RESTRICTED
(a)
(b)
it shall be competent for any LegCo Member to propose any question for debate therein; but
every ordinance, vote, resolution or question, the object or effect of which may be to dispose of or charge any part of the public revenue, may only be proposed by the Governor, public officers designated by the Governor for the purpose, or a LegCo Member expressly authorized or permitted by the Governor to do so.
I attach a copy of their draft Clauses XXI (B) and XXIV. Clause XXI (B) (a) is our Clause XXI (4). Clause XXI (B) (b) is intended to provide a proper basis for, inter alia, the Governor to appear before LegCo from time to time to answer questions from LegCo members. Clause XXI (B) (c), together with the redrafted Clause XXIV, are intended to preserve the right of the Governor found in the existing Clause XXIV.
7. Clause XXI (B) (2) (and consequentially Clause XXIV (2) (b)), are intended to enable LegCo Standing Orders 4B (Attendance of Public Officers) and 4C (Participation of Public Officers in Proceedings) to be founded upon clear vires. It will also pave the way for post-1995 arrangements, when there will no longer be any ex-officio Members on LegCo. Hong Kong feel that their proposal is in keeping with their declared objective of maintaining an Executive-led Government. also in line with BL 62(4) (6).
It is
8. On the timing for bringing the amendments into operation, Hong Kong are sceptical about whether delaying the date of the operation to March 1993 will be acceptable to the Governor. They recognise that it might not be appropriate to have a discrepancy between the constitutional documents and the domestic legislation. However, the Director of Audit is not due to submit a further report to the LegCo President until March 1993. During the intervening period they do not think it makes any difference whether the Audit Ordinance refers to the "Governor as the President of the Legislative Council" or simply "the President of the Legislative Council". They have asked if you could reconsider this issue. The initial view from their own lawyers is that there should not be any fundamental objection to bringing the amendments to the LPS and RIS into effect as soon as the Privy Council's approval is given.
9. I would be very grateful if you could let me know as soon as possible whether you agree with Hong Kong's suggestions or whether you think that we will have to revert to them on certain aspects. In the meantime I will look at the draft submission which Mr Stone prepared in October to see what changes need to be made in the light of Hong Kong's
RESTRICTED