Page 88 of 279
152
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Cleansing Division of the Urban Services Department. Neither the Cleansing Division nor any other Division of the Department is in any way responsible for fencing of roadworks, and it would not be appropriate to accept a question on a matter which is outside the jurisdiction of the Council, merely because it enquires if the Department is involved. I feel sure you will appreciate the precedent which would be set, and the position in which I could find myself, if I was to accept your question.
In passing, Mr. BERNACCHI has criticized me for not including on the order paper what he calls his second question (about trees that is). My explanation is that this is part of the first question, rather than a question in its own right, and is quite unintelligible standing by itself.
Mr. BERNACCHI then rephrased his question in the following form: -
Is the Urban Council through the Urban Services Department responsible for putting up fencing when the Public Works Department or a Public Utility are digging up the roads? and he added that if I considered the question still out of order he wished to raise the matter in the form of a motion proposing:-
That this Council through the Urban Services Department puts up fencing around roads while they are being dug up by the Public Works Department or a Public Utility.
The following reply to his second letter was sent by the Secretary on my instructions:-
The Chairman has asked me to say that he considers your question about putting up fencing around road repairs, as rephrased in your letter of 24th June, open to the same objections as were expressed in his reply U.S.D. 3/539/63 of 23rd June, and he must therefore rule it out of order.
I note that your alternative is to propose a motion. Since the subject matter is outside the scope of jurisdiction of the Council it will be necessary to obtain the sanction of the Standing Committee of the Whole Council under Standing Order 10(1) and the item will be included on the agenda of the July meeting of Standing Committee.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I submit that my answers and interpretation of Standing Orders were both reasonable and correct, and I wish to state categorically for the benefit of any Member who may be in doubt that no question concerning the fencing of road works relates to the statutory functions or responsibility of the Council, and such a question must therefore be out of order as being not "within the jurisdiction of the Urban Council”, as required under Standing Order 8(8). It does not make a question in order merely to introduce the name of the Urban Council or the Urban Services Department. There would be no end to such questions: Is this Council responsible for shooting rockets to the moon? Is this Council responsible for civil aviation? Is this Council responsible for education? This type of question could clearly be used to allow ultra vires discussion by way of so-called supplementary questions and turn this Council into some sort of forum where all public affairs could be brought up at our meetings. I cannot accept such devices. The Council has a field of jurisdiction which is defined by law, and it is a Chairman's responsibility to see that it applies its energies to those matters which are within its jurisdiction and gets on with its proper job. Only a self-disciplined body can be adjudged worthy of increased power.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
153
Once a year by convention we have a general debate which includes many matters outside our jurisdiction. This enables Members to make known their views inside this Chamber publicly on matters which they feel to be of public interest, thus rivalling the Legislative Council annual debate. Surely that is the utmost liberty which this Council can expect. It cannot be too strongly stated that during the rest of the year we should confine ourselves in this Chamber to our proper business, and if a Member wishes to address the public on other matters he should do it through the Press or by other means. For example, Mr. Hu's two questions on relief of rainstorm victims and on the overflow of water from a reservoir to which I replied, by the way, "neither the Council nor I have any say in reservoirs or, for that matter, the causes of flooding" these two questions can very properly be asked in Legislative Council.
As for bringing supplementary questions to a halt when, in my judgment the original question has been sufficiently enlarged upon (I refer to my ruling against Mr. CHEONG-LEEN last month), this is a discretion and power commonly accorded to a Chairman. I claim that I do not exercise it too early and I beg leave to quote from Sir Thomas Erskine May's Treatise on The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament (15th Edition) page 347:
<<
Oral answers.—
An answer should be confined to the points contained in the question, with such explanation only as renders the answer intelligible, though a certain latitude is permitted to Ministers of the Crown; and supplementary questions, without debate or comment, may, within due limits, be addressed to them, which are necessary for the elucidation of the answers that they have given. The Speaker has called the attention of the House to the inconvenience that arises from an excessive demand for further replies, and, to hinder the practice, he has frequently felt it necessary to call upon the
Page 88 of 279