TNAG-1365-FCO40-1811-Hong-Kong-Legislative-Council-(Powers-and-Privileges)-Bill-1-1985 — Page 143

6. MR ANDREY SO REFERRED TO CRITICISM OF CLAUSE 15 AND LOOKED FORWARD TO THE AMENDMENTS WHICH HAD BEEN PROMISED TO IMPROVE IT.

7. MR JOHN SWAINE WAS ENCOURAGED THAT THE POWER TO PUNISH OFFENDERS WOULD LIE WITH THE COURTS. HE DWELLED AT SOME LENGTH ON CLAUSE 24. THE ULTIMATE IMMUNITY FROM THE COURTS ALLOWED PARLIAMENT IN THE UNITED KINGDOM COULD NEVER BE APPLIED IN HONG KONG. CLAUSE 24 IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM WAS OPEN TO OBJECTIONS AS GOING BEYOND THAT POSITION. HE WAS GLAD TO LEARN THAT THE ADMINISTRATION PLANNED TO TABLE AMENDMENTS WHICH WOULD EXCLUDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE LAWFUL EXERCISE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED BY THE BILL OR STANDING ORDERS. THE AMENDMENT WOULD LEAVE INTACT THE COURTS' POWERS OF ENQUIRY AS TO WHETHER (1) THE POWER IN QUESTION EXISTS AND (2) WHETHER THE EXERCISE OF THAT POWER IS LAWFUL.

2. MR STEPHEN CHEONG ADMITTED THAT MEMBERS OF THE LEGCO AD HOC GROUP CONVENED TO CONSIDER THE BILL HAD NOT AT FIRST DETECTED ITS CONTROV- ERSIAL ELEMENTS. LIKEWISE THERE WAS NO PUBLIC RESPONSE FOR SOME TIME AFTER THE BILL WAS GAZETTED. NEVERTHELESS A GREAT DEAL OF GROUND HAD BEEN COVERED IN THE COURSE OF INTENSIVE DEBATE WHICH HAD SUBSEQUENTLY DEVELOPED. HE DISPUTED THE NOTION THAT THE BILL WAS NOW BEING RUSHED THROUGH WITH INDECENT HASTE, ALSO THAT THE PRESENT COUNCIL WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO PASS JUDGMENT ON THE BILL. IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS MEMBERS HAD TO BE TRUSTED. IN THIS CASE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS HAD BEEN SUBJECT TO DETAILED AND CAREFUL SCRUTINY. THIS DEMONSTRATED THE EFFECT ACHIEVED THROUGH CONSCIOUS AND REASONABLE

PUBLIC REPRESENTATIONS TO UMELCO. FURTHER DEFERMENT OF THE BILL WAS

THEREFORE UNNECESSARY.

9. MRS SELINA CHOW REFERRED TO CLAUSE 17 (D) ON THE OFFENCE OF ''INTENTIONAL DISRESPECT''. THIS HAD NOT BEEN UNDERSTOOD AND SHE RECOMMENDED THAT IT BE DROPPED. LIKEWISE SHE SHARED MEDIA MISGIVINGS ABOUT CLAUSE 20. THIS SEEMED TO ERODE THE MEDIA'S ROLE AS A PUBLIC

WATCHDOG. BUT IN DISPOSING OF CLAUSE 20 WE NEEDED TO FIND A WAY

OF PREVENTING THE DISCLOSURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF CONFIDENTIAL

MEETINGS OF THE COUNCIL.

10. MR CHAN YING-LUN SPOKE OF THE NEED TO REDRAFT CLAUSE 8 IN ORDER

TO STATE IN THE POSITIVE SENSE THE RIGHT OF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

TO ENTER THE COUNCIL CHAMBER UNLESS EXCLUDED BY AN ORDER OF THE

PRESIDENT.

11. THE CHIEF SECRETARY REPLIED ON BEHALF OF THE ADMINISTRATION.

FOR A TEXT OF HIS REPLY SEE MY SECOND FOLLOWING TELEGRAM.

YOUDE

LIMITED HKD

PS

PS/MR LUCE

SIR W HARDING MR WILSON

CONFIDENTIAL