discussion with Hong Kong enterprises on admission matters. CEDB will continue to maintain communication with the Ministry of Commerce regarding provision of assistance to Hong Kong enterprises over admission to ETCZs, and continue to maintain dialogue with business chambers in Hong Kong on Hong Kong enterprises' latest needs.

(c) Supporting Hong Kong Enterprises to Develop Outside Hong Kong and Assisting them in Accessing the Mainland Market

The Government has entered into Investment Protection and Promotion Agreements ("IPPAs") with the four countries where the selected ETCZs are located which will provide protection for investments made by Hong Kong enterprises therein. These four countries are also contracting parties of the Free Trade Agreement ("FTA") signed between ASEAN and China. As such, goods LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4471 produced in the selected ETCZs by Hong Kong enterprises that meet the requirements of the agreement would stand to benefit from applicable preferential treatments when they are imported into the Mainland.

In addition, the Government provides funding support, on a matching basis, under the Dedicated Fund on Branding, Upgrading and Domestic Sales ("BUD Fund") to assist Hong Kong enterprises in exploring the Mainland and other markets with which Hong Kong has signed FTAs (including the above four ASEAN countries where the selected ETCZs are located). Eligible fundable items include setting up production lines and carrying out promotional activities, etc. To support enterprises in exploring more diversified markets, the Financial Secretary announced in the 2021-2022 Budget a proposal to further inject $1.5 billion into the BUD Fund so as to increase the cumulative funding ceiling for each enterprise from $4 million to $6 million; and extend its geographical coverage from 20 economies to 37 economies with which Hong Kong has entered into FTAs and/or IPPAs. This should facilitate Hong Kong enterprises in exploring the domestic Mainland market and more overseas markets.

Moreover, different types of insurance services are available in the market to help mitigate the risk faced by Hong Kong enterprises in expanding to overseas markets. In addition to the services provided by private insurance companies, the Hong Kong Export Credit Insurance Corporation, which is a statutory entity, offers export credit insurance services to Hong Kong enterprises for their trade with overseas buyers covering goods produced outside Hong Kong (such as in the Mainland) for exports to other places or for sale at the respective place of production.

In respect of providing depreciation allowance for the use of machinery, as advised by the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau, in accordance with the established "territorial source" and "tax symmetry" principles, the Inland Revenue Department will not charge profits tax on profits which are derived outside Hong Kong. Similarly, depreciation allowance will not be granted for any 4472 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

machinery and plant solely used in manufacturing activities outside Hong Kong. Section 39E of the Inland Revenue Ordinance ("IRO") aims at preventing tax avoidance opportunities arising from machinery or plant leasing arrangements, and similar requirements are also imposed under section 16EC of IRO in relation to the purchase of intellectual property rights for use outside Hong Kong by other parties.

To assist Hong Kong enterprises expand into the Mainland market (including goods manufactured in ETCZs), the Government will provide funding for HKTDC to launch a one-stop "GoGBA" platform alongside the "HKTDC GBA Centre" in to provide multi-faced support. In addition, HKTDC has set up physical and online outlets of its "Design Gallery" in the Mainland, and has launched a one-stop "ConsignEasy" service to help enterprises tackle logistics, warehousing, taxation and other matters related to domestic sales in the Mainland. To strengthen promotion, HKTDC will organize online and offline marketing campaigns to underline Hong Kong's capabilities in design and creativity, as well as organize Hong Kong enterprises for participating in Mainland exhibitions to promote our brands and products. The Government will continue to actively participate in the annual China International Import Expo to promote Hong Kong's quality products and services.

Regarding the "Support Policies for Guangdong overseas Economic and Trade Co-operation Zone" as promulgated by the Department of Commerce of Guangdong Province on 4 August 2020, the Government is given to understand that it is targeted at specific enterprises in Guangdong Province. That said, it mentioned that efforts would be made to promote complementary integration of advantages enjoyed by Guangdong manufacturing industries with capital sources, modern services sector, international economic and trade networks of Hong Kong and Macao; and enterprises would be jointly organized to visit ETCZs. The Government will consider participating in relevant activities when the epidemic situation stabilizes.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4473

Private land suitable for public housing development

15. MR WILSON OR (in Chinese): President, in the 2019 Policy Address, the Chief Executive ("CE") put forward proposals "to adopt a more focused approach for rezoning private land for public housing development, and then exercising public power to resume private land for public purpose, [which] is indeed a breakthrough in thinking", and "to resume private land which is zoned for high-density housing development in [the] statutory outline zoning plans [of various districts] but without any development plans due to various reasons (e.g. fragmented ownership, infrastructural constraints) and assessed to be suitable for public housing development". Furthermore, on 20 October 2019, the Secretary for Development ("SDEV") mentioned in his blog entitled "My Blog" that "[a]part from brownfield sites in the New Territories, we will also review the land suitable to be zoned as Comprehensive Development Area or Residential (Group A) development with higher plot ratio … and with relatively low-rise existing structures … and that the owner(s) has no concrete development plan. Based on the information available, around 10 land parcels that meet such criteria have been identified … We hope we could make public our preliminary views on which of these sites are suitable for public housing development by the middle of next year". In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether the "private land which is … assessed to be suitable for public housing development" mentioned by CE in the 2019 Policy Address is in fact the "10 land parcels" mentioned by SDEV in the aforesaid "My Blog"; if so, why the Government did not "make public [its] preliminary views" in the middle of 2020 as pledged;

(2) of the respective locations, areas and existing uses of the sites involved in the "10 land parcels"; among such sites, the number of those which have finally been assessed to be suitable for public housing development; whether the Government will rezone those sites that are considered unsuitable for public housing development for other public uses (e.g. subsidized residential care homes for the elderly);

4474 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

(3) as CE stated in the 2020 Policy Address that "as proposed in last year's Policy Address, the [Development Bureau] has reviewed private land zoned for high-density housing development but without any specific development plan, and assessed whether any such land is suitable for public housing development. It is expected that the related work will be completed by the end of this year", whether such work was completed at the end of 2020 as planned; if so, of the number of pieces, area and other details of the private lands that have been confirmed to be suitable for public housing development; and

(4) of the number of pieces of private lands, excluding the private lands in the planned new development areas, for which the Government commenced, within the 36 months before and the 12 months after the publication of the 2019 Policy Address, studies on the rezoning of land use for public housing development, and the total area of such lands?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, my reply to the various parts of Mr Wilson OR's question is as follows:

(1) to (3)

The Chief Executive announced in her 2019 Policy Address to intensify Government-led planning efforts, including invoking the Lands Resumption Ordinance (Cap. 124) ("LRO") and other applicable ordinances to resume the private land involved for development of public housing and related facilities. Along this direction, the Government has intensified its efforts to expedite development projects, significantly increasing the extent and pace of land resumption. In just 2019-2020 and 2020-2021, the Government has resumed around 90 hectares of land (including around 80 hectares of land for New Development Areas ("NDA") and public housing development), which is much more than the 20 hectares resumed over the immediate past five years. Looking LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4475 ahead, about 700 hectares of land (including more than 600 hectares of land for NDA and public housing development) will be resumed from 2021-2022, of which around 500 hectares of land (including around 400 hectares for NDA and public housing development) is expected to be resumed in the next five years (i.e. from 2021-2022 to 2025-2026).

Following the aforementioned direction to intensify efforts on land resumption, one of the measures announced in the 2019 Policy Address is to review private land which is zoned for high-density housing development in statutory outline zoning plans, but without any development plans yet due to various reasons (e.g. fragmented ownership or infrastructural constraints), and assess their suitability for public housing development.

To this end, the Development Bureau ("DEVB") has identified 10 land parcels for such review. Specifically, these 10 land parcels have been zoned as "Comprehensive Development Area" or "Residential (Group A)" with a higher plot ratio (generally speaking, at 7.5 or above in the urban area and at 5 or above in the New Territories), and with relatively low-rise existing structures (say, only a few storeys).

We would assess whether the land parcels are suitable for high density public housing development taking into account the actual circumstances of each land parcel. Such considerations include the overall planning of the community concerned; community facilities and infrastructure (for example, traffic, water supply and drainage facilities) available in the area; the location, size, development parameters and existing uses of the land parcels; as well as any development plan of the land owner. If the land parcel assessed to be suitable for public housing development involved private land, the Government would resume the relevant land by invoking LRO in accordance with the existing mechanism.

4476 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

DEVB is close to completing the said review and will announce the review results in due course. As the said review may relate to potential resumption of private land and compensation, it is not appropriate to disclose information on the specific locations and details of the relevant land parcels at this stage so as to avoid market speculation and unnecessary concerns of the existing users.

(4) Apart from the rezoning work in relation to NDA, we commenced rezoning for a total of 30 sites involving public housing development within the 36 months before and the 12 months after the announcement of the 2019 Policy Address (i.e. from October 2016 to September 2020). The total area of land involved is about 73.32 hectares. The rezoning work may involve both Government and private land and the breakdown of each is not readily available at this moment.

District Health Centres

16. DR PIERRE CHAN (in Chinese): President, Kwai Tsing District Health Centre ("KTDHC"), which is the first District Health Centre in Hong Kong, commenced operation in September 2019. In addition, the Government is taking forward its plan to construct Health Centre ("WCDHC") at Caroline Hill Road. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the following information about KTDHC (including its satellite centres):

(a) the respective (i) total operational expenses with breakdowns, (ii) staffing establishment, and (iii) total expenses on remunerations with breakdowns by staff rank, in the two financial years of 2019-2020 (from September 2019) and 2020-2021 (as at the end of February this year),

(b) the (i) service attendance, (ii) number of referrals received from public hospitals, and (iii) number of referrals made to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4477

service providers and community partners, in each month since commencement of operation, and

(c) the respective service attendances by (i) obese persons, (ii) patients with hypertension and (iii) patients with diabetes mellitus, in each month since commencement of operation;

(2) of (i) the number of days of temporary closure of KTDHC due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic, and (ii) the details of the work carried out by KTDHC for preventing and combating the epidemic;

(3) of the details of the Government's making use of big data for (i) planning the primary healthcare services needed in Kwai Tsing District, and (ii) enhancing the services of KTDHC; and

(4) as the proposed WCDHC will be built by the developer of the commercial development on the Caroline Hill Road site, and then handed over to the Government, how the Government will ensure the workmanship of the construction works of WCDHC, and of the arrangements and estimated costs for the repair and maintenance of WCDHC upon commissioning?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, my reply to the various parts of the question raised by Dr Pierre CHAN is as follows:

(1) The Food and Health Bureau is committed to enhancing district-based primary healthcare services by setting up District Health Centres ("DHCs") throughout the territory progressively. The first DHC in Kwai Tsing District commenced operation in September 2019.

The expenditure for 2019-2020 and revised estimates for 2020-2021 on rental and operating expenses for the service contract of the Kwai Tsing DHC ("K&TDHC") are $43.6 million and $79.7 million respectively. The staff establishment as at 31 March 2020 and 31 December 2020 are set out below:

4478 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

Staff Establishment 31 March 2020 31 December 2020 Executive Director 1 1 Chief Care Coordinator 1 1 Care Coordinators 6 11 Nurses 3 2 Physiotherapists 2.5 3 Occupational Therapists 1.5 2 Pharmacist 1 1 Social Workers 5 5 Dietitian 1 1 Administrative Staff 8 17 Supporting staff 28 26

The number of network service providers as at 31 March 2020 and 31 December 2020 are set out below:

Professions 31 March 2020 31 December 2020 Medical Practitioner 27 40 Chinese Medicine Practitioner 20 33 Physiotherapist 12 15 Optometrist 11 12 Occupational Therapist 1 6 Speech Therapist 1 3 Podiatrist 0 0 Pharmacist 0 0 Dietitian 2 2 Medical Laboratory Service 3 4 Total 77 115

The number of registered members of K&TDHC as at 31 March 2020 and 31 December 2020 were 2 900 and 11 100 respectively. The attendance of relevant K&TDHC service/activities are set out below:

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4479

April 2020 September to Cumulative 2019 December Figures DHC Service/Activities to March 2020 (provisional 2020^ (provisional figures)^ figures)^ Health Promotion/Patient 9 000 32 000 41 000 Empowerment Activities/Vaccination Basic Health Risk Factors 2 800 8 500 11 300 Assessment Screening for Diabetes 100 1 700 1 800 Mellitus and Hypertension* Chronic Disease 400 2 500 2 800 Management/Community Rehabilitation Programme# Total 12 300 44 600 57 000

Notes:

^ Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred and may not add up to the total due to rounding.

* Include medical consultation and medical laboratory tests only

# Include individualized healthcare services referred by network medical practitioners/Hospital Authority only

The Bureau does not maintain other separate breakdown mentioned in the question.

(2) During the COVID-19 epidemic, K&TDHC suspended face-to-face classes and individual services at its Core Centre and two Satellite Centres at Kwai Chung (West) and Tsing Yi (South West) between 7 February 2020 and 15 March 2020 to accord with the Government direction in strengthening social distancing measures with a view to reducing the risk of the virus transmission in the community. During the period, K&TDHC continued to serve its members and public through video and telecare platform. K&TDHC has resumed limited services at its centres since 16 March 2020. During the epidemic, K&TDHC continues to provide services for members and 4480 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

public in Kwai Tsing through various modes of operation in a bid to complementing the Government's effort in fighting the epidemic. The details of its services are set out below:

To demonstrate the function of primary healthcare ecosystem on epidemic prevention in the community, K&TDHC actively supported people in need by setting up street counters in areas and locations with confirmed cases by distributing anti-epidemic supplies (including surgical masks, hand sanitizers and other information on health related services, etc.) at the site or by post, and address queries from the public. Meanwhile, K&TDHC has produced videos with anti-epidemic information in different dialects and ethnic minority languages for people with different backgrounds. K&TDHC has also set up hotlines to provide health education and guidance to the public and promulgated relevant anti-epidemic health information via its social media channels, and has reached out to its members for provision of service via different telecare platforms.

In addition, K&TDHC and its Satellite Centres have participated in the distribution of deep throat saliva specimen bottles, especially to symptomatic members who work in industries which have frequent contact with people or those in the service industry. K&TDHC has distributed nearly 7 000 specimen bottles to the targeted groups since the epidemic. Besides, K&TDHC actively encouraged network doctors to participate the Enhanced Laboratory Surveillance Programme of the Centre for Health Protection under the Department of Health ("DH") concerning COVID-19 and provided relevant information of doctors or clinics providing testing within the district at its website for public's reference in order to strengthen community testing.

In terms of the supports provided to the patients who had recovered from COVID-19, K&TDHC has been providing community supports to recovered patients who return to the community after their condition became stabilized at the referral of the Hospital Authority in order to manage the impacts caused by the illness, such as weakened bodily functions, impacts on daily life caused by respiratory problem, etc., as well as providing consultations on other diseases and side effects of drugs. Medical professionals would LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4481

firstly contact the patients by phone to understand their respective situation and needs in order to provide one-stop services by the multi-disciplinary team comprising nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, dietitians as well as social workers. Services included medical and health information, guidance on home exercise, diet recommendations and emotional counselling, etc.

Since the COVID-19 Vaccination Programme commenced, K&TDHC has enhanced the publicity and education on the Vaccination Programme through different channels (including relevant education seminars offered at the Core Centre, Satellite Centres and in collaboration with the local non-governmental organizations located at the district, as well as live streaming activities on social media platforms, etc.). K&TDHC also contacted members who were under the priority groups and assisted them in making reservation for receiving vaccines. Information posters and the information on private doctors and clinics who offer vaccinations were displayed at the K&TDHC Core Centre and its Satellite Centres. Furthermore, K&TDHC is also liaising with the private doctors in the vicinity (including Tsuen Wan, Sha Tin, and Sham Shui Po) who have participated in the Vaccination Programme for collaboration in order to encourage and facilitate members and local residents to receive vaccination.

(3) In determining the scope of services to be provided by K&TDHC, the Steering Committee on Primary Healthcare Development ("the Steering Committee") examined the findings of four large-scale surveys/data sources to better understand the health profile of the Kwai Tsing population, namely:

(a) Chronic Disease Virtual Registry of the Hospital Authority;

(b) Population Health Survey conducted by DH;

(c) Thematic Household Survey conducted by the Census and Statistics Department; and

(d) The collaborative project entitled "FAMILY: A Jockey Club Initiative for a Harmonious Society" ("FAMILY Project") 4482 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

conducted by the School of Public Health of the and funded by the Hong Kong Jockey Club.

Since item (d) above contains district-based health data that is most relevant to DHC, we have consulted the Steering Committee and have agreed to adopt the data of FAMILY Project as the baseline for the scope of services to be provided by K&TDHC.

(4) As the works project of the Wan Chai DHC ("WCDHC") will be designed and constructed by the developer, it is subject to the regulation of the Buildings Ordinance ("BO") (Cap. 123) like other private development projects. Under BO, the developer is required to appoint an authorized person ("AP"), a registered structural engineer and a registered geotechnical engineer (collectively referred to as "building professionals") to prepare and submit various types of building plans prescribed by the law for the approval of the ("BD"). The developer is also required to appoint registered contractors to carry out the relevant works. Upon completion of the development project, in addition to the application for the occupation permit ("OP"), the registered building professionals and the registered contractors must submit a certificate on completion of the building works to BD to certify that the works concerned have been completed in accordance with the approved plans and comply with BO and its subsidiary regulations. Besides, BD will exercise building control on private development projects in accordance with BO, including by plan processing and regular inspection of sites with construction works in progress. Upon receipt of an application for OP, the BD officers will carry out site inspection with AP and scrutinize the supporting documents submitted as required under BO to ensure that the building works comply with the relevant provisions of BO and its subsidiary regulations before issuing OP.

In addition, the Government will scrutinize the design and material submissions from the developer according to the requirements and specifications of "Technical Schedule" appended to the land sale conditions, and carry out inspection prior to the handover to ensure that the overall design and construction quality of WCDHC fulfil the operational requirements.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4483

Upon completion of WCDHC subject to the compliance with the above inspection procedures, WCDHC will be handed over to the Government as a government property. The Government will be responsible for the management and the maintenance of the property. The relevant estimated costs of repair and maintenance works of WCDHC is approximately $900,000 per year.

Staff of a law firm before it was intervened

17. MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Chinese): President, earlier on, the Council of the Law Society of Hong Kong ("the Council") intervened in the operation of a law firm ("the firm") because the Council suspected after investigation that a former employee of the firm had dishonestly misappropriated the money of the clients of the firm, and was satisfied that the firm had committed serious breaches of the Solicitors' Accounts Rules (Cap. 159F). The firm's practice forthwith ceased, and all the money of the firm has been held by the Council on trust. The Council has appointed another law firm as the Intervention Agent ("Agent") to handle the follow-up work. It is learnt that dozens of staff who worked in the firm prior to cessation of its practice were employed by an independent company. As the company's money deposited with the firm has been held by the Council, it is unable to pay such staff wages totalling over $4 million (which include salaries, pay for untaken annual leave and statutory holidays, wages in lieu of notice and severance payments). On the other hand, some of such staff have assisted the Agent, upon its request, in handling the follow-up work, but have not been paid any wages. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether the Labour Department ("LD") has received requests for assistance from the aforesaid staff; if so, how LD assists them in recovering the wage defaults, including whether it has assisted them in taking legal actions and applying for legal aid;

(2) whether LD will discuss with the Council and the Agent the payment of salaries to the aforesaid staff for the period during which they assisted in handling the follow-up work; and

(3) whether it will amend the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Cap. 159) to stipulate that when similar cases occur in future, the Agent appointed by the Council to handle the follow-up work of a law firm 4484 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

which has been intervened should (i) handle the severance matters for all staff who worked in that law firm (irrespective of whether they were directly employed by the law firm concerned) (including verifying the amounts of wage defaults, so as to help the staff concerned expeditiously recover such wage defaults), and (ii) pay salaries to the staff who assist the Agent in handling the follow-up work?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Chinese): President, in consultation with the relevant government department, my consolidated reply to the Member's question is as follows:

Upon receipt of the request for assistance from the staff concerned in January 2021, the Labour Department ("LD") promptly rendered appropriate assistance to the employees, including providing conciliation service, and assisting them to lodge claims at the Labour Tribunal ("LT") for their wages in arrears and termination payments. As the employer failed to pay the sums awarded by LT, LD assisted them in no time to apply for ex gratia payment from the Protection of Wages on Insolvency Fund, and for legal aid from the Legal Aid Department as necessary.

If there exists an employment relationship between an employee and the Law Society of Hong Kong ("Law Society") or its appointed law firm as the intervention agent, and the employee suspects that his/her employment rights and benefits under the Employment Ordinance (Cap. 57) has been infringed, he/she may approach LD direct. LD shall render appropriate assistance.

A self regulatory regime has all along been implemented for Hong Kong's legal profession in order to ensure the professionalism and independence of our legal practitioners. The Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Cap. 159) ("the Ordinance") is to make amended provisions for the admission and registration of legal practitioners and their employees, the appointment and registration of notaries public, and for purposes connected therewith. The Ordinance and its subsidiary legislation lay down the statutory powers, functions and duties of the Law Society as the regulator of the solicitors' branch, including section 26A of the Ordinance specifying the circumstances under which the Council of the Law Society may pass a resolution to exercise its statutory power to intervene into a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4485 law firm's practice and exercise the powers set out in Schedule 2 to the Ordinance, and appoint an intervention agent to assist in the intervention, for the protection of the interests of the clients of that firm and the public.

In respect of the case referred to in the question, we note that in the Law Society's submission to the Legislative Council Panel on Administration of Justice and Legal Services dated 25 January 2021, the Law Society stated that it had already set up a working party to review the intervention process. In relation to views on further protection to the parties affected by the intervention of a law firm, the Department of Justice is ready to maintain communication with the Law Society.

Mental health of students

18. MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Chinese): President, the findings of a number of surveys conducted last year have shown that the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic has resulted in the aggravation of the emotional stress and mental health problems of secondary and primary students. The prolonged suspension of face-to-face classes and changes in the mode of learning have exerted certain pressure on students and affected their emotional and psychological health. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number of students who committed suicide and died in each of the past five school years, broken down by age;

(2) whether it knows the respective numbers of students in each of the past five years who (i) received treatments by the psychiatric services of public and private hospitals/clinics, and (ii) waited for such treatments and their average waiting time, together with a breakdown by age and type of mental illness;

(3) whether it knows the number of requests for assistance received, since the outbreak of the epidemic, by schools relating to students suffering from emotional disturbance and mental stress, with a breakdown by type of issues pertaining to the requests for assistance; and

4486 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

(4) of the work currently undertaken by the Education Bureau on education about students' control of emotions; the new measures in place to (i) strengthen the resilience of students, and (ii) help schools, teachers and parents deal with students' emotional problems more effectively and identify at an early stage students suffering from emotional disturbance, as well as enhance their knowledge of and skills in coping with the relevant situations?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Chinese): President, owing to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic, schools have suspended face-to-face classes from time to time since February 2020 to protect the health of students. Nevertheless, the Education Bureau ("EDB") and schools are very concerned about students' support needs in learning and emotion. With respect to learning, we help students learn at home through diversified measures, with an aim to achieving "suspending classes without suspending learning". Regarding emotional support, we also help schools provide timely and appropriate emotional support to students through various means, including talks and workshops. All along, we have been working together with schools to enhance students' development amidst the threat of the epidemic. Saddened by all student suicide cases and noting that complicated issues are often involved, EDB has been supporting students with mental health needs (including those with suicidal risk) through diversified means.

Having consulted the Food and Health Bureau, we have prepared the following consolidated reply to the question raised by Mr KWOK Wai-keung:

(1) EDB has all along been maintaining close contact with schools and providing support as needed. When a suspected fatal suicide case of student arises, the school will immediately inform EDB and activate the School Crisis Management Team to decide on the follow-up actions according to the situation and formulate the contingency plan, so as to minimize the possible negative impact of the incident on students and the school (e.g. emotions of students and teachers, and school operation). The educational psychologists, school social workers and teachers will provide emotional support and follow-up services to students in need. Whether a case is suicide or not will only be confirmed after the legal proceedings of the Coroner's Court ("Court") have completed. As EDB has not captured relevant information from the Court, officially verified LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4487

figures on students' fatal suicide cases are not available. The numbers of suspected fatal suicide cases of students as reported by primary and secondary schools to EDB in the past five school years are tabulated as follows:

2015- 2016- 2017- 2018- 2019- School year 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Number of cases 19 19 16 20 23

(2) Table 1 below sets out the number of psychiatric patients aged below 18 who were treated in the Hospital Authority ("HA") and diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, behavioural and emotional disorders, schizophrenic spectrum disorder or depression/depressive disorders by age group from 2015-2016 to 2019-2020. HA does not maintain information on the number of students receiving psychiatric services from private hospitals/clinics.

Table 1

Number of patients aged below 18 diagnosed with the following disorders(5)

Number

of psychiatric

deficit patients aged - below 18(1)(2)(3) disorder Depression/ Schizophrenic Attention Autism spectrum Behavioural and Behavioural spectrum disorder spectrum

emotional disorders emotional Depressive disorders hyperactivity disorder hyperactivity

2015- Aged below 6(2) 2 870 1 720 200 50 0 0 2016 Aged from 6 to 11(2) 15 170 4 870 6 670 680 10 20 Aged from 12 to 17(2) 10 780 2 660 4 260 900 350 430 Total(4) 28 810 9 260 11 140 1 620 360 450 2016- Aged below 6(2) 3 450 1 810 240 30 0 0 2017 Aged from 6 to 11(2) 16 680 5 520 7 540 740 10 20 Aged from 12 to 17(2) 12 170 3 050 4 940 920 360 590 Total(4) 32 310 10 380 12 720 1 700 370 610 2017- Aged below 6(2) 3 450 2 060 240 40 0 0 2018 Aged from 6 to 11(2) 17 660 6 170 8 100 720 10 20 Aged from 12 to 17(2) 13 830 3 540 5 690 950 370 740 Total(4) 34 940 11 780 14 020 1 700 380 760 2018- Aged below 6(2) 3 510 2 140 260 50 0 0 2019 Aged from 6 to 11(2) 18 980 7 070 8 970 1 010 10 20 Aged from 12 to 17(2) 15 420 4 200 6 890 1 160 350 980 Total(4) 37 910 13 410 16 120 2 210 360 1 000 4488 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

Number of patients aged below 18 diagnosed with the following disorders(5)

Number

of psychiatric

deficit patients aged - below 18(1)(2)(3) disorder Depression/ Schizophrenic Attention Autism spectrum Behavioural and Behavioural spectrum disorder spectrum

emotional disorders emotional Depressive disorders hyperactivity disorder hyperactivity

2019- Aged below 6(2) 3 410 1 940 290 70 0 0 2020 Aged from 6 to 11(2) 20 280 7 610 9 510 1 410 <5 20 Aged from 12 to 17(2) 16 660 4 660 7 610 1 290 300 1 050 Total(4) 40 350 14 210 17 420 2 760 310 1 070

Notes:

(1) Including inpatients, patients at specialist outpatient clinics and day hospitals.

(2) Age of the patients as at 30 June of the respective year.

(3) Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

(4) Individual figures may not add up to total due to rounding.

(5) The figures may not be comparable to those released in the past due to expansion in data scope since 2018-2019.

Table 2 below sets out the number of child and adolescent psychiatric specialist outpatient new cases of HA triaged as Priority 1 (urgent), Priority 2 (semi-urgent) and Routine (stable) cases and their respective median waiting time from 2015-2016 to 2019-2020.

Table 2

Priority 1 Priority 2 Routine Median Median Median Number Number Number Year waiting waiting waiting of new of new of new time time time cases cases cases (week(s)) (week(s)) (week(s)) 2015- 202 1 915 4 11 472 65 2016 2016- 267 1 875 4 10 532 69 2017 2017- 239 1 907 5 9 571 85 2018 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4489

Priority 1 Priority 2 Routine Median Median Median Number Number Number Year waiting waiting waiting of new of new of new time time time cases cases cases (week(s)) (week(s)) (week(s)) 2018- 282 1 930 4 10 751 82 2019 2019- 355 1 912 3 10 568 80 2020

Note:

In view of the emergence of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic in Hong Kong since early 2020, HA has adjusted its services in response to the epidemic along with tightening up infection control measures. Hence, the service throughput across a wide range of services provided by HA might have been reduced when compared with that of previous years.

(3) and (4)

EDB attaches great importance to the emotional education for students. In respect of school curriculum, the current curriculum framework of moral and civic education has listed "adapt to new learning environments with an optimistic and positive attitude" (lower primary level), "handle pressure rationally, and face failure bravely" (upper primary level), "appreciate your strengths and accept your weaknesses" (junior secondary level), and "be proactive and assertive, have a positive self-image" (senior secondary level) as the focuses for nurturing students in schools. EDB has also adopted "be grateful and treasure what we have, stay positive and optimistic" as the theme for the promotion of values education in schools, provided relevant learning resources, and organized student activities and teacher professional development programmes to support schools in cultivating students' positive thinking and resilience.

EDB has been encouraging schools to adopt the Whole School Approach directed at three levels, namely "Universal", "Selective" and "Indicated", to promote mental health among students and enhance support for students with mental health needs (including those with suicidal risk).

4490 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

At the Universal level, EDB has been actively promoting diversified student development programmes, such as the "Understanding Adolescent Project" for primary schools, "Enhanced Smart Teen Project" for secondary schools, and "Pupil Ambassador Scheme on Positive living" to enhance students' resilience, self-respect, self-discipline, sense of responsibility and courage to embrace changes in facing challenges through adventure-based, team-building and problem-solving training.

At the Selective level, starting from the 2007-2008 school year, EDB has been providing serving teachers with structured training courses on supporting students with special educational needs pitched at basic, advanced and thematic levels. Some modules of the courses cover mental illness. From the 2017-2018 school year onwards, EDB has also provided teachers of primary and secondary schools with the "Professional Development Programme for Mental Health", including 3-day elementary training for teachers at large and 5-day in-depth training for designated teachers with a view to raising their awareness of mental health and enhancing their professional knowledge and skills to identify and support students with mental health needs.

At the Indicated level, starting from the 2017-2018 school year, the Learning Support Grant has covered students with mental illness so that schools can have additional resources to strengthen their support for these students' learning, social, emotional and behavioural needs. Moreover, the Food and Health Bureau, in collaboration with EDB, HA and the Social Welfare Department, has launched the "Student Mental Health Support Scheme" since the 2016-2017 school year to provide appropriate support services for students with mental health needs through a school-based platform.

During the suspension of face-to-face classes, EDB has encouraged schools to keep in contact with, and express concern to, students through telephone or electronic communication. Schools should also strengthen communication with parents and jointly observe and pay attention to the behaviours of students. If students are noticed to suffer from persistent or severe emotional distress, teachers should promptly refer them to the guidance personnel, school social LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4491

workers, school-based educational psychologists or other professionals for appropriate support.

To help teachers and parents understand methods to deal with students' negative emotions arising from the epidemic and assist them to maintain mental well-being, EDB produced a series of short psychoeducational videos, namely "Suspending Classes without Suspending Love in the Epidemic" in April and May 2020. The videos have been uploaded to the EDB's YouTube Channel and "Smart Parent Net" website. Besides, EDB organized 20 sessions of workshops from September to November 2020 and invited psychiatrists to share with school personnel the skills of early identification of students with emotional difficulties and approaches to counselling and therapeutic intervention, and to discuss case studies with a view to enhancing the capabilities of teachers and other school personnel in supporting students to release their negative emotions and stress. Meanwhile, we have also issued guidelines and information on mental health, including the guidelines on "Providing Emotional Support to Students amid the Epidemic", the article on "Learning the Lesson of 'Happiness'" and the e-poster on "Preparing for the Examination Positively during the Epidemic" for reference of teachers and parents.

In summary, schools can take care of students' emotional and mental health amid the epidemic through the above mentioned measures provided by EDB and school-based support strategies. If schools find that students have emotional disturbance and mental health difficulties, they should seek assistance from relevant professionals or organizations. EDB has not collected information on the number of requests for assistance.

Assisting street sleepers

19. MS ALICE MAK (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that the number of street sleepers has obviously increased since the outbreak of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic in January last year. The reasons for them to street sleep include: inability to afford paying rent as a result of the loss of jobs due to the epidemic, the immigration restrictions and quarantine measures making it difficult for persons who travelled between the Mainland and Hong Kong on a daily basis before the epidemic to cross the boundary to return home, 4492 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 and the fast food restaurants operating 24 hours a day where homeless people used to stay at night being required to suspend operation at the specified hours as directed by the Government. Furthermore, as a result of voluntary organizations cutting back on their services of distributing free food items to street sleepers due to the epidemic, street sleepers are facing a more difficult situation. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it has compiled statistics on how the number of street sleepers has varied with the fluctuations of the epidemic situation during the past 12 months; if so, of the outcome;

(2) whether it has endeavoured to provide meals on an emergency basis for street sleepers amid the epidemic;

(3) whether it will consider opening temporary shelters at night for street sleepers to stay overnight on a temporary basis;

(4) whether it will follow the following practice adopted in countries such as the United Kingdom, France and Australia: renting hotel rooms to provide temporary accommodation for street sleepers in the light of the severe epidemic situation; whether it will allocate additional resources and increase the manpower of social workers to enhance the service of assisting street sleepers in finding more stable accommodation; and

(5) whether it will set aside some of the transitional housing units for street sleepers to wait for admission?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Chinese): President, street sleeping is a complex social problem involving policies and work of various bureaux and departments. With regard to the Member's question, having consulted the ("HAB") and the Transport and Housing Bureau ("THB"), I set out the reply as follows:

(1) and (2)

The Social Welfare Department ("SWD") provides subvention to non-governmental organizations ("NGOs") to operate three Integrated Service Teams ("ISTs") for Street Sleepers. ISTs reach out to and visit street sleepers for early identification of their needs LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4493

to provide appropriate social welfare support and service referral. During the pandemic, ISTs have stepped up outreaching visits so as to reach out to street sleepers in need and provide them with the services required, including the short-term food assistance specifically mentioned in the question. In 2019 and 2020, SWD-subvented ISTs and related units contacted about 1 300 and 1 500 street sleepers respectively.

(3) According to the information provided by HAB, under the existing mechanism, the Government will open temporary shelters when tropical cyclone warning signal No. 8 or above, landslip warning, red/black rainstorm warning signal or cold/very hot weather warning is in force or during the outbreak of a major fire to provide temporary accommodation for people in need, including but not limited to street sleepers. Moreover, HAB pointed out that as the COVID-19 epidemic has persisted, members of the public should continue to maintain social distancing and avoid crowding so as to reduce the risks of the spread of the virus and a large-scale outbreak in the community. HAB is therefore unable to implement the proposal to open temporary shelters at night for street sleepers in view of the risks involved and the consideration that it is not in line with the policy objectives mentioned above.

(4) and (5)

There are 228 SWD-subvented emergency or short-term hostel places operated by NGOs. During the street sleepers' stay, IST social workers will continue to provide them with assistance, including the identification of a more stable accommodation.

According to THB, generally speaking, the beneficiaries of transitional housing projects shall meet the following criteria:

(i) waiting for public rental housing for not less than three years; or

(ii) living in severely inadequate housing conditions and are in urgent need for housing.

The operating organizations will draw up the detailed criteria for application according to their service specialties.

4494 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

Making inquiries to registered voters

20. MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Chinese): President, the Electoral Affairs Commission (Registration of Electors) (Legislative Council Geographical Constituencies) (District Council Constituencies) Regulation (Cap. 541A) provides that the Electoral Registration Officer may issue inquiry letters to persons registered in an existing final register of electors ("register"), and remove from the new register the voter registration ("VR") of persons who have failed to make a valid reply by a specified deadline. It is learnt that a new VR cycle has commenced. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the total number of registered voters, in the last VR cycle and since the commencement of the current VR cycle, who failed to reply to the inquiry letters by the specified deadline; whether the Registration and Electoral Office ("REO") knows the reasons concerned;

(2) whether REO has, apart from issuing inquiry letters, confirmed the registered particulars, such as the principal residential addresses, of registered voters by means of making telephone calls, sending emails and paying home visits, etc. during the last VR cycle and since the commencement of the current VR cycle; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(3) whether measures are in place to ensure that the VR of registered voters, who are absent from Hong Kong for reasons such as the epidemic, will not be removed due to their failure to reply to the inquiry letters in time; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Chinese): President, to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the voter registration ("VR") particulars, the Registration and Electoral Office ("REO") implements a series of checking measures in each VR cycle, including follow-up inquiries on undelivered poll cards arising from elections; cross-matching of the residential addresses of electors with the , the Hong Kong LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4495

Housing Society, the and the Immigration Department; checks on residential addresses with multiple electors or multiple surnames of electors; random sample checks on registered and newly registered electors; checks on addresses with incomplete information or suspected non-residential addresses; and checks on addresses situated at buildings already demolished or vacant buildings to be demolished. After implementing or following up with the checking measures, if REO has reasonable grounds to suspect that the registered residential addresses might not be the only or principal residence of certain electors, it will issue inquiry letters to the electors concerned, requesting them to confirm or update their registered addresses. If the electors concerned fail to reply or provide the necessary information by the deadline, REO will, in accordance with the relevant statutory procedures, enter the said electors into the omissions list.

With regard to Mr CHAN Han-pan's question, our reply is as follows:

(1) In the 2020 VR cycle, the number of electors who were omitted from the 2020 final register due to failure to respond to inquiry letters by the statutory deadline was 47 084. In fact, in the 2020 VR cycle, the response rate of electors to inquiry letters was around 51%, similar to that in 2019 (which was 50%), suggesting that no irregularities occurred in the response rate towards inquiry letters in the 2020 VR cycle. As for the 2021 VR cycle which is still ongoing, REO is issuing inquiry letters progressively, with the statutory deadline for electors to respond to such inquiry letters on 2 May 2021. As such, the relevant response rates are not yet available.

REO issues inquiry letters to the electors when REO has reasonable doubts having regard to the results from implementing or following up with the checking measures. The outcome of the checking exercise shows that the inaccuracies detected in respect of registered residential addresses are mostly because of the failure on the part of electors to update their registered residential addresses with REO in a timely manner after moving home, which has led to such electors not responding to the inquiry letters issued to them.

4496 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

(2) and (3)

We have all along adopted various means to remind and facilitate electors included in the inquiry process to respond to the inquiry letters in a timely manner. This includes featuring the relevant messages in the VR Campaigns and disseminating them through different channels, such as broadcasting Announcements in the Public Interest on television and radio, placing online advertisements on websites, online newspapers and mobile applications, as well as displaying posters, banners, lamppost buntings and advertisements at public transport.

Moreover, after issuing the inquiry letters, REO will actively contact the electors who have been included in the inquiry process via all of the available contact methods (e.g. telephone, SMS, email and fax) as provided by the electors during their registration, so as to remind them to respond to the inquiry letters by the statutory deadline. If REO becomes aware that an elector affected by the epidemic and relevant matters is unable to return to Hong Kong in time to handle his VR matters, REO would, as far as practicable, make suitable arrangements to bring the inquiry letters to his attention and to facilitate his reply, such as by sending an electronic copy of the said inquiry letter to the elector concerned via email. Electors included in the inquiry process may respond to REO by post, email or fax.

If an elector has been entered into the omissions list due to failure to respond to the inquiry letters by the statutory deadline, REO will separately issue reminder letters stamped with the message "Immediate action required. Your voting right is at stake." to such electors. REO will also attempt to contact these electors as far as practicable according to the contact information available, so as to remind them to respond or to lodge a claim by the statutory deadline, for the consideration and approval of the Revising Officer to maintain their voter registration.

During both the 2020 and 2021 VR cycles, we have, in the manner described above, publicized the VR Campaign and put in place arrangements to facilitate electors in responding to inquiry letters.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4497

Control on import and export of wastes

21. MR TONY TSE (in Chinese): President, under the new amendments to the Basel Convention ("BC") on regulating the transboundary movement of waste plastics, with effect from 1 January 2021, any person must, prior to conducting transboundary movement of regulated waste plastics, obtain a permit or written consent from the states of export, import and transit concerned. Some environmental groups have pointed out that Hong Kong is the largest export destination for waste plastics from the United States, which, however, is not a signatory to BC. They are worried that the aforesaid requirement along with the Mainland's implementation of measures on banning the import of "foreign rubbish" will turn Hong Kong from a transit point into the final destination of such wastes. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the respective quantities of (i) regulated and (ii) non-regulated waste plastics exported from, imported to and re-exported through Hong Kong, in each of the past five years, with a breakdown by export and import destinations;

(2) of the number of crimes in each of the past five years relating to the import and export of waste plastics, with a breakdown by type of offences involved; the respective numbers of relevant prosecutions and convictions;

(3) of the number of operations of random inspections conducted in each of the past five years by the Customs and Excise Department or the Environmental Protection Department for export, import and re-export containers of waste plastics and other foreign rubbish; whether the Government has assessed the effectiveness of such operations;

(4) of the number of waste plastics containers repatriated to Hong Kong in each of the past five years after they had been exported or re-exported from Hong Kong, and the ways in which such wastes were disposed of; and

(5) of the measures in place to reduce the impacts of the aforesaid amendments to BC on Hong Kong in order to prevent Hong Kong from being turned into the final destination of foreign rubbish?

4498 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Chinese): President, the Environmental Protection Department ("EPD") has all along been regulating waste import/export activities in Hong Kong pursuant to the Waste Disposal Ordinance ("WDO"), Chapter 354 of the Laws of Hong Kong. Any person who intends to import/export recyclables must apply to EPD for a permit, unless such recyclables are specified in the 6th Schedule to WDO, and are uncontaminated and imported/exported only for the purpose of reuse or recycling.

Our reply to the question raised by Mr Tony TSE is as follows:

(1) The new amendments to the Basel Convention ("BC") on regulating the transboundary movement of waste plastics have come into effect since 1 January 2021. In the past, the transboundary movement of waste plastics was not controlled under BC and waste plastics were not classified into "regulated waste plastics" or "non-regulated waste plastics". Also, applications to EPD for import/export of waste plastics were not required. According to the external merchandise trade statistics compiled by the Census and Statistics Department ("C&SD"), the respective quantities of waste plastics imported, exported and re-exported over the past five years (i.e. 2016 to 2020), with a breakdown by supplier/destination, are set out in the table below.

Waste plastics imported 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 (by supplier and showing (1) the top five suppliers) Unit: '000 tonnes - The United States 782 520 172 127 75 - Japan 617 366 78 71 36 - Germany 221 139 63 87 43 - Belgium 101 73 35 51 26 - Mexico 50 60 37 34 19 - Others 1 106 732 216 243 100 Total(2) 2 876 1 889 601 614 298

(3) Waste plastics exported 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 (by destination and showing the (1) top five destinations) Unit: '000 tonnes - The Mainland 118 96 0 - - - Vietnam 0 0 2 2 6 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4499

(3) Waste plastics exported 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 (by destination and showing the (1) top five destinations) Unit: '000 tonnes - Thailand 0 0 5 - 1 - Malaysia - 5 1 0 0 - Germany - - - - 1 - Others 0 1 0 0 0 Total(2) 119 102 8 3 7

Waste plastics re-exported 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 (by destination and showing the (1) top five destinations) Unit: '000 tonnes - The Mainland 2 687 1 615 49 0 0 - Thailand 0 11 111 93 28 - Vietnam 2 21 30 79 56 - Malaysia 1 28 70 51 16 - Indonesia 0 0 5 1 3 - Others 8 13 15 7 2 Total(2) 2 698 1 689 280 232 105

Notes:

(1) Amounts less than 500 tonnes are shown as 0.

(2) The above figures may not add up to total due to rounding off.

(3) Waste plastics exported refer to the waste plastics exported from Hong Kong and do not include waste plastics that have been processed and converted into raw materials.

(2) The transboundary movement of waste plastics was not controlled under BC in the past and as a result, EPD did not detect any cases relating to illegal import/export of waste plastics over the past five years. During the same period, the Customs and Excise Department ("C&ED") also did not detect any cases of misdescription of type of goods or origin fraud that involved waste plastics.

(3) Over the past five years (i.e. 2016 to 2020), EPD collaborated with C&ED to inspect a total of some 4 040 containers at various control points and intercepted 420 containers involving illegal import/export of waste, with 255 prosecutions completed so far. The total fine imposed by the court amounted to some $3.67 million. As 4500 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

transboundary movement of waste plastics was not controlled under BC in the past, no cases of illegal import/export of waste plastics were involved.

(4) Over the past five years (i.e. 2016 to 2020), there was only one case in 2019 when 12 containers of waste plastics exported from Hong Kong were repatriated by Malaysia. Investigation by EPD revealed that non-hazardous plastic casings of waste flat panel displays were shipped in the containers, which were not claimed in Malaysia upon arrival due to commercial disputes and were thus repatriated, and that the exporter concerned had not breached WDO. The waste plastics involved were eventually recycled, with five containers treated in local recycling facilities while the remaining seven containers shipped overseas for recycling.

(5) Following the enhanced control on transboundary movements of waste plastics under BC, EPD has stepped up the import/export control on waste plastics since 1 January 2021. Except for the single-type and uncontaminated waste plastics listed in BC that are destined for recycling in an environmentally sound manner, all other waste plastics are regarded as "regulated waste plastics". Any person who intends to import, export or re-export "regulated waste plastics" into, from or via Hong Kong must apply to EPD in advance for the relevant waste import/export permit in accordance with WDO or be granted with a re-export consent.

As for "non-regulated waste plastics", a declaration form and relevant documents should be submitted to EPD in advance to prove that the materials to be shipped do not fall into the category of "regulated waste plastics" as aforesaid. This will facilitate EPD in enhancing its intelligence exchange with the exporting/importing countries concerned and stepping up spot inspections, in a joint effort to intercept suspicious cases of false declaration or non-compliance. Prior to the commencement of BC, EPD organized a total of four briefings in 2020 to explain to the local recycling trades and the shipping sectors the control arrangements LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4501

and documentation requirements involved. Detailed guidelines and samples of necessary documents have also been uploaded to the dedicated websites for use by the trades.

EPD will continue to spare no efforts in working closely with enforcement authorities outside Hong Kong. We will also strengthen our intelligence exchange with C&ED and, based on risk assessment results, inspect suspicious shipments at all boundary control points to combat illegal import/export of waste, with a view to preventing Hong Kong from becoming a distribution hub of illegally imported/exported waste, and ensuring that no imported waste is disposed of at our landfills.

Newly established schools

22. MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that Queen's Hill Estate and Shan Lai Court, which are located at Queen's Hill in Fanling, will be completed for intake within this year, and two primary schools (namely TWGHs Tseng Hin Pei Primary School and The Salvation Army Queen's Hill School) in the vicinity are under construction. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it knows if the aforesaid two schools will commence classes in September this year as scheduled, and the latest progress of their teacher recruitment, student admission, etc.;

(2) of the approved class structures, numbers of classes, numbers of students at each grade, numbers of teachers, and amounts of regular subventions in respect of the two schools;

(3) whether the Education Bureau ("EDB") has formulated a contingency plan which specifies the arrangements for the teachers employed and students admitted in the event that the two schools cannot commence classes as scheduled;

4502 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

(4) given that the two schools have not been included in the Choice of Schools List for Central Allocation (Primary One Admission 2021) for selection by parents, how EDB assists the schools in admitting students, particularly the admission of those primary students who will soon move into Queen's Hill Estate and Shan Lai Court;

(5) whether EDB has formulated plans to assist those students who are studying in other primary schools in transferring to the two schools after they have moved into Queen's Hill Estate and Shan Lai Court; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(6) as some members of the education sector have pointed out that the regular subvention received by an aided school is calculated on the basis of the number of students, but the student intakes of newly established schools at the initial stage are often lower than the target numbers, and such a situation is not conducive to the development of these schools, whether EDB has plans to improve the method for calculating the subventions received by newly established schools; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Chinese): President, our reply to Mr CHAN Hak-kan's question is as follows:

(1) to (3)

The school building works of the two primary schools at Queen's Hill, Fanling are on schedule. It is expected that the new schools will be completed in the third quarter of 2021 for operation in the 2021-2022 school year. The main buildings of the two school premises have been completed and the internal fitting-out works are underway. It is hoped that the two school premises can be handed over to the school sponsoring bodies as soon as possible. The Education Bureau ("EDB") will continue to maintain close communication with the school sponsoring bodies on the preparatory work (including matters related to class arrangement, staffing and student admission) of the two new schools, so as to offer advice and support as appropriate to facilitate the school sponsoring bodies in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4503

preparing for the operation of the new schools. EDB will, based on the Code of Aid and the principles set out in the relevant circulars, compute the staff establishment and recurrent cash grants according to the number of approved classes of the schools. In addition, EDB will also provide the schools with additional teaching and professional support staff as well as recurrent and non-recurrent cash grants in accordance with the specific measures in various aspects.

(4) and (5)

EDB will provide placement assistance services for prospective residents of Queen's Hill Estate and Shan Lai Court. Regarding prospective Primary One ("P1") students in the coming school year, residents who will move into Queen's Hill Estate and Shan Lai Court may approach the School Places Allocation ("SPA") Section of EDB to apply for net transfer or P1 places for their children on or before 31 August 2021. Under the prevailing mechanism, if parents need to apply for transfer to another school net for their children after participating in the Primary One Admission ("POA") System because of allocation of public rental housing ("PRH") flats, they may bring along the flat offer letters of the related estates or other relevant documentary proofs to the SPA Section of EDB to apply for the net transfer. EDB will allocate school places for these children in the school net at which the estates are located (i.e. School Net 81 of the North District) according to the established procedures. For parents who wish to apply for joining the POA 2021 for their children (for admission to P1 in September 2021) but have not yet submitted applications, they may bring along relevant documents to the SPA Section of EDB for application on or before 31 August 2021. As for students currently attending primary schools in other districts who wish to transfer to a school in the district after moving into Queen's Hill Estate or Shan Lai Court, they may make applications to EDB and we will make referrals.

To facilitate prospective residents' understanding of the details of the services, EDB will provide school transfer information, a list of schools in the district and application forms of the aforesaid placement assistance services for distribution by the Housing 4504 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

Department to residents allocated with PRH flats. Parents who wish to transfer their children to the above two schools may also contact the schools concerned directly to apply for admission.

(6) Generally speaking, the staffing and resources required of a school depend on the number of classes it operates. Regarding the funding provision for aided schools, irrespective of whether they are newly established or existing aided schools, EDB will, based on the Code of Aid and the principles set out in the relevant circulars, compute the staff establishment and recurrent cash grants according to the number of approved classes of the schools. Among the grants, the annual Expanded Operating Expenses Block Grant will normally be released on a quarterly basis. For example, in respect of the two new schools mentioned in the question, EDB will, with regard to the progress of intake of residents of Queen's Hill Estate and Shan Lai Court, consider approving the operation of additional classes at the relevant grades as necessary in the middle of the school year to meet the demand for school places. EDB will adjust the staff establishment and the amount of relevant funding accordingly to ensure that the new schools have sufficient resources in providing quality education services to the residents.

In addition, EDB will continue to provide each aided school (including newly established schools) with additional teaching and professional support staff, such as special educational needs coordinator, executive officer, social worker, educational psychologist and speech therapist in accordance with specific measures in various aspects. Besides, recurrent and non-recurrent cash grants for specific policy objectives will also be disbursed, enabling schools to deploy resources flexibly in view of their school-based needs. Schools can hire additional contract teachers and ancillary staff on top of the approved establishment or procure outside services to provide necessary support for students.

To conclude, EDB will provide sufficient resources to meet the operational needs of all newly established and existing aided schools.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4505

GOVERNMENT BILLS

First Reading and Second Reading of Government Bills

First Reading of Government Bills

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Government Bill: First Reading.

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL (AMENDMENT) BILL 2021

CRIMES (AMENDMENT) BILL 2021

FREE-FLOW TOLLING (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL 2021

SECURITIES AND FUTURES AND COMPANIES LEGISLATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 2021

INLAND REVENUE (AMENDMENT) (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL 2021

CLERK (in Cantonese): Air Pollution Control (Amendment) Bill 2021 Crimes (Amendment) Bill 2021 Free-flow Tolling (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2021 Securities and Futures and Companies Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2021 Inland Revenue (Amendment) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2021

Bills read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Rule 53(3) of the Rules of Procedure.

Second Reading of Government Bills

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Government Bill: Second Reading.

4506 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL (AMENDMENT) BILL 2021

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, I move the Second Reading of the Air Pollution Control (Amendment) Bill 2021 ("the Amendment Bill"). The Amendment Bill aims to update the air quality objectives ("AQOs") under the Air Pollution Control Ordinance ("APCO") (Cap. 311).

AQOs are the goals for the Government to devise air quality improvement plans, and also the benchmark for assessing air quality. The prevailing AQOs took effect on 1 January 2014 and are benchmarked against the interim and ultimate targets of the World Health Organization Air Quality Guidelines ("WHO AQGs"). They cover 12 objectives of seven air pollutants based on different averaging time. Half of them have already adopted the ultimate targets of WHO AQGs, while the remaining six are set at the interim targets of WHO AQGs. APCO stipulates that AQOs must be reviewed at least once every five years.

The completed the AQOs review in late 2018. After considering a series of prevailing and new air quality improvement measures, and analysing past air quality data, the review showed that the overall air quality in Hong Kong was improving progressively. The 2025 air quality in Hong Kong was also assessed in the review. The result revealed that there would be a continuous improvement in air quality. Meanwhile, the review recommended tightening three AQOs (including the 24-hour AQO for sulphur dioxide, as well as the 1-year and 24-hour AQO for fine suspended particulates (PM2.5)).

After conducting a three-month public consultation in 2019 on the review recommendations, the Environment Bureau reported the outcome of public consultation to the Legislative Council Panel on Environmental Affairs and the Advisory Council on the Environment in late 2019 and early 2020 respectively. After considering the views of different parties and various factors, we put forward the Amendment Bill to implement the review recommendations on tightening the three AQOs mentioned above.

Once the new AQOs come into effect, the requirements and levels of air pollution control on designated projects and specified processes under APCO and the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance ("EIAO") should be strengthened accordingly in order to meet the more stringent AQOs.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4507

Apart from updating the three AQOs, a transitional arrangement for designated projects with Environment Permits issued under EIAO before the commencement of the new AQOs will be included in the Amendment Bill. For these projects, if an application for a variation of the conditions of an Environment Permit is lodged within 36 months of the commencement of the new AQOs, AQOs in force since 1 January 2014 will continue to be used as the criteria for consideration. This time-limited transitional arrangement can preserve the integrity of the Environmental Impact Assessment ("EIA") system and provide regulatory certainty for project proponents who have already completed the EIA process. Similar transitional arrangement was also provided when we set the prevailing AQOs for designated projects.

The next round of AQOs review is in progress to assess the latest technological development and further measures to improve air quality, so that there will be a continuous improvement in air quality. Our ultimate goal is to attain the ultimate targets of WHO AQGs. The review will be completed in 2023. Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Air Pollution Control (Amendment) Bill 2021 be read the Second time.

In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the Second Reading debate is adjourned and the Bill is referred to the House Committee.

CRIMES (AMENDMENT) BILL 2021

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, I move the Second Reading of the Crimes (Amendment) Bill 2021 ("the Bill") to introduce specific offences against voyeurism, non-consensual recording of intimate parts and non-consensual publication of intimate images.

There is currently no specific offence against voyeurism or non-consensual recording of intimate parts (such as upskirt photography). Depending on the circumstances of each case, prosecution is made against such acts in accordance with different legal provisions currently in force, such as "loitering" and "access 4508 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 to computer with criminal or dishonest intent" under Crimes Ordinance ("the Ordinance"), "disorder in public places" under Public Order Ordinance and "outraging public decency" under common law.

The Court of Final Appeal handed down a judgment in a case involving an offence of "access to computer with criminal or dishonest intent" under section 161 of the Ordinance in 2019. It ruled that it was no longer appropriate for the prosecution to press charge against the suspect under the section if the act involved only the use of the suspect's own computer. Moreover, there are limitations in the other offences that I just mentioned. For example, some offences are applicable only to acts that occur in a public place or a place where what is done is capable of public view, while some cannot reflect the severity of surreptitious intimate photography as they are summary offences with relatively low levels of penalty.

The Review of Sexual Offences Sub-committee of the Law Reform Commission published the Report on Voyeurism and Non-consensual Upskirt-Photography in April 2019 in which the introduction of offences against such acts was recommended. The Government accepted its recommendations and launched a three-month public consultation in July 2020. The public in general supported the legislative proposal.

We listened to the views of the members of the Legislative Council Panel on Security after public consultation and I thank members for their valuable opinions. The Security Bureau has concluded after considering the overall views, that amendments should be proposed to the Ordinance (Cap. 200) to introduce four new offences.

First, we propose to introduce an offence of voyeurism. It is an offence for a person to surreptitiously observe or record an intimate part or an intimate act of the victim who is in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, without his or her consent.

Second, the Bill proposes to introduce an offence of non-consensual recording of intimate parts for the prosecution against "upskirt" and "down-blousing" (commonly referred to as "high-angle") photography. Under the proposal, a person commits an offence if he or she records an intimate part of an individual, or operates equipment for the purpose of observing or recording an LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4509 intimate part of the individual from beneath the clothing, or operates equipment in an unreasonable manner for the purpose of observing or recording an intimate part of the individual through an opening or a gap in the outer clothing of the individual, in circumstances in which the intimate part would not otherwise be visible, and such observation or recording is (1) for a sexual purpose, or (2) for a purpose to obtain dishonest gain for the person or for any other person.

(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair)

There have been different views as to whether the proposed offence should cover "down-blousing" ("high-angle photography"), including the disparity in the opinions in society on the exposure of female and male breasts, and the concerns about the abuse of the legal provisions relating to the offence. When we consulted the Legislative Council Panel on Security in January this year, a number of members thought that "down-blousing" should be dealt with in the amendments this time so as to respond to public views, while some members were concerned about the harm arisen from the publication of intimate images.

With due consideration of their views as a whole, we suggest that we should also deal with "down-blousing" in the legislative amendment proposal this time, and for clear scoping, terms have been included when we drafted the Bill, i.e. the act is done in circumstances in which the intimate part would not otherwise be visible; and the observing or recording is for a sexual purpose, or for the purpose of obtaining dishonest gain.

Furthermore, we propose to introduce two offences relating to the publication of intimate images, (1) the publication without consent of intimate images that originate from the commission of the offence of voyeurism or non-consensual recording of intimate parts; and (2) the publication or threatened publication without consent of intimate images. The latter one specifically targets situations in which consent might have been given, or was given by the victim, for the taking of such intimate images, but not for the publication thereafter (such as the publication of intimate images out of revenge). It is an offence if the publisher intends, knows or is reckless as to whether the publication will or is likely to cause humiliation, alarm or distress to the victim.

4510 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

The four above mentioned offences carry a maximum penalty of five years of imprisonment to reflect the severity of the harm to the victims. This is also the majority views collected from the consultations. It is also provided in the Bill that it is a defence for a person charged for any one of the proposed new offences to establish that the person had lawful authority or reasonable excuse for the contravention

Deputy President, the Bill specifically targets behaviour that seriously violates the victim's right to privacy and sexual autonomy. While such offences cause serious harm to the victims, the development of media nowadays has rendered this kind of harm more far-reaching, persistent and hard to remedy. There is a pressing need to enact legislation to prohibit such dreadful offences. I hope that Members can support the Bill. Deputy President, I so submit.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Crimes (Amendment) Bill 2021 be read the Second time.

In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the Second Reading debate is adjourned and the Bill is referred to the House Committee.

FREE-FLOW TOLLING (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL 2021

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I move the Second Reading of the Free-Flow Tolling (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2021 ("the Bill").

Implementation of the "free-flow tolling system" ("FFTS") is a major "Smart Mobility" initiative set out in the Smart City Blueprint for Hong Kong 2.0. FFTS makes use of technology to bring convenience to motorists by allowing them to remotely pay the tunnel tolls with a toll tag through the Radio Frequency Identification technology. Upon implementation of FFTS, motorists are no longer required to stop at a toll booth for manual toll payment when passing through a tolled tunnel, thus helping to improve the traffic in the vicinity of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4511 tunnels. Moreover, there is no need to retain the toll booths at toll plazas after FFTS is implemented, and their demolition will free up space which can be used for other transport-related purposes, such as enlargement of the existing bus stops and enhancement of the facilities at the waiting areas. In other words, FFTS not only will bring convenience to motorists, but will also benefit the commuting public.

The Bill seeks to provide the legal backing for the implementation of FFTS at the government tolled tunnels and Tsing Sha Control Area ("TSCA"). Mainly speaking, the Bill has three major purposes.

The first purpose is to amend the Road Tunnels (Government) Ordinance (Cap. 368) and the Tsing Sha Control Area Ordinance (Cap. 594) and their subsidiary legislation, so as to provide for FFTS-related matters, including:

(a) designating the toll areas to be operated without toll booths;

(b) providing for the toll collection and recovery mechanisms under FFTS, which include specifying registered vehicle owners as the responsible persons for toll payment under FFTS irrespective of the drivers' identities, while international circulation permit, trade licence or movement permit holders are the responsible persons for toll payment in the case of vehicles used under such permits or licences. As regards the failure to pay outstanding tolls, the Bill provides for the mechanism for imposing surcharges on the responsible person;

(c) providing for the remuneration arrangements for the toll service provider engaged by the Government, and the financial penalties that the Government may impose on the toll service provider for breach of agreement; and

(d) providing for related offences such as preventing the use of tolled tunnels from being detected by FFTS.

4512 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

The second purpose is to amend the Road Traffic Ordinance (Cap. 374) to empower the Secretary for Transport and Housing to make regulations to regulate the issue and use of toll tags. According to the current plan, we will make new regulations upon passage of the Bill. We will provide for new offences relating to toll tags, including forging or interfering with toll tags, affixing incorrect toll tags, not affixing toll tags in a specified manner, driving a motor vehicle with an incorrect toll tag, etc. under the amended Road Traffic Ordinance and the new regulations.

The third purpose is to amend the Road Traffic (Registration and Licensing of Vehicles) Regulations (Cap. 374E) to require responsible persons to provide to the Transport Department ("TD") their email addresses or mobile phone numbers in vehicle-related applications, and be responsible for providing to TD their updated contact details, so as to enable the toll service provider engaged by TD to send them toll payment notifications by electronic means after the implementation of FFTS.

The Transport Advisory Committee and the Panel on Transport of this Council were already consulted in mid-December last year and this January respectively. Their members generally expressed support for the Government's expeditious implementation of FFTS. In addition, we have been communicating with the transport trade and other stakeholders and listening to their views through various channels, so as to ensure the smooth implementation of the new system.

TD and the relevant government departments are now pressing ahead at full steam with various preparatory work, including engaging toll service provider, developing a backend system, procuring new toll facilities etc., and will collect the email addresses or mobile phone numbers of the responsible persons when the Bill is passed. Our present target is to gradually implement FFTS at various government tolled tunnels and TSCA from late 2022 onwards. Meanwhile, the Government will step up its efforts in publicizing the benefits of FFTS and promoting its use, in the hope of soliciting more support from vehicle owners and their early adoption of toll tags.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4513

The detailed proposals of the Bill have been set out in the Legislative Council Brief concerned. Deputy President, I implore Members to support the Bill, so that we can implement FFTS as soon as possible, thereby enabling Hong Kong to take a big step in its development into a smart city.

I so submit. Thank you, Deputy President.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Free-Flow Tolling (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2021 be read the Second time.

In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the Second Reading debate is adjourned and the Bill is referred to the House Committee.

SECURITIES AND FUTURES AND COMPANIES LEGISLATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 2021

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I move the Second Reading of the Securities and Futures and Companies Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2021 ("the Bill").

The Bill aims mainly to amend existing legislation such as the Securities and Futures Ordinance ("SFO") and the Companies Ordinance ("CO"), so as to implement two measures that can elevate financial market infrastructure and strengthen the regulatory framework, including the implementation of an Uncertificated Securities Market ("USM") regime and the refinement of the over-the-counter ("OTC") derivative licensing regime.

At present, most of the trading in stocks of listed companies is executed via the trading system of the Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited ("HKEX") in paperless form, for both the buyers and sellers hold only the beneficial interest in the securities they own through a nominee instead of holding the title to such securities. Currently, investors must use paper instruments if they want to hold and transfer securities in their own names.

4514 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

The Government strives to push forward the full implementation of the USM regime in Hong Kong, so that investors can choose a digitalized environment for the holding and transfer of legal title to securities in addition to the current practice of holding and transferring the beneficial interest in securities through a nominee. In other words, upon the full implementation of the USM regime, both the holding and transfer of legal title to or the beneficial interest in securities can be done in uncertificated form.

Not only will the full implementation of USM enable investors to enjoy better legal protection and enhance corporate governance, but it will also better refine our financial market infrastructure, which is essential for reinforcing Hong Kong's position as an international financial centre and further enhancing market efficiency and competitiveness.

The full implementation of USM in Hong Kong has been discussed for years and a few milestones have been reached in the past with some legislative work completed in earlier years under the concerted efforts of the Government, the Securities and Futures Commission ("SFC"), HKEX, the Federation of Share Registrars Limited ("FSR") and the industry. With further feedback from the industry and the continuous evolvement of the market, I am delighted to see that the industry and the stakeholders have reached a consensus concerning the implementation of USM under a revised operational model ("Revised Model").

Apart from retaining the current option of the Hong Kong Securities Clearing Company Limited ("HKSCC") holding securities for investors in the name of a nominee, the Revised Model provides another option for investors by enabling them to hold legal title to securities directly in uncertificated form. Such operation mode entails minimal structural change to the overall operational arrangements in the market, thus preserving the existing settlement efficiencies and the relatively low intraday liquidity needs that market participants currently enjoy, as well as enhancing investors' legal title to securities.

SFC, HKEX and FSR have conducted a joint consultation on the Revised Model, and we have consulted the Legislative Council Panel on Financial Affairs on the proposal. Both the market and the Panel supported it.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4515

The implementation of the above mentioned USM regime under the Revised Model will necessitate amendments to existing legislation, such as SFO and CO. The proposed amendments will provide for the broad framework of the USM regime under the Revised Model and empower SFC to make rules relating to the operational and detailed regulatory matters under the regime. Besides, upon implementation of the USM regime, the current $5 fixed stamp duty will no longer be chargeable on prescribed securities transferred without an instrument of transfer.

Should the Bill be passed by the Legislative Council, it is expected that a phased approach will be adopted to implement the USM regime by the end of 2022, starting first with listed shares of companies incorporated in Hong Kong and then listed shares of companies incorporated in other jurisdictions outside Hong Kong. The Government is determined to fully implement the USM regime as soon as possible.

Apart from the implementation of the USM regime, the Bill also refines the regulatory framework of the OTC derivative market.

After the global financial crisis in 2008, the Group of Twenty ("G20") Leaders have been committed to reforming and strengthening the regulatory regime for the OTC derivatives market. In line with the commitments made by G20, Hong Kong has been striving to develop a regulatory regime for the OTC derivatives market progressively.

An OTC derivative regulatory framework was established in Hong Kong earlier under the Securities and Futures (Amendment) Ordinance 2014, including the future introduction of the OTC derivative licensing regime.

After due consideration of the further opinions given by the industry, we propose some technical amendments to the scope of regulated activities ("RAs") under the OTC derivative licensing regime to better reflect the policy intent under a risk-based environment.

The main purposes of making current amendments are to carve out clearly activities that are not intended to be covered by the OTC derivative licensing regime, mainly activities not involving any systemic risk, such as corporate treasury activities of the affiliates of financial groups, and activities of providers of post-trade multilateral portfolio compression services that can minimize 4516 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 systemic risks; and to avoid duplicate regulation. SFC has consulted the industry on the proposals concerned and has gained their support.

Deputy President, the two above mentioned measures can further refine the financial market infrastructure and the regulatory regime in Hong Kong, and strengthen Hong Kong's competitiveness as an international financial centre. I hope that the Bill can be passed by the Legislative Council as soon as possible.

I so submit. Thank you, Deputy President.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Securities and Futures and Companies Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2021 be read the Second time.

In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the Second Reading debate is adjourned and the Bill is referred to the House Committee

INLAND REVENUE (AMENDMENT) (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL 2021

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I move the Second Reading of the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2021 ("the Bill"). The Bill aims to amend the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap. 112) ("IRO") in four areas.

The first one is the tax treatment for amalgamation of companies under the court-free procedures as provided for under the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 622) ("CO"). Since 3 March 2014, CO has provided for a court-free amalgamation procedure for wholly-owned intra-group companies incorporated in Hong Kong and limited by shares to amalgamate. At present, the Inland Revenue Department ("IRD") makes assessments on qualifying amalgamation cases in accordance with the interim administrative assessment practice. For clarity and certainty, we propose to amend IRO to provide for tax treatment for qualifying amalgamations, including the following: the amalgamated company must comply with all obligations and meet all liabilities of the amalgamating company in the qualifying amalgamation under IRO in respect of the year the latter ceases business or the previous year of assessment, and special tax treatment is provided to qualifying amalgamations upon election by taxpayers, etc.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4517

The second one is the tax treatment for transfer or succession of specified assets under certain circumstances. The Bill stipulates that under certain circumstances, the tax treatment for the transfer of specified assets to another person without sale should be deemed as the tax treatment for the sale of such assets. Such tax treatment will not apply to transfer by way of succession on the death of the person concerned or a qualifying amalgamation whereby the amalgamated company has elected for the above mentioned special tax treatment.

The third one is the enhancement of the statutory framework for the filing of tax returns. The Finance Committee of the Legislative Council approved a commitment last year for the enhancement of information technology systems and facilities of IRD. Among others, a Business Tax Portal will be developed to facilitate electronic submission of tax returns ("e-filing") by businesses. The proposed amendments in the Bill will provide legislative backing to IRD's plan to enable more businesses to voluntarily e-file profits tax returns including financial statements starting from 2023, with the ultimate goal of a full implementation of e-filing of profits tax returns through the Business Tax Portal. The proposed amendments will also empower the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to apply the enhanced filing mechanism to other tax returns in the future.

The fourth one is the improvement in the arrangement for foreign tax deduction. IRO only allows a relief by way of deduction of foreign tax paid in respect of certain income in a territory without a double taxation agreement ("DTA") in force with Hong Kong ("non-DTA territory"). Having duly considered stakeholders' views, we propose a change to such arrangement. For example, the arrangement will be extended to non-Hong Kong resident persons who paid such tax in DTA territories; the existing deduction available for foreign tax paid in respect of specified interest, gains and profits will be extended to cover foreign tax paid in respect of certain income if the tax is charged on gross income (such as withholding tax on royalty); and a provision will be incorporated such that deduction of foreign tax paid by a non-Hong Kong resident person will be provided only to the extent of the portion of foreign tax paid for which the person would not be entitled to utilize for claiming any relief in his jurisdiction of residence.

The proposal to expand the scope of foreign tax deduction will reduce the tax liability of the Hong Kong branches of foreign corporations, in particular foreign banks and holders of intellectual property. It will help foster a more favourable business environment, particularly reinforcing Hong Kong's 4518 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 attractiveness as a banking location, and promote Hong Kong as a research and development hub. We propose that the amendments relating to foreign tax deduction should take effect from the year of assessment of 2021-2022.

We have briefed the Legislative Council Panel on Financial Affairs on the proposals concerning qualifying amalgamations, specified assets and furnishing of returns on 4 January this year. Panel members expressed general support for the legislative proposals. We have also consulted relevant industry representatives on the legislative proposals, and have taken into account the industry's feedback when preparing the legislative amendments.

I hope that Members will support the Bill so as to implement the above mentioned amendments on the four areas under IRO.

I so submit. Thank you, Deputy President.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2021 be read the second time.

In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the Second Reading debate is adjourned and the Bill is referred to the House Committee.

GOVERNMENT MOTION

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Government motion. The Secretary for Security will move a motion on taking forward the follow-up tasks of implementing co-location arrangement at the Huanggang Port.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Each Member may only speak once and may speak for up to 15 minutes. Members who wish to speak please press the "Request to speak" button.

I now call upon the Secretary for Security to speak and move the motion.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4519

MOTION ON TAKING FORWARD THE FOLLOW-UP TASKS OF IMPLEMENTING CO-LOCATION ARRANGEMENT AT THE HUANGGANG PORT

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I move that the motion, as printed on the Agenda, be passed, so as to enable the SAR Government to expeditiously press ahead with the redevelopment of the Huanggang Port together with the Shenzhen Municipal Government, and to implement co-location arrangement at the redeveloped Huanggang Port.

According to the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area promulgated by the Central Government in February 2019, one of the seven key initiatives of the Greater Bay Area is to expedite infrastructural connectivity among cities in the area. In this connection, the Security Bureau has been striving to enhance the handling capacity and clearance facilitation of the land boundary control points, so as to promote an efficient and convenient flow of people and goods.

While the flow of people between Hong Kong and the Mainland have been seriously hindered since the rampant spread of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19") pandemic around the globe, the SAR Government has maintained close collaboration with the Shenzhen Municipal Government, continuously promoting and enhancing the handling capacity of the land boundary crossings of the two places with forward-looking strategies, and progressively implementing measures under the "East in East out, West in West out" planning strategy for cross-boundary goods traffic, including:

(1) Commissioning the cargo clearance facilities at Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai ("LT/HYW") Control Point on 26 August 2020 to encourage and give convenience to the cross-boundary goods vehicle industry to use it as a boundary crossing for cargo clearance to connect to the eastern part of Guangdong; and

(2) Implementing 24-hour cargo clearance service at the Shenzhen Bay Control Point since 10 December 2020.

4520 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

When the COVID-19 pandemic stabilizes, the two governments will commence passenger clearance service at LT/HYW Control Point and be ready to implement 24-hour clearance service at the Shenzhen Bay Port and LT/HYW Control Point in due course as appropriate.

As regards improving land boundary crossings, one of the key targets of the SAR Government is to collaborate with the Shenzhen Municipal Government to press ahead with the redevelopment of the Huanggang Port and to implement co-location arrangement at the redeveloped Huanggang Port. Since mid-2019, the SAR Government has been studying together with the Shenzhen Municipal Government the plan for the redevelopment of the Huanggang Port and the implementation of co-location arrangement. Both governments agreed that there is an actual need to take this plan forward. The major reasons are:

(1) First, Huanggang/Lok Ma Chau Control Point is one of the busiest land boundary crossings between Shenzhen and Hong Kong. Under the "East in East out, West in West out" planning strategy, Huanggang will be positioned as the most important and major land boundary crossing for passenger traffic. This, coupled with the blueprint for the development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, will expectedly lead to a significant increase in the passenger traffic between Shenzhen and Hong Kong. However, having been built for over 30 years, the Huanggang/Lok Ma Chau Control Point, if not redeveloped, has limited space for expansion on its existing basis, and will not be able to cope with the demand relating to customs clearance between the two places in the future.

(2) Second, the current passenger clearance buildings at the Huanggang/Lok Ma Chau Control Point are not directly connected, making it inconvenient for passengers to travel between them. In general, they need to rely on shuttle buses to travel between the two sides, and if they take cross-boundary coaches, they will need to alight to go through the customs clearance formalities at the ports on both the Shenzhen and Hong Kong sides before going aboard again. For this reason, the Shenzhen Government and the Hong Kong Government considered that co-location arrangement should be LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4521

implemented at the new Huanggang Port, so as to provide convenience to passengers and enhance customs clearance efficiency to cope with the increasingly frequent flow of people between the two places.

Deputy President, the 2020 Policy Address mentioned that the Chief Executive had led a government delegation to Beijing, and Shenzhen last November for in-depth exchanges with the relevant authorities on policy initiatives that will support Hong Kong's development, and had received very positive feedback. Among others, the Guangdong Provincial Government and the Shenzhen Municipal Government both agreed to vigorously promote the facilitation of customs clearance, including the implementation of co-location arrangement at the new Huanggang Port situated in Shenzhen.

After the Chief Executive delivered her Policy Address, I immediately led the representatives from the relevant Policy Bureaux and departments to meet with the Shenzhen Municipal Government, and set up a steering group on the redevelopment of the Huanggang Port co-chaired by the Executive Vice-Mayor of the Shenzhen Municipal Government and the Secretary for Security to deepen the relevant discussion. The two governments have reached the following consensus upon discussion:

(1) Co-location arrangement will be implemented at the new Huanggang Port. Taking reference from the model of the Shenzhen Bay Port, the SAR Government will set up a Hong Kong Port Area ("HKPA") in the new Huanggang Port building, and exercise full jurisdiction there to carry out customs, immigration and quarantine clearance inspections in accordance with the laws of Hong Kong.

(2) The construction of the building will be undertaken by the contractors hired by the Shenzhen Municipal Government, while the construction design of HKPA will be discussed between Shenzhen and Hong Kong to reach a consensus, so as to ensure the design and construction of HKPA are in compliance with Hong Kong laws and standards.

4522 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

(3) Financially, the Shenzhen Municipal Government has agreed in principle to bear the design and construction costs for the entire project (including HKPA). The HKSAR Government will pay the Shenzhen Municipal Government a nominal rent of RMB1,000 annually, which is similar to the financial arrangement adopted for the Express Rail Link ("XRL") West Kowloon Station.

(4) The costs of other capital non-works items for HKPA, such as furniture and equipment, and information systems for the operation at the control point by various departments will be borne by the HKSAR Government on its own. The relevant departments will seek funding from the Legislative Council as appropriate.

(5) The new Huanggang Port will be a boundary crossing for passenger traffic without providing any cargo clearance service, so as to concentrate on enhancing the service and capacity of passenger clearance, and fit in with the enhanced arrangement under the "East in East out, West in West out" planning strategy for goods traffic.

Deputy President, both the SAR Government and the Shenzhen Municipal Government are of the view that the redevelopment of the Huanggang Port and the implementation of co-location arrangement will benefit Hong Kong and Shenzhen. Tapping the opportunity of the redevelopment of the Huanggang Port, both places can upgrade the facilities and handling capacity of the Huanggang Port, so as to cope with the increasingly frequent flow of people between Hong Kong and Shenzhen under the blueprint for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area development. In this regard, the Shenzhen Municipal Government has agreed to allocate land in the new Huanggang Port for constructing the building, setting up the port areas, and putting in place the relevant supporting measures for the implementation of co-location arrangement. The Shenzhen Municipal Government is even willing to undertake the construction of the new Huanggang Port building and the costs incurred. Also, in the future, it will only collect a nominal rent from the SAR Government, which is similar to the arrangement of the XRL West Kowloon Station. I wish to take this opportunity to thank the Shenzhen Municipal Government.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4523

Upon the implementation of co-location arrangement at the new Huanggang Port in the future, passengers can go through the immigration and customs clearance formalities of Hong Kong and Shenzhen at one single location, saving the need to alight their transport to go through the formalities at the boundary crossings of the two places respectively. This will considerably improve the efficiency of clearance service and bring great convenience to passengers by reducing the customs clearance time.

In addition, after the redevelopment, the environment of the Huanggang port will be upgraded to give passengers a better experience. Meanwhile, the Shenzhen Municipal Government will also strengthen the transportation support at Huanggang Port to provide further convenience to passengers travelling between Hong Kong and different areas in Shenzhen municipality, or even other cities within the Greater Bay Area, through the Huanggang Port.

Moreover, the implementation of co-location arrangement at the Huanggang Port will vacate and release over 20 hectares of land in the current Lok Ma Chau Control Point of Hong Kong for other uses. The Development Bureau is considering the feasible use of that piece of land.

Deputy President, after we have reached a consensus with the Shenzhen Municipal Government on the five points aforementioned, both governments immediately made preparations for the follow-up work. On the basis that co-location arrangement will be implemented, we are now having a detailed discussion about the architectural design of the Huanggang Port and the arrangements concerned, with a view to commencing the construction of the Huanggang Port building as soon as possible. If the discussion about the design of the construction works goes smoothly between the two governments, the Shenzhen Municipal Government aims at completing the main works of the new Huanggang Port by the end of 2023, following which the two governments will carry out interior decoration and installation of equipment at their respective port areas. The two governments will also discuss the appropriate time to seek approval of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress for the implementation of co-location arrangement at the Huanggang Port, and the SAR Government will then proceed with the work on local legislation.

4524 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

Before the formal commencement of the design and construction works at the boundary crossing, the SAR Government would like to get the support of this Council, so that we can vigorously take forward the redevelopment project of the Huanggang Port together with the Shenzhen Municipal Government, and implement co-location arrangement based on the consensus and principles mentioned just now. In this connection, I hope that Members will support this motion and put forward precious views on the redevelopment project of the Huanggang Port for the SAR Government to take into careful consideration. It is hoped that the redevelopment arrangements can thus be enhanced. I will listen to Members' speeches and then make a consolidated response afterwards.

I hope that Members will support this government motion. Deputy President, I so submit.

The Secretary for Security moved the following motion:

"This Council supports the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR") Government in collaborating with the Shenzhen Municipal Government to press ahead the redevelopment of the Huanggang Port and to implement co-location arrangement at the redeveloped Huanggang Port, with a view to enhancing the handling capacity of the control point, providing travel convenience to passengers and promoting the efficient flow of people between Hong Kong, Shenzhen and other cities in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("GBA"), thereby achieving the goal of expediting infrastructural connectivity among cities in the GBA as promulgated under the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area; in this connection, this Council supports the HKSAR Government, together with the Shenzhen Municipal Government, in seeking the approval of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress as and when appropriate for setting up the Hong Kong Port Area ("HKPA") at the redeveloped Huanggang Port, where the HKSAR Government will exercise jurisdiction; and thereafter proceeding with the work on the local legislation to demarcate the HKPA to be managed by the HKSAR and to extend the laws of Hong Kong to be applicable in the HKPA, thereby providing the legal basis for implementing the co-location arrangement at the redeveloped Huanggang Port."

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4525

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by the Secretary for Security be passed.

Secretary for Transport and Housing, please speak.

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the SAR Government supports the joint promotion of the redevelopment plan of the Huanggang Port with the Shenzhen Municipal People's Government, as well as the implementation of the co-location arrangement at the redeveloped Huanggang Port, with a view to enhancing the clearance capacity of the port; facilitating visitors; promoting the mobility of people among Hong Kong, Shenzhen and other municipalities in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area; and achieving the goal of expediting the connectivity among the infrastructures of the municipalities in the Greater Bay Area under the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area.

According to the recommendations of the Railway Development Strategy 2014, besides the major railway line between the Kam Sheung Road Station and the new station at Kwu Tung, a bifurcation may be added to the proposed Northern Link to directly connect the Kam Sheung Road Station and the existing Lok Ma Chau Station, subject to the growth in the cross-boundary transport demand.

According to Shenzhen's redevelopment plan of the Huanggang Port, the redeveloped Huanggang Port will become a transport hub. The Huanggang Port could be directly accessed via common road vehicles, in addition to two Shenzhen Metro and two intercity railway lines. If the bifurcation of the Northern Link is linked up with the Huanggang Port via the Lok Ma Chau Loop, then it will strengthen the connectivity among downtown areas, cross-boundary control points and the Lok Ma Chau Loop. Besides, it will also provide another transport option for the public and visitors travelling to and from the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area. We also note that the Shenzhen authorities has announced that the land adjacent to the redeveloped Huanggang Port will be reserved for facilities connecting the bifurcation of the Northern Link, this will add flexibility to the planning and addition of the bifurcation of the Northern Link.

4526 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

In December last year we invited MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") to conduct the detailed planning and design of the Northern Link. As the relevant work only involves the main line of the Northern Link, it does not include the bifurcation connecting the Lok Ma Chau/Huanggang Port. However, given that the improvement works of the Huanggang Port can fuel the demand for cross-boundary transport, we have requested MTRCL to look into the feasibility and effectiveness of the addition of the bifurcation in the study of the main line, so as to allow the Government to consider the way forward on a timely basis.

As railway projects involve huge capital investments, the Government needs to make a prudent planning beforehand. Since the construction of bifurcation of the Northern Link is a medium to long term project, even if the need, the technical and financial feasibilities of the bifurcation have been established, its development timetable should be adjusted according to the detailed study, assessment on the latest demand and availability of resources.

As the Huanggang Port will adopt the Shenzhen Bay Port's customs clearance mode under the co-location arrangement, the Transport Department will arrange adequate local public transport services including franchised buses, green minibuses and taxis corresponding to the operating hours of the boundary control point and the passenger traffic in order to provide convenient and suitable transport services between the Hong Kong Port Area of the new Huanggang Port and other .

As to cross-boundary transport services, the Transport Department will conduct timely discussion with the relevant Mainland authorities in order to provide suitable and adequate cross-boundary passenger transport services, including cross-boundary buses and cars for hire, to interface with the commissioning of the new Port.

Moreover, the Transport Department is discussing with the law enforcement agencies of the Hong Kong boundary control point and the relevant Shenzhen authorities with a view to ensuring that the public transport interchange at the Hong Kong Port Area of the Huanggang Port has adequate ancillary facilities and customs clearance facilities to accommodate local and cross-boundary transport services. After the commissioning of the Huanggang Port, the Transport Department will keep a close watch on the passengers' demand of local transport services and will conduct timely discussion with the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4527 relevant Mainland authorities on the enhancement of the level of cross-boundary transport services.

In order to complement the progress of the redevelopment of the Huanggang Port by Shenzhen, the focus of the SAR Government's work shall include the following:

(1) to take forward the implementation of the round-the-clock passengers clearance services at Shenzhen Bay Port and Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai Control Point;

(2) to abolish the freight transport function at Huanggang, Man Kam To Control Point and Sha Tau Kok Control Point, but goods vehicles carrying fresh food will be permitted to continue to use the Man Kam To Control Point; other cross-boundary freight transport vehicles will be diverted to Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai Control Point and Shenzhen Bay Port; and

(3) to improve the control point and the peripheral and ancillary facilities, and to take forward the construction of freight access, relevant facilities and so on.

I understand that Members are concerned about the cross-boundary freight transport arrangement at other land control points after the freight transport function at Huanggang Port is abolished. The Transport Department will continue the communication with Hong Kong's cross-boundary freight transport industry and will follow up with the Shenzhen authorities whether or not they agree to implement the round-the-clock customs clearance for freight transport at Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai Control Point as soon as possible as proposed by Hong Kong's freight industry, in addition to enhancing Mainland's supporting services for customs declaration at the Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai Control Point before abolishing the freight transport function at Huanggang, Man Kam To and Sha Tau Kok Control Points, so as to allow the industry to arrange a timely diversion of their operations to Shenzhen Bay Port and Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai Control Point during the redevelopment process of the Huanggang Port.

Deputy President, I so submit.

4528 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, as the Secretary for Security and Secretary for Transport and Housing have pointed out just now, the co-location arrangement at the redeveloped Huanggang Port can improve the clearance efficiency of the control point and provide convenience for visitors travelling between Hong Kong and Shenzhen. As far as the land use is concerned, the co-location arrangement also provides a precious chance to free up over 20 hectares of land at the existing site of the Lok Ma Chau Boundary Control Point, which can be used to address the needs of social development.

As far as the territory-wide spatial layout is concerned, the Lok Ma Chau Boundary Control Point is sitting on the proposed Northern Economic Belt under the Hong Kong 2030+: Towards a Planning Vision and Strategy Transcending 2030. Its pivotal role is mainly for the development of scientific research, modern logistics, warehousing and emerging industries. As a matter of fact, the Lok Ma Chau Boundary Control Point can capitalize on the advantage of its close proximity to the boundary region, as the Hong Kong-Shenzhen Innovation and Technology Park ("HSITP") at the Lok Ma Chau Loop is on its Northeast side, which is only about 400 m apart; and the proposed San Tin/Lok Ma Chau Development Node is on its South side.

HSITP at the Lok Ma Chau Loop is in its construction stage, and it will be the biggest platform for innovative technology in Hong Kong. With regards to the San Tin/Lok Ma Chau Development Node, we have started consulting stakeholders on its initial use. According to our preliminary estimate, the San Tin/Lok Ma Chau Development Node occupies about a site of 320 hectares. Thanks to the opportunity associated with the proposed Northern Link and the San Tin Station, the Node may cater for medium to high density development, thus increasing the supply of land for housing and economic land uses. With regards to economic land uses, during the development of the North side of the Node, we have earmarked a site of about 50 hectares adjacent to the Lok Ma Chau Loop, roughly 18% of the total area, for the construction of offices and innovative technology.

In the course of making every effort to promote research activities, it should be noted that there are fishing ponds and wetlands of ecological value on both sides of the Lok Ma Chau Control Point. For that reason, we need to consider carefully how the development potential of the site should be released in conjunction with the proper handling of the ecological and environmental challenge.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4529

Deputy President, to look forward, the Government will apply for the funding of the next study on the San Tin/Lok Ma Chau Development Node. The study will look into the ways to make best use of the sites to be vacated from the Lok Ma Chau Boundary Control Point in future. I hope the Legislative Council will give its support to this funding request.

Deputy President, the implementation of the co-location arrangement at the Huanggang Port will not only facilitate the customs clearance, but will also help Hong Kong to free up invaluable land resources. This is a good opportunity for us to make overall consideration and planning of the sites of the San Tin/Lok Ma Chau Development Node and the Lok Ma Chau Boundary Control Point, with a view to achieving coordinated development, leveraging the synergies and benefiting members of the public. With these remarks, I hope Members will support the motion.

Thank you, Deputy President.

SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by the Secretary for Security as printed on the Agenda. The implementation of the co-location arrangement at the redeveloped Huanggang Port can help to enhance the handling capacity of the land boundary control point in Hong Kong, facilitate the flow of innovation and technology ("I&T") talents between Hong Kong, Shenzhen and other cities in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area") and promote the construction of an international I&T hub in the Greater Bay Area.

The current-term SAR Government attaches great importance to I&T development and has been taking forward the I&T development in Hong Kong with focus on eight major areas, one of which is the provision of research and development ("R&D") infrastructure. I thank the Legislative Council for its funding approval early this year for the site formation and infrastructure works in the Lok Ma Chau Loop ("the Loop"), and for the Batch 1 development of the Hong Kong-Shenzhen Innovation and Technology Park ("HSITP") undertaken by the Hong Kong-Shenzhen Innovation and Technology Park Limited.

Upon full development, HSITP will be the largest ever I&T platform in Hong Kong, which is approximately three times that of the present Hong Kong 4530 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

Science Park. HSITP is also an important engine for the SAR Government to develop an international I&T hub in the Greater Bay Area. Jointly developed by the governments of Hong Kong and Shenzhen, the Shenzhen-Hong Kong Innovation and Technology Co-operation Zone ("the Co-operation Zone") which comprises HSITP and the Shenzhen Innovation and Technology Zone ("SITZ"), will realize "one zone, two parks" at "one river, two banks" under the auspices of "one country, two systems". Situated in a strategic location across a river from SITZ, HSITP will leverage the complementary advantages of both Hong Kong and Shenzhen by combining Hong Kong's solid R&D strengths and Shenzhen's stronger capability in advanced manufacturing to create a value-adding chain that covers the upstream, midstream and downstream processes.

The Batch 1 development of HSITP consists of eight buildings mainly used for scientific research and higher education purposes, InnoCell, as well as commercial and supporting facilities. The project is expected to be completed in phases from 2024 to 2027 so as to tie in with the target of the Shenzhen Municipal Government, under which the main work of the new Huanggang Port is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2023, followed by the renovation and installation of related facilities in the respective boundary control point to be undertaken by the governments of Hong Kong and Shenzhen respectively.

The Huanggang Port is located opposite to HSITP. The implementation of the co-location arrangement at the redeveloped Huanggang Port can greatly strengthen the connectivity between Shenzhen and Hong Kong, as well as other cities in the Greater Bay Area, shorten the travelling time of passengers and vehicles between the two cities, facilitate the efficient flow of people (including I&T talents), and make the clearance procedures more convenient to travellers. I&T talents are one of the important innovative elements and their efficient flow is essential for promoting scientific research collaboration; therefore, the redevelopment of the Huanggang Port, together with the co-location arrangement, will play a strategic role in the promotion of scientific research collaboration between Hong Kong and Shenzhen.

Moreover, the implementation of the co-location arrangement at the redeveloped Huanggang Port can release over 20 hectares of land in Lok Ma Chau Boundary Control Point next to the Loop for other uses. As the Secretary for Development just mentioned, the Development Bureau is studying the possible uses of this piece of land. While planning the future development of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4531 the land, the SAR Government will duly consider how it can complement and create a synergy effect with HSITP in the Loop.

In order to attract more talents and enterprises to the Co-operation Zone for development, both hardware facilities and software support are important. The governments of HKSAR and Shenzhen are studying the formulation of joint policy for both HSITP and SITZ, so as to explore the provision of facilitation and supportive measures in respect of scientific research resources, capital and people flow, such as providing travel convenience for scientific research talents and staff of scientific research enterprises of the two cities and encouraging scientific research enterprises in Hong Kong to invest in Shenzhen, in a bid to leverage the complementary advantages of different cities in the Greater Bay Area.

I believe that with the opportunities brought by the redeveloped Huanggang Port, we can enhance the accessibility between Hong Kong and the Mainland by upgrading the facilities of the land boundary control point, and ancillary environmental and transport facilities, and more importantly, it symbolizes that Hong Kong will continue to be the gate for the world to enter the Greater Bay Area.

A couple of weeks ago, the 14th Five-Year Plan was passed by the National People's Congress. It indicates clear support for Hong Kong to consolidate and strengthen its competitive advantages, and to develop an international I&T hub. For the first time, the Shenzhen-Hong Kong Loop is included as one of the four major platforms of cooperation in the Greater Bay Area. The SAR Government will fully engage in and promote I&T cooperation with the Mainland, better integrate into the country's overall development, actively participate in the new development pattern featuring dual circulation which takes the domestic market as the mainstay while enabling domestic and foreign markets to interact positively with each other, capitalize on its strengths in both domestic and foreign markets to serve the country's needs, and explore greater room for I&T development. The SAR Government will continue to discuss with the Mainland in a bid to provide greater travel convenience for R&D talents and entrepreneurs of HSITP and SITZ in the Co-operation Zone, thereby facilitating the efficient flow of I&T talents between the two cities.

Deputy President, I so submit. I hope Members will support the Motion.

4532 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

UNDER SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, tourism travel between Hong Kong and the Mainland has always been frequent. In recent years, Hong Kong recorded approximately 40 million Mainland tourist arrivals each year, accounting for more than 75% of the total inbound tourist arrivals. Of these Mainland tourist arrivals, more than 80% came here through land control points. It is thus evident that land control points are the main gateway to receive Mainland tourists.

From the perspective of tourists, user-friendly facilities, supporting transport arrangements and clearance procedures at border/boundary control points can enhance their travel experience. As Secretary John LEE said in his opening speech, the new Huanggang Port will be modelled on the Shenzhen Bay Port. A Hong Kong Port Area will be demarcated at the new port building. It means that tourists can complete the clearance procedures of the two places in the same building, thus giving them much boundary crossing convenience.

In order to tie in with the enhanced environment and facilities at the Huanggang Port, it is necessary to redevelop the Huanggang Port and implement the co-location arrangement. This will bring a better travel experience to tourists and help Hong Kong, Shenzhen and other cities in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area") to better cope with the increasing movement of people as the Greater Bay Area develops.

Besides, many inbound overseas tourists will visit other places on a "one-trip multi-destination" basis and many of them will visit the Mainland after coming to Hong Kong. In recent years, our overseas visitors, including same-day and overnight visitors, averaged at about 10 million arrivals per year. Of these arrivals, over 2 million arrivals per year went to the Mainland through Hong Kong. With the enhanced linkage between Hong Kong and Shenzhen and other Greater Bay Area cities, the new Huanggang Port can help promote the development of "one-trip multi-destination" tourism in the Greater Bay Area.

According to the planning of the Shenzhen Municipal Government, the redeveloped Huanggang Port will become a transportation hub with direct connection to two Mainland intercity transits and two Shenzhen metro lines. This transport connection will provide travel convenience for tourists departing from Hong Kong to the Mainland through the new Huanggang Port.

The new Huanggang Port will better serve inbound overseas visitors who visit Shenzhen and other cities in the Greater Bay Area on a "one-trip LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4533 multi-destination" basis and benefit the development of "one-trip multi-destination" tourism in the Greater Bay Area. This will also help Hong Kong to further act fully as an international tourism hub mentioned in the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area and the Culture and Tourism Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, and better display our role as a core demonstration zone for multi-destination tourism.

With various economies envisioning the extensive use of the COVID vaccine in 2021, we expect economic activities and cross-boundary travel will be gradually resumed. We expect the Mainland economy will revive the soonest and the Greater Bay Area, which is adjacent to Hong Kong, will become the focus of development in the Mainland.

We expect that in the beginning when cross-boundary travel resumes, tourists will opt for short-haul travel. As far as the Mainland market is concerned, the Greater Bay Area should be the first area that Hong Kong will resume cross-boundary contact. In this connection, the Hong Kong Tourism Board ("HKTB") will first focus its resources on publicity programmes in the Greater Bay Area, with gradual extension to other Mainland cities. HKTB will also launch a publicity programme titled "Open House Hong Kong" in the Mainland to showcase Hong Kong as the most wanted destination for Mainland tourists, and roll out promotional packages together with the tourism industry to attract tourists to come and visit Hong Kong and in turn invigorate local spending. Moreover, HKTB will also join hands with news media to promote the positive image of Hong Kong as a safe and friendly place for visiting.

In order to fully bring out the benefits of the new Huanggang Port, we attach great importance to the supporting tourism arrangement, such as parking spaces for coaches and tourist reception arrangement, so that the redeveloped Huanggang Port can better serve tourists' needs and give them better travel experience.

We will take forward the following work as appropriate when needed: first, to work with the relevant departments in coordinating tourist services or facilities to be provided at the redeveloped Huanggang Port, including the ways to provide useful information for tourists on arrival; second, to work with the Transport and Housing Bureau and the Transport Department in coordinating the transport arrangements between the port and different tourist spots; and third, to arrange 4534 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 site visits for members of the tourist industry after the redevelopment, so that they can get to know the new facilities and we can listen to their views, in a bid to optimize the port services and facilities and meet the needs of the industry and provide better experience for tourists.

Regarding the 20 hectares of land to be released from the Lok Ma Chau Control Point at the Hong Kong side, we are happy to work in tandem with the feasibility study on the usage of the land to be conducted by the Development Bureau. For instance, is it feasible to provide tourism-related supporting facilities on the site to further enhance tourists' experience? I wish to take this opportunity today to listen to Members' views and respond to Members' questions on tourism-related subjects at the end of this motion debate. Thank you, Deputy President.

IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, first of all, I wish to state that the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong ("BPA") supports the motion moved by Mr John LEE, the Secretary for Security, on taking forward the follow-up tasks of implementing co-location arrangement at the Huanggang Port. As a matter of fact, BPA and I have been urging the Government to promote cross-boundary infrastructural connectivity, to provide travel convenience to cross-boundary passengers and to facilitate uninterrupted cross-boundary cargo flow.

The Huanggang Port redevelopment project arises from the need to enhance cross-boundary efficiency. The Huanggang Port was originally constructed to support the commissioning of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen Expressway. Since 8 August 1991, passenger and goods channels have been fully commissioned. Later on, 24-hour cargo clearance and passenger clearance were implemented one after another, which has made the Port the only large-scale land route port providing round-the-clock clearance service between Shenzhen and Hong Kong. Nevertheless, after some 30 years of operation, some of its facilities are in dire need of upgrading and revamping. A very noticeable problem is that the passenger clearance buildings of the Huanggang Port and Lok Ma Chau Boundary Control Point are two unconnected buildings, thus passengers have to rely on shuttle bus to travel between the two control points. For those who use direct cross-boundary bus service, they have to alight and go through clearance formalities in Hong Kong's boundary control point and then board the bus for the Huanggang Port and go through clearance formalities again, it is really time consuming.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4535

Deputy President, port area facilities should facilitate the development of both the country and Hong Kong. According to the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area promulgated by the country in February 2019, there are seven major areas for development in the Greater Bay Area, and expediting infrastructural connectivity in the area was one of them. Therefore, to enhance the cross-boundary efficiency of land boundary control point is undoubtedly an important measure to promote the efficient and convenient passenger and goods flow between Hong Kong and the Mainland. As the country is pressing ahead with the establishment of the Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao Greater Bay Area and the enhancement of the collaborative development between Shenzhen and Hong Kong, the passenger flow between Hong Kong and the Mainland will continue to grow. As it is expected that the Huanggang Port can be developed into a land route port and a transport hub for reaching the Greater Bay Area, therefore it requires a higher level of clearance facilities.

Deputy President, according to the relevant source, the new Huanggang Port will be positioned as a pure passenger clearance land route port and co-location arrangement will be implemented at the port, while its cargo clearance function will be abolished. The redevelopment is anticipated to be completed by the end of 2022. Even though the passenger flow between Hong Kong and Shenzhen has been heavily impacted by the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic since 2019, the cargo clearance facilities at Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai Boundary Control Point and the round-the-clock clearance at Shenzhen Bay Port were commissioned by the Governments on both sides one after another in 2020, so as to gradually implement the new arrangement of the "East in East out, West in West out" approach for cross-boundary goods transport. There are precedents for the implementation of the co-location arrangement at the new Huanggang Port. That is, it has made reference to the model of the Shenzhen Bay Port. The SAR Government will set up the Hong Kong Port Area within the Huanggang Port building to fully exercise Hong Kong's jurisdiction and conduct custom clearance and quarantine procedures and so on under the laws of Hong Kong SAR. On 1 July 2007, the tenth anniversary of the reunification of Hong Kong with China, the Shenzhen Bay Port was commissioned, which has become the first port on the Mainland to adopt the operation model of the co-location arrangement. The model meets the requirements under "one country, two systems" and has been proven effective over the years, bringing great travel convenience to passengers.

4536 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

As to the financial arrangement, the Shenzhen Municipal Government agrees in principle that it will take the sole responsibility of the entire Huanggang Port redevelopment project, including the design and construction costs of the Hong Kong Port Area. The SAR Government will only need to pay the Shenzhen Municipal Government a nominal rent of RMB1,000 on a yearly basis, which is similar to the financial arrangement for the Express Rail Link West Kowloon Terminus. The SAR Government will only bear the costs of works other than the capital works of the Hong Kong Port Area, such as the ancillary facilities and information systems to be utilized by various government departments. The funding request of these costs will be submitted to the Legislative Council in due course according to the established procedures.

Deputy President, the redeveloped Huanggang Port will implement the co-location arrangement and abolish its cargo clearance function. Its additional benefit is that the sites nearby can be freed up for development. The Shenzhen Municipal Government estimates that it will free up about 500 000 square meters of land for development on the Shenzhen side of the Shenzhen-Hong Kong Innovation and Technology Co-operation Zone. In Hong Kong, a site of over 20 hectares at the existing Lok Ma Chau Boundary Control Point will be freed up. I wish to urge the Development Bureau to expedite the land use study and site planning, so as to make optimal use of the site and to avoid being criticized for keeping the Hong Kong area primitive while seeing vibrant developments on the other side of the boundary.

Deputy President, today the Secretary for Security moved the motion and stated that the SAR Government wished to get the support of the Legislative Council before the formal commencement of the works project of the Port, so as to allow the authorities to actively take forward the Huanggang Port redevelopment project according to the consensus and principles agreed by Shenzhen and Hong Kong. This has inevitably reminded me of the twists and turns in the implementation of the co-location arrangement at the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link West Kowloon Terminus some years ago. At that time, the SAR Government and the Mainland authorities had reached consensus on the implementation of the framework of the co-location arrangement which would allow passengers to go through both Hong Kong and the Mainland customs clearance formalities at the West Kowloon Terminus. The Legislative Council endorsed on 15 November 2017 the non-binding motion moved by the Administration and supported the SAR Government to take forward the follow-up tasks under the "Three-step Process". LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4537

The SAR Government subsequently started the first step of the "Three-step Process" by signing the Co-operation Arrangement on 18 November with the Mainland authorities. On 27 December in the same year, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress made a decision to approve and endorse the Co-operation Arrangement, which ensured that the co-location arrangement was in line with the Constitution of the People's Republic of China and the Basic Law. And the second step was completed. The Co-operation Arrangement also stated that the Mainland Port Area was set up to meet the actual policy and operational needs, that is, to achieve the specific purposes of conducting Mainland's customs clearance formalities for Express Rail Link passengers. The relevant restrictions would provide great convenience to passengers taking the trains of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link to travel between Hong Kong and the Mainland while maintaining the lawfully guaranteed rights and freedoms of Hong Kong SAR residents. But, by the time the last step was about to be completed, that is, when the Legislative Council was considering the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill on 14 June 2018, 13 Members proposed 75 amendments to the Bill. At that time, the President of the Legislative Council decided to allow 24 amendments to be made after taking all factors into consideration. Fortunately, all of the amendments were negatived; otherwise they would definitely have caused adverse effect on the effective operation of the West Kowloon Terminus and the Hong Kong Section of Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link.

Even though the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link service is suspended due to the pandemic, the co-location arrangement has all along been smooth since its implementation and passengers have felt its convenience. Previously, Members of the opposition camp made all sorts of absurd comments and ridiculous remarks about the co-location arrangement, claiming that the arrangement would undermine the lawfully guaranteed rights and freedoms of Hong Kong people. For example, their rumours that Mainland public security personnel would apprehend Hong Kong residents in the West Kowloon Terminus had been quashed. At present, the Legislative Council has resumed normal operation and I believe that our colleagues will adhere to the principle of seeking the truth from facts and support this Government motion of taking forward the co-location arrangement at the Huanggang Port. I believe that they will adhere to the same principle to deal with the relevant local legislation and funding application in the future.

4538 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

However, apart from its continued discussion with Mainland authorities on a step-by-step basis about taking forward the follow-up tasks of implementing co-location arrangement at the Huanggang Port, the SAR Government should at the same time step up the discussion about the post-pandemic customs clearance arrangement with the Mainland authorities. Over the past one year or so, the exchange and flow of people among Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao have been severely affected by the partial closure of boundary control points, compulsory isolation and quarantine measures. BPA and I have urged the SAR Government repeatedly that on the premise of the need to take into account the risk of the pandemic, it should endeavour to promote the implementation of the Mutual recognition system for health codes in Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao as soon as practicable, so as to reopen boundary control points of the three places with a view to facilitating cross-boundary activities and restoring all forms of economic activities in a gradual manner, in addition to providing concrete support for the industries in participating in the domestic circulation activities. Port area facilities are the hardwares only. As to the supporting softwares, the SAR Government should make extra effort to secure more concessionary policies from the relevant Mainland authorities, including the enhancement of the actual functions and scope of uses of the Hong Kong and Macao Residents Entry and Exit Permits (commonly known as the "Home Return Permits"). It should also increase the number of round-the-clock boundary control points to facilitate Hong Kong people to work, study and reside in the Greater Bay Area.

Deputy President, today, four Secretaries and one Under Secretary have come to the legislature to explain the policies to Members. I hope the Government will become more proactive in order to clear the stigma of "discussion without decision; decision without action".

With these remarks, I support the motion.

MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I support the motion put by the Government to the Legislative Council today on taking forward the follow-up tasks of implementing co-location arrangement at the Huanggang Port. The motion comprises two major points: First, the SAR Government collaborates with the Shenzhen Municipal Government in the redevelopment of the Huanggang Port; second, co-location arrangement will be implemented at the redeveloped Huanggang Port. How the Government makes complementary efforts on the Hong Kong side to tie in with the project is of great importance.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4539

Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok has just mentioned the history of the Huanggang Port, and I would also like to give a brief introduction here. The Huanggang Port is the first and only major land boundary control point between Hong Kong and Shenzhen providing 24-hour passenger clearance service for the time being, which was built to complement the Guangzhou-Shenzhen Superhighway project. Its construction commenced in May 1985. On 29 December 1989, the cargo clearance area of the Huanggang Port was commissioned for use upon completion of construction; on 8 August 1991, the passenger clearance area also opened; on 3 November 1994, two freight corridors were given a trial run for 24-hour clearance service; and starting from 0:00 am on 27 January 2003, 24-hour passenger clearance service was implemented. Passengers strongly support the 24-hour clearance service there at the Huanggang Port and many of the Hong Kong residents travel from Yuen Long to Huanggang to cross the boundary.

As of today, the Huanggang Port is already 32 years old and it is time to enhance both its facilities and customs clearance efficiency. At present, passengers crossing the boundary through the Huanggang Port have to go through a number of clearance procedures: they have to go through customs clearance first at Lok Ma Chau Control Point and then repeat the same procedure on arrival at the Huanggang Port, which is rather complicated. It is therefore necessary to enhance clearance efficiency

On 18 February 2019, the Central Government officially promulgated the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area to foster the interconnectivity of the flow of people, goods, capital and information within the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area") so as to create a "one-hour living circle". To stay abreast with the times, it is necessary to renovate old facilities to meet the new need for efficient flow of people.

Given the close relationship between Hong Kong and the Mainland, the transport network between the two places must be well developed, the facilities at the control points must be well equipped, and exchanges between the two places should be frequent. Various land boundary crossings/control points are located at Lo Wu, Lok Ma Chau, Hung Hom and Shenzhen Bay, and also include the Huanggang Port under discussion, as well as the control points at Sha Tau Kok, Man Kam To and the subsequently completed West Kowloon Station of the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL"), and there is also the Hong Kong--Macao Bridge Hong Kong Port. The number of passengers crossing the boundary at these boundary crossings/control points increases every year. As at 2018, the number of 4540 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 passengers travelling to and from the Mainland via land boundary control points alone has reached 235 million, meaning that there were 640 000 passengers entering and leaving Hong Kong and the Mainland every day.

The seventh land boundary control point between Hong Kong and Shenzhen is the Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai ("LT/HYW") Control Point, which has been commissioned but not opened to passengers due to the COVID-19 outbreak. The LT/HYW Control Point is very convenient in that both passengers and vehicles can reach the boundary crossing facilities direct to cross the boundary and have direct access to the highway upon departure from the control point. This enables more efficient flows of people and goods across the boundary and helps alleviate the current busy situation at other control points. Hence, it is of strategic importance to the long-term economic development of Hong Kong. As to the strategic significance of the Greater Bay Area, it lies in the fact that the State will make corresponding arrangements for the future development of Hong Kong and Mainland ports. Freight transport will be developed in two different directions according to the planning principle of "East in East out, West in West out", thus allowing Hong Kong ports to give full play to their functions.

The implementation of co-location arrangement in Hong Kong is nothing new. Commissioned on 1 July 2007, Shenzhen Bay Port is the first to implement the co-location arrangement. Back then, the decision to authorize Hong Kong to exercise jurisdiction over the Hong Kong Port Area at the Shenzhen Bay Port according to the laws of HKSAR was passed by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. Today, we are simply introducing the same arrangement to the redeveloped Huanggang Port.

Another example is the West Kowloon Station of XRL, which was commissioned in 2018. Co-location arrangement is also implemented there, embodying the spirit of acting in accordance with the law and cooperation between Hong Kong ports and Mainland ports. Meanwhile, it serves to bring about smooth and speedy operation for the convenience of passengers. I believe that the same results can also be achieved at the redeveloped Huanggang Port upon implementation of co-location arrangement there.

I have mentioned just now that the co-location arrangement will help put into practice the principle of "East in East out, West in West out" for Hong Kong and Mainland ports. Upon completion of the redevelopment of the Huanggang Port, a great deal of land will be released. It is because according to the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4541

Shenzhen Municipal Government's planning, the new Huanggang Port is positioned as a control point with co-location arrangement implemented purely for passenger clearance and its cargo clearance function will be abolished in the future. As such, about 500 000 sq m of land will be released for the construction of the Shenzhen Innovation and Technology Zone of the Shenzhen-Hong Kong Innovation and Technology Co-operation Zone, which is expected to be completed at the end of 2023.

As the new Huanggang Port will focus on the provision of passenger clearance service while taking the "East in East out" approach for cargo clearance, nearly 20 hectares of land near the Lok Ma Chau Control Point in Hong Kong will be released. We believe this arrangement will create new opportunities for Hong Kong. However, Mainland is known for its speediness in carrying out planning and building infrastructure: the Guangzhou-Shenzhen Intercity Railway, the Guangzhou--Shenzhen Intercity Railway and Shenzhen Metro Line 20 are included under the transport planning for the Huanggang Port, with space reserved for connection with the MTR Northern Link. The new Huanggang Port will, in the future, become a super port as well as a comprehensive transportation hub for the world in the Greater Bay Area. Therefore, we must be both fast and efficient in building infrastructure in order to catch up with Shenzhen's planning.

The new Huanggang Port is expected to be completed at the end of 2023, whereas Hong Kong is now only proceeding with site formation and infrastructure works, including land decontamination and site formation for the entire loop (i.e. the Lok Ma Chau Loop), the construction of a western connection road to connect Fanling/San Tin Highway and a direct road link to connect to the MTR Lok Ma Chau Station, a public transport interchange within the western part of the loop and most of the roads and cycle tracks therein. There are also 7 hectares of recreational facilities, about 13 hectares of ecological area, and a fresh water service reservoir and water supply system as well as sewage treatment works and a sewerage system which will be sufficient to support the development of the entire technology park, namely the Hong Kong-Shenzhen Innovation and Technology Park ("HSITP").

The sewage treatment works are expected to finish in the second half of 2026 to tie in with the gradual completion of the first batch of buildings in HSITP at the end of 2024. I am quite worried about whether this supporting facility will be able to keep up with the development in Shenzhen.

4542 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

As for the development in the vicinity of the loop, the Government conducted a feasibility study on the San Tin/Lok Ma Chau Development Node ("ST/LMC DN") only in September last year, which inevitably gives us cause for worry. The proposed ST/LMC DN covers a total area of about 320 hectares, including 270 hectares of land for development, and is tentatively estimated to provide over 31 000 residential units, of which 70% will be public housing units. We are supportive of this but regrettably, there is not a timetable yet.

As regards the future Northern Link, the Government expects that upon the completion of the San Tin Station, the area can be used for medium and high density developments. There will be 31 000 residential units available for accommodating 84 000 people.

The Government has been criticized in the past that the public facilities in the new development areas ("NDAs") usually lagged behind the growth of population in NDAs. Therefore, I hope that the Government can be more forward-looking in its planning. It should not only implement the planning initiatives but also quicken its pace as well, so that Hong Kong can fulfil its role in the Greater Bay Area as soon as possible and function more effectively as a bridge.

I so submit.

MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I speak in support of the motion on taking forward the follow-up tasks of implementing co-location arrangement at the Huanggang Port moved by the Secretary for Security.

In accordance with the information on the Internet, the earliest co-location arrangement recorded in history was implemented at the border between China and Korea, and that was over a century ago. Afterwards, such arrangement was also adopted at land boundaries by not a few countries and regions, and it is thus nothing new.

As regards the co-location arrangement between Hong Kong and the Mainland, it was first introduced at the Shenzhen Bay Port of the Hong Kong-Shenzhen Western Corridor commissioned in 2007, and during its implementation for 14 years, the operation has been rather smooth. In 2018, the co-location arrangement was also adopted at the Hong Kong West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link. Back then, the opposition camp mounted a smear campaign against it and put forward LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4543 various conspiracy theories, vilifying Mainland officers for taking cross-boundary law enforcement actions and taking Hong Kong residents forcibly back to the Mainland. At the end, it proved that they were merely frightening words to scare people. While the wise does not buy rumours, lies cannot cover up the facts.

In the light of the benefits brought by the implementation of co-location arrangement, I did, in the capacity of a Member of the national committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, raise a proposal to the Mainland authorities to study the implementation of co-location arrangement in more control points between Hong Kong and Shenzhen, with a view to enhancing the handling capacity and efficiency of the control points, providing travel convenience to passengers and vehicles of the two places, promoting the enhanced planning strategy of "East in East out, West in West out" for cross-boundary goods traffic between Hong Kong and Shenzhen, promoting further economic integration and development between Hong Kong and Shenzhen, and achieving the goal of expediting infrastructural connectivity among the cities concerned as promulgated under the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area.

Taking this opportunity of redeveloping the facilities of the Huanggang Port in Shenzhen, with the related construction costs wholly shouldered by the Shenzhen Municipal Government, the two Governments proposed the implementation of co-location arrangement at the redeveloped Huanggang/Lok Ma Chau Control Point, which I surely give my full support and cooperation, and also thank the Central People's Government and the Shenzhen Municipal Government for their support.

Deputy President, while the co-location arrangement can provide travel convenience to passengers and shorten the time for clearance, thus saving passengers the trouble of going to different floors of the terminal building with their luggage, its another advantage is to enable a more effective usage of land resources as more land from the boundary zone can be released for other development uses. With the implementation of co-location arrangement at the Huanggang Port, over 20 hectares of land at the original Lok Ma Chau Control Point can be released.

This piece of 20 hectares of land does not mean much to the Mainland, but is highly significant to Hong Kong where land is scarce and expensive. Some people suggest that this piece of land should be managed by the Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation and developed together with the 4544 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 neighbouring Hong Kong-Shenzhen Innovation and Technology Park at the Lok Ma Chau Loop. Other people suggest that it can be used for the development of tourism and shopping facilities, while some also suggest that it can be used for the construction of residential units for those Hong Kong residents who will need to work in the Hong Kong-Shenzhen Innovation and Technology Park and to frequently travel between Hong Kong and the Mainland in the future, with a view to alleviating the housing shortage problem of Hong Kong. All these suggestions, no matter which one, aim to optimize and maximize the use of this piece of land, so as to facilitate the promotion of economic and livelihood development in Hong Kong.

This motion today is about the follow-up tasks of implementing co-location arrangement at the Huanggang Port, and it also includes the future use of that piece of 20 hectares of land at the original port area. The Secretary for Development said earlier that he would conduct a study on it. I wish that he can finish the related planning study as soon as possible, so that the piece of land, following the redevelopment of the port, will not be developed very slowly only after being left idle for many years, as he will then be criticized for being indecisive or taking no action even after a decision is made.

In the example of the Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai Control Point which has not implemented the co-location arrangement and their port facilities were respectively constructed by the two Governments, we notice that the Shenzhen authorities have long planned to develop a transportation network and supporting facilities. On the contrary, it seems that Hong Kong only has some port facilities there without developing other supporting infrastructure with a view to capitalizing on the new port to boost the regional economy.

Following the subsidence of the pandemic and the implementation of the co-location arrangement at the Huanggang Port, the clearance procedures will become more convenient and speedy, and the passenger and cargo volume will be expected to surge. By that time, can the roads and railway of Lok Ma Chau in Hong Kong cope with it? Will Sheung Shui be flooded with visitors again? Have the authorities considered supporting Shenzhen's planning on the distribution of east-west traffic movements by constructing an additional railway or highway in the New Territories East to connect Lok Ma Chau with the urban areas in order to alleviate the overcrowded situation of the East Rail line? I hope that the Secretary for Transport and Housing can give due consideration to this aspect.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4545

In terms of land development along the boundary, I submitted a written question to the Legislative Council last month, asking the Government to give an account of the latest development of 2 400 hectares of land gradually released from the original in recent years. The answer is just as expected. Only a plot of over 600 hectares―i.e. about one fourth―of the original frontier closed area has specific development uses, while over 1 000 hectares of land fall within a green belt zone, covering an area equivalent to 50 Lok Ma Chau Control Points. It is questionable whether the land is put to optimal use. Will Hong Kong be turned into a "Big Waster" of land?

For these green belt sites, they are neither those areas with special ecological values, which will be zoned as nature conservation areas, nor the agricultural land and fish ponds that Mr Steven HO is always concerned about and which will be designated for agricultural uses. According to the reply of the Secretary, most of the green belt sites are actually woodlands, shrublands and grasslands, which have not been properly managed, visited and used for a long time. Since the sites are overgrown with grass and weeds, they turn green naturally, but their conservation value is not high.

If Hong Kong has sufficient land and housing supply, it is fine to have some more barren woods with dense vegetation for flora and fauna, to be the habitat of insects, birds, wild boars and cows. But the question is that Hong Kong is facing a very serious shortage of land and housing. Since the waiting time for public housing units is getting longer, many grassroots citizens have no alternative but to pay exorbitant rents and live in sub-divided units, and some of them even have to sleep in the parks or McDonald's. Given the ever-increasing private property prices and rents, many people cannot afford a "starter flat", and even our country leaders could not help voicing their opinions on many occasions. Thus, is there still such an urgent need to reserve so many green belt sites for weeds and mosquitoes?

We may check online for the pictures of the former boundary area taken 40 years ago. Back then, Shenzhen at the opposite side had many woods and pieces of agricultural land. When we look at Shenzhen today, we can see that most of the area has been developed and not a few high-rise buildings have been constructed, whereas on our side in Hong Kong, it is still desolate with not much development. Not long ago, I criticized that the construction cost of the Hong Kong-Shenzhen Innovation and Technology Park in the Lok Ma Chau Loop was too high. One of the reasons is the height restriction under which deep excavation underground is needed to gain more space for development. The height restriction concerned comes from an environmental impact assessment and 4546 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 the result of that assessment is derived from the fact that not a few conservation areas and green belt sites are in the vicinity. To a certain extent, this is a question of chicken and egg―I notice that the Secretary for Innovation and Technology is now in the Chamber, and I believe that he understands what I am driving at.

The Government says that it conducted a review on all green belt sites in the whole territory already a few years ago and claims that most of them do not have potential for development, which is mainly due to the lack of transport infrastructure. Deputy President, this is another chicken-and-egg problem. Let us take a look at the Mainland. Recently even Mr Joe BIDEN, the new President of the United States ("US"), acknowledged that the US was lagging behind China in terms of infrastructure and had to catch up with efforts. In recent years, the Hong Kong SAR Government has been advocating that priority should be accorded to infrastructure, but have those words been translated into action?

Deputy President, I wish that the Government can, through taking this opportunity of implementing the co-location arrangement at the Huanggang Port, seriously review the development of the boundary zone and the cross-boundary transportation planning of Hong Kong, with a view to making an optimal use of land resources, practically resolving the land, housing and transportation problems, and effectively improving people's livelihood and well-being. However, the Government must not slow down the planning development of the existing site of the Lok Ma Chau Control Point because of the comprehensive review, but should conduct the review without delay.

Deputy President, I so submit.

MR VINCENT CHENG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB") supports the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR") Government in collaborating with the Shenzhen Municipal Government to press ahead the redevelopment of the Huanggang Port and to implement co-location arrangement at the redeveloped Huanggang Port building. As at Shenzhen Bay and the High Speed Rail stations in West Kowloon, the co-location arrangement has actually been implemented for a very long time and operating smoothly. However, under the pandemic, the High Speed Rail services have been suspended for a period of time and the co-location arrangement at the High Speed Rail stations is also LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4547 temporarily suspended. Nevertheless, in order to promote the efficient flow of people between Hong Kong and Shenzhen, I think the High Speed Rail services should be resumed by the Government as soon as possible.

Deputy President, I recall that three years ago, i.e. in June 2018, when I joined the Legislative Council for only three months, the first thing that impressed me most was the deliberation of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill"). Back then, despite the opposition camp's incessant smearing and outrageous speculation in this Chamber, the Bill was carried by the Legislative Council in the end. In retrospect, the co-location arrangement has genuinely brought convenience to many residents. Since the High Speed Rail was commissioned on 23 September 2018, I have personally taken many rides. Many people have also told us that through the co-location arrangement for the High Speed Rail, they can travel to many cities in the Mainland, and they find it very time-saving and convenient. Hence, when the opposition camp previously mentioned the so-called emergency exit door and said that the public security officers from the Mainland could immediately come to Hong Kong to arrest certain people, they were talking nonsense. Time can serve as the best proof. Two years later, as I just said, all the paradoxical situations mentioned by the opposition camp did not happen at all. Time can prove everything. Back then, they kept on making threats and these tactics were adopted to scare citizens. At the same time, they opposed any measure which could draw Hong Kong closer to the Mainland, and this was highly undesirable indeed.

Deputy President, Hong Kong has already returned to China for 23 years and this is the 24th year. Since Hong Kong, being an integral part of the country, has returned to the Motherland for a period of time, it is very significant to win the hearts of people along with the reunification. The Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development of the nation is announced once every five years. Recently in the 11th, the 12th and even the latest 14th Five-Year Plans, they all have a chapter for the positioning of the development of Hong Kong. In the recent 14th Five-Year Plan, some supporting measures from the Central Government to Hong Kong are announced. They include giving support to Hong Kong in enhancing its status as an international financial, transportation and trade centre and international aviation hub, giving support to Hong Kong in building the city as an international centre of innovative technology, an international asset management centre and a regional intellectual property trading centre, and also giving support to Hong Kong in integrating better into the overall 4548 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 development of the country, and engaging in a high quality development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area").

Furthermore, in February 2019, the Central Government promulgated the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, ascertaining the goal of expediting infrastructural connectivity among cities in the Greater Bay Area, which includes enhancing the handling capacity and level of clearance facilitation of the control points in the Greater Bay Area, with a view to promoting the efficient and convenient flow of people and goods. Therefore, against this background and on this premise, it is absolutely necessary to improve the facilities of control points between Hong Kong and the Mainland. We have checked that at present, there are five land boundary control points providing passenger and cargo clearance services and two passenger-based railway control points.

In 2019, DAB released its proposal of "Seizing Opportunities, Reaching New Heights: A proposal on the Planning of Hong Kong in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area". Back then, we already suggested that the authorities should improve the facilities of the control points between Hong Kong and Shenzhen, including gradually increasing round-the-clock control points. In fact, 24-hour operation was implemented at the Huanggang Port long ago, and last year, 24-hour cargo clearance service was also implemented at the Shenzhen Bay Port. It is our hope that the pandemic can be put under control very soon so that travelling and clearance services at the control points between Hong Kong and Shenzhen can be resumed gradually. At that time, 24-hour passenger clearance service at the Shenzhen Bay Port can also be implemented according to the original schedule.

Deputy President, this government motion can be traced back to 2019 when the Shenzhen Municipal Government decided to redevelop the Huanggang Port in-situ. The HKSAR Government then studied the feasibility of implementing co-location arrangement at the new Huanggang Port building with the Shenzhen Municipal Government. After the study, the two Governments came to an agreement on the implementation of co-location arrangement which later also gained support from the Central Government. The following step is to seek approval from the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress before local legislative work can be commenced.

We support this motion and wish that the authorities can carry out the remaining procedures without delay, because the Huanggang/Lok Ma Chau LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4549

Control Point was commissioned long ago in the 1980s to provide clearance service for passengers and goods vehicles. Without taking into account the present pandemic, in 2019, about 68 000 passengers and 19 700 vehicles passed through the Huanggang Port every day. In addition to its ageing facilities, due to the certain distance between the two sides of the control port, passengers need to take shuttle buses to travel between two sides. Therefore, the Huanggang Port in the Mainland is now suggested to be redeveloped in-situ, and the future new Huanggang Port will connect the two sides with the implementation of co-location arrangement. Inside the joint inspection building, just like the West Kowloon Station, there will be the Mainland and Hong Kong clearance facilities at different floors, with improved connection to two Mainland intercity transits. This arrangement will not only shorten the clearance time for greater travel convenience of cross-boundary passengers, but also enhance the connectivity of Hong Kong with the Greater Bay Area.

Deputy President, following the demolition of the original passenger clearance building of the Huanggang Port, the temporary passenger clearance building has already been completed, and it is anticipated that the new control point can be commissioned in 2023. I note that the cargo clearance service of Huanggang Port will cease after the commencement of 24-hour operation at the Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai Control Point with the availability of sufficient supporting facilities. The cargo clearance services will then be shifted to the Shenzhen Bay Port and the Liantang Control Point.

I personally expect that when the authorities are mapping out the detailed design of the new Huanggang Port with the Mainland authorities, in regard to the existing freight operations, the HKSAR Government can improve the transport supporting facilities on the Hong Kong side with the provision of sufficient space for cargo transportation and traffic flow, including adequate parking spaces for tourist coaches. Besides, in the new building, sufficient space should be set aside as waiting areas for passengers.

On the Hong Kong side, the original Lok Ma Chau Control Point occupies 20 hectares of the land, which actually is not a small area, and we can expect that it can be released. I noticed from the opening remarks just now that the Development Bureau is currently studying the possible usage of this piece of land. As Mr Tony TSE also mentioned earlier, we hope that it will not be wasted by the Government. It is because at present, people are very concerned about the housing supply and the uses of land. We wish that the Government can consider cautiously the possibility of developing diversified communities, 4550 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 especially the supply of more public housing and other types of housing. It is our wish that the Government can improve the related supporting facilities so that the development potential of this piece of land of 20 hectares can be maximized.

Deputy President, I support the motion concerned. Of course, what is of utmost importance at present is that the pandemic can be kept under control very soon for early resumption of cross-boundary movements. With these remarks, I support the motion. Thank you, Deputy President.

MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I speak in favour of the motion moved by the Secretary for Security to support the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR") Government, in collaboration with the Shenzhen Municipal Government, to jointly press ahead the redevelopment of the Huanggang Port and implement co-location arrangement at the redeveloped Huanggang Port. The plan is worth our support because it will optimize cross-boundary infrastructures and enhance the convenience of boundary clearance, as well as renew the aged Hong Kong/Shenzhen port which has been used for more than 30 years. Also, the plan meets the need of Hong Kong to integrate into the country's overall development in the new era and help further improve the ports, transportation and distribution of industries in the region, thereby further facilitating the free movement of talents, which is one of the key factors to the development of the Greater Bay Area.

Deputy President, as the Chief Executive announced in the Policy Address, the Central Government supports a series of planning measures to improve the infrastructures of the land boundary control points between Hong Kong and Shenzhen. One such measure is to enhance the Lok Ma Chau/Huanggang control point and implement co-location arrangement at the new Huanggang control point. And there are other measures as well, such as enhancing the Lo Wu control point and allowing Hong Kong private cars to travel to Guangdong through land boundary control points between Hong Kong and Shenzhen. If we take a higher perspective, or if we consider also other new policy measures the Central Government has adopted to support Hong Kong in integrating into the Greater Bay Area, we can see the new blueprint for rapid development of the Greater Bay Area. These new policies include the establishment of new platforms to enable Hong Kong enterprises to expand their domestic sale channels and grasp the opportunities generated by the domestic circulation; the launch of policy measures that promote mutual access of drugs, devices and medical LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4551 services across the boundary, such as the launch of the Gangyaotong programme; and measures that enable Hong Kong enterprises to seize the time and lease part of the Innovation and Technology ("I&T") Zone in Futian of the Shenzhen Innovation and Technology Zone ("SITZ"), so that they can establish a presence in the Shenzhen-Hong Kong Innovation and Technology Co-operation Zone ("the Co-operation Zone") before the first batch of buildings in the Hong Kong-Shenzhen Innovation and Technology Park ("HSITP") at Lok Ma Chau are completed in 2024. Certainly, apart from these policies, a steady start and good execution are also very important. These policies have to be mutually complementary and well-coordinated to deliver the best results.

Regarding how the HKSAR Government will embark on the redevelopment of the Huanggang Port and implement co-location arrangement after securing this Council's support for the motion, the Secretary for Security gave a brief just now on the agreed arrangements after discussion between the Hong Kong and Shenzhen authorities. The arrangements include assigning the new Huanggang Port as a clearance port for passengers only and not for goods vehicles. The construction of the new passenger clearance building will be undertaken by contractors from the Shenzhen side. Prior consensus will be sought from both the Hong Kong and Shenzhen sides on the design of the project to ensure that the design complies with the laws and standards of Hong Kong. The new Huanggang Port will be modelled on the Shenzhen Bay Port in respect of the latter's co-location arrangement. The HKSAR Government will exercise full jurisdiction in the Hong Kong Port Area of the new Huanggang Port and draw reference from the arrangement adopted in the Express Rail Link West Kowloon Station and pay a nominal fee of RMB1,000 per year to the Shenzhen side as rent. All these are appropriate and practical arrangements to pragmatically address the present problem of the disconnected buildings of the Huanggang and Lok Ma Chau control points, which cause passengers time and trouble to travel between the buildings of the Hong Kong and Shenzhen sides for clearance. Besides, the arrangements tie in with the enhanced strategy of "East in East out, West in West out" for cross-boundary goods traffic, so that West-bound cross-boundary goods vehicles can be redirected to use the Shenzhen Bay Port. The governments of the two sides will seek the approval of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress as and when appropriate for implementing the co-location arrangement in the Huanggang Port; and thereafter the HKSAR Government will proceed with the work on local legislation to provide a solid legal basis for the arrangement. This Council will closely follow up the aforementioned tasks and I will not repeat the details here.

4552 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

Deputy President, next, I wish to talk about the supporting planning, that is, the land to be released for other uses from the redevelopment of the Huanggang Port and the implementation of the co-location arrangement. The Secretary mentioned in his speech that more than 20 hectares of land would be freed up from the Lok Ma Chau control point at the Hong Kong side. However, we are concerned that he only said the Development Bureau was now looking into the feasible uses of the site and the Bureau does not even have an idea about how to use the site.

As for the Shenzhen side, similarly, they will have about 50 hectares of land released because the Huanggang Port will not provide goods inspection after the redevelopment. It has been reported that this vast piece of land will be used for the development of SITZ of the Co-operation Zone. The former goods inspection area and car park of the Huanggang Port will be transformed into a scientific research centre, a laboratory and a convention centre. According to the planning, the entire Huanggang Port area will become a science cooperation and research centre that integrates areas of microelectronics, material research and development, artificial intelligence, robotic technologies, medicine, etc.

The Mainland regards the Huanggang Port as a key node in SITZ and HSITP of the Co-operation Zone, which has strategic importance. It is an important hub in linking the Guangdong-Shenzhen-Hong Kong-Macao Innovative Technology Corridor. From the perspective of transport, they have made planning of the same level on their part to tie in with the development, so as to develop the new Huanggang Port into a super port and an integrated transport hub that radiates to the Greater Bay Area and connects with the world. Associated planning includes introducing the Guangzhou-Shenzhen Intercity Railway, the Guangzhou-Dongguan-Shenzhen Intercity Railway and the Shenzhen Metro Line 20; and reserving places for connection with the bifurcation of the Northern Link of the MTR Corporation Limited.

Deputy President, I believe the HKSAR Government is well aware of the importance of the new development of the Huanggang Port to passenger clearance of the two places, cross-boundary transportation, the I&T industry and to trading and logistics; otherwise, it would not have five Bureau Directors and Under Secretaries attending this motion debate. The works project of the new Huanggang Port is expected to complete in two to three years. I hope that when LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4553 the HKSAR Government actively follows up the subsequent work associated with the new Huanggang Port, it will comprehensively consider the development of the whole area and make early planning for the uses of the land to be released, so as to ensure that Hong Kong can make good use of the new positioning and the new Huanggang Port, take the development of Hong Kong, Shenzhen and the Greater Bay Area to a higher level and create a multiple-win situation for all.

Deputy President, I so submit.

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I speak in support of the collaboration between the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR") Government and the Shenzhen Municipal Government in pressing ahead the redevelopment of the Huanggang Port and the implementation of co-location arrangement at the redeveloped Huanggang Port. I also support the HKSAR Government to seek authorization from the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") in the future for implementing co-location arrangement at the Hong Kong Port Area ("HKPA") of the redeveloped Huanggang Port.

While co-location arrangement is not something new, it can be said that the Huanggang Port forms part of the collective memory of many people in Hong Kong. When the Shenzhen Bay Port was commissioned in 2007, an HKPA was set up at the boundary facilities located in the Mainland for implementing co-location arrangement, thus setting a precedent for the arrangement and facilitating the flow of people and goods between the Mainland and Hong Kong. The arrangement has been operating smoothly in the past 14 years, and both jurisdictions have never encountered the legal problems predicted back then by the opposition camp, because everything has been proceeding under broad daylight.

Deputy President, with regard to the project undertaken back in those years to develop the Shenzhen Bay Port, the Hong Kong side has paid a construction cost of $2.4 billion and a land development cost of $1.7 billion, together with an annual land rental of $8 million. The land rental has been adjusted to a nominal amount of $1,000 annually since 2019. As for the proposal put forward this time, we can note from the paper submitted by the Government that the Shenzhen Municipal Government will bear all the costs incurred in undertaking the project 4554 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 to redevelop the Huanggang Port. I consider this a very generous offer from the Shenzhen Municipal Government, and it will do all good but no harm to Hong Kong. We can truly feel that Shenzhen and the country love Hong Kong very dearly, and Hong Kong must not let them down.

The Yellow Bus service to the Huanggang Port has left behind fond memories in many Hong Kong people of the older generation, reminding them of the days when they carried "red-white-blue" stripped plastic bags and embarked on their journeys to the Mainland for visiting relatives. The Huanggang Port has become less convenient nowadays, and people will choose to travel to the Mainland via the Shenzhen Bay Port if possible, because they can feel the convenience brought by the co-location arrangement.

There were a lot of controversies in the Legislative Council three years ago when a discussion was held on the implementation of co-location arrangement at the West Kowloon Station of the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL"). I think answers are already available today to many of these controversies, especially such claims as how the Mainland authorities have in the legal sense infringed the jurisdiction of Hong Kong, and how the authorities have bypassed Article 18 of the Basic Law, paid no heed to its stipulations and simply adopted the decisions of NPCSC. I remember that during the discussion held back then, it was our hope that everything concerning legal matters, infrastructural works, manpower arrangements and service provision would operate under broad daylight, so that travellers would not be affected by the anxieties imagined by the opposition camp. We can see from the services provided by the Mainland side that all personnel deployed have been specially trained.

As far as infrastructural works are concerned, I wonder if you have ever heard of the nickname given to China by the international engineering sector, that is the "Infrastructure Monster". No matter what sorts of infrastructural projects, China can always complete them on schedule, and no matter what difficulties are involved, the mission will always be completed even though workers are required to go up hill or down dale, ford rivers and streams, and even climb up high buildings. I therefore definitely have full confidence in China's strength in undertaking infrastructural projects.

In our present discussion on pressing ahead the implementation of co-location arrangement at the Huanggang Port, I conversely think that the focus LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4555 should be put on the discrepancy in economic development between the two places, and Hong Kong should strive to better itself in this respect. In 2006, the Gross Domestic Product ("GDP") of Hong Kong amounted to HK$1,503.3 billion, while the amount registered for that of Shenzhen was RMB568.4 billion. Hong Kong was way ahead of Shenzhen then, and was still the locomotive for economic development in the Delta. I remember that I often visited Shenzhen en route to Beijing in 1987 when I pursued my study there, and just like most residents in Shenzhen then, I could never imagined that Shenzhen would develop into a high-tech city, which has already caught up with Silicon Valley and will even overtake it in the near future. This is a "Shenzhen dream" realized with the joint efforts of all Shenzhen residents.

Among my friends from Shenzhen whom I made as early as in the 1980s and the 1990s, many were not born there. They came from other provinces who went to Shenzhen to pursue their dream, and this dream has already been realized before our eyes today.

In 2020, while Hong Kong's GDP amounted to $2,710.7 billion, Shenzhen's GDP has already increased by three times to RMB2,767 billion. The Bureau pointed out just now that the Huanggang Port would mainly be used for providing passenger services, and I am happy on hearing this. I am confident that services of a super high standard will definitely be provided there, bringing much convenience to passengers using its facilities, especially when our XRL station implementing co-location arrangement has given passengers a considerably good impression.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the Shenzhen Municipal Government. Every time I visit Shenzhen for exchanges, I can feel the loving care from Shenzhen people for Hong Kong, and I do not think they have an urge to engage in vicious competition with us as many Hong Kong people have anticipated. They are gravely concerned about the situation in Hong Kong, especially in 2019. They have good feelings towards Hong Kong, thinking that Hong Kong people used to work hard together with them when they were poor back in those years, and this has contributed to the success and economic take-off of both cities.

I think that the Shenzhen Municipal Government is willing to devote its financial resources and efforts to take forward the project under discussion, it is a goodwill gesture to Hong Kong in the hope that the two places can join hands in 4556 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 future development. Having been entrusted by the country with major tasks, Shenzhen still wishes to go hand in hand with Hong Kong on the road of economic success. This is indeed a precious opportunity that Hong Kong people should grasp and cherish.

When making preparation for my speech today, I looked up the record of proceedings for the debate held on this subject in the 2006-2007 session when I was not yet a Member of this legislature. I am also a bit overcome with emotion today when there is no more opposition Member in this Chamber. Although most of the Members of the pro-democracy or opposition camp abstained from voting then, some moderate Members were not bundled up and voted in favour of the proposed arrangements. The entire deliberation process of the bill introduced then was very smooth, and 16 meetings were convened in a month to discuss the legislative proposals. Some opposition Members raised the same queries then, holding the views that having, NPCSC had bypassed Article 18 of the Basic Law and applied national laws in Hong Kong, and they also queried whether Hong Kong officers had the right to exercise jurisdiction within the territory of the Mainland.

With hindsight, all these queries can only reveal that the Members concerned know nothing about the Constitution of the People's Republic of China as well as the constitutional status of NPCSC's decisions and interpretations, and they also have only superficial knowledge of the implementation of international law. As a matter of fact, the co-location arrangement is not an invention by Hong Kong and China, and there have been successful examples of its implementation all these years between the United States and Canada as well as the United Kingdom and France. The arrangement is nothing new and is widely recognized as a super policy which benefits both people's livelihood and the flow of people.

By implementing co-location arrangement between Hong Kong and the Mainland, we can demonstrate the characteristics of "one country, two systems", while at the same time preserve the special feature that the Mainland and Hong Kong can retain their respective jurisdictions. This is one great inspiration given to us by the successful example of the Shenzhen Bay Port. I fully agree that the Government should take forward the follow-up tasks of introducing the relevant local legislation into this Council after an approval has been secured from NPCSC for the two Governments to implement co-location arrangement.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4557

It is my hope that after the electoral system of the Legislative Council has been improved, debates of a higher quality can be conducted in the future during our discussion on major policies which are beneficial to people's livelihood. We welcome a wide spectrum of opinions, but it is not our wish to have a repetition of all those ugly scenes that we have witnessed in this legislature over the past few years. Even though there are differences of opinions, I hope the opposition camp will engage in public policy discussion in compliance with the principle of "one country, two systems", the Basic Law and civilized rules, thereby displaying a quality and civilized parliamentary culture.

Deputy President, I so submit.

MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I speak in support of the motion moved by the Secretary for Security on taking forward the follow-up tasks of implementing co-location arrangement at the Huanggang Port. The motion seeks support for the Hong Kong Government to collaborate with the Shenzhen Municipal Government to press ahead the redevelopment of the Huanggang Port and to implement co-location arrangement at the redeveloped Huanggang Port, with a view to enhancing travel convenience of passengers and promoting efficient flow of and connectivity between people in the two places.

In the Policy Address delivered in November last year, the Chief Executive has already pointed out that we should rationalize the Hong Kong-Shenzhen land boundary control points by progressively implementing the "East in East out, West in West out" planning strategy for cross-boundary goods traffic, and using other control points including the redeveloped Huanggang Port mainly for handling passenger flow. The proposed initiative is a systematic and proper way to tackle problems associated with cross-boundary passenger, cargo and vehicle flows in the long run.

It has been almost 30 years since the commissioning of the Huanggang Port, and as suggested just now by Secretary LEE, its port facilities have become outdated, while the original design can no longer cope with the ever-increasing passenger and cargo flows. The Huanggang Port in Shenzhen is not physically connected with Lok Ma Chau Control Point in Hong Kong, and as we all know, cross-boundary passengers have to travel between the two control points by a shuttle bus commonly known as the "Yellow Bus". Apart from the need to board and alight from the bus several times, this trip is also tiresome and 4558 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 time-consuming. The port redevelopment plan proposed by the Secretary now seeks mainly to provide a passenger terminal building for implementing co-location arrangement at the original site of the Huanggang Port in Shenzhen.

With reference to the mode of implementing co-location arrangement at the Shenzhen Bay Port, a Hong Kong Port Area and a Mainland Port Area will be set up at the new passenger terminal building for the conduct of customs, immigration and quarantine procedures. According to the port development plan of the Shenzhen Municipal Government and as described by Secretary Frank CHAN just now, the redeveloped Huanggang Port will become a transportation hub which provides connectivity to a number of urban metro lines and intercity railway lines, as well as a footpath leading to the Futian Port. It is expected that after its completion, the redeveloped Huanggang Port will not only bring convenience to tourists and passengers visiting various districts in Shenzhen but also facilitate the flow of people between other cities in the Greater Bay Area and the Huanggang Port. Upon the commissioning of the passenger terminal building, the number of people and vehicles using the Huanggang Port are also expected to significantly increase.

As the new passenger terminal building of the Huanggang Port will be located in Shenzhen, which is under the jurisdiction of the Mainland, members of the public and the tourism industry have expressed concern about the provision of feeder services between the passenger terminal building and Hong Kong. For example, will adequate parking spaces be provided at the Huanggang Port for public buses, taxis, non-franchised buses and private cars coming from Hong Kong? Will these parking spaces be available to designated vehicles only? Will smooth traffic movement be maintained at road sections connecting Hong Kong and the Huanggang Port to accommodate a huge vehicle flow in the future? I hope the Security Bureau and the Transport and Housing Bureau will make early planning in this respect, inform trade members in advance of the relevant details, and enhance connectivity between various districts in Hong Kong and the Huanggang Port, thereby improving the accessibility of the redeveloped Huanggang Port.

In addition, I share the concern of trade members about the parking arrangements at the redeveloped Huanggang Port for picking up and dropping off tour group members by coaches in the future. Ancillary transport facilities currently provided at various boundary control points for tour groups are obviously insufficient, and the problem is particularly serious at several land LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4559 boundary control points in Shenzhen. As pointed out previously by a number of trade members in the tourism industry, since no parking lot was provided in the Mainland side of the Shenzhen Bay Port for coaches serving tour groups, passengers had to walk to the pick-up point before they could get on board a coach. I remember that when travelling to the Mainland via the Shenzhen Bay Port years ago, passengers leaving the passenger terminal building had to walk on a road for a distance before they can get on a coach at roadside. The situation was subsequently improved after we had lodged complaints about this, and a parking area for coaches is now available. However, owing to the limited space of the parking lot, coaches have to queue up outside when there are too many of them using the facility.

The situation at the Futian Port, which is in close proximity of Lok Ma Chau Station, is more or less the same or even worse because a parking lot for coaches is still not available so far. When arriving at the meeting point, tour group members will be led by their tour guide or tour escort to take a walk for over 10 minutes before they can get on board a coach at the side of a road in a non-restricted area nearby. As the exact parking location is unknown, they have to contact the coach driver beforehand every time. It is both troublesome and dangerous to do so, but the problem has never been resolved.

Similarly, for tour group members coming to Hong Kong via the Huanggang Port previously, coach drivers had to pick them up at San Tin after they arrived at the place by "Yellow Bus". However, as parking spaces for coaches were not available there, a large number of drivers had to park their coaches nearby while waiting for their passengers, thus occasionally blocking the roads in the vicinity of San Tin, causing much discontent among local residents and affecting the traffic around there. Ultimately, we managed to solve the problem by borrowing the parking lot at the Boxes for temporary parking purpose, and I hereby express thanks to "Brother Elephant" here for his assistance.

We therefore do not wish to see a repeat of this problem at the redeveloped Huanggang Port in the future, where trade members will have no problem seeing off visitors, but can find no parking lot for picking them up with coaches. When seeing off tour group members, coach drivers can simply drop off their passengers and leave, but when picking up passengers, they have to park their vehicles at a designated place, wait until all passengers have got on board the coach before they can leave. In this connection, I hope both the Hong Kong side and the Mainland side of the redeveloped Huanggang Port will be provided with a 4560 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 parking lot for coaches, thereby bringing convenience to tour group members. It is also my wish that by drawing lessons from the problems encountered previously at the two boundary control points as mentioned just now, the Government will make better planning in upgrading the clearance environment at the redeveloped Huanggang Port, so as to achieve the goals of bringing convenience to the people and promoting the economy.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

President, given the rapid pace of the future development in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, it is believed that there will be an increasing demand for port facilities after we have brought the epidemic under control, and there will be a return of in growth momentum in tourism activities in the Greater Bay Area, including multi-destination tourism activities involving overseas visitors passing through Hong Kong. By then, there will definitely be an increased flow of people and tour groups between Guangdong and Hong Kong via various land boundary control points. I hope the SAR Government will maintain communication with the relevant authorities or governments in the Mainland. Apart from solving the problems at the Huanggang port as mentioned just now, it should examine the future functions of various boundary control points and their division of work, or even the potential challenges we may face in the coming 10 years and beyond, so as to prepare in advance and work together to enhance the functions of different boundary control points in Hong Kong.

President, I so submit.

MR KENNETH LAU (in Cantonese): I speak in support of the motion proposed by the Government on taking forward the follow-up tasks of implementing co-location arrangement at the Huanggang Port.

The Huanggang Port is the only land port between Shenzhen and Hong Kong operating on a 24-hour basis. Since the reunification, it has been playing an important role in the exchange between Shenzhen and Hong Kong. Throughout 2019, more than 24.8 million cross-boundary trips were made between Hong Kong and Shenzhen via the Huanggang Port. However, the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4561 passenger clearance buildings of both sides are separately located on either bank of the Shenzhen River, making it very inconvenient for passengers to cross the boundary. Passengers travelling north from Hong Kong to Shenzhen have to get off their vehicles at the Lok Ma Chau Control Point on the Hong Kong side, go through departure procedures, then take a shuttle bus across the Shenzhen River, and then, upon arrival at the Huanggang Port in Shenzhen, get off the bus to go through immigration procedures of the Mainland. Apart from being costly in both time and effort, the process is also quite cumbersome. However, if the co-location arrangement is adopted, passengers just need to go through the clearance procedures of both Hong Kong and the Mainland in one go at the Huanggang Port Joint Inspection Building in Shenzhen, so the time needed for customs clearance will be greatly reduced. It is definitely a measure that makes life easier for the public.

Co-location arrangement has been in place for many years at the borders between the United States and Canada and between the United Kingdom and France. It is not a new arrangement for Hong Kong either, but one that is operating in compliance with laws and regulations. The Shenzhen Bay Port ("SBP"), which was commissioned in 2007, has adopted the very same arrangement. Prior to the commissioning of SBP, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress and the State Council approved the leasing by Hong Kong of part of the area within the port for designation as the Hong Kong Port Area and authorized HKSAR to exercise jurisdiction over it in accordance with the laws of Hong Kong.

If the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link, which was commissioned in 2018, is taken into account, then there are already two control points of Hong Kong implementing co-location arrangement. Over the past 14 years, SBP has been running like clockwork in terms of passenger clearance, legal matters and even motor insurance, among others. It has become the busiest land boundary crossing between Shenzhen and Hong Kong, fully reflecting the fact that the co-location arrangement is not just practicable but also widely accepted in society.

Having been in operation for over 30 years since commissioning in 1980s, the Huanggang Port is unable to catch up with today's requirements, whether in terms of hardware or scale. With the increasing interaction between Hong Kong and Shenzhen, it is a very common phenomenon that the waiting area of the Lok 4562 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

Ma Chau Control Point is overcrowded with cross-boundary passengers. Therefore, I consider that the port needs improvement. The current redevelopment of the Huanggang Port in Shenzhen, coupled with the progressive implementation of the "East in East out, West in West out" planning strategy for goods traffic, will improve the division of labour among boundary crossings, making it the ideal opportunity to implement co-location arrangement. The future Huanggang Port will be used solely for passenger clearance. As passengers can complete clearance procedures of both Hong Kong and the Mainland in the same building, I believe that the efficiency of passenger clearance will be greatly enhanced and their customs clearance experiences will also be improved.

President, as I said earlier, the Huanggang Port has been in operation for over 30 years since commissioning, but it remains one of the most important ports, primarily because it has everything going for it in terms of geographic location. It is located at the southern end of the in Shenzhen, close to the central business district of Shenzhen and across the river from Lok Ma Chau in Hong Kong.

Furthermore, as regards the Shenzhen-Hong Kong Innovation and Technology Co-operation Zone, which is to be jointly developed by the governments of Shenzhen and Hong Kong, both the Shenzhen Innovation and Technology Zone ("SITZ") and the Hong Kong-Shenzhen Innovation and Technology Park ("HSITP") will be located right on the boundary land of Lok Ma Chau. HSITP alone already reaches 1.2 million sq m in gross floor area. Together with the over 20 hectares of boundary land released upon implementation of co-location arrangement, it can be used to support the development of the Lok Ma Chau Loop. Lok Ma Chau will be transformed into the largest innovation and technology platform in Hong Kong. I am convinced that the Huanggang Port will only grow in importance. If successfully implemented at the Huanggang Port, the co-location arrangement will greatly enhance the connectivity between SITZ and HSITP, as well as facilitate the exchange of talent and technology. This will help consolidate Hong Kong's positioning as an international innovation and technology hub, and establish "one zone, two parks" at "one river, two banks" under the auspices of "one country, two systems", thus contributing positively to the implementation of the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4563

President, I believe that the co-location arrangement at the Huanggang Port will facilitate interaction between Hong Kong and the Mainland, as well as promote cooperation between Shenzhen and Hong Kong to leverage the strengths of both cities, which will help deepen cooperation in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area and give new impetus to the nation's new development pattern of domestic and international dual circulation. It plays an important part in advancing the integration of Hong Kong into the international development and takes a key role in the future development of Hong Kong.

President, with these remarks, I support the motion.

MR LAU KWOK-FAN (in Cantonese): President, I support the motion moved by the Secretary for Security on taking forward the follow-up tasks of implementing co-location arrangement at the Huanggang Port.

Members of the public who know me well or who often pay attention to this Council know that I am very concerned about land use or port economy in the New Territories. This motion is very worthy of support. I am very glad today to see that five Directors of Bureaux have spoken on this motion. They have made exactly the right first step, which I appreciate very much. Why? In the past, we often criticized that the role given to the boundary crossings in Hong Kong was just to meet the needs for cross-boundary clearance and commuting within the context of transport, and it was usually tasked to the Security Bureau, if not the Transport and Housing Bureau, and that is it. However, let us look at how Shenzhen makes use of the entry and exit ports. Each port has a different role, as in the case of the current redevelopment of the Huanggang Port, which has a role that fits the needs of the Greater Bay Area or Shenzhen as a whole.

We all say that the Huanggang Port has been in use for 30 years. The co-location arrangement at this port will definitely help bring convenience to cross-boundary passengers. Undoubtedly, we are very supportive of it. We also see that, following the completion of the Huanggang Port in the past, Shenzhen gradually shifted its focus from Lo Wu to Futian and has been on a very good development path ever since. Fast-forward to today and there are new needs.

4564 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

What does this entry and exit port mean to Shenzhen? For Shenzhen, this port is the "No. 1 Project" for the development of the Greater Bay Area, hence its paramount importance. The future planning of the Huanggang Port will include the Guangzhou-Shenzhen Intercity Railway and the Guangzhou-Dongguan-Shenzhen Intercity Railway, making it a super-port and an integrated transport hub with a global vision to serve the whole Greater Bay Area. The redevelopment of the Huanggang Port will release 500 000 sq m of land for the development of the Shenzhen-Hong Kong Innovation and Technology Co-operation Zone. The environment for customs clearance in the new port will also be enhanced through comprehensive upgrading and remodelling.

Members may wish to think about how many functions will be created by upgrading and remodelling an entry and exit port, especially when it occupies an important strategic location. Therefore, the arrangements and follow-up tasks on the part of Hong Kong definitely require close coordination in future among several Directors of Bureaux, or several Bureaux, for long-term planning, because I hold that the opening of this new port will not only increase the capacity for cross-boundary passenger traffic, but also bring about opportunities to deepen the integration of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area by optimizing the setting for customs clearance between the two places. However, as I have just pointed out, Hong Kong has for many years regarded the boundary crossings only as a facility for controlling cross-boundary passenger flow and traffic, and not cared much about their function as a nexus for driving the economy. Although there is a small amount of planning in place, the progress has not been satisfactory, hence forming a stark contrast with Shenzhen and wasting the opportunities provided by the boundary crossings to drive the economic development of New Territories North.

To begin with, I would like to talk about transport connectivity. The redeveloped Huanggang Port will become a transport hub. On the Mainland side, connection will be made to intercity railways, Shenzhen metro lines and so on, making it very convenient. However, there is no arrangement or finalized plan yet in Hong Kong for connection to the new Huanggang Port. Admittedly, the Secretary for Security has also mentioned in the Panel on Security that he will engage with the Transport and Housing Bureau to actively explore the possibilities of transport facilitation and the feasibilities of various transport means, such as direct vehicular access and on-board clearance of passengers. The thing is, a new railway line called the Northern Link has already been LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4565 announced earlier, but seriously, is there a planned spur line to the Huanggang Port for Hong Kong people to go there by train and then change directly onto an intercity train for various provinces and cities in the Mainland? It seems that this point has not been mentioned in relation to the Northern Link or by any Policy Bureau.

We now see that, amid the pandemic, some boundary crossings are available only for freight transport. The Liantang Port is an example. Having said that, I personally consider that the Liantang Port represents a big step forward, because it is the first boundary crossing in Hong Kong to be accessible on foot, which is something the North District Council or the local community strove for in the past. Will the future Huanggang Port also provide such convenience to Hong Kong people? Admittedly, some places in the Mainland are closed areas, but how can the access to that location be made easier for Hong Kong people? I would like to draw the Bureaux's attention particularly to the planning of the Northern Link. In that regard, I am suggesting here today that a Huanggang Port Station should be added to provide a more convenient connection. The thing is, the construction of the Northern Link project will not commence until 2023 and is not expected to be completed until 2034, so in the meantime others may have already taken a few steps forwards. Therefore, I urge the Government to pay more attention to this matter.

The second point is about transport facilitation measures. Since this port serves the sole purpose of passenger clearance and is not for freight transport, so as to tie in with the strategy of "East in East out, West in West out", I hope that the SAR Government also strives to bring about convenience for Hong Kong people. At present, some cars with cross-boundary permits are specifically required to use only certain boundary crossings. For example, those with a permit for Shenzhen Bay can only go through the Shenzhen Bay Port and those with a permit for Sha Tau Kok can only go through the Sha Tau Kok Port. What is the problem then? If I want to go to Longgang, Shenzhen, and my permit is only applicable to Shenzhen Bay, I have to access the Shuiguan Expressway via the Shenzhen Bay Port and then inch through the congested thoroughfares in the urban area of Shenzhen as the only way to reach Longgang or places further afar, such as Chaozhou. The thing is, if "East in East out, West in West out" is the requirement but there is a mismatch between the ports and the permits, the private cars will in fact still obstruct the traffic in the urban area of Shenzhen. Can the Hong Kong Government coordinate better with the Shenzhen Municipal Government so that these ports can grant clearance based on the destination? If a vehicle with dual licence plates needs to go to Longgang, , Chaozhou 4566 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 and so on, it should be allowed to use the Liantang Port or the Sha Tau Kok Port. If it needs to go to Guangzhou, Nansha and so on, it should be allowed to use the Shenzhen Bay Port. This arrangement is also in line with the principle of "East in East out, West in West out".

Moreover, in order to better meet the needs of the Greater Bay Area, I hope that while the Huanggang Port is being redeveloped, 24-hour customs clearance will be available at the Shenzhen Bay Port. Actually, I hope that 24-hour customs clearance will be available at more boundary crossings in future. It is also my hope that 24-hour customs clearance at the Shenzhen Bay Port is not merely an alternative measure during the redevelopment of the Huanggang Port, which will be revoked upon completion of the redevelopment. I hope that at least there will be one 24-hour boundary crossing in the east, west and middle to facilitate the flow of people, vehicles and goods to and from the Greater Bay Area in future. This is very important and I urge the SAR Government to take the initiative to strive for it, because looking back at the whole plan, including the redevelopment of the Huanggang Port, it seems that the Shenzhen side is in the driving seat all the way. I believe that the SAR Government should offer more advice on certain aspects.

Another point is about the infrastructure support facilities. Hong Kong has all along regarded the boundary crossings as a cross-boundary infrastructure for commutes of people from both sides but the facilities in the surrounding areas basically remain untouched. Take the Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai Boundary Control Point as an example. Despite its opening, there are no supporting facilities except for the Heung Yuen Wai Highway, which connects to the highway network in the New Territories. Although the Government has reserved a site of 56 hectares near Heung Yuen Wai for development of industrial estates, it seems to remain a vision being explored and there is not yet a definite land use proposal. Is this rate of progress a little slow? Our counterpart is able to release a lot of land after the redevelopment and has indicated its wish to build a Shenzhen-Hong Kong innovation and technology hub. I hope that the Innovation and Technology Bureau or the Development Bureau will step up their efforts to study how to create a port economy, jobs or innovative technology in relation to the land in the boundary area.

Upon implementation of co-location arrangement at the Huanggang Port, at least 20 hectares of land within Hong Kong will be freed up. The Secretary for Security has mentioned in the Panel that the Development Bureau will actively study the use of these 20-odd hectares of land. In my view, the planning of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4567 supporting facilities around such land is very important. We should not focus only on these 20 hectares of land. Instead, we should use them as a jumping-off point to cover New Territories North as a whole, including the San Tin and Lok Ma Chau areas. The Government should give due consideration to the projects under construction and planned in the vicinity, such as the innovation and technology park at the Lok Ma Chau Loop, so that this new development area can attract a large population inflow and increase employment.

In fact, why is there such a big difference between the two places separated by a river? I think it is because the SAR Government has studied again, again, and again for a very long period of time, whereas the Shenzhen government has put their thoughts into action, giving rise to a development gap between the two places. We have taken a play-it-by-ear approach to the development of boundary crossings. Now that the Huanggang Port is being redeveloped, we will dovetail with it, but actually the Mainland already has different plans for the several ports. I have some documents that introduce each and every port. For example, the Lo Wu Control Point is used exclusively for passenger clearance, but not for freight transport. The Shenzhen Bay Port is a dual-use port for passengers and freight, so it supports freight transport. The Futian Port and the Lok Ma Chau Control Point … Basically, each port has its own strategic positioning to prepare for future development. I hope that the boundary crossings in Hong Kong are no longer subject to a play-it-by-ear approach. We should have a comprehensive plan. The Government should also cherish and seize this opportunity to fulfil the follow-up tasks of implementing co-location arrangement at the Huanggang Port, put the infrastructure-led approach into practice by expeditiously improving the infrastructure support in surrounding areas, and actively develop the port economy to bring about more employment and bring forward some housing developments in the area.

Lastly, I hold that, upon passage of this motion on taking forward the follow-up tasks of implementing co-location arrangement at the Huanggang Port, we must formulate the overall infrastructure support arrangements in a more expeditious and comprehensive manner, and conduct overall planning of land use in relation to the Huanggang Port. I hope that the current attendance of the five Directors of Bureaux at this Council meeting to move the motion and speak is not a full stop, but rather that, upon passage of the motion today, the Directors or officers of the Bureaux will work more closely together to study how to utilize the land around boundary crossings.

4568 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

After completion of the follow-up tasks at the Huanggang Port, there are actually other boundary crossings in Hong Kong where we can make follow-up arrangements. We cannot afford to tackle problems on the fly. Instead, it is high time we took a step forward. Therefore, I strongly support the motion moved by the Secretary for Security on taking forward the follow-up tasks of implementing co-location arrangement at the Huanggang Port, and hope that various departments seize this opportunity to develop the land in New Territories North into the centre of the Greater Bay Area. Thank you, President.

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): We are now discussing the motion on taking forward the follow-up tasks of implementing co-location arrangement at the Huanggang Port. I initially thought that this was a relatively simple motion, and its discussion probably would not take much time. Who knows that it has turned so complicated. I will only give a brief speech of around five to seven minutes.

The discussion on implementing co-location arrangement at Huanggang Port actually has a history of 20 years. The dispute involved may date back to 2000, but the dispute in history is actually over nothing more than a few issues: First, the dispute over jurisdiction; second, the administrative arrangements for dealing with site selection for constructing the relevant passenger clearance building; and third, political discussions, meaning the involvement or otherwise of any amendments to the relevant local legislation in Hong Kong when the Government finalizes the details on the first two issues. This explains why discussions on such land crossings spanning the past decade have been delayed until now, and it is only in 2021 that the authorities try to seek the Legislative Council's endorsement of the relevant arrangements at long last.

Under the prevailing social circumstances, when the general masses hear "co-location arrangement", they will naturally associate it with the co-location arrangement for the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL"). I hope Members can be clear about one point, the point that the co-location arrangement to be implemented at Huanggang Port now under discussion is quite another matter when compared with XRL's co-location arrangement as we understand it. This explains why I said at the beginning of my speech that I thought the motion was relatively simple, and I did not expect that its discussion would last so long. In other words, the implementation of the proposed arrangement will not require the identification of a site in the urban centre of Hong Kong and any subsequent amendments to the Basic Law. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4569

Neither will it give rise to any concerns people had before the implementation of XRL's co-location arrangement, one example being the concern about the "outsourcing" or cession of jurisdiction over a place in Hong Kong. There were such discussions back then, so everybody was worried about the emergence of various problems in West Kowloon. The case has not turned out to be like this in the end.

Under the proposed arrangement, Hong Kong will rent a site at Huanggang in Shenzhen probably at a nominal rent of $1,000 a year―I do not know the arrangements for actual implementation―and customs clearance and security check will be conducted in the same building. Therefore, our discussion actually should be in the exact opposite direction and instead centre on the question of how Hong Kong's law enforcement agencies can enjoy jurisdiction to enforce the law there under the rules and regulations of the Shenzhen Municipal Government. In the light of this, the relevant arrangement should be distinguished from XRL's arrangement as Members understand it, and the Shenzhen Bay model will be adopted instead.

Are there any concerns in this part? Based on the public sentiment these days, I will say the answer is in the affirmative to my understanding. The first concern is about jurisdiction. While everybody knows that the legislation must be amended to allow the relevant Hong Kong departments to enforce the law within a designated area in Shenzhen, some people are concerned about the possibility of cross-boundary law enforcement or unclear delineation of powers and responsibilities in the actual law enforcement process. The relevant Bills Committee actually discussed such issues at one point, and the Bureau concerned also replied that they would strictly abide by the law. All this stems from the very question of trust.

Second, I believe the cross-boundary passenger clearance building at Huanggang Port will serve as an indicator for high technology. What I mean to say is that in the case of other cross-boundary passenger clearance buildings, even though they may need redevelopment or repair in the future, the communications or data management systems to be set up therein―based on our previous understanding―will not arouse any public concern about such problems as the mutual exchange or even theft of Hong Kong people's personal data or personnel movement records. According to the Government's reply, under the existing framework, people need not worry about all this because even though the passenger clearance building is located in Shenzhen, the existing systems of the Hong Kong Immigration Department and the Hong Kong Customs and Excise 4570 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

Department are to be used for handling security work. All such concerns likewise stem from the very question of confidence in the Government, meaning the question of whether people believe that the Government can protect the personal data, freedom of movement and personal movement data of Hong Kong people. This likewise involves the question of confidence.

The third point concerns the actual administrative arrangements. What I mean is that this Council will have to approve funding for part of the building construction expenditure. For example, part of the building construction cost, the expenditure on procuring furniture and fixtures, items, systems and equipment for use by various government departments of Hong Kong in the building will be afforded by Hong Kong with funding approved by the Legislative Council. But people are worried about a possible problem of our concern all along, the problem that any such infrastructure facilities that are constructed under cooperation or collaboration between both places may "benefit" Mainland contractors or developers or even involve funneling of benefits as some have asserted in their criticisms or reproaches. But so far, Members may have noticed that the construction of the building does not involve any complicated works, and our understanding based on the papers of the Finance Committee is that the required expenditure is not enormous.

Summarizing the three points brought up by me just now, I will say that specifically, whether speaking of jurisdiction, administrative arrangements or the sharing of financial commitment, when ordinary people hear the implementation of co-location arrangement at Huanggang Port, their reaction is that it is reminiscent of a previous example, and they will associate it with XRL's co-location arrangement we discussed back then. I have also pointed out that this is not in line with the contents we are discussing now. Nevertheless, I also understand people's concern at the same time because the three points I have raised are in fact purely attributable to the very question of whether the rule of the SAR Government commands people's trust. Amidst such an atmosphere, this question will not have any answer.

My speech ends here. To me, I hope to make clear one point about this motion, lest I may be asked by some journalists or people why I do not claim a division. In my view, when I do not see any need to leave a record, I will not claim a division. So, I will not claim a division in respect of this motion.

I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4571

MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I rise to speak in support of the motion proposed by the Secretary for Security on taking forward the follow-up tasks of implementing co-location arrangement at the Huanggang Port.

President, Hong Kong has seven land crossings that adjoin Shenzhen at present. The focus of this motion, Huanggang Port is a land crossing with a relatively long history, and it is even the first of all the various land crossings that provides 24-hour customs clearance services. It is honestly an important facility that has witnessed the close contact and exchanges between people of Hong Kong and the Mainland.

As Huanggang Port already commenced service in the 1980s, its design and facilities have become incapable of meeting the present-day need for humanistic exchanges between the Mainland and Hong Kong. One notable example is that passengers must board and alight from feeder transport as they cross the boundary, so as to complete the entire customs clearance procedure. Therefore, it is honestly necessary to draw up fresh planning. Here, I wish to thank the Shenzhen Government as it will provide funding for redeveloping a brand new passenger clearance building and lease it to Hong Kong at a nominal rent. It will serve as a port facility for Hong Kong where co-location arrangement will be implemented upon completion and in turn bring more convenience to residents travelling between both places.

Actually, two of the seven land crossings have already implemented co-location arrangement, including Shenzhen Bay Port and West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link. The former is located in Shenzhen, whereas the latter is in Hong Kong. The two land crossings have achieved unprecedented success in the implementation of co-location arrangement. President, the last discussion on a government motion with no legislative effect in this Council was already held in 2017, and it was precisely about the implementation of co-location arrangement at West Kowloon Station. I still remember how opposition Members in the Chamber used every delaying tactic in an attempt to strike down the motion. They even stretched the truth in their speeches and kept demonizing the co-location arrangement.

Nevertheless, facts speak louder than words. The implementation of co-location arrangement at the two land crossings is unprecedentedly successful. Based on the experience of these two land crossings, I strongly believe that 4572 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 co-location arrangement can be smoothly implemented at Huanggang Port without a doubt. Even so, I also hope that the Government can continue to heed stakeholders' views and relay to the Shenzhen Government the views of various industries, including the tourism and transportation industries, so that this land crossing facility can be more down-to-earth and bring more convenience to people.

President, I wish to talk about land use arrangements for the original Lok Ma Chau port. When the new Huanggang Joint Inspection Building is completed and commences service, over 20 hectares of land can be vacated and released from the site of the original Lok Ma Chau Control Point for some other uses. I urge the Government to expeditiously formulate proper land planning and make good use of this site. This includes exploring ways to comprehensively support the development of the technology park in the nearby Lok Ma Chau Loop and develop the area into a brand new high and new technology park to induce more quality people from both places to live and work there. At the same time, we also hope that while drawing up proper planning, the Government can take into account the circumstances of local indigenous inhabitants and conduct consultation properly as in the past.

President, the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area explicitly highlights the necessity of expediting infrastructural connectivity among various cities in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area"), including enhancing the handling capacity and clearance facilitation of control points in Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao, so as to promote an efficient and convenient flows of people and goods. I believe that as the epidemic gradually stabilizes in the future, the implementation of co-location arrangement following the completion of the new Joint Inspection Building at Huanggang Port can further promote the flows of people and goods between both places and in turn enable the Greater Bay Area to unleash greater momentum for the regional economy.

President, I fully support the passage of this motion proposed by the Government.

I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4573

MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): President, today, this Council is having a discussion about the government motion on implementing co-location arrangement at the redeveloped Huanggang Port. I am in support of the co-location arrangement, and I hope that it can be implemented as soon as possible to further facilitate the commuting of Hong Kong and Shenzhen residents.

According to the latest projection of the Shenzhen Municipal Government, the main works of the new Huanggang Port is expected to complete by late 2023 at the earliest. The new Huanggang Port will then become a boundary crossing for passenger traffic without any cargo clearance service. The co-location arrangement at the new Huanggang Port will draw reference from the model of the Shenzhen Bay Port. In other words, the SAR Government will set up a Hong Kong Port Area ("HKPA") in the new Huanggang Port building and exercise full jurisdiction there to carry out customs, immigration and quarantine clearance inspections in accordance with the laws of Hong Kong. Moreover, the implementation of the co-location arrangement will vacate and release over 20 hectares of land on which the current Lok Ma Chau Control Point is situated for other uses, thereby increasing rare land resources in the boundary area for use.

In fact, co-location arrangement is nothing new to Hong Kong people. This arrangement will enhance the efficiency of customs clearance at the boundary crossings, enabling the flow of people between Shenzhen and Hong Kong faster and smoother. President, please allow me to do some revision with Members by going through the important history about co-location arrangement.

As statistics shows, the Shenzhen Bay Port has been operating smoothly since the implementation of co-location arrangement on 1 July 2007, and the flow of people between the two places has been increasingly frequent. Two years ago when this Council deliberated on the implementation of co-location arrangement at the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL"), many Members of the pro-democracy camp attempted to hinder the progress by expressing all sorts of doubts and stigmatizing the project by, say, calling the XRL project a "white elephant" project, claiming the co-location arrangement to be unconstitutional, and even stigmatizing the project as what they called a "territory-ceding" proposal. Anyway, the facts speak for themselves. Before the pandemic outbreak (The tabletop lectern collapsed) … President, it needs to be repaired … Pardon me, President. This is not my fault. Things in the Legislative Council Complex are getting time-worn and probably need (A staff 4574 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 member replaced the tabletop lectern) … President, please allow me to check where I should resume my speech.

President, the implementation of co-location arrangement since the commissioning of XRL has significantly shortened our travelling time to and from the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area"), and has made it convenient for us to work and live in different places. As regards the industrial, commercial and tourism sectors, they have seen considerable enhancement of efficiency. There is simply no problem for people to make same-day return trips for business and factory inspections. From this very perspective, given the already time-worn facilities―just like the collapsed tabletop lectern―at the Huanggang Port which was built a long time ago, demolishing the Huanggang Port for redevelopment will help to meet the needs of our time. What is more, with the implementation of co-location arrangement at the new Huanggang Port, we will then have one more convenient "window" which will make passenger clearance a more convenient and comfortable process, and, at the same time, enhance the connectivity among Hong Kong, Shenzhen and the Greater Bay Area.

Furthermore, the redeveloped Huanggang Port will become a transportation hub with direct connection to two Mainland intercity transits and two Shenzhen metro lines, plus an underground pedestrian access to the Futian Port which the relevant authorities plan to construct. This shows the growing coordination among the city clusters within the Greater Bay Area and the achievement of sharing of infrastructure and division of labour. It is just possible to create more win-win or even all-win situations. Now, opportunities arising from the Greater Bay Area development are presented in front of us. As a market with a population of 70 million, it really offers unlimited business opportunities. I hope Hong Kong businessmen and young people will quicken their steps and achieve what they desire.

President, everything about the infrastructural blueprint of the new Huanggang Port is already in place, but the smooth implementation of co-location arrangement still requires the support of a sound legal basis. As learnt, the two governments will formally seek approval of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress for the implementation of co-location arrangement at the new Huanggang Port when the construction works of the new port is near completion. The SAR Government will then proceed with the work on local legislation.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4575

I hope that the construction works of the new Huanggang Port can be completed expeditiously, while the relevant government departments will seek funding approval from the Legislative Council in a timely manner, so that the basic facilities at HKPA, including the information system necessary for the control point, will be ready in time to dovetail with the whole development project.

Furthermore, the availability of a sound legal basis will also allay concerns in society. I hope that after the National People's Congress gives the green light to the co-location arrangement at the new Huanggang Port, the relevant government officials will make comprehensive efforts to do the explanatory work, just as what they did back in the days when they took forward the proposal for the co-location arrangement at XRL, so as to prevent people with ulterior motives from demonizing this convenient arrangement which will definitely benefit Hong Kong's future development. In particular, being part of the Greater Bay Area, Hong Kong will definitely find this arrangement beneficial to its development into the industrial-cum-commercial platform and financial centre in the Greater Bay Area.

President, with these remarks, I support the implementation of co-location arrangement at the new Huanggang Port after its redevelopment.

MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of the co-location arrangement to be implemented at the redeveloped Huanggang Port. The measure can help us to enhance the efficiency. No matter within or outside the territory, we should consider adopting this kind of arrangement because, in addition to enhancing the efficiency, it will bring convenience to the public. Currently, it is cumbersome for travellers who use the present Huanggang Port as the two boundary control points are conducting their own customs clearance procedures separately. Travellers have to get on and off the vehicles at each control point, thus it is very inconvenient. Actually, the co-location arrangement is nothing new. No matter Hong Kong or other places in the world, this kind of arrangement has been implemented for a long time, with the Express Rail Link West Kowloon Terminus being an example. I believe that Members have experienced the convenience under this arrangement even though it is implemented within Hong Kong.

4576 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

Earlier, there had been a lot of political hype and smearing campaigns against the proposed co-location arrangement at the Express Rail Link West Kowloon Terminus. Upon its implementation, people can see that all the smearing tactics were nothing more than an act of fearmongering. We believe that following the implementation of the co-location arrangement at the redeveloped Huanggang Port in future, passengers will find it more convenient to travel, and it will be conducive to the development of the Greater Bay Area. Since there will be train connection with the future Huanggang Port in Shenzhen, it is definitely convenient for the public to make use of the Huanggang Port. However, there will be no train connection on the Hong Kong side. The Secretary indicated that the Government was considering a rail line under the Northern Link project, I welcome the idea and consider that the authorities need to conduct the study because train connection will be more convenient. Just now the Secretary pointed out that there would be green minibus, direct and cross boundary bus services. But the only thing missing is the Lok Ma Chau-Huanggang Cross-boundary Shuttle Bus (Huanggang Shuttle Bus), what exactly is the difference between the previous and future role of the Huanggang Shuttle Bus? As to this question, the Secretary has made no mention of it and he has made no explanation either. As to what will the Government do about the fate or further development of the Huanggang Shuttle Bus service, I hope the relevant department can launch discussion or study as soon as practicable. As a matter of fact, I consider the Huanggang Shuttle Bus plays an important role as it connects the two control points. In the past, the public could take the shuttle bus to Lok Ma Chau for boundary-crossing. But if the shuttling function will be unnecessary in future, will the Huanggang Shuttle Bus service be allowed to extend its service to other districts to pick up passengers, so that passengers can make use of this convenient means of transportation to travel to the new Port? I hope the Government will announce the future role of the Huanggang Shuttle Bus service as soon as possible.

On the other hand, even though the Huanggang Port and the Lok Ma Chau Boundary Control Point are very close to each other, they have differences. Actually, the Lok Ma Chau Boundary Control Point can only be accessed by train or buses, but the Huanggang Port can also be accessed directly by passenger vehicles, this is one of their differences. For that reason, we consider that they can bring their strengths into full play. At present, when people travel to the Mainland via the Huanggang Port―that is the old Huanggang Port―they will first drive their cars there and then park their cars nearby. I hope the Government will make reference to the practice at the Lian Tang Port by allowing LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4577

Hong Kong residents to drive their vehicles to the vicinity of the Huanggang Port and park their cars there before they cross the boundary. This will bring more convenience to the public and benefit the future development of the Greater Bay Area.

Following the development of the Greater Bay Area, the contact among Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao will become more frequent. Many private cars from Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao will travel among the three places. When goods vehicles are barred at the redeveloped Huanggang Port, will private cars from Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao be allowed to make use of the Port? As Mr LAU Kwok-fan has said―"East in East out, West in West out", we really wish to see this policy can be implemented. At present, Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao private cars can only make use of the Hong Kong-Shenzhen Western Corridor if they wish to travel to Chaozhou. As such, after they have crossed the boundary check point, they need to get through the busy roads in Shenzhen, thus creating more traffic congestion for Shenzhen. I wonder if the Hong Kong Government will allow East-bound vehicles to use the boundary control points on the East and West-bound vehicles to use the boundary control points on the West to enter the Mainland. This approach will benefit both sides as it can relieve road traffic on both sides. The Huanggang Port is situated in the middle point of both Shenzhen and Hong Kong; therefore it is a very popular Port. I hope the Government will make better use of this boundary control point in future. Will it allow more private cars from Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao to use this boundary control point after goods vehicles are banned in future? In so doing, the Government can introduce policies which are conducive to the communication between the two places. I hope the authorities will bring more convenience to members of the public who are travelling or doing business between the two places and allow a certain type of vehicles to use the boundary control point during certain periods of the day―actually similar policy was implemented in the past. In the past, all vehicles were allowed to use the boundary control point after 12:00 midnight. We can see that the Huanggang Port is a very popular boundary control point simply because of its convenient location. For that reason, I hope the Secretary will bring up the "East in East out, West in West out" approach with the Mainland authorities when the subject of cross-boundary traffic concerning private cars from Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao is discussed.

With these remarks, President, I support the implementation of co-location arrangement at the Huanggang Port.

4578 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): President, I support today's motion on implementing co-location arrangement at the new Huanggang Port, and I also hope that the construction of the new Huanggang Port building can be completed expeditiously, so as to help promote connectivity in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area").

The control point at the Huanggang Port is one of the busiest land boundary control point, and the first 24-hour boundary control point between Hong Kong and Shenzhen. Having been in use for four decades, its facilities are unavoidably getting time-worn and call for redevelopment. The most distinctive feature of the Huanggang Port is that the passenger clearance buildings of the two places are not directly connected, making it necessary for travellers to take shuttle buses to travel between them. I believe Members all have a clear memory of it.

In 2019, the Shenzhen Municipal Government proposed the redevelopment of Huanggang Port as well as the implementation of co-location arrangement at the new port. The construction of the new Huanggang Port building will be financed by Shenzhen, and Hong Kong will only be required to pay a nominal rent of RMB1,000 per year. The building is expected to be completed in 2023. The size of Hong Kong Port Area ("HKPA") will increase from 140 000 sq m to 400 000 sq m, and the passenger traffic is expected to increase significantly from 68 000 passengers to 90 000 to 100 000 passengers per day. The co-location arrangement at the new Huanggang Port will follow the model of Shenzhen Bay, meaning that Hong Kong will have full jurisdiction in HKPA and the clearance arrangement will also be the same as that of Shenzhen Bay.

Since all that Hong Kong needs to do is to pay a nominal rent and nothing else, some Honourable colleagues have described the Shenzhen Municipal Government as offering us a huge giveaway, but I would rather say that the Shenzhen Municipal Government has the big picture in mind. It has been making efforts to achieve connectivity with Hong Kong in view of the numerous opportunities for cross-boundary cooperation between us in the future, including the implementation of various proposals in the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area. Now, taking forward co-location arrangement at the Huanggang Port is a good start, but apart from completing the work on local legislation, Hong Kong also needs to do a proper job in operating HKPA and making supporting arrangements in Hong Kong's boundary area.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4579

In addition, the coming closure of the existing Lok Ma Chau Control Point will release 20 hectares of land then, and the Government will explore its use. The Secretary for Security has mentioned that one of the proposals is to develop the land concerned in tandem with areas such as San Tin and Kwu Tung for residential purpose, while another proposal is to use the land concerned for scientific research purpose to tie in with the development of the Lok Ma Chau Loop. But considering the acute shortage of areas for housing in Hong Kong and the considerable size of the 20 hectares of land, I hope that the use of the land concerned can dovetail with the development of new towns, and the Government should give construction of housing a higher priority in the consideration of its use.

President, today's motion has inevitably reminded us of what happened in 2018 when this Council deliberated on the co-location arrangement at the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL"). Back then, the opposition camp had no scruples about using various lies and false information to frighten Hong Kong people. They alleged that the implementation co-location arrangement at XRL would enable Mainland State Security officers to make arrests across the boundary anytime. They even told members of the public not to go to areas around Jordan. They also went on to call white black by describing the co-location arrangement as occupation of Hong Kong's territory and equivalent to ceding the territory of Hong Kong. Fortunately, with the full support of the pro-establishment Members, the co-location arrangement at XRL was able to be implemented smoothly. Now that three years have passed, everyone considers it a great convenience to have the co-location arrangement at XRL, and none of the concerns raised by the opposition camp have come true.

Deceiving Hong Kong people with numerous lies, the opposition camp actually intended to hinder further integration of the Mainland and Hong Kong. The co-location arrangement would make it convenient for people in the Mainland and Hong Kong to travel between the two places. If given more opportunities to go to the Mainland, Hong Kong people would find out more about the development of our country. This is probably what the opposition camp did not want to see.

As a matter of fact, with the development of the Greater Bay Area, more and more Hong Kong people will live, work and do business there, while economic integration in the area will further progress. This is the prevailing 4580 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 trend and the new development direction for Hong Kong. In light of this, I support the implementation of co-location arrangement at the Huanggang Port.

Thank you, President.

DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): President, I support the motion moved by the Secretary for Security on taking forward the follow-up tasks of implementing co-location arrangement at the Huanggang Port.

In fact, we are awestruck not only by the rapid development in the Mainland―I even find its development speed as fast as the rocket which has reached the Mars―but also by the Mainland's high flexibility in handling matters. In terms of social resources, national resources, and finances, the Mainland is very generous to Hong Kong and will not watch the pennies when it comes to anything that is beneficial to Hong Kong. Now, the Mainland has made decisions in respect of Hong Kong's situation and the implementation of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area") "Nine-plus-two" proposal. Whatever that is beneficial to the overall arrangement of the Greater Bay Area, the Mainland authorities will take actions swiftly. Look, the construction of the new Huanggang Port building will be completed in 2023, so we actually need to make good use of our time to complete the legislative amendment exercise concerning the co-location arrangement.

A number of Honourable colleagues have spoken about the allegations once made by some people that the passage of the legislation for the co-location arrangement would do great harm to Hong Kong. It was alleged that some people would suddenly have hessian bags thrown over them and would then be taken to the Mainland by XRL to stand unfair trial. All these are simply scaremongering. Today, we have seen nothing like that happen, and the facts have spoken for themselves. Our economy has actually been doing well with the impetus provided by XRL. It is only because of the impact of the pandemic over the past one-odd year that these infrastructures have been a little wasted.

I wish to share my views with the Secretary from the perspective of how resources can be fully utilized. Previously, when the Secretary put forward this proposal, I already expressed my full support for it, but I think the Government can be bolder regarding the issue of "East in East out, West in West out". Why? LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4581

The reason is that we have currently had a number of boundary crossings which include Sha Tau Kok, Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai, Lok Ma Chau/Huanggang, Shenzhen Bay and the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, and the Mainland is now constructing the Shenzhen- Link at the Pearl River estuary. If we want to enable Hong Kong to have more competitive edge, we should turn Hong Kong into a transportation hub. For example, if a visitor coming from Huizhou wishes to continue to travel south-westerly to Zhuhai afterwards, he should be able to go to his destination via the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge. Similarly, if a visitor wishes to go to Huizhou from Zhuhai, we can try to attract them to take a detour into Hong Kong on their way. This is actually quite nice. My bold view is that our location can provide convenience to visitors from these two places.

It is my hope that while proposing this motion, the Government will have a forward-thinking mentality at the same time and think more about the social situation six months or a year later … Given the frequent flow of people and goods among Hong Kong, Macao and the Mainland cities―the "nine plus two" in the Greater Bay Area―if we can make everything extremely convenient and flexible, it will definitely be helpful to our passenger and cargo traffic, and, to put it another way, in the future, visitors who intend to go to Zhuhai can take a detour into Hong Kong … Actually, if visitors from Huizhou intend to go to Zhuhai, it is not necessary for them to pass through Hong Kong, because they will then have to follow the "East in East out" principle which will waste a lot of their time. But if visitors coming into Hong Kong from the East can travel to Zhuhai directly, they will expend some money en route. With each visitor spending a few more hundred to a thousand dollars in Hong Kong, our income will increase and more opportunities will be created. Our young people will also be given the opportunity to travel around. This is really a nice thing. Not only can it answer our local demands, but also, I believe, enhance Hong Kong's attractiveness to our compatriots and the younger generation in the Mainland.

With these remarks, President, I hope that the Government can embrace bold thinking in this regard. Thank you.

MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): President, I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by the Secretary for Security regarding the implementation of co-location arrangement at the Huanggang Port.

4582 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

This is not the first time co-location arrangement is put in place in Hong Kong. The arrangement has already been implemented at the West Kowloon Station of the Express Rail Link ("XRL") and also the Shenzhen Bay Port of the Mainland. As we can see, the objective result of implementing co-location arrangement at these two boundary control points has been overwhelmingly positive all along. Rarely has anyone voiced criticisms against it, except, as some Members just mentioned, those who deliberately make smearing comments about which there is nothing we can say. So, the implementation of co-location arrangement has brought more convenience to members of the public and visitors.

Actually, in both this Council and the community, we have always talked about the need for Hong Kong and the Greater Bay Area to achieve mutual complementarity and integration. So, how should we implement this national policy? One of the ways is by enhancing the flow of people and goods between the two places, and also the facilitation measures at the boundary crossings. The co-location arrangement at the Huanggang Port is therefore the very product in line with this national policy, and this time round, the Huanggang Port will transform from a boundary crossing for cargo clearance into a boundary crossing only for passenger clearance … As we can see, with the implementation of 24-hour cargo clearance at the boundary crossings at Liantang and Shenzhen Bay, there is smooth traffic on roads on both the eastern and western sides of the boundary, and cargo trucks no longer need to go through the city centre of Shenzhen. These have led to the objective result of smoother traffic in the city centre of Shenzhen, and faster and more direct transportation of goods to Hong Kong. This outcome is indeed very desirable. When a policy implemented by us can bring convenience not only to Hong Kong people, but also to Mainland cities in the Greater Bay Area, it is a win-win situation. Then, can the policies formulated by us all create win-win situations? I really hope so. I also hope that this objective result can be achieved through the policies formulated by the government officials who are present here today.

Many Honourable colleagues have just proposed a number of specific measures to be put in place after the implementation of co-location arrangement at the Huanggang Port, hoping that the Government would take them into consideration and make improvement. I am in support of their proposals, and here, I would like to highlight a particular point. If the Secretaries have ever paid attention to―Secretary for Transport and Housing, it is great that you are present here―the Tai Po District―you probably know what I want to say―you will see that there is no public transport to the Huanggang Port in the Tai Po District. Upon the implementation of co-location arrangement by the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4583

Government, it will be convenient for members of the public to go to the Mainland and for visitors to come to Hong Kong. So, could the Secretary please work out a plan to arrange for residents in the Tai Po District a mode of public transport―anything other than railway service, because the Huanggang Port is not accessible by train―a mode of public transport which can access the Huanggang Port? Such mode of public transport has long been lacking in the Tai Po District. I just hope the Secretary can have a think about this matter. As for other details, I am not going to discuss them, because my Honourable colleagues have already expressed what they think, and I absolutely support their views.

Taking this opportunity, I wish to say a few words about how to better develop the areas in the New Territories which are adjacent to the boundary. Personally, I think the Government seems to have failed to keep abreast of the times in respect of the development and positioning of the New Territories. It is just too great to have the Secretary for Development here today to listen to my views. Looking across the river, I can see how prosperous Shenzhen is. There are so many high-rise buildings and their new CBD is doing well. Contrarily, pitch-blackness is what we see on our side. People often talk about a story. If an illegal boundary crosser―if there is any at all―ran towards the well-lighted place when being chased by the Police at night, he would actually be running back to Shenzhen rather than coming to Hong Kong. As heard, a case like this really happened in Sha Tau Kok half a year ago. An illegal boundary crosser who sneaked into Hong Kong was chased by the Police and he ran towards the light. He ended up being back in the Mainland and literally turning himself in. As shown by this example, there is actually a vast development gap between the two places. Mr CHAN Han-pan just mentioned the Northern Link which has long been discussed. Now, we finally see the project being initially confirmed, but its construction is still pending. I just wonder if the Government can expedite its future development.

The second point concerns the issue which I often mentioned in this Council. The authorities have placed all the obnoxious facilities in the North District. Facilities like the landfill at Ta Kwu Ling and columbaria are all located in our boundary areas. But, Secretary Michael WONG, you had better adjust your mindset, because the North District is at the centre of the Greater Bay Area. Secretary WONG, has it ever crossed your mind that the authorities is placing some obnoxious facilities at the centre of the entire Greater Bay Area development? If you have a new mindset for planning, you will stop placing any obnoxious facilities in North District. Otherwise, you actually have no 4584 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 intention to integrate with the Greater Bay Area, and give no thought to the development of the Greater Bay Area and the complementarity among various cities in the Greater Bay Area.

There is another specific example. While developing the economy of a place, we need to have a holistic plan. Certainly, the Government has already made it clear that it will develop innovation and technology ("I&T") industry in the Loop, but it matters a great deal as to how the land in the vicinity is used. Now, let me cite a very good example. Well, the Secretary for Innovation and Technology Alfred SIT is here. While the Science Park's development is in full swing with many companies having moved in, what are the ancillary facilities available there? Nothing. So what is adjacent to the Science Park? A number of luxury residential developments. This reflects the problem that the various development projects in this area are not complementary in nature. Also, this has resulted in a situation where the large number of commuters going to Science Park to work has caused residents in unable to go to work or to school in the morning, while those working in the Science Park cannot make it to their workplace due to traffic congestion. Therefore, the authorities should avoid planning for the ancillary facilities in an area in a patchwork fashion. Developing both the and residential housing in the same area is something that the authorities should not have done. Since the area has been zoned for the development of the Science Park, it should have been left for such relevant use, instead of having something irrelevant placed in its vicinity. Even if the authorities have to add some residential projects there, I hope that those are housing projects for the research and development personnel there. In the future, the Huanggang Port will free up a piece of land. Can the authorities zone the land for I&T industry-related use?

Another problem is … If … Perhaps, let me put it this way. President, you have viewed the painting "Along the River During the Qingming Festival". This beautifully drawn painting reflects the social livelihood and economic culture in the Song Dynasty, and depicts the thriving economic activities then, for example vendors doing business on a bridge with constant flow of people. Now, if the river in the painting is replaced with the Shenzhen River, the painting will still be interesting to look at: a stark contrast between the cityscape of skyscrapers on one side and pitch-blackness on the other―our side. So, when the authorities think about the development of a boundary crossing, just as what Mr WONG Ting-kwong often says, it is also necessary to develop bridgehead economy or what is referred to as port economy.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4585

When we cross the boundary to Shenzhen and step out of the Port building, we will immediately be greeted by the adjacent large shopping malls in which eateries, shops and public transport interchanges can be found. What about the Hong Kong side? After crossing the boundary, one can see nothing but the railway station, and the immigration and customs facilities. Other facilities are just not available. What is worse, a few miles around the boundary has been designated as closed area inaccessible to the public. For this reason, the development of the area concerned is subject to limitations. Of course, the authorities will say that Hong Kong has its own practice and so does the Mainland. But whose practice is more preferable? In this case, it seems that the bridgehead economy practised by the Mainland can enable the land concerned to be put to good use and the economy to develop. This is pretty obvious.

I earnestly hope that the authorities will think seriously about whether we should simultaneously develop bridgehead economy when considering the use of the land in the boundary area and the planning of the boundary crossings in the future. Regarding the case of the Huanggang Port, I particularly hope that the Government will examine the use of the land on which the current Hong Kong control point is situated immediately after it is vacated and released. Never should it be put in a situation like the site of Kai Tak Airport on which, after some 10 to 20 years, some housing construction projects are still under way and some housing estates are still unoccupied. If this piece of land at the Huanggang Port has to wait for some 10 to 20 years before there is any development, the process is probably too slow and takes too long a period of time.

The aforesaid are some of my views which I hope the relevant government departments will take into consideration. With these remarks, President, I express support for the motion.

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I would like to thank Mr CHAN Hak-kan for providing such a good example for me to comment on. Recalling his earlier mention of someone illegally crossing the boundary of Hong Kong, I find it unimaginable. I do not believe that those people are necessarily Mainlanders. Most probably, as mentioned by many before, some bogus refugees from abroad have come to Hong Kong by certain means. Is there any official of the Labour and Welfare Bureau in attendance today? No, but the Secretary for Security is present. We can take a look at the statistics on arrests of illegal workers. Are there actually more Mainlanders or foreigners among 4586 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 them? Are there Mainlanders among the top three? I guess that foreigners account for a higher proportion of those who illegally enter Hong Kong. It is not surprising that they come to Hong Kong via the Mainland. Let us get back to the motion. It aims to seek a consensus on requesting the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress for legislative amendments so that we can work on the co-location arrangement. In fact, this is merely a matter of productivity and productive roles.

Frankly speaking, the Yellow Bus might already exist some decades ago when I was born. At the time, people would say: "Brilliant! We can cross the boundary there. Let us go to Huanggang!" Then it was a long ride to get to a place called the Yellow Bus Station. They had to get on a Yellow Bus, get off upon arrival at another side, have their identity cards checked, then get on the bus again―I am not sure if ticket inspection was required―and then, on the Mainland side, have their Home Visit Permits checked for customs clearance. We might already find it very convenient at that time, but when the development of economy and production in society may not meet our needs, should there be a change? In fact, this is exactly the path we have to take. To be honest, nowadays, the Huanggang Port has … To be honest, I do not really enjoy going to the Huanggang Port, as co-location arrangement is already in place at our Shenzhen Bay Port. If I take a train directly to Lo Wu to cross the boundary, there is half of a co-location arrangement, as I can walk across to the other side. In other words, the only way to recover the time we lost is to take quick, vigorous and targeted action.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan mentioned earlier why some people illegally crossing the boundary of Hong Kong. In the past, Mainlanders might account for a larger portion. The absolute majority of them did so for economic reasons, as those under persecution were no longer so numerous. So, a question has popped up in my mind: why did the SAR Government set up a closed area in the past? It was because that place, as in the old days of war, had fortified walls for defence and a field cleared of anything useful to intruders so that anyone coming had nowhere to hide but to leave. There was nothing but a checkpoint, which was the only passage, apart from navigation through the woods. However, the others―I should not call them "the others", but rather the Shenzhen authorities in the Mainland―actually are not afraid of us. As long as they do a good job of promoting economic development and improving people's livelihood, it is only natural that the people will not seek illegal entry. On the contrary, if we do not change our mindset, as in the case of, say, the Sha Tau Kok Closed Area, there LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4587 will be no development. If there is no development, the local residents, being stakeholders themselves―this is not a negative statement; the local residents are stakeholders―will certainly question why they are left out when every district in Hong Kong is under development, right? If no high-rise buildings are allowed in the area, which serves as a Green Belt, that is fine, but as long as it can generate economic benefits, the local residents will be very contented indeed. To cite an example, our fellow fishermen have a fish culture zone in Sha Tau Kok in the northeast, but for years they have been denied permission to engage in recreational fishing activities just because it is in a closed area. This situation has been going on for years. Will the SAR Government change it? This is exactly a matter of productivity and productive roles.

Secondly, even if we do not implement co-location this time, or we have already implemented co-location … Secretary Alfred SIT is in attendance. He should not be under the impression that once we have resolved the issue of co-location, we can just wait for the completion of the new Huanggang Port while the cost is almost entirely borne by the Shenzhen side, who will charge a nominal rent of RMB1,000, letting Hong Kong take advantage even in terms of construction costs―I must reiterate that such costs should also be borne by Hong Kong―but, if anything, he can only enjoy a banquet to celebrate the success, and then I will urge him to please go back and continue to contemplate what level the next evolution of other boundary crossings or a specific boundary crossing should reach in the next decade with respect to the documents we hold, data sharing and so on. Why is WeChat Pay so successful in the Mainland? The reason is that it can bring convenience to people. Swiftness is the direction for our future development. We now hold an identity card with a microchip in it. Actually it is the second generation replacement featuring the second generation microchip design. When the identity card of the preceding generation was launched, the Government praised it to the skies, bragging about what information it contained, what the public could apply to the Government for by using it, and so on. However, to be honest, I have never in all these years used the chipped identity card that I hold. The proudest moment was when I used it to borrow books from a library without needing to fill in a form. It could be used at post offices as well, and allegedly also for vaccination. In fact, the new generation identity card has not made good on the promises of the preceding generation.

What can the Innovation and Technology Bureau actually do now about the development of this boundary crossing? How can customs clearance be expedited for the public of Hong Kong? Can our data be shared with the 4588 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

Mainland and vice versa? Certainly, there are privacy issues involved, providing an easy excuse for mud-slinging. As we may recall, Andrew WAN used to stand there looking cool and say that the legal system of the Mainland was different from that of Hong Kong, but members of the Democratic Party go to the Mainland every day with a group of people in tow, taking the initiative to enter the jurisdiction of the other side. I do not want to cavil with them over this matter, but when the public of Hong Kong are willing to send their personal data to the Mainland, they will surely be subject to a certain degree of regulation, which is reasonable, so is it necessary to further apply for something else to submit to the counterpart? Is it possible to process certain data by electronic means? For example, we can use the vehicle licences and permits from both sides. The Home Visit Permit in my hand right now has a tiny piece affixed on its back, with which I can go through customs clearance by tapping the card. I believe that the Mainland authorities will improve it in the future. However, how can the Hong Kong identity card, or one issued to Hongkongers by the Mainland … The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong has joined hands with other Members to push for the issuance of Mainland residents' identity cards for Hong Kong and Macao residents' use in the Mainland. Is it possible to enhance … (Mr WONG Ting-kwong showed the object on the back of the Home Visit Permit) That is the piece. Is it possible to enhance the functions of the Hong Kong identity card or the Home Visit Permit so as to speed up customs clearance? Can we speed up the process by simply allowing the use of certain data by the Mainland? I think Secretary Alfred SIT will have to consider this after a celebration banquet. I believe that he may not be able to make it in time today. If possible, I urge him to please relay my comments to the Bureau.

The second issue is the traffic problem, which was also highlighted by Mr CHAN Hak-kan. In fact, we do not need to read too much into it. Mr CHAN Han-pan mentioned the problems with Yellow Bus. Frankly speaking, as the times have changed, we might as well directly discuss how our Yellow Bus should be transformed. When the mode of operation of the boundary crossing has changed, it is imperative for the Secretary for Transport and Housing, Mr Frank CHAN, to take a fresh look at the transport facilities. Basically 90% of the public in Hong Kong are used to taking public transport. I live in Yuen Long, where so far there is no direct public transport to Tai Po, apart from a bus route over the hill. I have to take bus route 276 to Sheung Shui and then change for MTR to Ma On Shan. In fact, these matters should be taken into consideration. How can we achieve convenience at the boundary crossings? LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4589

Whenever we follow some buddies to the Mainland for exchanges, we meet at the Shenzhen Bay Port, but there is no public transport for members of the public in New Territories East to go to the Shenzhen Bay Port, and a taxi ride would cost $200 to $300. In fact, in this regard, we have not used the Shenzhen Bay Port's capacity to best effect, and this is exactly the problem deserving our consideration.

Lastly, Mr CHAN Han-pan highlighted earlier the issue of vehicular passage through various boundary crossings. Now, "Mr Elephant"1 may have a car with dual licences to pass through Huanggang. In the past, when the Shenzhen Bay Port was commissioned, he was given a two-year permission to cross the boundary via that crossing, but he had to choose between the Shenzhen Bay Port and Huanggang two years later, which was, frankly, divorced from reality. As we said earlier, there might be a practical need for control back then, but when the Greater Bay Area develops, actually one licence should be valid for all boundary crossings. Even the SAR Government has already been considering the possibility of direct customs clearance at the three ports of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge ("HZMB") without the need for dual licences. Therefore, our current planning work should not be confined to ordinary dual licences. More than that, we should examine a series of issues, such as what methods and restrictions to adopt, whether Hong Kong is overcrowded, how to let Mainland compatriots come to Hong Kong, and how Hong Kong vehicles can go north via the boundary crossings.

More importantly … dual licences are surely important. Do Members know that they cost quite a lot every year? If, as I have just said, Hong Kong vehicles can go north directly without the need for dual licences, those holding such licences will feel that the money was not well spent, not just because of the amount of money spent on licence applications, but also because they are required to have their vehicles examined every year and pay annual insurance premiums. However, if there are no detailed figures, such as three months of unlimited passage for the vehicle subject only to application being made, then why do people still have to pay more than $10,000 a year to have their vehicles examined? Therefore, in this regard, the Government has to take into account the stakeholders in different roles …

1 "Mr Elephant" is the nickname of Mr WONG Ting-kwong. 4590 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Steven HO, I know that Members enjoy expressing their views, but this is a motion moved by the SAR Government on taking forward the follow-up tasks of implementing co-location arrangement at the Huanggang Port. Please return to the subject of this debate.

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): Vehicles also need co-location arrangement at the ports.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This motion is related only to the follow-up tasks of implementing co-location arrangement at the Huanggang Port. Please return to the subject of this debate.

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): The motion is about the Huanggang Port, but I would like to use the Shenzhen Bay Port or even other ports as the entry point to consider whether it is necessary to fully facilitate vehicular passage at the Huanggang Port. I would even like to recount a problem with the ports of HZMB, which I also mentioned last time. In the case of the Huanggang Port, consideration should also be given to avoiding a repeat of the situation of the Zhuhai section of HZMB. Some buddies got there by driving, with a disabled person on board. They had to lift him down together with the wheelchair, then go up to the first floor, wheel him over to the other side, and then go down to get back into the car. Of course, I believe that there would have been no problem if they had travelled to HZMB by public transport. However, for motorists, it is actually impractical to force a wheelchair-bound passenger to get off the car. I believe that the Secretary for Security also heard about this problem when he attended the last Council meeting. Anyway, I do not want to see any more inaccessible facilities at the Huanggang Port. This is utmost important. In the future, if some physically weak relatives of mine need to go to the Mainland via Huanggang Port, I may as well ask them to take public transport. Probably walking on foot or taking public transport is a more convenient way to get across the boundary than driving. Therefore, this part should be considered from the perspective of different needs.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4591

President, the motion today certainly has our support. Nevertheless, this motion we are discussing may aim at seeking compliance with the procedures of our legal system and receiving the Council's support before a request is made to the Central Authorities. Frankly speaking, the co-location arrangement is actually dictated by the needs of productivity and economy, and is something that must be done for the purpose of establishing a "one-hour living circle", or likewise a "two-hour living circle", for the public. Economies should be made wherever possible and, of course, in line with the basic principle of "one country, two systems". President, I support this motion and hope that the SAR Government implements it as soon as possible.

President, I so submit.

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, I am speaking on the motion in relation to taking forward the follow-up tasks of implementing co-location arrangement at the Huanggang Port in Shenzhen. On behalf of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions ("HKFTU"), I speak in support of the motion. This is a significant measure for Hong Kong to further integrate into and flourish together with the Mainland in the course of developing the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area"). Of course, after redevelopment, the cargo clearance function of the Huanggang Port will be abolished. This will bring some inconvenience to cross-boundary truck drivers, because since the Huanggang Port was commissioned in 1989, truck drivers have been mainly making use of the Huanggang Port for cargo clearance over these 30-odd years. Under the new development blueprint, however, adjustment is inevitable, and we hope that the Bureau and the Shenzhen Municipal Government can assist truck drivers in adapting to the new "East in East out, West in West out" planning strategy.

President, the redevelopment of the Huanggang Port is proposed, sponsored and done by the Shenzhen Municipal Government, and we can say that Hong Kong is enjoying the fruits of others' labour. The only task that Hong Kong has to do is to amend the legislation in the Legislative Council before the completion of the works concerned, so that the co-location arrangement can be implemented in the new port building. The co-location arrangement is already well established, and the overall operation at the Hong Kong West Kowloon Station and the Shenzhen Bay Port has been very smooth. This is our successful experience. This arrangement, no matter in law or in practical operation, is not 4592 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 disputable at all. It is worth mentioning that the entire redevelopment project has fully demonstrated the "speed of Shenzhen", as it only took them 10 months to build the temporary passenger clearance building last year while the new building will also be commissioned in 2023. In fact, the redevelopment of the Huanggang Port reminds me of the difference between the Shenzhen Municipal Government and the Hong Kong Government in terms of efficiency and overall planning. I wish to have more discussion on this aspect so that the Hong Kong Government can do better. It is also my wish that through the redevelopment of the Huanggang Port, Hong Kong people can have more employment and economic opportunities.

In Shenzhen, as I just said, the whole new building will soon be commissioned in 2023. Nevertheless, if the project was given to Hong Kong which really had to redevelop the building or cooperate with the Shenzhen authorities, frankly speaking, President, it would really take a decade for Hong Kong to go through the process from studying, planning, applying for funding application, and then constructing the temporary clearance building, demolishing the building to constructing the new building. In this regard, I am not bad-mouthing Hong Kong, but am only telling the truth, because we have to learn from the lesson concerning the Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai Control Point. In 2006, the Hong Kong Government and the Shenzhen Municipal Government already started studying that project, but the works were only commenced eventually in 2013 and completed in August 2020, which is last year. It took over a decade to build that Control Point. In the process, there was a spate of problems like the tendering arguments, failure to secure additional funds and delays in works. This time, the Shenzhen authorities may be deterred by the slow pace of Hong Kong which would find it hard to catch up, and thus does not require Hong Kong to invest in the project. And hence, the Shenzhen Municipal Government is solely responsible for this project. Do Members feel a bit embarrassed for Hong Kong?

President, in this project, the involvement, determination and speed of redevelopment of Shenzhen have fully reflected the importance attached by the Shenzhen Municipal Government to the development blueprint of the Greater Bay Area. Shenzhen has designated the new Huanggang Port as a key project in the Greater Bay Area development, because the focus of the redevelopment of the port is on the release of about 500 000 sq m of land through redevelopment for the construction of the Shenzhen Innovation and Technology Zone in the Shenzhen-Hong Kong Innovation and Technology Co-operation Zone. The new port will also be positioned as a port implemented with the co-location LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4593 arrangement purely for passenger clearance, with the abolition of the cargo clearance function. This is because the newly built development zone is not suitable for the passage of a large number of trucks. The redeveloped Huanggang Port will become a transportation hub with direct connection to two Mainland intercity transits (i.e. the Guangzhou-Dongguan-Shenzhen Intercity Railway and the Guangzhou-Shenzhen Intercity Railway) and two Shenzhen metro lines (i.e. Shenzhen Metro Line 7 and Express Line 20). It will also link to the Futian Port by underground pedestrian access, which is itself linked to the Lok Ma Chau Spur Line Control Point and Shenzhen Metro Lines 4 and 10. We can imagine that the new port, when commissioned, will be accessible from all directions.

The above shows the importance attached to the Shenzhen-Hong Kong Innovation and Technology Co-operation Zone by Shenzhen, and all changes are to transform the Shenzhen-Hong Kong Innovation and Technology Co-operation Zone into the new core business district ("CBD"). This reflects that the attitude of Shenzhen is serious and pragmatic. The Shenzhen Zone in the Shenzhen-Hong Kong Innovation and Technology Co-operation Zone will be connected by four railways as mentioned above, which will pass through all residential districts and business areas in Shenzhen, linking up other commercial centres like Nanshan and Qianhai. For instance, along the new railway line, you will arrive at Nanshan after one stop, and Qianhai will be the next stop, just like a serpentine route. There are also regional express lines connecting other cities like Dongguan and Guangzhou, and also an airport express line in Baoan. Basically, one can go anywhere without difficulties. The Shenzhen Zone in the Shenzhen-Hong Kong Innovation and Technology Co-operation Zone will become an extremely convenient commercial and city activity centre. Through revitalizing Futian and its vicinity, it will rebalance the development direction of Shenzhen from the west back to the south central part of the city. From the above, we notice that in this development, not only is Shenzhen speedy, but it also has planning and innovative ideas to be put into practice. Through the redevelopment of the port and the opportunities brought by the Shenzhen-Hong Kong Innovation and Technology Co-operation Zone, the Shenzhen authorities adjust the planning strategy of the whole city and upgrade the industries. I think this kind of spirit is what Hong Kong should learn and pay attention to.

At the same time, does Hong Kong attach enough importance to this project and how involved is Hong Kong? Does it have any long-term planning? In my view, Hong Kong has much room for improvement. For instance, will 4594 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

Hong Kong have more railways in the new Co-operation Zone? Hong Kong is solely relying on the Lok Ma Chau Spur Line at present. When will the Northern Link be commissioned? Secretary Frank CHAN is now in the Chamber. I always ask him to construct the Northern Link without delay, not to merely construct the Kwu Tung Station but the complete Northern Link. Secretary, our request is the construction of the entire Northern Link. According to the Secretary, the construction of such a short section of railway can only be completed in 2034, and this will really become a laughing stock.

What is the development plan on the 20 hectares of land released following the redevelopment of the port? Concerning the spacious area from the river loop to the frontier closed area―the description that it is a boundless stretch of area is a bit exaggerating, but it certainly is not a small area―when will there be a development plan on this piece of vast area? In the development blueprint of the Greater Bay Area, can Hong Kong have more creative and forward-looking planning?

I am now going to discuss the employment issue. In Hong Kong, the business and employment opportunities are concentrated in the traditional urban areas, i.e. the and Kowloon, whereas residential areas are concentrated in Northwest New Territories and New Territories East. With the incessant construction of residential units in northwestern and eastern New Territories, there are lots of residents commuting southward for work every day just like the Great Migration, and numerous people taking the train northbound after work. Every day, they have to face the traffic congestion problem, which is very serious owing to this kind of imbalanced development. Therefore, we think Hong Kong should seize the development opportunities of the river-loop area and fully develop a bridgehead economy. Through the few key projects along the New Development Area in Yuen Long, we should develop the Lok Ma Chau area into the CBD in the northern part of Hong Kong, such that a large number of employment and business opportunities can be created, thus changing the usual mode of development in Hong Kong with the emphasis placed only on traditional urban areas. However, in this respect, I think the Government seems to have some sort of direction, but it is still in lack of some industry-related policies.

Some people have described the competition between Hong Kong and Shenzhen as the race between the tortoise and the hare, but I think it is cooperation more than competition between the two places, because this is not a zero-sum game. Not any party needs to be a loser and actually, both parties can LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4595 win. Nevertheless, when we are described as the tortoise and the hare, it means that after the reunification, the development of Hong Kong has been stagnant with no further development in our industries and no new growth points. Hong Kong has been resting on its laurels for two decades. Without any real growth in technology and productivity, Hong Kong has been relying only on some speculative economic activities to support our economic data. This has given rise to the situation of hollowing out of industries, further monopoly of conglomerates, widening of the wealth gap, inability to create quality job positions and the lack of opportunities for upward mobility of young people. On the contrary, Shenzhen has been toiling hard to catch up. Today, it has already transformed successfully from a labour-intensive and manufacturing-based structure into a knowledge-based economy with a mode of development mainly based on high and new technology industries. Shenzhen is now in possession of a comprehensive supply chain from research and development to production. When will Hong Kong wake up?

Indeed, Shenzhen, with its present GDP already higher than that of Hong Kong, has nearly caught up with or has even overtaken Hong Kong in terms of development. Hong Kong must not take it lightly but should have competitive spirit. I do not mean that Hong Kong cannot be overtaken by other places but we must have fighting spirit. When Hong Kong notices the good development of the little brother beside us, should the officials of the SAR Government have the determination to do better? In this regard, we need to have some sort of competitive spirit as we are in healthy competition.

Let us think about it. Twenty years ago, the comparison or competition between the two places basically did not exist, as Hong Kong was too far ahead to be compared. Back then, Hong Kong was just too strong to be compared. However, twenty years later, competition between the two places has already become a controversial topic. In regard to the competition between Shenzhen and Hong Kong, some people say that Hong Kong is only trailing behind Shenzhen. The question now is not whether it is possible for Shenzhen to overtake Hong Kong completely, but when Shenzhen will overtake Hong Kong or whether it has already overtaken Hong Kong. President, this is lamentable indeed.

Today, concerning the theory on the race between the tortoise and the hare, the controversial point is whether Hong Kong is the tortoise or the hare, or is 4596 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 simply a stupid hare that runs very slowly, or is even worse than a tortoise. I really have no idea at all.

Forty years ago, following the reform and opening up of the Mainland …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LUK Chung-hung, please return to the subject of this debate.

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, this can help us think how to do better in future. The co-location arrangement is of course desirable. But the co-location arrangement can be more meaningful if the follow-up tasks can be well accomplished.

(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair)

Forty years ago, following the reform and opening up of the Mainland, Shenzhen was developed into a special economic zone with an overhaul of its conventional mindset and the liberation of its productivity. Nowadays, Hong Kong needs to embark on a great reform. We see the approach of a new phase and new era, and Hong Kong people really cannot be too conceited, relying only on the conventional strengths of our financial and legal systems. The SAR Government cannot adhere dearly to the mindset of laissez faire or positive non-interventionism, and all these concepts have to be discarded. Also, it should not think that if we stick to the conventional free market principle, there will be a way out, and there will naturally be money and opportunities coming to us. Hong Kong should not have this kind of mentality. We advise the Government that if it still sticks to this kind of thinking, solely relying on our conventional strengths without embarking on any reform in a serious manner, I am afraid that Hong Kong will turn from being one of the twin engines of the Greater Bay Area into being the auxiliary engine, and then even be incapable of being the auxiliary engine. By then, Shenzhen will become the sole engine and Hong Kong will genuinely be completely marginalized. Hong Kong people really have to be sober. Hong Kong can definitely not be a tortoise, but has to be a fast-running and smart hare.

Thank you, Deputy President.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4597

MR SHIU KA-FAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I believe that "co-location" is not a strange term to the majority of Hong Kong people now. The Government planned to implement the co-location arrangement at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Hong Kong Section) two years ago. The opposition camp tried their best to scupper the plan by raising many specious arguments. I remember clearly that Ms Claudia MO sat next to me at that time and she said, if the co-location arrangement was implemented at the West Kowloon Station, would people be grabbed and sent to the Mainland one after another? The many specious suppositions they raised affected public sentiment, so not many people supported the co-location arrangement back then. Later on, the Government spared no effort to explain the arrangement and many different organizations also came forward to show their support. In the end, the facts speak for themselves.

After the implementation of the co-location arrangement at the West Kowloon Station, many people have gained first-hand experience of the convenience it brings. With more and more people using the station, it has also attracted many Mainland tourists to Hong Kong. Before the "black-clad riot" incident in 2019 and the outbreak of the epidemic, the co-location arrangement contributed much to a robust local retail market and our economy as a whole. However, the operation of the West Kowloon Station has been brought to a halt due to the two incidents. While Mainland tourists are unable to travel to Hong Kong, Hong Kong's economy is also slowing down to a near standstill as well. Yet, I believe that as long as we gather together and get vaccinated as soon as possible, the epidemic will soon subside, and the West Kowloon Station will re-open and bring lots of business to Hong Kong. Had the arrangement been negatived due to the strong opposition by members of the opposition camp, it would still be hard for the economy to recover even if the epidemic subsided.

In addition to the West Kowloon Station, the co-location arrangement is implemented at the Shenzhen Bay Port too. I believe that people who have used these control points for travel before must have experienced the convenience brought by the co-location arrangement as well. The new Huanggang Port mentioned in this Motion will make reference to the Shenzhen Bay Port model in the future, with the Hong Kong Port Area ("HKPA") being located on a particular floor of the passenger clearance building of the Mainland Port Area, and Hong 4598 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

Kong's jurisdiction being extended there for customs, immigration and quarantine ("CIQ") procedures. The difference is that the "East in East out, West in West out" planning strategy for cross-boundary goods traffic will be implemented there, with the new Huanggang Port mainly used for passenger traffic while cross-boundary goods vehicles will have to use the Shenzhen Bay Port and the Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai Control Point.

The Liberal Party supports the current plan for the Huanggang Port and the implementation of co-location arrangement there. In fact, the Huanggang Port was built and commissioned in late 1980s to provide passenger and goods clearance services. On average, about 68 000 passengers and 19 700 vehicles passed through the control point daily. These were the figures in 2019. The control point was already very busy at that time and its facilities became aged. With the development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area and an increasing number of people coming to Hong Kong, it may not be able to cope with future needs, so we must upgrade the facilities there. The new control point will benefit us for sure. Meanwhile, Hong Kong will need to participate in the Mainland's new development pattern featuring "dual circulation" in the future, therefore, Shenzhen, adjacent to Hong Kong, will definitely become the main route for Hong Kong people to travel between Hong Kong and the Mainland. Thus, co-location arrangement that provides clearance convenience is indispensable.

At present, the Huanggang Port and the Lok Ma Chau Passenger Clearance Building are not directly connected. It is inconvenient for travellers to take shuttle buses to travel between two sides; if they take cross-boundary buses, they need to get off the bus and go through the clearance procedures at both sides, then get on the bus again, which is time-consuming and ineffective. In the future, travellers can go through CIQ procedures at the same place without having to walk a long way. I believe that the general public will welcome such an arrangement. With increased clearance efficiency, the number of travellers coming to Hong Kong will rise correspondingly, thereby bringing more businesses to Hong Kong. I believe that most ordinary Hong Kong people will support it.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4599

Moreover, according to the agreement reached by Hong Kong and Shenzhen in respect of the redevelopment of the Huanggang Port, the construction work will be undertaken by Shenzhen contractors, and the Shenzhen Municipal Government has agreed in principle to bear the costs of the entire project, whereas the SAR Government will lease HKPA from the Shenzhen Municipal Government at an annual rental of RMB1,000. I believe that it will not exert great financial pressure on Hong Kong.

So the Liberal Party and I reiterate that we totally support the development of this control point. Concerning the Motion on taking forward the follow-up tasks of implementing co-location arrangement at the Huanggang Port, I would like to raise two main points to the Government.

Firstly, according to the Government, after the implementation of co-location arrangement at the Huanggang Port, about 20 hectares of land in Hong Kong will be released. How big is 20 hectares of land? It is around the size of Victoria Park. The area of Victoria Park should be 19 hectares, so it is a big piece of land. I hope the Government can make good use of the land to be released, especially when Hong Kong is facing acute housing problems. I hope the two Secretaries concerned, Mr CHAN and Mr WONG, can think carefully how the land can be used should the Motion be passed, and I believe that it will be passed.

Secondly, Shenzhen will be responsible for the construction work of the entire control point. It shows that how fast they can build. According to the Government, the target of the Shenzhen Municipal Government is to complete the main works of the new Huanggang Port by the end of 2023, then the two governments will start internal decoration work respectively. The entire project is expected to take three to four years. Think about it, they can build such a huge building connecting the two places in just three to four years' time. Look at Hong Kong. The funding for Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai Control Point was approved by the Legislative Council in 2009. It was not until 2020 that the control point gradually came into service. Although we cannot compare the two control points as their facilities are not exactly the same, this is just one of the examples. I have mentioned it many times in different committees that some projects took over eight to 10 years' time to complete, especially local minor road projects. Many Members expressed their discontent in committee meetings in 4600 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 which the two Secretaries were absent but their colleagues might be there. The pace of development in Hong Kong was too slow in the past. Even the escalator construction project at Braemar Hill took a decade to complete. Under such circumstance, it once again demonstrates how fast the construction pace in Shenzhen is.

I hope that officials will really think about how to speed up construction works or streamline the development approach used in Hong Kong in the past, especially consultation processes. Those involving the Town Planning Board and environmental impact assessment, etc. often take five to seven years to complete. How can we compete with the neighbouring places then? It is hard to catch up, let alone compete. So I hope that the Government can think about this carefully. I totally support this Motion. Thank you, Deputy President.

MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I rise to speak in support of the motion on taking forward the follow-up tasks of implementing co-location arrangement at the Huanggang Port moved by the Secretary for Security. The development of the times is unstoppable. Under the "one country, two systems" principle, our communication with the Mainland is an inevitable course of development. I will not repeat the important significance therein as I believe that we all understand it. I would like to talk about a true story instead.

It took place in early 1980s soon after the opening up of the Mainland when the regular quota system for cross-boundary private cars was first introduced. Very few quotas were issued at that time and only designated drivers and passengers were allowed. The only control point that cross-boundary vehicles could pass through was the Man Kam To Control Point. I guess officials and Members present today may not know about this. Only older people like me had such kind of experience. Back then, the clearance service of both the Hong Kong Port Area and the Mainland Port Area at Man Kam To stopped at 4:30 pm. One day, two of my friends, surnamed MAN and CHENG crossed the boundary at 4:30 pm, the last batch on that day. When they left the Mainland Port Area for Hong Kong, they found that the gate of the Hong Kong Port Area had closed. There was an 800-metre walk from the Mainland Port Area to the Hong Kong Port Area. When they arrived at the Hong Kong LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4601

Port Area, the clearance service had stopped. The staff of the Immigration Department and the Customs and Excise Department were all gone. When they tried to go back to the Mainland, they found the clearance service of the Mainland Port Area had stopped too, so their car was stuck on the 800-metre long road in between the two sides. Neither could they enter Hong Kong nor go back to the Mainland. Stranded in the middle of nowhere, what could they do? They were very smart. At that time, the Hong Kong Police did not have the authority to permit entry as it was the job of the Immigration Department instead of theirs. My friends were clever. They pretended to fight with each other at the gate of the Hong Kong Port Area so that they could be arrested and taken to police station. They were then released on bail and went home. They went back to the police station to withdraw the case the next day.

This story took place in the 1980s. I cannot help sighing when I recall it now. The development of the times is unstoppable. With increased communication between Hong Kong people and their Mainland counterparts, the so-called control point in the past is just a man-made obstacle that we need to remove. The development prospect of Hong Kong is the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area. We are doomed if we keep hiding behind the door and thinking too highly of ourselves.

The reform of the Huanggang Port is not a precedent. The same arrangement has been implemented at Shenzhen Bay Port and the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link. Before, many people still clung to their conservative mentality, often making sceptical remarks and having political considerations in their mind. Our colleague, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, also expressed a number of worries earlier, but I do not think such worries are necessary. Under the "one country, two systems" principle, we should implement facilitating policies for the public in the future, and I believe that we will do it better. The reform of the Huanggang Port will bring us lots of advantages in the future. Government officials present today should come up with more new ideas with a new mindset.

Think about it. Actually I am rather sad about The Boxes in San Tin near Lok Ma Chau. My idea back then was to develop this place, yet, time and tide wait for no man. Due to problems in the systems and policies of the SAR 4602 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

Government, the multiple-entry endorsements for Shenzhen residents were abolished after the completion of The Boxes, so up till now, we can say The Boxes is a failure. However, I hope that with the development of the times, by making good use of the boundary area between the Northern District and Shenzhen, we can make the former a new highlight of the economic development in Hong Kong. The boundary area lies on one side of the Shenzhen River. As many colleagues mentioned earlier, while the river bank in the north is flourishing with twinkling lights, the boundary area on our side is dark and desolate. The Frontier Closed Area was designated when Hong Kong was under British rule, stretching from Mirs Bay, Shenzhen Bay to the boundary area. How can we release and make good use of the land there now? I believe that there should be much room for Mr WONG, Secretary for Development, to consider, and a lot can be done there.

Furthermore, the Secretary for Transport and Housing should note that there is serious traffic congestion at the Lok Ma Chau roundabout, the future transport hub. The Secretary should think clearly about how to divert the traffic there. We can see that the traffic is very congested near the bus terminus at Lok Ma Chau Station, especially during the commuting hours of workers and students. So, we need to pay attention to the details. I do not have much to talk about today. I hope that we can do better by working together. Thank you, Deputy President.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If not, I now first call upon the public officer to speak again and then the Secretary for Security will reply. Then, the debate will come to a close.

Under Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, please speak.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4603

UNDER SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I wish to thank more than 20 Members for expressing invaluable views about the co-location arrangement at the Huanggang Port. I am going to make a holistic reply to tourism-related issues raised by Members, in particular those raised by Mr YIU Si-wing.

At present, the global tourism industry is still facing severe challenges under the impact of the epidemic. After the implementation of stringent quarantine measures, the daily average visitor arrivals to Hong Kong have significantly dropped from 200 000 during the peak period in the first half year of 2019, to an annual total of 3.57 million in 2020, with the majority of visitors coming to Hong Kong in January. It is anticipated that the tourism industry needs some time to achieve a complete recovery. During this period, the Government will continue to endeavour to upgrade and improve local tourism resources, to nurture and develop tourism products and initiatives with unique features, and to enhance the tourism supporting facilities. In future, when tourism ties are restored between Hong Kong and other places―in particular the Mainland, we will be able to make use of these facilities and services to greet the coming back of visitors.

The redevelopment of the Huanggang Port and the implementation of the co-location arrangement is an important task to enhance supporting tourism facilities and visitors experience. We will make timely coordination on various arrangements with all relevant departments, including visitors' facilities and services at the Port as well as the traffic connection between the Port and tourist attractions. We will maintain communication with the tourism industry in the process. The specific work includes arranging field trips for people from the industry upon the completion of the works at the Port, with a view to allowing them to have a better understanding about the relevant visitors' facilities and services. We will also listen to views of the industry in order to further improve the visitors' services at the Port and the supporting tourism facilities, and to ensure that these services and supporting facilities meet the actual needs of visitors and the industry.

As we anticipate that the neighbouring Greater Bay Area will be among the first to resume tourism activities with Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Tourism Board will adjust its promotional strategy on the Mainland by pooling its resources in 4604 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 the Greater Bay Area for promotional purpose first, in order to attract people from the Greater Bay Area to spend their vacations and stay overnight in Hong Kong. The next step is to further promote Hong Kong to other Mainland cities. We envisage that in future, the convenient co-location arrangement at the new Huanggang Port will bring great convenience to visitors travelling between Hong Kong and the Greater Bay Area, which will also benefit the tourism industries on both sides and further enhance the tourism cooperation between the two places, in particular Hong Kong and Shenzhen.

Just now Members have mentioned that we should actively grasp the chance of developing tourism in the Greater Bay Area, I fully agree with that view. As a matter of fact, the Culture and Tourism Development Plan for Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area published in December 2020 had set out a general direction guiding the development of the cultural and tourism development of the Greater Bay Area, which would make the Greater Bay Area the cultural exchange hub for China and foreign countries as well as a world-class travel destination. It sought to proactively implement this cultural and tourism plan and to make greater contribution to the tourism development in the Greater Bay Area. The SAR Government and the Hong Kong Tourism Board have already set out this year's work plan, which includes: first, to provide timely funding for travel agencies which conduct promotional and publicity campaigns in overseas' markets, with a view to supporting the industry's multi-destination tourism products concerning the Greater Bay Area, and encouraging the industry to explore more tourism products and trips; second, to produce television programmes about touring the Greater Bay Area in order to showcase the tourism resources in the Area; third, to arrange timely study tours in Hong Kong and the Greater Bay Area for overseas' tourism operators and to encourage them to develop multi-destination tourism products of the Greater Bay Area; and fourth, to conduct timely overseas' promotional and publicity activities of the Greater Bay Area, and to keep on conducting thematic joint exhibitions and other campaigns about the Greater Bay Area in various international tourism exhibitions.

The SAR Government will also support the Travel Industry Council of Hong Kong to conduct timely tours in the Greater Bay Area for Hong Kong's tourism operators, with a view to enhancing the business cooperation of all sides, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4605 promoting the development of multi-destination tourism products in the Greater Bay Area and jointly exploring business opportunities.

All in all, we will grasp the opportunity of developing the Greater Bay Area and take a proactively stance in participating in Mainland's domestic circulation, with a view to promoting the recovery and long-term development of the tourism industry. I wish to thank Members once again for expressing their invaluable views in the motion debate, and we will seriously study views expressed by Members. In addition, we will fully cooperate with the relevant Policy Bureaux and government departments in order to provide a better experience for visitors by means of further improving the supporting tourism facilities and services at the new Huanggang Port, thank you.

SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I wish to thank Members for expressing their views during the motion debate.

As I pointed out in the opening remarks, this term's SAR Government attaches great importance to innovation and technology development, and the objective is to inject new impetus to Hong Kong's economy and to improve the people's livelihood. We are heading towards eight general directions to promote innovation and technology development. To date, we have invested more than $111 billion in promoting innovation and technology development. One of the most important tasks is to endeavour to provide quality scientific research and development infrastructures. The Hong Kong-Shenzhen Innovation and Technology Park ("HSITP") at the Lok Ma Chau Loop is of utmost importance to Hong Kong's innovation and technology development. Upon its full development, it will become Hong Kong's biggest innovation and technology platform. HSITP will be completed in phases. Upon the completion of the entire HSITP, it is estimated that it can generate $52 billion in revenues for Hong Kong and create 52 000 jobs.

The Shenzhen Innovation and Technology Zone on the other side of the Shenzhen River and HSITP will jointly form the Shenzhen-Hong Kong Innovation and Technology Co-operation Zone ("the Co-operation Zone"), with a view to realizing the goal of "one zone, two parks" and assisting the Greater Bay 4606 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

Area in building an international innovation and technology centre. In addition, as the co-location arrangement will be implemented at the redeveloped Huanggang Port, the clearance capacity of Hong Kong's land boundary control points will be increased significantly, which will facilitate the mobility of innovation and technology personnel from Hong Kong, Shenzhen and other cities in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, enhance the strategic function of HSITP in promoting the scientific research cooperations between Hong Kong and the Mainland, and benefit the innovation and technology development of Hong Kong as well as the Greater Bay Area. On the basis of the co-location arrangement, the SAR Government will continue the discussion with the Mainland on providing arrangement which will facilitate the entry and exit of research and development personnel and entrepreneurs working in the Co-operation Zone, with a view to promoting the high efficient mobility of scientific research personnel of the two places.

In the motion debate, some Members have expressed concerns about the progress of the development of the Lok Ma Chau Loop. As a matter of fact, since the Lok Ma Chau Loop is located in a rather remote area and no development has yet been carried out, ancillary facilities such as roads, sewage and power supply have not been put in place. HSITP will be a large-scale and long-term project to be erected in the Loop area. We have expedited all the preparation work by shortening the time required. The Civil Engineering and Development Department anticipates that the first batch of sites in the Lok Ma Chau Loop will be made available by the end of this year, so as to allow the Hong Kong-Shenzhen Innovation and Technology Park Limited ("HSITPL") to commence the first phase of the development project. Besides, HSITPL will also conduct technical study on certain facilities of the Park, such as the district cooling system, automated litter collection system and common pipe-ducts at the same time, with a view to approving the design requirements of the relevant facilities as soon as possible, as well as speeding up the construction works by adopting the Modular Integrated Construction system. We are now doing our best to take forward the relevant work. I am confident that first batch of the development of HSITP can be completed on schedule and in phases between 2024 and 2027.

On the other hand, Members have also pointed out in the past that we should continue to provide land for Hong Kong's scientific research and new industries, I LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4607 agree with them on this. The SAR Government has all along been actively cooperating in this regard by providing the necessary land and space for the industry's development. At present, the SAR Government has earmarked certain sites for the short, medium and long-term development of the innovation and technology sector. Moreover, the co-location arrangement to be implemented at the redeveloped Huanggang Port could help to free up more than 20 hectares of land for other purposes at the Lok Ma Chau Control Point, which is adjacent to the Lok Ma Chau Loop.

As the Secretary for Development has mentioned just now, the Development Bureau is studying the possible use of the site. In planning the future development of these sites, the SAR Government will carefully consider how synergies can be achieved through the establishment of HSITP in the Lok Ma Chau Loop. I wish to take this opportunity to thank Members once again for providing their invaluable views on the supporting facilities for HSITP and how to make better use of the Lok Ma Chau Loop and its neighbouring sites.

In this month, the National People's Congress ("NPC") approved the 14th Five-Year Plan, which for the first time expressed support for Hong Kong's development into an international innovation and technology hub, and included the Shenzhen-Hong Kong Loop as one of the four major platforms of cooperation in the Greater Bay Area. This has demonstrated that the Central Government attaches great importance to Hong Kong's innovation and technology, which is a huge encouragement for Hong Kong's innovation and technology development. The SAR Government believes that the redevelopment of the Huanggang Port will provide a good opportunity not only to enhance the accessibility between Hong Kong and the Mainland but also to consolidate Hong Kong's role as the Southern gateway to the country and to enhance Hong Kong's role in assisting the development of the country, which is inductive to the further promotion of Hong Kong's development in all areas, in particular the innovation and technology.

With these remarks, Deputy President, I hope Members will support the Government's motion.

4608 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I wish to thank Members for raising expressing views just now. I hereby briefly explain several aspects concerning the planning and land issues.

From a macro perspective, a number of Members have mentioned the planning of the New Territories, in particular places adjacent to the boundary. Actually, we are heading towards the harvest period in this regard. Members may have heard some well-known places that we mentioned some time ago, such as the Northeast New Territories, the Kwu Tung North/Fanling North New Development Area and the Hung Shui Kiu/Ha Tsuen New Development Area to the South of the former that we mention today. Perhaps Members have not yet seen any development activities as they are still at the planning stage. But at the same time, certain formalities concerning land formation works and land titles are underway. Actually, works will commence shortly. If Members look at the Land Sale Programme, they may find that tender invitation for the Kwu Tung North site will be issued soon. The two development areas in the New Territories, which have gone through the planning stage, may provide homes for a population of 300 000 and create about 200 000 jobs.

Next we will deal with the New Territories North Development. From a long-term perspective, the New Territories North Development Area is an important area after 2030, as it can provide homes for a population of 255 000 to 350 000. In conjunction with the Lok Ma Chau Loop, the area may provide 250 000 jobs. For that reason, the subsequent development in the New Territories, in particular the boundary area, is quite promising.

A number of Members have mentioned that the study on the site to be vacated following the redevelopment of the Lok Ma Chau Boundary Control Point should be conducted as soon as possible, so that the project can be commenced without any delay. This is exactly the Government's view. We are planning to brief the Panel on Development about the relevant funding application on 27 April. I wish to report to Members that we will give a holistic consideration of the development plan of the relevant sites as requested by Members just now. The next thing we will do is to seek funding approval for the New Territories North Development. It comprises three parts, the first is the San Tin/Lok Ma Chau Development Node, the second is the Man Kam To logistics Corridor to the East, and the third is the new towns of the New LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4609

Territories North to further East, including Ping Che, Ta Kwu Ling, Heung Yuen Wai and Queen's Hill. Various studies will commence soon and we hope Members will support the funding applications for these studies.

The study concerning the San Tin/Lok Ma Chau Development Node will include how to make better use of the vacated site of the existing Lok Ma Chau Control Point. Members have also reminded us of the direction in our holistic consideration of the project and the need to achieve the synergies. I wish to give a brief explanation that the Hong Kong-Shenzhen Innovation and Technology Park is on the Northeast side of the Lok Ma Chau Control Point, which is just about 400 m away from the Control Point; and further South is the Northern tip of the San Tin/Lok Ma Chau Development Node. We have reserved 50 hectares of land on the Northern tip of the Node for offices and innovation and technology usage. For that reason, when we conduct the further study in the next step, we will face two major challenges. The first is how to achieve best synergies, and the second is how to properly deal with the environmental and conservation challenges.

Members have also mentioned that we should give full consideration to the development of the Greater Bay Area. The Government fully agrees with this. In the course of planning the development of the boundary areas and the New Territories North, we will take the geographical advantages of these areas as they are in close proximity of Shenzhen and Guangdong, which can provide convenience to travellers. We should grasp the chance of Mainland's development, in particular, how to achieve the synergies with the neighbouring Shenzhen's technological research and development. This point was specifically raised by Mr CHAN Hak-kan. We will attach great importance to the achievement of mutual benefits and a win-win situation in our future planning.

Deputy President, the implementation of the co-location arrangement at the redeveloped Huanggang Port will not only bring convenience in customs clearance, we can also free up over 20 hectares of land in the boundary area for use which is beneficial to our society. It is a multi-win situation. I hope the Legislative Council can support the SAR Government's motion. I so submit. Thank you, Deputy President.

4610 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, just now, I listened very carefully to the earlier speeches of Honourable Members, and I also wish to thank Members for their speeches. Regarding the transport and traffic arrangements for the new Huanggang Port, I wish to give a reply on Members' views if I may.

The accessibility of the redeveloped Huanggang Port will be exceptionally advantageous. According to the planning information provided by the Shenzhen side, the redeveloped Huanggang Port will be connected to not only Shenzhen Metro Line 7 but also its Line 20 now under planning, the Guangzhou-Dongguan-Shenzhen Intercity Railway, and also the Guangzhou-Shenzhen Intercity Railway. It will become a transportation hub in the region and enable passengers to travel more conveniently between various places in Shenzhen and even the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area"). Therefore, we expect that the improvements to Huanggang Port can drive the demand for cross-boundary transport and provide more travel options for Hong Kong people and cross-boundary passengers. Together with the convenient and time-saving customs clearance services realized by co-location arrangement, the new Huanggang Port will turn into the third land crossing with co-location arrangement that is eagerly anticipated by the two places of Guangdong and Hong Kong.

With the adoption of Shenzhen Bay Port's co-location arrangement as the customs clearance model for the new Huanggang Port, the Transport Department ("TD") will dovetail with the operating hours of customs clearance services and the number of passengers receiving customs clearance at the new port and arrange for the adequate provision of local public transport services, so as to provide convenient and appropriate transport services for connection between the Hong Kong Port Area of the new Huanggang Port and places within the Hong Kong territory.

Actually, TD is holding discussions with the law enforcement agencies for the Hong Kong Port Area and the relevant Shenzhen units, so as to ensure the adequate provision of auxiliary and clearance facilities in the public transport interchange at the Hong Kong Port Area of the new Huanggang Port to dovetail with local public transport and also cross-boundary transport services. It will also hold discussions with the relevant Mainland units on enhancing the service level of cross-boundary transport, so as to meet the transport demand of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4611 cross-boundary passengers. As for issues concerning cross-boundary private cars brought up by certain Members just now, the SAR Government has likewise kept a close watch on the situation jointly with the relevant Mainland units.

Before the redevelopment of Huanggang Port, the Lok Ma Chau―Huanggang Cross-boundary Shuttle Bus Service, the "Yellow Bus" service with which people are familiar, provides visitors with cross-boundary passenger transport services. At present, the relevant government departments of Guangdong and Hong Kong are discussing the planning for the new Huanggang Port after redevelopment. The SAR Government will continue to follow up the transport and traffic service arrangements for the new Huanggang Port with the Mainland. After receiving further information, we will expeditiously communicate with the relevant industries.

As for railway connectivity, as the spur line of the Northern Link will partially stretch to the Mainland, we expect that the co-location arrangement for the redeveloped Huanggang Port will cover the railway and station area of the spur line there. We will fully dovetail with the effort of the Security Bureau in further discussing the specific arrangements with the Mainland authorities.

Speaking of the arrangements for cargo transport, under the strategic directive of "East in East out, West in West out", the cargo clearance function of the new Huanggang Port will be dispensed with. Shenzhen Bay Port already began to implement 24-hour cargo clearance services on 10 December last year. As Shenzhen Bay Port may have to be closed under strong winds, the Shenzhen side will prepare for the commencement of 24-hour clearance services at the cargo clearance facility of Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai Port before completely ceasing the cargo clearance function of Huanggang Port at the end of this year. The relevant Policy Bureaux and departments of the SAR Government will continue to discuss the relevant arrangements with the Shenzhen side to meet the needs of the cross-boundary cargo industry.

We are honestly grateful to the Shenzhen Municipal People's Government for enhancing the auxiliary facilities of Shenzhen Bay Port after considering the views expressed by the cross-boundary cargo industry through TD, including the provision of back-end and ancillary facilities to support the operation of cross-boundary goods vehicles, and a cross-boundary goods vehicle holding area 4612 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 with a size of 10 000 sq m in the close vicinity of Shenzhen Bay Port. In addition, the Shenzhen side has also commenced work to enhance the auxiliary facilities at Liantang Port to support the operation of cross-boundary goods vehicles. With TD's coordination, the Shenzhen side arranged an inspection trip for representatives of Hong Kong's cross-boundary cargo industry at Shenzhen Bay Port and Liantang Port on 18 November last year and briefed them on the latest auxiliary facilities at the two ports as support for the operation of cross-boundary goods vehicles. It will engage in specific and constructive communication with the industry on the arrangements concerned.

In conclusion, Shenzhen and Hong Kong have struck up communication and coordination regarding the cross-boundary flows of people and goods that Members are concerned about, in a bid to ensure unobstructed people and cargo flows between both places and facilitate Hong Kong's economic development (especially tourism, technology, trade and logistic development) and even the synergistic development of the Greater Bay Area as a whole during the reprovisioning of Huanggang Port and even after the commencement of the new Huanggang Port.

Deputy President, with these remarks, I implore Members to support the government motion proposed by Secretary for Security Mr John LEE today.

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank Members for speaking on this motion to provide us with valuable opinions. On the whole, they reflect that the Legislative Council recognizes the importance of the redevelopment of the Huanggang Port in enhancing the handling capacity and clearance facilitation of the land boundary crossings between Hong Kong and Shenzhen, as well as strengthening the connectivity between Hong Kong and other cities in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area").

I am very glad that many Members who have spoken just now support the SAR Government and the Shenzhen Municipal Government's all-out efforts to take forward the redevelopment of the Huanggang Port and implementation of the co-location arrangement. The only exception is Mr CHENG Chung-tai, who has once again mentioned cross-boundary law enforcement, theft of personal data and transfer of benefits in the course of construction. These so-called queries have been raised in past discussions. Now, the smooth operation of co-location LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4613 arrangement at the Shenzhen Bay Port and the Express Rail Link ("XRL") station over a long period of time has clearly proven to everyone that they are all fabrications and slanderous rumours to mislead the public and stoke conflicts. I oppose any attempt to smear the co-location arrangement, including some hesitant, implicit, wicked and misleading remarks.

Deputy President, the redevelopment of the Huanggang Port and the implementation of co-location arrangement will be of great benefit to both Shenzhen and Hong Kong. I am grateful to the Shenzhen Municipal Government for actively taking forward the redevelopment of the Huanggang Port and the implementation of co-location arrangement. The Shenzhen Municipal Government has undertaken to bear the construction cost of the new port building and will charge the SAR Government a nominal rent of RMB1,000 per year. This arrangement is very similar to that adopted for XRL West Kowloon Station. Back then, the SAR Government bore the construction cost of the whole project and the Shenzhen Municipal Government would pay a rent of HK$1,000 per year. Both governments attach importance to the need to upgrade the port facilities. I would like to thank the Shenzhen Municipal Government once again for its commitment in manpower and resources, as well as close liaison and cooperation with the SAR Government.

The redevelopment of the Huanggang Port and the implementation of co-location arrangement will bring about significant benefits. First of all, the redevelopment project will enhance the handling capacity of the port. At present, the Huanggang Port and the Lok Ma Chau Control Point constitute one of the busiest land boundary crossings between Hong Kong and Shenzhen, with a daily average of some 78 000 passengers using it to cross the boundary in 2018.

According to the development blueprint for the Greater Bay Area, the passenger flow between Shenzhen and Hong Kong is expected to grow significantly. With the "East in East out, West in West out" planning strategy factored in, the Huanggang Port will be the most important and major land boundary crossing for passenger traffic between Shenzhen and Hong Kong. By means of the redevelopment project, the governments of both places will upgrade and increase the customs clearance facilities so as to enhance the handling capacity of the port and ensure that the redeveloped Huanggang Port will be able to cope with the frequent needs for customs clearance between Shenzhen and Hong Kong in the future.

4614 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

In addition, the redevelopment is conducive to clearance facilitation at the port. It is well known that the existing passenger clearance buildings of the Huanggang Port and the Lok Ma Chau Control Point are not directly connected, so it is inconvenient for passengers to travel between the checkpoints. They have to get off with their luggage at one side of the boundary crossing, complete the departure procedure, then get on a bus to the other side and get off with their luggage again to complete the immigration procedure. This is not the most convenient clearance arrangement for passengers, especially those with bulky luggage or who are elderly. With the co-location arrangement in place, passengers can go through immigration clearance for both places in the same building at the same location, negating the need to carry luggage on and off buses, thus greatly improving the overall experience and efficiency of customs clearance.

Thirdly, the redevelopment will improve the environment of the Huanggang Port. With more rounded, humane and modernized planning and design, the governments of both places will be able to provide a better experience to passengers.

The new Huanggang Port, as the Secretary for Transport and Housing pointed out, will become a comprehensive transportation hub. According to the planning of the Shenzhen Municipal Government, the redeveloped Huanggang Port will become a transportation hub with direct connection to two Mainland intercity transits and two Shenzhen Metro lines. Earlier on, the Secretary for Transport and Housing has also explained the details to Members. We know that the Shenzhen Municipal Government has also planned to link it to the Futian Port by underground pedestrian access for connection with the Shenzhen Metro Lines 4 and 10. Furthermore, the Shenzhen Municipal Government will reserve space at the redeveloped Huanggang Port and offer the possibility for the Hong Kong side to consider directly connecting a spur line of the Northern Link to Huanggang in the future.

As for land use, after the customs, immigration and quarantine clearance facilities are relocated to the future Hong Kong Port Area ("HKPA") of the new Huanggang Port, over 20 hectares of land will be released from the existing Lok Ma Chau Control Point for other uses. The Secretary for Development has already elaborated on the possible development of the site.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4615

In addition, the redevelopment of the Huanggang Port can support the development of the Hong Kong-Shenzhen Innovation and Technology Park at the Lok Ma Chau Loop. The Secretary for Innovation and Technology has earlier explained the careful considerations and ideas in this regard, as well as the positive impact it can bring to the development of innovation and technology.

The Under Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development has also given a detailed account of the preparations for tourism promotion and the importance attached to it.

Deputy President, if today's motion is passed, it will be conducive to the SAR Government's continuing active efforts with the Shenzhen Municipal Government to take forward the redevelopment of Huanggang Port. Our work will include the following:

First, to discuss in detail with the Shenzhen Municipal Government the architectural design and arrangement of the Huanggang Port for the implementation of co-location arrangement, with a view to commencing the construction of the port building as soon as possible.

Second, to seek approval of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. If all goes well, the target of both governments is to complete the main works of the new Huanggang Port by the end of 2023. Drawing from the experience at the Shenzhen Bay Port and XRL West Kowloon Station, the two governments will formally seek approval of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress for the setup of HKPA and implementation of co-location arrangement at the new Huanggang Port when the main works of the new port is near completion.

Third, local legislation. Once approval is obtained from the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, the SAR Government will proceed with local legislation to extend the laws of Hong Kong to HKPA with a view to providing the legal basis for implementing the co-location arrangement.

In addition, the SAR Government will seek funding from the Legislative Council for such items as internal capital works, furniture and equipment, and information systems as appropriate in connection with HKPA at the new Huanggang Port.

4616 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

Deputy President, the redevelopment of the Huanggang Port is one of the key initiatives under the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area to expedite infrastructural connectivity among the Greater Bay Area cities. The project helps enhance the connectivity between Hong Kong and Shenzhen as well as other cities in the Greater Bay Area, and promote an efficient and convenient flow of people. It is also an important step in taking forward the "East in East out, West in West out" planning strategy for cross-boundary goods traffic. As the Chief Executive indicated in the Policy Address released in November 2020, the Central Government has explicitly expressed support for the implementation of co-location arrangement at the redeveloped Huanggang Port. The SAR Government will work with the Shenzhen Municipal Government to actively take forward the redevelopment. We will timely brief the Council on the progress and listen to Members' views at appropriate times during the process.

I hope that Members support the motion proposed by the Government.

Deputy President, I so submit.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by the Secretary for Security be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(No hands raised)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present.

I declare the motion passed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4617

MEMBERS' MOTIONS

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members' motions. Proposed resolution under Article 75 of the Basic Law to amend the Rules of Procedure.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members who wish to speak please press the "Request to speak" button.

I now call upon Mr Paul TSE to speak and move the motion.

PROPOSED RESOLUTION UNDER ARTICLE 75 OF THE BASIC LAW TO AMEND THE RULES OF PROCEDURE

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in my capacity as Chairman of the Committee on Rules of Procedure ("CRoP"), I move that the motion, as printed on the Agenda to amend certain rules of the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("RoP"), be passed.

Deputy President, since the commencement of the 2020-2021 session, CRoP has been examining proposals submitted by Members to amend RoP and the House Rules ("HR") to better ensure the effective operation of the legislature and uphold the rights of Members to speak and to debate. CRoP is of the view that, other than the proposals that require further study, it will take forward the remaining proposals. The proposals have secured the majority support of Members after three rounds of consultations. The proposals can be divided into eight groups, and five of them which involve amending the relevant rules of RoP, are set out as follows:

- Proposal 1: to set out that if, by reason of grossly disorderly conduct of a Member committed in a single instance or multiple instances, in a meeting of the Legislative Council, the committee of the whole Council, the Finance Committee or the House Committee, the President of the Legislative Council is of the opinion that his powers under RoP 45(2) regarding the withdrawal sanction are inadequate with respect to such grossly disorderly conduct, the President may name such Member. The President's deputy shall move forthwith 4618 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

without amendment or debate a motion. If the motion is passed, the Member shall be suspended from the service of the Council (including attending all meetings and handling complaints) in a specified period of time. Subject to making necessary amendments to the relevant legislation, the remuneration of the Member in that specified period of time may be withheld. The majority of the Members do not support putting in place an appeal or objection procedure or mechanism. However, this does not preclude the President from exercising his powers and discretion under the Basic Law, the laws of Hong Kong and RoP to ensure that the relevant proceedings comply with the principles of procedural fairness and the rules of natural justice;

- Proposal 2: to set out in RoP the time limits for the Legislative Council to handle different types of motions and the speaking time limit in their corresponding debates. However, the President of the Legislative Council, as in the past, may specify the time limits for the Council to consider individual Government bills or Member's bills, as the case may require;

- Proposal 3: to expressly set out in RoP the committee chairman in office shall have the power to deal with normal business prior to the election of the committee chairman for a new session and such normal business includes deciding the date and Agenda of a meeting;

- Proposal 4: to fine-tune the procedure for the adjournment of debate by setting out that RoP 40(1) would not apply to certain motion debates and amending RoP 40(1) with the terms of RoP 40(4) which are substantially the same; and

- Proposal 5: to amend certain rules in RoP to prevent possible abuse of procedures and enhance operational efficiency.

Deputy President, the House Committee has, based on CRoP's recommendation, passed all proposed amendments in its meeting on 26 February 2021. If my proposed resolution is passed by the Council, the consequential amendment to the corresponding rules of HR will be submitted to the House Committee for passage this Friday (26 March). The consequential amendment shall be brought into effect forthwith upon its passage.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4619

Deputy President, just now, I have made my so-called "statutory" speech on behalf of CRoP. And now, I will briefly state my personal view.

Deputy President, I am glad to have the opportunity to make a major amendment to RoP for the second time within my term in this Legislative Council. The amendment seeks not to limit Members' constitutional rights. More importantly, it seeks to strike an appropriate balance between the effective operation of the legislature and the constitutional rights, as well as obligation, of Members, so as to bring order out of chaos and put this Council back on its track again.

Deputy President, what many Members question or the media is concerned about is as follows: first, they ask why so many amendments to RoP are still necessary given that the opposition's voice has seemingly weakened and the chaos reduced. My simple answer is that we need to mend the pen after sheep are lost. In fact, the amendments are meant not to target at individual Members, political parties or persons. We hope that the system or RoP itself can give the dignity the legislature deserves. People understand the meaning of contempt of court. In fact, whether in court or in this Council, in the system of these two major pillars, there have been cases of contempt. This amendment exercise mainly seeks to respect the dignity expected of the establishment. Also, the amendments are necessary for the sake of operation. So, if we know what contempt of court means, why can we not attach the same importance to conduct that shows contempt for the Council? Some of the amendments precisely seek to set this straight.

Deputy President, allow me to thank the colleagues who have proposed amendments to RoP or HR. They are Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHAN Hak-kan and Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan. They have provided a lot of helpful input into the amendments. My thanks also go to those who have actively responded to and supported the consultation. I wish also to thank the Secretariat staff because all of them, especially the Council Secretaries and the Legal Advisers, have done a lot of work to make this amendment exercise possible.

I do not have much time left. Perhaps let me briefly talk about the amendments that are relatively more important. I mentioned five groups of amendments just now. First, it is about the naming. The procedure itself is not something new. We all know that the President of the Legislative Council or committee chairmen have, as always, the power to sanction Members whose conduct at a meeting is grossly inappropriate. But the approaches adopted are of 4620 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 two extremes. One is to expel the Member from the meeting and then pretend nothing has happened, while the expelled Member is happy to have the chance to go out and smoke or have a drink. Such happenings have often been reported by the media. The other extreme is to remove the Member pursuant to the mechanism laid down in the Basic Law. The two approaches are too much. One is too lenient and the other is too strict. This is one of the problems, which has been criticized by Members of several terms of the Legislative Council, and that is, we do not have a mechanism that takes a middle course and imposes appropriate sanction to the Member whose conduct is grossly disorderly and serves as a deterrent to him.

A key direction of this amendment exercise is to address this problem. Having considered the approaches adopted by many other countries, especially the familiar approach adopted by the United Kingdom Parliament ("UK Parliament"), we are of the view that this amended mechanism is one that we are very familiar with. Colleagues who watch football matches should know the meaning of a yellow card and a red card. A player who has been dismissed from the pitch will not get away with it and will have to take responsibilities and face other consequences.

The penalty of suspension from the service of the Council proposed in the amendment, irrespective of the suspension being one week, two weeks or four weeks, is still relatively lenient as compared to the corresponding penalty in the UK Parliament. I will not go into the details, but generally speaking, we hope that this will be a discreet procedure. And not all committees will be given such a power. Basically, this procedure will only be initiated if a Member's conduct is grossly disorderly at meetings of the Legislative Council, the committee of the whole Council, the House Committee and the Finance Committee, and the President, or Chairman, will then name the Member concerned. And the naming is established only if a motion, to be moved without debate on the naming of the Member, is passed by Members. Although the procedural details are not clearly set out in RoP, as I just said, the President, or the Chairman, is required to duly comply with the principle of procedural fairness or the rule of natural justice. So, I believe the procedure can generate adequate checks and balances.

Second, I wish to briefly talk about the speaking time limit. This is another point the media is concerned about. We have studied legislatures in common law countries around the world, including UK, Australia, Canada, the United States and New Zealand. They basically tend to set a limit on the speaking time. By so doing, they seek not to limit the fundamental rights of their members, but rather, they want to strike a proper balance. All these countries set in advance an appropriate time limit on debates, or on the duration LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4621 and number of times a member may speak. My understanding is that for those motions we have chosen to have a five-minute speaking time, they are basically in line with the standing practice of the UK Parliament. This time limit is applied to nearly 50% of their motions. So, it should not be a cause of concern that we have limited the speaking time of Members too much. But certainly, if an important issue arises or the situation so requires, the President, or the Chairman of the House Committee, may order to appropriately adjust or relax the time limit. So, Members' right to speak is duly protected.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

Third, Members may still remember the saga involving the failure of the House Committee to elect its Chairman after seven months. In this connection, one of the important amendments is to clearly set out that before the Chairman or Deputy Chairman of the House Committee for the next session is elected, the Chairman or Deputy Chairman in office shall have the powers that have been vested to him to deal with normal business. Due to the limited time, I will not delve into the amendments on how to better deal with abuse or excessive filibustering. I will make further responses should the opportunities arise.

Here, let me briefly mention two more items that we wish to deal with in our remaining term. One is about the quorum. Although the number of Members forming the quorum has already been set by the Basic Law, what should we do when a quorum is not present in the Council? The standing practice is to ring the Bell for 15 minutes to summon Members back. But actually, this is only the design laid down in RoP. It is not a restriction laid down in the law or the Basic Law. Hence, in this connection, we wish to formulate a proposal to prevent this Council from wasting time on bell ringing. As to how to do it, I am afraid we need to conduct further studies and carefully seek legal opinions, with a view to laying down a better arrangement.

Another point is about whether Members whose conduct is grossly disorderly should be subject to economic sanction, apart from expulsion, or the so-called "suspension from the game"? I am afraid we need further study on this point. We may even need legislative amendments to be submitted by the Government before we can proceed any further with this amendment.

Here again I thank the Members, the Secretariat staff and the Legal Adviser. Thank you, President.

4622 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

Mr Paul TSE moved the following motion:

"RESOLVED that the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region be amended as set out in the Schedule."

Schedule

Amendments to Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

1. Rule 16 amended (motions for the adjournment of the Council) (1) Rule 16(2), after "two items of business"― Add "that are set out in Rule 18(1) (Order of Business at a Meeting)".

(2) After Rule 16(2)― Add "(2A) If at the expiration of one and a half hours, or such longer period as the President may at any meeting determine, from the moving of the motion under subrule (2) such motion has not been agreed to, the President shall not put the question on the motion and the Council shall proceed to the next item of business.".

(3) After Rule 16(7)― Add "(8) A motion that is to be moved under subrule (2) or (4) at a meeting of the Council but is not reached before the Council is adjourned shall not stand over until the next meeting, and shall be taken as having been disposed of.".

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4623

2. Rule 18 amended (order of business at a meeting) (1) Rule 18(1)(jb)― Repeal the full stop Substitute ", excluding motions moved under Rule 49E(2) (Motions on Reports of House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments).".

(2) After Rule 18(1)(jb)― Add "(jc) Requests for leave under Rule 89 (Procedure for Obtaining Leave for Member to Attend as Witness in Civil Proceedings) and Rule 90 (Procedure for Obtaining Leave to Give Evidence of Council Proceedings).".

(3) Rule 18(1)(l)― Repeal "motions other than those specified in paragraph (jb)" Substitute "other motions".

(4) Rule 18(1)― Repeal paragraph (m).

(5) Rule 18(2)― Repeal "(d), (e),".

3. Rule 19 amended (the Agenda of the Council) Rule 19(1A)― Repeal the full stop Substitute ", and to set a time limit on the consideration of such motion or bill.".

4624 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

4. Rule 20 amended (presentation of petitions) (1) Rule 20(2)― Repeal "inform the President not later than the day before the meeting" Substitute "give notice to the President not later than 3 clear days before the meeting".

(2) Rule 20(2)― Repeal "so informing the President" Substitute "giving such notice".

5. Rule 21 amended (presentation of papers) (1) Rule 21(1)― Repeal the full stop Substitute ", but no paper shall be so presented unless notice of it has been given not less than 2 clear days before the Council meeting at which the paper is to be presented provided that the President may in his discretion dispense with such notice.".

(2) Rule 21(1), Chinese text― Repeal the semicolon Substitute "，而".

(3) Rule 21(4), after "a Bills Committee"― Add "or of a committee to which a bill has been referred for consideration under Rule 54(4) (Second Reading)".

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4625

(4) Rule 21(4A)― Repeal "the Member presenting a report of the Bills Committee on the bill" Substitute "the Member presenting a report of a Bills Committee or of a committee to which the bill has been referred for consideration".

(5) Rule 21(5)― Repeal ", with the consent of the President,".

(6) Rule 21(5)― Repeal "inform the President of his wish before the beginning of that meeting" Substitute "give written notice to the President of his wish before the beginning of that meeting, and may only address the Council if the President has given his consent".

6. Rule 26 amended (asking and answering of questions) Rule 26(3)― Repeal "rise in his place and ask the question" Substitute "rise in his place and read out the question set out on the Agenda".

7. Rule 29 amended (notice of motions and amendments) After Rule 29(3)― Add "(3A) The President shall, upon the moving of a motion under subrule (3), put the question on that motion without debate.".

4626 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

8. Rule 37 amended (recommendations of House Committee as to time of speaking) Rule 37― Repeal subrule (1) Substitute "(1) In relation to any motion or amendment to a motion to be moved at a meeting of the Council, whether or not the motion or amendment has at the time been placed on the Agenda of the Council, the House Committee may make recommendations on the duration of debates and the speaking time limits of Members in debates, provided that the President or the Chairman of a committee of the whole Council may in his discretion adjust the relevant duration of debates and speaking time limits.".

9. Rule 40 amended (adjournment of debate or of proceedings of a committee of the whole Council) (1) Rule 40(1)― Repeal "A" Substitute "Subject to subrules (1A) and (1B), a".

(2) Rule 40(1), before "may move without notice"― Add ", and before he so speaks,".

(3) After Rule 40(1)― Add "(1A) No motion without notice may be moved to adjourn a debate on a motion moved under subrule (6A), Rule 16 (Motions for the Adjournment of the Council), Rule 49B(2A) (Disqualification of Member from Office), Rule 49E(2) (Motions on Reports of House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments), Rule 54(4) (Second Reading), Rule 55(1)(a) (Committal of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4627

Bills), Rule 84(3A) or (4) (Voting or Withdrawal in case of Direct Pecuniary Interest), Rule 89(2) (Procedure for Obtaining Leave for Member to Attend as Witness in Civil Proceedings) or Rule 90(2) (Procedure for Obtaining Leave to Give Evidence of Council Proceedings).

(1B) Where the President is of the opinion that the moving of the motion that the debate be now adjourned is an abuse of procedure, he may decide not to propose the question on the motion or to put the question forthwith without debate.".

(4) Rule 40(8), after "(1)"― Add ", (1B)".

10. Rule 45A added Part I, after Rule 45― Add "45A. Naming and Suspending (1) If, by reason of the grossly disorderly conduct of a Member, the President is of the opinion that his powers under Rule 45(2) (Order in Council and Committee) are inadequate with respect to such grossly disorderly conduct, the President may, at any time he considers appropriate, name such Member.

(2) Where it comes to the knowledge of the President that a Member's grossly disorderly conduct has been committed in a committee of the whole Council, the Finance Committee or the House Committee, the President may, at any time he considers appropriate, name such Member if the President is of the opinion that the powers of the Chairman of the committee of the whole Council, the chairman of the Finance Committee or the chairman of the House Committee under Rule 45(2) (Order in Council 4628 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

and Committee) are inadequate with respect to such grossly disorderly conduct.

(3) Where a Member is named by the President under subrule (1) or (2), the President shall, on a motion being moved forthwith by the President's deputy, put the question "That (name of such Member) be suspended from the service of the Council".

(4) A motion moved under subrule (3) shall be voted on forthwith without amendment or debate.

(5) If a Member is suspended by a motion moved and passed under subrule (3), the duration of the suspension (including the day of suspension)―

(a) on the first occasion is one week;

(b) on the second occasion during the same term of the Council is two weeks; and

(c) on any subsequent occasion during the same term of the Council is twice that of the previous occasion, provided that such duration shall not extend beyond the end date of the term concerned.

(6) Any Member who is suspended from the service of the Council under this Rule shall immediately leave the Chamber. The suspended Member shall, for the duration of his suspension, be excluded from participation in the exercise of the Council's powers and functions under Article 73 of the Basic Law.

(7) If the suspended Member refuses to comply with subrule (6), the President shall order the Clerk to take such action as may be necessary to ensure compliance.".

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4629

11. Rule 49 amended (divisions) (1) Rule 49(6), after "Rule 29(2)(b)"― Add "or (3)".

(2) Rule 49(6)― Repeal "(excluding motions referred to in Rule 29(3))".

12. Rule 51 amended (notice of presentation of bills) (1) Rule 51(1)― Repeal "A" Substitute "Subject to subrule (1A), a".

(2) After Rule 51(1)― Add "(1A) A Member who intends to present a bill under subrule (1) may only do so after he has consulted the relevant Panel on a draft of the bill.".

13. Rule 54 amended (second reading) Rule 54(7)― Repeal "a report of a Bills Committee on a bill under Rule 76(9) (Bills Committees)" Substitute "a report of a Bills Committee under Rule 76(9) (Bills Committees) or of a committee to which a bill has been referred for consideration under subrule (4)".

14. Rule 56 amended (functions of committees on bills) Rule 56(1)― Repeal "principles of the bill but only its details" 4630 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

Substitute "general merits and principles of the bill but only whether it supports the amendments proposed to the bill, and whether clauses of the bill as amended or without amendment should stand part of the bill".

15. Rule 63 amended (third reading) Rule 63(1)― Repeal "confined to the contents of the bill" Substitute "in the form of short and succinct speeches and confined to whether the bill should be supported, and not on the general merits and principles of the bill or in relation to proposed amendments to or individual provisions of the bill,".

16. Rule 79D added After Rule 79C― Add "79D. Powers of Chairman and Deputy Chairman of a Committee in Office (1) Where it is provided in these Rules of Procedure that the chairman of a committee (chairman in office) shall hold office until the chairman for the next session is elected in that next session or, in case that election is held before that next session commences, until that commencement, the chairman in office shall have all the powers that may be exercised by a chairman of the committee until the commencement of the next session or the election of the chairman for the next session, whichever is the later.

(2) Where it is provided in these Rules of Procedure that the deputy chairman of a committee (deputy chairman in office) shall hold office until the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4631

deputy chairman for the next session is elected in that next session or, in case that election is held before that next session commences, until that commencement, the deputy chairman in office shall have all the powers that may be exercised by a deputy chairman of the committee until the commencement of the next session or the election of deputy chairman for the next session, whichever is the later.".

17. Rule 91 amended (suspension of Rules) (1) Rule 91, after "except"― Add "with the recommendation of the House Committee and".

(2) Rule 91― Repeal "or with" Substitute "together with".

18. Rule 93 amended (interpretation) (1) Rule 93(b), after "the expression "clear days""― Add "as a period of time".

(2) Rule 93(b)― Repeal the semicolon Substitute ", and ends at 5 p.m. on the last day of that period;".

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Paul TSE be passed.

Does any Member wish to speak? Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, please speak.

4632 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, we are now deliberating the proposed resolution under Article 75 of the Basic Law to amend the Rules of Procedure ("RoP") moved by Mr Paul TSE in the capacity of the Chairman of the Committee on Rules of Procedure ("CRoP").

President, it is unfortunate that in recent years, filibustering has become the new normal of this Chamber. Since 2013, between April and May each year, the Legislative Council would be engaged in the month-long war of filibustering in relation to the Budget when a small number of Members would propose a total of a few hundred to a few thousand of amendments to the Appropriation Bill. In exercise of the powers conferred by Article 72 of the Basic Law and RoP 92, the President of the Legislative Council would then have to set a time limit for dealing with the Bill, or simply to cut off a filibuster. In the example of the Appropriation Bill 2020, 16 Members proposed a total of 124 amendments, and at the end, 52 amendments were allowed to be moved. President set aside 36 hours for Members' scrutiny which could only be completed on 14 May 2020 and the Bill was passed in the Third Reading.

However, filibustering has already become a common practice and has been escalating, targeting at not just individual subjects of discussion, but at every subject and everything. Filibustering has also spread to the Finance Committee and its Public Works Subcommittee and Establishment Subcommittee, and even to other Panels, and the vetting processes of public works projects have also been seriously affected by the war of filibustering in the Legislative Council. Some Members from the opposition camp would use every single tactic for the purpose. With such grossly disorderly conduct and the abuse of the procedure, they tried every means to filibuster and engage in mutual destruction. Apart from physical violence, there were cases involving hurling stink bombs and splashing of foul-smelling water, with an intention to disrupt the normal business of the Legislative Council and undermine the governance of the Government of the Special Administrative Region. Such misconduct not only causes severe damage to the overall interests of the Hong Kong society, but also affects the economy and people's livelihood. In the community, there have been calls to review RoP of the Legislative Council, so that Council business can be dealt with orderly and efficiently.

In fact, this is not the first time to amend RoP. The most recent amendment was done in December 2017 and mainly three effects could be achieved. After the amendment, firstly, the more flexible quorum requirements can reduce the chance of abortion of meetings. It is stipulated that the quorum LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4633 of a committee of the whole Council shall be 20 members, instead of 35 members, including the Chairman. The President may also order that the meeting shall continue at any time before the next meeting. Secondly, the power of the President of the Legislative Council is enhanced. The President has the discretion to select and combine the proposed amendments. Thirdly, an abuse of procedure can be prevented. Where the President is of the opinion that the moving of a motion is an abuse of procedure, he may decide not to propose the question or to put the question forthwith without debate. Although the operation of our Council has become smoother afterwards, it is still unable to prevent abuse of procedure by some Members of the opposition camp.

In 2019, amid the social unrest triggered by the controversy in connection with the amendment to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, not only was the Legislative Council Complex seriously vandalized, but the whole Council was also clouded and poisoned by the noxious trend of filibustering and mutual destruction. Shortly after the 2019-2020 Legislative Council session was commenced, we saw the predicament concerning the election of the Chairman of the House Committee which was seriously delayed. Under normal circumstances, the election of the House Committee Chairman can be done in one meeting. However, in the period from 15 October 2019 to 8 May 2020, during which 17 House Committee meetings were held, a new Chairman could still not be elected. This is because Mr Dennis KWOK, a former Member, when presiding over the related meetings, did not properly perform his duties in accordance with the part of RoP concerning the election of the House Committee Chairman properly but instead, allowed Members to deliver lengthy and unlimited number of speeches on matters unrelated to the election, or to raise numerous points of order to express their opinions, thus wasting a lot of meeting time. It was unprecedented and shocking to the community that a Chairman could still not be elected by the House Committee after about seven months.

Owing to the serious delay in electing the new Chairman of the House Committee, during this period of time, the House Committee could not deal with any business in its conventional way, including 14 bills and over 90 pieces of subsidiary legislation submitted by the Government, as well as the proposed senior judicial appointments. The above mentioned chaos could only come to an end after the President of the Legislative Council had sought external legal advice and decided to appoint, through exercising his power pursuant to RoP 92, Mr CHAN Kin-por to preside over the House Committee meeting held in the morning of 18 May 2020 for the election concerned, in which Ms Starry LEE was finally elected as the Chairman of the House Committee, with all sorts of 4634 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 interference and trouble removed by Members of the pro-establishment camp during the meeting.

After this incident, we understand that RoP is originally a gentleman's agreement, but if the provisions are too loose, people who have ulterior motives may take advantage of the rules. Therefore, there have been very strong views from various sectors of society, asking this Council to amend RoP as soon as possible. Apart from plugging the various kinds of loopholes, they even ask to impose penalties on those Members for their grossly disorderly conduct and deliberate acts to interfere with the operation of this Council. This proposed amendment has proactively responded to the aspirations of the people in society.

Since the commencement of the 2020-2021 Legislative Council Session, CRoP has been studying multiple proposals for the amendment of RoP and the House Rules put forward by Members. Being a Member of the Committee, I submitted a letter to Mr Paul TSE, Chairman of the Committee, on 15 January 2021, presenting my proposal of setting speaking time limits on various kinds of motions handled during the meetings of the Legislative Council. On 29 January, I submitted my further opinion to Mr Paul TSE, with a more detailed proposal for consideration of CRoP on the number of speeches and time limit per speech of each Member in various sessions of debate. CRoP then took into consideration the various amendments proposed by me and other Members, which widely covered a large number of stipulations in RoP and the House Rules. In November 2020 and February 2021 respectively, letters were sent by CRoP to all Members in regard to various proposed amendments. Subsequently, it was agreed that the first batch of proposed amendments, which had garnered enough support from Members, would be submitted to the House Committee for discussion. And at the meeting on 26 February this year, the first batch of proposed amendments was endorsed by the House Committee. Right after that, Mr Paul TSE introduced this proposed resolution under Article 75 of the Basic Law to amend the relevant provisions of RoP. If this is endorsed, the corresponding amendments to the relevant provisions of the House Rules will be submitted to the House Committee for approval.

President, this proposed resolution today mainly covers the first batch of proposed amendments in relation to RoP endorsed by the House Committee, and it includes five proposals. For the first proposal, it is sanction against grossly disorderly conduct of Members, and Rule 45A concerning naming and suspending is proposed to be added. Under this rule, where it comes to the knowledge of the President that a Member's grossly disorderly conduct has been LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4635 committed in a committee of the whole Council, the Finance Committee or the House Committee, the President may, at any time he considers appropriate, name such Member if the President is of the opinion that the powers of the Chairman under Rule 45(2) (Order in Council and Committee) are inadequate with respect to such grossly disorderly conduct. A motion will then be moved by the President's deputy for the Council to decide, without debate or amendment, whether the Member should be suspended from the service of the Legislative Council for the period specified in the motion. The duration of suspension is subject to an escalating scale of severity. If the motion is carried, the Member suspended would be prohibited from participating in all business of the Council. Its effect is to impose very explicit and detailed regulations on the pre-conditions for the suspension of any Member, the duration of suspension and the execution of the relevant terms.

My suggestion is mainly reflected in the second proposal, which is to amend Rule 37 concerning the recommendations of the House Committee as to time of speaking. This proposal specifies the time limits on debates on "substantive motions" (i.e. motions under items mentioned in RoP 18(1)(i) to (n) which involve substantive debates) and "procedural motions" (which are procedural in nature and relating to the regulation of Council proceedings) in Council, and specifies the speaking time limit for individual Members in each debate with respect to different types of motions. However, the President may in his discretion adjust the relevant duration of debates and speaking time limits. This proposal aims to strike a proper balance. This would not only encourage Members to make concise speeches with a view to enhancing the efficiency of the Council in transacting business, but hopefully also enable the Council to discharge its constitutional functions in a proper manner.

The third proposal is to add Rule 79D, which provides the powers of the committee chairman in office to deal with normal business prior to the election of the committee chairman for a new session. It provides explicitly that the chairman and deputy chairman of a committee shall hold office until the chairman for the next session is elected in that next session, and that the chairman and deputy chairman in office shall have all the powers that may be exercised by a chairman or deputy chairman of the committee until his or her term of office ends, either upon the commencement of the next session or the election of the chairman for the next session, whichever is the later. Obviously the practical function of this amendment is to prevent the recurrence of the chaotic scenario with respect to the election of the House Committee Chairman.

4636 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

The fourth proposal is about fine-tuning the procedure for the adjournment of debate in the Council. It includes adding Rule 40(1B) which provides that where the President is of the opinion that the moving of the motion that the debate be now adjourned is an abuse of procedure, he may decide not to propose the question on the motion or to put the question forthwith without debate. The power of the President can be more explicit under this amendment.

The fifth proposal is about the proposed amendments to prevent possible abuse of procedures. It includes amending Rule 63 to the effect that Members must speak succinctly on whether they would support a bill or otherwise at the Third Reading debate, and they may not discuss again the general merits and principles of the bill, or the proposed amendments to or individual provisions of the bill, which have been discussed at the Second Reading debate. Practically, this amendment is to turn the President's implicit rulings, admonitions or conventions during the past enforcement of RoP into statutory rules.

President, in sum, these five proposed amendments to RoP may render the regulation of the original provisions concerned stricter, make up for the deficiencies or omissions in the original provisions, or provide more explicitly the powers and discretion of the President. In conclusion, they aim to put this Council on the right track and prevent the recurrence of past distressing chaos. However, I believe that this will not be the last time to amend RoP. In keeping abreast of the times, in the event that there are still other problems with RoP or new scenarios as reflected in the operation of this Council in future, it is definitely incumbent upon us to further improve RoP so that this Council can perform its various constitutional functions under Article 73 of the Basic Law more properly as the legislature in Hong Kong.

With these remarks, President, I support the passage of the proposed resolution moved by Mr Paul TSE.

MR CHAN CHUN-YING (in Cantonese): President, the Legislative Council is the legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR"). The Legislative Council has the responsibility to enact, amend and repeal laws in accordance with the provisions of the Basic Law and legal procedures; to examine and approve budgets introduced by the Government; to approve taxation and public expenditures; to receive and debate the policy addresses of the Chief Executive; to raise questions on the work of the Government; to debate any issue concerning public interests, etc.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4637

The Basic Law expressly provides for the powers and functions of the Legislative Council and those of its President and the rights of individual Members. However, the Basic Law has not expressly laid down how these powers and functions and rights should be exercised. Article 75 of the Basic Law empowers the Legislative Council to make the Rules of Procedure ("RoP") on its own, and that the rules made cannot contravene the Basic Law. This power of the legislature has been repeatedly confirmed and restated by court in the judgments of a number of court cases.

On 2 July 1998, the first Legislative Council of HKSAR adopted RoP. The RoP was modelled on the Standing Orders, an instrument formulated for the practices and procedures of the legislature before the reunification. RoP was then constantly amended in accordance with the standing practices and procedures of the Legislative Council. However, RoP is not exhaustive and cannot cover all scenarios. What is left uncovered needs Members' mutual respect and understanding, or what we call a gentlemen's agreement. However, when people of ill intent take advantage of this, the outcome can be disastrous.

President, before the reunification, the legislature was called Lifaju in Chinese. The Legislative Council was founded in 1843. It consisted of the Governor and three Official Members, and the then Governor was the President of the Legislative Council. The first two Unofficial Members were appointed in 1850. It was not until 30 years later, in 1880, that the first Chinese Unofficial Member was appointed. The number of Legislative Council Members increased with time. In 1985, the number of Members increased to 57. The first Legislative Council after the reunification had 60 Members, and the number increased to 70 Members in the fifth Legislative Council in 2012. According to the decision just passed by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on 11 March, the number of Members of the next Legislative Council will increase to 90. By that time, the number of Members will be 22.5 times of that in 1843.

President, in order to maintain effective operation, overseas legislatures are also left with no choice but to set a speaking time limit on their debates when their numbers of members continue to increase. With an increase in the number of Members, if all Members are allowed to speak freely in the Chamber without any time limit, the meeting cannot end and the legislature concerned cannot operate efficiently in a way it should. In 1988, the House of Commons of the United Kingdom Parliament ("UK Parliament") made a permanent revision on its standing orders to expressly limit the speaking time for certain debates. The 4638 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 speaking time for each member in a debate was limited to 10 minutes, including the Second Reading debate on public bills.

Talking about speaking at Second Reading debates, we cannot help but going back to the scene when this Council debated the Medical Registration (Amendment) Bill 2016. After seven days of debate which lasted more than 45 hours, this Council still could not put the Bill to vote because a Member of the medical sector and some pan-democratic Members insanely requested headcounts and filibustered at the meeting. In the end, the Bill had to be scrapped and start from scratch again.

Over the past years, Members of the "mutual destruction camp" have been abusing the power given by RoP and resorting to filibustering tactics, such as deliberately causing adjournment of meetings and moving adjournment motions, in order to stage their "fights". For instance, in May 2012 when this Council considered the Legislative Council (Amendment) Bill 2012, some Members jointly submitted 1 306 amendments to the Bill, which added up to 2 464 page of papers, in an attempt to stall the Council from putting to vote the motion on the arrangement for filling vacancies in the Legislative Council. These Members frequently requested headcounts and proposed thousands of amendments. They caused repeated adjournment of the meeting. The then President of the Legislative Council had no choice but to terminate the debate pursuant to Rule 92 of RoP and order that the amendments be put to vote immediately one by one, in order to end the lengthy debate which lasted for 100 hours 23 minutes.

Another example took place in the previous legislative session. Some Members manipulated with the procedures and tried every means to stop the House Committee from electing its Chairman. The House Committee spent seven months on the election but was still unable to elect its Chairman and Deputy Chairman. The House Committee was paralysed and unable to consider any bills. And if you still remember, President, at the first Legislative Council meeting of this legislative session, at the Resumption of Second Reading debates on the unfinished Government Bills from the previous session, Members of the "mutual destruction camp" requested 12 headcounts, which cost two hours in total. Their lunatic filibuster seriously distorted the original spirit of RoP for handling Council business and disrupted the operation of this Council. It also seriously obstructed the Government from administering its policies, weakened the competitiveness of Hong Kong and immensely undermined the economy and people's livelihood.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4639

President, I am also a member of the Committee on Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council. I am grateful to Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Tommy CHEUNG for their inputs in amending RoP and the House Rules. We discussed the amendments in three meetings and Committee members were supportive of the amendments proposed by the four members. The amendments are now submitted to this Council for passage. The amendments can be roughly categorized into several aspects.

The first aspect is about the penalty for Members with disorderly conduct. This Council has been unable to deal with Members who frequently disrupted Council procedures. This has, in a way, encouraged such conduct to repeatedly happen. We drew reference from the similar penalty adopted by the House of Commons of the UK Parliament. If a Member whose conduct in a single instance or multiple instances in Council, a committee of the whole council, the House Committee or Finance Committee is grossly disorderly, the President may move a motion to suspend the Member from the service of the Legislative Council. The President may even deduct the Member's remuneration during his period of suspension.

The second aspect is about reducing the speaking time of Members in considering bills and subsidiary legislation. The speaking time of the mover of a Government or Member's bill and a Member's motion is reduced from 15 minutes to 10 minutes, and that of a motion on subsidiary legislation is reduced from 15 minutes to 5 minutes with a cap of four hours on the duration of the debate. As I just said, overseas legislatures will also set a limit on the speaking time when their numbers of members continue to rise. Our amendment in this regard is consistent with the international practice and trend. Actually, Members should focus on the quality and not quantity of their speeches. I believe shortening the speaking time will not affect the quality of the council in handling its business.

The third aspect is about introducing a vetting mechanism to prevent procedures such as moving adjournment motions and motions moved under Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance from being unreasonably abused.

The fourth aspect is about plugging the loophole in the election of the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of committees each year, so as to prevent the recurrence of the incident involving the House Committee being paralysed.

4640 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

The two aspects above are both counter measures against past abuses of some of the procedures, so as to prevent them from happening again.

President, with the implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law and the collective resignation of the Members from the "mutual destruction camp", the Legislative Council has basically restored its order. However, we believe that learning from past lessons, plugging the loopholes in the rules, better preparing for different situations and making necessary amendments to RoP as time progresses can prevent this Council from losing its balance again. These measures can also ensure the lawful and orderly operation of the Legislative Council, the steadfast and successful running of Hong Kong under "one country, two systems". This is the due responsibility of this Legislative Council and also the responsibility of all Members.

So, I support the Committee on Rules of Procedure to submit the amendment proposal to this Council. I so submit. Thank you, President.

MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): President, the parliamentary culture and order of the Hong Kong Legislative Council, as well as its deliberation quality and efficiency, have kept declining over the recent decade. It can be said that the situation has only got worse and worse without an end. Under the ravages and rampage of the opposition camp and Members advocating "mutual destruction", the recent years have even seen the total collapse of parliamentary ethics and conventions. As a result, policy implementation in HKSAR has met with enormous difficulty, and the socio-economic and livelihood development of Hong Kong has been seriously jeopardized.

Speaking of verbal violence, the use of vulgarisms to insult the Government at the outset has turned into the use of foul language to curse officials and propagate animosity. No parliament in any country or region will allow or tolerate the relevant remarks, I believe.

In the case of physical violence, the hurling of bananas, placards and drinking glasses at the outset has escalated into the snatching of microphones, documents and mobile phones, and the hurling of worms and stinking substances in recent years. Worse still, a piece of gigantic black cloth was once spread out in an attempt to obstruct the camera, followed by pushing, shoving and assaulting the security personnel of the Legislative Council. Honourable Members as LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4641 people's representatives in the Legislative Council have degenerated into law-breaking villains, and their conduct is even no different from that of terrorists.

When it comes to filibustering, their occasional filibustering with the target of specific bills or appropriation requests at the outset has turned into a hysterical attempt aiming at "mutual destruction" with no specific target, justification, interruption and hesitation in resorting to extreme means. The most classical and outrageous example of all is certainly the farcical filibustering show starring Dennis KWOK from the , a former Legislative Council Member representing the legal profession, during the election of the House Committee Chairman. Owing to his filibustering attempt spanning seven months, it was impossible to elect the House Committee Chairman. As a result, the Legislative Council's duty and function of scrutinizing bills was totally paralysed, and the implementation and taking forward of many economic and livelihood policies was affected.

Certain opposition Members have even blatantly betrayed the country and Hong Kong. Some examples include turning an oath-taking occasion into one for advocating "independence", overtly and covertly propagating "", inciting "black-clad violence", machinating "mutual destruction", and even going overseas to beg for sanctions on China and Hong Kong from external anti-China forces, in a bid to plunge the 7 million people of Hong Kong into death together with them and bring economic loss to the 1.4 billion people in the country. People like them are not fit for the office of Legislative Council Members, and they even do not deserve to be Hong Kong or Chinese people.

Targeted at the various evil deeds of the opposition camp and Members advocating "mutual destruction", and also targeted at the constitutional and legal loopholes and inadequacies in Hong Kong, the Central Government has taken a number of decisive steps over recent years to assist Hong Kong in stopping violence, curbing disorder and setting things straight, in a bid to safeguard Hong Kong's prosperity and long-term stability, and to ensure the steadfast and successful practice of "one country, two systems" in the long run. Such steps include the interpretation of the Basic Law regarding the oath-taking requirements on Legislative Council Members in 2016, the enactment of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in June last year, the interpretation of the Basic Law regarding the qualification of Legislative Council Members in November 4642 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 last year, and the adoption of the decision of the National People's Congress ("NPC") on improving Hong Kong's electoral system on the 11th day of this month.

The aforesaid NPC's decisions and also the interpretation of the Basic Law by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") have succeeded in offering Hong Kong with prompt assistance in resolving such problems as "Hong Kong independence", "black-clad violence" and foreign intervention, curbing "mutual destruction", "black-clad violence" and acts that seek to paralyse policy implementation in the Legislative Council during the stage of election at source, and ensuring that the principle of "patriots administering Hong Kong" can be fully implemented. All this definitely commands my full support, and I will actively dovetail with the enactment of local legislation that follows.

Nevertheless, the relevant NPC's decisions and NPCSC's interpretation of the Basic Law are understandably unable to thoroughly address certain undesirable parliamentary conduct, such as "playing the edge ball" and acts that are not obviously unlawful or unconstitutional. Actually, these problems should not be handled by the Central Authorities. The HKSAR Government, the Hong Kong Legislative Council and the constructive forces in Hong Kong are definitely duty-bound and able to deal with them on their own.

The motion proposed by Chairman of the Committee on Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council ("CRoP") Mr Paul TSE today aims precisely to rectify the disorder in the legislature over all this time, plug the various loopholes in the existing Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council, and provide more comprehensive, effective and long-term institutional safeguards to parliamentary proceedings as a means to fulfil the objective of enhancing the governance capability of HKSAR required in the "11 March Decision" of NPC. I fully support this principle and reform direction.

This motion involves a total of 18 amendment clauses. Their contents are detailed and comprehensive, covering measures to prevent Members' abuse of parliamentary proceedings and filibustering under the guise of proposing motions for the adjournment of the Council, motions for the adjournment of debate, private bills or motions under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. The amendments also seek to regulate the scope of Members' speeches, Members' speaking time limit and also voting arrangements. Here, I LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4643 wish to thank CRoP members and the relevant staff of the Legislative Council Secretariat again for their hard work.

Amendment clause 10 of all clauses has been discussed by the greatest number of Members, and it concerns the setting up of a suspension mechanism for Members. If a Member whose conduct has been repeatedly ruled to be grossly disorderly refuses to make amends despite repeated warnings or pay any heed despite repeated penalties, the President of the Legislative Council may, by virtue of a motion that has been passed, suspend his service for a certain period of time to avoid the persistent attempt of such troublemakers to upset parliamentary order and disrupt the conduct of meeting. This can reduce the economic and social repercussions of their undesirable parliamentary conduct.

Actually, the relevant arrangement is not invented by Hong Kong. The legislatures in many overseas countries have likewise put in place similar arrangements. I hope that the relevant sides can conduct further studies on the feasibility of salary deductions for Members who have been suspended from service, meaning a suspension of payment for their remunerations and operating expenses. I put forth this idea because so doing can produce the greatest deterrence and reduce the wastage of public money obtained from taxpayers.

Besides, amendment clause 16 provides that if any committee fails in the timely election of its chairman or vice-chairman for the new session, the original chairman and vice-chairman for the previous session may continue to perform their duties to ensure that the committee concerned can conduct its business as usual. This amendment can precisely deal with the farcical show during the election of the House Committee Chairman last year, which may well be called the "Dennis KWOK incident". I have written no less than four or five articles to criticize Dennis KWOK for his "mutual destruction" and filibustering behaviour. I will certainly support the amendments to the relevant rules.

Finally, I want to discuss the proposal on reducing Members' speaking time limit. When the House Committee discussed the amendment proposal concerned, I once said that I had reservations about the original proposal on significantly reducing the speaking time limit on certain motions from a maximum of 7 to 15 minutes per Member to only three to five minutes. Speaking of some bills and motions that are relatively complicated, involve professional knowledge and have a greater impact on individual industries and trades, I believe a speaking time limit of five minutes is too short. NPC has 4644 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 decided to increase the composition of the Legislative Council to 90 Members. That means an extra minute of speaking time for each Member will add up to an additional 1 hour 30 minutes. But actually, this problem can be resolved by limiting the overall duration of debate on individual motions. The existing amendment proposal―in amendment clause 8―has not expressly provided for a time limit on Members' speech on individual motions. Instead, the House Committee is to be authorized to make recommendations to the President of the Legislative Council, and the President may exercise discretion to adjust the speaking time limit for Members and motions. I hope that when the House Committee makes its recommendations later on and when the President enforces the relevant rules, they will take account of my viewpoints.

President, I believe many incumbent Members of the Legislative Council can invariably feel that after a majority of those Members advocating "mutual destruction" were disqualified from office, resigned or fled from Hong Kong, their workload and work pressure have both increased as voters, members of the public and even the country have heightened their expectation of them. After the passage of the amendments to the Rules of Procedure this time around and also the local legislation on improving the electoral system that follows, such pressure and expectation will only rise further still. I hope Members can continue with their hard work, actively deliberate policies in meetings, offer effective support for the administration of the SAR Government, and exercise monitoring by "calling a spade a spade", so as to enhance the governance capability of HKSAR, work towards the well-being of the broad masses in Hong Kong, and display to people a fresh, admirable parliamentary culture with a high quality and efficiency.

With these remarks, I support the motion.

MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I rise to speak in support of the proposed resolution moved under Article 75 of the Basic Law to amend the Rules of Procedure ("RoP").

With regard to the current amendment exercise, I would like to discuss several key points. Just now, a number of Members have mentioned some of the issues which I would also like to talk about, including the background of and reasons for proposing the amendments today. In particular, I would like to talk about RoP 45A "Naming and Suspending" and RoP 79D "Powers of Chairman LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4645 and Deputy Chairman of a Committee in Office". Both the Liberal Party and I think that these proposed amendments are meant to right the wrongs, but on the other hand, I am very much saddened as to why the Legislative Council has become what it looks like today.

The contents of the Legislative Council's RoP is mainly based on the parliamentary procedure (i.e. rules of order) of the United Kingdom ("UK"). Parliaments of foreign countries, in particular the UK, will invite Members of this Council over to exchange views with them. I have also taken part in such exchange tours before. As mentioned by some Members just now, many of the rules of procedure of overseas parliaments are more like gentlemen's agreement, which simply set out the provisions without specifying any implementation detail because it is assumed that all Members are gentlemen/ladies and know how to behave properly.

However, some Members of the Council have been incessantly exploiting loopholes in RoP since about 10 years ago. They might regard themselves as people conversant with RoP, but in fact, they were just manipulating loopholes to disrupt the order of the Council by putting up a "show" here. What I find most intolerable is that they opposed everything put forth by the Government with the aim to sabotage the latter's implementation of all policies (in particular those virtuous policies), having no regard for people's well-being. This could never be considered to be a gentleman's behaviour. Only villains would act this way.

Actually, I did not understand at that time why the public would have allowed them to do so. How come they still had the voters' support for what they had done? Also, I did not see why they would oppose what was obviously good for us. They were against both the Government itself and its policies, including those virtuous policies. In the past two years, I came to realize that it is because revolutionaries usually wish to see people live in dire poverty as they will have an excuse to start a revolution when everyone is unable to make a living. It will be difficult to start a revolution if all the people are well-fed and well-clothed. Therefore, the public should get a good look at what these people have actually done.

Many Members may think that the peak of the chaotic situation in the Legislative Council emerged in 2019 against the backdrop of the "black-clad violence". Nevertheless, I have been holding office as a Member of the Legislative Council for 21 years and witnessed the fall of the Council, which 4646 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 actually started in 2012 following the movement against the introduction of the national education subject. In order to win votes, some so-called Members opposed the Government at every turn, overturning all the Government's policies meant to benefit people and deliberately creating a situation in which people were in dire poverty.

For example, when I was the Chairman of the Finance Committee ("FC"), I saw with my own eyes some Members oppose the proposal to increase the amount of "fruit grant", incessantly raising questions by virtue of paragraph 37A―not hundreds but thousands of questions. I reckoned how long it would take me to deal with one single question then―it usually took only one minute or so. "Thanks" to their filibuster, the funding application for increasing the "fruit grant" was not approved until two months later. In fact, a majority of FC members have expressed their support for the proposal back then. I do not remember the voting results of that, but at that moment the pan-democratic Members just sat there and watched. Actually, voters would have to suffer a loss if they voted against the proposal. Did they utterly not care even so?

Just now, some Members have spoken in detail about the reform of the Medical Council of Hong Kong ("MCHK") proposed some years ago, so I am not going to talk any further about this. Here, I only wish to remind members of the public who are listening to our debate that the reform proposal put forward by the MCHK back then was to increase its membership from 24 to 28 by adding 4 non-medical practitioner members. At that time, the proposal was supported by the vast majority of doctors and the voting result was 20:8―doctors did not lose their voting control in MCHK.

At that time, some cases were considered most unpleasant even by the judges, where an MCHK member found out during investigation of a case that the subject of investigation was actually an old classmate of his, except that he did not know him well―given the fact that both of them were doctors and classmates, would anyone believe it if he said he did not know the subject well? This being the case, the family of the patient concerned have spent as long as 10 years pursuing the case. So I moved a member's bill back then simply to reassure the patients or their families that they could at least learn the truth as to whether there was medical misconduct on the part of the doctors involved. They should not have been made to wait for as long as 10 years.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 4647

It was just told by some Members that deliberation on the bill was eventually delayed until the following year before it was resubmitted to the Legislative Council for consideration. Members of the public should be able to see from this that a Member of this Council, who was a doctor, had never declared that he was a doctor during discussion of the bill. While raising objections and filibustering, he only kept saying that he was the representative of New Territories West, as if he could do whatever he wanted. Please get a good look at this kind of approach. We ought to set things right as long as people behaving like him are among Members of the Council.

The trigger for the current amendment exercise is of course the incident of "black-clad violence" in 2019. Back in those days, there were some Members belonging to the "mutual destruction camp" offering the so-called "inside help", meaning that while the mobsters set fires and hurled petrol bombs everywhere outside, Members belonging to the "mutual destruction camp" wreaked havoc in this Council. Besides, there was the most unforgettable thing to us, that is, the election of the Chairman of the House Committee has been dragged on for seven whole months. People hurled stink bombs and stormed the President Podium inside the solemn Chamber of the Council, creating scenes of extreme chaos. The operation of the Council was brought to a halt by their disruptive behaviours and became paralysed, and even the entire city has come to a standstill.

Therefore, the Liberal Party and I strongly support the naming of a Member whose conduct is grossly disorderly and suspending of that Member from the service of the Council. We are of the view that this will definitely have a deterrent effect. We will no longer allow a handful of disruptive elements to affect the operation of the entire legislature and drag down the Government's implementation of policies concerning people's livelihood. Since Hong Kong cannot afford to remain stagnant any longer, I support the Council's actions to stop Members from obstructing the proceedings of the Council by means of delaying the election of the Chairman of the House Committee.

President, the amendment exercise today seeks to plug the loopholes in RoP in order that those who do not abide by the "gentlemen's agreement" cannot exploit the loopholes again. The Liberal Party and I support this proposed resolution moved to amend the rules in RoP under Article 75 of the Basic Law by laying down clear provisions to ensure smooth operation of the Council.

4648 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

President, I have lost count of the number of years of my sitting on the Committee on Rules of Procedure. Over the years, no matter who the Chairman was (e.g. Mr Paul TSE and Mr TAM Yiu-chung, the former Chairman), they would request the Legislative Council Secretariat ("the Secretariat") to do research from time to time, whereas I thought there was no need to waste time on doing so. Although I have been saying that there is no need to do any research, it is fortunate that the Secretariat has still done it because it can be proved today that the work done by the Secretariat's Research Office over the years was not wasted at all. The fact that we have been able to spend so much time working on this proposed resolution to amend the rules in RoP this time is due to the hard work of the Secretariat staff in the past. They were well aware that we might not be able to take forward anything even with all the work done, but they did it anyway. Truthfully, we are greatly indebted to the Secretariat for making it possible for the proposed resolution to be moved in the Council today.

I so submit, President.

SUSPENSION OF MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 9:00 am tomorrow.

Suspended accordingly at 6:47 pm.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021 A1

Appendix I

WRITTEN ANSWER

Written answer by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development to Mr Jimmy NG's supplementary question to Question 2

The Office of the Communications Authority ("OFCA") understands that Starlink is a low Earth orbit satellite constellation designed to provide Internet access service. The satellite network required is still under construction and the Internet service has been launched in some regions on a pilot basis, while the promotion in Hong Kong is for receiving pre-orders only. OFCA has not received any licence applications from SpaceX or relevant organizations.

All sectors of Hong Kong's telecommunications market have been liberalized. The Government has been striving to provide a level playing field in the telecommunications market and ensure that consumers get the best services in terms of capacity, quality and price. OFCA will process in accordance with the Telecommunications Ordinance (Cap. 106) and relevant regulations and provide appropriate assistance to any organizations which intend to provide telecommunications services in Hong Kong.

A2 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 March 2021

Appendix II

WRITTEN ANSWER

Written answer by the Secretary for Food and Health to Dr CHIANG Lai-wan's supplementary question to Question 6

The Hospital Authority ("HA") adopts a triage system in its Accident and Emergency ("A&E") departments, under which priorities for treatment are set according to the severity and nature of patients' medical conditions, so as to ensure that timely and appropriate treatment and care are provided to emergency cases. Patients are classified into five categories based on their clinical conditions, namely critical, emergency, urgent, semi-urgent, and non-urgent. Patients triaged as critical will be treated by healthcare staff immediately without having to wait, while those with non-urgent conditions may have to wait longer.

After receiving doctor's assessment, patients would be arranged relevant examinations or investigations, or prescribed medications according to their conditions. Doctors may also arrange patients to be admitted to hospital for further treatment and care if necessary. In general, after the doctor determines that a patient needs to be hospitalized, nurses would assist in the patient admission in accordance with the established procedures. In 2019-2020, the average waiting time for admission of A&E patients after diagnoses was about 67 minutes. As there is no direct correlation between the triage category and hospital admission arrangement, HA does not maintain breakdown of the average waiting time for admission of A&E patients by triage category.

The Government and HA will continue to monitor the utilization and quality of service in A&E departments, and ensure that timely care is provided to patients in need.