Minutes of the 2nd Meeting of Tai Po District Council in 2019

Date: 7 March 2019 (Thursday) Time: 9:31 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Venue: Conference Room, Tai Po District Council

Present Time of Arrival Time of Withdrawal

Chairman Mr. CHEUNG Hok-ming, GBM, GBS, JP Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting

Vice-chairman Ms. WONG Pik-kiu, BBS, MH, JP Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting

Members Mr. AU Chun-wah Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. CHAN Cho-leung, MH Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. CHAN Siu-kuen, MH, JP Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. CHENG Chun-ping, JP Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. CHENG Chun-wo Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. CHOW Yuen-wai Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. KWAN Wing-yip Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Dr. LAU Chee-sing Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. LAU Yung-wai Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. LI Kwok-ying, BBS, MH, JP Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. LI Wah-kwong, Rex Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. LI Yiu-ban, BBS, MH, JP Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. LO Hiu-fung Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. TAM Wing-fun, Eric, MH Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. TANG Ming-tai, Patrick Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. WOO Kin-man, Clement Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. YAM Kai-bong, Francis Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. YAM Man-chuen Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. YU Chi-wing, Ken Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting

- 2 -

Secretary Mr. LEE Yu-sau, Terence Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Senior Executive Officer (District Council), Tai Po District Office, Home Affairs Department

In Attendance

Ms. CHAN Hau-man, Eunice, JP District Officer (Tai Po), Home Affairs Department Ms. LEE Kai-ying, Iris Assistant District Officer (Tai Po), Home Affairs Department Miss LEUNG Wing-yin, Tiffany Assistant District Officer-designate (Tai Po), Home Affairs Department Mr. LEE Kwok-chung District Commander (Tai Po), Hong Kong Police Force Mr. YAM Mun-ho District Social Welfare Officer/ Tai Po and North, Social Welfare Department Ms. CHU Ha-fan, Jessica District Planning Officer/Sha Tin, Tai Po and North, Planning Department Ms. LEUNG Miu-yin, Karen District Lands Officer/Tai Po, Lands Department Mr. CHAN Wing-yiu, Ronald Administrative Assistant (Lands), District Lands Office/Tai Po, Lands Department Mr. HO Fuk-on, Arthur Senior Engineer, Civil Engineering and Development Department Mr. CHAN Kai-lam, Allan Chief Manager (Tai Po, North & Shatin Region), Housing Department Miss MA Flora Senior Transport Officer/Tai Po, Transport Department Ms. WONG Mei-yin Chief School Development Officer (Tai Po), Education Bureau Mr. LAI Siu-kwong District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Tai Po), Food and Environmental Hygiene Department Ms. HEUNG Ching-yee, Alice Chief Leisure Manager(New Territories East), Leisure and Cultural Services Department Ms. LIU Pui-wah, Stella District Leisure Manager(Tai Po), Leisure and Cultural Services Department Ms. LEE Ching-yee, Patty Senior Liaison Officer(1), Tai Po District Office, Home Affairs Department Ms. WONG Yu-hang, Anita Senior Liaison Officer(2), Tai Po District Office, Home Affairs Department Ms. LEE Ho-yee, Trazy Executive Officer I (District Council), Tai Po District Office, Home Affairs Department

- 3 -

Announcements

The Chairman welcomed Members and departmental representatives to the meeting and made the following announcements:

(i) He welcomed Miss Tiffany LEUNG, Assistant District Officer-designate (Tai Po), to this meeting.

(ii) Ms. YUEN Miu-chun, Christine, Chief Transport Officer/NT East, Transport Department (“TD”) and Mr. CHUNG Wing-hong, John, Chief Engineer of Civil Engineering and Development Department (“CEDD”) were unable to attend this meeting owing to other commitments, on whose behalf Miss Flora MA, Senior Transport Officer/Tai Po of TD and Mr. Arthur HO, Senior Engineer of CEDD attended this meeting respectively.

I. Meeting with the Permanent Secretary for Transport and Housing (Housing)

2. The Chairman welcomed Mr. YING Yiu-hong, Stanley, Permanent Secretary for Transport & Housing (Housing) of Transport and Housing Bureau (“THB”) / Director of Housing Department (“HD”) to this meeting, accompanied by Ms. LAM Yuk-ching, Connie, Head of HD’s Central Support Unit, to whom the Chairman also extended his welcome.

3. Mr. Stanley YING advised that the Government had promulgated in December 2014 the Long Term Housing Strategy (“LTHS”) to formulate long-term strategies in relation to various areas of Hong Kong housing policy, such as supply-led, enhancing the housing ladder, making rational use of existing resources and stabilising the residential property market. He continued to brief Members as follows:

Supply-led

(i) During the two years between the commencement of study and promulgation of LTHS, the society as a whole had reached a consensus on housing issues of Hong Kong and understood that housing issues were caused not only by external factors, but also by local ones, among which the demand and supply imbalance accumulated over the years had a major part to play. The long-term solution was to increase housing supply to reduce the gap between supply and demand.

(ii) With the efforts the Government had made over the past few years, supply of public housing in Hong Kong had increased. In 2014, the Government’s forecast - 4 -

production in the coming 5 years was approximately 80 000 units, whereas in 2018, forecast production in the coming 5 years exceeded 100 000 units.

(iii) Under the supply-led principle, the Government would update the long-term housing demand projections annually and present a rolling ten-year housing supply target. According to the latest projections released in end of 2018, the rolling ten-year housing supply target from 2019/20 onwards was 450 000 units, in other words, 315 000 public housing units and 135 000 private housing units as per the 70:30 public-private flat ratio. The Government would spare no effort in achieving the housing supply target.

Enhancing the housing ladder

(iv) In 2014 when the Government had not yet resumed the sale of Home Ownership Scheme (“HOS”) flats, housing ladder at that time was relatively simple, with public rental housing (“PRH”) as the first rung and private housing the second rung. The Government hoped to expand the housing ladder and incorporated additional rungs to facilitate the turnover of PRH flats such that members of the public could move up the housing ladder in accordance with their affordability and needs.

(v) In addition to continue providing PRH units to serve as a “safety net”, the Government also introduced the “Green Form Subsidised Home Ownership Pilot Scheme” (“GSH”) to offer Green Formers subsidised sales flats (“SSFs”) at higher discount rates.

(vi) Since the resumption of sales of HOS flats in 2014, a certain proportion (approximately 50%) of units would be set aside for Green Formers (“GF”) to apply at each sale exercise, while any remaining quota from the GF queue would be re-allocated to the White Formers (“WF”) queue such that members of the public could meet their home ownership aspirations via HOS flats.

(vii) Second-hand HOS flats with premium not yet paid had all along been available for sale only to GFs. Under the “Interim Scheme to Extend the HOS Secondary Market to White Form Buyers” (“Interim Scheme”), WFs could also buy HOS flats with premium not yet paid. The Government had already endorsed regularising the Interim Scheme as the White Form Secondary Market Scheme (“WSM”). Hence, WFs could now choose between new HOS flats and HOS flats with premium not yet paid. (viii) Besides, the Government had in end of last year launched the“Starter Homes” (“SH”) Pilot Project for the first time, implemented by the Urban Renewal Authority (“URA”), to offer 450 units on Ma Tau Wai Road for sale as SH. The - 5 -

Government would review the effectiveness of the Pilot Project so as to formulate the future development direction of SH Scheme.

(ix) Since the resumption of sales of HOS flats, some 13 000 HOS units (including those SSFs of Hong Kong Housing Society) had been sold so far, and three Interim Schemes and WSM had been conducted in total, among which two “Interim Schemes” had been pilot projects and “WSM”, after being regularised, was launched once, offering a total of 10 000 quotas. GSH had put up some 3 400 units in total for sale while SH offered 450 units for sale. Hong Kong Housing Authority (“HA”) had decided earlier to launch a new round of GSH to offer some 3 700 units. The above figures reflected the efforts the Government had devoted to enhance the housing ladder.

Rational use of existing housing resources

(x) Under LTHS, apart from increasing housing supply, rational use of existing housing resources would need to be considered too. For instance, the Government enabled via WSM HOS flat owners unwilling to pay the premium to sell their flats with premium unpaid to GFs or WFs, so as to make rational use of HOS resources.

(xi) Hong Kong Housing Society (“HKHS”) had launched a trial “Letting Scheme for Subsidised Sale Developments with Premium Unpaid” (“Letting Scheme”) to facilitate owners of HOS flat owners to let individual bedroom(s) of their flats. HKHS currently reviewed the said Letting Scheme. Upon completion of the review and enhancement of the Letting Scheme, HA would consider joining the Scheme such that owners of HOS flats might also take part in the Letting Scheme.

(xii) HOS had a history of years and housing needs of owners of large units might have changed after those years. Nonetheless, they might not necessarily be willing to pay the premium to sell their HOS flats and acquire smaller flats in the market. Hence, the Government had put forward a new concept to let HKHS to run the “Flat for Flat Pilot Scheme for Elderly Owners” for its SSFs with premium unpaid, which allowed eligible elderly owners to sell their original flats and then buy a smaller SSF flat in the secondary market without payment of premium. HKHS would look into relevant details with HA.

(xiii) Over the years, the Government had offered a total of some 800 000 public rental housing (“PRH”) units and about 400 000 SSF units. It was hoped that by implementing various policies such as reprioritising the allocation of PRH units to applicants, public housing resources could be put to rational use. HA had in 2017 decided to introduce a frozen period for family applicants currently living in public rental housing who had less pressing needs for PRH units than those applicants - 6 -

living in “sub-divided units”. Relevant applications would be frozen for one year, such that applicants currently not living in public rental accommodation could be accorded higher priority.

(xiv) After certain period of time, some PRH tenants might have improved their financial conditions. Under the revised Well-off Tenants Policies, the Government would require in accordance with generally accepted criteria households with income or assets value exceeding the relevant prescribed limits to vacate their PRH flats, which would then be made available to households with lesser means.

(xv) HA’s established policy was to exclude households with all members aged 70 or above from the under-occupation (“UO”) (i.e. Internal Floor Area (“IFA”) per person of the household exceeding the established allocation standard) list, and would not transfer them to units of smaller size. The Government currently conducted a study and proposed that all-elderly households whose members were all aged 70 or above be allowed to enjoy lifetime full rent exemption upon their transfer to smaller units. The Government hoped that the said proposal could help eligible elderly tenants move to units of smaller size or refurbished units so as to improve their living conditions while helping them improve their financial position as well. At the same time, HA could recover larger units which, after refurbishment, could be allocated to families with more members on the waiting list such that resources could be put to good use. HA currently looked into the details.

(xvi) The Government was duty-bound to prevent and combat tenancy abuses (i.e. using PRH units not in accordance with HA’s policies). Recently, the society was very concerned about PRH applicants’ ownership of properties outside Hong Kong. Under the law, applicants for PRH flats were required to declare assets they possessed including properties outside Hong Kong. Should information declared be found inaccurate, applicants concerned would be held liable. As far as actual enforcement was concerned, HA formulated a random check mechanism and spared no effort in following up and investigating if declarations picked randomly were true. In addition, hundreds of reports had been received through the mechanism of tenancy abuse report and HA would actively follow up on the cases. During the past three years, there were four cases of PRH flat applications involving concealment of ownership of properties outside Hong Kong which had been successfully prosecuted and convicted, reflecting that the Government handled statutory declarations solemnly.

Stabilising the residential property market

(xvii) The Government hoped that healthy and stable development of the private property - 7 -

market could be maintained and therefore introduced various special stamp duties to curb demands generally considered unnecessary, such as short-term speculative activities, external demands, i.e. transactions carried out by non-Hong Kong permanent residents, and investment demands, i.e. buying or selling of properties by Hong Kong permanent residents who had already owned properties

(xviii) To accelerate the supply of private housing, the Government had in June last year announced a new measure with immediate effect which required all developers applying for consent for pre-sale of uncompleted residential properties to sell at least 20% of units of a project each time they offered flats for sale, so as to prevent developers from adopting the practice of “sale-by-small-batches”. Besides, the Government also explored amendments to legislation to require that developers rent out or sell units within 12 months after completion and issuance of an occupation permit, or they would be subject to “Special Rates”, so as to encourage developers to put flats on to the market as soon as possible.

4. Mr. KWAN Wing-yip raised the following views:

(i) He had submitted a letter prior to the meeting and hoped that HD would strictly enforce the Marking Scheme for Estate Management Enforcement in PRH Estates (“Marking Scheme”). He indicated that the Marking Scheme had already been implemented for some time, but cases of residents’ being harassed or disturbed by neighbours occurred nonetheless from time to time. In face of nuisance, PRH tenants could opt to apply for a transfer whereas PRH unit owners could not move away, thus causing even more distress to them. Most PRH estate management services had now been outsourced to private management companies, which in his opinion maintained a rather passive attitude when dealing with complaints and might not necessarily strive their hardest when carrying out investigations, nor execute the Marking Scheme upon completion of investigations, hence, behaviours causing nuisance or disturbance could not be effectively stopped.

(ii) There were seven PRH estates in Tai Po District, among which four were Tenants Purchase Scheme (“TPS”) estates, which were managed by outsourced management companies of HD and those of owners’ corporations (“OCs”). Upon receipt of a complaint, the case would be looked into by the OC’s outsourced management company first and the investigation report would be handed to HD’s outsourced management company, and then to HD, involving complicated procedures which rendered the implementation of the Marking Scheme very difficult. He hoped that HD would review the Marking Scheme to enhance its effectiveness.

- 8 -

5. Mr. Francis YAM raised the following views:

(i) He had submitted a letter to the Permanent Secretary prior to the meeting in relation to PRH applicants or tenants’ ownership of properties outside Hong Kong. He understood that it was rather difficult to investigate if PRH applicants or tenants owned any properties outside Hong Kong, but the Authority should nonetheless conduct some painstaking investigation so as to treat people queuing for PRH units fairly. The Government should allocate additional resources to investigate if PRH tenants owned any properties outside Hong Kong and request relevant information from overseas government departments with a view to eradicating PRH tenancy abuses.

(ii) Nowadays newly built flats were extremely small in size with little living space, thus nicknamed “nano flats”. Besides, average members of the public could hardly cope with the increase in property prices. He therefore hoped that the ratio of public housing could be increased, in particular the supply of HOS flats.

(iii) He recommended that plot ratio of sites be increased to accommodate larger populations. Moreover, “single site, multiple use” policy should be adopted in planning to make optimal use of land resources.

(iv) Adequate community facilities and matching transport facilities should also be provided when constructing residential units. For instance, traffic congestions were currently frequent on Tolo Highway and even heavier burden would be put on the railway and Tolo Highway when population would increase by several hundred thousand following the development in North East New Territories. The Government should make early consideration to tackle related problems.

(v) He supported the Government’s introduction of a tax on vacant first-hand private residential properties, but some academics were concerned that developers might rent out the flats to their subsidiary companies to circumvent the said tax. Hence, the Government would need to plug relevant loopholes.

(vi) Fu Shin Estate and Ming Nga Court had been chosen to participate in the Mandatory Window Inspection Scheme (“MWIS”), while Fu Shin Estate was also selected to take part in the Mandatory Building Inspection Scheme (“MBIS”). When briefing residents on the said Schemes, URA personnel had failed to answers residents’ questions about MWIS and MBIS, whereas staff of HD’s Independent Checking Unit had also indicated that no representative could in the meantime be sent to explain the Schemes to residents. He hoped that HD could arrange for staff to answer residents’ queries about the said Schemes.

(vii) Link Asset Management Limited (“Link REIT”) carried out alteration works in common area of shopping arcades of PRH estates, whereby causing inconvenience - 9 -

to residents. He hoped that HD would pay attention to relevant issues.

6. Mr. CHENG Chun-ping raised the following views:

(i) A young couple had lived in Tai Po District together with the parents. The couple had their young children looked after by the parents while they went to work. The young couple had subsequently been allocated a PRH unit in Tuen Mun and therefore could not entrust their children to the parents. As a result, the wife had to quit her job to take care of the children. If the husband also quitted his job, the social security assistance from Social Welfare Department which the family could receive would be about the same as the income he gained when going to work. In the end, the husband quitted his job too and received social security assistance instead. He hoped that the Government would review the PRH allocation system and arrange for applicants to live in the same district as the parents as far as practicable to facilitate their going to work and taking care of the parents, while reducing the Government’s expenditure on social welfare.

(ii) He supported the Government’s implementation of the “Letting Scheme for Subsidised Sale Developments with Premium Unpaid” to allow HOS flat owners to let individual bedroom(s) of their flats. He said that there were many sold units in estates (such as Tai Wo Estate) in the district in which only elderly couples lived after their children had moved out. He recommended that the Government explore the feasibility of allowing them to let vacant rooms so as to help tackle housing problems.

(iii) Tai Yuen Estate was the first housing estate being built in the district and lacked livelihood facilities. For instance, walkways in the estate did not have any cover, making it very inconvenient for residents to use such passages when it rained. He had submitted a letter in connection with relevant matters to the Permanent Secretary before the meeting and hoped that HD would pay attention to the issues.

7. Mr. Eric TAM raised the following views:

(i) He supported HA’s implementation of the scheme to offer elderly PRH tenants lifetime rent exemption upon voluntary transfer to smaller units as it would achieve a win-win situation.

(ii) Oversubscription of GSH and HOS reflected the keen demand of members of the public for housing. Many WFs and GFs wanted to buy or sell HOS units but were unwilling to pay premium. Hence, he supported the regularisation of WSM and increase in the number of WSM quotas.

(iii) He had once proposed to HD that some areas under the Chung Nga Road East - 10 -

public housing development project be re-zoned for GSH. He said that the said zone was relatively far away from Area 9, Tai Po and it was therefore not suitable to group it together with the PRH in Area 9 as the same housing estate. Moreover, offsprings of some PRH and HOS tenants in the district (such as Fu Heng Estate and Chung Nga Court) were financially capable and could buy the units if some areas under the Chung Nga Road East public housing development project were re-zoned for GSH, so that they could live in Tai Po District together with their families to facilitate mutual support.

(iv) Link REIT had already announced that rental rates of car parks under its management would be increased substantially. As housing projects were first completed, the number of parking spaces might be sufficient. However, as residents accumulated some wealth, the number of vehicles they owned would gradually grow and demand for parking spaces would exceed supply. As a result, vehicles would need to be parked on the streets. He hoped that the Government would in the future allow greater flexibility while planning and increase the number of parking spaces in housing development projects.

(v) PRH allocation districts were currently divided into urban, extended urban areas and New Territories, from which applicants for PRH units were required to select the areas they desired. Residents of Tai Po District wished to get allocated PRH units near Tai Po District such that they could take care of their families. Tai Po District belonged to New Territories, however, if New Territories was selected for PRH allocation, there was a likelihood that Tai Po residents would be allocated with PRH units in districts far away from Tai Po, such as Tuen Mun or Tin Shui Wai. Given the extensive coverage of New Territories, he recommended that HD divide New Territories into New Territories East and New Territories West for applicants to choose from.

(vi) Incidents of objects being thrown from height had been frequent in the basketball court of S.K.H. Yuen Chen Maun Chen Jubilee Primary School in Fu Heng Estate and the school as a result could not use its basketball court for a long time. He hoped that HD could offer assistance.

(vii) Public housing development project in Area 9, Tai Po was underway but inadequacies abounded in the neighbouring ancillary facilities. He recommended that a separate road be provided in Area 9, Tai Po to connect to Kowloon directly via Ting Kok Road, so as to avoid causing additional burden on Nam Wan Road and Chung Nga Road.

(viii) Water seepage problem in PRH units was serious while the Joint Offices for Investigation of Water Seepage Complaints (“Joint Offices”) were rather inefficient. HD as landlord also failed to provide appropriate assistance. He recommended - 11 -

that HD and the Joint Offices co-ordinate with each other to help PRH tenants affected by water seepage.

8. Mr. YAM Man-chuen raised the following views and questions:

(i) He had raised as early as in 2015/16 certain issues about the ancillary facilities of Area 9, Tai Po but the public housing development project in the said area had nonetheless been endorsed by TPDC. He queried why some Members, while being aware of the issues with ancillary facilities at that time, had endorsed the said project.

(ii) Upon completion, the public housing development project in Area 9, Tai Po would accommodate approximately 20 000 residents, i.e. with population and scale similar to those of neighbouring housing estates (such as Fu Hang Estate and Fu Shin Estate). He had once demanded that public market facilities be provided under the Area 9 project, but HD declined on the ground of the high vacancy rate of the markets of Fu Hang Estate and Fu Shin Estate and that there might not be enough customers. Instead, HD had only proposed to provide a small number of shops selling wet and dry goods at each building. He opined that the high vacancy rate of the markets of Fu Hang Estate and Fu Shin Estate was due, rather than the lack of customers, to the fact that those markets had been sold to Link REIT and tenants were forced to close down as they could not afford the exorbitant rents which Link REIT charged. Besides, at present only some old housing estates such as Tai Yuen Estate and Choi Hung Estate had shops at the buildings, while most residents of Choi Hung Estate would need to shop at the nearby Ngau Chi Wan Market, thus reflecting the inadequacy of shops at the buildings in meeting residents’ daily needs. He hoped that HD would consider anew providing a public market in Area 9, Tai Po to enhance the ancillary facilities in the said area.

(iii) There had been media reports that works of PRH units and the parts used were of poor quality. He quoted an example of a newly renovated PRH unit where the water pipe would be knocked against each time the door of the flat opened due to the improper installation of water pipe. He considered the situation unacceptable. He hoped that HD would inspect the works quality of PRH units and stringently monitor the services of outsourced works companies.

(iv) There had often been disputes between property owners and tenants in TPS estates and he hoped that HD would offer assistance to co-ordinate and resolve conflicts between property owners and tenants. Moreover, when selling housing estates, HD had not clearly stipulated the management rights and liabilities (such as those relating to underground pipes and supporting facilities), thus led to management disputes and HD was not active in dealing with such disputes. He considered HD - 12 -

duty-bound in settling the said disputes and to provide clear guidelines on the management rights and liabilities of housing estates with a view to properly handling problems.

(v) The Government rolled out measures such as WSM and GSH in response to the housing supply in Hong Kong to offer housing units at a lower than market price to help sandwich class purchase their own flats. However, when such housing units were actually put up for sale, the prices were in fact similar to those of the private market. This was indeed unacceptable and not only failed to help the people of the sandwich class between low and middle-income to acquire their own flats, but also ran against the original intent of the policy of subsidised housing.

9. Mr. Clement WOO raised the following views:

(i) The Government applied the same set of unified standards territory-wide to the ratio of parking spaces which buildings including both private ones and PRHs should provide. However, most New Territories residents needed to travel frequently to go to work or school in urban areas and as a result had a greater demand for parking spaces than residents in urban areas. Hence, the same set of criteria should not be applied to the ratio of parking spaces in both urban areas and the New Territories. He recommended that the Government increase the ratio of parking spaces for buildings in the New Territories.

(ii) Link REIT and the Government were joint stakeholders of public housing estates and were responsible for managing different areas of the housing estates, for instances, parking spaces in car parks were managed by Link REIT while HD was responsible for the management of passages. As such, many grey areas existed as far as management rights and liabilities were concerned. As a result, projects to improve the livelihood of people such as construction of covered walkway and improvement to walkways often required negotiations among multiple parties, rendering progress of such improvement works extremely difficult and problems hard to solve. He hoped that HD would co-ordinate with different departments and Link REIT to ameliorate the management of housing estates.

(iii) THB requested that private housing and HOS units aged 30 years or above undergo mandatory building inspection. Some property owners, for instance, those elderly owners without income, might not be able to pay the fees required within a short period of time. He had learned that HKHS offered property owners assistance such as loan scheme, but hoped that it would provide additional assistance to individual property owners in need, for example, to explain to them resources the Government provided for MBIS.

- 13 -

10. Ms. WONG Pik-kiu raised the following views:

(i) HD had a number of punitive measures to combat tenancy abuse, such as under-occupation policy, Well-off Tenants Policies and payment of double rent while personnel was sent from time to time to carry out unannounced inspections. She recognised the effort to curb tenancy abuse, but nonetheless hoped that HD would offer assistance to tenants being affected while imposing punitive measures on PRH tenants.

(ii) Tenants having lived in PRH units for 10 years were required to declare family income and assets once every two years. Elderly tenants, whose children had already moved out, had difficulties in filling out declaration forms. She therefore hoped that HD would review the requirement concerned.

(iii) She supported the initiative to allow all-elderly households whose members were all aged 70 or above to enjoy lifetime full rent exemption upon their transfer to smaller units. However, some elderly tenants were unwilling to move out from their original units, while what HD did was nothing more than converting a 3-4 person PRH unit into two 1-2 person units, which after conversion became rectangular in shape, rendering them an unattractive option to which the elderly tenants would want to transfer. She recommended that HD offer newly built PRH units for such elderly tenants to provide them more desirable living environment, so that they would become more willing to move out from large units.

(iv) Since parking spaces in PRH estates had already been sold to Link REIT, which would increase parking fees starting from 1 April to such an extent that parking fees in PRH estates became even more expensive than those in private housing estates. Hence, she recommended that HD negotiate with Link REIT to minimise the increase in parking fees.

11. Mr. LO Hiu-fung raised the following views:

(i) Housing supply in Hong Kong was inadequate and property prices remained high, making it difficult for members of the public to purchase their own flats. It was necessary for the Government to make mid- to long-term planning for housing development, yet, it did not necessarily mean that every single inch had to be used for housing development. The Government intended to rezone the Green Belt site next to Classical Gardens Phase 1 for private residential use to build 1 300 units, and to construct some 2 000 to 3 000 units next to The Balmoral. While substantially increasing housing supply in the said area, the Government had not sufficiently considered what residents of the area wanted and the capacity of ancillary facilities. He had repeatedly reflected together with the management - 14 -

committee of the district concerned to government departments (including Town Planning Board (“TPB”)) various issues of concern along Ma Wo Road such as overloading of the road, insufficient transport ancillary facilities in surrounding areas, and problems of sewerage and sitting-out facilities and so on. Besides, there were currently a large number of squatter households, unregistered occupiers, ancestral graves and private agricultural land on the two said sites. It was irresponsible of the Government to hastily offer the sites for sale to developers before putting forward any compensation or relocation options to the affected parties mentioned above. The aforementioned development projects had already been gazetted and HD should candidly and openly explain to DC Members and neighbouring estates the timetable and planning of the land sales programme as a whole so as to address public concern about insufficient community supporting facilities. He also urged HD to maintain the consistency and coherence of a district when considering development of residential projects and should not build public and private housing concurrently in the same district.

(ii) The Government had commissioned CEDD earlier to look into the project of land formation for housing development next to The Balmoral and the relevant study report had already been released in February. He hoped that HD would explain to him and neighbouring estates the content of the said report as soon as possible after the meeting. Moreover, it had been pointed out in some study reports that the site of land formation was located on a slope where large-scale development could not be carried out. Hence, he hoped that HD would prudently consider the housing development project.

12. Dr. LAU Chee-sing raised the following views:

(i) He had prior to the meeting submitted a letter in connection with the public housing development projects in Area 9, Tai Po and Chung Nga Road East. At present, population of Tai Po was approximately 300 000, which was expected to increase in four to five years to about 350 000, of which the population growth would come partly from the development projects in Area 9, Tai Po and Chung Nga Road East. In recent years, many vehicles headed towards Tai Po Market Station from Fu Hang Estate. Traffic congestion was serious on an approximately 1.5-kilometre long section of Nam Wan Road, on which there were five sets of traffic lights, with an average waiting frequency of two to three times each and the travel time would be about 20 to 25 minutes. He expected that congestion on the said road section would further aggravate upon completion of the development project in Area 9, he therefore hoped that relevant departments would accelerate the study on ways to widen the said section of Nam Wan Road to alleviate traffic congestion. - 15 -

(ii) He had repeatedly submitted letters regarding the matter of Tai Po residents being allocated with PRH units in Tuen Mun. If their families lived in Tai Po or Shatin, being allocated with PRH units in Tuen Mun would cause Tai Po residents inconvenience such as the need to change schools for their children. Given the fact that each district had PRH units available for allocation, he was of the view that PRH applicants would not mind waiting a bit longer for an allocation in a suitable district. He hoped that HD would give regard to the needs of applicants when allocating PRH units and assign them units close to the districts where their families lived so as to bring them convenience.

13. Mr. LAU Yung-wai raised the following views:

(i) There was currently an imbalance between supply and demand of housing in Hong Kong and the Government spared no efforts in catching up with the shortfall in housing units. Nevertheless, he hoped that while striving to meet targets in terms of numbers, the Government would also give regards to the quality of living of members of the public. When introducing GSH some years ago, the original intent of the Government was to improve the living environment for residents and to enhance the liquidity of PRH flats by encouraging sitting tenants to surrender their flats. However, the GSH which had been made public yesterday had “nanoised” the flats just like private developers did, cutting down the area of flats with the smallest unit being of no more than 152 square feet in area. What members of the public needed was not only survival and they had certain requirement as far as living quality was concerned. If the size of flats which the Government built was about the same as that of subdivided flats, it would be of little help in improving the living environment for members of the public. He hoped that the Government would adhere to the original intent of the scheme when constructing GSH flats and not to reduce the size of flats.

(ii) The Government had recently indicated that it considered recovering only 32 hectares of Fanling Golf Course for housing development, which was utterly inadequate as far as the housing demand in Hong Kong was concerned. He opined that recommendations of the Task Force on Land Supply should be followed to use the remaining land of some 140 hectares of Fanling Golf Course also for housing development to satisfy the current housing need.

(iii) Given the soaring commodity prices nowadays, he recommended that vacant sites in housing estates be lent or rented to groups for holding environmental protection and conservation-themed bazaars regularly to enhance public awareness of environmental protection.

(iv) The Government had spent approximately $400 million on replacing drying racks - 16 -

of PRH units and many residents reflected that the design of the new drying racks was far from satisfactory, rendering the racks difficult to use. Moreover, installation of the drying racks required drilling of holes on the wall under the windows, which led to concerns about risks of water seepage in the future. In addition, the poles of the drying racks were too big in diameter and did not match the size of hangers available in the market, while the distance between the poles was too short, making the racks inconvenient to use. The lateral design of the drying rack made it easy for clothes to be blown against the wall and become soiled. He hoped that the Government would first seek views from residents before launching any improvement measures so as to introduce facilities that would meet residents’ needs.

14. Mr. CHOW Yuen-wai raised the following views and questions:

(i) Since it was very difficult to execute the Marking Scheme for Estate Management Enforcement in TPS estates, behaviours causing nuisance such as dripping air-conditioners or laundry were hard to be regulated. Should the complainant be a PRH flat owner, HD would request that the flat owner concerned gather evidence by himself. In addition, as management offices were required to refer cases to HD’s outsourced management companies which would take some days or weeks, whereby involving complicated procedures while the problems might not necessarily be solved. Outsourcing estate management services led to problems with estate management. He hoped that HD would deal with the problem squarely.

(ii) A power outrage had occurred in Hei Wo House of Tai Wo Estate not long ago as a result of a fire at the electricity switch boxes. Despite the fact that electricity switch boxes - and therefore the potential fire hazards - existed in every building, HD failed to provide any assistance while the management offices could only seek technical support from CLP Power Hong Kong Limited. He enquired if HD could provide support in terms of routine repair and maintenance of electricity switch boxes of building as a precautionary measure.

(iii) Different areas in TPS estates were managed by HD and Link REIT respectively. Some DC Members had proposed the construction of a cover to a walkway in a housing estate. Despite the fact that most of the works area belonged to public space, some connection points of the cover involved area managed by Link REIT which had opposed the said works. As a result, the project could not be implemented and residents could not benefit therefrom while DC Members’ work to serve the public had become difficult.

- 17 -

15. Mr. AU Chun-wah raised the following views and questions:

(i) He hoped that the Permanent Secretary would instruct departmental staff to strengthen communication with DC Members.

(ii) The number of people applying for PRH units would only keep going up. With the recurrent provisions which the Government at present allocated, the waiting time for PRH would not be shortened. He recommended that the Government increase the annual expenditure of the Budget to accelerate construction of more PRH units.

(iii) Some Tai Po residents had been allocated with PRH units in New Territories West, both their work and live were affected and it also became inconvenient for them to take care of their parents and children. He hoped that HD would look into the problem of PRH allocation districts.

(iv) The current shortage of parking spaces led to serious illegal parking, a problem which was expected to aggravate further upon completion of housing projects in Area 9, Tai Po. He recommended that the number of parking spaces in the Area 9, Tai Po project be increased, standard of parking space supply stipulated in Hong Kong Planning Standard and Guidelines and relevant guidelines be relaxed with a view to providing more parking spaces.

(v) The Government replaced drying racks for PRH tenants but the new drying racks were small in size that residents might get their laundry soiled when hanging out larger items such as bed sheets. Drying racks in some housing estates had even begun to rust after having been used for a few weeks. Even though HD personnel had indicated that those were only smudge marks but similar marks had been found in multiple housing estates, leading residents to question the material quality of safety of the drying racks.

(vi) PRH tenants were required to declare their income once every two years. He had once asked HD personnel how to deduct the non-accountable allowance for DC Members while making the said declaration. The frontline staff could neither answer his question nor provide any channels for making enquiries. Hence, he hoped that HD would offer assistance.

(vii) There had been construction materials accumulating in warehouses in Kwong Fuk Estate and Tai Yuen Estate over an extended period of time while some temporary warehouses had even existed for more than a decade. He had reflected to HD and management offices but the problem remained unsolved.

(viii) Bulky household refuse often piled up at refuse collection points of housing estates. Recently, more than 20 rats had appeared concurrently at the refuse collection point of Tai Yuen Estate, which was of wide public concern. He hoped that HD would - 18 -

step up inspections to alleviate the piling up of garbage over a long period of time, so as to prevent problems of environmental hygiene, stagnant water and rodent infestation.

(ix) He recommended that cleansing operations be carried out on designated date each month at bicycle parking areas in housing estates and notices be put up to request residents to remove their bicycles temporarily to make room for the cleansing operations and removal of abandoned bicycles, so as to minimise environmental hygiene problems. Besides, shared bicycles had been illegally parked in housing estates, which caused blockage of pavement. The management offices concerned, however, had turned a blind eye to the problem. He hoped that management offices would deal with the problem immediately and remove those bicycles causing obstruction as appropriate so as to minimise the nuisance caused to residents.

(x) After the onslaught of typhoon Mangkhut, repair works of facilities in some housing estates in the district had not yet completed, he hoped that HD would follow up.

(xi) The public toilet near Tai Man House of Tai Yuen Estate, which had been in use for over 30 years, was badly dilapidated, emitted offensive stench and had effluent problem. Since the said public toilet was so seriously aged, HD had indicated that redevelopment would be rather difficult. He hoped that HD could follow up on this issue.

(xii) Tai Yuen Estate had been built some 40 years ago and he opined that it was about time to start discussing the redevelopment of Tai Yuen Estate now. It would take more than a decade from planning to confirmation of redevelopment. Since no more land was available for building new housing estate in the town area of Tai Po, he recommended that residents of Tai Yuen Estate first move into public housing units in Area 9, Tai Po and then Tai Yuen Estate be redeveloped.

(xiii) Link REIT’s service quality was far from satisfactory but its rents kept increasing. The expensive rents it charged for parking spaces and wet markets caused prices to surge and the pressure was virtually passed on to PRH residents. He asked if the Government had any solutions for this problem.

16. Mr. LI Yiu-ban indicated that TPB had in January this year endorsed the planning of a major development project in Tai Po District and the said project planning would drastically increase the number of units from the initial 4 700 to 9 500 without providing additional parking spaces. Some residents worried that population of the said area would increase by some 30 000 upon completion of the project, which would lead to overloading of traffic. In spite of the partial widening works to be carried out on Sai Sha Road, traffic problems could not be solved while it - 19 - was foreseeable that illegal parking would become increasingly severe. He quoted what the chairman of Task Force on Land Supply had said to the media that “the Government should in the future accord priority to infrastructures and not to make residents moving to new places to serve as pioneers to open up the land”. He understood that the Government wanted to make every effort to tackle housing problem in Hong Kong. However, the lack of sufficient infrastructures would hinder development as TPB would vote down development projects on the grounds of inadequate traffic facilities and housing supply would as a result be affected. He hoped that the Government would carefully look into the improvement of traffic infrastructures of the district and promotion of community development via infrastructures, so as to enhance residents’ living environment.

17. Mr. Stanley YING noted Members’ views and gave a consolidated response as follows:

(i) The Government and the public sector had to construct housing units in accordance with the targets stipulated in the LTHS, whereas HA, as a statutory body, made use of its own resources rather than those of the Government to build public housing. The reserve for the coming few years would exceed $40 billion while the Financial Secretary had already indicated that more than $80 billion had been set aside for HA to apply from the Legislative Council for building public housing. Hence, sufficient financial resources were available for the construction of public housing. The Government had the determination, manpower and financial resources to build public housing, the only thing lacked was land supply.

(ii) To address the community demand for parking spaces, HA would increase the number of parking spaces when building new projects as far as feasible. Nevertheless, provision of parking spaces was subject to many restrictions as the number of residential units would need to be increased on one hand, while various non-residential facilities would also need to be provided on the other.

(iii) Under HA’s revised Well-off Tenants Policies, PRH tenants or any persons applying for PRH units were required to make statutory declarations about their assets and income. Should the declaration be untrue, persons concerned should assume legal liability while HA also had its policy for the enforcement of relevant legislation. PRH tenants or applicants, whether locally born and raised or coming from places outside Hong Kong, were invariably required to make truthful declarations about their income and assets, which would be processed according to unified standards pursuant to the legislation and HA’s mechanism.

(iv) The Government would launch two GSH projects end of this year, providing some 3 700 units in total. As the Subsidised Housing Committee of HA had decided to regularise GSH, the number of units for sale each year was to be set in a progressive manner in the future. The Government would review the sales response, operation experience, views of all parties and so on to select each year projects suitable for - 20 -

conversion from PRH development to GSH.

(v) There had been media reports recently about the GSH units which the Government would introduce end of the year being small in size. He said that GSH units were equivalent to PRH units and the Government had not reduced the size or made any alterations in order to increase the number of GSH units. The idea of GSH was to offer suitable PRH units for sale and GSH units had therefore identical standards with PRH units in terms of design and area. The smallest unit under GSH Scheme 2019 had an internal floor area of approximately 14.1 square metres, which was the same as PRH units for one to two persons. “Internal floor area” was not the same as “saleable area” as defined by “The Residential Properties (First-hand Sales) Ordinance” (“Ordinance”). While the saleable area included enclosing walls, “internal floor area” did not include enclosing walls of the unit. When offering units under GSH Scheme 2019 end of this year, HA would list the “saleable area” of units clearly in the sales brochure, which was the usual practice for selling subsidised flats.

18. The Chairman thanked Mr. Stanley YING for attending this meeting to explain to Members the work of THB(Housing Branch) and to answer their questions.

II. Sustainable Development of Mariculture－culture standards (TPDC Paper Nos. 18/2019 and 19/2019)

19. The Chairman welcomed Mr. WONG Cheuk-kee, Edward, Senior Fisheries Officer (Enforcement) of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (“AFCD”) to the meeting for the discussion of this agenda item.

20. The Chairman said that the Secretariat had on 15 February received a letter from Mr. CHAN Cho-leung, Mr. Patrick TANG and so on to put forward views and move a motion in relation to “Sustainable Development of Mariculture－culture standards”. He recommended that the said agenda item be discussed first and then the motion moved by Mr. CHAN Cho-leung be processed.

21. Mr. Edward WONG recapped Paper No. 19/2019. He supplemented that after the Committee on Sustainable Fisheries had submitted its report on sustainable fisheries to the Government in 2010, the Government had in the past few years endeavoured to promote sustainable development of fisheries. AFCD currently reviewed the existing management and regulatory regime of mariculture so as to facilitate the sustainable development of the industry. He then proceeded to introduce by means of a slideshow measures AFCD adopted to promote mariculture industry and to strengthen management of existing mariculture activities with the following highlights: - 21 -

(i) Pursuant to Section 15 of the licence conditions under Marine Fish Culture Ordinance (Cap. 353), licensees were required to maintain raft(s) actively engaged in fish culture. Except with the written permission of the Director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation, licensees should not use, permit or suffer to use the raft(s) for fishing or other non-fish farming purposes.

(ii) At present, 80% of fish rafts in Hong Kong maintained an extremely low level of mariculture activities while some rafts were even left idle. Since marine fish culture involved the use of public resources which were scarce, in order to use public resources more effectively and to promote more active engagement of licensees in mariculture activities, AFCD recommended that the following three proposed marine fish culture standards be put in place:

Raft area should be the same as licence area  At present, fish rafts of some fish farmers were not constructed to the maximum area permitted by the licence. Not only was it ideal to have raft area being in the same size as licence area, it would also meet the objectives of maintaining raft(s) actively engaged in fish culture and optimal use of public resources.

Cage area should not be less than 70% of the licence area  A raft that was enclosed with only a small area being used for fish cages was an example of raft(s) being not actively engaged in fish culture. Recognising that, in practice, certain part of the fish raft must be set aside for installation of ancillary facilities (e.g. equipment and feed storage, watch sheds and structural partitions of rafts) and thus could not be fully used for fish cages, AFCD recommended that the area of fish cages should not be less than 70% of the raft.

Fish farm should achieve a minimum stocking density of 10 kg/m2  The output should achieve a minimum stocking density of 10 kg/m2 ;  Some fish cages kept only a couple of fish, rendering the stocking volume on the low side. Such rafts belonged to those which inactively and non-sustainably engaged in fish culture in terms of stocking density. As regards fish rafts which actively engaged in fish culture, the average stocking density was 20kg/m2, which was higher than the recommended density; and

 To achieve the minimum stocking density, each 9 m2 fish cage would need to keep 150 kg of fishes. As the fishes were different in size and weight, such fish cage would need to keep 150 fishes each weighed 1 kg, or 60 fishes - 22 -

weighing 2.5 kg each or 25 fishes which weighed 6 kg each.

(iii) Fish farms would be considered being actively engaged in fish culture only if they met all of the three marine fish culture standards mentioned above.

(iv) AFCD currently consulted the industry on the proposed culture standards. LegCo’s Panel on Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene would hold a special meeting on 2 April this year to listen to the views of the industry and other persons on the proposed culture standards. AFCD would carefully consider views collected during the consultation period before drawing relevant culture standards. At present, no timetable was available for the implementation of the new standards.

(v) Prior to the implementation of any new standards, AFCD would provide ample time for licensees to improve fish culture operations in order to meet the new standards.

22. Mr. CHAN Cho-leung raised the following views:

(i) He thanked AFCD personnel for their dedicated efforts in communicating with the industry in connection with this matter.

(ii) There had been massive red tides across Hong Kong waters in 2015 resulting in the death of a large quantity of fish. Fish farmers being affected at that time had received only several thousands of dollars as compensation. Under the shadow of the said incident of red tides, fish farmers dared not risk releasing any fish fry before water quality was guaranteed for fear that they might suffer losses again.

(iii) As fish rafts had become dilapidated over the years and after being hit by the super typhoon last year, fish farmers gradually lost their zeal for marine fish culture. At present, AFCD offered allowances via the Emergency Relief Fund to owners of fishing vessels in need to acquire fishing gear. He hoped that AFCD would also grant subsidies to fish raft licensees in need to repair their rafts so as to encourage them to continue engaging in marine fish culture actively.

(iv) There were currently rumours about the new standards being implemented on 1 April this year. He was pleased that AFCD representative had emphasised just now at this meeting that new standards would be launched only after sufficient discussion and consultation.

23. Mr. AU Chun-wah said that some fishermen had contacted him earlier, whose views and questions he relayed as follows:

(i) AFCD in Section 2(i) of Paper No. 19/2019 pointed out that a total of some 200 red tide warnings had been issued in the past three years to fish farmers, in other words, about 1.28 red tide warnings per week on average. The fishermen concerned - 23 -

therefore enquired if such water quality was still suitable for marine fish culture.

(ii) AFCD in Section 2(ii) of Paper No. 19/2019 advised that nitrogen loading in most fish culture zones (“FCZs”) had dropped by more than 90% during the period between 1990 and 2018. Notwithstanding, the number of fish kills in recent years had been on an increasing trend. Hence, the said fishermen enquired what the nitrogen loading value reflected primarily, and wondered if AFCD had quoted the data wrongly or used nitrogen loading data to mislead the public.

(iii) As regards Section 2(iii) of Paper No. 19/2019, the fishermen concerned asked if AFCD had planned to set up modern mariculture demonstration farms (“demonstration farms’) in all 26 FCZs. As the culture environment of FCZs varied in terms of geography, water depth, water flow and so on, demonstration farms might become less convincing if AFCD set up demonstration farms only in individual FCZs. The fishermen were of the view that if AFCD would set up demonstration farms in all FCZs, it would facilitate fish farmers’ following the example of the demonstration farms in their respective FCZs so as to ensure mariculture results. Various uncertainties and concerns in mariculture industry abounded that the industry was unable to invest with peace of mind. Hence, the fishermen recommended that AFCD wait for the demonstration farms to have any success in mariculture before introducing new culture standards.

(iv) AFCD had in Section 2(v) of Paper No. 19/2019 indicated that it would keep enhancing technical support for fish health management. However, several incidents of fish kills had occurred in December 2015 and AFCD had in its report dated 20 January 2016 indicated that neither had any irregularities been found in the testing data (including oxygen content in water, biochemical oxygen demand, temperature, pH values and so on) of water samples nor suspected source of contamination related to fish kill been identified. Besides, Environmental Protection Department (“EPD”) had already sent personnel to collect water samples from Shing Mun River after the fish kill incident there and no red tide or toxic algae had been found either. As the fish kills in December 2015 had reflected that AFCD’s water quality monitoring technology fell short of effectively screening harmful algal blooms, the fishermen concerned therefore doubted how AFCD could provide fish farmers appropriate support when it was powerless in face of major fish kills.

(v) After the onslaught of super typhoon Mangkhut last year, AFCD had offered 433 fish farmers via the Emergency Relief Fund assistance in the amount of some $6.5 million in total, i.e. each fish farmer had received no more than approximately $14,000. Given the fact that it would cost some $8,000 to buy a piece of flitch for repairing the fish rafts, some fish farmers considered the amount of assistance too little and unable to effectively help them resume operation. - 24 -

(vi) He hoped that AFCD could arrange for visits to active fish farmers or demonstration farms so that fish farmers could have an understanding about the harvest of such farms and demonstration farms, and draw reference and learn from those farms how to conduct mariculture activities more effectively.

(vii) As reclamation works had been carried out at waters west of Hong Kong in the past, the Government would offer fish farmers ex-gratia allowance to compensate the losses incurred by suspension of operation due to reclamation works. Fishermen concerned enquired why the Government did not have the said arrangement for reclamation works done at waters east of Hong Kong such as Lung Mei, Pak Shek Kok and so on.

(viii) Fish farmers hoped that the Government would respond to the following questions and explore corresponding counter-measures:

 Cost of fish fry was high but there was no guarantee for the quality;  High costs of fish feed took up more than 60% of fishery product prices. He therefore hoped that the Government would look into ways to reduce mariculture costs, thus lowering prices of fishery products;

 Large amount of imported fisheries products posed a drag on local fisheries product prices;

 Should there be red tides again like those in 2015 while AFCD fell short of effectively monitoring water quality, coupled with the lack of suitable medication for treating fish diseases, fish farmers could only offer local fisheries products in large quantities for sale in the market, whereby causing a drastic fall of local fisheries product prices;

 In the event of massive deaths of poultry, the Government had established procedures to collect poultry and pig carcasses and to grant compensations. However, the Government at present had neither mechanism to collect fish carcasses nor compensations for fish farmers. Should any viruses found in fish be harmful to the human body, what measures would the Government adopt?

 The red tide incidents in 2015 had reflected AFCD’s technological inadequacy as far as water quality monitoring was concerned and fish farmers had as a result suffered enormous losses. Notwithstanding, AFCD insisted that no problem with water quality had been identified. He therefore hoped to know who should be held responsible.

24. Dr. LAU Chee-sing raised the following views:

- 25 -

(i) He supported the sustainable development of mariculture. (ii) Massive fish kills had occurred in the FCZs in Tai Po Yim Tin Tsai (near Sam Mun Tsai) in December 2015, striking a heavy blow to mariculture industry and leading to fish farmers’ loss of confidence in mariculture. Despite various measures AFCD had launched to improve mariculture, fish farmers were still reeling from the aftermath of the said fish kills, while recently some fish farmers in Yim Tin Tsai had to face the predicament of losing 100 kg of fish daily.

(iii) Owing to the large quantity of imported fisheries products available in the local market which posed a drag on local fisheries product prices while massive death of fish as a result of infections might happen which would cause heavy losses to fish farmers, it was therefore of even greater importance for AFCD to make every effort to look into measures to protect the livelihood of fish farmers.

(iv) The waters of Yim Tin Tsai East and Yim Tin Tsai West were in Inner Tolo Harbour, of which water quality and flow were different from those of Tap Mun, he therefore hoped that AFCD would consider setting up demonstration farms at the waters of Yim Tin Tsai East and Yim Tin Tsai West and examine the water quality there. Besides, he recalled that after the red tide incident in 2015, AFCD had commissioned some organisations to test water quality so as to restore fish farmers’ confidence in mariculture. He wished to know if AFCD had made any material progress as far as its work to improve water quality was concerned.

(v) He hoped that AFCD would consult fish farmers of Yim Tin Tsai East and Yim Tin Tsai West on the new culture standards.

25. Mr. LI Yiu-ban raised the following views:

(i) There had been rumours that the new culture standards would be launched on 1 April this year while some fish farmers were worried that the Government would recover their culture licenses by tightening the culture standards, thereby aggravating their livelihood. He had mentioned earlier the issue about launching the new standards to the Director of AFC, who at that time had indicated that consultation regarding the new standards was underway and relevant details had not been confirmed yet, it was therefore not possible to implement the said standards on 1 April this year. He had also reflected to the Director of AFC that it was necessary for AFCD to enhance its work in supply of fish fries, culture technology and environment such that fish farmers could continue to sustain their livelihood by engaging themselves in mariculture industry.

(ii) He welcomed AFCD’s proposal to develop new FCZs in areas where water quality was better such as Tap Mun North, and hoped that AFCD would actively explore - 26 -

new fish species and enhance mariculture technology to ensure the outcome.

(iii) It was difficult for Hong Kong, being a free port, to impose restrictions on the importation of fisheries products from overseas. He recommended that the Government provide separate sales channels for local fisheries products to avoid being sold alongside imported fisheries products in the market, so that local fish farmers could trade directly with buyers (such as catering operators, local fish markets and so on) via such designated channels.

(iv) He hoped that AFCD would give more regard to the worries of fish farmers and make it possible for them to maintain their livelihood, live in peace and work in contentment which was in fact the most important responsibility of AFCD.

26. Mr. Patrick TANG said that as regards Paper No. 19/2019, a number of AFCD’s tasks (such as improvement of water quality) had to rely on the technical support from departments including EPD. As cross-departmental collaboration was involved, he was of the view that it might not necessarily be easy to accomplish relevant work within a short period of time. He then enquired what views the industry had put forward on the new culture standards proposed by AFCD during the past four consultation sessions. Should there be strong oppositions, would AFCD consider shelving the implementation of new culture standards and launching new proposed culture standards only after reaching a consensus with the industry?

27. Mr. Rex LI hoped that AFCD would perfect the following supporting measures prior to implementing the new culture standards:

(i) Introduce measures to provide the industry protection after natural disasters as soon as possible;

(ii) Provide the industry assistance in developing sales channels for local fisheries products;

(iii) Perfect the red tide warning mechanism; (iv) Step up water quality improvement efforts; (v) Optimise and streamline application procedures of the “Sustainable Fisheries Development Fund”; and

(vi) Continue to seek views from the industry on the culture standards to achieve a consensus.

28. Mr. Edward WONG gave a consolidated response to Members’ views and enquiries as follows:

- 27 -

(i) AFCD had all along been concerned as to whether water quality of FCZs was suitable for mariculture, and commissioned the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology to help analyse water quality. In 2018, more than 4 000 water samples had been taken from 26 FCZs for analyses, of which the findings all indicated that water quality was suitable for mariculture.

(ii) AFCD made use of a computer database/modelling system on the water environment of Hong Kong called“Waterman” developed by the University of Hong Kong to evaluate if the impact of FCZs on the environment belonged to an acceptable level so as to determine the maximum stocking volume of FCZs concerned. Besides, AFCD had installed a real-time water quality monitoring system at 12 FCZs to monitor changes in water quality parameters, so as to monitor water quality of those FCZs. AFCD also planned to monitor phytoplankton via imaging which was expected to be able to detect more effectively the formation of red tides with a view to issuing alerts to fish farmers. The said programme was currently under trial.

(iii) Demonstration farms which AFCD currently proposed were not those which adopted family-based operation, but modernised demonstration farms for which resources were allocated to set up in open waters where high-end mariculture technologies such as deep-water net cages would be introduced. AFCD hoped that it could take the lead to promote to the industry another development direction for mariculture operations. Preparation and implementation of the demonstration farms already reached the final stage and were expected to be ready for display to the industry within this year.

(iv) The opinion about provision of demonstration farms in all 26 FCZs had been noted for consideration.

(v) AFCD was of the view that the existing “Emergency Relief Fund” could provide under most urgent circumstances emergency financial support to members of the fisheries industry being affected. Should fish farmers require additional funding to restore operation, they could file applications for the Kadoorie Agricultural Aid Loan Fund with AFCD. The said fund provided low-interest loans to applicants as working capital to fund their restoration of operation.

(vi) AFCD was convinced that there was a market for quality fisheries products in Hong Kong and opined that local mariculturists should focus on producing high quality products instead of relying solely on price competition. AFCD hoped that a quality brand name could be built up for local fisheries products via the “Accredited Fish Farm Scheme” (“AFFS”) so as to enhance the competitiveness of the industry. Besides, the Fish Marketing Organisation (“FMO”) had all along been a bridge - 28 -

between suppliers and consumers and explored sales channels (such as supermarket and restaurant chains) for local fisheries products. In addition, AFCD recently helped match fish farmers with business clients in the catering industry via AFFS.

(vii) AFCD had a FCZ in Ta Kwu Ling to explore the production of quality fish fries and introduction of new fish species for mariculturists to raise. In addition, AFCD had commissioned via the “ Sustainable Fisheries Development Fund” a R&D institution to develop the production of local fish fries with a view to providing mariculturists low cost fish fries. However, the industry’s response was lukewarm. The said R&D institution currently prepared the research work of new fish fry species for this year and would then seek views from the industry. He hoped that the industry would actively put forward views so that their need for new fish fries could be met.

(viii) AFCD currently gauged views from the industry on the new culture standards and would further discuss with the industry suitable culture standards, matters such as implementation timetable and details only after opinions from all parties were collected. Hence, he believed that the new culture standards would not be implemented in the near future.

29. The Chairman raised the following views:

(i) FCZs had once flourished in the past. However, life became really difficult for fish farmers nowadays as various factors had negative impact on the market, rendering it hard for fish farmers to sustain their livelihood. As AFCD allowed licensees to transfer their fish culture licences, many new licensees might no longer be engaged in mariculture and kept only a certain number of fish to operate leisure fishery business. In view of this, he considered it unreasonable for AFCD to tighten culture standards now to impose restrictions on the use of fish rafts.

(ii) DC Members had learned from the press about AFCD’s intention to launch the new culture standards while many mariculturists worried that AFCD’s tightening of culture standards would deal a blow to their livelihood. Hence, DC Members submitted a paper to TPDC to express their oppositions after listening to the views of the industry.

(iii) He was pleased to hear that AFCD’s representative had indicated just now that space would be allowed for listening to opinions of the industry and stakeholders, and was of the view that TPDC would not want to hastily raise objection before having understood AFCD’s new measures. He hoped that AFCD would continue to seek views from the industry.

- 29 -

30. Mr. Edward WONG thanked the Chairman for his views put forward just now, and indicated that AFCD was happy to visit various districts to gauge views from the industry on the new culture standards.

31. Mr. CHAN Cho-leung raised the following views:

(i) Development of fish rafts had become fully-fledged, serving a wide range of purposes which were not limited to mariculture, but included non-mariculture uses such as replenishment, sorting out fish catches, rinsing fishing gear and so on. Hence, he recommended that AFCD not limit the use of fish rafts to mariculture exclusively in its licensing conditions.

(ii) There were several hundreds of fish rafts in Tai Po District, which was a considerable number. Many fishermen had reflected to him earlier that they did not know what to do as AFCD intended to tighten the culture standards. At that time he had recommended that they write to the Hon Steven HO Chun-yin, representative of the Agriculture and Fisheries functional constituency at LegCo to express their requests.

(iii) He apologised for having caused inconvenience while rushing to move the motion to request that AFCD withdraw the proposal of the new culture standards. He continued that since AFCD had indicated just now that ample time would be allowed for consulting the industry on the new culture standards, he was willing to withdraw the motion contained in Paper No. 18/2019 and agreed to discuss the issue at the next meeting.

32. The Chairman said that given Mr. CHAN Cho-leung’s withdrawal of the motion, he recommended that the said motion not be processed and that discussion of this agenda item continue at the DC meeting in May this year.

33. Members agreed to the Chairman’s recommendations above.

III. Proposed facilities of “Ha Hang Village Playground Area 31, Tai Po” Project (TPDC Paper No. 20/2019)

34. The Chairman welcomed Ms. CHEUNG Yuk-shan, Linda, Chief Executive Officer (Planning)2 and Mr. CHAN Kam-shing, Eddie, Senior Executive Officer (Planning)7 of Leisure and Cultural Services Department (“LCSD”) to the meeting for the discussion of this agenda item.

- 30 -

35. Mr. Eddie CHAN and Ms. Stella LIU introduced Paper No. 20/2019.

36. The Chairman said that the project of “Ha Hang Village Playground Area 31, Tai Po” was an outstanding project of the former Regional Council for almost 20 years. Residents of the said area often indicated that they hoped the project could be implemented as soon as possible.

37. Mr. CHENG Chun-ping hoped that relevant departments would consult the District Councillor concerned, Tai Po Rural Committee and relevant villagers on the project and that the project could commence as soon as possible.

38. Mr. Francis YAM raised the following views and question:

(i) As agenda items related to construction of recreational facilities would in general be scheduled for discussion at meetings of the District Facilities Management Committee (“DFMC”), he hoped to know the reasons for including this agenda item for discussion at DC meeting.

(ii) There were a car park and a vacant site near the project site. He wished to know if the said vacant site was government land or private land. In view of the shortage of parking spaces in the district, he recommended that LCSD study the incorporation of the said vacant site and car park into the project and provide an underground car park in the project, so as to apply the“single site, multiple use” principle to benefit local residents.

(iii) He would respect the views of the relevant District Councillor and villagers concerned on the aforementioned proposal.

39. Mr. Patrick TANG advised that he had sought views from relevant villager representatives on the proposed facilities of the captioned project. Villagers were pleased that the proposed facilities of the project could fit the natural terrain there and hence supported the project unanimously. He continued that the location map which LCSD had submitted did not fully reflect the development planning of the site whereas the vacant site near the project site should have been earmarked for the construction of small houses.

40. Dr. LAU Chee-sing endorsed the proposed facilities of the project and looked forward to LCSD’s subsequent provision of more detailed schematic design of the project. He then enquired what the current planning was for the vacant site near the project site.

41. Mr. Eddie CHAN responded as follows:

- 31 -

(i) According to information of Transport Department (“TD”), there were two public car parks near the project site, providing 71 private cars and light goods vehicles and five parking spaces for goods vehicles. Usage rate of those two public car parks was low both during the day and at night. Hence, TD did not recommend provision of parking spaces under this project.

(ii) TD currently considered providing an underground car park under the project “11-a-side artificial turf soccer pitch-cum-rugby pitch in Area 33, Tai Po”.

(iii) He would request planning details of the vacant site near the project site from Planning Department (“PlanD”) after the meeting and then revert to Members.

(Post-meeting note: According to information provided by PlanD, the vacant site near the project site of“Ha Hang Village Playground Area 31, Tai Po” had been designated as“Village Type Development” zone in the approved Tai Po Outline Zoning Plan No. S/TP/28.)

42. The Chairman requested that LCSD note Members’ concerns and carefully examine while planning further for this project if it was necessary to provide parking spaces so as to make optimal use of land resources. He continued that since the proposed playground was close to residential areas, basketball courts at the venue, once put to use, might create noise nuisance. LCSD therefore should carefully set the opening hours of the basketball courts. He recommended that LCSD consider imposing restriction on the time the public could use the basketball courts in evening by adjusting the degree of illumination of the lighting system of basketball courts, so as to avoid causing any disturbance to residents while they were resting.

43. Mr. LAU Yung-wai said that there were opinions about the shortage of parking spaces for large vehicles in the district which resulted in illegal parking in the vicinity of Tai Po Industrial Estate. He hoped that relevant departments would look into re-zoning the two aforementioned public car parks with low usage rate or providing an underground car park under the project so as to provide more parking spaces for large vehicles.

44. Mr. Francis YAM hoped that relevant departments would understand the shortage of parking spaces in Tai Po District. Large vehicles often parked illegally owing to lack of parking spaces on many roads in the district (such as Chung Nga Road and Tat Wan Road) and drivers were under pressure of receiving tickets for parking illegally, which was unfair to them. He hoped that relevant departments would actively look into the incorporation of car parks near the said project site into the project and provision of an underground car park with a view to making good use of the space at the site to benefit Tai Po residents.

- 32 -

45. Ms. Linda CHEUNG advised that under the “single site, multiple use” principle advocated in the 2018 Policy Address, departments would seek views from TD on public parking spaces when planning new development projects. While planning for this project, LCSD had consulted TD, which did not recommend the provision of public parking spaces under this project. Besides, public car parks near the project site were managed by TD and LCSD would explore with TD after the meeting as to whether there was room for development for the said car parks.

46. Miss MA Flora advised that TD had all along examined the issue of parking spaces with LCSD. At present, there was already one public car park providing 30 parking spaces for private cars and light goods vehicles as well as five parking spaces for large goods vehicles in Area 31, Tai Po. In view of the low usage rate of the said public car park, provision of parking spaces under this project was not recommended.

47. The Chairman indicated that since Members did not raise any objection, he recommended that this project be carried out further. Besides, he also requested that relevant departments look into issues about which Members were concerned, such as additional parking spaces, and discuss those issues further in the future.

48. Dr. LAU Chee-sing raised that he hoped PlanD would look into the provision of an additional Tai Mei Tuk-bound traffic lane on Ting Kok Road near Dai Kwai Street should any widening works on Ting Kok Road be required near the project site in the future.

49. The Chairman requested that relevant departments note the views of Dr. LAU Chee-sing.

50. Members agreed to have the project implemented further.

I V. Confirmation of the Minutes of the 1st Meeting of the TPDC on 3 January 2019 (TPDC Paper No. 21/2019)

51. The Chairman advised that the Secretariat had received proposed amendments to the minutes of the captioned meeting (see Paper No. 21/2019). The said minutes were confirmed after having been updated with the amendments.

V. District Management Committee Report to the TPDC (TPDC Paper No. 22/2019)

52. Members noted the contents of the District Management Committee Report.

- 33 -

VI. Reports of the TPDC Committees and Working Groups (TPDC Paper No. 23/2019)

Agriculture, Fisheries, Commerce, Industries, Tourism and Recreation Affairs Committee

53. The Agriculture, Fisheries, Commerce, Industries, Tourism and Recreation Affairs Committee (“ATRC”) had held its first meeting of this year on 11 January 2019. Members noted the contents of the report.

District Facilities Management Committee

54. The District Facilities Management Committee (“DFMC”) had held its first meeting of this year on 10 January 2019. Members noted the contents of the report.

Environment, Housing and Works Committee

55. The Environment, Housing and Works Committee (“EHWC”) had held its first meeting of this year on 9 January 2019. Members noted the contents of the report.

Social Services Committee

56. The Social Services Committee (“SSC”) had held its first meeting of this year on 9 January 2019. Members noted the contents of the report.

Traffic and Transport Committee

57. The Traffic and Transport Committee (“TTC”) had held its first meeting of this year on 11 January 2019. Members noted the contents of the report.

Working Group on Signature Projects of Tai Po District

58. The Working Group on Signature Projects of Tai Po District had held its first meeting of this year on 22 January 2019. Members noted the contents of the report.

- 34 -

Working Group on Duty Visit

59. Ms. WONG Pik-kiu said that the Working Group on Duty Visit had held its first meeting of this year on 13 February 2019. Since some Members had recently suggested changing the date of the duty visit, the Secretariat had therefore notified Members in writing the revised date of the second duty visit. She asked Members to reply as to whether they would attend the second duty visit.

60. Members noted the contents of the report.

VII. Endorsement of the Guidelines on TPDC Funds (TPDC Paper No. 24/2019)

61. The Chairman advised that the Agriculture, Fisheries, Commerce, Industries, Tourism and Recreation Affairs Committee had endorsed at its meeting on 11 January 2019 the acceptance of the proposed amendments to the Guideline on Allocation of Tai Po District Council Funds (“Guidelines”) made by the Working Group on Review of Guideline on Allocation of District Council Funds.

62. The Secretary introduced Paper No. 24/2019.

63. The TPDC endorsed the proposed amendments contained in Paper No. 24/2019 and the amended Guidelines would take effect from 1 April 2019 onwards.

VIII. Processing of reimbursement applications for DC funds and applications for DC funds approved by committees under TPDC during the past two months (TPDC Paper No. 25/2019)

64. The Secretary introduced Paper No. 25/2019.

65. The TPDC resolved to authorise the Secretariat to handle according to usual practice problems encountered when processing reimbursement applications for DC funds by local groups after this meeting. For those problematic cases which had been processed by the Secretariat, if the issues involved led to the DC’s recovery of the reimbursed amount either in part or in full from the groups concerned, such cases would be referred to relevant committees for review at their meetings in May this year to determine whether the reimbursed amount should be recovered. Cases which involved applications approved by the DC would be referred to the ATRC for follow up so as to save the time the DC would have to spend on reviewing problematic cases. - 35 -

66. Members noted the 9 applications for DC funds approved by committees under TPDC within two months prior to this meeting.

IX. Community Engagement Funding Scheme for promoting “Towards 2025: Strategy and Action Plan to Prevent and Control Non-communicable Diseases in Hong Kong” (TPDC Paper No. 26/2019 (Revised))

67. The Chairman requested that Members declare interests where necessary in respect of the funding applications submitted to TPDC for vetting.

68. The Secretary reported that pursuant to Orders 48(9) and 48(10) of the TPDC Standing Orders, a Member should declare interests prior to handling an application for DC Funds if he found he had direct personal interests, pecuniary interests or other interests in an application for DC Funds under consideration, or had links with the benefited party or the potential benefited party. The Secretariat had compiled a declaration form based on the information collected. The form set out the links between Members and the hosting/partnering/co-hosting organisations concerned, and indicated by means of different colours whether Members were executors of the activities concerned, or held a substantive or non-substantive position. The form had already been tabled for Members’ reference (see Annex to meeting minutes). He asked Members to check the information contained in the declaration form and make revisions or give supplementary information where necessary. In addition, Members should also declare interests if they had any direct personal interests, pecuniary interests or other interests in the applications for DC Funds to be examined at this meeting.

69. Members declared interests according to the information in the declaration form.

70. The Chairman asked Members to refer to the declaration form tabled, in which non-substantive and substantive positions were respectively represented by the colours green and yellow.

71. As regards those Members who had declared interests, the Secretary introduced the suggestions which the Chairman had made as follows:

(i) if Members held a substantive position in the hosting/partnering/co-hosting organisations concerned without involving pecuniary interest or other interests, they were not required to withdraw from the meeting at which the fund applications concerned were being examined, but should remain silent during the discussion and abstain from resolution or voting. They could provide supplementary information - 36 -

upon request if necessary.

(ii) if they held a non-substantive position in the hosting/partnering/co-hosting organisations concerned without involving pecuniary interest or other interests, they could take part in the discussion and resolution of the fund applications concerned.

72. Members agreed to the approach elaborated above.

73. The Secretary introduced Paper No. 26/2019 (Revised).

74. The Chairman asked Members to consider endorsing the two fund applications below if they were satisfied that the activities were covered under the scope of and funded by DC Funds, while benefitting people living, working or attending schools in the district.

(I) “Three-Highs” Prevention Campaign

75. Mr. LAU Yung-wai raised the following questions:

(i) The number of places for paid enrollment in the Gold Age Fitness Running Class and Early Morning Fitness Class was 1 125 while there were also 480 places for free enrollment. He enquired in which activities those 480 people would take part and if they were eligible for dietitian consulting service.

(ii) Given the fact that the estimated number of participants of the activities was about 1 600 whereas there were no more than 80 places for dietitian consulting service, he enquired how the hosting organisation would determine which participants could receive dietitian consulting service.

76. Based on the information the organiser had given to the Secretariat prior to the meeting, Ms. Trazy LEE responded as follows:

(i) Members of the public taking part in the Gold Age Fitness Running Class or Early Morning Fitness Class once and in either the free health talk or self-management workshop on bodily health once would have the opportunity to receive dietitian consulting service.

(ii) There were 1 125 places for Gold Age Fitness Running Class and Early Morning Fitness Class, from which only 480 participants could attend the free health talk or self-management workshop on bodily health once, that was why only 480 persons were eligible for dietitian consulting service. The hosting organization would choose 80 persons from those 480 to receive dietitian consulting service. As regards how the hosting organisation would select 80 participants, the Secretariat - 37 -

would check with the hosting organisation after the meeting and then revert to Mr. LAU Yung-wai. (Post-meeting note: The Secretariat had replied to Mr. LAU Yung-wai on 13 March 2019 how the organisation concerned would select 80 participants for dietitian consulting service.)

77. Mr. LAU Yung-wai enquired if there had been any double-counting that the estimated number of participants was 1 685 and that the actual number should be about 1 100.

78. Ms. Trazy LEE advised that attendance was the unit used for calculating the estimated number of participants, who could take part in the activities more than once. Regardless of the number of times each participant took part in the activities, he or she would be counted as one participant. As regards the actual number of participants, it would become available only upon completion of the activities.

79. The TPDC resolved to allocate $118,350 to Tai Po Sports Association Limited and to waive the ceilings of individual expenditure items for the Association to jointly organise “Three-Highs” Prevention Campaign with United Christian Nethersole Community Health Service and Gratia Christian College.

(II) Nutrition on Campus in Tai Po Campaign

80. The TPDC resolved to allocate $120,000 to United Christian Nethersole Community Health Service and to waive the ceilings of individual expenditure items for organising Nutrition on Campus in Tai Po Campaign.

X. Co-operation Scheme with District Councils 2019/20 (TPDC Paper No. 27/2019)

81. The Secretary introduced Paper No. 27/2019.

82. Ms. Patty LEE advised that Tai Po District Civic Education Campaign Organising Committee hoped that by organising visits through this funding scheme, primary school students in the district could visit Chung Ying Street, Chung Ying Street History Museum and so on, and by using Huanggang Port and Shenzhen Bay Port, they could have a better understanding about “co-location” and “non co-location” arrangements as well as experience of putting “one country, two systems” and the Basic Law into practice.

- 38 -

83. The TPDC endorsed to recommend “Shenzhen one-day tour for Tai Po District primary school students to experience “one country, two systems” and “Basic Law” to the Committee on the Promotion of Civic Education for the application of the above funding.

XI. West Kowloon Cultural District Authority “Crossover Lab Initiative” (TPDC Paper No. 28/2019)

84. The Secretary introduced Paper No. 28/2019 and supplemented that West Kowloon Cultural District Authority (“WKCDA”) hoped that TPDC would reply by March this year its intention to jointly organise the captioned programme with WKCDA.

85. The Chairman indicated that Tai Po Arts Centre would be commissioned this year. He recommended that TPDC participate in the captioned programme in the year 2019/20, which would not only publicise West Kowloon Cultural District, but also promote Tai Po Arts Centre to members of the public beyond Tai Po, thus mutually reinforcing. He also suggested that relevant matters be followed up by Working Group on Signature Projects of Tai Po District.

86. Members agreed to the above recommendations.

XII. Any Other Business

(I) Appointment of Co-opted Members as replacement for the year 2018/19 (TPDC Paper No. 29/2019)

87. The Secretary introduced Paper No. 29/2019.

88. TPDC noted the resignation of Mr. CHAN Wai-lun as Co-opted Member of the EHWC and endorsed the appointment of Mr. YIP Chun-kit as Co-opted Member of the TTC under TPDC for the year 2018/19.

(II) Issue of special/commemorative stamps in 2021 (TPDC Paper No. 30/2019)

89. The Chairman advised that Hongkong Post had written to TPDC to invite Members to put forward views on the themes for the special or commemorative stamps in 2021 for the Stamp Advisory Committee’s consideration. Members might raise their proposals in writing to the Secretariat on or before 14 June 2019. - 39 -

(III) The 10th “Quit to Win” Smoke-free Community Campaign organised by the Hong Kong Council on Smoking and Health (TPDC Paper No. 31/2019)

90. TPDC agreed to become a partner organisation of the above-mentioned campaign and authorised the Hong Kong Council on Smoking and Health to display TPDC’s emblem on publicity materials relating to the activity.

91. The Chairman suggested that the previous practice be followed to entrust the SSC with the task of identifying suitable local groups to become partner organisations of the captioned campaign.

92. Members concurred with the approach proposed by the Chairman.

(IV) Women’s Commission “Funding Scheme for Women’s Development (District Council stream)” (TPDC Paper No. 32/2019)

93. The Chairman recommended that the previous practice be followed to entrust the SSC with the task of identifying suitable local groups to hold the captioned activity.

94. Members agreed to the above recommendation put forward by the Chairman.

(V) “Tai Po Feast for the Elderly 2019”

95. Mr. AU Chun-wah indicated that he had written to the Secretariat in relation to “Tai Po Feast for the Elderly 2019” held on 11 February this year after the activity to request that rundown of the activity be followed up on. He hoped that the Chairman would arrange for the relevant follow up.

96. The Chairman advised that the Secretariat had already mentioned to him issues about which Mr. AU Chun-wah concerned and had forwarded the relevant letter to the hosting organisation of the activity for follow up. As the hosting organisation had received the letter not long ago and had not replied yet, he recommended that the agenda item be followed up on at the meeting of Agriculture, Fisheries, Commerce, Industries, Tourism and Recreation Affairs Committee in May this year. - 40 -

97. Mr. AU Chun-wah agreed to the arrangement mentioned above.

XIII. Date of next meeting

98. The next meeting would be held at 9:30 a.m. on 2 May 2019 (Thursday).

99. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:00 p.m.

Tai Po District Council Secretariat April 2019