二零零九年六月二十四日

政府就本人「人對人促銷電話」口頭質詢之回覆

(轉載自: http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200906/24/P200906240178.htm)

 立法會一題：人對人促銷電話
＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊

　　以下為今日（六月二十四日）在立法會會議上譚偉豪議員的提問和署理商務及經濟發展局局長蘇錦樑的答覆：

問題：

　　《非應邀電子訊息條例》已於二○○七年年底生效，市民可選擇不接收預先錄製訊息等商業電子訊息。然而，人對人促銷電話則未受該條例規管。就此，政府可否告知本會：

（一）過去三年，按商業性質和種類分別列出當局每年接獲多少宗有關人對人促銷電話的投訴，如何跟進投訴，以及跟進的結果為何；

（二）當局會否重新考慮立法規管人對人促銷電話；若會考慮，詳情及推行時間表為何；若不會，原因為何；及

（三）針對上述問題，當局有否參考及研究外國相關經驗，以保障市民不受該等促銷電話滋擾；若有，詳情為何；若否，原因為何，以及日後會否進行相關研究？

答覆：

主席：

　　在回答議員提問之前，我先解釋《非應邀電子訊息條例》（《條例》）的背景及實施後的最新情況。

　　《條例》於二○○七年十二月二十二日全面實施，規管發送商業電子訊息，包括預錄電話訊息、短訊、傳真和電郵等。現時，《條例》並不涵蓋人對人的促銷電話，主要是因為香港大部分的商業機構屬於中小型企業，他們依賴這渠道作促銷活動。因此政府在制定《條例》時，經平衡各方意見後，並未將人對人促銷電話列入規管範圍內，以免影響正常電子促銷活動的發展。

　　不過，政府一直密切監察人對人促銷電話的情況。為了解這類電話對公眾的影響和評估公眾與業界的意見，電訊管理局（電訊局）已委托顧問進行公眾意見調查，並向業界收集意見。政府現正分析所收集到的意見，預計於本年暑假後公佈兩項調查的結果和發表我們對是否需要就人對人促銷電話採取進一步行動的意見。

　　另外，《個人資料（私隱）條例》載有關於在直接促銷中使用個人資料的條文。根據該條例，凡資料使用者將個人資料用於直接促銷，如資料當事人要求資料使用者停止使用有關資料，資料使用者須依從有關要求。

　　就議員提出的問題，我現答覆如下：

（一）由《條例》於二○○七年十二月全面生效至二○○九年五月為止，電訊局共處理9,158宗個案，當中128宗涉及人對人的電話。在這128宗的個案中，94宗涉及商業促銷活動，9宗關於意見調查，餘下25宗個案的舉報人士並未就電話內容提供資料。

　　由於人對人促銷電話現時不受《條例》所規管，電訊局未獲授權就有關涉及人對人電話的投訴進行調查。如有關電話涉及使用投訴人的個人資料作直接促銷用途，投訴人可根據《個人資料（私隱）條例》要求致電者停止使用有關資料作直接促銷用途。如有關電話涉及行騙或滋擾成份，電訊局會建議投訴人向警方舉報。

（二）為了解人對人促銷電話對公眾的影響和評估公眾與業界的意見，電訊局已委托顧問進行公眾意見調查及向業界收集意見。政府現正詳細考慮市民及業界的意見，預計於本年暑假後公佈兩項調查的結果和發表我們對是否需要就人對人促銷電話採取進一步行動的意見。政府會考慮不同因素，包括市民獲取資訊及免受騷擾的權利、企業在香港進行合法電子促銷活動的空間及這類活動對中小型企業的重要程度等各方面。

（三）電訊局已參考外國規管人對人促銷電話的措施，例如澳洲、美國、英國和加拿大透過立法及設立登記冊，讓市民選擇是否拒收人對人促銷電話。不同地區所設立的登記冊的保障範圍各有不同，例如澳洲、美國和加拿大的登記冊並不保障商業用的電話號碼。根據美國和加拿大的法例，即使電話號碼已登記於拒收人對人促銷電話的登記冊上，如有關的致電公司與電話號碼使用者之間存有商業關係，或電話號碼使用者已預先給予同意，有關公司仍可致電已登記的號碼。

　　政府在考慮是否需要就人對人促銷電話採取進一步行動時，除了參考上述的外國經驗外，亦會考慮到香港的現有法例和社會經濟情況。我們會繼續與業界商討及監察人對人促銷電話的情況。待收集及分析公眾和業界的意見後，政府會詳細考慮未來路向然後才會作出決定，以保障社會整體利益。

完

２００９年６月２４日（星期三）
香港時間１２時４８分

LCQ1: Person-to-person telemarketing calls

******************************************

     Following is a question by the Hon Samson Tam and a reply by the Acting Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, Mr Gregory So, in the Legislative Council today (June 24):

Question:

     Under the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Ordinance which came into operation in late 2007, members of the public may choose not to receive commercial electronic messages such as pre-recorded messages. Yet, person-to-person telemarketing calls are not regulated by the Ordinance. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the number of complaints received in each of the past three years by the authorities about person-to-person telemarketing calls, broken down by business nature and type; how they followed up the complaints and the outcome;

(b) whether the authorities will reconsider introducing legislation to regulate person-to-person telemarketing calls; if they will, of the details and the implementation timetable; if they will not, the reasons for that; and

(c) regarding the aforesaid problem, whether the authorities have made reference to and studied the relevant experience of foreign countries, so as to protect the public from the nuisance caused by such telemarketing calls; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that, and whether they will conduct the studies concerned in the future?

Reply:

President,

     Before answering the question, I would like to give a brief account of the background and latest progress of the implementation of the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Ordinance (UEMO).

     The UEMO, which fully commenced operation on December 22, 2007, regulates the sending of commercial electronic messages, including pre-recorded messages sent to telephones, messages through short messaging services, faxes and emails. At present, the UEMO does not cover person-to-person telemarketing calls mainly because most business establishments in Hong Kong are small and medium enterprises (SMEs), which rely on this mode of communication as a means of marketing. As such, in drawing up the UEMO, after balancing different views, the Government excluded such calls from the ambit of the Ordinance to avoid affecting the development of legitimate electronic marketing in Hong Kong.

     However, the Government has been closely monitoring the situation of person-to-person telemarketing calls. To gauge the impact of such calls on the public and assess the views of the public and the industry, the Office of the Telecommunications Authority (OFTA) has commissioned a public opinion survey and collected views from the industry. The Government is now analysing the views collected and intends to release the results of the two surveys together with the Government's views on what, if any, further action may be required in respect of person-to-person calls after summer.

     Separately, the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (PDPO) contains provisions concerning the use of personal data in direct marketing.  According to the PDPO, a data user who uses personal data for direct marketing purposes has to cease using that data if the person who is the subject of the data so requests.

     My reply to the member's question is as follows:

(a) From the full implementation of the UEMO in December 2007 to May 2009, the OFTA handled a total of 9,158 complaints, of which 128 were related to person-to-person calls. Among these 128 cases, 94 involved commercial marketing activities and 9 were opinion survey calls. For the remaining 25 cases, the complainants did not provide information on the contents of the calls.

     As person-to-person telemarketing calls are currently not regulated by the UEMO, the OFTA does not have the authority to investigate complaint cases relating to such calls.  If the use of the complainant's personal data for direct marketing purposes is involved, the complainant can request the caller to cease to use such data for direct marketing purposes under the PDPO. If a call involves fraud or nuisance, the OFTA would advise the complainant to report the case to the Police.

(b) To gauge the impact of person-to-person telemarketing calls on the public and to assess the views of the public and the industry, the OFTA has commissioned a public opinion survey and has collected views from the industry. The Government is now carefully considering the views of the public and the industry. We intend to release the results of the two surveys together with the Government's views on what, if any, further action may be required in respect of person-to-person calls. The Government will look at various factors, including the right of the public to receive information and not to be disturbed, the scope for enterprises to conduct legitimate electronic marketing activities in Hong Kong and the importance of such activities to SMEs etc.

(c) OFTA has studied overseas practices in regulating person-to-person telemarketing calls. In Australia, the US, the UK and Canada, for instance, laws have been passed and registers established for citizens to choose not to receive person-to-person telemarketing calls. The coverage of each register varies from place to place.  For example, in Australia, the US and Canada, the register does not cover business telephone numbers. Under the US and Canadian legislation, a company may still call a telephone number which has already been listed in the do-not-call register for person-to-person telemarketing calls if the user of the telephone number has a business relationship with the company or has given prior consent.

     Apart from overseas experience, the Government will also take into account Hong Kong's existing legislation and economic situation in deciding whether or not there is a need to take further steps in respect of person-to-person telemarketing calls. We will continue to discuss the matter with the industry and monitor the situation of such calls. After collecting and analysing the views of the public and the industry, the Government will make a decision only after carefully considering the way forward, with a view to protecting the interest of the whole community.

Ends/Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Issued at HKT 12:48