1993-12-28 09:32 TRADE & INDUSTRY BRANCH
ΤΟ : CL (John Yaxley)
From : SCA (Michael Sze)
CONFIDENTIAL
+ 852 840 1621 P.01
pa.
246
Coushi't scrypt
MAR 012/2. Miss Saules.
RY
Date : 24 December 1992
RECE
- & JAN 1992
Dear John,
1ST
IN
Üfe fl list al
annex
The Constitutional Package • Legislative Programme
I was not privy to what the CS said to Lord Derwent, although I suspect that he had mixed up two processes. First, before we decide precisely what proposals (in the form of bills) to put to Legco, we need to consider ourselves whether there is
merit any
in the alternative
So proposals
far emanating from the community which would lead us to modify our proposals. Secondly, once the bills are introduced into Legco, it would be for Legco to decide whether our proposals should be amended. That would be the logical sequence.
2.
That said, our current
programme is as follows :
thinking on the legislative
(a) We aim to introduce the necessary bills into the Legislative Council in the first half of February 1993.
Timing
(b)
In the normal course of events, after the speech in Legco moving the second reading of the bills, debate is
adjourned and the bills are committed via the House Committee to a specific Bills Committee.
The usual procedures, i.e. discussion in the Bills Committee, resumption of second reading debate, committee stage, and then third reading will follow. This is likely to take several months.
(c) But there is a possible complication.
The
Legco Standing Orders do permit a member to move straight on for a second reading debate on the principles and merits of the bills. If he has enough support, a second reading debate will take place. If the motion is negatived, the whole bill(s) will fall away. If the motion is approved, the bills will stand committed to Committee Stage (i.e. the whole council formed into a committee). The bills will then be debated and voted on clause by clause, after which there will be a third reading. It is impossible to estimate the timing of these procedures, but they are likely to be shorter than (b) above. This scenario is not, however,
one that we favour.
41.
CONFIDEN