Minutes of the 4th Meeting of Yau Tsim Mong District Council (2016-2019)

Date : 26 May 2016 (Thursday) Time : 2:30 p.m. Venue : Yau Tsim Mong District Council Conference Room 4/F., Mong Kok Government Offices 30 Luen Wan Street Mong Kok, Kowloon Present: Chairman Mr IP Ngo-tung, Chris Vice-chairman Ms WONG Shu-ming District Council Members Mr CHAN Siu-tong, MH, JP Ms KWAN Sau-ling Mr CHOI Siu-fung, Benjamin Mr LAM Kin-man Mr CHONG Wing-charn, Francis Mr LAU Pak-kei Mr CHOW Chun-fai, BBS, JP Ms TANG Ming-sum, Michelle Mr CHUNG Chak-fai The Honourable TO Kun-sun, James Mr CHUNG Kong-mo, JP Mr WONG Kin-san Mr HUI Tak-leung Mr YEUNG Tsz-hei, Benny, MH Mr HUNG Chiu-wah, Derek Mr YU Tak-po, Andy Mr JO Chun-wah, Craig Representatives of the Government Mrs ARON Laura Liang, JP District Officer (Yau Tsim Mong) Home Affairs Department Miss NG Wai-chung, Jocelyn Assistant District Officer

(Yau Tsim Mong) Home Affairs Department

Mr CHEUNG Kwok-leung, Eric

District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Mong Kok)

Food and Environmental Hygiene Department

Mr LAW Chau-sang Chief Health Inspector (Yau Tsim)1 Food and Environmental Hygiene Department

Mr YAU Siu-kei, Crusade District Commander (Mong Kok District) (Atg)

Hong Kong Police Force

Mr KWOK Pak-chung District Commander (Yau Tsim) Hong Kong Police Force Mr CHOY Chik-sang, Mario Chief Transport Officer (Kowloon) Transport Department Mr HSU Ka-man District Leisure Manager (Yau Tsim

Mong) Leisure and Cultural Services

Department Mr LEUNG Wing-tak, David Senior Engineer/3 (Kowloon) Civil Engineering and

Development Department Mr LEE Chi-yin Senior Housing Manager (Kowloon

West and Hong Kong 1) Housing Department

In Attendance: Mr SUI Wai-keung, Stephen,

JP Under Secretary for Labour and

Welfare Labour and Welfare Bureau

Ms YIM Hau-wan, Evalina Regional Officer (Kowloon West) Independent Commission Against Corruption

Ms LEE Fung-sze, Ophinny Senior Community Relations Officer (Kowloon West)

Independent Commission Against Corruption

Ms LEE Ka-mei, Patty Senior Executive Officer (District Management), Yau Tsim Mong District Office

Home Affairs Department

Mr NG Wing-keung, Henry Senior Liaison Officer (1), Yau Tsim Mong District Office

Home Affairs Department

Ms LEE Ching-yee, Patty Senior Liaison Officer (2), Yau Tsim Mong District Office

Home Affairs Department

Mr CHAN Chi-ching, Thomas Senior Liaison Officer (Building Management), Yau Tsim Mong District Office

Home Affairs Department

Mr TU Sik-man, Simon General Manager – Car Park Link Asset Management Limited

Mr CHUNG Chik-leung, Eric Community Relationship Manager Link Asset Management Limited

Miss CHAN Wai-chun, Sandy District Social Welfare Officer (Kowloon City/Yau Tsim Mong) (Atg)

Social Welfare Department

Mr LOK Kim-wa, Tony Chief Engineer 2/Major Works Highways Department Mr WONG Siu-fai Senior Engineer 5/Central Kowloon

Route Highways Department

Mr CHIU Cheuk-siu Senior Engineer 7/Central Kowloon Route

Highways Department

Ms WONG Ting-chi, Queenie Assistant Commissioner for Labour (Policy Support)

Labour Department

Secretary Ms CHUNG Siu-lan, Joanne

Senior Executive Officer (District Council), Yau Tsim Mong District Office

Home Affairs Department

Opening Remarks The Chairman welcomed representatives from government departments and participants to the meeting. He reported that Mr Mark FOSTER, District Commander (Mong Kok District) of the Hong Kong Police Force (“HKPF”) and Mr WONG Kam-wah, District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Yau Tsim) of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (“FEHD”) were on leave. Mr Crusade YAU, District Commander (Mong Kok District) (Atg) and Mr LAW Chau-sang, Chief Health Inspector (Yau Tsim)1 were attending the meeting in their places respectively. Mr MOK Wing-cheong, Ringo, Chief Engineer/Kowloon 5 (Kowloon) of the Civil Engineering and Development Department

- 2 -

and Mr TSE Chick-lam, Chief Manager/Management (Kowloon West and Hong Kong) of the Housing Department (“HD”) and Mr CHAIONG David, Stanley, Chief Leisure Manager (Hong Kong West) of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (“LCSD”) were absent due to other commitments. Mr David LEUNG, Senior Engineer/3 (Kowloon), Mr LEE Chi-yin, Senior Housing Manager (Kowloon West and Hong Kong 1) and Mr HSU Ka-man, District Leisure Manager (Yau Tsim Mong) were attending the meeting in their places respectively. (Mr CHAN Siu-tong and Mr LAM Kin-man joined the meeting at 2:33 p.m.) Item 1: Public Engagement Exercise on Retirement Protection

(YTMDC Paper No. 61/2016) 2. The Chairman welcomed Mr Stephen SUI, Under Secretary for Labour and Welfare to the meeting. 3. Mr Stephen SUI gave a PowerPoint presentation to briefly introduce the contents of Paper No. 61/2016, including the background of the public consultation on retirement protection, population challenges, public finance challenges, the existing multi-pillar retirement protection, various measures to improve retirement protection and how the Government should make a choice. 4. Mr LAM Kin-man was disappointed with the Government for having a pre-conceived stance on retirement protection scheme, pointing out that the Financial Secretary had announced the setting aside of $50 billion to provide better retirement protection, yet now the earmarked fund was solely for the elderly in need. Moreover, he disagreed with the Government’s claim that universal retirement protection scheme would run into deficit after implementation and said that the contents of the present public consultation on retirement protection launched by Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, Chief Executive (“CE”) had gone against his election pledges. 5. Mr Andy YU raised the following requests and views: i) the Government should implement a universal retirement protection scheme; ii) he opposed introducing means-testing for the retirement protection scheme; and iii) he supported the “3-5-2” financing arrangement (i.e. employers and employees accounted for 30%, the Government accounted for 50% and enterprises accounted for 20% of the retirement protection contribution). 6. Mr CHUNG Kong-mo opined that the Government should provide more support to the elderly in need. He raised the following requests: i) services of residential care homes for the elderly (“RCHEs”) should be strengthened; ii) more elderly-friendly community measures should be implemented; and iii) additional resources should be allocated to District Councils (“DCs”) for building an elderly-friendly community. 7. Mr Francis CHONG enquired: i) how much the Government had reserved for the payment of lump-sum pension gratuity and monthly pension of retired civil servants; and ii) what the percentage difference between the monthly pension payment received by junior and senior retired civil servants was.

- 3 -

8. Mr HUI Tak-leung said that it would facilitate the planning of elderly care and medical services if the Government was willing to shoulder the expenditure of retirement protection for the public. He considered that the public consultation on retirement protection showed the commitment of the Government. 9. Mr CHOW Chun-fai would like to know the estimated tax revenue of the Government from this financial year to 2020. 10. Mr WONG Kin-san supported the Government’s public consultation work on retirement protection, yet he expressed disappointment over its failure to standardise the retirement age. He said that since a lot of elderly people aged 61 to 64 years hoped to receive Old Age Living Allowance or use elderly health care vouchers, the Government should take this opportunity to review the eligible age for the relevant welfare schemes. 11. Mr Benny YEUNG opined that the Government should broaden the tax base to accumulate sufficient fiscal reserves for the provision of retirement protection to the public. He also pointed out that no matter whether a universal retirement protection scheme would be implemented, the Government should offer protection to the elderly in need and a pilot scheme should be considered to provide such protection as soon as possible. 12. Mr Stephen SUI responded as follows:

(i) The existing retirement protection system in Hong Kong was based on a four-pillar model, which comprised four pillars that were complementary to one another in serving the needs of different groups of elderly, in order to provide the elderly with comprehensive protection.

(ii) It was the first time the Government had proposed a review of the retirement protection system since the handover of Hong Kong 18 years ago. The comprehensive consultation and the setting aside of $50 billion to provide better retirement protection showed that the current-term Government was active in addressing social problems.

(iii) Subject to the outcome of the consultation, the Government would consider whether individual initiatives would be implemented first or would be further enhanced before implementation.

(iv) Given the significant pension expenditure involved in the appointment of civil servants on pensionable terms, the Government had set up a Civil Service Provident Fund Scheme for civil servants appointed after 2000. As regards Mr Francis CHONG’s enquiries, he would request the Civil Service Bureau to provide the relevant figures after the meeting.

(v) In general, the retirement age was based on average life expectancy and health condition. At present, the retirement age of new appointees to the civil service had been extended to 65. The Government had set the retirement age at this level with reference to the prevailing international practice.

- 4 -

(vi) According to the Report of the Working Group (“WG”) on Long-Term Fiscal Planning, the serious problem of ageing population in Hong Kong had exerted a significant pressure on public finance. As such, the Government must increase its revenues and broaden the tax base.

(vii) The major sources of data for the consultation document “Retirement Protection, Forging Ahead” were the Report of the WG on Long-Term Fiscal Planning, the Economic Analysis and Business Facilitation Unit and the Census and Statistics Department.

13. The Chairman thanked the Under Secretary for Labour and Welfare for joining the discussion on this item. Item 2: Confirmation of Minutes of 3rd Yau Tsim Mong District Council (“YTMDC”)

Meeting 14. The Chairman said that the Mong Kok Police District of the HKPF had proposed to amend the minutes of the last meeting. The document (Annex 1) was distributed at the meeting for Councillors’ information. 15. The minutes of the last meeting were confirmed with amendment. Item 3: Financial Position of YTMDC as at 16 May 2016

(YTMDC Paper No. 46/2016) Item 4: Funding Application from Yau Tsim Mong (“YTM”) District Youth

Campaign Programme Committee for Organising “Yau Tsim Mong Youth Power Activities” (YTMDC Paper No. 47/2016)

16. The Chairman proposed that the funding applications for Items 3 to 4 be discussed together and there was no objection. He reminded Councillors to fill in the Declaration of Interests form which was obtainable from the Secretariat if necessary. 17. Councillors noted the financial position of the YTMDC Funds as at 16 May 2016, and endorsed the funding application for Item 4 (YTMDC Paper No. 47/2016). Item 5: Work Plan 2016-2017 of Independent Commission Against Corruption

(“ICAC”) Regional Office (Kowloon West) (YTMDC Paper No. 48/2016)

18. The Chairman welcomed Ms Evalina YIM, Regional Officer (Kowloon West) and Ms Ophinny LEE, Senior Community Relations Officer (Kowloon West) of the ICAC to the meeting.

-----

- 5 -

19. Ms Evalina YIM briefly introduced the contents of Paper No. 48/2016 by outlining the 2016/2017 Work Plan of the ICAC Regional Office (Kowloon West). She also invited the YTMDC and the Yau Tsim Mong District Office (“YTMDO”) to be the co-organisers and the four YTM Area Committees, the YTM District School Liaison Committee and the YTM District Organising Committee on Promotion of Civic Education to be the assisting organisations of the YTM District “All for Integrity” Project 2016/17. The project was scheduled to take place between June 2016 and March 2017, and was expected to reach about 22 000 residents and students in the district. The budget for the entire project was $30,000, which would be borne solely by the ICAC Regional Office (Kowloon West). 20. Mr LAU Pak-kei suggested that the ICAC should send representatives to attend meetings of owners’ committees and owners’ corporations (“OCs”) more frequently to convey the messages of clean building management and answer enquiries immediately. 21. Mr HUI Tak-leung concurred with the view of Mr LAU Pak-kei. Discontented with the attitude of the ICAC frontline staff in requesting complainants to produce evidence of suspected corruption, he hoped that the representatives of the ICAC would enhance communication with frontline staff. He also considered it unnecessary for the ICAC to spend considerable manpower on handling certain senseless election-related complaints. 22. Mr Benjamin CHOI suggested that the ICAC should take the initiative to contact owners’ committees/OCs and send representatives to attend meetings for the discussion of building maintenance matters, so as to explain the adverse effects of bid-rigging. 23. Mr LAM Kin-man remarked that all these years he had never seen staff of the ICAC attend meetings of owners’ committees/OCs to promote probity messages. He opined that it was far more effective for the ICAC to take the initiative to send representatives to attend meetings relating to building maintenance than to invite members of owners’ committees/OCs to attend its seminars. 24. The Vice-chairman would like to know if the ICAC and the Competition Commission (“CC”) had any co-operation mechanism against bid-rigging. 25. Ms Evalina YIM gave a consolidated response as follows:

(i) The ICAC had been disseminating messages of clean building management through various channels, and would gladly explain the relevant legislation to OCs and other stakeholders.

(ii) Staff of the ICAC would not decline invitations to general meetings of OCs. However, it would be inappropriate for them as law enforcement officers to attend such meetings to witness tender opening. The ICAC would be happy to explain the relevant legislation at general meetings of OCs before building maintenance works were carried out. If internal matters would be discussed at such meetings, staff of the ICAC would leave after introducing its work or the relevant legislation.

(iii) Apart from organising seminars, the ICAC would also send representatives to speak at other district seminars to convey the relevant messages. If OCs

- 6 -

wished to invite the ICAC to organise talks on building management, the ICAC would be glad to arrange and render assistance accordingly.

(iv) The website was only one of the means of disseminating messages. The ICAC would continue to approach owners face-to-face to deliver the relevant messages.

(v) The Competition Ordinance (“CO”) had come into effect. If corruption was involved in bid-rigging, the ICAC would certainly take follow-up actions in accordance with the law. Yet, bid-rigging activities without element of corruption were beyond the enforcement power of the ICAC. After the establishment of the CC, the ICAC had developed a complaint referral mechanism with the CC. Even if corruption was not involved, bid-rigging was nonetheless a serious anti-competitive conduct under the CO, and such cases would be followed up by the CC.

(vi) Under the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance enforced by the ICAC, the ICAC was obliged to handle and follow up on election-related complaints received. Councillors were advised to take heed of the offences regulated by the ordinance, no matter serious or minor, to avoid violating the relevant provisions unknowingly.

26. Mr Benjamin CHOI enquired whether the Buildings Department (“BD”) would notify the ICAC when issuing a repair order to an OC so that the ICAC could render assistance to the OC. 27. Ms Evalina YIM responded that according to the current practice, the BD would issue repair orders to OCs with a copy to the ICAC. Upon receipt, the ICAC would contact the OCs directly to provide preventive education services. 28. The Chairman thanked the representatives of the ICAC for joining the discussion on this item. Item 6: Request for Designation of Election Day on a One-off Basis as Additional

General Holiday and Statutory Holiday (YTMDC Paper No. 49/2016)

29. The Chairman said that the written response of the Labour Department (“LD”) (Annex 2) had been emailed to Councillors for perusal on 24 May 2016. 30. Mr HUI Tak-leung supplemented the contents of the paper. He noted that the LD had not sent any representative to take part in the discussion of this item. He continued that Mr LAU Pak-kei and six other Members of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong had also invited representatives of the LD to attend the meeting to discuss Item 11. If the representatives of the LD only participated in the discussion of that item, it would prove the LD’s practice of affinity differentiation. Moreover, he considered that the written response of the LD was merely perfunctory without giving any concrete response to his question. In his opinion, designating the election day as an additional general holiday and statutory holiday on a one-off basis could enhance the electors’ interest in voting.

-----

- 7 -

31. The Chairman noted the comments of Mr HUI Tak-leung. 32. There being no further comments, the Chairman closed the discussion on this item. 33. The Chairman said that as the representatives who would be joining the discussion on Item 7 had not yet arrived, he proposed that Item 8 be discussed first. There was no objection. Item 8: YTMDO Work Plan 2016-17

(YTMDC Paper No. 51/2016) 34. The Chairman welcomed Mrs Laura ARON, District Officer (Yau Tsim Mong), Miss Jocelyn NG, Assistant District Officer (Yau Tsim Mong), Ms LEE Ka-mei, Patty, Senior Executive Officer (District Management), Ms Joanne CHUNG, Senior Executive Officer (District Council), Mr Henry NG, Senior Liaison Officer (1), Ms LEE Ching-yee, Patty, Senior Liaison Officer (2) and Mr Thomas CHAN, Senior Liaison Officer (Building Management) of the YTMDO to the meeting. 35. Mrs Laura ARON briefly introduced the background of Paper No. 51/2016. As Councillors should know the work of the YTMDO quite well, she did not brief Councillors on the specific contents of the paper with the consent of the Chairman. 36. Mr Benjamin CHOI hoped that new members of the District Building Management Liaison Team (“DBMLT”) would communicate more with the existing members, in order to enhance their understanding of owners’ committees/OCs in the district and acquire skills in communicating with owners’ committees/OCs. 37. Mr HUI Tak-leung proposed: i) increasing the manpower of the DBMLT to assist OCs in the district in convening meetings; ii) reviewing whether there was any overlap between the work of the Hong Kong Housing Society (“HKHS”) and the Urban Renewal Authority (“URA”) to avoid wastage of resources; and iii) providing more support to assist mutual aid committees (“MACs”) in the district in forming OCs. 38. Mr Benny YEUNG suggested: i) increasing the manpower of the DBMLT to assist private buildings in the district in forming OCs and to provide support services; and ii) staff of the DBMLT exchange views with Councillors more often on complicated building management issues. 39. Mr Derek HUNG highly commended the duty staff of the community halls for their flexible deployment of facilities in light of special circumstances. He hoped that the scope of the Resident Liaison Ambassador Scheme could be extended. (The Hon James TO joined the meeting at 4:10 p.m.) 40. Mr Andy YU enquired: i) whether the response from 90 young participants aged 16 to 25 of “Youth to Master” Programme and 75 young participants aged 16 to 25 of “Running Crew for YTM Youth” Programme recruited by the YTMDO last year was enthusiastic; ii) if

- 8 -

not, whether the cause was the lack of publicity; and iii) whether the participants had experienced any changes after joining the activities; and iv) in view of the recent spate of student suicide cases, whether the YTMDO would organise acitivites to call on young people to cherish life. 41. Mr Francis CHONG suggested that the YTMDO enhance the free mediation services for building management matters to resolve disputes over water seepage. 42. Mrs Laura ARON responded as follows:

(i) The YTMDO had hired a number of non-civil service contract (“NCSC”) staff to provide assistance during meetings of OCs.

(ii) Considerable manpower was required to facilitate building management in

numerous private buidings in the YTM District. As such, the YTMDO would seek additional resources from the Home Affairs Department (“HAD”) from time to time to handle building management-related work.

43. Mr Thomas CHAN responded as follows:

(i) He would ask staff of the DBMLT to communicate with members of the OC concerned before attending its meeting. If any problem with the agenda was found, the staff would approach members of the OC concerned for an understanding of the problem and give advice before the meeting as far as possible, instead of pointing out the same during the meeting.

(ii) If the Councillor of the constituency concerned was also invited to the OC meeting, he would ask staff of the DBMLT to communicate and exchange views with the Councillor concerned or his/her assistant before the meeting.

(iii) After giving verbal advice to the OC or owners, staff of the DBMLT would also state the advice in writing as far as possible, with a view to preventing the advice given by the YTMDO staff from being taken out of context or misinterpreted.

(iv) Among the 18 districts in Hong Kong, the YTM District had the largest number of private buildings and OCs. Since it was difficult for Liaison Officers to attend all OC meetings, the YTMDO might assign more experienced Community Organisers to attend OC meetings. The YTMDO had already reflected the problem of manpower shortage to the HAD. Over the past few years, the YTMDO had also increased the manpower of the DBMLT, including officers at the supervisory level. The YTMDO would continue to relay Councillors’ comments on the provision of additional manpower to the HAD.

(v) Since OCs were empowered under the law to handle matters relating to building management, the YTMDO would assist buildings with MACs in the district in forming OCs as far as practicable.

(vi) The YTMDO would recruit more Resident Liaison Ambassadors and

- 9 -

encourage their participation in community affairs. Over the past few years, OCs had been formed successfully in 16 buildings with Resident Liaison Ambassadors in the district.

(vii) To avoid overlapping, the HAD had taken into consideration the various subsidy schemes implemented by the HKHS, the URA and the BD in the development of some subsidy schemes. Upon the implementation of the Mandatory Building and Window Inspection Schemes (“Schemes”), the Development Bureau had increased resources and set up dedicated teams under the BD, the HKHS and the URA to assist owners of the buildings affected by the Schemes in forming OCs. If owners wished to form OCs in response to the Schemes, apart from providing them with relevant information, the YTMDO would also advise them to contact the BD, the HKHS and the URA for more appropriate support and services.

(viii) Dispute over water seepage was one of the items that could be resolved through mediation. In case of disputes over water seepage, the YTMDO would refer the owners of the OC concerned to seek free professional mediation services provided by the HAD if they so wished.

44. Miss Jocelyn NG responded that i) participants of “Youth to Master” Programme and “Running Crew for YTM Youth” Programme were young students or working youths aged 16 to 25. The response was satisfactory as the number of participants was close to expectation; ii) about 40% of the participants of “Youth to Master” Programme were active students who had participated in various activities under the programme; iii) the attendance rate of “Running Crew for YTM Youth” Programme was about 80%; iv) upon completion of the two programmes, the YTMDO had conducted a survey, and the respondents had generally indicated that they could make new friends through the programmes; v) the YTMDO had also organised a highly acclaimed volunteer exchange tour to Yunnan, which, according to its participants, could not only enhance their understanding of the Mainland’s culture, but also enrich their volunteering experiences. A review brochure of “Yau Tsim Mong Youth Development Network Programme” was being produced for participants to share their experiences and what they had learned; and vi) the YTMDO was now planning the programmes for the coming year, which would cover four main themes, namely “Personal Growth”, “Career Planning”, “Social Services” and “Healthy Life”, with the aims of instilling positive values in participants, encouraging their engagement in the community and expanding their social networks, so as to reduce their negative emotions. 45. Mrs Laura ARON added that the YTMDO had introduced the District-led Actions Scheme (“DAS”) to Councillors at the 3rd YTMDC meeting on 31 March 2016 and had gained support from Councillors. It was now pressing ahead with the Cleansing of Common Parts of Buildings project and the Hearing Test and Hearing Aid Subsidy Scheme, and would seek Councillors’ assistance from time to time. Interested Councillors who could take the time to participate in the project implementation were welcomed to contact the YTMDO. 46. Mr HUI Tak-leung suggested that the YTMDO should specify in the Work Plan 2016-17 that additional manpower was required to handle building management-related work. He also considered that there was inadequate publicity for the Free Legal Advice Service on Building Management (“Service”). As a result, as at March 2016, only 38 cases had been

- 10 -

arranged by the YTMDO to receive the Service. He was also worried that the YTMDO did not have sufficient manpower to implement the projects listed in the Work Plan 2016-17. 47. Mr LAM Kin-man raised the following views and suggestions: i) from January 2015 to March 2016, only 38 cases had been arranged by the YTMDO to receive the Service, indicating that there was inadequate publicity and promotion; ii) in recent years, the Fire Services Department (“FSD”) and the BD had issued Fire Safety Directions and repair orders to buildings from time to time. The YTMDO should take the opportunity to increase manpower to assist owners’ committees/MACs in the district in forming OCs; and iii) he asked whether the YTMDO had prepared a list of buildings for implementation of the Cleansing of Common Parts of Buildings project under the DAS. 48. Mr Derek HUNG wondered if the YTMDO would lower the percentage of shares in aggregate required for the formation of an OC through the Lands Tribunal. 49. Mr Craig JO fully supported the DAS and wished to know its progress. 50. Mrs Laura ARON responded as follows:

(i) There were a total of 14 civil service posts in the DBMLT. Furthermore, the YTMDO had allocated additional resources to employ NCSC staff to facilitate the work of building management.

(ii) As no additional resources would be allocated in the coming year, the YTMDO could only use the existing manpower resources to implement the projects listed in the Work Plan.

51. Mr Thomas CHAN responded as follows:

(i) The YTMDO had preliminarily selected 150 targeted buildings for the DAS. However, in view of the limited resources, the YTMDO had deployed its newly recruited Community Organisers to inspect the aforesaid 150 buildings and ascertain their actual situation. Upon completion of the inspection, the YTMDO would select 120 targeted buildings.

(ii) A tender exercise for the cleansing services of the common parts of buildings was underway and the FEHD would organise a briefing for interested contractors in early June 2016.

(iii) It was expected that the list of buildings would be finalised in late June 2016.

(iv) The Cleansing of Common Parts of Buildings project would officially commence on 4 July 2016 and cleansing services would be provided from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

(v) The power of owners’ committees was subject to the Deeds of Mutual Covenant on a case-by-case basis. If owners’ committees considered the power granted by the Deeds of Mutual Covenant to be insufficient, owners could consider forming OCs and the YTMDO would render assistance

- 11 -

accordingly.

(vi) Under the current legislation, the formation of an OC should normally be supported by the owners of not less than 30% of the shares in aggregate. If owners had attempted but failed to meet the threshold requirement of 30%, they might apply to the Secretary for Home Affairs to lower the percentage of shares in aggregate to 20%. If owners still failed to meet the requirement, they could also apply to the Lands Tribunal with not less than 10% of the shares in aggregate, and the Lands Tribunal might order that a meeting of owners be convened by such owner as it might direct to form an OC.

(vii) The 38 cases mentioned in paragraph 27 of Paper No. 51/2016 referred to the applications in the YTM District. The YTMDO would further encourage and assist OCs and owners to apply for the Service offered by the HAD to deal with appropriate cases.

52. The Chairman thanked the representatives of the YTMDO for joining the discussion on this item. (Post-meeting note: The Secretariat had emailed the list of targeted buildings for the DAS

－ Cleansing of Common Parts of Buildings to Councillors for perusal on 13 June 2016.)

Item 7: Request for Re-examination of Link Asset Management Limited (“the

Link”) in respect of Substantial Rental Increase for Carpark Facilities (YTMDC Paper No. 50/2016)

53. The Chairman welcomed Mr Simon TU, General Manager – Car Park and Mr Eric CHUNG, Community Relationship Manager of the Link to the meeting. 54. Mr Andy YU supplemented the contents of the paper. He reported that in 2014, the monthly parking charges for private cars and light goods vehicles in Hoi Fu Court Car Park were both $2,570, but in 2015 and May this year, the parking charges had been increased to $2,950 and $3,210 respectively. Due to the repeated rental increase, many tenants had chosen to rent parking spaces in carpark facilities that were farther away or even sell their cars. He pointed out that the rental charge of Hoi Fu Court Car Park was even higher than that of carpark facilities in neighbouring private housing estates. 55. Mr Simon TU responded as follows: (i) The Link owned 165 car parks with approximately 70 000 parking spaces. In

recent years, the Link had spent up to $300 million on renovating its carpark facilities, including redecoration, installation of closed-circuit televisions, and addition of anti-car theft devices and lighting systems. In the next three years, the Link would continue to renovate its carpark facilities and the expenditure involved would be approximately $300 million.

(ii) Hoi Fu Court Car Park was the Link’s only car park in the YTM District. The

- 12 -

Link had renovated the car park and installed anti-car theft devices in March 2015.

(iii) The Link offered a 60% discount on both monthly and hourly parking rates for

people with disabilities. In Hoi Fu Court Car Park, there were a total of five disabled parking spaces.

(iv) Given the escalating operating costs in recent years, the rental charges of

carpark facilities had been adjusted. To minimise the impact on professional drivers, the percentage increase in parking rates for commercial vehicles and motorcycles was the same at around 5% only.

(The Hon James TO left the meeting at 4:40 p.m.) 56. Mr Derek HUNG declared that he had a parking permit for Hoi Fu Court Car Park and therefore he would not speak on this item. He added that he needed the parking permit for visiting the ethnic minority residents in Hoi Fu Court about once or twice a year. 57. Mr Andy YU raised the following views: i) the rental charge of the Link’s car park was higher than that of carpark facilities in neighbouring private housing estates, yet the service quality was not any better; ii) the repeated rental increase for the Link’s car park might have already constituted a breach of the “Second Conduct Rule” under the CO. Thus, he requested the Link to withdraw its decision to substantially increase the rental charge of Hoi Fu Court Car Park. 58. The Chairman said that after discussing with the Secretary just then, he proposed that Councillors who had parking permits for the Link’s car park be allowed to continue with the discussion of this item after declaring interests. He also declared that he had a parking permit for the car park under the Link. 59. Mr HUI Tak-leung, Mr Craig JO and Mr Francis CHONG declared that they had parking permits for the Link’s car park. 60. Mr Benny YEUNG opined that the Link, as a public organisation to a certain extent, should fulfill its social responsibility. In considering rental increase, the Link should also take into account the current economic environment and the financial burden of public rental housing (“PRH”) tenants and small shop tenants operating in shopping malls under the Link. The Link should not increase the rental charges solely based on commercial considerations. 61. Mr CHAN Siu-tong enquired: i) whether it was appropriate for Councillors to apply for parking permits for the car park under the Link, a listed company; ii) whether the parking permits were used exclusively by Councillors for attending events and carrying out official duties; and iii) whether Councillors could use the parking permits for overnight parking. 62. Mr LAM Kin-man raised the following views: i) he objected to the drastic rental increase for Hoi Fu Court Car Park, opining that it might have violated the CO. He also considered it unreasonable for the rental charge of that car park to be higher than that of carpark facilities in neighbouring private housing estates; ii) although the Link was a listed company, it should fulfill its social responsibility as its assets were located in PRH estates;

- 13 -

and iii) he expressed regret that since the CC had refused to send representatives to attend the meeting for the discussion of another item, Councillors did not have the opportunity to enquire whether the substantial rental increase by the Link was in breach of the CO. 63. Mr HUI Tak-leung saw it inappropriate for the Link to distribute parking permits for its car park via the Secretariat to certain Councillors before the meeting. He announced that he would give up the parking permit issued by the Link. (Post-meeting note: On 15 December 2015, the Link had written to the Secretariat to invite

application for parking permits for its car park in the YTM District from Councillors of the YTMDC. A total of five Councillors had accepted the invitation. On 23 May 2016, the Link had mailed the parking permits to the Secretariat for passing on to the five Councillors. On 26 May 2016, the Secretariat had passed on the parking permits to the Councillors.)

64. Mr Andy YU stated that the monthly rent for a two-person flat in Hoi Fu Court was more than $2,000 and more than $3,000 for a three-person flat. The residents found the increase of rental charge of a parking space in the estate’s car park to a level similar to the rent of a flat with three bedrooms and a living room to be extremely unreasonable. He therefore hoped that the Link would take his request into serious consideration. 65. The Vice-chairman enquired whether the Link would change some of the monthly parking spaces in Hoi Fu Court to floating parking spaces. 66. Mr Simon TU responded as follows: (i) There was no fixed parking space in Hoi Fu Court Car Park. (ii) The percentage increase in monthly parking charge of approximately 8% and

the increase in hourly parking charge of $1 per hour were reasonable. (iii) The monthly parking charge for private cars was $3,210, representing an

increase of $260. (iv) The monthly rental charge of a parking space in Hoi Fu Court Car Park was

similar to that of $3,500 in Charming Garden Car Park and $3,800 in Olympian City One Car Park.

(v) In considering rental increase, the Link would take into account the operating

costs. Despite the huge operating pressure on its carpark facilities after the increase of minimum wage, the Link would enhance the service quality of its car parks to tie in with the decision of rental increase. Moreover, each car park renovation works could cost more than $1 million.

(vi) The Link provided parking permits for its car park to Councillors as a measure

to facilitate Councillors’ attendance of events. 67. Mr CHAN Siu-tong asked again i) whether the parking permits provided by the Link

- 14 -

to Councillors were used exclusively for attending events and carrying out official duties; and ii) whether it was illegal for Councillors to use the parking permits for overnight parking. 68. Mr Simon TU replied that night park fees were payable by Councillors who wished to park their cars overnight using the parking permits of the Link. 69. Mr CHAN Siu-tong enquired how the Link would request Councillors with parking permits already issued to pay if they parked their cars overnight. 70. Mr Simon TU responded that when the Councillors drove into the car park, the parking time limit would be recorded on their parking permits. 71. Mr CHUNG Chak-fai enquired why the Link increased the rental charges of its carpark facilities every year even though the Government conducted a review on the minimum wage every two years only. 72. Mr Andy YU opined that the Link might lose more than it could gain as the repeated rental increase would force many tenants to give up renting parking spaces in its carpark facilities. 73. Mr Simon TU had nothing to add in response to Councillors’ questions. 74. The Chairman thanked the representatives of the Link for joining the discussion on this item. Item 9: Concerns over Licensing Criteria on Private RCHEs

(YTMDC Paper No. 52/2016) 75. The Chairman said that the written response of the Social Welfare Department (“SWD”) (Annex 3) had been emailed to Councillors for perusal on 23 May 2016. He then welcomed Miss Sandy CHAN, District Social Welfare Officer (Kowloon City/Yau Tsim Mong) (Atg) of the SWD to the meeting. 76. Mr Benjamin CHOI supplemented the contents of the paper. He enquired whether the SWD would consult the Councillors of the constituencies concerned, as well as the OCs, residents and shop tenants of the buildings in which the RCHEs were situated before vetting and approving applications for RCHE licences. Besides, it was mentioned in the written response of the SWD that the captioned RCHE had twice invited the FSD to conduct fire drills. He enquired whether the residents and shop tenants of the building in which the RCHE was situated had participated in the two fire drills. (Mr Francis CHONG and Mr CHOW Chun-fai left the meeting at 5:00 p.m.) 77. Miss Sandy CHAN responded as follows:

(i) The Residential Care Homes (Elderly Persons) Ordinance (“RCHE Ordinance”) and the Residential Care Homes (Elderly Persons) Regulation (“RCHE Regulation”), which had come into effect on 1 June 1996,

-----

- 15 -

empowered the Director of Social Welfare to supervise the licensing and regulating mechanism for RCHEs. The Code of Practice for Residential Care Homes (Elderly Persons) (“CoP for RCHEs”) compiled in accordance with the RCHE Ordinance set out the principles, procedures, guidelines and standards for the operation, keeping or management of RCHEs.

(ii) The Licensing Office of Residential Care Homes for the Elderly (“LORCHE”) under the SWD was responsible for vetting and approving applications for licences and renewal of licences of RCHEs. Inspections would be conducted to confirm the compliance with the requirements of the RCHE Ordinance, the RCHE Regulation and the CoP for RCHEs before approving and issuing the RCHE licences.

(iii) The Building Regulations which required the provision of barrier free access had come into operation in 1997. As buildings completed before 1997 had only complied with the former Building Regulations, any person who intended to operate an RCHE in a building completed before that year should ensure the provision of adequate manpower and ancillary equipment to assist the elderly in need to access the building and the RCHE. Besides, all RCHEs were required to comply with the requirements on fire safety and fire precautions stipulated by the FSD and the SWD, e.g. an RCHE should conduct a fire drill at least every six months.

(iv) The LORCHE and the Licensing Office of Residential Care Homes for Persons with Disabilities (“LORCHD”) under the SWD would be merged. The merged office would increase manpower and formulate comprehensive strategies to strengthen the inspection and monitoring of RCHEs, so as to enhance their quality.

78. Mr Benjamin CHOI raised the following views and enquiries: i) the RCHE Ordinance and the RCHE Regulation had been in force for a long time. Since the buildings completed before 1997 were not required to comply with the barrier free access requirement, the SWD should consider amending the legislation to protect the safety of the elderly living in RCHEs; ii) the LORCHE should conduct consultations before vetting and approving applications for RCHE licences; and iii) whether the residents and shop tenants of the building in which the RCHE concerned was situated had participated in the two fire drills mentioned in the written response of the SWD. 79. Ms KWAN Sau-ling raised the following views: i) the SWD should review and amend the RCHE Ordinance and the RCHE Regulation which had been implemented for 20 years, so as to safeguard the safety of the elderly living in RCHEs; and ii) the SWD should consult the OCs of the buildings in which the RCHEs were situated as well as the Councillors of the constituencies concerned regarding the approval and issuance of RCHE licences. 80. Mr HUI Tak-leung held the view that there might be dereliction of duty on the part of the SWD in the supervision of RCHEs. He also enquired: i) whether the buildings completed in or before 1996 were not required to comply with the barrier free access requirement; ii) why the SWD had still issued a licence to an RCHE which, according to his

- 16 -

understanding, was situated in a building without lift; and iii) whether the manpower ratio of RCHEs would be supervised after the merger of the LORCHE and the LORCHD. 81. Ms Michelle TANG opined that the SWD should comprehensively review and amend the RCHE Ordinance and the RCHE Regulation. 82. Mr CHUNG Kong-mo said that the SWD should request RCHEs accommodating more elders with impaired mobility to raise their manpower ratio, so that there would be adequate manpower to assist the elders to evacuate or escape in case of fire. He was also of the view that the Government should not include buildings with RCHEs as buildings exempted from the provision of barrier free access. 83. Miss Sandy CHAN responded as follows:

(i) The Licensing and Supervision Branch to be set up after the merger would increase manpower and formulate comprehensive strategies to strengthen the inspection and monitoring of RCHEs and Residential Care Homes for Persons with Disabilities as a whole, so as to enhance their service quality.

(ii) It was the RCHE concerned that had taken the initiative to invite the FSD to conduct the two fire drills.

(iii) She noted and would relay to the SWD headquarters Councillors’ comments on the review of the RCHE Ordinance, elderly safety and health, as well as RCHEs’ means of escape, barrier free access, fire drills, licensing criteria and consultations, etc.

84. Mr HUI Tak-leung was disappointed with the response of the SWD representative. He wished to know how the SWD would follow up on the licensed RCHEs which had failed to comply with the Fire Services Ordinance or provide barrier free access. 85. Mr Benjamin CHOI said that some RCHEs did not have a separate entrance. In case of fire, the elderly residents could only use the staircases in the shopping malls or the lifts shared with other residents of the buildings to escape, posing threat to personal safety. Therefore, he suggested that the SWD should require the participation of residents and shop tenants of the buildings in which the RCHEs were situated in the fire drills conducted by the RCHEs. He also urged the SWD representative to relay Councillors’ views to the LORCHE as soon as possible. 86. Ms KWAN Sau-ling hoped that the SWD would consider and take heed of the views raised by Councillors at the meeting, in order to plug the loopholes in the relevant ordinance. 87. Miss Sandy CHAN had nothing to add. 88. The Chairman thanked the representative of the SWD for joining the discussion on this item.

- 17 -

Item 10: Calling for Endorsement of Legislative Council (“LegCo”) to Include Full Enclosure Noise Barriers along Gascoigne Road Flyover (Yau Ma Tei Section) in Central Kowloon Route (“CKR”) Project as Resolved Unanimously by YTMDC (YTMDC Paper No. 53/2016)

89. The Chairman said that the joint written response of the Transport and Housing Bureau (“THB”) and the Highways Department (“HyD”) (Annex 4) had been emailed to Councillors for perusal on 24 May 2016. He then welcomed Mr Tony LOK, Chief Engineer 2/Major Works, Mr WONG Siu-fai, Senior Engineer 5/Central Kowloon Route and Mr CHIU Cheuk-siu, Senior Engineer 7/Central Kowloon Route of the HyD to the meeting. 90. Mr Benny YEUNG supplemented the contents of the paper. He said that at the meeting on 12 December 2013, the YTMDC had passed a motion moved by him, i.e. the Government was demanded to retrofit full enclosures over the section of Gascoigne Road Flyover off Blocks 1 and 5 of Prosperous Garden instead of the proposed semi enclosures, and extend the full enclosures off Blocks 3 and 4 of Prosperous Garden northward to reach beyond Yaumati Catholic Primary School during the construction of the CKR. He requested the relevant bureaux and departments to adopt the YTMDC’s resolution and address the concerns of residents in Yau Ma Tei District. 91. Mr Tony LOK responded as follows:

(i) During the further investigation and design stage of the CKR, the HyD had further considered changing the proposed noise barriers along Gascoigne Road Flyover off Prosperous Garden from semi enclosures to full enclosures in response to the suggestions of the public and the YTMDC. Regarding the sound insulation performance, full enclosure noise barriers would not produce any further noise reduction effect on the lower floor units in Prosperous Garden, and only three of the middle and upper floor units would have an additional one decibel noise reduction. As regards air quality, the concentration of nitrogen dioxide at some air sensitive receivers nearby would slightly increase, while the concentration at some air sensitive receivers would slightly decrease. Hence, there was no significant difference on the whole. Apart from the technical difficulties involved in the construction process, the retrofitting of full enclosures instead of the proposed semi enclosures would also affect road safety.

(ii) The HyD had also studied the proposal of extending the noise barriers to

Yaumati Catholic Primary School. According to the findings of the consultant’s assessment, the extension works that would cost about $350 million would only benefit some 50 additional units in Prosperous Garden facing Gascoigne Road Flyover.

92. Mr CHAN Siu-tong opined that the discussion item in the captioned paper fell under the purview of the Traffic, Transport and Housing Committee or the Food, Environmental Hygiene and Public Works Committee (“FEHPWC”). He enquired the reason for arranging the discussion of such item at the YTMDC meeting. He continued that he had submitted a paper requesting the discussion of the road subsistence incident on Ferry Street at the meeting

-----

- 18 -

today. However, the Secretariat said that the Chairman had asked him to submit the paper to the FEHPWC. He saw the nature of the road subsistence incident on Ferry Street similar to that of the captioned item, and would like to know why the Chairman had made different arrangements. 93. The Secretary responded that once the Secretariat received a discussion paper submitted by a Councillor, it would forward the paper to the YTMDC Chairman or the relevant committee Chairman for considering whether to accept the paper for discussion at the meetings of the YTMDC or the relevant committee. The Secretariat had forwarded Mr CHAN Siu-tong’s paper and the captioned paper to the Chairman for consideration upon receipt. 94. Mr HUI Tak-leung raised the following enquiries and views: i) the relevant departments had turned a blind eye to the motion passed at the YTMDC meeting on 12 December 2013; ii) which agency had assessed the performance of full enclosure noise barriers in response to the suggestions of the public and the YTMDC; and iii) he doubted the credibility of the assessment agency, questioning why the Government had not taken the initiative to disclose the findings of the assessment. 95. Ms Michelle TANG indicated that Councillors did not oppose the construction of the CKR. Nevertheless, the Government should consider the views of nearby residents and address their concerns when implementing the project, so as to minimise the impact on local environment and residents. 96. Mr CHAN Siu-tong requested the Secretariat to clearly record that he strongly reprimanded the YTMDC for showing disregard to Councillors’ rights of submitting papers and for handling matters in an unfair manner. He also requested that his statement of reprimand be forwarded to the HAD. 97. The Chairman responded that the captioned paper requested the THB and the relevant departments to follow up on the motion passed by the YTMDC at its meeting on 12 December 2013, while the paper concerning road subsidence on Ferry Street mentioned by Mr CHAN Siu-tong fell under the purview of public works. He had called and sent an SMS message to Mr CHAN hoping for a discussion of the matter, but Mr CHAN had not replied. Therefore, he had asked the Secretariat to brief Mr CHAN about the guidelines on paper submission to the YTMDC and ask Mr CHAN to submit his paper to the relevant committee for discussion. Moreover, the above arrangement on paper submission had already been endorsed by Councillors at the annual in-house meeting on 13 January 2016. 98. Mr CHAN Siu-tong said that the captioned paper should not be discussed at today’s meeting for the sake of impartiality if the Chairman considered that the paper submitted by him should not be discussed at the YTMDC meeting. He also opined that Item 9 “Concerns over Licensing Criteria on Private RCHEs” should be discussed at the meeting of the Community Building Committee.

99. The Chairman responded that Item 9 was about the policy direction of the SWD and should therefore be discussed at the YTMDC meeting according to the established practice of the YTMDC. He reiterated Councillors’ endorsement of the arrangement at the annual in-house meeting on 13 January 2016 that if the Chairman saw it more appropriate for a

- 19 -

committee to discuss a paper submitted by a Councillor, the Chairman could ask the Councillor to submit his/her paper to the committee concerned.

100. Mr CHAN Siu-tong repeated that the captioned paper should not be discussed at the YTMDC meeting.

101. The Chairman noted the comments of Mr CHAN Siu-tong. 102. Ms KWAN Sau-ling opined that it was appropriate to discuss the captioned paper at the YTMDC meeting. She continued that the construction of the CKR would cause noise and air pollution nuisance to residents in the vicinity. As such, the Government should retrofit full enclosure noise barriers to minimise the impact on nearby residents.

103. Mr HUI Tak-leung clarified that he did not object to Mr CHAN Siu-tong’s submission of the paper concerning road subsidence on Ferry Street for discussion at the YTMDC meeting. Thus, he suggested that Mr CHAN should amend his statement of reprimand by not reprimanding the YTMDC. 104. Mr CHAN Siu-tong agreed to reprimand the Chairman only but not the YTMDC. 105. Mr Benny YEUNG raised the following views and requests: i) the Chairman should write to the LegCo in the name of the YTMDC to reiterate that the Government should accept the resolution passed at the YTMDC meeting on 12 December 2013, and demand the Government to include full enclosure noise barriers along Gascoigne Road Flyover (Yau Ma Tei Section) in the CKR project; ii) apart from residents in Yau Ma Tei District, there were mental health rehabilitation organisations, elderly centres, kindergartens and primary schools around the works sites for the CKR project. He queried that the Government had not considered the above sensitive receivers in its assessment; and iii) it was learnt that if the Government insisted on not retrofitting full enclosure noise barriers, some members of the Central Kowloon Route Concern Group, a community group, might apply to the Environmental Protection Department (“EPD”) for cancellation of the environmental permit issued by the department in relation to the Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”) Report for the CKR. If this was the case, the construction works might come to a halt. 106. The Vice-chairman opined that the captioned paper and the paper proposed by Mr CHAN Siu-tong were both about livelihood. She also suggested that the YTMDC should write to the CE and the Executive Council (“ExCo”) in addition to the LegCo. 107. Mr CHUNG Kong-mo said that the arrangement whereby the YTMDC followed up directly on items which could not be dealt with effectively by its committees had all along been effective. As the relevant departments had not complied with the resolution passed by the YTMDC of the last term to demand the Government to include full enclosure noise barriers along Gascoigne Road Flyover (Yau Ma Tei Section) in the CKR project, it was reasonable for Mr Benny YEUNG to request the YTMDC of this term to take further follow-up action. 108. The Chairman responded that since Mr Benny YEUNG had requested the YTMDC to follow up further on the resolution passed by the YTMDC of the last term in the captioned paper, instead of discussing issues concerning the alignment or public works of the CKR, he

- 20 -

had accepted putting this item on the agenda of the YTMDC meeting. However, the paper submitted by Mr CHAN Siu-tong which requested the department concerned to give an account of the causes of the road subsidence and the completion time of the repair works fell under the purview of public works. He continued that Mr YEUNG had also submitted another paper concerning water main bursts, which by nature also fell under the purview of public works. Thus, he requested the above two Councillors to submit the papers concerned to the FEHPWC for further discussion. He also asked the Secretariat to send the minutes of the annual in-house meeting on 13 January 2016 to Councillors again for their reference after the meeting. (Post-meeting note: The Secretariat had emailed the minutes of the annual in-house meeting

held on 13 January 2016 to Councillors again on 27 May 2016.) 109. Mr WONG Kin-san questioned the effectiveness of writing to the LegCo in the name of the YTMDC. He held that the YTMDC should instead write to the Secretary for Transport and Housing and the Director of Highways. If they still failed to respond to the demand of the YTMDC, the YTMDC should then write to the LegCo to call for their removal from office. 110. Mr HUI Tak-leung stated that according to his understanding, the CE-in-Council had authorised the works of the CKR. Therefore, the Government would seek funding approval from the LegCo to commence the works. 111. Mr Benny YEUNG said that both Councillors inside the YTMDC and residents outside were staging protests against the Government’s disregard for their demands. On 25 April 2016, nearly 200 residents in Yau Ma Tei District had held a “Resident Forum on Central Kowloon Route”, at which the participants had expressed their strong dissatisfaction with the Government. He suggested that the YTMDC should write to the CE, the ExCo and the LegCo to reiterate its demand. 112. Mr CHAN Siu-tong suggested that Mr Benny YEUNG should request writing to the CE to reiterate the call for response to the demand of the YTMDC. Otherwise, the CKR project should be suspended. 113. Mr Tony LOK responded as follows:

(i) The EIA of the CKR had been conducted by an independent engineering consultant engaged by the HyD, and the noise and air quality assessments conducted had been in compliance with the requirements of the EPD.

(ii) According to the findings of the consultant’s assessment, the change of the

proposed noise barriers along Gascoigne Road Flyover off Prosperous Garden from semi enclosures to full enclosures would make no significant difference in improving the air quality of Yau Ma Tei District.

(iii) After the implementation of the mitigation measures proposed in the EIA

Report, the noise level at the neighbouring noise sensitive receivers facing Gascoigne Road Flyover would be reduced by a maximum of 10 decibels and an average of 3 decibels. The noise level at the noise sensitive receivers at Blocks 3 and 4 could also be reduced by up to 7 decibels.

- 21 -

114. Ms Michelle TANG opined that apart from the data shown in the EIA Report, the HyD should also cater for the demands of residents affected by the CKR project. 115. Ms KWAN Sau-ling urged the Government to reconsider including full enclosure noise barriers along Gascoigne Road Flyover (Yau Ma Tei Section) in the CKR project as demanded by the YTMDC and residents in Yau Ma Tei District.

116. Mr Benny YEUNG said that as no Councillor had raised objection to the resolution passed at the YTMDC meeting on 12 December 2013, he suggested that the YTMDC should write to the CE, the ExCo, the LegCo and the Secretary for Transport and Housing to demand the Government to accept the resolution. If the Secretary for Transport and Housing still failed to respond to the demand of the YTMDC, he should step down.

117. Mr Tony LOK responded that upon completion of the public engagement exercise for the CKR project, the HyD had responded to the comments collected by the proposed retrofitting of cantilevered noise barriers in addition to semi enclosures off Block 1 of Prosperous Garden.

118. The Chairman enquired if Councillors agreed to write to the CE, the ExCo, the LegCo and the Secretary for Transport and Housing concerning this item.

119. Mr HUI Tak-leung would like to know whether the YTMDC’s aim of writing to the parties concerned was to request the LegCo to veto the funding application for the CKR project, or to demand the LegCo to accept the resolution passed at the YTMDC meeting on 12 December 2013, or to urge the Secretary for Transport and Housing to step down.

120. The Chairman responded that some Councillors had suggested that the YTMDC should write to the CE, the ExCo, the LegCo and the Secretary for Transport and Housing to demand the Government to accept the resolution passed at the YTMDC meeting on 12 December 2013. He asked if Councillors agreed to such suggestion. There was no objection.

(Post-meeting note: The Chairman had written to the CE, the ExCo, the LegCo and the

Secretary for Transport and Housing in the name of the YTMDC (Annexes 5 to 8) to express the demand of Councillors on 23 June 2016.

121. The Chairman thanked the representatives of the HyD for joining the discussion on this item. Item 11: Calling for Stricter Supervision over Employment Agencies (“EAs”) Placing

Foreign Domestic Helpers (“FDHs”) to Protect Rights of Employers (YTMDC Paper No. 54/2016)

122. The Chairman welcomed Ms Queenie WONG, Assistant Commissioner for Labour (Policy Support) of the LD to the meeting.

-----

- 22 -

123. Mr LAU Pak-kei supplemented the contents of the paper and raised the following views: i) the Government should impose severe punishment on EAs in breach of the relevant codes and legislation, including immediate revocation of their operating licences; ii) he suggested the Government require FDHs coming to work in Hong Kong again to provide proof of entry to their places of domicile upon expiry or termination of their last employment contracts in their new employment visa applications for consideration; iii) a probation period for FDHs should be introduced, during which employers who dismissed their FDHs should be exempted from paying one month’s wages in lieu of notice; and iv) he requested the Government to step up inspections to EAs and follow up on EAs that had been repeatedly complained against to protect the rights of employers. 124. Ms Queenie WONG gave a PowerPoint presentation to briefly introduce the draft Code of Practice for Employment Agencies (“CoP”). The titles of the PowerPoint slides included “Regulation of EAs”, “Contents of the Draft CoP”, “Implementation of the CoP” and “Public Education”. She stated that the draft CoP had been released in April 2016 and the public consultation period would last until 17 June 2016. (Mr HUI Tak-leung left the meeting at 6:10 p.m.) 125. Mr LAU Pak-kei raised the following enquiries and views: i) whether the Commissioner for Labour (“C for L”) had revoked the licences of any EAs placing FDHs; ii) how long it had taken for the C for L to revoke the licences of such EAs; and iii) whether the LD would consider exempting employers who dismissed their FDHs during the probation period from paying one month’s wages in lieu of notice. 126. Mr CHUNG Kong-mo considered that the Employment Ordinance (“EO”) did not offer adequate protection to employers and raised the following enquiries: i) whether the LD maintained a “blacklist” of EAs placing FDHs; and ii) how the LD would penalise EAs that had been repeatedly complained against. He added that some FDHs did not match the descriptions, and some had even colluded with EAs to induce their employers to terminate their employment contracts at the early stage. 127. Mr Craig JO held that the draft CoP had no deterrent effect at all, and hence might not be effective in enhancing the professional standard and service quality of EAs. He also enquired of the LD about the number of surprise inspections to EAs conducted and prosecutions instituted. 128. Ms KWAN Sau-ling hoped that the LD would strengthen the regulation of EAs to further protect the rights of employers. 129. Mr LAM Kin-man raised the following requests and enquiries: i) the LD should investigate whether some FDHs had colluded with disreputable EAs to defraud their employers; ii) how many complaints the LD had received about conspiracy to defraud employers jointly by FDHs and EAs; and iii) what measures the LD had in place to plug the loopholes. 130. Ms Queenie WONG responded as follows:

- 23 -

(i) Since 2014, the LD had increased the number of inspections to EAs from 1 300 to 1 800 per year. In 2014, the LD had conducted 1 806 inspections to EAs, with 1 352 inspections made to EAs placing FDHs. In 2015, the LD had conducted 1 803 inspections to EAs, with 1 348 inspections made to EAs placing FDHs. As at the end of March 2016, the LD had conducted 563 inspections to EAs, with 422 inspections made to EAs placing FDHs. The LD would conduct inspections to EAs regularly and upon receipt of complaints.

(ii) In 2014 and 2015, the LD had received 170 and 176 complaints respectively, of which 114 and 102 had involved overcharging of commission on FDHs.

(iii) Under the existing provisions of the EO and the Employment Agency Regulations (“EAR”), the LD would check if an EA was unlicensed and whether the commission charged on the job-seeker exceeded 10% of his/her first month’s wages. Nevertheless, complaints about service quality, which were not under the purview of the EO and the EAR, might have to be directed to other departments or the Consumer Council.

(iv) In 2014, the LD had successfully prosecuted four EAs, mainly for unlicensed operation or overcharging of commission. In 2015, the LD had successfully prosecuted 12 EAs, among which nine had been convicted of overcharging job-seekers. In 2016, two EAs had been successfully prosecuted by the LD for overcharging of commission so far.

(v) The draft CoP required EAs to enter into service agreements with FDH job-seekers and employers and to provide them with payment receipts, so that employers could recover their payments with the agreements or receipts in the future. Besides, it was stated in the draft CoP that EA licensees should act honestly and exercise due diligence in their operation, and EAs were responsible for checking the accuracy of the information provided in the resume of FDHs. The LD wished to regulate the trade practices of EAs through the CoP. If violation of the CoP was substantiated, the department would issue warnings to the non-compliant EAs or even revoke their licences.

(vi) In 2014, three EAs had been prosecuted and had their licences revoked for overcharging commission or unlicensed operation, or because the C for L had considered the licensee not a fit and proper person to operate an EA. Furthermore, the LD had also refused to renew two EA licences. In 2015, the LD had revoked or refused to renew five EA licences.

(vii) The LD wished to enhance the professional standard of the EA industry with the introduction of the CoP. The Secretary for Labour and Welfare had indicated at a LegCo meeting that if the effectiveness of the CoP was far from satisfactory, the LD might consider seeking legislative amendments in the future.

- 24 -

(viii) An employer was required to enter into a Standard Employment Contract (“SEC”) with an FDH for the employment of the latter. An equivalent clause applicable to both parties should be stipulated in the SEC that either party might terminate the contract by giving one month’s notice in writing or one month’s wages in lieu of notice. As regards a Councillor’s suggestion of exempting both parties from paying one month’s wages in lieu of notice during the probation period, this could possibly lower the cost of premature termination of contract for FDHs greatly and encourage “job-hopping”. Thus, the LD had to consider the above suggestion carefully.

(ix) Regarding a Councillor’s remark that some FDHs had abused the premature contract termination arrangements, the Immigration Department (“ImmD”) had stepped up scrutiny of such abuse. She would also convey such remark to the ImmD.

131. Ms Michelle TANG commented that the CoP might not have a deterrent effect. She suggested that the LD compile a “blacklist” of FDHs who had abused the arrangements of premature contract termination for EAs’ reference. She also hoped the LD enhance public education in order to familiarise FDHs and employers with their rights and responsibilities. 132. Mr LAU Pak-kei raised the following views: i) the number of complaints received by the LD was so low only because complaints that the services provided by EAs were unsatisfactory or did not match with the service agreements would not be handled; and ii) he urged the LD to strike a balance between the rights of employers and FDHs when drawing up the CoP. 133. Mr CHUNG Kong-mo raised the following enquiries and views: i) in case the services provided by EAs did not match with the service agreements, whether consumers had to resort to the Trade Descriptions Ordinance (“TDO”) for follow-up, and if yes, which department was responsible for taking follow-up action; and ii) the record on conspiracy to defraud employers jointly by FDHs and EAs should be taken by the LD as one of the considerations to assess the renewal of the licences of the EAs concerned. 134. Mr Benny YEUNG enquired if the LD would include FDHs or EAs that had repeatedly violated the provisions of the EO and the CoP on a “blacklist” and whether such information would be made available to the public. He saw the list to be of value to employers wishing to hire FDHs. 135. Ms Queenie WONG responded as follows:

(i) Under the EO and the EAR enforced by the LD, enforcement actions would be taken against unlicensed operation and overcharging of commission by EAs.

(ii) The TDO was enforced by the Customs and Excise Department. Upon receipt of complaints that the services provided by EAs did not match with the service agreements, the Employment Agencies Administration of the LD would refer the complaints that were outside the purview of the LD to the relevant law enforcement department for follow-up.

- 25 -

(iii) In the future, the LD would issue warning letters to EAs which violated the provisions of the CoP or even revoke their licences.

(iv) After an FDH entered into an SEC with an employer, her visa application would be processed directly by the ImmD. Therefore, the LD would have no access to the information on the “blacklist” of FDHs. She noted that the ImmD had stepped up scrutiny of “job-hopping” among FDHs. She would also relay Councillors’ concerns to the ImmD.

(v) At present, the LD would disseminate information of convictions or licence revocations of EAs to the public via press releases.

(vi) She welcomed Councillors to submit their comments and suggestions on the draft CoP in writing on or before 17 June 2016.

136. The Chairman thanked the representative of the LD for joining the discussion on this item. Item 12: Strong Request for Government Enquiry to Examine Whether the Link Has

Breached Competition Law, as well as to Consider Buying Back the Link (YTMDC Paper No. 55/2016)

137. The Chairman said that the joint written response of the THB and the HD (Annex 9) and the written response of the CC (Annex 10) had been emailed to Councillors for perusal on 23 May 2016. 138. Mr LAM Kin-man supplemented the contents of the paper. He expressed his regret at the absence of representative of the CC from the meeting. He indicated that: i) as the CO had come into effect, the CC should investigate whether the substantial rental increase for carpark facilities under the Link and the contracting out of the right to operate Tsing Yi’s Cheung Fat Estate Market had involved any anti-competitive conduct under the CO; and ii) he was dissatisfied that the CC had on one hand invited the public and businesses to report any suspected contravention of the CO, and on the other hand refused to send representative to attend the meeting for reasons of investigation and protection of the interests of all persons involved. 139. Mr Andy YU raised the following views: i) the YTMDC should reprimand the THB, the HD, the CC and the Link for not sending representatives to attend the meeting; and ii) the substantial rental increase for retail and carpark facilities since their divestment by the Link had not only affected the livelihood of shop tenants and throttled their room for survival, but also added burden to the grassroots, plunging them into indescribable misery. As such, he requested the Government to consider buying back the Link. 140. Mr CHAN Siu-tong said that the Link had substantially increased the level of shop rentals under the guise of shopping mall renovation. High rentals had forced many shop tenants to move out from the Link’s shopping malls as well as pushed up the retail prices of goods in the malls, thus aggravating the burden on PRH tenants. In addition, he called upon the Link to fulfill its due social responsibility.

-----

- 26 -

(Mr CHUNG Chak-fai left the meeting at 6:48 p.m.) 141. The Vice-chairman expressed her strong discontent with the THB, the HD, the CC and the Link for not sending representatives to attend the meeting upon invitation. In addition, not only had the THB mentioned nothing about giving consideration to Councillors’ proposal in its written response, it had further stated flatly that it had “no intention to buy back the Link or its commercial facilities”. She was extremely dissatisfied with such attitude. 142. Mr Benny YEUNG opined that: i) the repeated absence of the THB from the YTMDC meetings showed its disregard for the YTMDC; ii) subject to the restrictions on the Real Estate Investment Trust, even if the Government bought back the Link and became its single largest unitholder or majority unitholder, it could not influence the Link’s decisions on such rental matters as rental adjustment and its rate, and whether to enter into tenancy agreements with large groups; and iii) buying back the Link would require substantial public resources. Many small shop tenants had already moved out from the Link’s shopping malls, and the existing ones were mostly large groups. As buying back the Link might benefit large groups only, the proposal might not be accepted by all sectors of the community. 143. The Chairman said that the original motion in YTMDC Paper No. 55/2016 was proposed by Mr Andy YU, and was seconded by the Hon James TO and Mr LAM Kin-man. The original motion was as follows:

“The YTMDC strongly requests the Government to conduct a thorough enquiry to examine whether the Link has breached the Competition Law, as well as to consider buying back the Link, so as to prevent monopolisation by the Link.”

144. The Chairman continued that Mr Benny YEUNG proposed an amended motion (Annex 11), which was seconded by Mr Benjamin CHOI. The amended motion was as follows:

“The YTMDC strongly requests the CC to conduct a thorough enquiry to examine whether the Link has breached the Competition Law and requests the Government to consider increasing the number of shops in areas where the Link has monopolised the supply of shops, including building public markets and community shopping centres, as well as setting up markets, etc., so as to prevent monopolisation by the Link.”

145. The Chairman asked Councillors to vote on the amended motion. 146. Voting result: Nine Councillors voted for the amended motion, they were Mr Benjamin CHOI, Mr CHUNG Kong-mo, Mr Derek HUNG, Mr Craig JO, Mr LAM Kin-man, Mr LAU Pak-kei, Ms Michelle TANG, Mr Benny YEUNG and Mr Andy YU. No Councillor voted against the amended motion. One Councillor abstained from voting, he was Mr WONG Kin-san. (Post-meeting note: There were only 11 Councillors in the conference room at that time.

As the Chairman did not cast his vote, a total of 10 Councillors voted.)

-----

- 27 -

147. The Chairman said that since the amended motion was passed, according to the YTMDC Standing Orders, voting on the original motion was not required. 148. The Chairman then closed the discussion on this item. Item 13: The Information Paper on Organisation of the 6th Hong Kong Games

(“HKG”) (YTMDC Paper No. 62/2016)

149. The Chairman welcomed Mr HSU Ka-man, District Leisure Manager (Yau Tsim Mong) of the LCSD to the meeting. 150. Mr HSU Ka-man briefly introduced Paper No. 62/2016. He said that the LCSD proposed the formation of the YTM District Organising Committee (“YTMOC”) to select athletes for the YTM District Team for the HKG and handle other HKG-related issues. The LCSD also proposed that the YTMOC should comprise representatives of the YTMDC, the Mong Kok District Cultural, Recreational and Sports Association, the Yaumatei and Tsimshatsui Recreation and Sports Association and the LCSD. 151. Mr Derek HUNG pointed out the three-month delay in commencing the organisation of this HKG as compared to the previous one. Therefore, he called for the early formation of the YTMOC to embark on the relevant work. 152. The Chairman asked the representative of the LCSD if he agreed with the comment of Mr Derek HUNG on forming the YTMOC as soon as possible. 153. Mr HSU Ka-man agreed. 154. The Chairman asked Councillors if they agreed with the early formation of the YTMOC. There was no objection. 155. The Chairman thanked the representative of the LCSD for joining the discussion on this item. Item 14: Progress Reports

(1) District Management Committee (YTMDC Paper No. 56/2016)

(2) Community Building Committee (YTMDC Paper No. 57/2016)

(3) District Facilities Management Committee (YTMDC Paper No. 58/2016)

(4) Traffic, Transport and Housing Committee (YTMDC Paper No. 59/2016)

(5) Food, Environmental Hygiene and Public Works Committee (YTMDC Paper No. 60/2016)

- 28 -

156. Councillors noted the contents of the progress reports. Item 15: Any Other Business

(1) “Women’s Employment” Programme Proposed by Women’s Commission (“WoC”)

157. The Chairman said that the WoC had launched the “Funding Scheme for Women’s Development” this year to provide funding support of $53,000 to each of the 18 DCs for organising activities conducive to women’s development and promoting “Women’s Employment”, its theme for 2016-17. He asked whether Councillors agreed to authorise the WG on Women’s Affairs under the YTMDC to co-ordinate the relevant activities. There was no objection.

(2) Activities with District Characteristics 158. The Chairman said that at the 3rd YTMDC meeting on 31 March 2016, Councillors had endorsed an allocation of $600,000 from the YTMDC Funds for organising three activities with district characteristics, with the allocation for each activity capped at $200,000. 159. The Chairman continued that based on the past criteria for funding applications for activities with district characteristics, applicant organisations must meet the following conditions:

(a) The registered address of the organisation was in the YTM District;

(b) The organisation was neither a political party nor a political organisation;

(c) The organisation was experienced in organising large-scale district activities;

(d) The major target groups served by the organisation were people living,

working or studying in the district; and

(e) The proposed activities should be able to promote the characteristics of the YTM District.

Furthermore, applicant organisations should comply with the Guidelines on YTMDC Funds and the terms and conditions set out in the enclosed application forms. He asked Councillors if they agreed to maintain the above criteria for funding applications. There was no objection. 160. The Chairman said that the Secretariat would upload an invitation letter to the website of the YTMDC on 2 June 2016 for two weeks, and the deadline of application would be 6:00 p.m., 16 June 2016. Thereafter, the WG on Community Funds would convene a special meeting on 8 July 2016 (Friday) to scrutinise the funding applications received preliminarily. Recommended funding applications would then be submitted to the 5th YTMDC meeting scheduled for 28 July 2016 for consideration and endorsement. There was no objection.

- 29 -

161. The Chairman asked if there was any other WG that needed to have their funding applications scrutinised preliminarily at the special meeting of the WG on Community Funds scheduled for 8 July 2016. 162. Mr Benny YEUNG said that the WG on Care for the Community had just held a meeting on 24 May 2016 and its Members had agreed to organise “Ching Chung YTM-2016” and other activities this year to promote an age-friendly community. As it took time to invite funding applications from local organisations, he hoped that the relevant funding applications could be scrutinised preliminarily at the special meeting of the WG on Community Funds. 163. Mr WONG Kin-san said that the meeting schedules of WGs of this year were different from that of previous years. For example, the Community Building Committee would convene a meeting in September this year instead of July as in the past. In addition to the WG on Care for the Community, other WGs had only held their meetings recently to discuss activities to be organised this year. As such, he suggested the Secretariat inform other WGs to refer funding applications for activities to be held before 1 November 2016 to the special meeting of the WG on Community Funds scheduled for 8 July 2016 for preliminary scrutiny if necessary.

164. The Chairman suggested the Secretariat inform each WG of the above arrangement and put funding applications for activities to be held before 1 November 2016 on the agenda of the special meeting of the WG on Community Funds. There was no objection.

(3) Appointment of Head of Delegation of YTM District Team for the 6th HKG

165. The Chairman indicated that Mr Derek HUNG had been the head of delegation of the YTM District Team for the 5th HKG. He asked Councillors whether they agreed to the nomination of Mr HUNG as the head of delegation of the YTM District Team for this HKG or they had other nominations. 166. Councillors agreed that Mr Derek HUNG would continue to be the head of delegation of the YTM District Team for this HKG. 167. The Chairman asked Mr Derek HUNG if he was willing to serve as the head of delegation of the YTM District Team for this HKG. 168. Mr Derek HUNG expressed his willingness to take up this post. He said that he would work closely with the dedicated staff of the LCSD and the YTMDO to identify the managers and sponsors of various sports teams (including athletics, badminton, basketball, futsal, swimming, table tennis, tennis and volleyball) and the cheering team as soon as possible, and would report the progress to the YTMDC in due course. Furthermore, the HKG Organising Committee (“HKGOC”) would hold its first meeting on 27 May 2016. He would report its details to the YTMDC on a timely basis. 169. Mr CHAN Siu-tong queried why the nomination of Mr Derek HUNG, which had already been agreed by circulation, had to be reconfirmed at this meeting. He also wondered why circulation of paper was required before a meeting at which Councillors would be

- 30 -

consulted on a certain issue with the consent of the Chairman. He found the above procedures cumbersome and unnecessary. He agreed to the nomination of Mr Derek HUNG as the head of delegation of the YTM District Team for this HKG. He continued that the HKGOC would hold its first meeting on the following day, but the members of the YTM District Team had not yet been selected. He was worried that the delegation could not be formed on time. (Post-meeting note: The Secretariat had consulted Councillors on the nomination of Mr

Derek HUNG as the head of delegation of the YTM District Team for the 6th HKG by circulation on 11 May 2016 (YTMDC Paper No. 45/2016). Councillors had expressed their support for the nomination.)

170. The Secretary responded that in general, the Secretariat would forward papers from government departments to the Chairman for deciding on whether to consult Councillors by circulation or arrange for discussion at the YTMDC meetings. The Secretariat would prioritise the papers according to the reply deadlines requested by the relevant departments to facilitate decision-making by the Chairman. 171. Mr Derek HUNG contended that it was more desirable to confirm the circulation result at the meeting. Given the tight schedule, he would identify the deputy head of delegation, chief manager as well as managers of various sports teams as soon as possible. He also enquired if there was a need for confirmation of the composition arrangements of the YTM District Team at the next meeting. 172. The Chairman responded that he had already liaised with Mr Derek HUNG before the meeting. The circulation result was confirmed at this meeting merely in response to the report of the LCSD representative on the organisation of the 6th HKG. He also asked Councillors if they agreed to authorise Mr HUNG to follow up on the composition arrangements of the YTM District Team in the capacity of the head of delegation. There was no objection. 173. The Chairman asked Mr Derek HUNG to report on the composition of the delegation by circulation of paper. He could also report at a future meeting if he could accommodate the meeting schedule. 174. There being no other business, the Chairman closed the meeting at 7:08 p.m. The next meeting would be held at 2:30 p.m. on 28 July 2016 (Thursday). Yau Tsim Mong District Council Secretariat June 2016

- 31 -

油尖旺區議會第52/2016號文件

(供2016年5月26日區議會會議參考)

私營安老院發牌準則私營安老院發牌準則私營安老院發牌準則私營安老院發牌準則 目的目的目的目的

本文件旨在回應蔡少峰議員及關秀玲議員對私營安老院發

牌準則的關注。

安老院舍發牌制度的背景資料安老院舍發牌制度的背景資料安老院舍發牌制度的背景資料安老院舍發牌制度的背景資料

2. 於 1996 年 6 月 1 日全面生效的《安老院條例》（第 459

章）及《安老院規例》（第 459A 章），確立了由社會福利署（社署）

署長負責安老院的發牌及規管機制，並規定所有安老院均須領有牌照，

而牌照所規管的範疇則包括保健、衞生、人手、選址、處所設計、結

構、防火措施、以及院舍面積，以全面保障長者住客的福祉。社署署長

根據《安老院條例》第 22 條發出《安老院實務守則》(《實務守

則》)，列出經營、料理或管理安老院的原則、程序、指引及標準。

3. 社署安老院牌照事務處（牌照處）負責審批安老院的牌照

申請及牌照續期申請。牌照處有四隊專業的督察隊伍，即社工督察、保

健衞生督察、屋宇安全督察及消防安全督察。在批出牌照前，會先進行

巡查以確定有關安老院符合《安老院條例》、《安老院規例》及《實務

守則》的要求，才發出安老院牌照，牌照處並持續監管安老院的運作。

安老院牌照事務處安老院牌照事務處安老院牌照事務處安老院牌照事務處發牌準則發牌準則發牌準則發牌準則

4. 牌照處在審批安老院牌照申請的過程中，如收到市民對牌

照申請的查詢或意見，牌照處會將查詢或意見交予有關專業督察隊以根

據有關法例及《實務守則》作出考慮，並向查詢人士作出回覆。此外，

牌照處亦鼓勵安老院經營者與鄰近居民或地區人士溝通，以促進區內不

同人士對安老院運作的了解和協作。

5. 就關注區內一私營安老院獲發牌事宜，社署不適宜評論個

別牌照申請的詳情，但整體而言，所有安老院均須接受牌照處的屋宇安

全督察及消防安全督察的巡查，以確定有關處所符合《安老院條例》、

《安老院規例》及《實務守則》的要求。有關無障礙通道的建築物規例

於 1997 年實施，而在 1997 年以前落成的建築物已符合當時的建築物

規例，如在 1997 年以前落成的建築物開設安老院，經營者須確保提供

- 2 -

足夠人手，以協助有需要人士（包括輪椅使用者）進出大廈及安老院，

而有關安老院亦已提供輔助設備以協助有需要人士進出大廈及安老院。

6. 另外，所有安老院均須遵守消防處及社署有關消防安全及

防火措施所訂下的規定，安老院並必須擬定緊急疏散計劃及最少每 6 個

月進行火警演習一次，而有關安老院亦已邀請消防處派員於 2015 年 11

月 24 日參與該院的火警演習，安老院其後再於 2016 年 5 月 2 日進行以

火警演習，上述兩次火警演習均順利舉行。

安老院舍發牌程序的檢討安老院舍發牌程序的檢討安老院舍發牌程序的檢討安老院舍發牌程序的檢討

7. 社署已備悉居民對安老院發牌機制的不同意見。在提升質

素和加強監管安老院舍方面，我們會把社會福利署轄下的「安老院牌照

事務處」及「殘疾人士院舍牌照事務處」合併，並增加人手，訂立全面

的策略，在短中長期全面提升這些院舍的質素，並加強巡查和監管，希

望能讓市民有充分的信心。

總結總結總結總結

8. 請各議員備悉本文件的內容。

社會福利署

九龍城及油尖旺區福利辦事處

2016年5月

香港灣仔皇后大道東 213 號

胡忠大廈 36 樓 3601 室

Room 3601, 36/F, Wu Chung House,

213 Queen’s Road East, Wanchai, Hong Kong

T: +852 3462 2118 F: +852 2522 4997

Website: www. compcomm.hk

附件 A

回應

《競爭條例》(《條例》) 已於 2015年 12月 14日起全面生效。《條例》旨在透過禁止反

競爭行為來促進競爭。

《條例》禁止三種類別的反競爭行為，在「第一行為守則」、「第二行為守則」及

「合併守則」中分別予以描述。

「第一行為守則」禁止企業訂立其目的或效果是損害在香港之競爭的協議、決定和經協

調做法。合謀行為，包括與競爭對手合謀定價、瓜分巿場，圍標或限制產量，在《條例》

下更屬於嚴重反競爭行為。

根據「第二行為守則」，市場上具有相當程度市場權勢的企業，不得濫用該權勢去

損害競爭。舉例來說，可能違反「第二行為守則」的行為包括掠奪性定價和反競爭

的捆綁式銷售及搭售等。

「合併守則」禁止會大幅減弱在香港的競爭之合併。目前，合併守則僅適用於直接或間

接持有根據《電訊條例》(第 106章) 批出的傳送者牌照的業務實體。

公眾作出的投訴及查詢，是競爭事務委員會 (競委會) 察悉可能違反《條例》的情況的一

個重要渠道。競委會呼籲公眾和商界舉報懷疑違反《條例》的個案。

根據《條例》，競委會雖可自行進行調查，競委會必須在有合理懷疑違反競爭守則曾發

生、正發生或即將發生，方可展開調查。

正如競委會在其「調查指引」中概述，為了能有效地進行調查及保障有關各方的利益，

對於會否考慮或調查甚麼事宜，競委會一般不會作公開評論。

競爭事務委員會

2016年 5月

香港灣仔皇后大道東 213 號

胡忠大廈 36 樓 3601 室

Room 3601, 36/F, Wu Chung House,

213 Queen’s Road East, Wanchai, Hong Kong

T: +852 3462 2118 F: +852 2522 4997

Website: www. compcomm.hk

Annex A

Reply

The Competition Ordinance (Ordinance) has been in full effect since 14 December 2015. The Ordinance is designed to promote competition and prohibit anti-competitive practices.

The Ordinance prohibits three types of anti-competitive conduct described under the First Conduct Rule (FCR), the Second Conduct Rule (SCR) and the Merger Rule.

The FCR prohibits agreements, decisions and concerted practices among businesses which have the object or effect of harming competition in Hong Kong. Cartel conduct in particular, which includes agreement between competitors to fix prices, share markets, rig bids or restrict output, is serious anti-competitive conduct under the Ordinance.

Under the SCR, businesses with a substantial degree of market power are prohibited from abusing that power to harm competition. Examples of conduct which may contravene the SCR include predatory pricing, anti-competitive tying and bundling etc.

The Merger Rule prohibits mergers between businesses which substantially lessen competition in Hong Kong. At present, the Merger Rule only applies to mergers involving an undertaking that directly or indirectly holds a carrier licence issued under the Telecommunications Ordinance (Cap. 106).

The Competition Commission (Commission) relies on complaints and queries from the public as an important means of identifying possible contraventions of the Ordinance. Members of the public and businesses are invited to report to the Commission any suspected contraventions.

According to the Ordinance, while the Commission may conduct an investigation of its own volition, the Commission may only do so if it has reasonable cause to suspect that a contravention of a competition rule has taken place, is taking place or is about to take place.

As mentioned in the Commission's guideline on investigations, to support its ability to conduct effective investigations and to protect the interests of all persons involved, the Commission will generally not comment on what matters it is considering or investigating.

Competition Commission May 2016