The Government today (June 27) announced the appointment of the Chairperson and members of the Advisory Committee on Admission of Quality Migrants and Professionals for a two-year term from July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2020. … read more
The effective exchange rate index for the Hong Kong dollar on Wednesday, June 27, 2018 is 101.9 (up 0.5 against yesterday’s index). read more
Following is a question by the Hon Kenneth Leung and a written reply by the Secretary for Food and Health, Professor Sophia Chan, in the Legislative Council today (June 27):
Question:
In December 2016, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) launched a six-month pilot scheme on installation of Internet Protocol (IP) cameras (the Scheme) to step up combating acts of illegal refuse deposits. Extended since the 6th of this month, the Scheme will gradually cover the various districts across the territory, with the number of illegal refuse deposit blackspots to be installed with cameras increasing to 80. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether, in the past two years, the FEHD (i) deployed staff to step up patrols at the aforesaid 80 blackspots and investigated the peak hours for illegal refuse deposits, as well as (ii) took other measures to combat acts of illegal refuse deposits at such places; if patrols were stepped up, of the number of such patrols and the number of prosecutions instituted; if other measures were taken, of the details and the manpower involved;
(2) of (i) the costs and unit cost to be incurred as well as the cost breakdown, and (ii) the manpower to be deployed, for the Scheme in the current financial year;
(3) of the anticipated completion time for installing the cameras; the resolution of the cameras and how many pixels the recorded footage has; whether the recording system is equipped with face recognition function; whether the cameras are operated on a round-the-clock basis; of the methods for storage and transmission of the footage recorded and whether encryption has been made; if encryption has been made, of the standard applied;
(4) whether any staff members from outsourced service contractors are involved in the operation of the Scheme; if so, of the measures put in place to prevent such staff members from intruding on the privacy of members of the public; whether the FEHD has deployed staff to conduct real-time surveillance of the images captured by the cameras; of the measures put in place to ensure that the Scheme is operated in compliance with the six data protection principles set out in Schedule 1 to the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486); the reasons why the FEHD has not consulted the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data on the implementation of the Scheme;
(5) given that, at present, any footage recorded by police officers using their body worn video cameras, which does not carry any investigative or evidential value or is not suitable for training or review purposes, must be deleted after 31 days from the date it was produced, of the justifications for the FEHD to keep its recorded footage for as long as six months;
(6) as the FEHD has stated that the information collected from the footage is for the purpose of identifying the patterns of the acts of illegal refuse deposits with a view to formulating more effective law enforcement actions, whether the same purpose can be achieved through FEHD deploying staff to conduct on-site surveillance; if so, whether it has assessed if the collection of personal data through the Scheme complies with the following provisions under Principle 1 of the Data Protection Principles: (i) the data is adequate but not excessive in relation to the purpose, and (ii) subject to the said provision, the collection of the data is necessary for the purpose;
(7) of the number of prosecutions instituted by the FEHD since December 2016 using the footage recorded under the Scheme as evidence against people who had illegally deposited refuse and, among such cases, the number of convictions; and
(8) of the respective numbers of occasions since December 2016 on which the FEHD has (i) provided the footage recorded under the Scheme to other government departments, and (ii) approved staff members from other government departments to conduct real-time surveillance of the blackspots through the Scheme (broken down by name of department and reason for making such a request), as well as the procedure for vetting and approval of such requests?
Reply:
President,
The staff of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) pay special attention to the situation of illegal refuse deposit blackspots during their routine work. Illegal deposit of refuse or feeding of wild birds by some people are often found at these blackspots, thereby causing environmental hygiene problems and affecting streetscape. The FEHD has to arrange clean-ups and conduct blitz operations and take enforcement actions, which requires enormous manpower resources and affects FEHD’s daily operation, but lacks significant and long-lasting effects. In view of the above, the FEHD launched a six-month pilot scheme on installation of Internet Protocol (IP) cameras at a total of six refuse deposit blackspots in Central and Western, Sham Shui Po and Yuen Long districts in late December 2016, which has effectively curbed illegal deposits of refuse through targeted surveillance and enforcement actions. Given the encouraging results, the FEHD has, after consulting all District Councils, extended the scheme to cover some 80 refuse deposit blackspots in the territory for a trial period of one year.
My reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:
(1) The FEHD often reviews its enforcement approach in tackling illegal refuse deposit blackspots in various districts. To address the environmental hygiene problems caused by frequent illegal deposits of refuse and waste at individual blackspots at midnight or in early morning, the FEHD has stepped up publicity, education, scavenging and enforcement efforts. Among the some 80 target blackspots under the scheme, the FEHD instituted 153 and 248 prosecutions in 2016 and 2017 respectively. As this is part of the day to day work of the FEHD, it is not possible to give a breakdown on the manpower involved.
(2) The total cost of the one-year service contract for the installation of IP cameras is about $12.7 million. As the implementation of the IP camera system is part of the day to day work of the FEHD, it is not possible to give a breakdown on the manpower involved.
(3) IP cameras will be installed in two phases at some 80 refuse deposit blackspots over the territory. Phase I started on June 6, 2018 with cameras installed at 46 blackspots, while phase II is anticipated to commence in early October with cameras to be installed at more than 30 other blackspots. The IP camera system mainly records the situation at illegal refuse deposit blackspots and does not have any facial recognition function. The IP cameras operate on a round-the-clock basis. The storage and transmission of data are all encrypted and comply with the Government’s requirements on information technology security.
(4) Rental, installation and maintenance services of the IP cameras are provided by the FEHD contractor. According to the service contract, the contractor shall observe and comply with the requirements specified in the contract regarding protection of personal data, operation, physical security and information technology security. Only authorised staff of the contractor are allowed to handle the video recordings. They have to sign an undertaking for compliance with and execution of the contract requirements. FEHD staff will conduct regular checks at the contractor’s offices and server rooms storing the video recordings to ensure the contractor and its staff’s observance and compliance with the contract requirements. Before implementation of the scheme, the FEHD has sought advice from the Department of Justice (DoJ) regarding the implementation details to ensure that the operation is in compliance with the laws of Hong Kong, including the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486) (the Ordinance) and the data protection principles.
(5) Footage without suspected cases being captured will normally be deleted forthwith after random checking (approximately within one month). For cases that prosecution may be instituted, staff of the FEHD may take some time to conduct investigation basing on the images captured. Since the statutory time limit for prosecution is generally six months from the date of the incident, the video recordings may be retained for a maximum period of six months or until the completion of investigation. In the event that the recordings shall be produced as evidence in court, the FEHD is required to retain them until the conclusion of the case.
(6) Although the FEHD has stepped up publicity, education, scavenging and enforcement efforts, illegal deposits of refuse has worsened, which has aroused dissatisfaction among the public. Therefore, the FEHD installed IP cameras at the refuse deposit blackspots to enhance the monitoring of the time and patterns of the offences, based on which more effective enforcement actions could be planned.
On-site surveillance at the blackspots to collect information and take enforcement actions requires a lot of manpower resources. Moreover, the effects are not significant and long-lasting. The installation of IP cameras can facilitate FEHD’s work to combat illegal deposit of refuse and enhance deterrence. In addition, staff of the FEHD may apply the real-time surveillance function of IP cameras in blitz operations at blackspots and initiate on-the-spot enforcement against the offenders at high time of illegal activities.
The main aim of installing IP cameras is to record the situation of the blackspots rather than to collect information of the persons identified. Before extending the scheme to all districts, the FEHD has sought DoJ’s advice again on the implementation details to ensure that the implementation of the scheme is in compliance with the laws of Hong Kong, including the Ordinance, and the data protection principles.
(7) As at May 31, 2018, the FEHD has used the footage recorded under the scheme to analyse the patterns of offences and/or as evidence against people who had illegally deposited refuse in 79 cases, among which convictions were secured in 72 cases.
(8) The FEHD has provided the Hong Kong Police Force with four video recordings and the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department with one video recording in response to their requests for enforcement and investigation purposes. If other Government departments would like to obtain the footage taken by the FEHD for enforcement actions and prosecutions, the FEHD will consider the requests in accordance with section 58 of the Ordinance. read more
Following is a question by the Hon Tommy Cheung and a written reply by the Secretary for Food and Health, Professor Sophia Chan, in the Legislative Council today (June 27):
Question:
Under the existing legislation, liquor licences may be issued only to natural persons but not body corporates and companies. For trade facilitation, the Government has implemented since March last year a Reserve Licensee Mechanism (RLM), allowing a liquor licensee to identify and nominate at an early stage a suitable person as a reserve licensee to take over the duty of the licensee within a short period in case of sudden departure of the licensee. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective numbers of applications for nomination of a reserve licensee received and approved by the authorities since the implementation of RLM; among the bars and other types of restaurants which have been issued with liquor licences, the respective current numbers and percentages of those that have a reserve licensee;
(2) as some members of the catering industry have relayed that under the existing requirements, an application for nomination of a reserve licensee may only be submitted together with an application for new issue, transfer or renewal of liquor licence, whether the authorities will consider permitting liquor licensees to submit applications for nomination of a reserve licensee at any time during the licence period, with a view to enhancing the flexibility of RLM; if so, of the implementation timetable; if not, the reasons for that;
(3) of the number of applications, received by the authorities since the implementation of RLM, for authorisation of a reserve licensee to manage a liquor-licensed premises (together with a breakdown by whether the liquor-licensed premises were bars or other types of restaurants), as well as the average time taken for processing those applications; and
(4) whether it has reviewed the effectiveness of RLM; if it has reviewed and the outcome is that RLM is ineffective, whether the authorities will consider afresh the proposal of permitting liquor licences to be held by body corporates or companies; if so, of the implementation timetable; if not, the reasons for that?
Reply:
President,
The Liquor Licensing Board (LLB) implemented the Reserve Licensee Mechanism (RLM) on March 28, 2017, under which a liquor licensee can identify and nominate at an early stage a suitable person as a reserve licensee. The reserve licensee can take over the role of the licensee as soon as possible in case of his/her departure under predictable or unforeseen circumstances, so as to avoid disruption to the liquor selling business and allay the concern of the trade over the sudden departure of the “natural person”. At present, an application for nomination of reserve licensee can be submitted together with the application for new issue, renewal or transfer of liquor licence. Should there be a sudden departure of the liquor licensee, the business owner or operator can apply for authorisation of the nominated reserve licensee to temporarily manage the liquor-licensed premises, and the owner or operator can meanwhile formally apply to the LLB for transfer or new issue of liquor licence.
My reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:
(1) From March 28, 2017 to May 31 this year, the LLB received 2 733 applications for nomination of reserve licensee, of which 1 652 were approved. As at May 31 this year, the numbers and percentages of liquor-licensed premises where their applications for nomination of reserve licensee have been approved, with a breakdown by the type of liquor licence (with or without bar endorsement), are set out as follows:
| Type of liquor licence | Total number of liquor-licensed premises | Nomination of reserve licensee | ||
| Number of applications received | Number of applications approved | Percentage in the total number of liquor licences of the type | ||
| With bar endorsement (Note 1) | 1 236 | 588 | 318 | 25.7 per cent |
| Without bar endorsement | 7 004 | 2 145 | 1 334 | 19 per cent |
| Total: | 8 240 | 2 733 (Note 2) | 1 652 | – |
| Type of liquor licence |
Authorisation of reserve licensee | |
| Number of applications | Number of applications approved | |
| With bar endorsement | 5 | 3 |
| Without bar endorsement | 16 | 11 |
| Total | 21 (Note 3) | 14 |
Following is a question by the Hon Lam Cheuk-ting and a written reply by the Secretary for Transport and Housing, Mr Frank Chan Fan, in the Legislative Council today (June 27):
Question:
During the period from July 2010 to May 2012, the Finance Committee of this Council approved the allocation of funds respectively for carrying out a number of works under the Shatin to Central Link (SCL) project, including: (a) Protection Works at Causeway Bay Typhoon Shelter (58TR), (b) Protection Works in Wan Chai Development Phase II (59TR), (c) Construction of Railway Works – Advance Works (63TR), (d) Construction of Non-railway Works – Advance Works (64TR), (e) Construction of Railway Main Works (61TR), and (f) Construction of Non-railway Main Works (62TR). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) regarding each of the aforesaid works, of (i) the original estimated expenditure and a breakdown of the expenditure, (ii) the latest estimated expenditure/ the final outturn expenditure and a breakdown of the expenditure, and (iii) the reasons leading to differences between the two sets of figures;
(2) of the names of the (i) main contractor(s) and (ii) subcontractor(s) of each of the works; and
(3) given that the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) has been entrusted by the Government to undertake the construction, testing and commissioning of SCL, and to provide management and supervision services, how the Government monitors such work undertaken by MTRCL; of the mechanism in place for MTRCL to report to the Government the works progress and irregularities of the works?
Reply:
President,
In response to the three parts of the Hon Lam Cheuk-ting’s question, the reply is now as follows:
(1) As regards each of the works under the Shatin to Central Link (SCL) project, (i) the original estimated expenditure and a breakdown of the expenditure, (ii) the latest estimated expenditure/ the final outturn expenditure and a breakdown of the expenditure, and (iii) the reasons leading to differences between the two sets of figures are listed at Annex 1.
As regards items 61TR and 62TR of the SCL project, after the Government received the latest cost estimate of the main works of the SCL project from the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) last December, the Highways Department (HyD), in collaboration with the monitoring and verification (M&V) consultant, has held several meetings with the MTRCL, and has reviewed rigorously the information given by the MTRCL. The HyD has also scrutinised the assumptions and background of the estimates according to the usual practice for government public works projects to ascertain whether there are sufficient reasons for the estimate of the MTRCL. As the SCL project involves many works contracts and there is substantial amount of information for detailed examination, the HyD has requested the MTRCL to provide more information for its detailed review. The review concerned is still under way. Upon completion of the detailed review, the Government will apply for additional funds from the Legislative Council to continue with the works under the SCL project.
(2) Item 58TR is “Shatin to Central Link – construction of railway works – protection works”. The main contractor is China State Construction Engineering (HK) Limited and the main subcontractor is Richwell Engineering Limited.
Item 59TR is “Shatin to Central Link – construction of railway works – protection works in Wan Chai Development Phase II”. The main contractor is Chun Wo – Leader Joint Venture and the main subcontractors are Sambo E & C Company Limited, Falcon Foundation Engineering Company Limited, Chung Ming Construction Engineering Limited and Tin Wo Engineering Company Limited etc.
Items 63TR and 64TR are “Shatin to Central Link – construction of railway works – advance works” and “Shatin to Central Link – construction of non-railway works – advance works” respectively. The list of major contractors under main contracts and the major sub-contractors are at Annex 2.
Items 61TR and 62TR are “Shatin to Central Link – construction of railway works – remaining works” and “Shatin to Central Link – construction of non-railway works – remaining works” respectively. The list of major contractors under main contracts and the major sub-contractors are at Annex 3.
(3) The Government has had a mechanism to closely monitor the work of the MTRCL, including through the Project Supervision Committee led by the Director of Highways, holding monthly meetings with the Projects Director of MTRCL to review the progress of the SCL project, as well as monitoring procurement activities, post-tender award cost control and resolution of contractual claims. The MTRCL submits monthly progress report to the HyD updating the latest progress and the financial situation of the SCL project. In addition, the HyD and the MTRCL hold monthly Project Coordination Meetings and Project Progress Meetings to monitor the progress of every item of works under the project and to deal with matters relating to design, construction and environment which may have potential impact on the progress and programme of the project and interface with other projects. Through the above arrangement of three-tier framework, the MTRCL needs to report to the HyD on matters which have substantial impact on the SCL project such as works progress, cost and safety etc. The HyD has also engaged a M&V consultant to assist the department in monitoring and auditing the works. The M&V consultant will also report on whether there are risks of slippage in the progress of the projects and advise the HyD on the appropriateness of the delay recovery measures proposed by the MTRCL. The Director of Highways also holds project progress meetings with the Secretary for Transport and Housing (the Secretary) on a monthly basis and submits reports to the Secretary on the progress of the project and to raise any important matters relating to the project as required. read more