TNAG-1735-FCO40-2448-Minutes-and-Hansards-of-the-Legislative-Council-of-Hong-Kong-1988 — Page 81

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 June 1988

CHIEF SECRETARY: Sir, may I defer to my friend the Financial Secretary.

1511

FINANCIAL SECRETARY: Certainly, Sir, we had considered transferring appeals to the Governor in Council to an alternative body but, after we had studied the position, we concluded that this would present a number of difficulties. Under the Banking Ordinance some decisions are made to the Governor in Council so, if we were to set up an alternative body, it is likely that that body would be concerned with only some of the decisions under the Banking Ordinance. If an appellant body were established, it would normally be empowered to hear an appeal de novo; in other words, it would be empowered to take fresh evidence, and it would take decisions open to the administrator whose decision is under an appeal. Therefore, Sir, the tribunal could, in theory, reverse a decision based on the general policy of the administration of the Government and that policy would be a policy which had been accepted by institutions generally. It was felt, Sir, when we studied this matter, that it would be undesirable if the whole policy had to be reversed in an appeal before a new tribunal. It is unlikely, Sir, that such a tribunal would possess the full background to the policy on which the original policy decision had been made. It might also not be in a position to perceive all the wider implications of its decision. So, after study, Sir, it was considered that the best thing to do would be to leave these appeals with the Governor in Council as the principle policy-making body.

I accept, Sir, that some appeals under the Banking Ordinance could lie to an alternative body but there might be a number of technical issues to be resolved. Furthermore, Sir, it would not seem sensible, in our view, if we were to allocate some appeals to one body and others to remain with the Governor in Council.

MR. LI: Sir, in view of the likelihood of major disagreements between the banking institutions and the Commissioner of Banking over the imposition of specific capital adequacy ratio on local institutions, would the Financial Secretary not agree that the establishment of an independent appeal committee under the Banking Ordinance, as promised by his former predecessor and as suggested by me in this Chamber as long ago as 28 May 1986, has become a matter of extreme urgency?

FINANCIAL SECRETARY: I think, Sir, that the sort of matters that Mr. David LI has mentioned would in general be matters of policy, which would be better dealt with, as I have said in my answer, by the Governor in Council.

MR. SOHMEN: Sir, in light of the Financial Secretary's answers, could I ask why these explanations were not provided at the time when we were analysing and debating that particular Bill?

FINANCIAL SECRETARY: Sir, I am afraid it was my predecessor who was involved in that debate. I cannot answer this afternoon why those points were not mentioned at the time.