WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 1985
13
IN PARTICULAR, THEY THOUGHT THE POWER TO CALL WITNESSES TO GIVE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COUNCIL WAS A NEW INVENTION AND EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT IT MIGHT INFRINGE ON PRIVACY OR CIVIL LIBERTIES.
HE INVITED ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT SUCH POWER HAD FOR MANY YEARS BEEN PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE OATHS AND DECLARATIONS ORDINANCE AND ANALYSED WHY IT WAS NECESSARY TO LAY DOWN THE SAME POWER UNDER THIS BILL.
HE THOUGHT THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION WAS TWO-FOLD.
+FIRST, IT WOULD BE PREFERABLE TO TIDY UP AND PUT TOGETHER PROVISIONS ON THIS COUNCIL'S POWERS AND PRIVILEGES SCATTERED IN DIFFERENT PLACES SO THAT THE PUBLIC AS WELL AS FUTURE MEMBERS OF THIS COUNCIL MAY HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF WHAT THOSE POWERS AND PRIVILEGES ARE.
+SECONDLY, IN VIEW OF THE CHANGE OF SOVEREIGNTY OVER HONG KONG IN 1997, WE CANNOT SIMPLY RELY ON THE PRACTICE IN THE UK HOUSE OF COMMONS AS PROVIDED IN THE OATHS AND DECLARATIONS ORDINANCE, + HE SAID.
+WE NEED TO LAY DOWN NOW WHAT EXACTLY ARE THOSE POWERS AND PRIVILEGES RELATING TO EVIDENCE AND TO BUILD UP OUR OWN TRADITION.
+AFTER ALL, 12 YEARS IS NOT A LONG TIME, HE ADDED.
AS FOR THE FINANCE COMMITTEE AND THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE, HE POINTED OUT THAT THEIR POWER TO CALL EVIDENCE WAS NOW GOVERNED BY STANDING ORDERS.
EMPHASIS ING THAT THE PURPOSE OF SUMMONS ING WITNESSES WAS TO INVESTIGATE MATTERS OF PUBLIC POLICY, DR HO SOUGHT TO FURTHER ASSURE PEOPLE WHO MIGHT STILL HAVE DOUBTS ABOUT THIS THAT UNDER CLAUSE 12 OF THE BILL A WITNESS SUMMONSED TO GIVE EVIDENCE OR TO PRODUCE ANY PAPER BEFORE THE COUNCIL MIGHT REFUSE TO ANSWER A QUESTION OR PRODUCE ANY SUCH PAPER ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS OF A PRIVATE NATURE AND DID NOT AFFECT THE SUBJECT OF INQUIRY.
THE PRESIDENT MIGHT THEN EXCUSE THE ANSWERING OF THE QUESTION OR PRODUCTION OF THE PAPER.
+FURTHER PROTECTION IS GIVEN UNDER CLAUSE 14(1) WHICH SAYS THAT A WITNESS IS ENTITLED TO THE SAME RIGHT AND PRIVILEGE AS BEFORE A COURT OF LAW, WHICH INCLUDES NON-DISCLOSURE OF PRIVILEGED INFORMATION LIKE THAT BETWEEN A WITNESS AND HIS LAWYER, AND PROTECTION AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION, HE SAID.
ADDRESSING THE CONCERN RAISED OVER THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT IN DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT A WITNESS MIGHT BE EXCUSED FROM ANSWERING A QUESTION OR PRODUCING A PAPER, DR HO SAID SOMEONE HAD TO DECIDE ON SUCH MATTERS AND IT APPEARED TO BE A SENSIBLE ARRANGEMENT FOR THE PRESIDENT TO MAKE THE DECISION.
/+THE PRESIDENT,