XN000022-1985-06-12 — Page 4

N

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 1985

--

THE DEBATE AND DISCUSSIONS OF THE PAST WEEKS HAD BEEN MOST VALUABLE AND A GREAT DEAL OF USEFUL AND CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM ARISING FROM THE PUBLIC DEBATE HAD BEEN RECEIVED, HE SAID.

THERE HAD BEEN SO MUCH CRITICISM OF CERTAIN PASSAGES

OF THE BILL THAT THERE HAD BEEN DANGER OF LOSING SIGHT OF THE ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLES AND OBJECTIVES LYING BEHIND THE LEGISLATION. THAT WAS NOT TO SAY THAT THERE HAD NOT BEEN WELCOME SUPPORT FOR THESE PRINCIPLES FROM A NUMBER OF QUARTERS.

*THE QUESTION BEFORE US TODAY IS TO DECIDE, HAVING LISTENED TO CRITICISM AND ADVICE WHETHER WE ARE PREPARED TO PROCEED WITH THE SECOND READING OF THE BILL, DOING SO IN THE KNOWLEDGE THAT WE STICK TO THE PRINCIPLES BUT MAKE SUFFICIENT, AND IN SOME CASES SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS AND DELETIONS TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS WHICH HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED, HE SAID.

IT WAS NECESSARY NOW TO SET DOWN IN LAW A CLEAR STATEMENT OF THE POWERS AND PROTECTION THAT FUTURE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL WOULD HAVE BEFORE THEM WHEN THEY TAKE OFFICE AS A RESULT OF THE PROCESS OF CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE, HE SAID.

IT WAS ALSO FITTING THAT THIS SHOULD BE DONE AS THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL WAS ABOUT TO MOVE INTO ITS OWN PREMISES IN OCTOBER. THERE WAS NEED TO HAVE SET OUT CLEARLY IN THE LAW OF HONG KONG THE AUTHORITY OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT TO REGULATE THE CONDUCT OF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ADMITTED TO THE NEW COUNCIL CHAMBER, TO COMMITTEE ROOMS AND TO ROOMS SET ASIDE FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO MEET MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, HE SAID.

REFERRING TO THE QUESTION OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BILL,+ MR AKERS-JONES' SAID THAT JUST AS THE PROVISIONS OF THE BILL WERE DERIVED FROM THE EXISTING LAW, SO THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BILL REFLECTED THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE LAW.

+AND THAT LAW IS PARLIAMENTARY LAW. IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT THE BILL PROPOSES TO INTRODUCE PARLIAMENTARY LAW IN A SITUATION WHERE IT IS NOT ALREADY PRESENT.

+THE ESSENTIAL POINT THAT MUST BE EMPHASISED IS THAT PARLIAMENTARY LAW IS NOW BEING AND HAS LONG BEEN APPLIED TO HONG KONG IN RESPECT OF THIS COUNCIL.

+1 AM ADVISED AND I ACCEPT THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF HONG KONG THIS BILL IS A FAITHFUL REFLECTION OF THAT LAW AND THE EXISTING SITUATION: IT DOES NOT INTRODUCE NEW LAW, HE SAID.

AN ELEMENT OF THE BILL THAT WAS SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT FROM THE CLASSIC TRADITIONS OF PARLIAMENTARY LAW WAS THAT INSTEAD OF THE COUNCIL CLAIMING POWER TO PUNISH FOR BREACHES OF PRIVILEGE, THAT QUESTION WAS TO BE HANDED OVER TO THE COURTS.

/+IN OTHER .............