HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL—15th February 1967 49
OFFICIAL REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
Meeting of 15th February 1967
PRESENT
HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR (PRESIDENT)
SIR DAVID CLIVE CROSBIE TRENCH, KCMG, MC
THE HONOURABLE THE COLONIAL SECRET ARY
MR MICHAEL DAVID IRVING GASS, CMG
THE HONOURABLE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
MR DENYS TUDOREMIL ROBERTS, OBE, QC
THE HONOURABLE THE SECRETARY FOR CHINESE AFFAIRS MR DAVID RONALD HOLEMS, CBE, MC, ED
THE HONOURABLE THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY
MR JOHN JAMES COWPERTHWATTE, CMG, OBE
THE HONOURABLE ALEC MICHAEL JOHN WRIGHT, CMG DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
DR THE HONOURABLE TENG PIN-HUI, CMG, OBE
DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL AND HEALTH SERVICES
THE HONOURABLE ROBERT MARSHALL HETHERINGTON, DFC COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR
THE HONOURABLE ALASTAIRTODD
DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE
THE HONOURABLE TERENCE DARE SORBY
DIRECTOR OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
THE HONOURABLE GEOFFREY MARSH TINGLE
DIRECTOR OF URBAN SERVICES
THE HONOURABLE DHUN JEHANGIR RUTTONJEE, CBE THE HONOURABLE KAN YUET-KEUNG, OBE
THE HONOURABLE LI FOOK-SHU, OBE
THE HONOURABLE FUNG HON-CHU, OBE
THE HONOURABLE TANG PING-YUAN
THE HONOURABLE TSE YU-CHUEN, OBE
THE HONOURABLE KENNETH ALBERT WATSON, OBE THE HONOURABLE WOO PAK-CHUEN, OBE
THE HONOURABLE GEORGE RONALD ROSS
THE HONOURABLE SZETO WAI
THE HONOURABLE WILFRED WONG SIEN-BING, OBE THE HONOURABLE ELLEN LI SHU-PUI, OBE
THE HONOURABLE JAMES DICKSON LEACH, OBE
ABSENT
THE HONOURABLE WILLIAM DAVID GREGG
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
THE HONOURABLE KENNETH STRATHMORE KINGHORN DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, NEW TERRITORIES
IN ATTENDANCE
THE DEPUTY CLERK OF COUNCILS
MR DONALD BARTON
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL—15th February 1967 50
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 1st February 1967 were confirmed.
PAPERS
THE COLONIAL SECRETARY, by Command of His Excellency the Governor, laid upon the table the following papers: —
Subject LN No Subsidiary Legislation:—
Inland Revenue Ordinance.
Exemption from Salaries Tax Order 1967 ....................... 10 Sessional paper and associated papers:—
No 11—Annual Report by the Director of Audit for the
financial year ended 31st March 1966.
Despatch No 205 of 4.2.67 to the Secretary of State on
the Report of the Director of Audit for the
financial year ended 31st March 1966.
Certificate of the Director General of the Overseas Audit Service on the accounts of Hong Kong for the
year ended 31st March 1966.
PENSIONS ORDINANCE
THE COLONIAL SECRETARY moved the following resolution:—
Resolved, pursuant to subsection (3) of section 3 of the Pensions Ordinance, that the Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 1967 made by the Governor in Council on the 2nd day of February 1967 under subsection (1) of section 3 of that Ordinance, be approved.
He said: —Sir, at the last meeting of this Council on 1st February* a Bill to amend the Pensions Ordinance was passed. The main purpose and effect of this Pensions (Amendment) Ordinance has been to restore the position existing before 1959 whereby pensions and other retiring benefits were calculated by reference to the full substantive salary of the officer concerned and not only 90% of that salary, as has been the case since 1959. What is called “100% pensionability” will accordingly once again become the norm, subject to the right of serving pensionable officers (including those offered appointment before the date of enact ment of this Ordinance but appointed after that date) subject as I say
* 1967 Hansard, pages 7-9.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL—15th February 1967 51
to the right of these officers to elect to remain on their former terms of “90% pensionability”.
The main purpose of these regulations now laid before Council is to make a consequential amendment to the Pensions Regulations to reflect this amendment to the Pensions Ordinance. The amendment concerned is contained in regulation 6 of the amending regulations and it also covers the position of those non-pensionable officers who are eligible to receive retiring benefits under the provisions of the pensions legislation.
The relevant amendment to the Ordinance was made effective from 1st April 1965, to implement the decision that “100% pensionability” be re-introduced from that date. Similarly, this amendment to the regulations needs to be retrospective to the same date and it is for this reason. Sir, that the approval of this Council is now being sought, since section 3(3) of the Pensions Ordinance requires that where any regula tions are made retrospective they should be subject to confirmation by resolution of this Council.
The Pensions (Amendment) Regulations include for convenience a number of other unrelated amendments in addition to the amendment in regulation 6 dealing with 100% pensionability. The purpose of these other amendments is fully explained in the explanatory note attached to them. They do not themselves involve any retrospection and it is for convenience only, therefore, that they are also covered by this resolution.
THE ATTORNEY GBNERAL seconded.
The question was put and agreed to.
TELEPHONE ORDINANCE
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY moved the following resolution: —
Resolved, in exercise of the power conferred by subsection (2) of section 26 of the Telephone Ordinance, that the Schedule to the said Ordinance be amended—
(a) in Part IV, by inserting the following new items after item 20—
“21. For re-connecting a telephone disconnected for non-payment of charges
22. For a thunderstorm and heavy rain warning service
$20.
$20 per
annum.”; and
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL—15th February 1967 52
(b) by deleting Part V and substituting therefore the following—
“PART V.
CALL CHARGES.
Item. Particullars of Charge. Amount of Charge.
1. For every three minutes or part
thereof of a junction call—
(a) between any two of the following,
namely—
(i) the area served by the Clear Water
Bay Exchange;
(ii) the area served by the Sha Tin
Exchange;
(iii) the area served by the Tai
Exchange;
(iv) the area served by the Tsuen Wan
Exchange;
(v) Hong Kong or Kowloon; or
(b) between the area served by the Tai 0
Exchange and the area served by the
Silver Mine Bay Exchange.
2. For every three minutes or part there of
30 cent.
a junction call between any two of the following, namely—
(a) the area served by the Castle Peak Exchange;
(b) the area served by the Fanling Exchange;
(c) the area served by the Ting Kau Exchange;
(d) the area served by the Yuen Long Exchange;
(e) any one of the following, namely— (i) the area served by the Clear Water Bay Exchange; or
(ii) the area served by the Sha Tin Exchange; or
(iii) the area served by the Tai Po
Exchange; or
(iv) the area served by the Tsuen Wan
Exchange; or
(v) Hong Kong or Kowloon.
3. For every three minutes or part there of a junction call between any two of the following, namely—
(a) Cheung Chau Island;
(b) Lamma Island;
(c) Ping Chau Island;
(d) Shekv Kwu Chau Island;
(e) North East Lantau;
40 cents.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL—15th February 1967 53
Item. Particullars of Charge. Amount of Charge.
(f) any one of the following, namely—
(i) the area served by the Tai 0
Exchange; or
(ii) the area served by the Silver Mine
Bay Exchange;
(g) any one of the following, namely—
(i) the area served by the Castle Peak
Exchange; or
(ii) the area served by the Clear Water
Bay Exchange; or
(iii) the area served by the Fanling
Exchange; or
(iv) the area served by the Sha Tin
Exchange; or
(v) the area served by the Tai Po
Exchange; or
(vi) the area served by the Ting Kau
Exchange; or
(vii) the area served by the Tsuen Wan
Exchange; or
(viii) the area served by the Yuen Long
Exchange; or
(ix)HongKongor Kowloon. 1 dollar.
4. For every local call from a Pay Station in
Hong Kong or Kowloon or in the area
served by any of the following Exchanges,
namely—
(a) Clear Water Bay;
(b) Sha Tin;
(c) Tai Po;
(d)Tsuen Wan;
(e) Cheung Chau;
(f) Lamma;
(g) Ping Chau;
(h) Tai 0;
(i) Silver Mine Bay. 30 cents.
5. For every local call from a Pay Station
in the area served by any of the
following Exchanges, namely—
(a) Castle Peak;
(b) Faming;
(c) Ting Kau;
(d) Yuen Long. 40 cents.”
He said: —Sir, I rise to move the resolution standing in my name as item 3(2) in the order of business. The resolution seeks to amend Parts IV and V of the Schedule to the Telephone Ordinance 1951.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL—15th February 1967 54
The amendments to Part IV of the Schedule are designed to introduce two new fees. Firstly, an annual fee of $20 for each subscriber to a new rainstorm warning service; and secondly, a reconnection fee of $20 in respect of any telephone which has been disconnected for non-payment of an account.
An advance rainstorm warning service, on the lines of the existing typhoon warning service, has been proposed by the Director of the Royal Observatory as a means of reducing loss of life and damage to property in the event of heavy rainstorms. The proposal has received strong support from a number of building and engineering companies and from Government departments. It is intended that the Royal Observatory would relay to the Telephone Company warnings of approaching rainstorm’s which would then be immediately notified to subscribers to the service. Such warnings would, of course, also be issued over the radio and through the press for the information of the general public.
The reconnection fee is being introduced because the Telephone Company is currently disconnecting about 2,000 telephones a month for non-payment of bills. At the moment the telephones are reconnected free of charge upon the bills being paid. This is unproductive work, the cost of which contributes to the cost of the service and is being borne largely by other subscribers. The proposed fee of $20 is based on the actual cost to the Telephone Company of reconnecting a telephone and its imposition has been endorsed by the Advisory Committee on Telephone Services.
The amendments to Part V of the Schedule are intended to prescribe charges involving new telephone exchanges scheduled to begin operations in April. The Telephone Company will be establishing exchanges on Lamma and Ping Chau, and at Tai O and Silver Mine Bay on Lantau, as part of a programme to extend telephone services to outlying islands. The Silver Mine Bay exchange will replace the present Shek Pik/Cheung Sha Government Exchange.
A charge of 30 cents will be made for each local call within these new exchange areas and the same charge will be made for each junction call of three minutes or less between the Tai 0 and the Silver Mine Bay exchanges.
A charge of one dollar will be payable for each junction call of three minutes or part thereof from each of the new exchanges to any other exchange in the network located outside the same island.
The proposed charges are in line with existing charges for similar services. The opportunity has also been taken to include two single line links which have been operating for some years for the Cheoy Lee Shipyard at North East Lantau and for the Shek Kwu Chau Centre run by the Society for the Aid and Rehabilitation of Drug Addicts.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL—15th February 1967 55
THE COLONIAL SECRETARY seconded.
MR F. S. LI, MR P. Y. TANG and MR G. R. ROSS declared their interest and abstained from voting.
The question was put and agreed to.
COMMONWEALTH PREFERENCE (MOTOR VEHICLES) BILL 1967
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY moved the First reading of: “A Bill to repeal and replace the Commonwealth Preference (Motor Vehicles) Ordinance.”
He said:—Sir, on several occasion during the last two years reference has been made in this Council to a proposal to introduce a number of amendments to the Commonwealth Preference (Motor Vehicles) Ordinance 1957. There has been some delay in finalizing this draft legislation, partly because of the complicated nature of the changes envisaged, and also because reference was required to the Secretary of State under the; Royal Instructions on the grounds that legislation affecting tariff preferences is reserved. The amendments to the existing Ordinance finally proposed are so extensive that it is considered preferable to substitute a new Ordinance and to repeal the existing Commonwealth Preference (Motor Vehicles) Ordinance.
The main object of the Bill now before Council is to re-define the basis upon which eligibility for Commonwealth Preference in respect of motor vehicles is to be determined. There is a long and somewhat involved history to this matter, which I shall recount briefly. Before 1957, the basis of calculation of Commonwealth content as laid down in the Ordinance was merely the value of a vehicle, the word “value” being undefined; whereas value for duty purposes was defined as the c.i.f. value on arrival in the Colony after deduction of the value of the tyres and certain spare parts. In practice, it was assumed that a car coming from a factory in a Commonwealth country qualified automatically and there was no need to interpret the undefined word “value”. Then certain instances arose of preference being claimed for cars assembled in Hong Kong from parts of miscellaneous origin. Doubts arose as to the meaning of value in the calculation of Commonwealth content and we took what appeared to be at the time the logical step of defining valuation for determination of Commonwealth content in the same way as valuation for duty, that is the c.i.f. value.
This method worked reasonably satisfactorily, it still being assumed that cars from Commonwealth factories would qualify automatically;
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL—15th February 1967 56
and in fact they did continue to qualify without difficulty where the whole or virtually the whole process of manufacture was carried out in a Commonwealth factory. Then cases began to arise of cars assembled in Commonwealth countries preponderantly from imported parts and this phenomenon has now become quite widespread. By 1965, serious difficulties in the assessment of Commonwealth content were being experienced as a consequence of this new development.
The c.i.f. basis of assessing content was, it must be admitted, awkward in practice, and it is now considered that the best course is to conform more closely to the existing practice in the United Kingdom and most other Commonwealth countries. Two main principles are followed by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise in the United Kingdom. In the first place, when eligibility for preference is being determined, it must be decided whether a vehicle has been manufactured in the Commonwealth, Which means that it must have acquired its essential character as a result of work done in the Commonwealth; and secondly, it must have, on an ex-factory basis, at least the prescribed percentage of Commonwealth content, that is 50%.
Clause 2(ii) of the Bill accordingly adopts this system. I must emphasize, however, that there is no intention of changing the basis on which the preference tax itself is to be charged. This remains at 15% of the c.i.f. value.
The second main object of the Bill is to provide a more compre hensive classification of vehicles for the purpose of calculating the value of a vehicle for taxation. The basis upon which this value is normally determined, which is the c.i.f. value, remains unaltered. Some difficul ties have been experienced, however, in applying the existing criteria to vehicles used in the Colony prior to registration and to secondhand vehicles imported into the Colony, and opportunity is taken in clause 7 to provide a more comprehensive classification of vehicles for the purpose of calculating their value. In particular, it provides that tax may be calculated on the market value if the c.i.f. value of the vehicle when new cannot be ascertained.
In calculating the value of a vehicle for taxation, depreciation is allowed if the vehicle is not new, and the rates of depreciation used are those laid down under the Inland Revenue Ordinance. Although no change in the depreciation rates is proposed, it is considered desirable to make separate provision for the application of depreciation rates and clause 12 of the Bill provides for Regulations prescribing such rates to be made.
There is one more point in the Bill to which I should draw attention. The present Ordinance provides that the Governor in Council may refund the tax paid in respect of a vehicle brought into and kept in the Colony for no longer than three months provided that
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL—15th February 1967 57
it is imported in connexion with a temporary stay by the owner. This has meant that, if a private individual has imported a vehicle into the Colony at a time when he arrived himself with every intention of a long term stay and has paid the appropriate Commonwealth preference tax, he is unable to claim a refund even if, in the event, perhaps due to circumstances outside his control, neither he nor his vehicle did, in fact, remain in the Colony for more than three months. It is considered that it would be fairer if the owner should not have to establish that the vehicle was kept in the Colony in connexion with a temporary stay, provided that the vehicle is not, in fact, kept in the Colony for longer than three months.
Clause 9 is designed to have this effect.
THE COLONIAL SECRETARY seconded.
The question was put and agreed to.
The Bill was read a First time.
Objects and Reasons
The “Objects and Reasons” for the Bill were stated as follows: —
The object of this Bill is to re-define the basis upon which eligibility for Commonwealth preference in respect of motor vehicles is to be determined and, at the same time, to deal with various aspects of the Commonwealth Preference (Motor Vehicles) Ordinance where doubt has arisen. In view of the extensive amendments which are necessary for these purposes, it has been found convenient to replace that Ordinance entirely.
2. At present, at least one-half of the c.i.f. value of a motor vehicle (less depreciation in the case of used vehicles) must be the result of labour within the Commonwealth if the vehicle is to qualify for preferential treatment, but the expression “the result of labour”, being capable of more than one meaning, has led to difficulties in interpretation and consequential uncertainty in the application of the existing Ordinance. Furthermore, use of the c.i.f. value for this purpose has been criticized on the grounds that it is completely contrary to the normal basis of computing Commonwealth content. Accordingly, clause 2(2) seeks to introduce a system similar to that followed under comparable United Kingdom legislation so that a vehicle manufactured within the Commonwealth will qualify for preferential treatment if at least half of the costs of its manufacture is attributable to Commonwealth expenditure. Clause 2(3) also re-defines the “Commonwealth”. The present definition is not in accordance with the
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL—15th February 1967 58
current practice in the field of preferential treatment in that, contrary to the United Kingdom legislation. South African vehicles cannot at present qualify in the Colony for preference. The proposed new definition relies on the First Schedule to the Dutiable Commodities Ordinance which lists the countries (including South Africa) that comprise the “Commonwealth” under that Ordinance for the purpose of preferential treatment in respect of dutiable commodities. Clauses 3 and 4 explain in detail what is comprised in the costs of manufacture and Commonwealth expenditure and, in so doing, will alter, from the c.i.f. value to the ex factory costs, the basis upon which eligibility for Commonwealth Preference will be determined, as under the comparable United Kingdom legislation.
3. Clause 5 is also based on a similar provision in the com parable United Kingdom legislation. The Commissioner of Police is the authority for determining eligibility upon claims duly made for preferential treatment. The purpose of this clause is to make it clear that it is for the person claiming preference not merely to make the claim but to substantiate it, if the Commissioner so requires. In the normal way the Commissioner will address any necessary initial enquiries direct to the Commonwealth manufacturer concerned or to his local agent.
4. Section 4 of the existing Ordinance deals with value of vehicles, for the purpose of calculating the amount of tax payable. It is not intended to alter the basis upon which this value is determined, which is the c.i.f. value. In the case of vehicles other than new vehicles, allowance has always been given for depreciation, but at present the rate and manner of depreciation is determined by reference to the rate and manner prescribed for entirely different purposes under the Inland Revenue Ordinance. Furthermore, due to the fact that the grouping of vehicles in the existing section 4 for the purpose of determining the value is not sufficiently comprehensive, doubts have arisen, for example, in respect of vehicles that may be used in the Colony prior to registration, whether the law permits depreciation. In addition, section 4 at present provides that if the market value of a vehicle exceeds the c.i.f. value after depreciation, the higher value prevails. Clause 7, therefore, seeks—
(a) to deal more specifically with the question of depreciation as it affects any particular category of motor vehicles; and
(b) to provide that the tax shall be calculated on the market value of a vehicle only where the c.i.f. value cannot be ascertained.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL—15th February 1967 59
In dealing with the period for which depreciation is to be allowed, the new provisions ignore any part of a month of less than fifteen days but counts as one whole month any part of a month of fifteen or more days. They leave the rate and manner of depreciation to be prescribed by the Governor in Council by regulation under clause 12.
5. Section 7 of the existing Ordinance permits the Governor in Council to refund the tax in respect of a motor vehicle brought into and kept in the Colony for no longer than three months on the occasion or in connexion with a temporary stay by the owner. The power is discretionary. If, in fact, a vehicle is not kept in the Colony for longer than three months it is not considered that it should also be necessary for the owner to establish that the vehicle was kept in .the Colony in connexion with a temporary stay. Clause 9 provides accordingly. Since the remaining requirement that the vehicle should not be kept in the Colony for longer than three months is a more readily ascertainable fact, the refund will depend on a certificate granted by the Commissioner of Police, and on the strength of the certificate a refund will be mandatory. The refund is only intended to be made in respect of vehicles permanently sent out of the Colony, and accordingly, the refund is made to depend on the cancellation of registration of the vehicle on this ground. Should such a vehicle be brought back, the re registration will be treated as first registration for the purpose of attracting the tax.
6. Clause 10 introduces new provisions under which invoices and other documents produced to the Commissioner of Police, and relevant as regards Commonwealth preference tax, may be retained by the Commissioner. This is desirable for accounting and audit purposes.
7. Clause 12 empowers the Governor in Council to make regulations prescribing, inter alia, rates for depreciation.
MOTOR VEHICLES (FIRST REGISTRATION TAX) (AMENDMENT) BILL 1967
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY moved the First reading of: “A Bill to amend the Motor Vehicles (First Registration Tax) Ordinance.”
He said: —Sir, the need for the amendments contained in this legislation arises directly from the desirability of conforming with certain of the objects of the Commonwealth Preference (Motor Vehicles) Bill 1967, the First reading of which I have just moved.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL—15th February 1967 60
The value of a motor vehicle for the purpose of applying first registration tax is calculated in almost precisely the same manner as value for the purposes of applying the Commonwealth preference tax. As in the case of that tax various difficulties have arisen in calculating the value of a vehicle for taxation if it has been used prior to registration in the Colony, or has been imported in other than a new condition. The Bill, therefore, provides for a more comprehensive classification of such vehicles on the lines provided in the Commonwealth Preference (Motor Vehicles) Bill; and provides also that the tax may be calculated on the market value of the vehicle where the c.i.f. value cannot be ascertained.
Provision is also made for the refund of tax in cases where the vehicle is re-exported within a period of three months regardless of whether or not its importation was in connexion with the temporary stay of the owner; and for regulations prescribing rates of depreciation to be applied in assessing value for purposes of tax. As is the case with Commonwealth preference tax, there is no intention of changing the rates of depreciation at present used, which are those prescribed under the Inland Revenue Ordinance.
THE COLONIAL SECRETARY seconded.
The question was put and agreed to.
The Bill was read a First time.
Objects and Reasons
The “Objects and Reasons” for the Bill were stated as follows: —
The first registration tax payable in respect of a motor vehicle is calculated on its value. Section 4 of the principal Ordinance in effect defines what is the value of a vehicle for this purpose and in so doing divides vehicles into four groups. Experience, however, has indicated that these groups are not sufficiently comprehensive for all circumstances and doubts have arisen, for example in the case of vehicles which may be used in the Colony before registration, as to which group is applicable. In addition, although the c.i.f. value is the value taken, there is no provision for the case where the c.i.f. value cannot be ascertained. Furthermore, although depreciation is allowed in respect of used vehicles, the rate and manner of the depreciation is determined by reference to the rate and manner prescribed for entirely different purposes under the Inland Revenue Ordinance. Clause 3, therefore, amends section 4 in order (1) to give a more comprehensive classification of vehicles, (2) to permit the tax to be calculated on the market value of the vehicle as determined by
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL—15th February 1967 61
the Commissioner of Police where the c.i.f. value cannot be as certained, and (3) to deal more specifically with the question of depreciation as it affects any particular group of vehicles. The rate and manner of depreciation is left to be prescribed by the Governor in Council by regulation under section 9 of the principal Ordinance (as amended for this purpose by clause 6). Any part of a month of less than fifteen days is ignored for the purpose of depreciation, while any part of a month of fifteen or more days will count as the whole month.
2. The present section 6 of the Ordinance permits the Governor in Council to refund 'the tax in respect of a vehicle brought into and kept in the Colony for no longer than three months on the occasion or in connexion with a temporary stay by the owner. The power is discretionary. If, in fact, a vehicle is not kept in the Colony for longer than three months it is not considered necessary that the owner should also have to establish that the vehicle was kept in the Colony in connexion with a temporary stay. Clause 4, therefore, in replacing section 6, deletes this additional requirement. Since the remaining requirement that the vehicle should not be kept within the Colony for longer than three months is a more readily ascertainable fact, the refund will depend on a certificate granted 'by the Commissioner of Police, and on the strength of the certificate the refund will be mandatory. The refund is only intended to be made in respect of vehicles permanently sent out of the Colony, and, accordingly, the refund is made to depend on the cancellation of registration of the vehicle on this ground. Should such a vehicle be brought back, the re-registration will be treated as first registration for the purpose of attracting the lax afresh.
3. Clause 5 contains two new sections. The first, providing for the retention of invoices and documents produced for the purpose of assessing and calculating the tax, is desirable for accounting and audit purposes. The second, which confers a right of appeal, by petition to the Governor in Council, against any decision of the Commissioner of Police, follows upon the other provisions of this Bill which confer powers upon the Commissioner of Police, for example the power to determine the market value of vehicles in certain cases.
GAMBLING (AMENDMENT) BILL 1967
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved the Second reading of: “A Bill to amend further the Gambling Ordinance.”
THE COLONIAL SECRETARY seconded.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL—15th February 1967 62
The question was put and agreed to.
The Bill was read a Second time.
Council then went into Committee to consider the Bill clause by clause.
Clauses 1 and 2 were agreed to.
Council then resumed.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL reported that the Gambling (Amendment Bill 1967 had passed through Committee without amendment moved the Third reading.
THE COLONIAL SECRETARY seconded.
The question was put and agreed to.
The Bill was read a Third time and passed.
LAND OFFICE (NEW TERRITORIES) FEES RULI (VALIDATION) BILL 1967
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY moved the Second reading of: “A Bill validate certain rules purporting to have been made in ex powers conferred by the New Territories Ordinance and the (of fees under the purported authority of the said rules.”
THE COLONIAL SECRETARY seconded.
The question was put and agreed to.
The Bill was read a Second time.
Council then went into Committee to consider the Bill clause by clause.
Clauses 1 and 2 and the Preamble were agreed to.
Council then resumed.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY reported that the Land Office Territories) Fees Rules (Validation) Bill 1967 had passed Committee without amendment and moved the Third reading.
THE COLONIAL SECRETARY seconded.
The question was put and agreed to.
The Bill was read a Third time and passed.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL—15th February 1967 63
ENGLISH SCHOOLS FOUNDATION BILL 1967
MR DHUN J. RUTTONJEE moved the Third reading of: “A Bill to establish the English Schools Foundation, to provide for its incorporation, constitution, functions and matters connected therewith.”
MR DICKSON LEACH seconded.
The question was put and agreed to.
The Bill was read a Third time and passed.
ADJOURNMENT
THE COLONIAL SECRETARY moved that the Council be now adjourned.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL seconded.
The question was put and agreed to.
NEXT MEETING
HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR:—Council will now adjourn. The next meeting will be held on 1st March.
PRINTED BY THE GOVERNMENT, HONG KONG