TNAG-2221-FCO40-3189-Constitutional-development-in-Hong-Kong-role-of-the-Legislat-1991 — Page 18

:

JUUL

My proposal

avoid also

uneven

distribution

Of

will scrutiny work. As an example the workload in the securities and financial market legislative programme in 1988/91 term was very heavy, The legislative programme and its introduction There may well be into LegCo is not within our control.

have little or scrutiny werk standing Committees that during one year.

4.

Another point I believe we should consider is the issue of whether the decision of a committee (bills or standing) would be binding or whether amendments can be put forward. think this is quite fundamental a point.

I

I believe we should.

not do away with a Member's right to propose amendments,

5.

we believe that the if for AS

the LegCo In-house, recommendations of Bills. Committees should not be binding, we have 2 options:-

6.

(a)

carry on under the present system; or

the formalise

Committee

Kouse (b)

a In-house into under which all non-official Members are membELS.

31

At the end of

AR for

system I believe we should the Omelco Panel system I believe retain it until the end of the session in 1992 14 we wish to retain the linkage between the two Councils. the session in 1992 we should review the new committee system in LegCo and then decide on whether a change is required.

7.

TO

ito oposeܐ ܀

hat the Billa wing up,

would like to propose that Committees should be statutorily formalised and covered by the

Powere

Membership would be open to & Privileges Ordinance.

making

all and the convener and deputy convener of a committee be elected among its members. All meetings would be open to the public and the press except when organisations

closed-door request

WHAT the representations committee so desire. I also propose that we adopt 5(b) i.e. the Cermalleation of the in haven into the House Committee and

musings

SO'd

8981 TZS ZS8+

SNOW NEWNANOD XH

¿D:LT 1661-330-60