TNAG-1442-FCO40-1926-Constitutional-development-in-Hong-Kong-1986 — Page 224

representations Members had received. They were satisfied that they might now pass the Bill in good conscience.

In the official reply, Sir David Akers-Jones, the Chief Secretary, said that the principal objective was concerned with the need to establish a clear identity for Hong Kong and to have that identity firmly established in our Statute Law. The Bill was linked to a number of practical measures designed to establish this identity. Those measures included the alternative form of Oath, amendments to the Royal Instructions, electoral laws and a new independent Legislative Council Chamber. He reiterated that there was no hidden agenda and no concealed motive. The future Council could debate the legislation again if they wished.

The Bill was read the third time and passed on 26.6.85.

Water Pollution Control (Amendment) Bill 1985

First Reading: 12.6.85

Second & Third Readings: 10.7.85

The main purpose of the Bill was to clarify certain provisions of the Water Pollution Control Ordinance. In particular, it sought to bring within the scope of the Ordinance any discharge of oil, or a mixture containing oil, into waters situated inside a Water Control Zone; to specify the persons who might claim compensation following the cancellation or variation of a licence or of an exemption in respect of a discharge or deposit of matter into a Water Control Zone; and to provide that, in the event of disagreement over the amount of compensation, the matter would be referred to the Lands Tribunal for determination.

The Bill and the draft Water Pollution Control (General) Regulations 1985 were published for public information on 31.5.85.

In view of the wide-ranging implications of the Bill, an Ad Hoc Group comprising members of the LegCo Social Services and Economic Services Working Groups was set up under the convenership of Dr Harry FANG to study the Bill and the draft Water Pollution Control (General) Regulations. An in-house meeting of the Ad Hoc Group was called on 13.6.85 and a press release inviting representations on the proposed water

pollution control legislation was subsequently issued.

The Ad Hoc Group also met with the Administration. It was agreed that while the Bill itself did not appear to be controversial, Members would like to have more time to study the regulations and to receive representations. The Ad Hoc Group accordingly suggested and the Administration agreed that the remaining stages of the Bill be deferred for two weeks. Public response to the gazetted draft regulations was, however, disappointing; only three groups submitted their views and they were the Hong Kong Printers and Dyers Association Ltd, the Conservancy Association and the Federation of Hong Kong Industries.

At the debate on the Second Reading, Dr FANG supported the Bill itself but reflected the concern expressed by the Federation of Hong Kong Industries about the possible impact that the proposed legislation would have on the oil industry, especially in the case of oil spillage. He also pointed out, that the Ad Hoc Group had reservations about the draft regulations. Dr FANG commented on the views put forward in the representations received and noted the unenthusiastic response to the call for representations on the draft regulations. He urged the Administration to carry out wider consultation and to report to LegCo on the result of such consultation before the regulations were tabled.

In reply, the Secretary for Health and Welfare thanked Dr FANG and the Ad Hoc Group for their support for the Bill and clarified that it was not the intention to replace existing controls on marine oil pollution under the Shipping and Port Control Ordinance by the Water Pollution Control Ordinance. As regards the draft regulations, he stressed that extensive consultations had been conducted but agreed to arrange for further publicity to be given to the proposals.

The Bill was read the third time and passed on 10.7.85.

Regional Council Bill 1985

First Reading: 19.6.85

Second & Third Readings: 10.7.85

The Bill provided for the establishment, membership, functions and powers of the Regional Council. It stipulated that the Regional Council would have 36 members: 12 appointed members; 12 members

elected directly from constituencies to the Regional Council; nine members representing the nine New Territories District Boards (NTDBs); and the Chairman and two Vice-chairmen of the Heung Yee Kuk as ex-officio members. The NT District Boards had already elected their representatives to the Provisional Regional Council in April 1985. In order to ensure continuity, the Bill stipulated that such DB representatives would become the representative members of the Regional Council upon its inception. They would hold office until 1988 when the next DB election would be

held. The Bill also defined the responsibility of the Council in providing services relating to public health, sanitation, hygiene, recreation and culture in areas outside the jurisdiction of the Urban Council.

Following the introduction of the Bill, representations were received from the Heung Yee Kuk and some NT DB members on the proposed membership of the Council. In the Provisional Regional Council, three of the 12 appointed members were from the Heung Yee Kuk representing its three constituencies. It was the Administration's intention that this position should be reviewed in 1987. However, the Kuk was concerned that the appointments should be written clearly into the law. A group of NT DB members coming from four DBs met with Members expressing their dissatisfaction over the automatic extension of the tenure of office of the DB representative members, currently serving on the Provisional Regional Council, to 1988. Some of them argued that when they elected their representatives to the Provisional Regional Council, they had been given the understanding that they would only serve for one year.

The Bill and the above representations were studied carefully by the LegCo General Services Working Group under the convenership of Mr F K HU. The Group met with the Administration twice to discuss the controversial clauses. It was concluded that amendments should be made to leave the option open for NT DBS to decide whether they should hold a re-election of their representatives to the Regional Council. With regard to the appointment of members, it was decided that the proposed arrangement should remain unchanged.

20