passed at an early date? Of course, the LegCo voting method determines the number of constituencies which will need to be drawn up. And if we had to legislate twice on voting systems that would take more time, not less, at a time when the legislative calendar will already be under severe pressure dealing with the other electoral issues.
There are compelling political reasons too. The single-seat, single-vote voting system for LegCo enjoys widespread support in this Council. Both major parties have said they would support its introduction. If we introduced legislation on the voting method which failed to include the single-seat single-vote system for LegCo, we would be flying in the face of what we know to be this Council's wishes.
If the Chinese authorities were prepared - though we have no confirmation of this to agree to the single-seat, single-vote system for LegCo at some future date, why could they not agree to it now, given the very real time constraints we are facing? If the Chinese side were not prepared to agree to it now, what assurance is there that they would agree to it in the future?
Let me make one other obvious point. If you were not to have this voting method for LegCo, any other for example, a proportional system - would be more complicated and would take more time to bring into law, even supposing that LegCo members could be persuaded to accept an alternative system, which seems unlikely given the clear views that have been expressed on the
matter.
But that is not the only issue, I regret to say, which prevented us from reaching a first-stage agreement. We also discussed membership of District Boards and Municipal Councils with our Chinese colleagues. The Chinese side were unable to agree that appointed membership of these bodies should be abolished. Earlier indications-that they were prepared to reach an acceptable agreement that would have allowed us to do this, while preserving the right of