TNAG-1366-FCO40-1812-Hong-Kong-Legislative-Council-(Powers-and-Privileges)-Bill-1-1985 — Page 101

Bir,

DRAFT SPEECH BY HON MARIA TAM, OBE,

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL - 26.6.85

JP

Legislative Council (Powers and Privilages) Bill 1985

Committee Stage

fLB Get

I move that Ülanses 10, 17, 18 and 24 he amended out under my Дале in the paper circulated to momberu. In respect of Clause 24 of this bill the Honourable, John Swaina, QC who is a member of the Ad Hoc Group in charge of this bill, proposed an amendment at the Second Reading to the effect that Clause 24 should read as follows:- "the Council, the President or any officer of this Council should not be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the LAWFUL exercise of any power conferred on or vested in the Council, the President or such officer by or under this Ordinance or the Standing Orders."

In moving this amendment, I wish to elaborate on the reasons. The effect of this amendment is to give any person who

ie summoned by the Legislative Council or by a committee of the Council under Clauses 10(1), 13(1), 13(2), 14(1) or 16(1), to give evidence or produce documents to the Council or a committee, the option to seek a judicial review on whether the Council, the committee or the President has lawfully exercised their power, that is, whether it is within the doctrine of vires (another way of explaining that is whether it is within their power) befora having to answer euch a question or to produce ekoh documents. If the court should rule in favour of the witness, and hold that the president,

Council or Committee is acting ultra vireg, that means outside of their powers, then he will not be required to answer the question or to produce the document in issue.

Likewise with Clause 17(a) and (b) which provide the penalty of offences committed under Clause 13, the order made by the Council or a committee must be lawful, and the question put by them to a witness must be "lawful and relevant".

UMELCO RESTRICTED