*********************************
Following is a question by the Hon Tanya Chan and a reply by the Secretary for Home Affairs, Mr Tsang Tak-sing, in the Legislative Council today (June 23):
Question:
The Government has granted government land at a nominal land premium, or even with a waiver of land premium, to private organisations or institutions for use as clubs or clubhouses, and the land leases concerned provide that the grantees shall permit other organisations such as schools, welfare organisations and the Government to organise recreational and sports activities in such clubs, and to use the land and designated facilities. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the current number of private clubs to which the Government has granted land in the aforesaid manner, the names of such institutions, the respective premiums they had to pay and whether it knows if such private clubs had, as provided in the land leases, opened up the venues and facilities to other organisations in the past five years; if they had, of the details such as the borrowing time, the nature of activities and the borrowing organisations, etc.;
(b) given that I have learned that such land leases have also set out a number of special terms (e.g. other organisations may use the toilets of the clubs but not the toiletries, and they have to pay for the electricity, water and gas expenses when using the venue), whether the Government has assessed if such terms are reasonable; if the assessment result is in the negative, how the Government will follow up; as most of such land leases will expire in 2011 or 2012, whether the Government will consider reviewing the aforesaid land grant policy; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(c) which government departments are responsible for monitoring the compliance of lease conditions by private clubs and promoting to other organisations the lending arrangements of the aforesaid private clubs; why the Government did not announce information on the lending arrangements of the aforesaid clubs as well when it made public earlier the information on some public facilities on private land; whether the Government will consider stepping up the monitoring and publicity efforts in this regard to ensure proper use of resources; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
Reply:
President,
The lots on which many existing clubs or clubhouses in Hong Kong are situated were granted under different types of leases. The "Private Recreational Leases", which require the grantee to permit outside organisations to make use of the club facilities to organise recreational activities, have been adopted for decades.
At present, there are 71 cases of "Private Recreational Leases". These cases involve 51 different organisations and can be broadly divided into four categories, including:
- Welfare organisations (such as Po Leung Kuk and the Boys and Girls Clubs Association of Hong Kong, totalling 15 cases);
- Uniformed groups (including the Hong Kong Red Cross, the Scout Association of Hong Kong (HKSA) and the Hong Kong Girl Guides Association, totalling 15 cases);
- Civil servant associations (i.e. the Municipal Services Staff Recreation Club (MSSRC) and the Hong Kong Chinese Civil Servant's Association (HKCCSA), totalling 2 cases); and
- Other recreational and sports organisations or clubs (such as the South China Athletic Association (SCAA) and the Kowloon Cricket Club, totalling 39 cases).
Over the years, the organisations above have provided recreational and sports facilities and associated services either through charging usage / service fees, or raising funds themselves. They are providing services to more than 700,000 members in accordance with their respective founding objectives.
Under the existing policy, provided that there have been no breaches of the prescribed lease conditions on the part of these organisations, that their sites are not required for other public uses and that a "non-discriminatory membership policy" is upheld by them, the land lease concerned would be renewed. Information has shown that more than 50 cases of sites are subject to renewal between 2011 and 2012.
The Government recognises the contribution of these organisations to the community and the development of sports. It also encourages them to open up their facilities for the use of non-members. In this connection, land leases newly signed or renewed would contain a special condition, which stipulates that the grantee, if requested by a "competent authority", should make available specified facilities for the use of schools, youth groups, welfare organisations and government departments for organising recreational and sports activities. The competent authorities include the Civil Service Bureau (CSB), the Education Bureau (EB), the Home Affairs Bureau (HAB), the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) and the Social Welfare Department (SWD).
My reply to the three parts of the question is as follows:
Among the 71 cases of land granted by the Government, 38 of them have been exempted from paying any land premium while the land premium for the other 33 cases was $1,000. As for government rent, an amount equals to 3% of the rateable value is applicable to the majority of the cases while in two cases the annual government rent payable are $1,000 and $100 respectively. Relevant information is set out in detail at the Annex.
We understand that quite a number of organisations have already opened up their venues and facilities to the Government and outside bodies. For example, the SCAA and the MSSRC have opened up their facilities for the 2009 East Asian Games. The LCSD hires the facilities of the Hong Kong Football Club, the Chinese Recreation Club and the Hong Kong Cricket Club from time to time for the use of National Sports Associations (NSAs) for competitions and training. As a matter of fact, of the existing 71 cases, almost up to 40 organisations and clubs have provided extensive services to members of different social groups. Examples include the HKSA, the HKCCSA, the SCAA, district sports associations and NSAs. Furthermore, information has shown that most of the remaining private clubs have taken the initiative to open up their venues and facilities to outside organisations for different purposes, including practices of school sports teams, training of Hong Kong sports teams and uniformed groups, as well as activities organised by welfare organisations.
Regarding the second part of the question, some of the special conditions contained in the land leases have been laid down for a long time, and may have become outdated from the present day point of view. As most of the land leases will be due for renewal in 2011 or 2012, we will review such conditions when processing the renewal applications of individual land leases and make appropriate revisions as necessary.
As for the third part of the question, the Lands Department (LD), as the grantor, is responsible for the general monitoring of "Private Recreational Leases". It is assisted by other government departments in the enforcement of some specified provisions. For example, the CSB, EB, HAB, LCSD and SWD have the authority to request the grantees to open up their sites and specified facilities for the use of eligible organisations. Furthermore, the LD will consult the HAB on whether there has been any breach of the terms of the land lease by the organisation concerned and whether its membership policy is non-discriminatory when considering renewal application of the land lease in question.
On making information available to the public, it should be noted that the public facilities on private development projects as announced by the LD is different in nature from recreational and sports activities provided by private clubs. The former is a requirement in land leases which stipulates that private property owners must open up public facilities for the public without the need to make prior appointment. As regards the latter, the request to use the facilities is to be made by the competent authorities to relevant organisations and clubs under the terms and conditions of the land leases. Thus, the relevant facilities do not fall under the definition of public facilities and were therefore not included in the list of public facilities within private development projects as announced earlier by the Government.
In order to facilitate outside bodies to contact the competent authorities for use of specified facilities of the relevant clubs, the Government will consider enhancing the means of information dissemination. For example, information regarding competent authorities and facilities of private clubs available for the use of outside bodies may be uploaded to the Internet. The ultimate objective is to allow more people to make use of the facilities of the clubs without affecting their normal operations.
Ends/Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Issued at HKT 17:16
NNNN
