TNAG-2217-FCO40-3184-Constitutional-development-in-Hong-Kong-1991 — Page 6

Our view is that given the introduction of a clear element of salary and the size of the allowance, all payments should only be made as reimbursement for actual expenses incurred, subject to the overall ceiling or possibly a ceiling for each category of expenses.

This will ensure better financial accountability than the present system, which applies to Municipal Councillors and district board members as well. Further thought will need to be given to the details of ensuring accountability of the allowance in future. example where a Legislative Council member has a number of different jobs but maintains only one office with supporting staff, expenses which are specifically connected with his Legislative Council role will need to be identified carefully.

For

17

The provision of additional resources for Legislative Council members on an accountable basis also brings into sharp focus the future role of OMELCO. If we are moving into the era of the full time politician with his own supporting staff, then we are moving out of the "paternalistic" era where Government provides a large OMELCO office, staffed with civil servants, to support Legislative Councillors as at present. However it is impracticable to take a decision on this issue in the short

term, partly because the need for support from OMELCO varies from member to member and some of the members in the new Legislative Council, notably those who are appointed, may at least initially prefer the status quo, and partly because the issue has wider implications for the future relationship between the Legislative and the Executive Council may not therefore be possible to take decision on grounds of economy

alone.

B

Mechanisms for adjusting the level of salary and allowances

18

When the system of allowances was last reviewed in 1985, the Council decided that Legislative Council allowances and stipend should be governed by a statutory framework. Draft legislation was prepared (Annex B) to enable the Legislative Council to revise the level of stipend and allowances by resolution. However, eventually it was decided not to take the legislative route in order to avoid criticism over 'Unofficial' members

reserving the right to set for themselves, by resolution, their own level of remuneration and allowance. This was mainly due to the bad publicity surrounding OMELCO at that time due to the controversy surrounding the enactment of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Bill. The administrative approach was meant to be an interim temporary measure, and it had always been intended that the Council would be consulted again in due course on the introduction of legislation.