Dr Harry FANG concluded the debate on behalf of Unofficial Members, saying that subject to the extensive amendments to be proposed at the Committee Stage, the Unofficials were satisfied that the Bill would provide those rights, duties and obligations which were necessary for the orderly and lawful conduct of the Legislative Council.
The official reply was delivered by Sir David Akers-Jones, the Chief Secretary. He stressed that there was no hidden agenda behind the introduction of the Bill. As LegCo acquired an elected element, responsibilities of individual Members would change and it was necessary to set down in law a statement of powers and protection they had to discharge their duties. He said that the philosophy as well as the provisions of the Bill were derived from existing parliamentary law. The difference was that instead of LegCo claiming power to punish for breaches of privilege, that question was handed over to the courts. It was up to the courts to decide whether any power exercised by the Council or its President or officers was indeed conferred by the Bill. The sole purpose and effect of Clause 24 was to prevent the courts giving directions or rules to regulate the way in which the power should or should not be used. He supported the proposed amendment to make it clear that the Clause dealt with the lawful exercise of power conferred by this Bill or Standing Orders. He believed that the Bill in its amended form would commend itself to Members and to the public.
A revised version of the Bill containing all the amendments to be proposed at the Committee Stage was gazetted on 14.6.85 for public information. This was the first time that a revised text of a Bill was published before the Committee Stage and it was also the first time that the full text of a Bill was published in both English and Chinese.
Twelve representations were received after the publication of the revised Bill. The LegCo Ad Hoc Group met twice to discuss the representations and it was agreed that three more amendments should be moved in addition to those indicated at the Second Reading debate. Two of them were deletions of references to 'insult' of Members
and motions 'expected to be brought before the Council, while the third one would spell out more clearly the restriction on the giving of evidence relating to security
matters.
At the Committee Stage on 26.6.85, Miss Maria TAM, Dr HO Kam-fai, Mr Andrew SO, Mr Stephen CHEONG, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr CHAN Ying-lun and Mrs Pauline NG moved amendments and deletions to 13 out of 28 clauses of the original Bill. All of the amendments were agreed
to.
The Convener of the Ad Hoc Group, Miss Maria TAM, said that the points of substance raised in the representations had been dealt with by the amendments and the remaining comments showed a divergence of opinion. Even if the Bill was delayed for another two weeks they would still fail to satisfy everyone. LegCo Members had to look at the provisions calmly and make the necessary decision to pass the Bill. Regarding calls for deferment until there were elected Members in LegCo, Miss TAM said that it was always open for the new legislative session to examine this piece of legislation again. Although the original objective was to codify parliamentary practice that was or could be extended to a colonial legislature under the doctrine of 'inherent necessity', the Ad Hoc Group quickly realised that the concept of parliamentary privilege was far removed from the ordinary life of people in Hong Kong. They therefore aimed at retaining what was in fact necessary for LegCo to function efficiently and effectively and cast aside much of what was said to be 'inherently necessary'. As regards the future development of LegCo, she said that all the suggestions made by the public would need to be considered between now and 1987.
In his speech, Mr Allen LEE recounted his experience in entering the UK Houses of Parliament and said that the provision for regulating admittance to the Council precincts was merely house rules. He saw no need in further amending the revised Clause 8 as he was sure discretion would be used. He also criticised a reported move by a member of the legal profession to seek UK intervention in this Bill. He
complimented and agreed with the Chairman of the Bar Association and the President of the Law Society on their statement that the Bill could be perfectly adequately dealt with in Hong Kong and, in any event, Hong Kong had to learn to stand on its own feet.
Mr Stephen CHEONG addressed the postulation that the restriction on evidence relating to correspondence on the security of Hong Kong and UK responsibilities therein would usher in complete subordination of the legislature to the executive. He said that the provision was meant to deal with specific matters such as defence, security or foreign policies which were the responsibility of UK until 1997 and the People's Republic of China for the years beyond that. However, the original draft Clause 14 could be open to misconstruction and amendments had been made accordingly at the Committee Stage. Mr CHEONG also spoke of the dilemma faced by the Unofficials in making a decision to pass the Bill. He said that battle tactics of jumping on the bandwagon were pushing them into a corner. If they succumbed to demands which were not backed by adequate reasoning and to delay the Third Reading until the next session, they would run a real risk of selling Hong Kong down the path of inefficient administration. However, if they did not concede to such demands, they would be accused of acting against the proclaimed wishes of the people. He believed that if legislators had been conscientious and diligent in their deliberations, considered all representations and taken steps to amend what might be wrong, then their duties would have been discharged honorably.
Concluding the debate on behalf of the Unofficials, Sir Roger Lobo said that since the Bill had been introduced into the Council, it was Members' duty to deal with it. Although there had been a persistent call for the Bill to be deferred, he had heard no arguments of substance for this step. It was important that the new Council should know where it stood and have statutory support for its functions from the outset. Useful and desirable amendments had been made in response to the helpful
19
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.