TNAG-1220-FCO40-1530-Democratic-representation-and-reform-in-Hong-Kong-1983 — Page 132

10

j. 34

The presentation of the Supplementary Appropriation Bill will provide an opportunity for a third (minor) general debate. Although there is usually a great deal of work at the end of a session, the Working Group considers such a debate might be useful. It would round off the work of the session and might provide useful guidelines on which the administration could work during the recess prior to the Governor's annual address.

Adjournment Debates

35

The Working Group noted that adjournment debates under Standing Order 9 were an obvious opportunity for Unofficials to express their views; and that relatively little use had been made of this provision since its introduction in 1966. A list of adjournment debates since 1966 is at Appendix I. The stated purpose in 1966 (see Appendix II) was to allow Members "to initiate a brief debate on some matter of general public interest or concern without the formality of a substantive motion and without the rigidity that is required in the asking and answering of questions". There have been no developments in Legislative Council practice since 1966 to reduce the value of this opportunity for debate.

36

The Working Group considered Standing Order 9 in detail to see whether it required improvement to facilitate debate. It concluded that the President should be given a discretionary power under Standing Order 9(7) to extend the period of 20 minutes within which an ex-officio or official Member must, be called upon to reply, since if several unofficials were to choose to speak on the same matter the time allowed would be a little short; the President should have a similar power of discretion under Standing Order 9(8) to allow the debate to go on beyond a total of 30 minutes.

37

The Working Group noted that adjournment debates required seven days' notice instead of the four days' notice sufficient for motions, and considered whether this should be changed. But the essential point seemed to be that whereas the debate on a motion might be adjourned to allow material to be gathered for a reply, an adjournment debate is concluded at the same sitting. The extra notice is in effect a guarantee that officials have adequate time available in which to prepare for debate. It might be detrimental to the quality of the debate if they had less time to prepare. Accordingly the Working Group does not recommend any change, although it notes that the President has discretion to waive the seven days' requirement if he judges

fit.