TNAG-1858-FCO40-2633-Legislative-Council-of-Hong-Kong-memoranda-and-minutes-of-me-1989 — Page 174

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

19 July 1989

香港立法局——————————一九八九年七月十九日

61

disqualification of a solicitor under a receiving order and so on, are supported by

all parties.

With these remarks, Sir, I support the Bill.

ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, may I record my gratitude to Mr. Edward HO and his colleagues on the ad hoc group for their significant contributions and help on this short but complex Bill. I would also like to join witness to help thanking the representatives of the Bar Association and the Law Society for their thoughtful and constructive comments.

As Members, during the Committee stage, Mr. HO and I will be moving a number of amendments reflecting the consensus of all parties over the Bill. I shall not go into the details of those amendments at this stage, but would like to make a number of more general points.

I turn first to the list of countries set out in the schedule to the Bill. Those countries are the ones (other than the United Kingdom) from which, for many years, expatriate lawyers have come to Hong Kong to work in government legal service. Those countries, to which I shall be proposing, during Committee stage, adding Singapore, have, like Hong Kong, high standards of legal education, high standards of professional conduct and a reputation for producing lawyers of high quality. They are countries with a strong common law tradition or, certainly, influence. The list is comprehensive and I would not readily see the need for it to be extended. But we are currently examining the case in Malaysia. Were we to propose such an extension, it would only be to include such countries that have the attributes I have just mentioned.

During the consultation with the legal professions over the Bill, some anxiety was expressed over the absence of any express provision requiring the court to take into account the public interest when admitting a former lawyer in government legal service, as a barrister or as a solicitor under the scheme in the Bill. Sir, the Bill did not contain such an express provision, because it is not necessary. The court has a discretion under the Bill as to such admissions. In exercising that, as with any other judicial discretion, considerations of the public interest are always to be taken into account.

I turn now to the question of examinations. One of the amendments I shall be moving in the Committee stage will be to require those seeking admission as