XN000022-1995-01-25 — Page 14

Mr President, over the years, a number of amendments have been made to the Employment Ordinance. On every occasion, the Administration has consulted, and obtained the agreement of the Labour Advisory Board on the proposals before the amendment bill was submitted to this Council. Because bills committees were normally set up to study previous Bills to amend the Employment Ordinance, the Administration was always able to go back to the Board for further consultation in the event that Legco Members disagreed with any proposed amendments. However, as has been pointed out, no bills committee was set up to examine the Employment (Amendment) Bill 1994. We had no opportunity to consult the Board on amendments to the Bill proposed by the Honourable Lau Chin-shek. Since these were substantially different from the broad consensus reached by the Board, we would have failed in our duty had we allowed the Bill as amended by him to be enacted.

It has been suggested that the Administration could have adjourned the debate on the bill rather than withdrawing it. But what would that have achieved? Had that course been followed, we would have to reintroduce at third reading the same bill,

that is the bill as amended in Committee. Withdrawal of the Bill enabled the Administration to come forward with a new bill, as indeed it did. So withdrawal would give much flexibility.

As the Secretary for Education and Manpower has already assured this Council, the sole purpose of withdrawing the Bill last month was to enable the Administration to consult the LAB again on the important issues of severance payment and long service payment. This we did. The new package of improvements endorsed by the Board was embodied in the Employment (Amendment) Bill 1995 which was passed by the Council last week.

Mr President, it is wrong to see that our action in withdrawing the Employment (Amendment) bill 1994 is a challenge to the rights of Honourable Members in this Council. We simply exercised the power provided under Standing Order 52 of this Council. The Standing Order explicitly 'allows the Member in charge of a bill to withdraw or postpone a bill at the beginning of the proceedings on a bill at a sitting. A bill withdrawn, I stress that word, a bill withdrawn, may subsequently be reintroduced in the same session as another bill with the same objects or with the same provisions as the one which has been withdrawn. We were surprised that Members reacted so strongly to our action. Although this action is unusual in Hong Kong, there are many examples in the United Kingdom, on whose parliamentary practice ours is based, where the Government withdrew bills when they had been significantly amended in committee.