TNAG-1365-FCO40-1811-Hong-Kong-Legislative-Council-(Powers-and-Privileges)-Bill-1-1985 — Page 144

GRS 850

CONFIDENTIAL

CONFIDENTIAL

DESK BY 121200Z

FM HONG KONG 12110OZ JUN 35

TO IMMEDIATE F C O

TELEGRAM NUMBER 1148 OF 12 JUNE

HKK 011/12

RECEIVED IN REGISTRY

ZUN 1985

DESK OFFICED

INDEX

PA

Ckr

YOUR TELNO 814: LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (POWERS AND PRIVILEGES

BILL)

1. YOU WILL RECALL THAT THIS BILL WAS FIRST CONCEIVED AND DRAFTED

IN AUGUST 1984 AS PART OF THE ARRANGEMENTS NECESSARY FOR THE

INTRODUCTION OF A NEW STYLE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL COMPOSED OF BOTH

APPOINTED AND ELECTED MEMBERS WHICH WILL BE SET UP IN OCTOBER

THIS YEAR.

2. THE BILL WAS DESIGNED LARGELY TO FOLLOW THE STANDARD PATTERN

OF LEGISLATION DEVELOPED FOR LEGISLATURES IN OTHER EX-COLONIAL

OR COMMONWEALTH TERRITORIES. IT WAS REFERRED TO AN AD HOC GROUP

OF LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO CONSIDERED IT FOR SOME MONTHS

PRIOR TO ITS PUBLICATION AND INTRODUCTION. THE GROUP WAS CHAIRED

BY MISS TAM, HERSELF A BARRISTER. THE REPORT OF THE AD HOC GROUP RECOMMENDED A NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS WHICH WERE INCORPORATED IN THE

BILL BEFORE IT WAS INTRODUCED TO THE COUNCIL IN A SPEECH BY THE

CHIEF SECRETARY ON 15 MAY. (THERE IS A COPY OF THE REPORT AND

THE BILL AS INTRODUCED ATTACHED TO EXCO PAPER XCC (35)48 OF 7 MAY.)

3. THE LEGITIMATE PURPOSE OF THE BILL WAS RECOGNISED BY A NUMBER

OF COMMUNITY GROUPS AND AT FIRST IT ATTRACTED LITTLE ATTENTION.

BUT JUST BEFORE ITS SECOND READING ON 29 MAY A NUMBER OF CRITICISMS

OF SPECIFIC CLAUSES BEGAN TO SURFACE. THE RESUMPTION OF THE SECOND

READING WAS DEFERRED UNTIL TODAY (12 JUNE) TO GIVE TIME FOR FUTHER

REPRESENTATIONS. IT WAS AT THIS POINT THAT THE CHORUS OF COMMENT

FROM SOME MEMBERS OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION, THE PRESS, AND THE

SMALL BUT HIGHLY VOCAL PRESSURE GROUPS CRITICAL OF THE GOVERNMENT

AROSE.

4. IN THIS CHORUS SOME VALID POINTS WERE MADE PARTICULARLY ABOUT CLAUSES 16, 20 AND 24. THE PRESS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT CLAUSE 20

WHICH MADE DEFAMATION OF THE COUNCIL AN OFFENCE AND PROVIDED

PENALTIES FOR REPORTING PROCEEDINGS WHICH THE COUNCIL HAD DECIDED

SHOULD NOT BE PUBLISHED. THE LEGAL PROFESSION WERE ALSO CONCERNED

ABOUT CLAUSE 16 WHICH IT WAS HELD GAVE EXCESSIVE IMMUNITY TO

WITNESSES CALLED BEFORE THE COUNCIL: AND CLAUSE 24 WHICH IT WAS HELD

MIGHT IMPEDE ACCESS TO THE JUDICIARY PARTICULARLY WHERE POWERS

MIGHT HAVE BEEN EXERCISED UNLAWFULLY. CLAUSE 20 WILL BE WITHDRAWN

ON THE GROUNDS THAT ITS PURPOSE CAN SE MET PARTLY BY THE USE OF

CIVIL LAW GOVERNING DEFAMATION OF INDIVIDUALS: AND THAT OTHER MEANS

TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIAL PROCEEDINGS MIGHT BE SOUGHT. THE CONCERN

ABOUT CLAUSES 16 AND 24 HAS BEEN MET BY FURTHER AMENDMENTS (ON CLAUSE 24 WE RECOMMEND THE SPEECH BY MR. JOHN SWAINE, QC, SENT SEPARATELY).

CONFIDENTIAL

15.

JRY

20