Pl Report For Exco On 14.11

PL report for exco on 14.11.06 Attachment 1 is the budget paper for FS after amendments since the last discussion. Please approve Attachment 2 is the legco issues for the coming two weeks. Motion debates for this coming Wed (1) co-operation with the pan Pearl River Delta – (2) transport needs for the disabled. The only problem relates to an amendment by Tommy Cheung deleting the reference to setting a quota for the employment of disabled people. Fernando will liaise with DAB and the pan democrats to see if we can have a common position on that. For next Wed: moved by Ronny Tong (1) universal suffrage of CE in 2012 (2) moved by James Tien on casino. Please note the wording of James Tien’s motion, it is asking the government to consider the feasibility of a gaming centre in Lantau and to go for territory wide consultation. We have often in the past criticized the LP for failing even to agree to a consultation. It seems we are doing the same if we object to even a consultation unless it is something wrong as a matter of principle and I have already explained my personal position on this in my earlier e mails to all of you. I do not consider it wrong as a matter of principle. Each person is responsible for his own behaviour and gaming is not per se illegal. Thus I prefer not to have to vote on this motion at all. As an alternative, it is suggested at the parliamentary group meeting on Monday that CP should consider amending the motion with a preamble asking for a territory wide consultation as to whether the government should change its policy on gaming – namely it will not encourage gaming and at the moment this is restricted to soccer, horse racing and mark six. In view of my personal stance, I prefer not to have to be the one to make the amendment. The Monday parliamentary meeting was only attended by two legislators (Fernando and me) neither of whom is keen to make this amendment. At any rate, I have requested my assistant to draft the wording for the consideration of exco this will be forwarded to you later. If the amendment is not passed, then we can vote against the original motion. Your advice is welcome. Kindergarten voucher – FC will have to vote on this on 1st Dec. Your views are welcome. The issue is whether the voucher should include the profit making (they prefer to be called independent) kindergartens. The general view is that it should – however the government is unlikely to give way and it might offer something like a 3 year reprieve which of course does not resolve the issue at all. It will force the profit making kindergartens to change to non profit making except for the very few really expensive ones. CP’s representative has attended the education panel meeting and given a view against the government’s proposal. A copy of the

submission has been sent to you earlier. My office has also done a survey of the kindergartens. I have also held an ITV programme inviting the profit making kindergartens to express their views. I have seen the relevant people and warned them of the possible outcome. They have organized a march last Sunday but they did not want to invite the legislators. Given their failure to adopt a more aggressive attitude towards the legislators, it seems they are more or less resigned to the outcome and it is likely that all parties will vote in favour of the proposal on FC despite the criticism. There are some 400 non profit making kindergartens and some 300 profit making ones. And it is expected that once this scheme is implemented, the profit making ones will switch over. As the scheme involves 2 billion and is meant to benefit 90% of the parents and kids who will be going to the non profit making kindergartens, if we vote against it as a matter of principle, CP will again be sticking out like a sore thumb. Since we have done quite a bit of work to express our stance, we can choose either to vote against it as a matter of principle by saying it takes away choice and it is not fair or we can vote in favour saying despite everything we have said so far, the government is again giving us the all or nothing approach and we have to vote in favour so as not to disappoint those who are entitled. I am happy to report a satisfactory outcome on the cruelty to animals bill. The only objective was to increase the penalty from the existing 6 months imprisonment and fine of $5000. The government was originally quite adamant on increasing to a max of $100,000 later to $200,000 and from 1 year later to 2 years and refused to budge beyond that. It even threatened to withdraw the bill if we do not accept its final offer. CP did a lot of co-ordination work and was instrumental in making the government come round to finally a fine of $200,000 and imprisonment of 3 years. Linda Wong CP member of KW was instrumental in getting the animal groups to agree on a whole number of concerted actions including an ad in the newspaper, joint letters, signature campaigns and a candle light vigil etc within a very tight time frame. I was able to lobby the other legislators as well as SJ. However in doing so we did not bring out our position as CP and we adopted a position of assisting other NGO. This was important not to upset the DAB factions in the group but in the end this also meant that it will not be seen as a CP issue but as a joint effort of all. Audrey Eu