***************************
Following is the transcript of remarks (English portion) by the Secretary for the Environment, Mr Edward Yau, at a media session after a site visit in relation to the Motor Vehicle Idling (Fixed Penalty) Bill today (September 9):
Reporter: Do you find the bus company's proposal about having five to 10 minutes cooling period (to emit) exhaust fumes outside the bus, do you find that to be unacceptable to the pedestrians?
Secretary for the Environment: We have in today's visit examined some of the new proposals, suggested by some bus companies, including one, which asked for an exemption of, say, five to 10 minutes for the bus to have the air-con switched on so that they can cool the cabin before passengers board the bus. But in a practical situation, like the one we have seen, it might give rise to other sorts of pollution problems, creating heat and also public health concerns. So I think the purpose of the visit is in fact to go into the practical situation of some of these suggestions, to see whether it works or doesn't work. So I think the purpose is to see whether that contributes to a concession that we can all accept, or would that defeat the purpose of the bill, about which we have to think twice. So I think that serves the purpose of this visit.
Reporter: Are you actually saying that after today's experience that the call from the taxi trade that the entire taxi stand should be exempted, is that actually not an idea that you would consider?
Secretary for the Environment: I think that is an issue that we have to examine in the bills committee. In today's visit when I sat in the cabin together with some Legco members, we found that there are some concessions in the original proposal that might not have been fully understood by the drivers. There are certain conditions that, in our original proposal, because of traffic conditions, could be exempted and there is no requirement for switching off the engine. So I think in the process of this site visit we have taken the opportunity to explain to the trade and to the drivers what the conditions are that they can legitimately expect certain exemptions without undermining the whole scheme.
But in what conditions can we further forge a consensus if there could be legitimate, good reasons for further concession to be made. But one thing (is) very important: I think the whole purpose of the bill is to reduce roadside pollution, to reduce the harmful effect of emissions from cars which will be inhaled not just by pedestrians, but also by every member of the community, including the drivers. So I think we have to hold on to this very important principle. Having said that I think we will find room in the subsequent meetings of the bills committee to further forge a consensus.
(Please also refer to the Chinese portion of the transcript)
Ends/Thursday, September 9, 2010
Issued at HKT 18:40
NNNN
