TNAG-1367-FCO40-1813-Hong-Kong-Legislative-Council-(Powers-and-Privileges)-Bill-1-1985 — Page 8

lammed inte

Mr. Galsworthy HKD

dps

ab

Dr Wilson

HK: POWERS AND PRIVILEGES

1

mentioned

во пот

lavo

night

that

John

Morris,

QC,

MP

had

asker

to su

Mr.

Line

In advance

I the

3rd

Reading of the

g

Powers and

Privileger Bill. Here

helex from the HK

profession

which

is the

legal

his call

th

has

based.

2. He

coming

to see the.

Like

ar 12.15

Monday 24

June. May

I please have a

short brief - if possible for

21

roniquis

box?

theormacol 16

HKK 011/12

RECEIVED IN REGISTRY

3 1 JUL 1985

DESK OFFICER

INDEX

REGISTRY

PA

Action Taken

+

A

MR. I. MACCALLUM ASKED ME TO TELEX THIS STATEMENT TO YOU AND TO INFORM YOU THAT YOU ARE AUTHORIZED TO GIVE THE COPY TO

R. JOHN MORRIS, Q.C. FOR HIS INFO.

QUOTE:

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (POWERS AND PRIVILEGES) BILL

THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION, THE PRESIDENT OF THE LAW SOCIETY AND THE CHAIRMAN OF JUSTICE RESPECTFULLY CALL UPON GOVERNMENT TO DEFER FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL PREFERABLY UNTIL THE NEXT SESSION OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

THE AMENDMENTS WERE ONLY PUBLISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT LAST FRIDAY. SUBSTANTIALLY MORE TIME SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO THE PUBLIC GENERALLY. AND THE MANY ORGANIZATIONS WHICH HAVE EXPRESSED CONCERN, TO CONSIDER THESE AMENDMENTS AND TO MAKE COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS ON THEM.

GOVERNMENT'S APPARENT ATTEMPT TO HAVE THIS PIECE OF

LEGISLATION PASSED SO SPEEDILY WITHOUT ANY COMPELLING REASON WILL RAISE SERIOUS DOUBTS AS TO THE SINCERITY OF GOVERNMENT IN CLAIMING TO CONTINUE THE TRADITION OF CONSULTATIVE GOVERNMENT.

ALTHOUGH THE AMENDMENTS HAVE REMEDIED SOME OF THE MOST OBVIOUS FAULTS OF THE ORIGINAL BILL THERE ARE STILL CERTAIN AREAS THAT GIVE RISE TO CONCERN:-

-

STUNDRAZ

CLAUSE 8(2): IT APPEARS TO BE WIDELY ACCEPTED THAT STANDING ORDERS THEMSELVES REQUIRE A TOTAL REVIEW AND AS THEY, AND ANY AMENDMENT OF THEM ARE NOT SUBJECT TO PUBLIC SCRUTINY AND COMMENT, THE RIGHT TO OPEN GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THEIR TERMS. THE WORDS 'THE STANDING ORDERS OR'' SHOULD THEREFORE BE DELETED.

CLAUSE 8(3): THE CONTROL OF PUBLIC ACCESS AND PUBLIC CONDUCT IN THE CHAMBER SHOULD BE BY WAY OF A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL, NOT BY A UNILATERAL INSTRUCTION'' FROM THE PRESIDENT. MOREOVER THE PHRASE ''AND FOR OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES'' GIVES FAR TOO WIDE A SCOPE TO BAR THE PUBLIC FROM MEETINGS. THE PRECEDING REASONS ARE ALL THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR THIS PURPOSE.

CLAUSE 19(A): THE USE OF WORD ''INSULT"

IN THIS PROVISION IS WHAT MAY APPEAR TO

A RESTRICTION OF THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH. A LEGISLATIVE COUNCILLOR TO BE AN INSULT MAY APPEAR TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO BE LEGITIMATE CRITICISM. THE WORDS ''INSULTS'' AND ''INSULT'' SHOULD BE DELETED.

THE REFERENCE TO A MOTION OR MATTER EXPECTED TO BE BROUGHT'' BEFORE THE COUNCIL OR A COMMITTEE IS FAR TOO VAGUE A PHRASE TO BE USED IN A PROVISION IMPOSING CRIMINAL SANCTIONS. THESE WORDS SHOULD BE DELETED.

CLAUSE 23: FOR THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE REMOVING THE RIGHT OF THE COURTS TO REVIEW THE EXERCISE OF POWERS CONFERRED BY STANDING ORDERS IS UNACCEPTABLE. THE REFERENCE TO ''OR THE STANDING ORDERS'' SHOULD BE DELETED.

AS

WE ARE ALSO CONCERNED THAT THIS BILL REFLECTS A VERY SHORT TERM APPROACH TO THE POSITION OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. MISS LYDIA DUNN SAID IN ANOTHER CONTEXT DURING THE BUDGET DEBATE, IT IS CLEARLY NECESSARY THAT WE SHOULD THINK AHEAD A GOOD DEAL FURTHER''.

OUR SUPPORT FOR THIS BILL WITH THE AMENDMENTS WHICH WE HAVE PROPOSED IS ONLY ON THE BASIS THAT THERE WILL BE A COMPLETE REVIEW OF THE POSITION AND STATUS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL AT THE SAME TIME AS THE ALREADY PROMISED REVIEW OF THE STEPS TOWARDS REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT.