TNAG-2264-FCO40-3261-Hong-Kong-Port-and-Airport-Development-Strategy-(PADS)-gener-1991 — Page 55

GF 9/10

Mr

пг

Becketts AN interesting

conclusión. Could the Governor in practice retuse request?

Such a

St Me Cok. OIR

Mr Riondon

Mr Furness Mr Stone

9/10

Mr store. I suspect

draft

a clever lawner cd/84) motion which would gel

around X'. If He object

N He object of the motio

is not to dispose of or charge MCG reverve, would it then je

Caught?

FROM: Miss S Brooks

Legal Counsellor K199

H13 182/270 3069

DATE: 8 October 1991

File.

HKD

SCOPE FOR LEGCO TO DEBATE THE AIRPORT MOU

1.

Thank you for your minute of 11 September which came during my absence from the Office and which was marked for me on return.

2.

You ask me whether LegCo is in a position to debate the Airport MOU signed by HMG and the CPG. You refer in paragraph 2 of your minute to sections 9(5) and 15(1) of the LegCo standing orders and to the Royal Instructions. I think section 9(5) is not relevant since it is about raising any public matters in the context of a motion for the adjournment of LegCo. But section 15(1) is relevant. This provides that any Unofficial Member may address a question to the Government relating to "a public matter for which the Government is responsible" and either seek information on such matter or ask for official action with regard to it. Royal Instruction

XXIII makes it clear that any standing rules and orders made by LegCo must not be "repugnant to Our said recited Letters Patent, or to these Our Instructions". This means that section 15(1) of the LegCo standing orders is to be construed in a way which is consistent with Royal Instruction XXIV. This provides:

"It shall be competent for any Member of the

Legislative Council to propose any question for debate therein;

This principle is subject to an important proviso which I think is applicable to the case of the Airport MOU.

3. The proviso to Royal Instruction XXIV provides inter alia that every question, "the object or effect of which may be to dispose of or charge any part of our revenue arising within the Colony, shall be proposed by the Governor, unless the proposal of the same shall have been expressly allowed or directed by him". I think the MOU has the object and effect of disposing of and charging part of the Hong Kong Government's revenue. Consequently a debate on the Airport MOU should, in accordance with Royal Instruction XXIV, be proposed by the Governor unless he expressly allows or directs that a member of LegCo may propose a debate on the subject.

Shelaph Brooks.

S Brook S