TNAG-1365-FCO40-1811-Hong-Kong-Legislative-Council-(Powers-and-Privileges)-Bill-1-1985 — Page 142

GRS 1000

CONFIDENTIAL

TOP COPY,

CONFIDENTIAL HIKK 011 | 12

RECEIVED IN REGISTRY

DESKBY 1212OOZ

13 JUN1985

FM HONG KONG 1211112 JUN 85 CORRECTED VERSION

TO IMMEDIATE F C O

INDE

TELEGRAM NUMBER 1149 OF 12 JUNE

са

INFO IMMEDIATE HONG KONG GOVERNMENT OFFICE LONDON.

·

MIPT. NOT TO HONGAID LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (POWERS AND PRIVILEGES),

BILL SECOND READING DEBATE.

WE ARE SENDING TO YOU SEPARATELY THE TEXT OF THE AMENDED CLAUSES IN THE BILL WHICH WILL BE GAZETTED IN ITS AMENDED FORM ON FRIDAY 14 JUNE. OUR PRESENT INTENTION IS TO HAVE THE COMMITTEE STAGE AND THIRD

READING ON 26 JUNE BUT A FINAL DECISION ON TIMING WILL TAKE

ACCOUNT OF ANY FURTHER VIEWS THAT MAY BE EXPRESSED BY THE PUBLIC.

2. IN LEGCO THIS AFTERNOON 13 UNOFFICIALS SPOKE. THE GENERAL THEME

WAS OF SUPPORT FOR THE PRINCIPLES OF THE BILL, SUBJECT TO THE

INTRODUCTION AT THE COMMITTEE STAGE OF THE VARIOUS AMENDMENTS WHICH

HAD ALREADY BEEN AGREED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION. THE MOTION THAT THE

BILL BE READ THE SECOND TIME WAS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE BILL

WAS SO READ THIS AFTERNOON.

3. MISS MARIA TAM NOTED THAT IN TWELVE YEARS' TIME THE SAR GOVERNMENT

WOULD BE FORMED: THIS WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO LOOK AS NOW TO WESTMINSTER

FOR PRECEDENTS ON WHICH THE LEGISLATURE COULD BASE ITS CONDUCT AND

PROCEDURES. IT WAS THEREFORE NECESSARY NOW FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO

ENACT ITS OWN RULES. THIS BILL DID NOTHING MORE THAN TO CODIFY THE

EXISTING PARLIAMENTARY LAW IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DOCTRINE OF

INHERENT NECESSITY. MISS TAM AGREED THERE HAD BEEN A LACK OF UNDER-

STANDING ABOUT THE PURPOSES OF THE BILL: IN PARTICULAR THE CONCEPT

OF PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE WAS DIFFICULT FOR THE PUBLIC TO GRASP.

ALTHOUGH THERE HAD BEEN MANY CRITICS OF THE BILL RESERVATIONS HAD

BEEN TARGETED CONSISTENTLY AT THE SAME POINTS. THE DECISION TO

GO AHEAD WITH THE BILL WAS NOT TAKEN IN AN INSENSITIVE MANNER TO

THESE REPRESENTATIONS BECAUSE THE ADMINISTRATION HAD LONG SINCE

SHOWN ITS READINESS TO ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS.

4. MISS LYDIA DUNN SAID THAT SO MUCH HEAT HAD BEEN GENERATED THAT

THE PURPOSE OF THE SECOND READING OF THE BILL HAD BEEN FORGOTTEN.

THIS WAS SIMPLY TO ADDRESS THE PRINCIPLES BEHIND THE BILL AND TO

ENABLE MEMBERS TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINION OF THE BILL AS A WHOLE.

ALTHOUGH SHE AGREED WITH MANY OF THE DETAILED CRITICISMS THIS WAS NOT

THE TIME FOR CONSIDERING THEM. THEY SHOULD BE DEALT WITH AT THE

COMMITTEE STAGE WHEN THE BILL WOULD BE CONSIDERED CLAUSE BY CLAUSE

AND A NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS WOULD BE TABLED.

5. DR HO KAM-FAI DISAGREED WITH THE SUGGESTION BY CRITICS OF THE

BILL THAT IT CONFERS MORE POWERS AND PRIVILEGES THAN THOSE

PRESENTLY ENJOYED BY THE COUNCIL.

CONFIDENTIAL

16.

སླ

23