OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
ミ猭Ы穦某筁祘タΑ魁
Wednesday, 25 June 1997
せるきら琍戳
The Council met at Nine o'clock
と9タ穦某秨﹍
MEMBERS PRESENT
畊某
THE PRESIDENT
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WONG WANG-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
畊独Щ祇某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALLEN LEE PENG-FEI, C.B.E., J.P.
腜某C.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS SELINA CHOW LIANG SHUK-YEE, O.B.E., J.P.
㏄辩睶┥某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LEE CHU-MING, Q.C., J.P.
琖皇某Q.C., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE DAVID LI KWOK-PO, O.B.E., LL.D. (CANTAB), J.P.
瓣腳某O.B.E., LL.D. (CANTAB), J.P.
THE HONOURABLE NGAI SHIU-KIT, O.B.E., J.P.
ぶ城某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE SZETO WAH
畕地某
THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
糂祇某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE EDWARD HO SING-TIN, O.B.E., J.P.
︙┯ぱ某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE RONALD JOSEPH ARCULLI, O.B.E., J.P.
甃ㄎ瞶某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS MIRIAM LAU KIN-YEE, O.B.E., J.P.
糂胺祸某O.B.E., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE EDWARD LEONG CHE-HUNG, O.B.E., J.P.
辩醇翬某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP
朝岸穨某
THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG MAN-KWONG
眎ゅ某
THE HONOURABLE CHIM PUI-CHUNG
糕蚌┚某
THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE
毒浪膀某
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL HO MUN-KA
︙庇古某
DR THE HONOURABLE HUANG CHEN-YA, M.B.E.
独綺笽某M.B.E.
THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING, J.P.
糂紌某J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEE WING-TAT
ッ笷某
THE HONOURABLE ERIC LI KA-CHEUNG, O.B.E., J.P.
產不某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE FRED LI WAH-MING
地某
THE HONOURABLE HENRY TANG YING-YEN, J.P.
璣某J.P.
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN
襖略ビ某
DR THE HONOURABLE PHILIP WONG YU-HONG
独﹜グ某
DR THE HONOURABLE YEUNG SUM
法此某
THE HONOURABLE HOWARD YOUNG, J.P.
法У地某J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ZACHARY WONG WAI-YIN
独岸藉某
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTINE LOH KUNG-WAI
嘲糠某
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, O.B.E., J.P.
バ玊某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN
某
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM
朝挪狶某
THE HONOURABLE CHAN WING-CHAN
朝篴篱某
THE HONOURABLE CHAN YUEN-HAN
朝胞糭某
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW CHENG KAR-FOO
綠產碔某
THE HONOURABLE PAUL CHENG MING-FUN, J.P.
綠癡某J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHENG YIU-TONG
綠模磁某
DR THE HONOURABLE ANTHONY CHEUNG BING-LEUNG
眎▆某
THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG HON-CHUNG
眎簙┚某
THE HONOURABLE CHOY KAN-PUI, J.P.
讲蚌某J.P.
THE HONOURABLE DAVID CHU YU-LIN
Χギ棚某
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN
︙玊く某
THE HONOURABLE IP KWOK-HIM
腑瓣辆某
THE HONOURABLE LAU CHIN-SHEK, J.P.
糂ホ某J.P.
THE HONOURABLE AMBROSE LAU HON-CHUEN, J.P.
糂簙煌某J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LAW CHEUNG-KWOK
霉不瓣某
THE HONOURABLE LAW CHI-KWONG
霉璓某
THE HONOURABLE LEE KAI-MING
币某
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG
辩模┚某
THE HONOURABLE BRUCE LIU SING-LEE
郭Θ某
THE HONOURABLE LO SUK-CHING
霉睲某
THE HONOURABLE MOK YING-FAN
馋莱某
THE HONOURABLE MARGARET NG
艷祸某
THE HONOURABLE NGAN KAM-CHUEN
肅繟某
THE HONOURABLE SIN CHUNG-KAI
虫ヲ昂某
THE HONOURABLE TSANG KIN-SHING
纯胺Θ某
DR THE HONOURABLE JOHN TSE WING-LING
谅ッ闹某
THE HONOURABLE MRS ELIZABETH WONG CHIEN CHI-LIEN, C.B.E., I.S.O., J.P.
独窥ㄤ军某C.B.E., I.S.O., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LAWRENCE YUM SIN-LING
ヴ到圭某
PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING
畊そ戮
THE HONOURABLE DONALD TSANG YAM-KUEN, K.B.E., O.B.E., J.P.
FINANCIAL SECRETARY
︽現Ы某癩現纯疆舦ネK.B.E., O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE JEREMY FELL MATHEWS, C.M.G., J.P.
ATTORNEY GENERAL
︽現Ы某現皑碔到ネC.M.G., J.P.
MR RAFAEL HUI SI-YAN, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES
癩竒ㄆ叭砛くネ J.P.
MR BOWEN LEUNG PO-WING, C.B.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS
砏购吏挂現辩腳篴ネC.B.E., J.P.
MR LEO KWAN WING-WAH, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES
竒蕾闽ッ地ネJ.P.
CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE
畊
MR RICKY FUNG CHOI-CHEUNG, J.P., SECRETARY GENERAL
毒更不ネJ.P.
MR LAW KAM-SANG, J.P., DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL
捌霉繟ネネJ.P.
MRS JUSTINA LAM CHENG BO-LING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
瞶狶綠腳
畊瞷確穦某
Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Bill
確兵ㄒ弄臛阶
LEGAL SERVICES LEGISLATION (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL 1996
1996猭狝叭ミ猭馒兜璹兵ㄒ
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 26 June 1996
確せせるせら笆某弄臛阶
畊セЫ瞷確1996猭狝叭ミ猭馒兜璹兵ㄒぇ弄臛阶地某斗璶ノ耕丁兵ㄒ糵某〆穦厨セ畊甧砛弧3だ牧
地某璓勉畊и兵ㄒ〆穦璓勉惠畉ぃ15だ牧┮и穦チ囊ōだ祇ē谅谅畊
きる現┎祇猭狝叭吭高ゅン淋叫碞40兜˙某矗種ǎㄤせる祇肈吭高厨の闽ゼㄓ隔矗某ゅン1996猭狝叭ミ猭馒兜璹兵ㄒ馒兜璹Α璹猭磅穨兵ㄒ材159彻の穨锣の癩玻兵ㄒ材219彻龟琁吭高厨の闽ゼㄓ隔矗某┮更场だ某の吭高筁祘い莉讽Ы钡璝某
セЫΘミ兵ㄒ〆穦璽砫╯セ兵ㄒ兵ㄒ〆穦パセヴ畊庢︽筁20Ω穦某ㄤい13Ω籔讽Ы秈︽癚阶兵ㄒ〆穦纯钡莉28舱麓㎝種ǎㄤい珹翠畍穦"畍穦"翠畍そ穦禣〆穦"〆穦"畍刮砰のㄤΤ闽舱麓兵ㄒ〆穦ョ纯籔ぃ舱麓穦编钮-
碞兵ㄒ兜兵ゅ矗種ǎ
セ穦с璶量瓃兵ㄒ〆穦闽猔璶絛氓Τ闽兵ㄒ材2兵碞畍猭刮┮砏﹚某莉眡〆穦粄璝畍莉Θミ猭刮畍穦ㄤ盢穦览璹砏玥い莱禣矗ㄑì镑玂毁讽Ыㄤ猭恨烈跋┮ノ家Α睲贰陪ボ硂よ璹ミ兜玂毁惫琁ぷㄤ琌闽玂繧蹿肂玂毁砏﹚某ョ眔眡畍穦盢览璹砏玥穦妮猭ㄒΑ矗ユミ猭Ы璝硂ㄇ砏玥ゼ禣矗ㄑだ玂毁ミ猭Ыぉ∕┪璹
Τ︗某粄┮Τ盡穨珹畍洛ネ㎝穦璸畍Аぃ莱莉猭刮よΑ磅穨埃硂︗某ㄤ某АやΘミ畍猭刮某粄畍穦ㄤ盢穦览璹Τ闽砏玥い斗璹Τì玂毁惫琁蝴臔禣痲讽Ы盢酚畍穦某盢览某穝糤材7C(2)兵笆某兜タ睲贰畍穦瞶ㄆ穦璹爹畍猭刮ビ叫禣ノ
癚阶兵ㄒ材5兵Τ闽瓣畍猭刮砏﹚瘤礛Τぶ计某ぃやΘミ瓣畍猭刮某场だ某玱種璝セ畍莉猭刮よΑ磅穨瓣畍ョ莱蹦暗猭ぃ筁挪瞷翠瓣畍ㄓ︑11猭恨烈跋璹Τぃ玥㎝現郸パ畍穦览璹Τ闽砏玥斗ぉ糵稸╯眖τ絋玂讽い兵ゅ矗ㄑだ玂毁
︓やΘミ畍猭刮㎝瓣畍猭刮ㄢ兜某某玥矗だㄢ顶琿龟琁某ㄏ硂ㄇ某Τ闽砏玥璹ぃ丁龟琁讽Ы盢兵ㄒ兜穝糤兵ゅ材19(2)兵絋玂Τ闽畍猭刮㎝瓣畍猭刮砏﹚だ秨龟琁
よ某ぃ觅Θ兵ㄒ材14兵甧砛畍の猭そ靡璹ミじ官穨叭砏﹚某ぷㄤ闽猔硂妓暗癸畍盡穨巨玥の癸畍の讽ㄆぇ丁玂盞闽玒硑Θ紇臫и-
踞みΤ闽某玠畓猭盡穨縒ミ┦τ硂翴癸セ翠猭獀伐ㄤ璶挪某癸硂兜某ぃ觅讽Ы盢兵ㄒ材V场рΤ闽じ官穨叭兵ゅ埃
兵ㄒ材7兵砏﹚畍穦瞶ㄆ穦璹薄猵畍ゲ斗碞ㄤ讽ㄆ眀めΤ蹿兜や讽Ы粄畍穦碞硂よ龟琁ボΑ璹砏玥莱妮妮猭ㄒ斗竒ミ猭Ыу
ぃ筁某ぃ觅Θ碞硂よミ猭某τ粄Τ闽ㄆ﹜膥尿パ畍穦酚龟叭ボ矪瞶挪硂兜某ゼ莉や讽Ы穦р籔畍讽ㄆ眀めΤ闽材III场埃讽Ы穦酚场だ某某璶―〆穦毙旧カチ粄醚セōよ舦╯畍穦┮璹龟叭ボ琌そキ
兵ㄒ材8兵碞戈瞏畍穝ōだ砏﹚ノ眘ノ畍ōだ碞畍糵掉舱矗耕Ω璶璹闽戈瞏畍穝ōだ兵ㄒ〆穦觅Θ畍そ穦矗某珹"猭羘臕(standing)"莱〆ヴ磅穨戈瞏畍兜猭﹚非玥ヴ︙斗畍┪畑臛臔ōだ磅穨10┪Τ戈莉〆ヴ磅穨戈瞏畍のSenior Counselいゅ晃莱"戈瞏畍"τぃ琌讽Ы某"疭〆畍"讽Ы钡硂ㄇ某種畍そ穦矗兜某Τ闽猭﹚兵ゅ莱砏﹚畊猭﹛〆ヴ玡紉高畍そ穦穦㎝畍穦穦種ǎは琈瞷︽暗猭
癸畍そ穦某碞〆ヴ臕戈瞏畍璹兵ゅ某種玥ぃ莱ㄢ摸戈瞏畍璹ミ祑┦猭﹚非玥某粄讽Ыσ納猭ㄒい璹畊猭﹛莉结舦〆ヴㄉΤ耕ぶ舦獶磅穨戈瞏畍τぃ琌砞ミㄢ甅〆ヴ
Τ闽畍そ穦粄戈瞏畍〆ヴ莱畍ㄆ讽Ы璣瓣厩畍沟畍そ叭㎝そ戮АΤ戈莉眔〆ヴ-
ぃゲ琌畍讽Ы某ヴ︙妮猭厩畍┪畍τ畊猭﹛粄-
癸猭癪膍▆獽莱Τ戈莉〆ヴ臕戈瞏畍硂兜览某璹穦睲贰莉〆ヴ猭皘畊玡盢ぃ莉逼ョぃ莉甭ぉヴ︙畑祇ē舦场だ某常や讽Ы某
兵ㄒ材16兵ㄏ畍穦┮璹ヴ︙獶猭﹚﹚肂Μ禣礚ㄤㄌ沮琌硂ㄇΜ禣籔ㄆ叭禣〆穦猭﹚戮ぃ璓某诡眡畍ㄆ叭禣砏玥材5兵砏玥砏﹚妮闽穨锣禣ノぃ続ノヴ︙獶砠ㄆ叭ㄆ叭禣ゲ斗そキ瞶讽Ы畍穦┮璹框篷粄靡Μ禣瞯Ч沮癩玻基络﹚礚臮のΤ闽┮Τ薄猵ぃ跌そキ瞶
挪璹ミ览某材56A兵ヘぇ琌ぃ畍穦ゼ竒ㄆ叭禣〆穦砛薄猵碞ヴ︙︑砞Μ禣瞯兵ㄒ〆穦纯高拜畍穦穦の︙穦碞框篷粄靡Μ禣瞯ㄆ叭禣〆穦某畍穦ボ赣穦非称盢Τ闽框篷粄靡瞷︽Μ禣瞯戈矗ユㄆ叭禣〆穦糵某р硂ㄆ锣ユ烈框玻ㄆ叭〆穦矪瞶畍穦靡龟璝ㄆ叭禣〆穦碞框篷粄靡璹Μ禣瞯畍穦盢ぃ穦刚瓜砞﹚龟琁┪崩︽Μ禣瞯
糵綷畍穦矗ㄑ肂戈某種兵ㄒ材16兵莱ぉ埃讽Ыョボぃは癸埃硂兜兵ゅ某
兵ㄒ材17兵闽ㄆ叭禣〆穦Θ舱ㄆ叭禣〆穦琌猭﹚诀篶Τ舦碞畍獶砠ㄆ叭Μ禣璹ミ砏玥〆穦络﹚穨锣禣ノ㎝ㄤ璝甅Μ禣ヘ玡〆穦计Θ畍讽い礚Θ禣痲┪剪眡坝穨笆兵ㄒ某ㄆ叭禣〆穦糤4︓6Θㄏ〆穦Θ醚糷約溜Τ┦
Τ闽兵ㄒ材17兵某糤ㄆ叭禣〆穦Θㄆ某Τㄢ贺ぃ種ǎ某瘤礛璓觅Θㄆ叭禣〆穦獶猭Θ癸〆穦莱Τ畍Θ计玱種ǎだ猍场だ某粄ㄆ叭禣〆穦莱Τ计Θ畍ㄤ某玥觅Θㄆ叭禣〆穦パ4畍3讽礛Θの3獶猭Θ舱Θパㄆ叭禣〆穦莱Τ计Θ畍琌兵ㄒ〆穦场だ〆猭珿и穦兵ㄒ〆穦笆某兜タрㄆ叭禣〆穦Θ舱ゑㄒэ6336畍3讽礛Θの3獶猭Θ
讽Ы钡ㄆ叭禣〆穦畍Θ计ぃ莱ぶ猭狝叭ㄏノ┪現┎﹛计琌讽Ы粄⊿Τ瞶パр〆穦ずō蔼单猭皘猭﹛の程蔼猭皘猭盽叭﹛ㄢΘ跌妮猭狝叭ㄏノ┪現┎﹛摸パ-
琌縒ミ猭诀篶Θ-
﹚芠τそタ╯拜肈讽Ыやрㄆ叭禣〆穦Θ舱ゑㄒ﹚433某4畍3讽礛Θの3獶猭Θ虑4畍籔4熬蝴臔禣ぇ丁眔キ颗讽Ы盢碞笆某兜タ
硂よ兵ㄒ〆穦いチ囊Θ某蹦い眅ぇ笵穦笆某兜タрㄆ叭禣〆穦Θ舱ゑㄒ﹚5335畍3讽礛Θの3獶猭Θ
兵ㄒ材18兵某砏﹚穝祇甶兜ヘ虫︗綪扳よ砏﹚禦よ斗煤芥よ猭禣ノ兵ゅ礚讽Ы粄硂ㄇ兵ゅ癸禦よぃそキ硂ㄇ兵ゅ禦芥蛮よだ秨竨ノ猭禣ノ耕竨ノ猭禥τぃ腀だ秨竨ノ猭τ祇甶坝ョぃ腀某﹚才Θセ痲Μ禣
场だ某觅ΘΤ闽某-
種禦芥蛮よだ秨竨ノ猭琌才禣痲暗猭-
ョ眔眡〆穦癸硂兜某やτ畍そ穦㎝ㄤ舱麓ョや某计某玱は癸硂兜某瞶パ琌硂妓暗ぃ牟︑パτ癸禣礚痷タ痲矪兵ㄒ〆穦盢沮场だ某種ǎ笆某兜タ埃兵ㄒ材18兵
妮チ囊某粄ㄏ禦芥蛮よ︑パ璹ミョぃ簔跌禦よ矪耕ぃ︗竚パ砆钡礚瞶兵ゅチ囊盢癸兵ㄒ材18兵笆某兜タр览某材(3)蹿埃ぇ兜穝糤兵蹿璹禦よ︽ㄆ畍┪畍猭刮籔芥よ︽ㄆ畍┪畍猭刮ぃ杠禦よ礚斗煤芥よ畍禣ノ
兵ㄒ材20兵の2紀埃穨锣﹚肂Μ禣场だ某觅ΘΤ闽某-
粄﹚肂Μ禣籔穨基本恥暗猭ぃ钡τ膙穦癸禣Τ琌ㄤ某玱は癸硂兜某-
獺硂妓暗穦ㄏ禣稰睼瞔穦紇臫狝叭借Τ场だ某材贺種ǎ-
辨眔眡ㄆ叭禣〆穦σ納畍穦┮矗某挡狦碞硂ㄆ∕﹚璝穝Μ禣瞯璹瞶キ-
贾種钡玂痙﹚肂Μ禣暗猭碞硂よ某眔眡竒秸俱Μ禣瞯莉眔ㄆ叭禣〆穦種㎝畊猭﹛у盢妮猭ㄒΑ矗ユミ猭Ы兵ㄒ〆穦碞硂ㄆ璓ㄧㄆ叭禣〆穦畊┮眔氮滦琌斗Τ闽某莉畊猭﹛у矗ㄑΤ闽戈
兵ㄒ〆穦盢沮场だ某種ǎ笆某タ埃兵ㄒ材20兵の2穦笆某莱タ玂痙﹚肂Μ禣
Τ︗某猭磅穨兵ㄒ材56(1)兵ㄏ胔好ㄆ叭禣〆穦璹ミΜ禣砏玥琌妮眏┦借粄璝某は癸兵ㄒ紀埃眏┦﹚肂Μ禣某獽Τゲ璶璹硂兜兵ゅ砏﹚ㄆ叭禣〆穦络﹚﹚肂Μ禣籔畍㎝讽ㄆ┮某﹚禣ノΤヴ︙斗玡ㄌ耴パ硂︗某矗览某璹莉计某や┮某種パ兵ㄒ〆穦笆某Τ闽タ讽Ыヘ玡猭磅穨兵ㄒ材56兵砏﹚ぃ阶ヴ︙沮材74兵璹ミ砏玥琌タネ畍籔讽ㄆ碞Τ闽筍某珿瞷︽琵Τ闽︽ㄆㄉΤ﹚祘艶┦览某璹玱穦虑斗把酚Τ闽砏玥硂兜砏﹚Ы碞筍某︑パΤǎの讽Ы粄览某璹穦癸穨锣禣ノ硑Θ瞏环紇臫は癸硂兜某
セ瓃祇ēい膜兵ㄒ〆穦笆某兜タ瞷и稱ㄢ︓3だ牧丁矗иチ囊禣舦痲祇ēㄇ種ǎ瘤礛〆穦糵某顶琿и-
穦Ω糵跌兜兵ゅ琌и稱眏秸ㄇ璶玥
и獺畍穦Ыず某秈︽玡Θ村弧畍穦钡牟–︗某Ω-
村弧暗眔獶盽τ現┎硂よ玱瞷畉璓某ゑ耕熬碙畍穦∕﹚┮иぃ眔ぃ癸現┎у蝶禣舦痲祇ēи框狙某粄狦﹚肂Μ禣獽穦盿ㄓ碿┦膙璓狝叭借狦狝叭借畍穦セ莱赣Τ砫ヴ秈︽菏诡癸ㄤΘ秈︽ず场掉︓"埃礟"碞钩洛厩穦暗猭妓︙盢硂拜肈耴╯﹚肂Μ禣粄狦⊿Τ﹚肂Μ禣畍獽穦"穖ネ種"㎝搭Μ禣ノτㄇぃ▆畍穦"穖ネ種"硂妓弧琌ぃ莱赣
畍矗ㄑ禦芥加ユ狝叭妮坝穨盡狝叭и-
辨畍碙硂兜盡甧砛そキ膙絋玂禣舦痲玂毁琌畍ぃ虫ゎ局Τ硂兜盡τ临Τ﹚肂Μ禣玂毁Μ硂琌ぃそキ┮Τ畍А斗竒筁盡穨癡絤Θ畍洛ネ妓斗璶钡盡穨癡絤Θ洛ネ洛ネΤ⊿Τ﹚肂Μ禣㎡氮琌⊿Τ縱畍斗钡盡穨癡絤Τ⊿Τ﹚肂Μ禣㎡氮琌⊿Τ祘畍筁盡穨癡絤Τ⊿Τ㏕﹚Μぶ禣ノ㎡氮琌⊿Τ畍加禦芥筁祘い妓矗ㄑ盡穨狝叭︙璶砞ミ﹚肂Μ禣玂靡-
Τ㏕﹚Μ㎡硂妓畍獽ЧぃΜ禣よが膙硂癸禣ㄓ弧琌伐ぇぃ
и-
碞秈︽兜翠┦チ種秸琩チ囊綠產碔某㎝︙玊く某穦碞セ兵ㄒだ矗チ囊猭
セ略朝勉矗セ兵ㄒ
MISS MARGARET NG: Mr President, in his consultation paper on legal services, the Attorney General sought to bring fundamental and sweeping changes to the legal profession less than two years before the change of sovereignty. They represented the most blatant assault on professional autonomy under the banner of "consumer interest". Yet, the most illusive fact to establish is precisely whether the consumer will indeed benefit, and if so in what way. Will they be in fact paying less for legal services? Will they get better services with stronger guarantees? Will they have a wider choice of legal expertise in reality? Throughout the period of public debate and discussions in the panels and committees of this Council, never has any representative of the Administration said an unequivocal "yes" to any of these questions with any respectable evidence to back it up.
The only certainty is that it will bring great uncertainty to the legal profession and to the public, on the eve of Hong Kong's change of sovereignty.
The Bill before us, introduced into this Council on 26 June 1996, though less wide than the consultation paper, still proposes numerous and fundamental changes, particularly for the practice of solicitors. If all or most of the proposed changes were implemented, there will be devastating effects on the solicitors' practice, while real benefits to the consumer remain highly doubtful.
From the start, Mr President, whatever someone from the legal profession says unless it was in agreement with the Administration or attacks the legal profession was dismissed by officials as interested and therefore untrue. I, as the representative of the profession in this Council, was publicly cast in this light.
Mr President, I accept lawyers are an interested party. I accept what we say is not to be taken at face value without checking against other sources of evidence. But it would be unrealistic and naive to regard government officials as totally disinterested, though not directly economically. It would be wrong to treat anyone who speaks in the name of the consumer as the bearer of a sacred message. Clearly, interests must be balanced: fairness to the lawyers' against the best deal for the consumer, the lowest price against the greatest protection, freedom of negotiation against legislative intervention. The overall public interest is best served not by favouring any exclusively, but by achieving the right balance.
Mr President, conscious of the need for balance, I have taken a personal interest to persuade as many non-lawyer members to join the Bills Committee as I could. This was easy since the Bill is of interest to many members anyway. As a result, out of the 18 members of the Bills Committee, 10 are non-lawyers. Three of the eight lawyers are members of the Democratic Party. All major parties in this Council are represented. In addition, three are independent members. There can hardly be a more fairly represented forum. The Chairman, the Honourable Fred LI, is a non-lawyer Democratic Party member.
The Bills Committee took time to hear views, discuss among themselves and deliberate. Over a period of eight months, 20 meetings were held. Many representations were made by lawyers, but likewise, many were made by representatives of the Administration, the Consumer Council, and others including solicitors supporting the Administration's proposals. The Law Society put before the Bills Committee submissions and materials from other parts of the world. The Administration wrote just as many, if not more submissions in response. No one can say there was no balance in the Bills Committee's consultation.
At the end of this fair and democratic process, the Bills Committee voted on each of the main proposals in the Bill separately. Mr President, it is only right that the outcome of such a meticulous process be respected and adopted by this Council.
Partly as a result of the Bills Committee's resolutions and partly for other reasons, the Administration has withdrawn several of its proposals, and will be moving amendments later today to delete the relevant clauses.
The outstanding main proposals are the following:
1. Abolition of scale fees in conveyancing transactions;
2. The composition of the Costs Committee;
3. The invalidation of contractual terms for the purchaser to pay the legal costs of the vendor.
On every one of these issues, the decision of the Bills Committee is opposed to that of the Administration. Consequently, Committee stage amendments will be moved by Mr Fred LI later today on behalf of the Bills Committee. Mr President, I strongly urge Honourable Members to support these amendments to clauses 16, 17, 18, 20 and schedules 1, 2 and 3 of the Bill. Not only because otherwise the process of careful scrutiny and discussion in a Bills Committee will count for nothing, but also because, in my view, which I will elaborate on at the Committee stage, every one of them stands up to the test of a fair balance of interest.
Mr President, I need mention only one other matter at this point and that concerns clause 8 of the Bill on Senior Counsel. Unlike the more controversial issues which were more high-profile, this issue was not fully discussed in the Bills Committee. New issues not contemplated in the Bill or even mentioned in the consultation document or canvassed anywhere were raised in an amendment of the Administration very late in the day. Indeed, it was not finalized even at the last meeting of the Bills Committee on 5 June 1997. I was given to understand only days afterwards that the Chairman of the Bar had little opportunity of being consulted. The Bar actually had very strong views and strong grounds for objection. Since by then it was not feasible for the Bills Committee to be re-convened to discuss the matter, I am proposing an amendment under my name later today. I have explained the matter in a letter circulated to Members, and will do so again in this Council later. I asked Members for their support.
Mr President, no profession is perfect. No profession can expect to remain vibrant without periodic review and self-renewal in order to meet new values and new circumstances. The legal profession is no exemption. But any change must be well-thought out and carried out in an orderly manner. When change is brutally forced upon a reputable profession with all the might the executive authorities of the government can muster, including a persistent campaign to discredit that profession, shock and bewilderment are only understandable. It is not the best or the most responsible way to effect change. Not at these nerve-wrecking times or at any time. In opposing some of the Administration's proposals in this Bill, the legal profession is not opposing change, but introducing far-reaching changes without first ensuring that it is safe and justified to do so.
Mr President, I support the Second Reading of the Bill subject to the amendments to be moved at the Committee stage by Mr Fred LI and myself. Thank you.
產不某璓勉畊現┎き纯碞猭狝叭矗ㄑ吭高そ渤ㄤいи獺程ㄣ某┦獽琌畍︽穨碞禦芥加砞ミ﹚肂Μ禣硂
翠穦璸畍そ穦竒筁冈灿癚阶現┎ボ玥渡や﹚肂Μ禣硂琌闽︙磅︽硂兜現郸或诀﹚肂Μ禣の莱或惫琁畍︽穨Т到逼锣ぷㄤ琌и-
︙玂蔼キ盡穨狝叭非蝴臔禣舦痲硂ㄇ拜肈常ゼΤ吭高絛瞅ず穦璸讽︑礛安砞翠現┎㎝セЫ穦┯砮琁現肚参そキ㎝教秆篈籔瞏紇臫畍︽穨坝癚Τ闽拜肈㎝莱よ猭
堡硂и-
粄玥薄瞶現郸э跑矪瞶も猭よ玱穦璸瞏稰佩砓㎝ぃ現┎は盽篈獶盽㏕磅畍Μ禣キ璹﹚そ渤現郸夹非τ┛跌穦礛斗璶癸粿疨膙玂毁诀薄猵盡穨狝叭キ菲辅程沧禣甡地某ぃび秆盡穨狝叭┮粄硂ㄇ拜肈甧莉眔秆∕и辨某Τ诀穦秆睦狦⊿Τ硂ㄇ玂毁诀╯澈埃Μ禣ぇ临ノ或よ猭匡拒畍иぃ弧Τ牡诡獽ぃ┤Τデ竜盡穨狝叭キぃ琌虏虫и-
﹚璶犁硑吏挂ㄏ畍み矗ㄑ铆Т狝叭
ㄤ龟現┎莱赣程フキ基狝叭ゼゲ程そ渤痲畍︽穨ぃ岿局Τ琂眔痲硂ぃ单畍獽⊿Τ祇ē舦現┎ぃ璶а癘瞷竒犁程胋耞┦狝叭诀篶獽琌現┎┪琌パ現┎北そ犁诀篶–ぃΤぶΩ癩現畐叭竒蕾㎝笲块ぃ耞村弧某や現┎糤Μ禣-
弧獶Μ禣獽琌ㄆτ琌莱蝴瞶狝叭キ狦現┎さぱ癸и-
弧甅ぱ癸и-
弧甅ê或璶癸畍獽ゴ玂臔禣舦痲篨糾璶蝴臔現┎セōΜ禣┪蝴臔現┎痲獽穐甅瞶阶狦現┎Ω禣ぃ穦︙и-
秆睦┪妓︑蛾ㄤ弧
現┎瞷タ龟︽某現ミ猭紇臫程腨Τ闽刮砰の荡癸Τ瞶パ㎝Τ砫ヴτΤゲ璶そ渤秆睦-
矪挂㎝ミ初狦現┎痷钩艷祸某┮弧纯竒刚瓜そ秨┪╬床冀ē阶盢畍︽穨︑徖︽笆つ礶Θぃ笵紈︽ê琌Чぃ钡и谋眔現┎Τ砫ヴそ秨坚睲︙穦Τ硂妓芠翴и谋眔現┎莱赣临畍︽穨睲フ
и紋┋セЫ某矪瞶硂ンㄆ⊿Τ蹦現┎篈τ镑倒ぉ畍そ穦だ笷诀穦琵-
碙薄猵セЫ㎝そ渤秆睦-
ミ初硂眖兵ㄒ〆穦庢︽Ω穦某琵畍そ穦だ笷種ǎиの穦璸癸硂ンㄆ糤秆
ㄤ龟ㄆ薄琌ぃ弧ぃ笵ぃ弧ぃ睲贰и-
瞷フ"ち"Α猭ㄒэ穦璸粄狦癸硂礛э跑猭︽穨祏戳ず穦腨ゴ阑珹ゴ阑獵畍碞穨诀穦禣匡拒畍ア玱綼非玥猭狝叭螟祏戳ず蝴程蔼盡穨キ穦璸辨現┎ぃ璶眏︽﹚肂Μ禣τ莱倒ぉ猭琿絯㎝丁琵穨镑Τ璸购㎝Τ硋˙莱Τ闽锣τ癸猭ゲ礛盿ㄓ挡篶┦э跑璣瓣纯竒秈︽摸эи-
粄эア毖セЫ莱ま挪セЫ癸硂セ翠眣菌蝴臔の臮そ渤痲碙穛盡穨щ獺ヴ布莱ゎ現┎玙繧秈︽硂⊿Τゲ璶τТ到逼骸诀э
闽ㄆ叭禣〆穦舱Θ拜肈и癘拘┮のセЫㄓ癸盡穨刮砰笲瞷眔碙ㄤ︑玥┕┕甧砛盡穨猭﹚〆穦计┪计ミ猭Ы局Τ程菏诡舦笵瞶ぃ莱赣瞷腨笻はそ痲薄猵
и膀セぃ觅Θ蹦ノ﹚肂Μ禣玥狦パ畍虫よ∕﹚Μ禣и-
粄ぃそキиぃ穦種パ禣∕﹚盡穨Μ禣硂妓琌ぃ钡硂穦瘆胊︑パ竒蕾砏穦р硂摸╬猭狝叭跑恨Μ禣狝叭狦⊿Τ瞶Μ禣癸蝴猭狝叭キ穦玂毁
畊и蔼砍и碙穛地某瘤礛Τ︑種ǎそキ烩旧兵ㄒ〆穦и┮弧ㄢ拜肈镑程醇∕﹚и辨某蛤繦兵ㄒ〆穦程∕﹚τи﹚穦蛤繦兵ㄒ〆穦∕﹚∕
谅谅畊
糂胺祸某璓勉畊и璶ビ厨痲и琌磅穨畍パ兵ㄒ穦癸︽穨硑Θ≧阑紇臫だ瞏环瘤礛兵ㄒ疉の畍痲拜肈иぃ眔ぃ祇ē
筁计场だΤ闽加禦芥﹚肂Μ禣某常琌吏露ㄒカ初膙禣舦痲︑パ禩单阀├иぃ稱鸟硂ㄇ阀├ぇいи稱矗程膀セ拜肈或琌そキユ氮だ虏虫畍矗ㄑ盡穨狝叭Μ瞶禣ノ禣瞶禣ノ莉眔盡穨狝叭讽礛瞶禣ノ斗璶蹦ノ芠夹非ㄓ颗秖臮の狝叭矗ㄑ龟悔惠璶
陪τǎ矗ㄑ猭狝叭そキユい瞶禣ノの盡穨狝叭琌ㄢ闽ㄢ癸禣┪畍琌妓璶現┎⊿Τ瞶穦或琌そキユ粄﹚﹚肂Μ禣ヴパ禣籔畍︑パ某基獽琌癸禣程そキ暗猭
ぃ筁癸紀埃﹚肂Μ禣カチ畍禣穦耕ぶ現┎┶荡ボ種ǎ传ēぇ現┎ぃ玂靡カチ禣ノ穦耕獽﹜┪瞶庢ㄒㄓ弧璝﹚肂Μ禣畍Μ禣ぃ搭は畍丁璸衡杠皐癸ㄇ穨舦狡馒基窥ユ禣斗璶耕﹚肂Μ禣蔼畍禣ㄇカチぃ来某基τ砆礚▆畍垒Μ禣ノ
ㄏカチ畍禣耕┕獽﹜硂琌ボ-
眔妓非盡穨狝叭玂毁硂よ現┎ボ玂毁狝叭非琌畍穦砫ヴ讽礛瞶阶硂琌癸璣瓣紀埃﹚肂Μ禣瞷畍加禦芥狝叭よ借薄猵ㄏ胑璣瓣畍穦ョ螟╣膇翠畍穦Τ硂妓㎡腨琌畍加禦芥よ矗ㄑ狝叭盓纔盓禣ㄤ龟礚猭颗秖ㄏΤ拜肈ョ獶祏戳ǎ矪瞶赣加穦祇瞷边禣舦痲礚磷穕甡タタ琌硂┮加禦芥畍禣斗璶ぉ㏕﹚洛ネ縱畍㎝ㄤ盡穨︽穨АぃノΜ㏕﹚禣ノ畍︽穨い獶┮Τ禣ノ常斗璶㏕﹚琌加禦芥禣ノ斗璶㏕﹚⊿Τ璶―禗砠㎝璹﹚よ惠璶㏕﹚畍禣琌加禦芥よ斗璶Μ㏕﹚畍禣
現┎璶―畍禦芥加よ矗ㄑ癸禣Τ玂毁盡穨狝叭ぃ玂靡畍Μ瞶禣ノぃ玂靡禣眔Τ非盡穨狝叭現┎癸畍ぃ璽砫ヴ癸禣ぃ璽砫ヴ
は筁ㄓ瞷﹚肂Μ禣絋玂畍Μ瞶禣ノ㎝矗ㄑ盡穨狝叭瞷﹚肂Μ禣ㄤ龟キ颗禣㎝畍ぇ丁痲癸禣そキ癸畍そキ硂畍ㄤ盡穨非㎝借传瞶厨禣﹚肂禣ノぃノ"基"癚基临基ぃ基蔼τ︑パ磟匡狝叭借蔼窸畍ㄤ矗ㄑ盡穨狝叭硂Ч琌そキユ
讽礛眖禣à祇禣ノ︑礛禫禫禫獽﹜禫瞶禣ノ獽﹜ぃ琌禣程痲┮禣痷タ痲琌瞶禣ノ莉眔Τ借玂靡盡穨狝叭
ス紀埃﹚肂Μ禣畍ぇ丁砆澄基膙畍Μ搭ぶ︑礛璶秖ㄓ干ì獽盢砯碞基狦畍禣矗ㄑ狝叭借硂﹚癸禣ぃㄤ龟禣痷タ惠璶琌Τ非盡穨狝叭
現┎龟琁炊硄猭瓣產璣瓣㎝緿瑆Ν紀埃﹚肂Μ禣現┎瘤礛硂ㄆ龟玱⊿Τ弧狦狦︙㎡緿瑆穝玭焊紀埃﹚肂Μ禣瞷腨澄基薄猵璣瓣紀埃﹚肂Μ禣20丁Τ闽畍波┛ビ縀糤讽い禬筁44%纕疉の加禦芥穝﹁孽紀埃﹚肂Μ禣畍斗璶候罽秨やτ旧璓狝叭借璣瓣畍穦玡穦Tony HOLLAND纯竒璣瓣﹚肂Μ禣矪瞶加禦芥畍Μぃち龟悔禣ノ璓盢Τ闽ユ倒戮︗ぃ戈τ⊿Τ竒喷戮矪瞶挡狦岿簗κ加禦芥猭狝叭跑Θ诀瘪て筃阶倒ぉ穨舦よ猭種ǎ璣瓣畍穦玡捌穦Robert SAYER畊兵ㄒ〆穦朝璣瓣紀埃﹚肂Μ禣礹璚竒喷﹚肂Μ禣紀埃埃紇臫︽穨狝叭キ㎝縒ミ┦癸穦俱砰ョΤぃ▆紇臫穝℡纯碞紀埃﹚肂Μ禣秈︽縒ミ╯把σ筁瓣竒喷のだ猂穝℡程狦耞∕﹚蝴﹚肂Μ禣
砛┚ē癴φ珿現┎ご礛绊⊿Τ痷咎龟沮陪ボ畍狝叭借籔﹚肂Μ禣Τ钡闽玒琌現┎⊿Τ粄瓣產﹚肂Μ禣瞷碿┦膙㎝畍狝叭借薄猵τ現┎ョ礚猭靡硂ㄇ薄猵獶﹚肂Μ禣τ旧璓讽礛畍Μ禣蔼ゼゲ镑玂靡-
矗ㄑ纔借狝叭и種畍穦Τ砫ヴ碞畍借拜肈琁腨菏恨璝﹚肂Μ禣畍借┦畍穦э到穨ず狝叭借穦螟
璽砫ヴミ猭и-
ぃ虫ゎ璶カチ"ǎㄤ"临璶琵カチ"ㄤ甡"ㄏカチ醇о拒ぃ筁は癸﹚肂Μ禣ご礛刚瓜ノぃ阀├睼瞔跌钮硂よи稱硋坚睲タ跌钮
и粄Μ禣キ籔Μ禣ぃ睼酵瞷カチぃ骸琌Μ禣キ临琌Μ禣и粄カチ璶琌ぃ骸種Μ禣キτ獶皐癸Μ禣セō狦拜肈︑Μ禣キカチ粄Μ禣ぃ瞶┪筁蔼玥莱赣浪癚Μ禣キτぃ莱Μ禣诀
材Τ盢ㄤ盡穨⊿ΤΜ﹚肂Μ禣籔畍Μ﹚肂Μ禣睼酵ㄆ龟ㄤ狝叭禣ノ常琌把σΜ禣璸衡ㄒ代秖畍︳基畍布竒玻竒狝叭叫ぃ璶籹硑硂琌畍縒Τ安禜拜肈翴ぃ"ΤиΤ"拜肈翴琌Τ惠璶玂硂畍惠璶硂и秆睦睲贰иぃ狡
材Τ粄加基籔畍秖㎝Θセ⊿Τ钡㎝ゲ礛闽玒加基Μ畍禣瞶├弧ぃ硄硂弧ぃ硄ㄤ龟Μ禣籔猭砫ヴΤ馋闽玒畍斗璶┯踞伐砫ヴ狦矪瞶加禦芥岿竭纕琌加基τぃ琌畍Μ禣τ﹚狦Μ禣籔┮璽砫ヴぃΘタゑ癸畍琌ぃそキ產┪砛莱稱稱或琌そキユ
材Τ粄畍Μ禣だ蔼蔼琌癸阀├狦芠ゑ耕300窾じ加ㄒ畍矪瞶禦芥Μ禣琌2窾じ現┎Μ45,000じ络禣玻竒Μ6窾じ
讽礛瞶沮临瞶沮阶耴阶カチ程ご礛穦谋眔Μ禣蔼㎝ぃ瞶и秨﹍弧筁そキユい┮孔瞶禣ノ琌斗璶蹦ノ芠夹非ㄓ侥秖
瞷Μ禣琌パΤ畍穦現┎の猭舱Θㄆ叭禣〆穦┮络﹚τぃ琌パ畍虫よ∕﹚讽礛硂〆穦ら禣パ蛮よ某﹚禣ノカチ﹚穦粄Μ禣瞶
闽ㄆ叭禣〆穦Θ舱ゑㄒи粄畍の獶畍计ゲ斗А单硂妓キ颗狝叭矗ㄑ籔禣ぇ丁痲現┎某獶畍ゑㄒㄏ〆穦ず畍ぶ计現┎"4:3:3"舱某硂妓穦玠畍そキ某基诀穦瘆胊そキユ弘狦蹦ノ現┎某舱ㄆ叭禣〆穦┮眔挡阶穦渡蝴臔禣痲τア玱芠┦硂癸穨琌荡癸ぃそキ
畊繦穦秈˙㎝竒蕾祇甶よカチ渤癸猭狝叭惠―糤よ畍ョ斗莱穦э跑㎝カチ惠―琌莱畍ョ莱绊玥穦渤盿ㄓ痲э跑τぃ琌癶﹚肂Μ禣盢穦玠畓畍︑舦穦腨ゴ阑畍︽穨碙腨㎝縒ミ┦璓︑猭狝叭借硂﹚琌穦癶
畊セ略朝勉
9:40 am
と940だ
THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, DR LEONG CHE-HUNG, took the Chair.
瞶畊辩醇翬某既穦某
︙玊く某璓勉瞶畊セビ厨и瞷戮磅穨畍瞷チ囊祇ēи璶栋い酵酵Τ闽禦芥加﹚肂Μ禣拜肈
渤┮㏄チ囊や現┎紀埃﹚肂Μ禣传杠弧ョ琌は癸畍穦蝴﹚肂Μ禣某穦拜и磅穨畍и琌籔︑︽穨癸琌璶︑逗窲瞶畊癑みτēи⊿Τ硂稰谋и獺и瞷チ囊┮朝瓃ミ初ぃ才そ渤痲τ才猭痲иぃ粄猭籔そ渤痲硂拜肈ゲ斗癸ミи-
谋眔Τそ笵秆∕快猭拜肈︙Τㄇ谋眔紀埃﹚肂Μ禣穦硑Θ硂或端甡и谋眔璶琌硂ㄇゼΤ玦钡э㎝钡秈˙-
ぃ莱甡┤э盿ㄓぃ铆﹚┪砛-
踞みㄇ-
ぃ箇璸玱琌洪︳璸
瞶畊и瞷穦朝瓃チ囊︙眏疨や紀埃﹚肂Μ禣材猭盡穨絛瞅ず禦芥加猭﹚﹚肂Μ禣Ξ躬纘︽ず︑パ膙琵禣镑︑パ匡拒硂琌チ秈穦琁︽炊硄猭跋產常钡の︽玥琌秨穦奸瑈и-
吏臮秈よ璣瓣瓣の緿瑆荡场だ跋Ν紀埃﹚肂Μ禣緇Τ穝℡㎝緿瑆⊿Τ硂妓暗︙瞷穦紀埃﹚肂Μ禣氮ㄤ龟睲贰材畍局Τ矪瞶禦芥加も尿猭﹚盡舦禦芥加ゲ斗沟ノ畍礚ㄤ匡拒材粄加基籔畍禣本恥琌ぃそキ-
粄畍禣莱跌畍丁㎝狝叭τ∕﹚材畍︽穨莱甧砛Μ禣よ秈︽膙ㄏノ產Τ┮匡拒
ㄆ龟ㄤ盡穨ㄒ穦璸畍洛ネ縱畍布竒︓琌и-
┮剪眡畍常ぃ砞猭﹚﹚肂Μ禣︙熬熬畍斗璶禦芥加よ砞﹚肂Μ禣玂毁㎡
糂胺祸某矗ㄤ︽穨瘤礛ぃ砞﹚肂Μ禣龟悔Τㄇㄑ把σΜ禣夹非и-
ぃは癸硂ㄇㄑ把σ夹非и-
觅Θ畍穦璹﹚ㄑ把σΜ禣夹非硂ぃ单猭﹚Μ禣夹非硂妓暗穦管畍︑︽匡拒㎝秸俱基︑パ管ノ產莱Μ禣匡拒畍舦
材и-
粄ぃ璹そキ瞶㎝芠﹚肂Μ禣硂よи-
種ǎ籔糂胺祸某瞷だ猍叫拜糂某咎或璹瞶㎝芠夹非㎡硂痷暗眔盾狦暗眔杠叫禗и夹非︙ㄤ龟產常笵–畍ㄆ叭┮竒犁よΑΤぃㄆ龟繦跑綞㎝膙粿の笲Θセ羱㎝害竒犁よΑゲ斗穝のэ跑畍ㄆ叭┮竒犁常莱赣笵硂琌瞷龟拜肈┮恨瞶Т到畍︽Θセ痲蔼︑礛膙ョ耕眏基ョ癸耕艶の獽﹜眖τ矗ㄑ纔借狝叭めや┮и-
ぃ弧硂﹚琌め秤τ畍ア毖よ程璶拜肈琌竒犁琌Т到
ㄆ龟ぃ跋竒犁畍︽Θセ︑礛ぃㄒじべ盿耕キ戈ョ耕稧┮硂ㄇ跋畍︽︑礛Τ兵ン盢畍禣秸︙﹚璶ㄏ翠穝畍︽畍购Μ禣ぷㄤ琌加禦芥Μ禣よ
畍︽の畍┮璶―厨ゼゲ畍ǒ对矗ㄑ纔借狝叭ぃ﹚璶寥7︗计┪︓8︗计厨筍衡琌瞶厨ㄤ龟–┮璶―厨ぃ┮瞶夹非斗跌τ﹚и-
咎或砏﹚┮Τ畍常璶眏Μ禣眖τ眔и-
┮量瞶厨
и-
は癸材琌螟磅︽﹚肂Μ禣ㄤ龟畍炊筂┯粄﹚肂Μ禣瘤ぃ︓龟ぃ宽硂瞷禜会炊筂畍ㄆ叭┮︓ヘ眎義ぃ宽硂и獺畍穦笵ㄇ畍︽⊿Τ宽酚﹚肂Μ禣拜肈琌硂ㄇ畍︽Τ⊿Τ∕み硂妓暗┪Τ或毁锚硂常⊿Τユ畍穦┯粄畍︽⊿Τ碞–禦芥加Μ禣ノ瘤礛м砃ㄓ弧и-
ぃ弧硂ㄇ畍︽デ砏狦赣畍ㄆ叭┮そ秨㎝Τ╰参硂妓暗︓ノ產笵赣畍︽3ゅンいΜ1ゅン禣ノ硂衡ぃ衡琌"澄基"㎡瘤礛硂ぃ衡琌"デ砏"靡畍︽硓筁ぃ禣ノ秸俱秈︽膙︙ぃ琵-
ㄉΤ︑パ㎡
チ囊粄璶Θ眏磅︽蹦ㄢよ猭ㄤ琌蹦ノㄆも猭癸ぃ宽砏痻и-
眏疨は癸硂暗猭硂妓穦笻はそ現郸玥璶蹦ノㄆても琿菏诡琘ㄇ︽穨ぷㄤ琌ㄤΜ禣и-
谋眔硂癸畍ㄓ弧琌贺玍癲碞钩и-
Чぃ獺ヴ畍Τ︑巨ㄤ狦畍秖щ戈方秈︽菏恨の浪琩и-
妓谋眔ぃ癸跌巨τ︑︽穨ㄓ弧硂琌螟钡
瞶畊狦璹ミ竒盽ぃ砆宽﹚肂Μ禣τ⊿ΤΤ诀絋玂磅︽ㄤ龟癸êㄇ砏痻畍ㄓ弧琌ぃそキêㄇ砏痻畍礚猭籔畍膙畍搭Μ禣ノΤㄇ畍玱砏痻τ⊿Τネ種砆ぃそキも猭玠莱眔坝穨痲硂獽硑Θぃそキ瞷禜
羆珹ㄓ弧и-
は癸蝴﹚肂Μ禣タ┮弧硂笻は瞷︽炊硄猭跋┮宽玥и-
⊿快猭璹ミそキ芠夹非τ螟辅龟硂夹非
ㄆ糂胺祸某㎝產不某矗畍搭Μ禣穦旧璓碿┦膙眖τ狝叭借и-
璶蝴狝叭借璶ㄌ苦盡穨巨㎝盡穨舱麓︑㎝菏恨и痷ぃ镑弧狦畍┪畍︽穨眔ぃ骸種柬畍獽ぃ荷┚戮ぃ臮め痲τぃ瞶穦︑坝臕㎝穨羘臕狦畍︽穨ずΤ硂贺篈硂︽穨临ê穦Τ碙腨㎝縒ミē
Τㄇ踞み狦紀埃禦芥加﹚肂Μ禣畍Μ禣獽穦ぃ耞硑Θ碿┦膙程沧穦め穕и-
谋眔硂琌安砞ョ⊿Τì镑靡沮陪ボ硂ゲ﹚穦祇ネㄤ龟瘤礛畍穦矗ㄑㄇ计ㄑセЫ把σ畍穦ボ⊿Τì镑计沮靡害玂繧纕籔紀埃﹚肂Μ禣┪搭Μ禣ノΤ闽и癘眔ΩMr XAVIER翠и拜╯澈硂琌Τゲ礛闽玒瘤礛獺礚芠计沮靡ㄢ闽玒ㄆ龟秈よぃΤ贺眏疨羘┪笲笆璶―確﹚肂Μ禣и拜筁畊ㄆ叭〆穦盡產Τ⊿Τ硂ㄇ羘㎝笲笆弧⊿Τ畍斗璶秸俱Μ禣眏膙硂琌ゲ斗癸瞷龟程沧и谋眔ぃ﹚璶碩澄基膙ㄆ龟め穦狝叭借穦畍︽坝臕のセ籔畍ぇ丁闽玒┮и-
谋眔ぃ莱盢基籔め匡拒Ιゲ礛闽玒
程碞狝叭借ㄓ弧畍穦盡穨刮砰Τ砫ヴ矗ㄑΤ闽匡拒畍戈ョΤ砫ヴ毙▅そ渤匡拒畍埃σ納基ョ璶猔種畍狝叭借㎝キ︑痲穕癸êㄇ波┛戮㎝ぃ璽砫ヴ畍讽Ы莱眏菏诡の癸-
蹦続讽掉玻ネ纞ノ
膀и膜瞶パи粄ぃ镑钡畍穦某穝Μ禣チ囊ョ辨眏秸и-
ぃは癸璹ミΜ禣まㄑめ把σ
程иゲ斗畍穦瘤礛琌縒ミ㎝︑刮砰и-
ゲ斗候癘猭狝叭紇臫俱穦┮硂拜肈莱ユぉ穦癚阶のパ某眖そ渤痲à∕﹚
艷祸某㎝產不某矗のи-
璶碙兵ㄒ〆穦∕﹚иゲ斗眏秸瘤礛и-
Τ18︗〆パ〆斗璶畊穦某τ穦瞷"疾戳"薄┮〆畊瞯ぃ蔼產笵セ兵ㄒ伐ㄣ某┦〆穦程沧度淮稬计莉眔硄筁┮и-
谋眔產ぃ莱兵ㄒ〆穦∕﹚セЫ某沮
谅谅瞶畊
10.00 am
と10
THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair.
畊確穦某
MRS ELIZABETH WONG: Mr President, I rise to thank the Attorney General and the Consumer Council for bringing to the surface the controversial subject of the removal of scale fees for conveyancing services as included in the Bill before us. I think this has the decided advantage of bringing the high level of scale fees into our consciousness and has been the subject of much debate and much criticism.
In my opinion the legal profession is an honourable profession. As a consumer, I trust my lawyer and I do not like to hawk around for the lawyer with the cheapest level of service as I would hawk around for vegetables and fish in the market. So, Mr President, I for one would like to preserve the scale fees as a yardstick in the law books so that my choice of a lawyer is based on his professional expertise and not on how cheap he is or how much better he might offer his services at a lower fee.
Mr President, this does not mean I support the current high level of scale fees for conveyancing irrespective of the complexity of the work involved. I consider that the scale fees should be reduced dramatically to a reasonable level or several levels to reflect the complexity, or the lack of it, for the work involved: the more standard the work, the lower the fees. Thus, at this stage, I do not support the removal of scale fees because I think that if the fees are removed the consumer would indeed, like myself, be befuddled in our choices, and I shall explain why.
I think the complaint at the moment is that fees are set at high levels over which the consumers have no choice. If this situation continues, then sooner or later, Government's stand at the moment, which I do not support, will be vindicated and the Government will be proven right at the later stage. But as things stand, as a consumer, I would prefer to protect my own interests in going to the lawyer of my choice, not because he charges cheaper prices but because he is good and I trust him and I know he protects my interests against the vagaries of Hong Kong's conveyancing field.
However, if my lawyer, and God forbid, should be a crook, the abolition of scale fees would merely make him a bigger crook and, God forbid. But to protect the interests of a consumer, the choice of a lawyer for a consumer lies in the choice based on professionalism and not merely on how low the fees should be negotiated, the removal of which would serve to, again as I said earlier, to befuddle the minds of the consumer. Because the consumer does not know about the law. He trusts his lawyer.
So, I think the point at issue, Mr President, is not that this is a scale which is not acceptable but that there are not several scales to reflect the type of work involved. Some conveyancing work is standard, some not so standard. Surely this justifies not the removal of scale fees but rather several levels of scale fees, be they pegged to the value of the flat or the type of conveyancing involved, and I think the legal profession ought to seriously address this problem through its Costs Committee.
I think we have attacked the problem at the wrong end. The composite amendments proposed involve also major reform in the composition of the Costs Committee. I think that is a bigger instrument in order to achieve consumer protection and also to achieve what I would call a reasonable step forward beyond today.
I shall certainly support the amendment proposed by the Democratic Party at the suitable Committee amendment stage in order to make sure that the Composition Committee reflects the larger interests of the consumer.
Thank you, Mr President.
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: I rise to support the Second Reading of the Bill but that does not mean to say that I support all the amendments proposed by the Bills Committee.
I do respect the legal profession I have got a lot of friends there and I am a professional myself although I am not a lawyer. But we have still got to balance between consumers rights, free market choice and professional autonomy. I feel that these are the few areas we should really address. But as a start, the medical profession is against scale fees or any form of control fee. We do not believe that a scale fee is equivalent to standard, a control fee is equivalent to standard, nor do we believe that standards should be in any way related to charge whatsoever.
I am, therefore, sort of surprised to hear Members in this Council of the legal profession when they indicate that standards are somehow linked to charge. I am even more disturbed to hear Members of this Council who are in the legal profession who, whilst they criticise Government for pressing on with abolition of scale fees, that Government has not made any move to maintain standards of service in the legal profession. I am surprised because in my mind standards are something that the profession should control itself. The Government should never be allowed, let alone request, to interfere with control of a professional standard, and this is what professional autonomy is all about.
On the other hand, professional autonomy is of utmost importance, and in this aspect, the medical profession would support a cost committee which the profession would have adequate representation.
Thank you, Mr President.
霉不瓣某璓勉畊畍碞禦芥加矗ㄑ猭狝叭┮紉Μ﹚肂Μ禣莱獽硓筁︑パカ初㎝そキ某基筁祘ㄏカチ㎝畍︽穨А眔程痲硂拜肈癸ヴ︙闽みカチ痲竒蕾厩產ㄓ弧氮睝礚好拜琌﹚
チ種猭狝叭﹚肂Μ禣硂籔チ戳ㄓは癸蝗︽そ穦瞯某珼驹═猳玻珇购扳基は癸沟羛穦–癸秸俱戈旧┦某の玡借好厨购扳基ミ初А琌璓
チチ囊㎝現┎さぱ硂拜肈程だ猍獶パチ囊璶玂毁禣τチ玥璉斌禣㎝は癸禣舦痲チタ璶玂毁禣环痲┮や龟︽だ顶琿よ辨碻亥秈﹚肂Μ禣璝硂ㄤ睼睹狦琌ぃ甧┛跌
Τ闽瓣糴﹚肂Μ禣竒喷и-
斗みだ猂ぃぶ计沮靡璣瓣﹚肂Μ禣Τㄇ畍Μ禣碩-
盢砯碞基矗ㄑ狝叭璓禗砠㎝竭纕ど计硂ㄇ菌禗砠ㄏぃぶ禦芥加眔ぃ纕ア硂ㄇ癸禣ぃ紇臫セ㎝チだ闽猔緿瑆薄猵ョ陪ボΜ禣穦どτぃ﹚
チ獺ミ糴﹚肂Μ禣穦旧璓ぃ箇ǎ睼睹硂癸禣ㄓ弧ゼゲΤチσ納蹦ノだ顶琿糴よヘ玡程璶琌ミ矪瞶Μ禣熬蔼拜肈チ㎝畍穦竒筁ぃ耞酵璶―畍穦﹚肂Μ禣竒筁Ω酵畍穦種ま秈砞ΤΜ禣挡篶
チぃ種购Μ禣癸砞ΤΜ禣挡篶琌钡и-
粄畍硂Μ禣挡篶い秈︽続讽膙沮畍穦瞷ㄑи-
把σΜ禣挡篶穝Μ禣籔瞷Μ禣ゑΤ穦50%Τゑ瞯畍穦ョ種穦ぃ秈︽浪癚
セ辨畍穦竒筁続讽猭祘镑荷е辅龟┯空Μ禣ぃ浪癚笷程沧﹚肂Μ禣ヘ夹
闽莱﹚肂Μ禣硂拜肈弧琌и把籔ミ猭Ыㄢ丁程禣拜肈ぃぶㄆ矗︙畍禦芥加狝叭い斗Μ疭Μ禣畍矗ㄑ狝叭㎝洛ネ穦璸畍┮矗ㄑ狝叭Τ︙だи硂拜肈纯ㄇみ硂兜狝叭Τㄤ疭┦ウ獶兜夹非狝叭獶カチ盽ノ狝叭硂籔洛ネ竒盽矗ㄑ狝叭ぃ禣螟フ硂兜狝叭ず甧︙螟秆︙璸衡ㄤΘセи獺场だ禣常⊿Τ非玥璓籔畍某基膀娄硂狝叭疭┦琌ㄤ狦㎝莱紇臫瞏环癸硂兜狝叭非の狝叭琌讽㎝笷夹非禣5┪︓20笵讽畍┮矗ㄑ狝叭Ч笷ぃ夹非Τ闽も尿ョЧ暗ぃì硂兜狝叭莱籔洛ネ㎝穦璸畍┮矗ㄑ狝叭莱Τ畉パ畍碞禦芥加┮矗ㄑ猭狝叭局Τ硂或ぃ疭┦и-
谋眔碞玂毁禣痲ㄓ弧˙莱膥尿蝴Τ﹚肂Μ禣秨カ初材˙琵禣㎝畍筁寸筁祘い厩策㎝秆硂琌だ璶
現┎┽阑﹚肂Μ禣琌硂兜Μ禣籔加基本恥┮加基禫禥Μ禣禫蔼現┎粄硂琌ぃ瞶и粄硂Μ禣挡篶⊿Τ拜肈ぃぶ狝叭Μ禣膀セ籔狝叭基钡本恥ヴ︙Τ㏕﹚ゑ瞯Μ禣挡篶А穦瞷硂薄猵ㄒ╬恏恨瞶そΜ禣琌恨瞶羆や10%ョ琌弧や禫Μ禣禫蔼產笵场だ蝗︽逼╬硓や肂穦Μ1%も尿禣琌硓や禫Μ禣禫蔼
程︗現┎﹛癸и弧瘤礛瞷畍そ穦種搭基竒ㄆ叭禣〆穦┮璹﹚Μ禣е獽穦筁加基穦硉ど闽加基祏戳ず穦硉ど硂拜肈и龟瞦ぃ狦ノ加基ぃ耞ど箇代﹚ㄆ叭禣〆穦ら砞﹚肂Μ禣璓癸禣硑Θぃ▆紇臫硂琌狦σ納и谋眔ろㄌ沮
ㄆ叭禣〆穦ら盢穦︗禣и瞏獺硂ㄇㄆ叭禣〆穦いゲ﹚镑祇揣ㄤ玂毁禣痲и辨ゼㄓㄆ叭禣〆穦镑ぃ浪癚Μ禣挡篶玂毁禣痲戳程沧笷﹚肂Μ禣ヘ夹
谅谅畊
㏄辩睶┥某璓勉畊瞷某璶琌瞅露畍莱砞﹚肂Μ禣の﹚肂Μ禣莱琌猭﹚Μ禣
﹚肂Μ禣ㄤ龟ぃì︽穨砞Τ﹚肂Μ禣盡穨︽穨砞Τ﹚肂Μ禣ぃ筁獶猭﹚τ┮產⊿Τ硂或癹臫ㄤ龟み稱︙璶砞猭﹚Μ禣㎡狦Τ猭ㄌ沮獽ち龟磅︽玥Τㄇ獽穦ぃ瞶穦ㄏ琌眏磅︽Μ禣禣⊿Τ诀穦某基現┎Μ禣常琌﹚肂Μ禣常Τ猭沮蒥チぃ眔ぃ煤ユê或︙熬熬畍砞﹚肂Μ禣穦ま癬ê或癹臫琌ㄤ盡穨⊿Τ﹚肂Μ禣畍︽穨︙縒疭ㄤ龟弧琌ぃ獺ヴ畍
闽玂毁禣硂拜肈Τㄇ畍"秨ぱ炳基"┮碞钩地某┮弧и-
璶玂毁禣闽玂毁禣程ま獽琌Μ禣稧狦痷璶玂毁禣獽璶Τ┮┮孔"value for money"硂ぃ虫ゎ璶基窥τ璶基窥㎝┮传ㄓン借琌眔キ颗ぃ阶êン琌狝叭临琌砯珇传杠弧禣琘基窥琌眔程蔼借硂琌癸禣程玂毁璣ゅΤ课粂"倒ネ獽眔唉礥"いゅΤ课粂"璶皑ㄠ璶皑ㄠぃ"硂荡癸⊿Τ硂ㄆ琌璶篡腇獽倒ㄇ獽﹜癸弧"倒ネぃ琌礥"硂琌﹚︙玊く某弧猭琌ぃΘミ讽琘砲瑍獽穦眔⺄讽礛窥ぃ﹚眔狥﹁⊿Τ窥杠獽眔礥┮膙癸基窥籔借硂ㄢ常璶ㄖσ納ぃσ納基窥
辩醇翬某弧洛ネ︽穨ぃ觅Θи叫辩某みи-
纯竒钮弧ぃ琌弧辩醇翬某Τㄇ洛ネ蠢痜琁も砃基畉ぃ100窾じиぃ琌弧辩某琌硂ㄇ笷100窾じщ禗そ笵㎡痜或笵Μ禣莱赣琌50窾じ5窾じ临琌100窾じ洛ネ玱弧ぃノ砞﹚肂Μ禣或妓も砃Τ洛ネΜ5窾じΤΜ50窾じ︓パ︑︽や布恶┮惠计肂и粄–︽穨常Τㄤ縒疭┦ぃ"λ縯ゴ差"
иぃ琌畍и琌〆穦ㄤいΘи纯竒把籔筁禣〆穦┮и癸禣Τ粄ㄆ龟и︑竒盽惠璶盡穨狝叭и粄現┎程拜肈獽琌讽現┎璶皐癸俱︽穨э﹚ぃ瞯ぃ種﹖︽現┎璶禣眔程Τ┮逼硂琌ぱそ笵ㄆㄆ龟現┎Τ硂措笵︙現┎ㄓ常ぃノ硂措笵и硂妓拜琌и纯竒筁畍禣и璶拜現┎︙ぃ硓筁Τ現┎﹛把籔ㄆ叭禣〆穦и-
程Τ┮基現┎⊿Τノ硂措笵現┎璶氮и-
璶そ渤ユ
и-
兵ㄒ〆穦穦某い钮現┎弧現┎ぃ秈︽箇或暗"箇"現┎琂礛ΤГㄆ叭禣〆穦硂ぃ︓琌現┎莱そ渤痲⊿Τ祇揣硂ノи谋眔硂琌ぃ癸琌硂ぃボ璶船斌俱ㄆ叭禣〆穦瘤礛狦畍そキ膙繦獽︑︽络﹚Μ禣ㄆ叭禣〆穦癬ぃ或ノ或安畍︑︽璹﹚Μ禣或璶蛤繦ㄆ叭禣〆穦┮〆穦そ渤某基獽穦綰搭セ弧琌⊿Τ或ノ矪〆穦硂よㄤ龟琌ア戮畍奔淮みΤぃ癸ぇ矪и钮籇讽畍穦蔼糷村弧癸郸︽現Ыぃ瞶獽⊿ㄆ讽Ы矗屡兵ㄒ琌畍穦垦癸郸
и弧筁и琌盡穨琌盡穨狝叭禣и粄狦痷璶碙盡穨︑獽ぃ镑闽龄拜肈ぃ碙︑闽︙禣眔程Τ┮ユ獽璶跌Τ⊿ΤЧ到诀硂诀┕琌ㄆ叭禣〆穦琌讽Ы┕⊿Τだノ硂诀и辨讽Ы盢ㄓ穦だノ
и钮Τㄇㄆ弧砞﹚肂Μ禣⊿ノ瞷⊿Τ穦宽砏家畍︽膀膙┪ㄤぃぉ宽琌畍ぃ碙硂ぃボ璶硂┮孔ㄢ岿跑Θ癸畍穦ぃち龟磅︽琌デ岿產粄ê琌癸獽璶磅︽
иや砞﹚肂Μ禣и粄畍穦荡癸莱ち龟磅︽狦弧︑パ膙癸砏家畍︽Τ腊竒喷玱禗и-
ぃ琌硂妓璣瓣竒Τ硂妓竒喷┮︙玊く某┮弧安砞荡癸ぃタ絋Τ龟悔ㄆㄒи-
穕穦琌êㄇ砏家畍︽硂ㄇセ竒犁畍︽︑礛ぃ籔êㄇΤ砏家㎝Τ羘臕畍膙狦⊿Τ﹚肂Μ禣禣﹚穦跌畍︽羘臕絋玂狝叭铆Т碞钩禦玂繧禣圭腀倒ㄇ窥穦砏家玂繧そщ玂┮砏家そ┮紇臫はτぃ穦ê或腨砏家そ穕程腨
︙玊く某矗┣拜肈弧狦Τ拜肈︙⊿Τ羘璶―Ω蹦ノ﹚肂Μ禣и粄ぃ瑈ぷㄤ琌Τㄇㄆ薄ǐ岿獽琌ǐ岿ǐΩ獽羮螟ミ猭Ы穦ǐ岿иぃ種チ囊┮暗ㄆ獽弧チ囊ǐ岿ǐ岿琌ǐぃǐΩぷㄤ琌弧禣〆穦禣︑礛计叫拜某Τ刚筁矗搭基τΤ蒥チぃ觅Θ氮﹚琌ぃ穦某叫蒥チ帽璶―搭基蒥チ讽礛粄暗眔癸硂荡计暗獽琌┮孔"現獀程タ絋ㄆ"и谋眔莱嘿ぇ"计眏舦"tyranny of the majority
癸计碭盡穨︑礛╉ぃ筁ê荡计碭κ窾禣┮畍︽穨⊿快猭ǐΩセ材Ωア毖ǐΩ妓ぃ穦Θ產笵璣瓣畍ボぃ骸粄﹚肂Μ禣ΤぃТぇ矪璓竭纕粿糤硂э跑瞷ぃ瞶稱よ畍︽穨狝叭借瞷ぃ瞶稱よ┮и-
荡癸ぃ列滦箩琵и-
穝℡穝℡竒筁近瞏㎝厩てだ猂程沧∕﹚ぃ﹚肂Μ禣ㄆ龟и-
拜肈┮и荡癸ぃ觅Θ﹚肂Μ禣и穦癚阶タ碞ㄆ叭禣〆穦祇ē谅谅畊
綠產碔某璓勉畊и祇ēやセ兵ㄒ秈︽弄и瞷ビ厨痲и琌磅穨畍
畊钮︗ㄆ祇ēи-
稰谋畍穦㎝畒畍ㄆ硂拜肈村弧だΘ
и-
粄畍穦盡穨︑の蝴畍盡穨倒そキ稰谋暴縒琌Τ闽畍禣㎝﹚肂Μ禣硂拜肈玱倒眏疨︑玂㎝︑徖稰谋
ㄤ龟и︑癸ベョ癸溃и纯竒筿辫倒︑粄琌畍絴и琌畍甃ㄎ瞶某计ぱ玡厨彻у蝶и琌︗瞷程畉ミ猭Ы某и玻瞶兵ㄒい⊿Τ︑︽穨┪︑ミ初
и⊿Τ甃ㄎ瞶某ê或┋笲и穨珹磕玂繧玻坝穨の狝叭さぱи∕琌沮チ囊囊乎㎝и︑種腀τи穦Ω砆甃ㄎ瞶某弧иゼ畍︽穨Τㄇ畍妮侣舱ㄇ畍㎝㎝戮妮и糵某玻瞶兵ㄒ畍︽癸и弧莱赣菏恨玻瞶Τㄇ玻瞶蛤и弧畍﹚肂Μ禣莱赣琌秈︽эōミ猭癸璶眔キ颗㎝璶臮そ渤痲и-
璶宽酚▆㎝蒥チ祇ē诀い绊и-
玥
る㎝させるチ囊碞硂拜肈Ω秈︽チ種秸琩Θ砐拜509︗翠蒥チ硂ㄇ砆砐ㄤいΤΘ粄潦禦穝加㎝加ぃ莱パ禦產や玻祇甶坝畍禣禬筁せΘ砐粄パ玻祇甶坝畍禦產穦瞷à︹侥せΘ砆砐粄ぃ莱蝴﹚肂Μ禣硂挡狦籔и-
る┮秈︽秸琩挡狦Ч癸き竒匡庢τ舱Θミ猭Ы︗ㄆ疭琌êㄇ竒盽眏秸︑チネチ種膀糷現囊ㄆи辨-
镑﹚肂Μ禣拜肈
畊盡穨非ぃ莱パ﹚肂Μ禣ㄓ蝴︙璶Τ﹚肂Μ禣Τ瞶狝叭㎡畊瞶狝叭莱赣琌畍穦ㄓパ玂靡畍巨▆蝴︙ぃ钩ㄤ猭狝叭ㄒ禗砠瞒盉も尿狝叭妓–︗畍戈菌蔼络璹畍禣τ畍┮丁㎝弘络璹畍禣
畊Τㄇㄆ粄硂穦玠畓︽穨︑舦и谋眔硂弧猭и-
借好╯澈琌玠畓︽穨︑舦临琌玠畓︽穨︑碙みы┪琌玠畓︽穨︑㎡讽そ渤痲紇臫︽穨︑舦獽璶秸俱畊盡穨獶贺盡蒥チ莱赣癸盡穨Τ蔼璶―蒥チЧぃ笵妓镑Τ▆诀砏恨盡穨ㄌ綼盡穨刮砰︑︽络璹碞硂妓畍穦璶癸蒥チ㎝-
璶―膀и┮矗のチ種秸琩и獺畍穦莱狦畍穦臮蝴︽穨︑舦τ环瞒竤渤璉斌蒥チ種腀畍穦㎝俱盡穨穦禜娥ず稰畍来Μ窥臮﹚肂Μ禣㎝︑ō痲иō畍ぃ辨畍穦硂よи-
畍籜槽
и癘眔讽иご礛琌蹲翴Θ蹲翴纯竒秈︽兜チ種秸琩и瞷癘ぃ癬冈灿チ種挡狦иご睲贰癘眔蒥チ氮︙畍Μ禣阀钡Θ蒥チ常弧畍Μ禣蔼ぃ︙硂妓Μ禣-
ボ帽畍妮τ琌Μ禣Τ诀穦籔畍ǎΤㄇ︓硈硂诀穦⊿Τ闽祇甶坝畍ㄇ砏家畍︽琌т戮秨笆魁诀秆睦ず甧礛计禦產獽穦某ず癬帽硂妓猭狝叭畍穦琌斗璶タ跌㎡
и钮筁瓣ㄇ闽盡穨禜秸琩и留癘眔畍倒禜だ畉碽㎝蒥畸τ琌臮Μ窥筁计る畍穦眔禣ぃぶ弘㎝丁村弧セЫ某и某畍穦ノ硂ㄇ弘㎝丁篶Т到诀惫琁畍禜翠蒥チみい眔э到
и谋眔さΩ畍穦碞﹚肂Μ禣拜肈そ闽暗眔だ畉玪иぃ畍穦竨ノ丁そ闽そ秨﹍獽弧ぃ搭﹚肂Μ禣琌弧ご礛琌搭Μ禣иΤ獽穦弧綠產碔玡﹚垦忌瞷搭畍穦ご礛弧镑蝴ネ璸и讽ぃ妓氮ㄤ龟拜肈膒挡ぃ琌Μ禣蔼τ琌﹚肂琌斗璶蝴и辨畍穦ぃ璶盢﹚肂Μ禣籔盡穨非ц闽玒㎝禣ゲ﹚穦拜螟笵Μ禣獽﹜翴盡穨非獽穦畍琌靡盡穨ぃ阶畍禣蔼и-
璶﹚硂琌盡穨矗ㄑ倒▆禜
畊盡穨琌璶Τ碙腨畍ぃ琌綼靡ㄓ蝴么㎝矗蔼-
碙腨τ琌璶パ蒥チ耞㎝蝶︳┮и-
ぃ辨畍加硓筁澄基渡綪も猭膥尿绊璶蝴﹚肂Μ禣
畊иさぱ穦チ囊碞ㄆ叭禣〆穦Θ舱Θ拜肈矗タ讽礛チ囊や現┎矗"4:3:3"琌チ囊矗"5:3:3"5畍穦3現┎3禣琌辨狦猭﹛Θㄆ叭禣〆穦畊畍穦ごΤ5Θ羘镑キА硂琌и-
チ囊猭и临辨︗ㄆσ納睲贰〆穦矗"6:3:3"璹ゲ﹚琌畍穦羘Τゑи辨產稱睲贰╯澈硂ㄆ叭禣〆穦莱赣パ畍穦㎝そ渤キだ羘临琌凹盡穨チ囊辨︗ㄆや現┎┪チ囊タ
癸兜タи-
某パ禦產や玻祇甶坝畍禣砏﹚и┮矗のチ種秸琩ΤΘ砆砐粄潦禦穝加㎝加ぃ莱砏﹚パ禦產や玻祇甶坝畍禣ㄓ禣︓ぃ笵禦穝加︑︽竨ノ畍祇甶坝ボΤ﹚畍琌禦產獽︑礛竨ノ祇甶坝﹚畍τ-
獽璶や祇甶坝畍禣и-
谋眔硂琌荡癸ぃそキ┮辨ㄆや硂琌現┎ㄤい兜タぃ筁現┎琌蹦ノ"invalidation of contract"琌弧狦いΤ兵蹿砏﹚禦產斗璶や祇甶坝畍禣硂兜兵蹿獽穦跑Θ礚琌畍穦㎝畍そ穦ノ︑パㄓ粄硂弘ぃ镑ぉや
チ囊ョ粄現┎硂兜タ籔︑パ竒蕾㎝︑パ笻璉и-
靡倒產玂毁禣┪禦產ぃ莱ぃそキや祇甶坝畍禣и-
矗よ 狦禦產︑︽竨ノ畍獽ぃ莱や祇甶坝畍禣
и辨產∕癸硂拜肈σ納狦や現┎現┎よ獽琌ㄏ祇甶坝畍┮妮畍︽帽ぃ莱や祇甶坝畍禣やチ囊杠獽琌ㄏ禦產︑︽竨ノ畍ぃ莱や祇甶坝畍禣瘤礛だぃ筁蒥チ禦穝加┪加Τ某基Τ狦セ兵ㄒ莉眔硄筁獽糤禣舦痲
畊︙玊く某矗眶иビ厨痲иㄌ祡癘眔硂妓暗и辨祔矗タ矗チ囊ㄤ種ǎ
谅谅畊
腑瓣辆某璓勉畊1996猭狝叭ミ猭馒兜璹兵ㄒ琌沮き祇猭狝叭厨ず兜璶翴矗礚粄赣兵ㄒ礚阶癸畍盡穨のそ渤常Τ瞏环紇臫兵ㄒず兵ゅョ伐ㄣ某┦и盢с璶チ羛癸赣兵ㄒ兜阶翴
Τ闽紀埃穨锣﹚肂Μ禣瘤礛﹚肂Μ禣ㄏ禣ゼㄉ程獽﹜狝叭チ羛粄盡穨狝叭程璶琌量―狝叭借ぷㄤ穨锣よ炊霉渤璶ネ縩籛潦禦糷穨璶琌瞷翠穨穨舦ごゼΤЧ到爹祘惠璶ㄌ苦畍糵琩穨穨舦パ基膙筁粿τま璓狝叭借程穕ア琌炊霉渤иぃ稱ㄆ"み暗胊ㄆ"猵瞷畍穦ョ矗碩搭穨锣﹚肂Μ禣┯空ス翠砞ミ穨爹獽穦﹚肂Μ禣膀玂毁炊霉渤らぃ穦畍狝叭借τ穕チ羛瞷顶琿ぃ觅Θ穨锣﹚肂Μ禣
闽ㄆ叭禣〆穦舱Θ场だチ羛粄赣〆穦Τ舦∕﹚┮Τ獶砠┦畍狝叭﹚肂Μ禣讽礛癸筁8ㄓㄆ叭禣〆穦⊿Τ▆笲筁チ羛稰だ框狙沮и┮眔戈赣穦眖⊿Τ庢︽筁穦某и辨瞷赣〆穦笲カチ矗ㄑ続讽狝叭狦ㄆ叭禣〆穦镑Т到笲〆穦ず穨種ǎの禣種ǎ常莱眔キ颗ョ莱いミ種ǎ眔そキㄣ┦の莉よ钡Μ禣夹非珿チ羛や現┎某433家Αセョ穦砰〆穦顶琿碞硂兜タ冈瓃チ羛ミ初
畊癸紀埃砏﹚禦よ斗煤芥よ畍禣兵ゅチ羛琌や瘤礛Τу蝶硂暗猭笻は︑パτ赣掸畍禣硓筁糤穨基ㄓ辣干硂猭单"οをοō"猭и-
谋眔Τ﹚笵瞶ぃ筁チ羛σ納獶パ竒蕾ㄓはи-
眖禣àㄓσ納禣ㄉ縒ミ畍狝叭瞷︽篋ㄒ〆竨︗畍禦芥蛮よ耕だ秨畍禦よ┮煤畍禣ョ禦よぃ穦笆竨叫ㄤ畍薄猵籔祇甶坝Τ▆闽玒畍︽┕┕巨北秖も穨カ初猭狝叭ョ穦癸畍︽ぃそキ┮狦現┎某莉眔硄筁禦よ埃Τ笆〆竨ㄤ畍眔縒ミ種ǎョㄏㄇ畍︽籔畍︽膙︽程沧眔痲﹚琌禦よ
畊セ略朝勉
糕蚌┚某璓勉畊и祇ēは癸セ兵ㄒи璶ビ厨иセ痲и琌だ陈沸畍︽め
畊翠畍玥だㄢ摸摸琌炊硄畍摸琌畍畍だㄢ摸炊硄畍㎝眘ノ畍(Queen's Counsel)и-
癚阶硂拜肈莱だ矪瞶
闽﹚肂Μ禣拜肈瞷洛ネぃ砞﹚肂Μ禣琵и禗產珿ㄆ玡︗だ洛ネ璶蠢︗碔笆も砃ê︗洛ネ秨基10窾じも砃禣琌碔產妮獽蠢某基拜ê︗洛ネΜ獽﹜翴ê︗洛ネ弧"だ窥だ砯и赣妓快"產妮钮ミㄨ"ゴ癶绑躬"圭禣叫ê︗洛ネ恨рも砃暗翴硂珿ㄆ琌ㄆ龟產パǎ癚基临基拜肈
и闽猔Τㄢ翴材闽眘ノ畍㎝畍иはτ觅Θ-
砞﹚肂Μ禣-
拨穨磅穨莱砞Τ┏基礛–患糤ㄒ暗10獽璶ぶ畍禣琵臮睲贰笵ぶ窥讽礛臮┮∕﹚琌ㄆはτи粄ヘ玡Τ眔猭闽猔ê獽琌炊硄畍︽竨叫畍┪眘ノ畍獽璶璽砫ㄢよ禣ノ狦笿ㄇぃ璽砫ヴ畍┪眘ノ畍ン秈︽ぃ籔︓種﹖︽旧璓瞷讽礛弧"ぃ钮и杠иぃ窥"琌硂ㄇ畍獽北畍︽讽狦畍そ穦赣畍︽獽穦砆埃礟┮硂薄猵畍︽砆ㄆ玡┯空蹿倒畍┪眘ノ畍闽硂ㄆиだ辨猭┪盢Θミ〆穦∕иぃ虫ゎぃは癸﹚肂Μ禣τ璶―﹚肂Μ禣莱絋琵禣カチ┪竨叫畍笵莱︙竨叫畍硂琌и癸畍㎝眘ノ畍種ǎ
沮и秆ヘ玡翠炊硄畍程璶穨叭ㄆ龟琌快瞶и-
璶σ納畍快瞶Μ﹚肂Μ禣琌垦忌狦畍痷垦忌璓硑Θぃそキ瞷禜и辨畍そ穦ら–┪1﹚戳浪癚传杠弧狦﹚肂Μ禣筁蔼禣Τ種ǎ畍獽莱搭ゑㄒㄒパ1%搭︓0.5%︓琌0.3%┪0.4%ㄆ龟瞷畍弧琌购Μ禣ㄤ龟ぃ琌购或畍癚セ⊿Τ"秨虫"炊硄狝叭ㄒゴ筿杠琌⊿Τ"秨虫"硂だ陪ボ-
⊿Τ购Μ禣-
狝叭ぃΜ禣瞶阶琌璶Μ禣┮иぃ笵現┎︙瞷矗璶―ㄏΤノゼ谋⊿Τノê獽琌眏┮螟
и秆癩竒ㄆ叭㎝癩現癸场だ布竒Μ禣Τ種ǎ粄莱赣购Μ禣и眖ㄓ╆﹙Ξ璶皐癸琌Τ垦忌硂眔и-
у蝶㎝坝篹玥狦琌よ獽穨宽璶ぃ硑Θ睼睹┪睼瞔獽и-
璶磷硑Θи矗ㄒ ê︗洛ネㄒ
畊иだ辨現┎腊畍︽穨硂穦璶吏躬纘-
玃秈穦竒蕾㎝よ笲τぃ琌蹦忌現郸瘤礛眖玡璶讽畍ぃ甧瞷ㄑ弄猭厩ネ-
拨穨讽ǎ策畍1るΤ5,000じ禜紉Αó皑禣┪Μи辨畍そ穦镑钮產種ǎㄏ祔兵ㄒ莉眔硄筁癸-
Τら璶﹚戳浪癚禣ぃ穦祇ê或癹臫и-
フ禣癸ㄆ薄ぃ秆粄某基讽礛琌癸︑Τи粄某基﹍沧癸癩刮Τ獶癸禣Τ禣Ω筁臮畍︽–丁畍︽畉ぃ癸禣Τ或矪τ禣ぃ琌竒盽Τ戈臮畍︽
畊и癸現┎硂筁寸戳矗某Τ┮玂痙㎝借好
セ略朝勉
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr President, I only wish really to address this Council on one point, and that is on the survey that was referred to by the Honourable Andrew CHENG. I do not think I want to enter into any particular controversy about my assessment of his performance in this Council because that is not the purpose of today's debate.
On the survey that he has referred to, Mr President, I am advised by Dr Robert CHUNG Ting-yiu who is the Director of the Social Science Research Centre of the University of Hong Kong, the method adopted by the Democrats is called Interactive Tone Dial Recorded Telephone Interview. That sounds like quite a mouthful, but there we are, there it is. I am told that it is not a scientific method and its representativeness is, to say the least, questionable. The normal, acceptable level of response for an opinion survey is between 40% to 50%. In this particular instance, I believe the response was only 16.1%. Consequently one really cannot attach any reference value to this survey.
A second point that was raised was that in terms of the questions that were asked in this survey, and all of us know that depending on the questions asked, you can have the desired answer, but I do not wish to attribute any how do I say any unfairness on the part of the Democratic Party in this survey, but it is a fact that in the survey the question was simply asked whether they favoured abolition or retention of scale fees. There was no mention, Mr President, of the Law Society's planned revision of the scale fees. So, I think for the public, for Members of this Council, and for the Government, all I can say is that, surveys might be slightly indicative, but in this particular instance, not reliable at all.
Mr President, I think when it comes to the Committee stage amendments, I will have further comments on a particular aspect of the Bill and I would reserve my remarks therefore on clause 18, which provides for the invalidating clause at that stage.
Thank you, Mr President.
法此某璓勉畊甃ㄎ瞶某拜の暗秸琩╯癸チ囊秸琩矗ㄇ種ǎ種ǎΤ场だ琌痷絋
畊筿杠秸琩Μ瞯刚稱稱琘璓筿倒魁秈︽秸琩弧Τㄇㄆ璶拜ㄤ龟琌穦本帹┮Μ瞯ぃ蔼10%オ┮瞷厨彻秈︽筿杠秸琩薄猵常琌硂妓τ硂ョ琌硂贺秸琩セō疭借材筿杠秸琩﹚ぃ疉のㄆ薄狦疉のㄆ獽穦本帹┮矗拜拜肈ョぃ穦τ–兵拜肈穦だ虏祏
ぃ筁畊硂ㄇ筿杠秸琩Τ﹚把σノи稱甃ㄎ瞶某矗矗и-
暗硂よ暗眔ゑ耕琌Τ﹚把σノ硂把σノョ獶荡癸礛τカチ癸ㄇ璶拜肈ゲ﹚穦Τ﹚祘は莱ㄒさΩチ囊┮暗秸琩狦и-
蹦ノㄇ厩てよ猭ㄒ翠┦┾妓秸琩и︳璸挡狦琌畉ぃぃ筁硂﹟σ喷瘤弧筿杠秸琩Τㄤぃìぇ矪拜肈ぃ拜眔Μ瞯ぃ蔼ョ陪ボカチ癸琘ㄇ現郸は莱璝は莱禫眏獽禫拜肈┮и︳璸狦и-
秈︽翠┾妓秸琩и獺カチ癸加禦芥﹚肂Μ禣は莱琌畉ぃ
畊и谋眔さΩ現┎矗硂某Τ玦丁よ钡舦簿ユ常谋眔穦Τ現獀拜肈舦簿ユ竒Τぃ铆﹚薄猵硂э跑穦盿ㄓ琿ぃ铆﹚丁硂琌璉春拜肈さΩ畍穦村弧眔对艷祸某琌Ыず碙某パ秈︽村弧產穦倒钮量ㄏぃ種穦灿み测钮祇ē┮さΩи獺畍穦籔某村弧︗某穦Θщ布挡狦常穦Θ崩陆現┎某и硂稱艷祸某籔畍穦癑み量弧杠ㄏさΩ墓畍穦禜┪畍盡穨А穦穕辨產粄痷σ
┮Τ盡穨ㄤ龟痷琌⊿Τ猭﹚﹚肂Μ禣㏄辩睶┥某弧眔癸ㄤ龟ㄤ盡穨Τ﹚肂Μ禣ぃ筁獶猭﹚カチ琌穦矗好拜產ぃ璶翠カチㄆ常ぃ来璝孔⊿Τ﹚肂Μ禣-
獽ぃ来眔妓某基ぃ来眔匡拒硂琌杠翠弘祘炊﹚肂Μ禣丁Τㄇぶ睼睹カ初е獽穦Μ獺カチ獽穦Τ窸肚碈ョ穦は琈┮ぃ璶粄﹚肂Μ禣ぇΤㄇ獽穦禣丁碝т畍ぃ︙匡拒硂琌ぃ穦祇ネ狦硂妓翠セぃ穦祇甶ΘΘカ猵硂Θ琌︽穨Θぃ度琌琘ㄇ︽穨
陪翠戈癟毙▅祘癸醚琌讽祇笷┮﹚肂Μ禣カチゼゲぃ妓匡拒琿祏丁ぇず穦硂妓-
е獽穦来眔匡拒畍⊿Τ﹚肂Μ禣螟笵カチぃ来眔匡拒畍盾ぃノи弧產笵氮Τㄇ畍窸妓ぃ琌︑描眔ㄓ描临胊ㄆ蔼ぃ﹚ボや蔼產笵Τ蔼カチ钮ㄤ獽穦Τぃ甴︹㎝は莱璝瞷らカ初Τは琈獽ミ癬窸┮и辨某籔畍穦羇ㄏさΩ痷墓璶稱稱琿丁ず盢﹚肂Μ禣玥痷螟翠カチ秆睦︙┮Τ盡穨常⊿Τ猭﹚Μ禣τ畍玱Τ
材翠ぇ┮Θ-
盽弧琌カ初膙畍璶ネ種獽璶瞷︑稦瞷︑︑Θ碞の瞷臮硂ㄇ︽ず膙琌璶盽弧膙穦盿ㄓ秈˙┮孔Τ膙Τ秈˙︙弧加禦芥﹚肂Μ禣產钩Чぃ矗硂ㄆ
材畍盽弧禣匡拒キみτ阶﹚肂Μ禣琌穦產匡拒よ﹚紇臫┮и粂み矗眶產羇ㄏさΩ現┎块ㄤ龟常癸畍盡穨Τ﹚ノㄒ畍穦竒非称盢Μ禣秸┮и辨︗畍ぃ璶弧狝叭借籔Μ禣Τ闽狦畍穦秸Μ禣琌┮Τ畍狝叭非硂琌ēぃΘ瞶
礛τ艷祸某矗芠翴現┎莱╯弧硂或霖э跑畍︽穨穦は莱眔ゑ耕┪非称ぃ镑и玡繰み测钮艷祸某祇ē硂翴弧眔ゑ耕い瘤礛祇ēいи谋眔硂Ω祇ēいㄤ碭翴ぃ镑いㄒ穦紇臫狝叭借盿ㄓゼぇ计单渤┮㏄э跑讽礛穦盿ㄓゼぇ计狦甡┤硂ㄇゼぇ计┮Τ穦獽ぃノэ跑ぃ琌盾艷祸某盽谋眔翠璶チ秨チ秨穦盿ㄓㄇゼぇ计ぃ筁產谋眔硂ゼぇ计琌穦┯τ程ョ琌绰瞶よ祇甶
祇ēい矗のэ跑穦筁硂或е∕﹚穦俱畍︽穨常ぃ钡硂и獺蛮よ╯硂よ╒竒喷и谋眔現┎さΩ矗某ㄤ龟Τ玦瘤礛丁よΤㄇ谋眔穦琌翠璣潮垦羬ǐ暗硂ㄇㄆㄓи稱眏秸翠硂妓眏秸カ初膙硂妓眏秸禣匡拒畍穦絋龟璶粄痷σ納硂ㄢ翴羇ㄏさΩΘ村弧某崩陆現┎某璶カチ秆睦琘琿丁ぇず 硂﹚肂Μ禣玥痷螟︑蛾ㄤ弧
谅谅畊
襖略ビ某璓勉畊и稱ビ厨痲и琌磅穨畍瘤礛иミ猭Ыぇ挤碭Θ丁踞ヴ畍⊿Τ快猭ōщ┋硂碭硓筁ミ猭Ы膥尿痙種猭猭ㄒゼ璓波胕癸猭粄醚
ㄆ弧芠翴иぃ狡材翴ㄤ龟环ㄓ弧и-
程璶琌搭ぶ加禦芥狡馒祘┮現┎耕Ν玡矗穨舦猭ㄒ狡馒薄猵ぇΜ現┎硂эよ琌ゲ礛闽ユ禣ノ瞷畍穦┪畍穦╉ㄆ龟ご礛琌だ狡馒狦璶-
秸Μ禣︓-
踞み膙ぇ穦Μ禣-
穦谋眔硂妓籔ㄤ琌ぃ嘿ぃ筁狦Τ穨舦祅癘ぇ畍獽⊿Τ虑弧蝴┕妓蔼Μ禣и谋眔碞俱穦璶―搭ユ禣ノτē硂琌竒蕾祇甶ゲ礛˙и-
磷ぃиョ辨畍︽穨ㄆ癸硂瞷龟
材翴и砰穦Τㄇ︽產絋龟Τㄇ踞み-
弧︑琌荷み荷ㄓ暗ぃ穦皑琌痷踞み膙Τ穦皑Τ穦ゑ耕獽﹜禣ノㄓま臮ぷㄤ玻竒┪產が硄肚ê產獽﹜е獽笵狦璶盢基窥暗眔荷み荷暗êㄇ畍踞み钩谋眔Τㄇぃのぃ镑ㄒ臮ǐ畍加籔畍酵基窥计だ牧ㄤ龟竒Μ计κじ禣ノ琌癸畍ㄓ弧穦谋眔螟斌┕ê贺谨烦るê贺铆﹚ぃノ膙吏挂
ㄤ龟セ琌Τ膙﹚肂Μ禣杠膙碞琌街暗眔琌硂琌Τ膙и谋眔ㄏ暗眔瞶パ穦Τ腀種暗眔 タ︙玊く某┮弧 腀種Μ禣獽﹜翴礚粄ぃ畍ㄏ暗眔畍Τ腀種Μ禣耕稧膀Θセ挡篶琌畍︽拇俱砰も戮琌禬瞯┪と逗丁逼单ㄒΤ戮と刊1Τㄇ玥单┪Τ6痁Τ8痁单┪︓ㄤρ馏㎝ㄆ稰薄谋眔眔やΤ㏑翴┪琌跋翴拜肈絋龟畍︽场だや┮ㄆ龟и砰穦Τㄇ︽產踞み
ぃ筁и粄鲸恨︑パ某基穦竒菌琿戳┮孔皚礹┪ぃ铆﹚琌ê贺ぃ铆﹚и耞琌荡癸┯τぃ穦Τ拜肈或㎡材и觅Θ法此某┮弧ㄆ龟ぃ璶盢翠и箇璸狦痷︑パ某基ぇぷㄤ琌计щ禗计どㄇ波┛纕糤カチ厨彻厨笵常穦踞み狦禦糷加カチσ納匡拒畍ぃ穦Μ禣獽﹜∕﹚-
耞ぃ穦畍Μ禣獽﹜500じ硂妓碞∕﹚ノ狝叭ㄆ龟êㄇノ產ぷㄤ琌禦產ョ穦碞硂ゑ耕み匡拒讽礛狦璶皌絋龟斗よㄒ碈ざ碈ざ璶碞琌璶翴忌臩ㄇぃ讽瞷禜︓狦竒筁秸琩厨笵澈礛1,000じ暗キ眔硂妓糉甡300窾じ糷加1,000じ獽暗肚肚κㄆ龟畍加暗﹙1,000じネ種ぃìぱΜτ-
┤┮ㄆ龟ㄒ芥糷加碞⊿Τê或踞み穨穦稱狦ê糷加Τ拜肈痷芥ぃ杠穦發╯潦ê畍ê畍盡穨玂繧玂毁1,000窾じユê或獽穦だみ┮癸芥畍狝叭琌穦碩搭基讽礛扳加芥よ畍獶或ぃノ暗ㄆ龟Τ祘禦㎝芥癸ㄆ龟琌Τ硂妓だ
Τㄆ弧璶皑ㄠ璶皑ㄠぃㄆ龟琌膙皑ㄠ碞⊿Τ㎡狦竒筁膙皑ㄠ痷Ч⊿Τ杠拜肈㎡ㄤ龟拜肈虏虫畍び狦畍筁Τ膙產暗︑礛產⊿Τ庢ㄒ洛拨穨ネ硈ǎ策洛ネтぃ洛皘houseman戮︗骸安拜и丁琌加カ瞷產Τぃ筁カ笵睭ê皚ゴ阑加基戳丁и︳璸畍加螟蝴ぷㄤ琌ノ加﹚ぃ穦ネ種ぃㄎτ秸竊
琌狦皑ㄠ⊿ê碞穦Τ场だ畍ぃ阶︙戈瞏┪竒喷睱瑈ㄤカ初庢ㄒ弧и笵Τㄇ畍琌Τ猭癡絤︓Τ畍礟τ讽癘ㄤ龟硂癸肚碈癘︽穨琌狦Τ筁癡絤畍暗猭畑絪秤Ч⊿Τ琌盾讽礛临斗絪胯┪碈ざ癡絤иョ笵ㄇ畍谋眔玡春ぃ琌獽現┎琌現┎戮︗穖も畉ぃ计κ匡珼匡︙秆㎡玡и-
拨穨琌玡ρ龟弧現┎畍ゼゲ琌程纔╭琌瞷ㄓ弧琌纔╭и祇谋и痁いΤ纔╭厩穖現┎吏挂铆﹚膙ㄏ瞷Τ﹚肂Μ禣膙ㄌ礛┮-
碞穦匡拒現┎ョΤㄇㄆ穦ㄇ╬诀篶ㄒ琌カそ┪踞讽ㄇ臮拜┪蝗︽癩叭诀篶ㄤ龟и-
ぃ﹚璶玂毁拨穨畍ゲ礛寥ぶ羱庢ㄒ弧稱10玡烩礟畍寥窾じ狦琌︑ネ種Τㄇ琌弧瞷10硄等ぇ畍程ョ莱赣寥き窾じ礛碞ㄆ龟獶琌拇и瞷暗ρ馏祅約莱紉獺獽撮︓︓и-
竒穞ボ羱ぶ窥琌ぃ瞶稱暗畍弧稱莱紉ㄆ龟硂︽穨獶產┮稱钩春и璶弧そ笵弧杠
琌俱秸竊ぇи︙觅Θ璶膙㎡琌и痷⊿Τ快猭镑弧ノ︙诀ê基窥莉眔程基τê诀琌ノΩ筁某基诀и︙弧ㄆ叭禣〆穦琌Ω筁某基诀㎡ㄆ叭禣〆穦ㄏㄤ舱Θ▆ㄒΤ畍禣現┎或ㄆ龟琌Ω筁и-
┮ゼ箇硂或贺薄猵珹瞯单秈︽某基弧Τㄇ禣Τㄇ畍產钩栋砰酵妓某基琌產み┮Τ禣┮Τ畍常琌沮琌ㄏи禣┪畍и⊿Τ快猭镑弧╯澈キ琌瞶基窥
兵ㄒ〆穦穦某畍穦纯竒矗ㄇ计┪ㄇ秸琩弧狦琌い畍加ΤもㄤΘセ挡篶琌妓眖τ璸衡ㄓ禣ノ莱赣琌琘キи︑谋眔硂安砞いΤ碭翴琌Τ拜肈
材安砞快ㄆ矪琌い跋籔安砞à碞竒Τぱ瞁ぇ
材狦弧絵安砞い丁碞琌à璸衡基300窾じ加程ぶΜ8,000じ︓1窾じ禣ノ筁硂キセ⊿Τセ琌垒暗琌は筁ㄓㄤ龟璉Τ安砞碞琌ㄒΤ5戈畍戈ゲ斗莱寥ぶ窥璝⊿Τ璸衡硂Θセ杠琌ぃ璸衡Μ㎝や禣ノ琌ぶ硂タ琌и︑程螟钡琌5┪10戈畍碞ゲ﹚璶寥琘计ヘ窥瞶㎡
讽礛璝拜ии谋眔暗盡穨琌璶Τ翴碙腨狦弧5戈畍寥8,000じ琌瞶杠ㄤ龟俱盡穨琌螟蝴琌и-
狦硓筁┮孔﹚肂Μ禣ㄓ玂毁琘キΜ杠硂妓琌︽㎡иぃ窽璶拜狦и-
粄硂妓琌瞶玂毁碙腨杠︙穦璸畍洛ネぃ琌硂妓暗㎡狦Τ禗и虏虫-
ぃ琌τ瞷猭厩皘–拨穨и谋眔程琌Τ诀穦∣畓痙眏Τ诀穦Τ穦锣︽Τㄇ猭ぃ﹚璶Τㄇ畍ㄇ猭-
沮穦ㄤ场だㄒ踞ヴ︽現戮︗ㄆ龟癸俱穦猭獀芠├琌Τ腊︓狦筁猭癡絤眖ㄆい翠禩ョ繦籔瓣ずユ瑈ㄇ︓-
ㄇ猭獀ê娩ǐ┮筁猭癡絤ぃ﹚璶场暗畍硓筁膙诀︑礛碞穦Τ腀種膥尿暗畍ㄒ5戈畍寥3窾じ腀種痙膥尿暗荷み荷ㄓ暗ㄆ龟и谋眔硂妓и-
笵╯澈俱穦镑┯踞ぶ畍–畍镑寥ぶ窥程и谋眔畍寥窥琌ㄤいぇ镑倒骸ì稰穦碙ㄆ龟ョ琌俱︽穨厨筍ㄤいぇ
芠翴碞琌Τㄆ弧ㄤ盡穨狝叭常ΤΜ禣и琌弧-
Μ禣ㄆ龟ぃ琌眏ㄆ龟итぃㄤ︽穨Τ眏Μ禣琌荡礚度Τ
程и琌現┎弧そ笵杠Τㄇㄆ弧獶Μ禣碞琌程ㄤ龟現┎眖ㄓ⊿Τ弧筁Μ禣琌程иョ辨Ыㄆ穦祇硂獺ぃ琌Μ禣碞琌程и-
琌璶―產暗醇禣и-
獺カチ瞷毙▅キの癸穦秆琌镑暗弘禣ê琿秸竊続莱丁琌ぃ穦び
畊и钮チ某ミ初笵-
玥琌觅Θ﹚肂Μ禣辨だ顶琿秈︽и祔〆穦糵某顶琿穦刚瓜材16兵兜兵ゅ﹚肂Μ禣︓ミ猭Ыら某Αㄓ硄筁ネ传ēぇ碞琌玥觅Θ﹚肂Μ禣ぃ筁竒筁琿続莱戳ぇи笵チ幅ね琌穦種硂兜タиョ辨ㄤㄆ┪現┎篈琌や硂暗猭и祔丁ョ穦畊璶―礚竒┮惠硄戳τ矗ユ兜览某タ
独﹜グ某璓勉畊и-
さぱΝ钮ㄆ祇ē硂兵ㄒ璶翴碞琌璶Τ﹚肂Μ禣ㄤ龟ごΤ翴琌眔產闽猔獽琌畍︽穨莱ΤそΑㄓ笲и钮ㄓ礚碞硂翴笷筁種ǎи癸硂翴Τぶ玂痙и谋眔瞶パぃびだ笲κΤ︙瞷璶э跑ウ㎡硂琌材瞶パ材觅ΘΤそΑ笲瞶沮ぃびìΤ弧иㄆ暗岿ㄆ︙璶и璉堵羚硂瞶パ琌琌τ獶瞶パ或琌盡穨狦匡拒ㄆ穦"禴泊描"毙и-
禣快┮и癸硂翴琌Τ┮玂痙
セ略朝勉
郭Θ某璓勉畊筁ㄢи纯把筁兵ㄒ〆穦–Ω籔襖略ビ某畉ぃ產常琌玂よ兵ㄒ程瞷硂兵琌и程"端福惮"τョτ程村弧
霉不瓣某矗だ顶琿畍Μ禣よ竒冈灿ユチミ初и琌干︙だ顶琿秈︽ㄤ龟и琌辨だㄢ顶琿秈︽
材顶琿碞琌ご礛玂痙﹚肂Μ禣ぃ筁璶ユパㄆ叭禣〆穦ㄓ冈灿浪癚㎝穝璹﹚穝Μ禣
材顶琿碞琌パミ猭Ы続讽薄猵∕某┪ミ猭Αㄓ
и弧材顶琿薄猵︙璶だ顶琿㎡瞶沮璝и-
ミㄨ碞穦ま癬睼睹薄猵珹眖计沮セи笵穦Τ硂妓睼睹薄猵タи-
や蝗︽瞯某琌ョ琌だ顶琿硋˙ㄓ秈︽璝и-
Ω筁ㄤ龟狦穦紇臫翠俱磕の癸禣ぃ﹚穦Τ矪┮癸畍﹚肂Μ禣妓и-
璶み︽ㄆ
璶材顶琿暗杠琌︙秈︽㎡и谋眔程ユパΤ┦ㄆ叭禣〆穦∕﹚τ硂ㄆ叭禣〆穦莱赣计よэ跑┪э到и稱干材碞琌ㄆ叭禣〆穦璶Τ┦翠Τ硂ㄇ〆穦常琌辨Τよ珹現┎τ硂ㄆ叭禣〆穦莱赣Τ盡穨禣狦琌钩瞷〆穦妓Τ畍㎝ㄇ﹛琌猭﹛⊿Τ禣陪琌ぃ瞶稱〆穦
材璶ぃ穕甡盡穨︑玥硂盡穨︑玥琌璶狦и-
弧種パ〆穦ㄓ∕﹚Μ禣и-
碞璶硂〆穦い盡穨程ぶ琌璶-
镑钡硂ㄇ∕﹚タи-
弧琌パㄇ〆穦庢ㄒ∕﹚琘贺Μ禣┪戈ぃ〆穦いЧパρ狾∕﹚硂琌ぃ︽辨ウΤì镑骋┮硂薄猵ㄤ龟硂〆穦诀钩琌栋砰酵诀碞琌弧Τ畍だΤ禣よ產ê癬ㄓ某基坝酵產常谋眔翠薄猵琌瞶Μ禣-
璶Чσ納よ闽珹瞷畍莱赣–Μぶ禣ノ瞷ノぶ丁秆∕﹙禦芥い穨舦拜肈单璶σ納闽
材翴碞琌ウ璶璹瞶Μ禣筁ㄆ叭禣〆穦弧Τ礚龟┪⊿Τ妓跑﹚Μ禣⊿Τ浪癚┮ウ﹚璶笆暗ㄇ硂妓浪癚τ璶莱穦贺у蝶疭瞷セЫ穦ョ常璓谋眔瞷Μ禣ぃ瞶斗璶э跑τэ跑よ碞琌璶龟借搭基の才禣戳辨ぃ搭︓筁┮璶璹ミ瞶Μ禣キ
材碞琌璹﹚Μ禣莱璶Τ眏┦琌璹﹚Μ禣ぇ產荷秖蛤眖璝ぃㄌ眖杠璶Τ胓籃︓︙磅︽玥璶璹﹚ぇパ畍穦よ砞ミ眏┦诀玥璹﹚ぇ琌畕礛
材き璶﹚戳浪癚ㄇ﹚肂Μ禣瞷埃畍加禦芥よΤ﹚肂Μ禣ㄤ龟临ΤㄇΜ禣常琌﹚肂Μㄒ框篷粄靡禣ノ硂ㄇ莱赣ユパㄆ叭禣〆穦秈︽癚阶㎝浪癚τ硂ㄇ﹚璶﹚戳ㄓ暗璹﹚ぇ玱ぃ弧ッ环ぃ穦эτ琌ゲ斗璶﹚戳浪癚ㄒ–浪癚Ω竒筁癚阶穦種ǎ琌︙タΤ弧加基鰐ど狦洪籔加基本恥琌ぃ瞶ㄤ龟跑瞶璝加基鰐ど眔糉甡ê琿丁ず盢﹚肂Μ禣秸俱硂妓碞琌祇揣栋砰某基
材せ碞琌璶甧砛讽祘そキ膙琌璹﹚程Μ禣㎝程蔼Μ禣硂妓碩琌甧砛禣某基Τㄇ畍︽粄硂Μ禣獽璶盢ㄤ畍︽パ程禥い吏跋穐芖跋┪獽﹜翴跋莱ㄤΘセτ秸俱τㄇ畍︽ョ琌程Μ禣ぇ莱ㄤ薄猵τ秸俱
程翴碞琌璶Τミ猭菏诡瞷璹硂ㄇ禣ノ常琌璶妮ミ猭Αㄓ矗ユミ猭Ы凝ㄏミ猭Ыㄤいà︹
材顶琿镑暗硂妓杠琌碞骸ìカチ璶―㎡ぃ琌环ㄓ弧ㄤ龟琌璶禣莉眔瞶玂毁妓㎡程琌荷е浪癚秈︽穨舦爹ミ猭硂よ現┎ㄤ龟暗眔篊Τ浇攫妓ㄆ龟砞ミ硂ぇ璶だ顶琿崩︽獶ミ猭獽龟琁ㄤ龟ョ簍秈︓﹚肂Μ禣,ê琌–﹙禦芥碞琌基窥钩甅繺Αㄓ秈︽加禦芥ぃ穦钩瞷妓畍璶痷暗穨舦琩㎝浪琩暗ひ瞷琌硂妓┮畍璶Τ琘キΜ禣ノ丁琌だΤ硂だ穦吏挂ぇミ猭Ыョ続﹜∕﹚﹚肂Μ禣τ蹦ノよ猭珹祔и璶秈︽臛阶碞琌襖略ビ某矗某∕Α﹚肂Μ禣続讽硂暗猭ㄤ龟碞单и-
チ矗某"ㄢ匆ゴ"だ顶琿よτ某ㄤ龟兵ㄒ〆穦Τ矗ㄓτ琌玡и-
ず芔笷Θ˙醚㎝硂妓よㄤ龟ョ单и-
┮弧よи辨祔︗某ョ碞硂翴臛阶硂琌続э跑よ
畊セ略朝勉
畊︗某セ畊钮襖略ビ某祇ē弧非称矗タ叫―セ畊у僚┮惠箇戳セ畊弧璶―セ畊ぃ﹚у璶―郭Θ某瞷ョ矗摸璶―セ畊Μ現兵弧辨р材1兵σ納┿︓程琌τ璶―セ畊某弄∕既氨穦某礛パΤ闽だ籔セ畊坝秖рㄆ薄睲贰穦某秈︽戳丁璝ぃ耞Τセ畊患ユ兵璶―僚箇タ┪┿琘兵ゅ臛阶薄猵盢穦讽睼睹
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank members of the Bills Committee, and particularly the Chairman, the Honourable Fred LI, for their thorough and penetrating and painstaking study of this Bill. I would also like to thank Members for an interesting and stimulating debate this morning. I cannot recall the time in my years in Hong Kong when this Council has had such an extensive debate about the way which legal services are delivered to the community, about the rights of consumers, about the rights of lawyers. I very much hope that the representatives of the Law Society who are in the Gallery this morning will have taken careful note of the many powerful expressions of view delivered this morning, Mr President, in this democratic constitution. This Council then speaks for the community and I am sure that the profession likes so many others will pay particular attention to, as I say, the great many penetrating remarks that have been made this morning about the way in which legal services are delivered.
Mr President, before I comment on the Bill itself, I would like to mention two related topics.
Reforms implemented by the legal profession
First, I am pleased to report that significant progress has been made by the legal profession in implementing proposals made in the Consultation Paper on Legal Services.
The Bar Association:
- has abolished the "two-counsel rule";
- it now ensures that all practising barristers are covered by adequate professional indemnity insurance cover;
- it now permits members of three professional bodies (in addition to solicitors) to have direct access to barristers; and
- it is disseminating information about the services of barristers to users of those services.
In addition, the Bar Association has agreed that employed barristers should be permitted to instruct practising barristers directly; it is considering using the Internet to disseminate information about barristers to the public; and it is proposing to publish a bilingual summary of some of the provisions in the Bar's Code of Conduct.
The Law Society:
- now requires a solicitor to provide clients with information concerning the likely cost of legal services;
- it also requires solicitors to act promptly and to keep their clients properly informed;
- it investigates complaints of shoddy work, in the form of delays or failure to keep the client informed;
- it has relaxed the restrictions on advertising by solicitors;
- it has produced a number of publications (some on the Internet) so that members of the public will know what to look for when instructing a solicitor;
- it has issued a Practice Direction requiring a solicitor, in certain situations, to pay interest to a client.
In addition, the Law Society's Guidance Committee is considering how procedures for handling complaints might be standardized.
A problem that both branches of the legal profession have been tackling is that of touting and commission-taking in respect of criminal defence work. The Administration recently concluded that self-regulation in this area has been effective, and that there is no need to introduce criminal sanctions at this stage.
If I may say so, Mr President, the fact that so many reforms have been carried out in the last two years by the two branches of the legal profession does them great credit. Their acceptance of so many of the proposals in the Consultation Paper on Legal Services also demonstrates that there is no truth in the allegation, made by some people, that this exercise has been an "attack" on the legal profession. There has been no such thing. And certainly, there has been no attack on the confidence and the integrity of solicitors. There has been no smear of the solicitor's profession. As the Consultation Paper made clear, what were under attack were restrictive practices and conduct within the profession that are contrary to the public interest.
Other legislative proposals
The other preliminary matters I wish to mention are three legislative proposals that were introduced and announced but not included in the Bill.
In October of last year, I said that legislation would be introduced to permit solicitors to acquire extended rights of audience. I had initially hoped to add the necessary provisions to this Bill by way of Committee stage amendments. However, an informal ruling was obtained from you, Mr President, to the effect that such an amendment would be outside the scope of the Bill. I could have sought to introduce an additional Bill on this subject. However, given the large number of Bills to be considered by the Council this Session, I decided that it would not be fair to add to that burden. Moreover, the Law Society and the Bar Association have entered into a dialogue on this issue and it is hoped that an understanding can be reached between them in the near future.
The second legislative proposal not contained in the Bill concerns the criteria for admission as a barrister. The Bar Association's proposals for new criteria that are objective, reasonable, non-discriminating and standards-based were received after the Bill was published in the Gazette. The Administration has since made detailed comments on these proposals, and discussions are continuing between the Bar and the Administration. Since it is essential that Hong Kong should fulfil its obligations as a member of the World Trade Organization, I hope that agreement can soon be reached on suitable legislative amendments.
The third proposal, set out in the Report on Legal Services, was that legislation should be introduced to create a statutory fidelity fund to protect consumers from the dishonesty of solicitors or their employees. The preparation of legislation on this topic is a complex matter and the Administration has not yet completed the necessary work.
Mr President, I now turn to the Bill itself.
THE BILL
Chinese text
When the Bill was published, there was then no authentic Chinese text of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance. Since that time, such a text has been published, and it is necessary to reflect that in the Bill. I will, at the Committee stage, propose suitable amendments.
Incorporation of solicitors and foreign lawyers
The clauses in the Bill providing for the incorporation of solicitors and foreign lawyers were supported by most members of the Bills Committee. Some concern was, however, expressed that the rights of consumers should not be prejudiced by such incorporations, particularly as it will be possible for the proposed new corporations to operate with limited liability. The Administration shares the view that consumers should not be prejudiced, but believes that rules providing for adequate insurance cover can safeguard the position of consumers. This is the case in England, where solicitors have been able to incorporate since 1992. Moreover, Mr President, an additional safeguard exists in Hong Kong, since the rules to be made by the Council of the Law Society will be subsidiary legislation, which the Legislative Council will have the power to amend.
At the suggestion of the Law Society, I will at the Committee stage move an amendment to make it clear that the Council of the Law Society may prescribe a fee for applications to register solicitor corporations.
With regard to foreign lawyers, most members of the Bills Committee accepted that, if solicitors are permitted to incorporate, foreign lawyers should also be able to do so. Some concern was, however, expressed that it may take more time to prepare rules for foreign lawyer corporations than for solicitor corporations since, in respect of foreign lawyers, the laws of other jurisdictions will need to be taken into account. The Bills Committee was therefore anxious to ensure that the two sets of provisions can be brought into operation at different times. I will thus later move Committee stage amendments to the Bill to achieve this.
Multi-disciplinary practices
With regard to multi-disciplinary practices, the Law Society informed the Bills Committee that it did not enthusiastically welcome the immediate creation of multi-disciplinary practices involving solicitors; and that it opposed the provision relating to notaries entering into multi-disciplinary practices.
It is clear that many problems need to be resolved before solicitors can be permitted to enter into multi-disciplinary practices. These problems include how to preserve legal professional privilege, how to provide for professional indemnity insurance, and how to preserve the independence and the integrity of the solicitors' profession wherein the Administration does not underestimate the difficulties involved in resolving these problems. However, the provisions in the Bill do no more than pave the way for the time when satisfactory arrangements can be devised. They propose to remove the statutory provision that indirectly prevents solicitors from entering into multi-disciplinary practices, and to empower the Law Society to make rules relating to such practices. Given that the Law Society could decide when and how to make rules on this subject, and the rules would be subject to the approval of this Council, the interests both of solicitors and of the general public would be adequately protected. The Bills Committee nevertheless considered that it is better to defer legislating on this subject until the problems have been resolved.
At present, there is no statutory prohibition against notaries public entering into multi-disciplinary practices. The provisions in the Bill on this subject would simply empower the Chief Justice to make rules in respect of notaries who enter into a multi-disciplinary practices. The Hong Kong Society of Notaries supported these provisions. Nevertheless, the Bills Committee opposed them.
For the reasons that I have just given, the Administration continues to believe that legislation is needed in respect of multi-disciplinary practices. However, in the absence of support for such legislation from the Bills Committee, the Administration has agreed to delete from the Bill the relevant provisions. I will be moving Committee stage amendments to this effect.
Interest on solicitors' clients' accounts
With regard to interest on solicitors' clients' accounts, as I said a moment ago, the Law Society has issued a Practice Direction in respect of the circumstances in which solicitors must pay such interest. The Law Society considers that it is therefore unnecessary to legislate on this subject. The Administration sought to persuade the Bills Committee that the legislative approach is preferable.
As a matter of law, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, interest on a solicitors' clients' account belongs to the client. However, despite the availability of computer technology, practical considerations appear to rule out the return of all interest.
A more practicable approach is to require a solicitor to pay interest to the client when it is fair and reasonable to do so. It seems to be agreed that this approach should be adopted in Hong Kong. The only point at this issue is who should determine the circumstances in which it is fair and reasonable to do so. The Law Society contends that it should do so, and it has therefore issued a Practice Direction on this subject to all solicitors.
The Administration takes the view that it is not appropriate for the Law Society unilaterally to determine the circumstances in which interest is in practice paid. Members of the Law Society have a direct pecuniary interest in this matter and, if they determine the rules, they would be acting as judges in their own cause.
The approach in the Bill is therefore to empower the Law Society to make statutory rules in this respect, which would be laid on the table of this Council and subject to the negative vetting procedure. This would ensure that there is an independent and impartial body to scrutinize the fairness of the rules. A similar system has been in operation in England for over 30 years.
The Administration also considers that a Practice Direction on this subject is not appropriate for another reason. A Practice Direction is an instruction to solicitors, which is enforceable against them as a matter of professional discipline. It does not, however, change the law. Clients will continue to be entitled to all interest earned on their accounts, unless they agree otherwise. The problem is that many people do not know this. The Public Opinion Survey conducted on behalf of the Administration indicated that almost 90% of respondents did not know that solicitors can only keep the interest on their clients' accounts if the clients agree to this.
It is possible that this lack of awareness may, unwittingly, be compounded by the Practice Direction issued by the Law Society. The document states that a solicitor shall only be required to pay interest in four specified circumstances. Clients may easily think that this is a statement of law, which it is not, and therefore may not insist on receiving the interest to which they are entitled as a matter of law.
When these matters were drawn to the attention of members of the Bills Committee, their response was that consumers should be better educated, and that the Consumer Council or other concern groups could monitor the situation and, if necessary, make representations to the Law Society in respect of the Practice Direction.
The Administration continues to believe that the legislative approach to this problem is preferable but, in the absence of any support from the Bills Committee, it has agreed to delete the relevant provisions from the Bill. I will, however, be inviting the Consumer Council to help educate consumers in respect of their right to interest, and to evaluate the fairness, or otherwise, of the terms of the current Practice Direction.
Senior Counsel
I now turn to the provisions for the new status of Senior Counsel. The Bill as drafted empowers the Chief Justice to appoint as Senior Counsel a barrister who has been admitted for at least 10 years, and who (in the Chief Justice's opinion) has sufficient ability and experience as a barrister, and sufficient knowledge of the law, to be accorded that status. The Bar Association proposed amendments so that:
(a) there are separate provisions for the appointment of practising Senior Counsel and honorary Senior Counsel;
(b) a barrister will only be eligible for appointment as a practising Senior Counsel if he or she has been practising as a barrister for at least 10 years, and is of good standing at the Bar;
(c) the Chief Justice will be under a statutory duty to consult the Chairman of the Bar Association and the President of the Law Society before making an appointment;
(d) the Chinese expression for Senior Counsel is changed; and
(e) the Chief Justice has no power to make rules on this topic.
Following discussions with the Bills Committee, the Administration agreed to consider revisions along these lines. After consulting both the Bar Association and the Law Society on suitable amendments, the Administration submitted draft Committee stage amendments to the Bills Committee. There was general support for these, although the Honourable Miss Margaret NG reflected the opposition of the Bar Association to certain aspects of the amendments.
She has since given notice that she will move Committee stage amendments in respect of the appointment of Senior Counsel. Those amendments differ from the ones that I will move in various respects; and I will discuss those differences, Mr President, when the Council goes into the Committee.
Barristers disciplinary tribunals
Dealing now with the provisions in the Bill covering barristers disciplinary tribunals, these were included at the request of the Bar Association. A few drafting suggestions were made in respect of these provisions but, subject to those, they were supported by the Bills Committee. I will, at the Committee stage, move amendments to improve the drafting as suggested.
Non-statutory scale fees
The Bill proposes to invalidate any non-statutory fee scales created by the Law Society. The background to this proposal is the existence of a non-statutory scale of fees for probate work, which the Law Society requires its members to comply with. The Administration considers that this scale is inconsistent with rule 5 of the Solicitors (General) Costs Rules, which is subsidiary legislation made by the Costs Committee. Rule 5 provides that, in the case of non-contentious business not covered by the statutory scales, costs shall be such sum as may be fair and reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances of the case. That principle should apply to probate work. However, the non-statutory fee scale is based solely on the value of the estate and does not take other circumstances into account.
Rule 5 of the Costs Rules was made in 1970, and should have applied to probate work since then. Instead, the non-statutory fee scale for probate (which pre-dated rule 5) has continued to be applied by solicitors. The Law Society informed the Bills Committee that it had overlooked the need to refer the scale to the Costs Committee when that Committee was set up. However, it now proposes to review its non-statutory scale and to submit proposals to the Costs Committee. It has also confirmed that, in the event that the Costs Committee sets a scale of probate fees, it would not attempt to establish, complement or enforce an alternative probate scale.
In these circumstances, members of the Bills Committee did not consider it necessary to legislate on this topic. The Chairman of the Bills Committee, the Honourable Fred LI, has earlier explained that he will be moving a Committee stage amendment to delete the relevant clause from the Bill. In the circumstances, Mr President, the Administration does not oppose that deletion.
The Costs Committee
I now turn to the clause in the Bill relating to the Costs Committee.
The Costs Committee is a statutory committee which has the power to make rules in respect of fees for solicitors' non-contentious work. It is this Committee that has established fee scales for conveyancing. Even if, as the Administration proposes, those scales are abolished, the Committee will still have an important role to play in respect of solicitor's fees. It could, for example, set scale fees for other types of work, or prescribe fees for conveyancing on another basis (for example, at a specified hourly rate).
At present, half of the members of the Costs Committee are solicitors, and there is no consumer representative, or member with expertise in accountancy or economics. With the greatest respect to the current members of the Committee, and this is not a lawyer's practice that is really meant, it is not fair to require members of the community to pay legal fees in accordance with rules made by a committee which is so narrowly constituted. In addition, it is unfair to expect members of the Committee to make such far-reaching rules without the assistance of suitably qualified persons who are not connected with the legal profession.
The Administration does not consider that the existing composition is appropriate for modern day Hong Kong. The Bill proposes an additional four to six members who would represent consumers, or would have substantial experience of commercial activities. After discussion in the Bills Committee, it was generally agreed that three such members would be appropriate. However, no agreement could be reached over the number of solicitors there should be on the Committee, or over the quorum.
Given that the Bills Committee did not consider that the solicitor members or the Committee should be outnumbered by lay members, I will be moving a Committee stage amendment to create a 4:3:3 membership, that is, four solicitors, three laypersons, and three ex-officio members.
Under this proposal, solicitors will not be outnumbered by laypersons. And even if the single government official is counted with the laypersons, there will be an even balance. The High Court Judge and the Registrar of the Supreme Court, who are members of the independent Judiciary, should not be regarded as favouring the interests of either solicitors or consumers. There is therefore no reason why they should be counted amongst those who may take a pro-consumer approach.
The Law Society and some members of the Bills Committee object to the Administration's revised proposal on the basis that the majority of the members of the Committee will not be members of the profession. They consider that his would seriously undermine the independence of the solicitor's profession. But, Mr President, solicitors were in the minority on the equivalent committee in England ever since 1883 without they were being suggested that the independence of the solicitor's profession being undermined there.
As Members have heard, Mr Fred LI will be moving a Committee stage amendment on behalf of the Bills Committee to create a 6:3:3 formation, Mr President, it should look like the football formation, that is, six solicitors, three laypersons and three ex-officio members. Under that amendment, the users of solicitors services will be outnumbered two to one by solicitors. This arrangement would therefore perpetuate the system under which solicitors can effectively block any proposal that is not in their interests. This is not a fair arrangement, and I would urge Members not to support it.
The Honourable Andrew CHENG will move an amendment which offers a compromise between the other two proposals, and which would create a 5:3:3 formation. If one excludes from consideration the two members who come from the Judiciary, solicitors would still outnumber the other members by five to four. I would therefore urge Members to support the Administration's amendments, rather than Mr CHENG's.
Developers' legal costs
I now turn to the provisions relating to the payment of developers' legal costs.
When developers sell off units in a new development, they do not pay their own legal fees for doing so. A standard term of the sale and purchase agreement provides that the buyer should pay those fees. The Consultation Paper on Legal Services proposed that such provisions should be invalidated, and this proposal received clear public support. Amongst those who supported the proposal were the Consumer Council, the Hong Kong Society of Accountants, the Hong Kong Institute of Company Secretaries, and the Hong Kong Junior Chamber of Commerce.
Clause 18 of the Bill therefore proposes to invalidate contractual provisions in respect of new developments. Those provisions are unfair for two reasons:
- first, they discourage buyers from obtaining the services of their own solicitor, instead of using the one acting for the developer;
- secondly, they discourage developers from negotiating reasonable legal fees.
As to the first point, under the current fee scales, a purchaser who opts for separate representation is likely to pay 50% more than if there was joint representation. This is because he or she will be required to pay the legal costs of the seller (equal to half the scale fee) in addition to paying his or her own costs (at the full scale fee). If there is joint representation, only the full scale fee will be payable.
This extra legal cost is a significant discouragement to separate representation. More than half of those respondents to the public opinion survey who currently prefer joint representation would opt to be separately represented if they were not required to pay the developers' costs.
If, as the Administration proposes, scale fees are abolished, the contractual provisions in question would almost certainly continue to make separate representation more expensive for a purchaser than joint representation. And if scale fees are retained in a modified form, those scales plus the provisions in question may well continue to make separate representation more expensive.
The second reason why it is unfair to make a buyer pay the developer's legal costs is that it means that developers have no reason to ensure that those fees are reasonable.
Project conveyancing involves the preparation by the developer's solicitor of many sometimes thousands of identical documents. The investigation of title is, of course, done only once. In fact, as the Law Society concedes, most Consent Scheme developments do not have as many title deeds to check as a secondary market transaction. The preparation of the sale and purchase agreement and the assignment is only done once, and is then simply duplicated.
If developers had to pay their own legal fees, they could use the above facts to negotiate fees that are lower than at present. They would also have an incentive to do so.
If, as the Administration proposes, scale fees are abolished, developers could negotiate their fees freely, and solicitors who were competing for a developer's conveyancing work could compete on price as well as quality. This would mean that the fees would be more cost-effective.
Even if scale fees were retained, developers who had to pay their own legal costs would have an incentive to press for a fairer system of scale fees for project conveyancing. At present, the fees payable to the developer's solicitor are based on the price and number of all units sold. This system does not properly reflect the value of the work done, since that I have pointed out much of it is duplicated hundreds of times.
Mr President, two main objections have been raised to the proposed invalidation of these contract terms. The first is that it would be an interference with freedom of contract. Indeed it would. But our statute book is peppered with provisions interfering with freedom of contract on the basis that there is a need to protect persons who are in a weak bargaining position from unfair contracts. This is precisely why there is a need to intervene in respect of developers' legal fees.
The second objection is based on the view that the legislative provision would be ineffective (since developers would merely add their legal costs to the price of the property) and counter-productive (since extra stamp duty would then also be payable by the purchaser).
The Administration does not accept this view. The price of units in new developments is fixed according to what the market will bear, and is not calculated by reference to the cost to the developer of building the unit. If sale prices are already as high as the market will bear, they cannot (by economic definition) be increased above that. The Administration considers that the effect of the abolition of scale fees and of the invalidation clause will be to reduce developers' fees considerably. Even if those reduced fees were added to the purchase price and extra stamp duty was payable, the purchaser would still pay less than at present.
Despite these considerations, Mr Fred LI will be moving an amendment (on behalf of the Bills Committee) to delete clause 18. For the reasons I have given, I urge you not to support it.
Mr Andrew CHENG will be moving an amendment to clause 18 so that it applies only where the buyer is separately represented. In other words, it will provide that, where a buyer is separately represented, he or she cannot be made to pay the developer's legal costs. This amendment, like the original clause, would have the effect of encouraging separate representation. However, it would still allow a developer to pass his legal fees to a buyer who chooses joint representation. Those who, like the Administration, consider that consumers should not be subsidizing developers are therefore urged to support the original clause in the Bill, rather than Mr CHENG's amendment.
SCALE FEES FOR CONVEYANCING
I now turn to the most contentious of the provisions in the Bill, namely, those providing for the abolition of scale fees for conveyancing. The Law Society has fought a hard campaign to retain scale fees and has raised many arguments in their favour. The Administration has considered every such argument, and has responded to it. So much has been said on this topic, both within and outside the Bills Committee, that it is impossible in this debate to cover adequately all those arguments. The Administration's position is set out fully in a number of papers that were submitted to the Bills Committee.
In the time available, I propose, Mr President, to state what I regard as the key points in this debate. If I fail to respond to every point raised by Members today, I hope I will be forgiven.
A defining moment
This Council's decision in respect of scale fees for conveyancing will be a defining moment for consumer rights in a vital area. The purchase of a home is a fundamental aspiration of most members of this community. This Council therefore has the power today to benefit consumers in this area, or to perpetuate an anti-competitive and unfair system. The abolition of scale fees would benefit consumers by giving them the benefits of price competition, which will almost certainly result in lower fees, and which will prevent fees from automatically rising with property prices.
An unfair system
It is self-evident that scale fees are anti-competitive. They deny the consumers the benefit of price competition. Moreover, under the system of scale fees, fees for conveyancing are based on the price of the property, not on the value of the work done. This is irrational and unfair to consumers. The unfairness is increased by the fact that when property prices rise, as they are rising now, there is an increase in conveyancing fees, even though the work remains the same.
Free market economy
Hong Kong has a free market economy. In December of last year, the influential Heritage Foundation, for the third successive year, rated Hong Kong as having the world's freest economy. Save in wholly exceptional circumstances, prices of goods and services in Hong Kong's private sector are not fixed, but are determined by market forces within a competitive environment.
Statutory scale fees for conveyancing run counter to Hong Kong's successful free market philosophy. The fixing of fee scales involves a judgement of what the remuneration or profit levels of solicitors ought to be. This approach is similar to that adopted in planned or commanded economies, where incomes and prices are fixed by a central authority. It is not an approach to be endorsed in a free market economy such as Hong Kong.
Scale fees are ignored
Supporters of scale fees argue that they provide certainty over charges and discourage shoddy work by solicitors. But the reality is that the system of scale fees has already broken down, and with no adverse effects. Some solicitors have openly admitted that, at present, "scale fees are a farce", since full scale fees are rarely charged. Market forces are now operating to bring fees down to an appropriate level. It is time to recognize this reality and abolish the scales. To continue the pretence that scale fees apply and are beneficial undermines, in my judgement, the credibility of the legal profession.
The proposal
The Administration's proposal is that conveyancing fees should be governed by the same principles that already apply to other non-contentious work performed by solicitors. This principle is that "costs shall be such sum as may be fair and reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances of the case" and, in particular, to seven factors. These include:
(a) the complexity of the matter or the difficulty or novelty of the questions raised; and
(b) where money or property is involved, its amount or value.
The principle permits solicitors, when setting their fees, to take into account the size of their potential liability if things go wrong. It is not, therefore, necessary to have scale fees in order for the risk factor to be dealt with.
Support
The proposal to abolish scale fees has strong public support. In response to the Consultation Paper on Legal Services, the Administration received 44 written submissions. Apart from the Law Society and some individual solicitors, only four submissions opposed the abolition of scale fees.
The Public Opinion Survey of 1 000 households indicated that 47% of respondents who had previously consulted lawyers were dissatisfied with the system.
According to a submission to the Bills Committee made by the Democratic Party, a public opinion survey conducted by that Party in August of last year indicated that 60% of respondents supported the abolition of scale fees, as opposed to 22% who favoured retaining them.
And the Consumer Council has informed the Bills Committee that in 1996, 432 consumers expressed a view in respect of scale fees. All of them were in favour of abolition. So, Mr President, public opinion on this issue is, as lawyers say, all one way. It all points to abolition and look at the comments recently in the media, look at the editorials, editorial after editorial, calling for the abolition of scale fees. We are listening to the tyranny of the majority or are we listening to the authentic voice of those who are the users of lawyer services?
The argument for retaining scale fees
The main argument put forward for the retention of scale fees is that their abolition would lead to poor quality work by solicitors. But scale fees offer no guarantee of the quality of work, and their abolition would not affect a solicitor's duty to provide a proper service to his or her clients. There is no basis for the assertion that standards would drop.
Some Members have argued that the abolition of scale fees in England has caused a deterioration in standards. However, as I explained when introducing this Bill into this Council in June of this year, no link has been established in England between low-cost conveyancing and shoddy work. The British Government and consumer groups remain opposed to scale fees. And the English Law Society has made no attempt to re-introduce scale fees, which it could do so if it could establish that this would be in the public interest.
Supporters of scale fees also refer to Singapore, which decided in 1995 to retain them. However, Singapore's Minister for Law is on record as saying that:
"a fixed scale is an anachronism in a free market economy such as Singapore's" and that
"the complete abolition of scale fees is a matter of time".
Other jurisdictions
It is not only England that has abolished scale fees. Canada, New Zealand, Scotland and Australia have also abolished them. The Administration has made enquiries of these jurisdictions. None of them has produced any evidence to show that abolition was not in the public interest, and none is proposing to re-introduce scale fees.
The Hong Kong experience
Undercutting of scale fees by solicitors was only prohibited by law in 1980, that is, only 17 years ago. It is alleged that, if price competition were permitted, this would lead to disastrous results that are contrary to the public interest. It has also been suggested that, since it may take many years for the results of shoddy work to emerge, to permit price competition would be like planting a time bomb.
But price competition was allowed before 1980. No evidence has been submitted of any disastrous consequences before then. And if price competition before 1980 amounted to a time bomb, why has it not exploded by now?
There is therefore no evidence to suggest that, if scale fees are abolished, the Law Society will be unable to maintain standards within the profession, or that individual solicitors do not have the ability and integrity to perform their work properly.
A compromise
Given that the Law Society is strongly opposed to the abolition of scale fees, some Members may be tempted to seek a compromise solution which is aimed to satisfy both the Law Society and consumers. For some, the perceived compromise is the retention of revised fee scales. Revised fee scales might, on the face of it, offer some benefits to consumers. But is this the best way forward?
Revised fees scale would not, of course, address the fundamental objections to scale fees, which are that they prevent price competition, and they do not reflect the value of the work done. And what benefit would consumers actually obtain under revised scales? As of today, it is not known:
- when the Costs Committee will make rules to establish revised scales
- what those revised scales will be, or
- when those revised scales are intended to come into operation.
Two years after the Law Society accepted there was a need to revise the scales, the Costs Committee has yet to make amendment rules to establish revised fee scales. Nor is it known when those rules will be made or what they will be . If the revisions were based on the last set of proposals submitted by the Law Society to the Costs Committee, Members should remember that the Consumer Council has studied those proposals and considers them to be unsatisfactory.
The current levels of scale fees were set in 1983. The fees in that year for buying a property costing $1 million, with a 70% mortgage, were $18,625. Taking into account the increase in property prices since then, the scale fees for a comparable transaction this year are $73,625. In other words, the nominal increase in solicitors' fees since the current fee scales were set is nearly 300%. It is against this background that one must judge whether a reduction of scale fees along the lines proposed by the Law Society is adequate.
And that is not all. As I said earlier, the system of scale fees has to a large extent broken down. But if this Council decides to retain them, it will also be invited to amend section 56 of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance in order to prevent solicitors from charging less than the scale fees. This amendment was proposed by the Law Society, clearly signals an intention to enforce strict adherence to the scales. I will explain my opposition to the proposed amendment to section 56 more fully at the Committee stage. For now, I would merely point out that, if scale fees are retained and section 56 amended, it is possible that consumers will be asked to pay more under revised fee scales than they are, in practice, paying now.
Finally, I would point out that revised fee scales could very quickly create excessive fees, since property prices can rise very rapidly. And it is unrealistic to expect frequent revisions of the scales. The current revision exercise, I would remind you, has taken over two years and is still not complete. In the Administration's view, it is unacceptable to require consumers to be bound by fee scales that were fixed by reference to the prices of property a number of years ago.
For all the reasons I have given, I urge Members to vote for the Bill as it stands, and thereby to abolish scale fees for conveyancing.
Thank you, Mr President.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
兵ㄒ弄ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Bill read the Second time.
兵ㄒ竒筁弄
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
ㄌ沮穦某盽砏材43兵材(1)蹿砏﹚盢兵ㄒ〆ぉ砰〆穦糵某
畊セ畊弧筁襖略ビ某㎝現矗璶―辨セ畊琵-
僚箇薄猵矗タτセ畊ョ氮莱σ納瞷亥亥谋眔Τ琘ㄇ拜肈ㄤ某┪穦は癸セ畊稱钮某種ǎ礛パ襖某㎝現のㄤ囊㎝Τ砍届某籔и絉坝и瞷既氨穦某と2尿穦
12.27 pm
と1227だ
Sitting suspended.
穦某既氨
2.09 pm
と209だ
Council then resumed.
セЫ穦某繦τ確
Committee stage of Bill
兵ㄒ砰〆穦糵某顶琿
Council went into Committee.
セЫ秈砰〆穦糵某顶琿
LEGAL SERVICES LEGISLATION (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL 1996
1996猭狝叭ミ猭馒兜璹兵ㄒ
Clauses 2 to 6, Part III, clauses 9 to 13, Part V, clauses 19 and 21
兵ㄒ材2︓6兵材III场材9︓13兵材V场の材19の21兵
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, I move that clauses 2 to 6, Part III, clauses 9 to 13, Part V, and clauses 19 and 21 be amended as set out under my name in the paper circulated to Members.
The amendment to clause 2 makes it clear that the Law Society may prescribe fees to be paid by those applying to be registered as solicitor corporations.
The amendment to clause 5 is to improve the drafting of proposed new section 39BA subclause 7 of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance, which relates to foreign lawyer corporations.
The amendment to Part III will delete it from the Bill. Part III relates to interest on solicitors' clients' accounts. As I explained in my speech at the resumption of the debate on the Second Reading, the Law Society has made a Practice Direction on this subject and it has therefore been agreed that the legislative provision should be withdrawn.
The amendments to clause 9 are to improve the drafting of provisions relating to barristers disciplinary tribunals.
The amendment to Part V will delete it from the Bill. Part V relates to multi-disciplinary practices. As I explained in my main speech earlier today, the Bills Committee was of the view that the problems associated with these practices should be resolved before legislation is put into place in respect of them.
The amendment to clause 19 will make it clear that the provisions in respect of solicitor corporations can be brought into operation separately from those in respect of foreign lawyer corporations.
The clauses I have mentioned are also amended by way of the addition of a Chinese text.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Proposed amendments
览某タず甧
Clause 2 (See annex XII)
兵ㄒ材2兵ǎンXII
Clause 3 (See annex XII)
兵ㄒ材3兵ǎンXII
Clause 4 (See annex XII)
兵ㄒ材4兵ǎンXII
Clause 5 (See annex XII)
兵ㄒ材5兵ǎンXII
Clause 6 (See annex XII)
兵ㄒ材6兵ǎンXII
Part III (See annex XII)
材III场ǎンXII
Clause 9 (See annex XII)
兵ㄒ材9兵ǎンXII
Clause 10 (See annex XII)
兵ㄒ材10兵ǎンXII
Clause 11 (See annex XII)
兵ㄒ材11兵ǎンXII
Clause 12 (See annex XII)
兵ㄒ材12兵ǎンXII
Clause 13 (See annex XII)
兵ㄒ材13兵ǎンXII
Part V (See annex XII)
材V场ǎンXII
Clause 19 (See annex XII)
兵ㄒ材19兵ǎンXII
Clause 21 (See annex XII)
兵ㄒ材21兵ǎンXII
〆穦畊セ畊矗眶︗〆量絑竒э材1兵盢┿︓ㄤ兵㎝糵某Ч拨癚阶┮現琌笆某タ材2︓6兵材III场材9︓13兵材V场の材19の21兵
Question on the amendments put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Question on clauses 2 to 6, Part III, clauses 9 to 13, Part V, clauses 19 and 21, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材2︓6兵材III场材9︓13兵材V场の材19の21兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Clause 8
兵ㄒ材8兵
〆穦畊現の艷祸某だ箇ボ览碞材8兵矗タ
セ畊某秈︽ㄖ臛阶ㄖ臛阶現の艷祸某だ碞材8兵矗ぇタ
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽ㄖ臛阶ㄖ臛阶現の艷祸某だ碞材8兵矗ぇタセ畊穦叫現笆某タ琌璽砫セ兵ㄒそ戮
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 8 be amended as set out under my name in the paper circulated to Members.
The purpose of this amendment is to revise the provisions in respect of the new status of Senior Counsel. As I explained in my main speech this morning my proposed amendments are supported by most members of the Bills Committee and differ from those being moved by the Honourable Miss Margaret NG in various ways.
The essential difference is that my amendments will create a larger pool of lawyers who are eligible for appointment. My amendments will allow the Chief Justice to appoint a person as a Senior Counsel in an honorary capacity if the person is a barrister or solicitor or a legal academic who has, in the Chief Justice's opinion, provided distinguished service to the law of Hong Kong.
Miss NG's amendment would limit those eligible for such appointment to legal academics and the holders of certain offices in the Legal Aid Department, the Official Receiver's Office and the Intellectual Property Department. Lawyers who do not fall into these categories, whether in private practice or government service, would not be eligible.
The Administration does not agree with such a limited approach. In England, the Lord Chancellor considers academic lawyers and other lawyers, whether barristers or solicitors, notably those in the employed and public sectors, as potential recipients of an honorary appointment. The Administration considers that a similar system should operate in Hong Kong.
Miss NG's proposal would exclude from eligibility the majority of lawyers in the public sector and all those in the private employed sector. The Administration does not agree with these exclusions. It considers that the Chief Justice should be free to exercise his judgment to appoint suitable persons for an
honorary appointment without being limited to a small field of candidates.
With regard to the appointment of Senior Counsel otherwise than in an honorary capacity, both the Administration's and Miss NG's amendments would limit appointments to barristers who have, in the opinion of the Chief Justice, sufficient ability and standing as a barrister and sufficient knowledge of the law to
be accorded that status. The difference between the two sets of amendments are in their requirements as to the current status of the barristers and as to their past experience.
The Administration proposes that to be eligible a barrister should currently either be practising at the Bar in Hong Kong or be a government Legal Officer or a holder of certain offices in the Legal Aid Department, the Official Receiver's Office or Intellectual Property Department.
Miss NG's proposal is to limit eligibility to those who are currently practising at the Bar or are practising as an advocate whilst being a Legal Officer.
A similar difference arises in respect of the past experience required. Miss NG's amendment requires a person to have for not less than 10 years' practice at the Bar in Hong Kong or practised as an advocate whilst being a Legal Officer. The Administration's proposal would also make eligible those who have for not less than 10 years been a Legal Officer or a holder of one of the government legal offices I referred to a moment ago, or practised as an advocate in a court of unlimited jurisdiction in another common law jurisdiction.
The Administration's proposal reflect the existing practice in appointing local Queen's Counsels. There are examples of local appointments to the rank of Queen's Counsel both of barristers in, for example, my department, who have not practised as advocates and barristers who have practised at the Bar in Hong Kong for less than 10 years but who had previously practised at the Bar in another common law jurisdiction. Moreover, there is no reason to require advocacy experience of a barrister in my department but not of a barrister in private practice.
For the reasons I have given, the Administration considers that its proposed Committee stage amendments are the best basis for the new system of appointing Senior Counsel. Moreover, these amendments were supported by most members of the Bills Committee. I would, therefore, urge Members to support those amendments. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 8 (See annex XII)
兵ㄒ材8兵ǎンXII
〆穦畊セ畊穦叫艷祸某碞現矗ぇタのㄤセōぇ览某タ祇ē埃獶現笆某ぇタ綝∕玥セ畊ぃ穦叫某笆某タ現ぇタ莉∕ボ艷祸某ぇタぃ莉硄筁
MISS MARGARET NG: Mr Chairman, I oppose the Administration's amendment to clause 8 of the Bill and will later move my own amendment to clause 8. Clause 8 concerns the appointment of Senior Counsel, which is in effect the continuation of the appointment of Queen's Counsel by another name. It was not expected to be a controversial issue. The Bar has no objection to the new title of Senior Counsel. Indeed, the only point they raise about the proposed new section 31A to be added to the Ordinance is that the criterion concerning a barrister's standing be made explicit as part of the qualification for being appointed as Senior Counsel.
A small amendment to the proposed new section 31B was also suggested and was accepted by the Administration. The Bar's request that standing be made explicit as a criterion was strongly resisted by the Administration in the Bills Committee until it became clear that the Bills Committee supported the Bar's view. However, the bizarre result was that at the eleventh hour, the Administration came up with an elaborate amendment to the proposed 31A which, while incorporating standing, not only far exceeded the original purpose of clause 8 but also the consultation paper from which the proposals issue.
Under clause 8, the proposed 31A provides for the appointment of barristers as Senior Counsel. There is no mention of any other categories of persons being appointed as Senior Counsel. There is no mention of any system of honorary Senior Counsel, which is totally new to Hong Kong. The Administration was unable to point to one single instance of an appointment in the past. Yet the present amendment of the Administration does not only provide for honorary Senior Counsel but also for the appointment to this title people other than barristers.
Under 31A subsection (2)(c) of their proposed amendment, four categories of legal officers may be appointed as Senior Counsel. Under 31A subsection (4) a person may be appointed as Senior Counsel in an honorary capacity if that person is a barrister or a solicitor or a member of the academic staff of a faculty or school of law in a university whether in Hong Kong or elsewhere. The net is cast extremely wide.
These matters have never been raised until the last stages of the Bills Committee. The Bar cherishes the honour and the distinction of appointment as Queen's Counsel, and in future as Senior Counsel. The title and what it stands for have long been established in Hong Kong and well understood by the public. Such appointments have always been made from those actively practising in court, even when they are selected from the Attorney General's Chambers.
As far as the appointment of solicitors to the title is concerned, the proposal in the Attorney General's consultation paper Members could refer to paragraph 2.6.8 states the policy intent clearly, and I quote: "that solicitors who acquire full rights of audience should be eligible to acquire that status." Mr Chairman, I mean no disrespect to academics or to the other branch of the profession whom I also have the honour to represent. I am all for a proper system honouring distinguished practitioners of that branch and I know the Bar feels the same. What we strongly object to is this high-handed and downright contemptuous manner in making changes to the highest honour given to the Bar without so much as giving the Bar Council an opportunity to consult its members or be consulted by the Bills Committee.
The Administration's amendment of 31A was still not finalized when it was presented to the Bills Committee at its last meeting on 6 June 1997. But for the hurried copy of correspondence made available to me by the Chairman of the Bar, I would not have been alerted to the situation. By that stage, members were far too tied up in their punishing schedules to go into the matter properly.
Mr Chairman, important changes as these cannot be allowed to come about by default. There is plenty of opportunities in future to consider them. With the assistance of the Chairman of the Bar, I have tried to base my amendment on the Administration's as far as possible, removing only those provisions we find most unacceptable. I urge Members to support my amendment and oppose the amendment of the Administration.
Mr Chairman, I also would like to respond at once to what the Attorney General has just said. The Attorney General referred to the practice in England, the appointment by the Lord Chancellor of all sorts of categories of persons. Mr Chairman, England has its own system. For some reason, that system of appointment of honorary silks has never been practised in Hong Kong. The Attorney General proposes to introduce this at the eleventh hour. In the future, Hong Kong may want to follow the same system or it may want to have a system of its own. Our present need is to preserve the present system, not to contract or to expand by following the example of England.
The Attorney General may well have his own reasons for expanding or for arguing on his own amendment. My point is simply that if new things are going to be introduced there should be proper consultation. There should be proper discussion and not to be done in this manner.
Mr Chairman, later on when I move my amendment, I will urge Members of the Council to support my own amendment, and therefore at this point I would ask Members to vote against the Attorney General's amendment. Thank you.
MISS EMILY LAU: Mr Chairman, from past experience this Council learns, once we deal with the names "barrister" or "solicitor" or whatever, we are opening a can of worms. I hope this debate will not drag on for four hours, Mr Chairman.
Mr Chairman, actually, I am quite sympathetic to the Administration's proposal, although of course you know that I am married to a barrister, now Queen's Counsel. I do not know whether I have to declare an interest.
But I think one point which Miss NG mentioned which I would like the Attorney General to respond to immediately in order to help me to clarify in my mind, and in some Members' minds who have not yet decided, is whether the Administration has used a high-handed and contemptuous manner to treat the Bar, and also even Members of this Council, if you introduce this thing at the very late stage. And I was told, some bird somewhere told me that it was something that was dreamt up by some member of the Chambers at the very late stage, concocted and then tried to rush it through. So, maybe the Attorney General owes this Council some clear explanation on the development of things. Was it pushed in at a very late stage? That is one point. It is very important, because I am sure the Administration does not want to treat the Bar or any Member of this Council in a high-handed and contemptuous manner.
And the other thing is, which I have heard also, concerned with the thin end of the wedge. They are afraid, there are all kinds of people, you know how close this profession is. I am in favour of breaking it open. I mean, I am in favour of many of the reforms, but they are afraid that it may let others in in this way, and in future the Administration may give them right of audience and all that, the floodgate syndrome. I am sure the Attorney General has heard of that before.
So, Mr Chairman, I hope the Administration would clarify these points, and that would make us, you know, make up our mind, help us to make up our mind easily. Thank you.
綠產碔某璓勉畊и癬ミ祇ēや艷祸某タи-
チ囊猭タи確弄臛阶祇ēず┮弧ㄤい翴琌и-
︙碙盡穨︑弘盡穨︑の禣痲讽и-
璶о拒и-
碙よи-
璶タ癸盡穨︑の禣痲Τ侥
и-
谋眔癸畍璶―籔癸磅穨畍璶―Τ程だ琌畍璶戮砫琌畑к臛艷祸某タи-
琌碙畍そ穦の艷祸某猭タ籔現┎程だΤㄢ翴材某斗璶10ず翠磅穨畑к臛材だ碞琌艷祸某タ砏﹚琌ゲ斗Τ畑к臛竒喷瞷現┎現竝┪猭穿竝Τㄇ畍礚к臛竒喷硂よи獺琌程璶だ硂翴и-
碙盡穨о拒㎝︑舦︓"戈瞏畍"и-
谋眔硂琌臕τ硂晃и-
翠畍菌璉春ㄓ常⊿Τ翠Τ单暗猭瘤礛現┎弧璣瓣Τ摸暗猭ノи秨﹍弧眖禣à籔禣环瞒Ч⊿或闽玒琌畊膀碙盡穨︑の畍畑к臛硂縒疭Αи-
琌碙畍そ穦の艷祸某矗タ传ēぇи-
穦∕現┎タや艷祸某タ
谅谅畊
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr Chairman, I suspect in this Chamber I am probably the only person who is experienced enough to speak on this particular issue about Honorary Senior Counsel and Senior Counsel. Having had the benefit of starting my own career at the Bar, which happily or unhappily, I voluntarily terminated after 13 years of practice and turned my back, so to speak, on the Bar by becoming a solicitor in 1976. So, I think on this particular issue, I think, I suspect my heart is with the Bar whereas my head would be with my present fellow solicitors.
But I think the practical aspect is that in terms of the long-term development of any profession, and particularly the legal profession where, at a time when we need a strong, independent and fearless legal profession, I would be extremely hesitant to do anything to upset either branch of the profession which is equally important to Hong Kong.
We have had many discussions in the past about the possibility of fusion, and I remember when I was approached by the Law Society Committee on the issue of fusion my first question was "Have you consulted the Bar?". You cannot force professionals to do things which they honestly believe it's not in the best interests of the community firstly, and secondly, of the profession itself.
So, on the issue of Senior Counsel and Honorary Senior Counsel, I have just obtained exemption from my party whip, the Honourable Miriam LAU, for leave, as it were, to depart from the Liberal Party's stated position. I have the greatest admiration for my former colleagues at the Bar, and if we look to the members of the Law Society, I have no doubt that there are a few, or maybe even quite a few members of the Law Society who deserve and have earned perhaps the honour of being nominated Honorary Senior Counsel. But whether they be in the tens or in hundreds, which I doubt because I imagine one would need a certain amount of litigious experience and advocacy which solicitors generally find not, as it were, their neck of country, they generally find that they are much more capable of preparing a case, of filtering the relevant facts and putting it in front of the table of a barrister to give due consideration to the best way to conduct the case.
So, with these few words, Mr Chairman, I am afraid that I will take issue with the Government on this particular matter and I will in fact support the Honourable Miss Margaret NG. I wish I could have persuaded my fellow Liberal Party members to go down the same path as I have, but equally I respect their views as they respect mine. Thank you.
MR MARTIN LEE: Mr Chairman, with all due humility I have to make a declaration of interest, being the only Queen's Counsel in this august body. There used to be another Queen's Counsel, that is, your illustrious predecessor who of course is also a Queen's Counsel, and a very eminent one at that.
I remember when I came back to Hong Kong to practise at the Bar, the Honourable Ronald ARCULLI was actually senior to me and he was holding a very important position as Honorary Secretary of the Hong Kong Bar Association. I am happy, therefore, that he has so valiantly defended the Queen's Counsel, soon to be renamed Senior Counsel.
I daresay that he may be the most qualified person, actually, to be made Honorary Senior Counsel if we were to extend that to the other profession, but Mr Ronald ARCULLI is even more humble as a person than I am, so I understand that he is not actually going for it.
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Yet!
MR MARTIN LEE: Yet. Mr Chairman, I have no difficulties about the change of name to Senior Counsel, but that is set for hereafter. The Chinese name has a little difficulty "戈瞏畍" which can be used by any experienced barrister, actually, and the problem is in Chinese we have no capital letters as in "Senior Counsel", so we cannot use capital letters for "戈瞏畍", but I will go along with that.
I actually doubt, Mr Chairman, if I were to be applying for appointment of Queen's Counsel, as we say applying for silk today, I wonder if I would have got it because that requires 10 years of active practice as an advocate in the Hong Kong court, and you see me more often here than in the courts of Hong Kong, so I doubt it if I would have got it if I had not applied much earlier, in fact in 1979.
Actually, I am extremely glad that my party members who normally do not agree with me happen to agree with the Honourable Miss Margaret NG and the Hong Kong Bar Association, and I am sure many of them will say "yes, we still don't agree with you, Martin" on this one. We actually had a discussion about that. Of course this seems to be a very rushed and ill-conceived idea because it was rushed at the very last minute, it seems to us. And if I may borrow an old American expression, "if it ain't broke, why change it?". Why rush it indeed if, as Miss Margaret NG said, if upon reflection, after detailed discussion with the Bar, especially the Inner Bar as it is called, it be thought to be a good idea, then perhaps we could have another look at it.
But in the meantime, actually, the Bar has made a concession through the amendment soon to be proposed by Miss Margaret NG allowing certain types of persons indeed to be given this honorary title. So, I am glad that the Democratic Party has no hesitation in supporting Miss Margaret NG's proposed amendment, so we will be opposing the Attorney General's amendment.
CHAIRMAN: Does any other Member wish to speak? Miss Margaret NG, do you wish to speak for a second time?
MISS MARGARET NG: No, Mr Chairman, thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, Miss Margaret NG, if you do not speak now, as it is a joint debate, you will not have the opportunity to speak again.
MISS MARGARET NG: Oh, I am sorry. Thank you, Mr Chairman, very much. In that case I will, because I thought I would get another chance.
CHAIRMAN: When you move your amendment, if with some luck, the Attorney General's amendment is negatived, then there will be no debate. So if you wish to speak you will have to speak now.
MISS MARGARET NG: Mr Chairman, maybe my optimism got away with me and I actually did think I was going to stand up again, but thank you very much for reminding me.
Mr Chairman, I am very grateful to the words of Members supporting my motion, particularly the Honourable Ronald ARCULLI. I know how difficult it is nowadays for one to depart from the party line, but I particularly appreciate the Liberal Party in respecting the wish of Ronald and saying that on this matter Ronald is free to cast his vote wherever his heart lies. Mr Chairman, I am very grateful to him.
Mr Chairman, I am also very grateful on behalf of the Bar to the support of the Democratic Party. In answer to the Honourable Miss Emily LAU as to whether the Bar was treated in a high-handed fashion and contemptuously, I would invite Miss LAU to look at the original clause 8 under which section 31(A) is proposed, and there is no mention of anyone other than a barrister.
Mr Chairman, if the Administration had contemplated an honorary system including various categories of people, the honourable thing to do is to put it into the Bill so that Members of the Bills Committee will take notice of it so that the Bar and the Law Society will have prior notice of it so that when they come before the Bills Committee they will know that they have this to address. And if the Bar or the Law Society have any strong views about it, they could have alerted the Bills Committee at the beginning and say "this is a controversial issue. Please allow room to discuss".
But, as the Honourable Fred LI no doubt recalls, when the Bills Committee tried to work out its plan in the beginning, we all knew how pressed for time we were, how complicated the Bill was and we separated the controversial areas from the non-controversial areas and we all thought that Senior Counsel was a non-controversial matter and it would not take a very long time, so consequently the Bar was not prepared for this.
Mr Chairman, I would also like to draw attention to the fact that when this was finally proposed in the Administration's amendment, I understand that a copy was then sent to the Chairman of the Bar, Miss Audrey EU, Queen's Counsel, and she was given, I think, less than five days including some holidays to make a response to that letter. It was not possible for her to consult even her Bar Council within that time, let alone consult members.
If that is not treating the Chairman of the Bar contemptuously, I do not know what is. Throughout the Bar has voiced the strongest view and yet the Bar was pressured into co-operation into, given so little time, that all that the Chairman of the Bar could think of was to reduce the area of controversy, and this is what we finally ended up with.
Mr Chairman, I would also like to respond to Miss LAU, I know Emily's view is to open up the profession and I am not saying at this point that I am against that, but even in the Attorney General's paper one sees a sort of progression. If we should arrive at the point when solicitors will be given the right of audience under certain conditions and this is actually taken up, then the next thing to do is to also say, "Well, this comes as a natural development that solicitors with a right of audience should of course also be eligible for appointment of Queen's Counsel, or in future Senior Counsel". But since for some reason, which has been explained by the Attorney General, we have not arrived at this point, then the logical thing to do is to leave room for the future so that in future we can discuss developments.
But right now there is another point which nobody has touched on which even I wonder if the Bills Committee even noticed, and that is the appointment of people who may be outside Hong Kong. We have never contemplated this, where it is an academic of a member of the law faculty or law school in a university, that university can be in Hong Kong or not. I mean, are we looking at that sort of system? Mr Chairman, also the Bar is rather wary of what we call "artificial silk". Queen's Counsels are called "silks", so honorary Queen's Counsel we call "artificial silks". These are very often used as political appointments. When you cannot think of anything else to do then, I am sorry, I do not mean any disrespect to that system, but this is sometimes used as a political appointment. Now, is Hong Kong contemplating that kind of appointment? It may be very welcomed by the community, but let us talk about it. Let us put it on the table.
Mr Chairman, I would also like to make some reference to the other branch of the profession whom I also represent. Mr Chairman, the solicitors have made no representation whatsoever to this amendment. They have not said "Yes, why is it that 31A does not allow solicitors to be appointed?" They have said nothing of the kind. Mr Chairman, I respect them enough to believe that they would scorn to get in on the tailcoats of the Bar at the eleventh hour. They have the confidence to have an honorary system all to themselves. I do not think that when it is put like this, of course it is difficult for the Law Society to say "No, please cross out solicitors", because it would mean at the least a discourtesy to the Attorney General. But I think that this is wrong just to make use of any old feelings which might exist between the Bar and the Law Society.
Mr Chairman, still on Emily's point of opening up the profession, I myself do not see why in the future the two branches of the profession should not sit down and discuss the re-organization or the development of the profession as a whole, but in the past few years the atmosphere has been made most impossible for that to happen because every discussion is prefaced with attack either on the other branch of the profession or both branches being attacked by the Administration at the same time. So, I take this opportunity to appeal to the Administration to leave the legal profession alone. Let us catch our breath. Let us mend any feelings of opposition we had in the last few years. Let us sit down together. Let us discuss our own problems and do not rush us because it will be counter-productive.
Mr Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity and I would urge Members to vote against the Attorney General. If you are minded to expand the honorary silk system, there are plenty of chances in the future to do so. Voting it down today simply means that you do not consider it now.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, can I start off by going straight to the quite serious accusations that have been levelled at the Administration that we have treated the Bar and possibly this Council with contempt and that we have been high-handed. Those comments were made, I think, specifically in relation to the proposal that there should be a rank of Honorary Senior Counsel.
Could I first of all refer to a paper from the Bar Association to the Bills Committee of January this year dealing with various matters? Part of that submission dealt with the appointment of both practising and non-practising Senior Counsel and the Bar made its position plain, that it did not wish to conflate the appointment of practising and non-practising Senior Counsel under one statutory provision. It makes some powerful points about the method of appointment. But in what I would have regarded as a significant phrase it says that, and I do not want to quote them out of context, Mr Chairman, I will quote the whole paragraph:
"The Bar considers that if it is deemed desirable for there to be a senior status to be accorded on non-practising barristers statutory provision should be in place for such appointments. The Bar has indicated to the Attorney General that a separately framed proposal for appointment of non-practising Senior Counsel would receive sympathetic consideration by the Bar."
So, the matter was in issue certainly in January of this year. The Administration sent a copy of its revised proposals dealing with Honorary Senior Crown Counsel to the Bar Association on 22 April, and the Bar replied on 28 saying that the appointment of Honorary Senior Counsel should be restricted to barristers. The Administration informed the Bills Committee of that comment in a letter dated 16 May, and when the Bills Committee discussed the matter on 5 June, I believe, although I was not present, the Honourable Miss Margaret NG repeated those comments.
I have taken some time to go through those points to, I hope, allay concerns that the Administration has been high-handed or treated the Bar Association with contempt. The letter to which Miss Margaret NG referred, the letter to the distinguished Chairman of the Bar, attached the actual text of the Committee stage amendment, which was closely based on detailed proposals that had been sent earlier to the Bar and on which the Bar had commented. So, I do not think it would be accurate to say that these were matters that were sprung on the Bar at the last minute, and certainly there has been and there is no question of us treating the Bar with contempt or in a high-handed manner, much less this Council.
Mr Chairman, still on the question of Honorary Senior Counsel, I think it just has to be borne in mind that this is a status that would not, of course, accord precedence and would not confer any right to practice. It is a status that in other places, Britain, is conferred fairly rarely on distinguished people, academics, whether they are barristers or solicitors. There have been very distinguished solicitor practitioners who have been made Honorary Queen's Counsels. The late and great Dr MANN was made an Honorary Queen's Counsel. He was a solicitor in one of the leading London firms, one of the world's leading authority on the law relating to money. There is no question of conferring a right to practice. It is, I think, a modest and moderate proposal to enable on rare occasions distinguished people who have made contributions to the law in Hong Kong to be given some form of recognition.
As for the point that it might allow academics elsewhere to be made Honorary Senior Counsel, I would simply point out that the text makes it clear that the services must have been provided to the law in Hong Kong.
So, this issue has been under discussion for some time. It has not been sprung on the Council or on the Bills Committee or on the Bar. It is true that we and the Bar take a different view of this matter.
Mr Chairman, if I could just pick up a point in relation to Miss Margaret NG's amendment to the clause 8 relating to practising Senior Counsel, I would just like to point out that the effect of that amendment would not be to replicate the existing system, it would in fact be to narrow it. The effect of Miss NG's amendment would be to limit eligibility to be appointed to the ranks of Senior Counsel to those who have practised at the Bar in Hong Kong or practised as an advocate while holding office as a legal officer within the meaning of the Legal Officers Ordinance.
Now, that is not the present system. There have been members, say of my department, who have been appointed Queen's Counsel who have not practised as advocates whilst holding office within the Government. I can think of at least two former law draftsmen who had never practised before the courts in Hong Kong but who were nonetheless made Queen's Counsel in recognition of their service as barristers they were both barristers within my department. So, the effect of Miss NG's amendment would be to, not to replicate the present system but to change it and narrow it. So, if Miss NG is right in saying that we should keep to the present system then we should keep to the present system, and that means as regards practising Senior Counsel, the Council should adopt my amendment because Miss NG's amendment would narrow the existing practice.
Question on the Attorney General's amendment put.
現ぇタぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
THE CHAIRMAN said he thought the "Noes" had it.
〆穦畊ボ
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈現碞材8兵笆某ぇタぉタ
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊叫︗癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜场畊瞷陪ボ挡狦
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr Edward HO, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Henry TANG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr MOK Ying-fan and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr Martin LEE, Dr David LI, Mr SZETO Wah, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Miss Emily LAU, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Eric LI, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr Philip WONG, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-yin, Miss Christine LOH, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Andrew CHENG, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr Albert HO, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Miss Margaret NG, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE, Mrs Elizabeth WONG and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted against the amendment.
Mr CHIM Pui-chung and Mr Ambrose LAU abstained.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 17 votes in favour of the amendment and 39 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θタ17は癸39琌ガタ綝∕
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Mr Chairman, I move under Standing Order 37(4) that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the remaining motions at the Committee stage of the Legal Services Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendment) Bill 1996 at this sitting the Committee do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.
Question on the motion proposed, put and agreed to.
某ぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕莉硄筁
〆穦畊セΩ〆穦穦某畊碞1996猭狝叭ミ猭馒兜璹兵ㄒぇㄤ緇兜某秈︽ぇ翴∕翴∕牧羘パ3だ牧搭︓1だ牧
〆穦畊パ現碞材8兵笆某ぇタ綝∕セ畊瞷叫艷祸某碞材8兵笆某タ
MISS MARGARET NG: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 8 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 8 (See annex XII)
兵ㄒ材8兵ǎンXII
Question on the amendment put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Question on clause 8, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材8兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Clause 16
兵ㄒ材16兵
地某璓勉畊и笆某タ材16兵タず甧更祇癳︗〆ゅンず
セ兵ㄒ〆穦畊ōだ〆穦笆某硂タ兵ㄒ材16兵ヘ琌ㄏ畍穦┮璹ヴ︙獶猭﹚﹚肂Μ禣礚タノ種琌埃硂兜兵ゅ讽い瞶沮のи竒兵ㄒ確弄臛阶璓勉冈灿弧讽Ы笵畍穦盢穦碞框篷粄靡Μ禣瞯ㄆ叭禣〆穦矗某ョボぃは癸埃兵ㄒ材16兵
畊叫甧砛иノōだ祇ēи兵ㄒ〆穦笆某タぇ琌Τ材Ω祇ē诀穦
畊砰〆穦糵某顶琿Τ材Ω祇ē诀穦
地某畊и兵ㄒ〆穦矗硂タ
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 16 (See annex XII)
兵ㄒ材16兵ǎンXII
艷祸某璓勉畊и祇ē㊣苸︗〆や地某兵ㄒ〆穦畊ōだ矗癸材16兵の材17(f)兵タ埃現┎紀埃禦芥加﹚肂Μ禣兵ゅ
﹚肂Μ禣拜肈だ狡馒临琌玂痙﹚肂Μ禣癸畍︽穨┪蒥チㄓ弧常Τ瞏环紇臫璶磝搐龟悔薄猵σ納瞷︽国のよ痲т瞶キ颗〆龟ぃ甧硂兵ㄒ〆穦Τ18︗某把ぃ虫ゎΘ疭τ舱Θ琌Τ現囊の縒ミ某畍の獶畍某┦琌讽〆穦竒筁8るㄓ庢︽20Ω穦某癚阶钡ǎ現┎の瞏秆拜肈〆穦程キ颗よ痲チ祘笷璓∕﹚и粄莱赣眔ㄆ碙のや
畊и粄硂∕﹚セō琌瞶のそタ禦芥加﹚肂Μ禣セ碞琌パ現┎ミ猭璹現郸現┎ミ猭Θミパ畍の現┎猭舱Θㄆ叭禣〆穦パ硂〆穦络﹚Μ禣よ猭のキ竒筁畊猭﹛у览Θ妮猭ㄒ矗ミ猭Ы硄筁荡癸ぃ琌畍穦ヴ種︑︽∕﹚礛眏磅︽硂诀ぃ虫ゎΤㄤ猭┦τョ薄瞶禦芥加ユ伐场だも尿璹ミ购Μ禣夹非琌Τ沮ㄤい纔翴碞琌竒璹ミ跌く蒥チぃ穦癚基临基獽莲
糕蚌┚某さぱ弄臛阶皐ǎ﹀弧某基琌癸癩刮ΤぃΤ禣さぱи-
Τ蝗︽穨某и-
ㄤい┪砛フτㄆ玡箇璸┮惠禣ノㄆ箇衡购Μ禣ョ搭ぶ某︓Μ禣キ猭畑Τ掉﹚畍Μ禣琌瞶舦畊猭﹛狦粄畍矗Μ禣キ.....
〆穦畊艷祸某叫祔氨и-
瞷タ糵某材16兵璝セ畊⊿Τ瞶秆岿粇材17兵籔禦芥加Τ闽瘤礛セ畊⊿Τ灿╯Τ闽兵ゅぇи-
临ΤΩ碞材17兵秈︽臛阶
艷祸某┪甧砛и秆睦材17兵琌闽ㄆ叭禣〆穦Θ兵ㄒ材16兵絋琌闽﹚肂Μ禣畊地某┪靡龟и硂猭
地某畊狦痷タ弧加禦芥﹚肂Μ禣材17(e)の(f)兵琌瞷弧琌畍穦璹獶砠┦(non-contentiousンΜ禣и稱ㄤ龟琌Τ翴だ
〆穦畊艷祸某叫膥尿
艷祸某畊琵и菠菠秆睦Τ闽﹚肂Μ禣璶兵ゅ琌材16兵㎝材17(f)兵の材20兵堡さぱ臛阶某祘獶购だ珿и虑诀穦ㄓ癚阶材16兵產ぃ硄筁材16兵ㄤ狦琌程璶猭畑Τ掉﹚畍Μ禣琌瞶舦畊猭﹛璝粄畍矗Μ禣キぃ瞶ゲ礛ぃ穦у畍穦碞ぃ璶―ㄤ穦┪カチ﹚肂禣
現┎ю阑﹚肂Μ禣栋い禣ノ琌加禦芥基璸衡ㄤ龟硂璸衡よ猭琌竒筁ㄆ叭禣〆穦種τ〆穦ㄤΘの畊猭﹛﹚ぃ穦瞶沮薄猵種┪уㄤい瞶パ碞琌猭砏﹚畍ゲ斗禦竭纕玂繧畍快禦芥加琌璶璽猭砫ヴ璶琌波┛τ旧璓讽ㄆ穕ア獽璶竭纕穕ア计肂硂翴糂胺祸某さ贬矗の筁加基禫蔼瞣疉穕ア计肂禫璶竭纕计肂禫畍箇璶玂繧︑礛跑眔禫蔼硂琌玂毁讽ㄆ龟借璶┯踞禣ノ陪睱瞶パ琌ユ瞣疉计肂禫璽砫ユ 珹畍︑礛猔種丁狡浪硂琌盽瞶ぃ縒畍ぃ单弧肂耕ユ碞ぃ斗璶み矪瞶
現┎弧ㄤ︽穨常⊿Τユτ﹚肂Μ禣暗猭ㄤ龟琌ぃ癸玻竒加基Μㄓ琌礛τ玻竒︓さゼΤ盡穨戈礚斗ㄤざ残穨禦芥璽猭砫ヴ┪竭纕玂蝗︽獺癠そ恨瞶戈玻┪快瞶框玻も尿盽砏琌戈玻基τΜ禣ノи-
Τ蝗︽某и-
讽いи弧眔ぃ癸﹚穦タи
┪弧ㄤ︽穨⊿Τ﹚肂Μ禣快猭τ才︑パ膙琌畊ㄤ︽穨Μ禣ぃ斗竒ㄆ叭禣〆穦畊猭﹛ミ猭Ы硂碭闽у菏恨︓︑パ膙и-
常笵ぃ︑パ礚荡癸τ躬纘︑パ膙籔玂毁禣ぇ丁∕﹚そ現郸琌璶眔キ颗瞷︽诀Τ秸俱キ颗诀珹ず獶現┎弧ぃ笵紈︽
и種⊿Τ诀琌瞷程诀ら穦吏挂э跑τぃ﹜加基粿ど畍禣繦ぇ糤蔼跑眔籔厨筍叉竊莱硂拜肈続暗猭碞琌ㄆ叭禣〆穦矗浪癚穝秸ㄏ程沧Μ禣癸畍の禣常そキ讽礛硂ぃ琌斑┪程秆∕快猭Τ禣舦痲旧稱穦吏挂﹚肂Μ禣秆床ㄆ叭禣〆穦︓ぃ斗パ盡穨畍快瞶も尿Ч︑パ匡拒︑パ膙畍狝叭籔ㄤ坝穨┦借狝叭Ч霍┪硂琌程奸瑈惠璶礚阶и-
匡拒隔и-
常ゲ斗σ納㏄︳璸瞷拜肈斗璶箇ň国狠逼莱癸惫琁τぃ琌緗蝉瞷衡璝礛Τ胊狦碞р砫ヴ崩ō畊痷Τ胊狦瞷筁ア崩街ōㄆ礚干
兵ㄒ〆穦糵某筁祘い畍穦のパ畍舱Θ︽笆舱矗秖戈靡璣瓣﹚肂Μ禣ぇ瞷腨拜肈禦芥加猭狝叭借竭纕の蹿肂縀糤畍磅穨ゴ阑よ穝℡現┎竒筁冈灿╯ぇ∕﹚既玂痙﹚肂Μ禣ぃ蛤繦﹁よ奸瑈
璣瓣瞷拜肈ぃ荷礛耴㏒﹚肂Μ禣﹚肂Μ禣陪礛琌ㄤい璶璣瓣畍穦瘤礛螟ǐ繷隔羆挡竒喷-
癸兵ㄒ〆穦矗猭琌璶琌眖繷ㄓ-
穦ミ癬甅玂毁禦芥加狝叭夹非礛﹚肂Μ禣ê獽铆Т
畊ぇホюド翠琌莱╒璣瓣毙癡钩穝℡妓既玂痙﹚肂Μ禣縩伐贝癚︙快猭玂毁狝叭非惫琁
ら玡畍穦そガ-
程沧莉眔ㄆ叭禣〆穦硄筁甅穝Μ禣璸衡よ猭のキΜ禣程蔼搭碩笷きΘ堡ゼ纯そガぃ筁竒畊猭﹛уのΘ妮猭ㄒカチ獽ミㄨ磃ぃゲ籔ヴ︙癚基临基τ狝叭ご玂毁и谋眔そキ翠カチ琌穦钡畍穦港種
畊程и稱莱闽畍禜拜肈畊さ贬弄臛阶иだ谅独窥ㄤ军某や弧玂毁狝叭キ琌程璶產闽みぇ矪硂ㄤ龟碞琌畍穦秨﹍暗玡穦朝里ネ竒览セ暗˙ざ残禦芥加畍璶蹦˙艼琵カチ︑︽菏恨╯澈畍矗ㄑ狝叭琌酚硂ㄇ˙艼秈︽и辨盢ㄓи-
穦膥尿贝癚︙玂非拜肈┪禣〆穦琂礛Τ砍届莱硂よ矗縩伐種ǎ
畊﹚肂Μ禣癚阶筁祘いи谋眔畍禜穕絋и螟筁さ贬癚阶и碙穛法此某癸иΤ胔好粄и﹚肂Μ禣いゼゲそ渤ミ初硂иだ螟筁硂ㄢずミ猭Ыㄆ礚阶琌畍そ穦㎝畍穦-
ミ猭Ы癸贺璶暗ㄆ薄礚阶琌そ現郸┪兵ㄒА荷み狝叭さぱ-
硂某穦ず琵酵阶㈱フ弧иぃ-
み妓и︑み玱だ螟и程胔碞琌現┎現郸硄筁τ暗ゴ阑畍禜ㄆи粄だぃそキ
畊и辨さぱㄆ礚阶︙秆∕и-
ぃ硂ンㄆи-
ッ环Τ甫и-
腀種み玂毁禣舦痲ぃ虫ゎ琌窥よ狝叭非㎝禣玂毁よ
и辨某や兵ㄒ〆穦矗タ
谅谅畊
地某璓勉畊さぱи穦〆穦矗兜璹и㊣苸︗ㄆは癸и场タиだ碙〆穦璶矗硂ㄇタ龟悔癚阶艷祸某Τ矗筁20Ω穦某チ∕﹚︙︙и︑穦某笵Τ畉ぃ璶单瑈穦ì秨穦计и-
猭﹚计6щ布∕﹚セ獶18某畒Τせ璝弧硂琌だチ∕﹚и硂〆穦畊ぃ種程チよ猭莱琌穦∕﹚单畍穦ノ荷よ猭村弧現┎ノ荷よ猭村弧礛︗〆程︙щ布ぃ琌〆穦∕﹚獽琌程チ∕﹚產璶宽眖
畊瘤礛Τ20Ω穦某иぃ弧и稱弧杠さΩи穦弧и稱弧杠闽猭磅穨兵ㄒ璹材56兵ぇの糤干材56A兵糶盢畍穦︙璹獶砠┦狝叭猭﹚Μ禣獽璶ㄏㄤ礚硂兵ゅ珹加禦芥﹚肂Μ禣の框篷粄靡Μ禣硂ㄇ琌獶砠┦狝叭瞷Τ﹚肂珹框玻狝叭Τ﹚肂讽礛程ま癬и-
癚阶㎝穦闽み碞琌加禦芥よи-
チ囊Τ盢硂ンㄆ璶某祘ず現┎癚阶硂ンㄆΤㄢ獶琌ぇе┪さぱ癚阶ㄆ弧瞷ぃ琌続讽璶单玥莱赣ぃ璶ê或е琌ぃ︽и稱拜ê璶︓︙㎡
俱ンㄆ芭厨иΜ栋畍穦㎝畍闽猔舱畍闽猔舱琌刮砰璶―荷秖﹚肂Μ禣ㄤいΤㄇ畍璶―﹚肂Μ禣Τ癚阶獶⊿Τぃ筁ゑ耕ぶ计㎝ぶ祇ēτ俱闽﹚肂Μ禣阶筁祘い┪さぱ某穦い癚阶Τ矗のㄤ龟и-
硂吏竊癚阶筁ぇ祔某ぃ璶丁材17(e)の(f)兵のиタ材20兵ㄤ龟琌闽加禦芥﹚肂Μ禣狦и-
硂吏竊癚阶ì镑и㊣苸ㄆ钡ㄓ臛阶ぃ璶狡材56A兵竒癚阶祇и-
種ǎиョ宽眖ぇぃ稱狡и阶翴
Τ闽﹚肂Μ禣ㄆㄓ癚阶琌ê计翴借玂靡㎝獽﹜穦禣穕и眏秸и-
チ囊﹚肂Μ禣ぃ﹚璶獽﹜и-
荡癸⊿Τ弧﹚璶獽﹜ㄆ⊿Τ龟琌璶Τ膙㎝︽穨ず膙そキτ秨膙現┎ョタ绰硂よǐ玥︙蝗︽瞯穦Τぃ眖玡50窾じ蹿瞯琌㏕﹚瞷玥糴璝獶︙筿癟秨︙畍Μ禣临璶╆﹚璶﹚肂临孔⊿Τ﹚肂碞穦Τ碿┦膙まノ璣瓣竒喷璣瓣よΤ糶獺ㄓ弧獶ぃ﹚琌硂妓璣瓣Τゅ彻祅猭馒粁い弧⊿Τ弧纕糤琌﹚肂Μ禣êㄇ垒"澄筹Α"搭基璓借畉ま璓瞷拜肈ㄢぇ丁ぃ购单腹拜腹ぃ单腹ㄏMr STAIRㄓ翠ぃ"╃み"弧﹚琌Mr STAIRē阶獶璣瓣畍穦┮ΤА種и-
讽礛磅琘ㄇ阶沮τ磅ㄤ琘ㄇ阶沮產Τ︑や產Τ︑阶翴弧穝℡ぃ︙ぃ弧弧穝℡ㄤê或瓣產ぃ弧︙弧穝℡穝℡程挡阶琌玥璶ぃ筁璶Τ︙秆∕獶玥璶玂痙﹚肂Μ禣и-
隔琌璶ㄌ穝℡隔ㄓǐㄆ璶︑︽σ納玥瞷⊿Τ快猭┮и-
玂痙
и程稰ア辨琌畍穦绊﹚肂さぱ秨癘穦и沽刚拜癘Τㄆ叭禣〆穦Μ禣⊿Τ-
300窾じ加ㄓ暗ㄒ300窾じ加眖玡Μ禣ぶ瞷搭ぶ癸禣Τи稱材拜肈獽琌搭基ê或眖玡寥寥窥忌┮瞷搭ê或讽礛硂拜肈иぃ拜иセぃ笵咎或ㄓ搭基ノ或非玥ㄓ搭基瞷ぃ400窾じ加︙500窾じ加︙瞷ê﹚肂Μ禣临ゼそガそ秨艷祸某磝搐ぇいи玱ぃ笵и300窾じ加Μ禣綷厨穝籇厨笵眡иぃ笵-
╯澈搭ぶ咎或ㄓ搭ぶぃ搭ㄇぃ搭ぶㄇ硂タ琌拜肈┮ノ或非玥ㄓ搭基基瞷︙璶ノㄤà畍寥ぶ窥︙パ畍穦ㄓ∕﹚產莱寥ぶ窥礛璹﹚肂ぃ莱Τ非玥矗ㄑ狝叭基窥ㄓ膙琌だタ盽皊加籔皊加ぇ丁穦璸畍籔穦璸畍ぇ丁洛ネ籔洛ネぇ丁基窥琌兜膙и腞翠痜禘┮Μ禣230じ禘┮Μ280じиぃ﹚230じê矪痜и眔基窥だ街弧祑璶230じê產基窥Τ蔼Τи尺舧產獽產窸だ璶狟ねざ残璶基璶匡拒獶斑基窥∕﹚
酵и-
璶―﹚肂Μ禣┕┕琌弧и-
基窥琌斑だ獶и-
禣禦加―铆㏕量獺み獽﹜じ獶∕﹚┦ぃ莱把σ
Τ﹚肂Μ禣獽玂靡借иぃ硂翴Τ﹚肂Μ禣琌⊿Τ纕琌加ユ⊿Τ拜肈硂某穦い讽畍珹そ渤讽畍琌ぃ笵瞷畍︽穨いㄤ龟Τ膙ΤΤ搭基Τ⊿ΤЧ酚﹚肂Μ禣ㄓΜ禣⊿Τ妓ΤΜ或或禣ノ︙-
︑璶膙琂礛︙ぃ硂㈱㈱フフそそ秨秨рウЧΘ︙ご璶程硂闽㎡
﹚肂Μ禣拜肈瞷ユパㄆ叭禣〆穦癚阶讽礛и-
ぃ笵ㄆ叭禣〆穦程︙そガ︙矪瞶癸禦加禣τē獽﹜讽礛琌程膀セ拜肈ノ或玥ㄓ络﹚Μ禣琌–︗畍–璶寥ê或窥-
谋眔琌玂毁狦⊿Τ硂玂毁狝叭借琌и荡癸琌皐癸ㄆ獶皐癸〆穦┪或ㄆи粄и︑兵ㄒ〆穦穦某竒だそキ畍穦┮Τ種ǎи-
单-
ユㄓョ礚笲ノ畊舦ㄓ箇穦某笲иㄓ弧иぃ︙璶ノ﹚肂Μ禣玂靡借玂毁カチぃ穦甡はτΤ﹚肂穦Τ礚▆みぶ计甡竤ぇ皑畍Τ﹚肂はタ﹚肂玂毁Μ临皑彩み種膀セ玂毁Μは筁ㄓи硂妓
┮ぃ瞶璶竒筁チ種秸琩甃ㄎ瞶某矗叫毙灵畑模ネи粄醚灵畑模ネи-
囊ずΤ癸秸琩拜ョΤ╯и-
羛蹈计絋﹚509︗砆砐拜-
Τ⊿Τ砍届禦も加┪加Τ砍届Θ砆砐ㄤ⊿砍届潦禦加и-
⊿Τ拜┮拜粇畉獶甃ㄎ瞶某┮弧и-
竒埃у⊿Τ箇衡禦加砆砐種ǎるи-
暗Ω刁繷砐拜硂ΩΤ┮ぃ琌蛤╬璪穨刁繷暗砐拜ㄢΩ秸琩ぃ琌翠┦ノ筿福ゴ筿杠暗拜琌ЧΘ琌る刁繷暗砐拜ㄢ挡狦﹡礛琌だ澸и獺硂琌チ種は琈65%砆砐ぃ琌は癸Μ禣キτ琌は癸Μ禣は癸﹚肂禣и-
獶拜琌Μ禣筁蔼┮は癸и-
琌拜Μ禣﹚肂種┪琌は癸獶Μ禣キ硂и-
斗睲贰眏秸
и略朝勉チ囊は癸地某矗タ渤
艷祸某璓勉畊甧砛и祔坚睲弧琌材Ω祇ē地某矗の程甅畍Μ禣︙畍穦ご礛ぃそガ琌硓臩ぶ砛и蛤畍穦畊靡龟獶-
ぃ稱弧τ琌ㄆ叭禣〆穦い-
∕﹚ご礛ゼ竒畊猭﹛у┮瞷顶琿-
ぃ祇и稱-
み稱弧瞷顶琿ぃ弧┮矗菠戈獶Τ種留縡
谅谅畊
︙玊く某璓勉畊иョ稱禭硂诀穦祇ē琵и-
祔Ω臛阶﹚肂禦芥加Μ禣礚斗穝臛阶Ωиㄤ龟璶碭翴莱и竒冈瓃и-
瞶沮の芠翴秆睦и-
︙は癸蝴﹚肂Μ禣畊㈱フ弧畍璶и瞶Ё癸そ渤弧蝴臔畍︽穨の玂毁︽穨キの非﹚璶﹚肂Μ禣玥そ渤痲穦穕畍盢穦澄基膙τㄏ非讽ㄆ痲穕и痷弧ぃ硂ㄇ杠ㄓиョ⊿Τ肅弧硂ㄇ杠
畊琵и-
吏臮㏄┕秈瓣產荡场だぃ琌硂妓暗盡穨讽い⊿Τ︽穨﹚璶Τ﹚肂Μ禣蝴盡穨非畍︽穨畍⊿Τ﹚肂Μ禣畍矗ㄑ狝叭ョ琌⊿Τ﹚肂Μ禣暴Τ禦芥加硂兜或﹚璶砞Τ﹚肂Μ禣镑蝴臔狝叭キ㎡羇ㄏΤ瞶パ硂妓弧иョ谋眔⊿Τ弧狝タ硂︙璣瓣畍穦穦谋眔-
ぃ镑穝矗盢硂ㄆユそキ禩㎝は癸胋耞〆穦辨陆и獺璣瓣畍Τ程ㄎ珹程ㄎ畍╯莱妓朝勉ご祇谋朝勉⊿Τ弧狝螟盢硂ㄆ矗ㄓ―陆
и谋眔㏄辩睶┥某Τ杠弧眔琵иまノ弧杠碞琌"ぃ瑈"璝Τㄇㄆ薄竒Τ秈˙璶癶碞螟礛τ璝ㄆ薄岿иぃフ︙ぃ陆
弧チ囊㏕磅ㄏㄆ薄Τ﹚и-
ご穦ぃ耞璶―陆祔穦ΤΤ闽膀セ猭臛阶膀セ猭ゼ龟琁ぇ玡и-
矗璶陆㎝э癸ぃ癸ㄆ薄и-
璶瞶Ёㄓ弧ぃ阶穦瑈и-
谋眔璶玡秈┮и-
穦膥尿臛э跑秈˙㎝э安и-
┮璶―狥﹁ぃēぇΘ瞶螟蝴臔杠獽穦倒ぃ瑈稰谋ㄒチ秈祘璝璶礛Μカチ把籔舦獽穦だ螟
畊ㄆ矗のㄤ︽穨ョΤΜ禣まи谋眔璶睲贰粄醚ま琌或のΤ⊿Τ眏┦竒Μ1%︓2%︓瓣Τㄇ竒Μ6%︓7%獺癠蝗︽Μκだぇ碭硂琌ㄆ龟и-
璶癘⊿Τ眏┦Μ禣瓣腳某ョ笵狥ㄈ蝗︽獺癠そΜ禣蛤错ゴ蝗︽の伦蝗︽Μ禣ぃτи-
琌匡拒ㄤ龟ㄤ︽穨薄猵妓竒妓穦Τ澄基и庢ㄒτ產ら盽ネ竒喷常禗и-
琌Τ硂贺暗猭礚阶代秖畍縱畍┪穦璸畍常Τ硂妓暗礛τ-
穦碞ユ倒ぉчΙ┮-
⊿Τ眏┦Μ禣ま蛤и-
タ癚阶﹚肂Μ禣Чぃぃ阶琌猭﹚Μ禣狦畍Τ舦璹ミΜ禣夹非杠璝穨ぃ宽獽砆矪だ︓砆氨礟┮иゲ斗眏秸и-
タ癚阶﹚肂Μ禣┪猭﹚Μ禣┪畍穦璹Μ禣琌Τㄤ︽穨瞷龟︽Μ禣ま
產不某ョ矗筁瞷礛丁﹚肂Μ禣穦ぃ穦Τ▆玂毁㎡狦⊿Τそ渤ユ㎡иぃフ﹚肂Μ禣蛤俱禦芥加筁祘笲Τ或闽玒и-
は滦癚阶硂拜肈琌踞み搭ぶΜ禣穦畍ぃノみ跑眔繦獽-
穦砆搭ぶΜ禣矪常Τ膙埃畍︽穨ず盡穨玂巨の咎▆み矪ㄆ盡穨そ穦穦癸︽穨秈︽菏诡の穦Τ▆掉惫琁┮瞷禦芥加⊿Τ疭拜肈Τ矗某盢ㄓ龟琁穨舦祅癘硂琌拜肈讽礛σ納崩︽琌и粄瞷ぃ﹚蛤﹚肂Μ禣┰闽玒硂セō⊿Τ炒﹚肂Μ禣陪瞷硂炒穦璸畍妓⊿Τ﹚肂Μ禣穦璸畍Τ或ㄓ玂毁め㎡螟笵⊿Τ穦璸畍砆北盾羆珹ㄓ弧硂琌闽巨盡穨菏诡の–畍▆み拜肈
畊Τㄆ矗竭纕肂拜肈瞷竭纕肂禫ㄓ禫蔼ㄤ龟иぃ稱狡Τ闽種ǎ硂ンㄆヘ玡临⊿Τ﹚阶狦Τ﹚阶杠и獺Ν璣瓣矗ㄓ陆安陆Θㄆ穦瞶Ё粄﹚肂Μ禣琌瞶┮讽礛タ临⊿Τ﹚阶ぃ镑睲贰靡﹚肂Μ禣穦ま璓狝叭借и-
ぃ镑盢硂ㄆ讽Θ厩喷靡ㄆ龟Τㄆ弧加基蔼畍禣祔蔼琌莱赣繧ゑ耕и谋眔硂阶翴⊿Τ岿ぃ单璶Τ﹚肂Μ禣璝﹙禦芥┮瞣疉加基耕蔼┮盢Μ禣矗蔼翴и谋眔琌︽眔硄硂琌ボ﹚璶Τ﹚肂Μ禣芠夹非璹加基ぶ獽璶Μぶ畍禣㎡и粄ぃ镑璹兵よ祘Α庢ㄒ弧矪瞶禗砠ンぃ璹硂﹙禗砠疉の1货じ獽璶Μぶ禗砠禣疉の1,000窾じ獽璶Μぶ禗砠禣㎡–﹙ン薄猵常ぃぃ筁羆珹ㄓ弧и獺狦畍穦镑矗ㄑㄇ戈毙カチ粄醚匡拒畍璶σ納и琌ぃ穦は癸
и-
Ν弧筁チ囊ぃは癸ㄤ︽穨璹ま蛤ㄤ︽穨妓и-
Μ禣まゲ斗钡カチу蝶︓禣〆穦蝶阶琌иぃ笵或畍ぃ钩ㄤ︽穨妓祇まㄑカチ把σ讽カチ碝―畍癸酚畍穦祇ま祇谋ぃ畍︽Μ禣Τだи谋眔硂琌ㄆ︓酚よ祘Α璸衡猭﹚Μ禣よ猭и-
玥谋眔ぃ钡иぃ稱狡Τ闽и谋眔硂妓暗ぃそキョ螟眔硂贺よ祘Α
и獺カチ匡拒畍Μ禣琌ㄤいσ納畍狝叭借畍︽坝臕の癸畍獺ヴ常琌妓璶ㄒ碝―畍カチ常笵﹙ンい畍畑τΜ畍禣パ8,000じ︓50窾じぃ单或Τㄇ穦тΜ50窾じ畍矪瞶ン㎡-
笵狝叭借琌璶и-
璶琵渤笵匡拒璽砫ヴ畍琌だ璶ぃ礛-
穦Τ或ㄆ薄祇ネ獽北ê︗畍碞矗禗砠ゼゲ﹚穦秤禗禗砠カチ璶畍禣弘︓穦伐ぃ獽┮и獺ㄏ⊿Τ﹚肂Μ禣禦芥加快瞶框玻┪框篷粄靡も尿框玻┯快常ぃ琌拜肈иョΩ眏秸ㄤ龟瞷竒Τ﹚肂Μ禣常ぃ宽眖璓猭の砏痻畍ぃそキ癸猭畍┕┕搭Μ禣タ-
猭⊿Τ快猭め狝叭
㏄辩睶┥某ョ矗硂琌ぃ磅︽и-
ぃ莱赣硂ぃ磅︽碞盢ぇ斌ぃ璶デㄢ岿粇癬ㄓ穦跑Θ癸и種硂玥ぃ筁и谋眔﹚肂Μ禣琌岿粇传杠弧﹚肂Μ禣獶岿粇┮ぃ琌ㄢ岿跑Θ癸程璶琌иぃ钡ㄇ膀︑谋眔瞶獽Μ耕禣ノ玱τ腨糉癸砛畍穦┪盡穨そ穦穦ノ腨糉よ猭珹ㄆて矪だの笆ノ戈方ㄓぃ耞菏诡–丁畍︽Τ⊿Τ熬瞒Μ禣夹非и痷⊿快猭钡硂贺暗猭薄猵ㄇ畍穦谋眔Μ禣耕琌瞶-
稱腊
程и稱弧и獺畍︽穨Θ﹚肂Μ禣ご礛Τそキ膙τ借ョぃ﹚Θ碾珇и辨︗ㄆ酚臮炊霉カチ猭狝叭ㄏノ猭の芠稰の-
Τ匡拒舦
セ略朝勉谅谅畊
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr Chairman, I will try to be as brief as I can. What we are discussing here today cannot be decided in absolute terms one way or another. In other words, should there be a fixed scale of fees or charges? It does not matter whether it involves the legal profession, and it does not matter whether it involves the type of work the legal profession is doing. But the true discussion is, can this community tolerate, accept, welcome fixed scale of charges?
I say this because different circumstances merit different considerations. A lot of Members today have put forward the point that there are no scale charges in other professions and that there are no scale charges. Nothing could be further from the truth and when the Attorney General ultimately speaks on this issue I would like him to confirm that there are no fixed charges or scale of fees in some of the examples that I am about to give.
But what is important is in terms of the service that the members of the Law Society are obliged to give to the public. In its wisdom, this Council many years ago, or indeed Britain many years ago, decided that it was right to give solicitors the right to self-regulation, so to speak, the right to self-discipline, the right to be accountable to the public that they serve. And yet here today, quite unfairly in my view, serious doubts and indeed unfair attacks are being levied against a very noble profession.
The example, Mr Chairman, that I refer to is that if you look at the financial sector, if you look at the stock-broking community, they charge a fixed fee for undertaking work whether as representing the buyer of shares or the seller of shares. In the financial sector merchant banks, financial houses charge a fixed fee in terms of the underwriting risk that they take, and it is from this fixed fee that they will pass on fees to what we call sub-underwriters. So, the main underwriters would charge x% and part of it will go to sub-underwriters. This is quite well accepted in the market. And to perhaps bring in an example which some of my colleagues will no doubt say, "Well, that is a different consideration", the Securities and Futures Commission charges fees on a scale for advice and work which it undertakes for the financial sector.
So, Mr Chairman, there are a variety of scale fees that are being charged in all different walks of life. A colleague of mine said to me in the ante-chamber that "when are we going to remove taxi meters?". You know, if we do away with fixed charges, why do we labour this increase in transport fares every year, be it buses, be it Mass Transit Railway or taxis or minibuses? Why not let every citizen negotiate with a minibus or a taxi driver? Well, I mean, that might cause more traffic jams if we care to do so, but if you had no fixed charge then at least you can negotiate en bloc or on a regular basis.
But I think life sometimes needs an order. An order sometimes takes into account all the pros and cons of whether or not there should, for a particular service, be a scale of fees or a fixed charge, and I suspect that those who advocate for doing away with scale fees in so far as solicitors are concerned, have simply turned a blind eye to the fact that in other jurisdictions quality of service has been sacrificed.
I remember years ago when the Law Society in England did away with scale fees on conveyancing matters, you would see advertisements in the papers that you could pay (50 for a lawyer to represent you in a conveyancing transaction. Well, no wonder the claims have gotten to where they are in terms of the poor quality of service that resulted from such cut-throat business. And who at the end of all these would suffer? Perhaps the lawyer charging (50, but certainly the client who might not be able to sustain a claim against that particular lawyer.
So, I think there is in fact a rationale, Mr Chairman, for justifying scale fees, be it for non-contentious business or be it for property work. So, I think one must look at the entire spectrum and come to a view, as to whether one can be accountable and one can be fair to the community which we serve. And in my view, for what it is worth, Mr Chairman, the Law Society has acted responsibly in recent months in bringing about the new scale fees in terms of conveyancing work.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
㏄辩睶┥某璓勉畊︙玊く某だ洁羪Ω矗и┮ㄏセㄓиぃゴ衡祇ē瞷⊿Τ快猭ぃ祇ēぷㄤ琌︙某ノи杠ㄓは婚и阶翴и璶癬ㄓ祇ē
︙某и矗ぃ瑈瞷奸瑈и-
⊿Τ瞶パぃ蛤奸瑈ǐㄤ龟и弧ぃ瑈種琌狦某穦и-
璶∕﹚產Τぃ種ǎΤ粄ê琌穝˙ワ穝琌ㄇ储代琘ㄇ∕﹚Τ丁禗и-
╯澈┮∕﹚琌癸临琌岿ㄏê琌岿粇∕﹚и-
ぃ牧は筁ㄓ︽確眖玡暴Τ钡ê岿粇∕﹚
ㄇ﹁よ瓣產そ┪そ渤現郸矗ㄑ褐ㄤ稱ǐ繷隔玱祇谋ぃ-
氨˙今˙篊篊单琵丁琵-
癚纯竒岿粇矗ㄑ褐或璣瓣拦焊ひê或碙穛硂よ癸瓣產Τ﹚癪膍瓣ǐе癸ㄤ竒蕾硑Θ伐紇臫礚猭ǐ繷そ渤現郸薄猵琌и弧"ぃ瑈"碞琌硂種
ㄆ龟︑パ囊筁┕ぃ種チ囊現郸и-
∕ア毖и-
ご礛碙チ弘ㄌ侣琵現郸龟︽丁玱穦靡龟и-
琌癸
︙玊く某秨﹍竒弧﹚肂Μ禣琌岿﹚肂Μ禣琌痷琌岿㎡甃ㄎ瞶某冈灿弧и-
莱赣︙癸籔岿ㄤ龟и竒弧ら盽ネи-
癸﹚肂Μ禣и-
玱镑钡ㄤ龟Τㄢ贺ぃ﹚肂Μ禣よ猭贺琌"诨朢逗"贺琌"盢基碞砯"讽и-
璶ゑ耕琘ㄇ摸狥﹁ㄒゑ耕ㄢ┮矗ㄑ狝叭借и-
璶∕﹚基ゑ耕-
狝叭借狦ぃ﹚夹非碞ぃ琌ゑ耕摸狥﹁そ秨膙┪︑パ膙よ弧⊿Τ摸狥﹁ゑ耕
Τ﹚肂Μ禣薄猵禣耕甧秈︽ゑ耕礛τ"盢基碞砯"玥ゑ耕螟窥耕ぶ眔ゑ"诨朢逗"临ぶ┮﹚肂Μ禣琌﹚岿┪癸禣﹚ぃ硂琌ぃΘミ硂ぃ筁琌基窥籔砯本恥ㄢ贺ぃよ猭
畒Τê或畍-
狝叭借琌ぃ琌畉㎡狦弧-
狝叭畉ê﹚肂Μ禣琌胊暗猭-
借或ぃび畉Τㄢ材硂︽穨Τ稰ㄏ畍ぃノ盽癘本"逗窲"拜肈礚阶畍妓蛤膙妓矮眔и常ぃ斗璶癘本-
"逗窲"-
﹚眔﹚玂毁┮-
栋い借よㄓ膙材иョ菠種︙玊く某┪現┎弧猭碞琌狦ㄇ畍稰びτΜ禣筁蔼碞ゲ斗э跑瞷Μ禣快猭秆∕拜肈
狦и-
Τ砞﹚﹚肂Μ禣诀禣粄瞶㎡и弧筁或瞶或獽﹜┮иぃ狡瞷竒Τ诀筁┕常⊿Τ笲ノ硂诀現┎璶璽砫ヴи谋眔и-
笲ノê诀
癘眔Τㄆ弧筁琘琘そ基и-
ノ诀ㄓ络﹚-
莱赣妓基﹚ぃ斗璶癚基临基иぃ钡硂翴︙玊く某㎝チ囊常弧﹚肂Μ禣﹚穦癸禣ぃ﹚肂Μ禣ㄤ龟癸禣Τ拜肈琌琌だ笲ノㄤ┮Τ颗诀硂琌だ璶
癸現┎さΩ笲ノも琿のよ弧盡穨︽︑よ玱癸-
ぃ碙и稰会は稰ㄏ現┎粄琘︽穨惠璶эぃ斗璶ノ瞷も琿ㄓ眏磅︽и谋眔硂琌だぃТ讽ぷㄤ琌現┎獶⊿Τ诀禣﹚舦痲琌現┎Τㄌ礛ノ蔼溃だぃ眔и-
やも琿ㄓ辨虏虫蹦ノ禣程痲单腹и粄現┎荡癸琌盢ㄆ薄虏てτぃ甧砛︽穨㎝そ渤瞏癚阶硂ンㄆ籔胊┪Τ或狦ぃ琵產Τ続讽丁瞏剪納硂﹍沧琌兜璶㎝紇臫瞏环э獶虫琌计畍ê或虏虫ㄆ龟紇臫俱猭狦畍狝叭借紇臫穦俱砰穦紇臫ê或︙璶ê妓ち琌翠璣現┎﹚璶舦簿ユ玡ЧΘ硂ㄆ砛現纯弧и璶瞒秨и璶框兜現郸狦琌硂妓杠硂琌だ產Α暗猭τ癸翠ぃびそキ
и辨產钡の種狦и-
璶硂妓э硂ぃ琌︽穨ㄆτ琌俱砰穦ㄆи獺и-
惠璶冈灿癚阶瞷顶琿и-
ゼ睲贰笵狦︙碞ぃ莱赣ノ讽礛み篈ㄓσ納硂ㄆ
и-
は癸玃э跑瞷Τ﹚
谅谅畊
糂紌某璓勉畊и祇ēや現┎紀埃﹚肂Μ禣ㄤ龟и獺и種現種ǎ薄猵ぃびさΩи蔼砍現瞒秨и-
ぇ玡蛤иよㄤ龟и獶は癸現種ǎぃ筁瞷祔畉τ艷祸某ê或动臛肥肥Ч弧狝┮Τオい某や畍そ穦さΩиや現┎暗猭иぃ穦熬瞒硂杠肈畊иぃ镑┋笲⊿Τ诀穦兵ㄒ弄祇ēи谋眔現┎莱赣腊崩笆猭эиフ艷祸某杠и獺現┎Τ砫ヴ硂妓暗┕現┎伐羇甧畍㎝洛ネ︽現Ы㎝ミ猭Ыず﹚Τ洛ネ㎝畍瞷ぃ笵琌ぃ琌瑈㏄辩睶┥某瞷ǐ眔耕еΤㄇㄆ谋眔и癸-
ぃи谋眔ゼゲ琌硂妓狦-
ぃ稱э跑琘ㄇ狥﹁и-
玱眏-
э﹚穦ま癬はки獺﹚肂Μ禣癸︽穨Τ糉甡紇臫硂琌畍︽场だΜㄓ方┮硂琌牟笆穨竒い枷ㄆи琌や禣〆穦ョや竒祇ē砛ㄆ弧猭и谋眔莱赣紀埃硂暗猭琵畍︽︑パカ初ず膙
瘤礛さぱボ来眔或琌禣舦痲и獺禣〆穦ゼゲ硂よΤ盡и碙穛禣〆穦硂よ暗猭и谋眔-
镑弧狝и程-
и-
矗ㄑゅン讽礛畍穦ョ矗ㄑゅンи玱ゼ砆畍弧狝┮иや紀埃﹚肂Μ禣
и临稱拜或畍狝叭常⊿Τ﹚肂Μ禣暴Τ硂兜Τ﹚肂Μ禣㎡┮и谋眔現┎э跑眔び筐Ν碞莱赣紀埃﹚肂Μ禣程畍穦そガ-
竒筁癚阶∕﹚碩玠搭Μ禣40%и-
讽礛ミ稰獶盽蔼砍и稱或搭ê或畍玱ご礛Τ柬㎡琌搭Μ禣㎡琌ぃ琌ヴ種搭Μ禣㎡钩и-
方狥﹁刁潦妓或琌Μ禣┏帹㎡タ潦禦ン︾狝妓產秨基400じи-
临基100じиダ克玡禗и璶и-
ǐ秨︓┍ぃи-
┕ǐи-
碞笵ぃ某基
и-
ぃ琌癸畍ぃ穛畒Τ︗畍临Τи碙穛玡穦朝里ネи-
荡獶癸-
ぃ穛甃ㄎ瞶某酵拜肈ョ獶癸诀ぃ穛糂胺祸某玱盢诀㎝畍ゑ耕и谋眔ぃびиひ琌畍畍琌盡穨и-
だ碙穛畍拜肈琌或竒筁るㄓ畍穦礛ガ搭40%Μ禣琌ぃ琌弧狦琁ㄇ溃碞搭Μ禣㎡﹚穦Τ硂妓稱硂︙ゲ㎡┮程ㄎ暗猭琌紀埃﹚肂Μ禣иΤ翴踞みи種現┮弧杠狦Τ﹚肂Μ禣加基ど畍獽糤Μ禣и谋眔硂琌ぃТ讽瞷и-
ぃ氨臛阶らиぃ笵羬ミ猭穦某穦ぃ穦ぃ碞祇ēぃ碞琁溃硂ンㄆ獽碞筁τ畍Μ禣Ω矗蔼瞷禣眔ㄇ痲矪ら硂ㄇ眔痲穦Чア
羆珹ㄓ弧瞷и-
530だ癚阶硂拜肈毙▅参膚玱秈ㄓиぃ稱產89ㄓ癚阶┮иぃ穦锚產丁ぃ筁и璶弧иや現┎ョ辨產σ納や現┎硂暗猭竒尿⊿Τ暗и-
莱赣暗ㄆ瞷и-
ぃ琌璶舦簿ユぇ玡珿種盢ぇэ笆礚珿蛤現獀┰闽玒иョぃ粄現е璶瞒秨┮礚珿硂妓暗и谋眔硂琌и-
璶暗ㄆぃ虫ゎ琌パ現┎矗硂妓暗τ琌俱穦常谋眔莱赣硂妓暗┮璶パミ猭Ы硄筁и谋眔硂ㄆ蛤舦簿ユ⊿Τ闽玒ㄏさぱア毖らョ莱赣荷е硂妓暗и-
穦谋眔Τ硂贺惠璶ㄏ現┎さぱア毖盢ㄓ現┎穦Ω矗硂妓暗и獺カチョ穦稰谅現┎谅谅畊
糂胺祸某璓勉畊иセ稱癬ㄓ苂地某硂兵ㄒ〆穦畊暗眔そタㄓи癸禜矗兵ㄒ〆穦∕﹚ぃ琌チ∕﹚或㎡畊计ぃび琌êㄇチ囊ㄆ⊿Τ畊┮程沧∕﹚碞ぃ-
琌獽粄êぃ琌チ∕﹚沮и癘拘┮の兵ㄒ〆穦いи-
碞–兵兵蹿篈琌Τ讽计秖某珹囊某ョΤㄇ縒ミ某チ囊某Τ畊ぃ筁讽礛ぃ琌溃┦计ヘ┮程沧∕﹚ゼゲチ囊某иフさぱパ地某笆某某璶―ㄆぃ璶やи稱痷琌螟и稱弧兵ㄒ〆穦∕﹚莱赣琌チ∕﹚┮Τ莱赣畊某常竒畊ぃ畊某碞琌︑笆斌舦硂ョ衡琌∕﹚и荡癸粄ê琌チ∕﹚
Τ闽セ兵ㄒ材16兵и禜琌畍穦碞ㄇ獶砠┦ㄆ叭Τ舦Μ﹚肂禣ノτ某兵蹿碞琌璶紀埃畍穦硂よ猌ぃ甧砛ウ矗硂妓某ㄏΤ硂妓某常琌礚и谋眔硂妓某琌癸畍穦贺伐玍癲ㄤ盡穨常⊿Τ妓兵蹿砏恨êㄇ盡穨ぃ璹﹚琘ㄇ禣ノ碞ヴ︙盡穨ㄓ弧猭ㄒ常Τ弧赣盡穨硂よ猌砆紀埃讽и-
癚阶硂兜兵蹿и-
矗框玻粄靡よΜ禣畍穦讽礛ㄓ弧瞷Τ框玻粄靡Μ禣probate scale硂Μ禣ぃ琌パㄆ叭禣〆穦┮璹﹚玱琌︽穨ず┮宽眖Μ禣現┎弧畍穦Τ硂框玻粄靡Μ禣┮竜碿伐硂Μ禣琌莱框玻硅ㄓΜ禣┮畍Μ蔼禣ノ硂琌荡癸ぃ瞶狦現┎粄畍穦框玻粄靡Μ禣ぃ瞶ㄤ龟程莱赣暗ㄆ碞琌叫畍穦盢硂Μ禣ユㄆ叭禣〆穦掉∕┪現┎蹦笆碞琌パΤ現┎ずㄆ叭禣〆穦笆浪癚硂ㄇ框玻粄靡Μ禣络﹚渤粄ゑ耕瞶Μ禣キ琌現┎⊿Τ硂妓暗硂框玻粄靡Μ禣竒30現┎30ㄓ常⊿Τ硂妓暗瞷礛丁玱弧畍穦竜碿伐框玻粄靡Μ禣琌Чぃ钡τ璶盢畍穦猌紀埃ぃ畍穦璹﹚ヴ︙Μ禣硂琌ぃ琌チ秨現┎┮㎡ㄏ現┎癸框玻粄靡Μ禣Τヴ︙種ǎ琌斗璶盢猌紀埃㎡炳蔓琌ぃ琌璶ノ㎡
畊ㄓ材16兵ぃ莱赣矗加禦芥﹚肂Μ禣材17F兵ゅ矗Τ闽Μ禣琂礛︗ㄆ常碞êよ祇ㄇ種ǎи稱虑诀穦莱Τㄇㄆ┮矗種ǎ
畊さぱΝ弄臛阶и祇ē翴碞琌畍莱赣Μ瞶禣ノ莱Τ舦Μ瞶禣ノΤㄆ借好︙孔瞶Μ禣㎡Τ︙夹非㎡碞畍Μ禣ㄓ弧瞶夹非ゲ斗畍镑矗ㄑΤ非盡穨狝叭膀娄璶倒ぉ畍Τ碙腨Μ禣矪瞶禦芥加よΤ竒喷畍さぱΝョ睲贰笵矪瞶禦芥加Τ﹚璶ㄌ眖Τ计顶琿瞶Μ禣ゲ斗酚臮畍Τ镑だのΤ瞯ЧΘ┮Τョ璶は琈畍矪瞶加禦芥も尿い┯踞砫ヴ硂妓碞璸衡畍矪瞶加禦芥Θセ埃酚臮Θセぇ临璶は琈畍┮璽砫ヴ狦Τㄇ畍︽计の计顶琿いЧΘ10┪19讽礛Θセ穦耕砛Τ闽畍︽竨叫ㄇぃ戈┪⊿Τ竒喷-
Μ禣讽礛耕稧﹜ㄏ-
Μ禣稧﹜硂ぃ琌畍瞶Μ禣硂琌祔还莱Τ盡穨狝叭
︙玊く某弧眔Τ竒喷琌戈瞏畍讽礛艷祸某タ硄筁ぃΘ戈瞏畍玱ご礛琌戈瞏畍︙玊く某肛眎弧畍︽Τㄢ贺贺琌恨瞶Ч到畍︽Θセ耕蔼贺琌恨瞶ぃ到畍︽Θセ耕虏虫狦恨瞶ろㄎのΘセ畍︽蛤ㄇ恨瞶Ч到のΘセ蔼畍︽秨カ初膙杠恨瞶Ч到Θセ蔼畍︽穦Чア毖硂ㄇ畍︽常穦毖恨瞶ぃ到Θセ畍︽も安玡盢Μ禣穦盢Μ禣璹眔ぃ耞
︙玊く某畊糂胺祸某粇穦ㄤ龟иさぱΝ琌弧......
〆穦畊︙玊く某琌砏祘拜肈璝獶砏祘拜肈叫琵糂胺祸某膥尿祇ē
糂胺祸某畊и獺︙玊く某稱坚睲弧猭иさぱΝ钮眔睲贰琌弧Τㄢ贺畍︽贺琌贺琌ぃи稱ぃ穦は癸︽ず絋Τ硂ㄢ贺畍︽ㄏ︙某ぃ種纯弧筁硂杠и璶弧︽ず琌Τ硂ㄢ贺畍︽贺恨瞶Ч到Θセ穦耕蔼┮竨叫常琌戈のΤ竒喷Т讽矪瞶加贺畍︽玥恨瞶ぃ到璶竊Θセ┮穦竨叫ㄇ借耕畉ぃ戈畍非畉︑礛ぃēτ畴
狦甧砛硂ㄢ摸畍︽︑パ膙ぃ砞﹚肂Μ禣挡狦穦︙㎡穦Τㄢ挡狦材挡狦碞琌恨瞶Ч到畍︽きゆμч竬蛤恨瞶ろㄎ畍︽膙τ璶玠搭Θセ眖τ畍︽常穦跑Θぃ畍︽材┦碞タ祇ネ璣瓣薄猵借畍︽穦ぃ腀種膙ぃ矪瞶加禦芥э眖ㄆㄤ坝穨穨叭程沧穦妓㎡程沧挡狦碞琌穦Τㄇ借畉狝叭ろㄎ┪岿簗κ畍︽膥尿暗加禦芥糂紌某矗︙琌禦芥加Τ﹚肂Μ禣ㄤ狝叭玥⊿ΤさぱΝи竒加禦芥璶﹚肂Μ禣加禦芥琌琌胊ぃ琌ψ泊ぃ琌禣甧颗秖眔ㄏ加拜肈穦眔ㄓ加禦芥暗眔ぃ单加ゴ弘Α夹非τ琌Τ闽畍Τ⊿Τ盡み琩睲贰筁穨舦禣硂よ琌Чぃ薄猭畑禗砠ひ暗眔ぃカチ甧眔ㄓ產常睲贰畍︽猭畑瞷Τ⊿Τ拜肈狦穦е陪瞷安糂紌某ひ琌︗畍τぃ琌畍杠и獺糂某癸畍︽粄醚穦瞏
Τㄆ矗Τㄇ砏痻﹚肂Μ禣┮瞣ぃびそキ-
ぃ镑蛤ㄇぃ砏痻畍膙狦Τぃ砏痻胓籃êㄇぃ砏痻碞璶盢硂ㄇ砏痻常硂妓翠临Τ猭獀盾Τデ猭ぃ盢猭常紀埃ㄆ薄ぃ琌硂妓矪瞶タΤぃ砏痻и-
獽ゲ斗ㄏ笻ㄒ畍砏痻и獺Гそ渤畊畍穦癸琌砫礚禪
材翴︙玊く某弧蝴狝叭借璶綼盡穨巨и-
ぃ璶羘羘弧⊿Τ﹚肂Μ禣琌畍狝叭借碞穦иЧぃ稰藕镀はτ稰槽穃и硂谋眔槽穃и獺Thomas ROBINネ讽ぱ畊ミ猭Ы兵ㄒ〆穦穦某弧璣瓣祇ネ薄猵朝璣瓣礹璚竒喷и獺荡癸ぃ穦稰藕镀はτ谋眔槽穃┮璚盋み腢и-
璣瓣┮ǐ琌兵隔翠ぃ璶ǐê兵隔
и獺產璶はΤㄆ弧瓣竒喷⊿Τ芠计沮靡⊿Τ﹚肂Μ禣穦旧璓借狦ぃ﹚琌澄基ぃ﹚穦非ぃ﹚ê或胊Τ⊿Τㄆ珹現┎禗и︙瓣畍︽穨Τ﹚肂Μ禣ぇ穦祇ネ狝叭借薄猵琌⊿Τㄤ格禜┪ㄤ秆睦︙瓣畍︽狝叭借穦┮斑秆睦碞琌﹚肂Μ禣┮旧璓碿┦膙旧璓借
и-
ぃ超φΨ籜蛮泊ぃ祇ネㄆ筁и-
纯癚阶筁Τ闽臟臟のぺ兵ㄒ碞硂ㄇよ瓣纯祇ネ筁ぃびㄆ薄и-
莱赣まз拜肈ぃ琌и-
谋眔篴籔τ琌и-
莱赣癸瞷龟и-
讽礛璶發―瞶稱и-
ぃぃ臮瞷龟и谋眔и-
ゲ斗だσ納瓣竒喷
畊и略朝勉
產不某璓勉畊セㄓи弄臛阶竒祇ē滴狝Г硂иぃ笵Ги璉︙玊く某或Τи策篋–Ωии獽穦Τ翴┤璶痙み弧ㄇ或иГ硂Τㄢぃ笵筳綟地某Τ︑反渡盽ぃ璶や︑иГ硂ぃ笵Τê或Τ┦ㄆ瞅и┣и現獀牡谋┦ぃì︙玊く某弧眔癸穦璸畍琌⊿Τ﹚肂Μ禣и-
癸︑パカ初牡谋┦だ蔼и┯粄硂翴
иさぱΝ祇ē弘獶玂臔﹚肂Μ禣и弧иぃや﹚肂Μ禣眖ㄓ⊿Τ酵阶キ蔼拜肈硂ョぃ琌某┮и粄畍穦玡Μ禣キ蔼莱赣搭и┮弧琌挡篶┦锣拜肈祏戳ず盿ㄓ繧τ硂繧惠璶丁㎝Τ郸菠Τ恨瞶硂碞琌иさぱΝ祇ē阶翴и钮現のチ囊ㄆ酵の瑅瑅芠笵瞶玱⊿Τ莱硂琌闽カ初︑パ竒蕾拜肈иだフカ初竒蕾笆琌或狦礛秨璸购竒蕾カ初穦旧璓荷北Θセ糂胺祸某┮弧-
辨搭基τ旧璓Μ禣硂琌カ初笲玥ぷㄤ琌癸穝︽畍┪ㄓ弧眏膙硂穦琌贺ま护┪护ㄏ-
稱рΘセ北眔禫禫硂琌︑パカ初ネぇ笵ぃ┣ヴ︙ョ籔碙穛籔拜肈礚闽╯澈妓矪瞶硂ㄇ拜肈戳ㄓ莱赣⊿Τ拜肈礚阶ヴ︙︽穨癸粿疨膙吏挂常穦獶盽痙種穦璸盡穨ㄓ弧Τ斗璶睲贰璹ミㄇ非玥硂碭丁и-
暗癸磅穨秈︽笆秸琩カ初菏琩程ョミ猭Ыビ叫眔秸琩舦и-
暗ň眞ゼ礛辨ㄆ薄临⊿Τ岿ぇ玡场竝蝴程蔼盡穨非
︓現┎狝叭Τㄇ狝叭パ現┎矗ㄑ程秨ミ犁笲膀現┎琌非称矗ユΤ闽兵ㄒ临Τㄇ璶ㄒㄒい瓣パ璸购竒蕾锣カ初竒蕾笿拜肈丁恨瞶硂碞琌и-
璶癸瞷龟ゴ秨穝カ初穦笿拜肈
и弧筁穦璸畍斗璶暗ň眞ゼ礛и谋眔糂胺祸某㎝ㄤㄆぃ斗璶酵阶槽穃籔拜肈硂琌だ瞷龟拜肈穦璸畍琌и匡チρ馏иぃ穦弧-
胊杠и弧︙暗ㄇň眞ゼ礛盡穨刮砰惠璶現┎购兵睲贰帹琵ㄤㄌ碻ぃ倒ぉ-
▆旧-
膙τ↖⊿キ硂琌и-
蝴臔俱︽穨碙腨τ暗非称籔碙-
籔礚闽盡穨牡谋┦琌だ璶
и獺畍穦-
はτ︑矗沮畍穦龟悔竒喷禗產璶暗硂ㄇㄆ薄Τ瞷繧㎝狦и-
ぃ镑繦獽锣狦チ囊ㄆさぱ臛阶いぃ弧Τ闽瞷繧癸郸琌ボи-
莱赣獺畍穦ず–︗畍盡穨キタи碙穛-
狦ぃ琌硂妓и穦谋眔槽穃琂ぃみョぃ獺狝地某ぷㄤ弧眔だ癸カチ跌禦加兜禦芥ê禦芥いカチ斗璶眔玂毁惠璶畍︽穨禗-
カ初秨-
┮暗禦芥穦眔玂毁カチぃ虫ゎ璶―Μ禣獽﹜
谅谅畊
綠產碔某璓勉畊и稱碞甃ㄎ瞶某さ贬┮弧闽チ囊種ǎ秸琩莱и穦酵酵艷祸某祇種ǎの產不某矗拜и癸チ猭
闽êチ種秸琩и稱坚睲㎝祅癘魁琌и-
沽刚挤筿杠计ヘ39 418祇谋筿杠计ヘΤ9 255τ钡硄瞯73.4%ΘΜ瞯16.1%τΤゅン507
畊и獺и-
秸琩挡狦琌籔翠瞷硓筁筿福繦诀┾妓筿杠秈︽チ種秸琩挡狦だ钡
︓﹚肂Μ禣拜肈и-
矗拜肈琌瞷禦芥加﹚璶沮﹚Μ禣ㄓΜ畍禣琌莱ミ猭硂兜砏﹚эパ臮籔畍︑︽坝某畍禣㎡氮弧莱砞Τ32864.7%氮弧ぃ莱砞Τ12725%и獺拜肈碞硂иぃ獺и-
琌ㄨ種砆砐и-
粇旧弧и-
稱眔氮τи-
眏秸刁繷秈︽拜秸琩挡狦籔硂チ種秸琩┮眔種ǎだ
и稱坚睲艷祸某矗阶翴弧現┎ボ膀セ﹚肂Μ禣ぃ琌パ畍穦矗ユτ琌現┎ミ猭Α砞ミ﹚肂Μ禣и谋眔斗э瞷Τミ猭и-
莱赣酚臮チ種-
ョ粄斗ぉэΤ惠璶ミ猭Ы臛阶ㄇ﹜猭ㄒ璹и谋眔ミ猭Ы荡癸Τ舦璹㎝硂﹚肂Μ禣
Τ某粄购Μ禣搭ぶ臛и谋眔硂琌碵薄腀猭瞷┮孔购Μ禣ㄤ龟ま癬ぃぶ臛禣ㄓ畍︽穦拜Τ闽畍綟畍︽Μㄢ禣ノ穦Μぶ㎡安Μ綟畍︽穦Μ獽﹜禣ノ购Μ禣膀セ搭ぶ臛堡瞷Τカ初ず购Μ禣膀セ竒龟
畍Μ禣筁蔼τ∕﹚蛤畍︽某基玻瞶莱Τ盡穨禜τ玻瞶Μ1%┪1%︓2%и-
程硄筁玻瞶兵ㄒ玻瞶秈˙菏恨ㄆ叭禣〆穦狦硄筁畍穦程ぃぉそ秨Μ禣瞯穦カチ磃㎝玂毁狝叭キ硂琌某常Μ種ǎиぃ稱狡и﹍沧谋眔┣︙搭﹚肂Μ禣穦カチ磃カチ计κ窾┪计窾じ禦加辨莉眔Τ盡穨非狝叭┮畊и谋眔畍穦程璹硂搭基よ琌砆現┎ㄓ
現┎羘弧璶﹚肂Μ禣畍穦祇ネ材Ω綺まㄓ莱眖材Ω綺祇㊣羘︓矗屡э跑璶丁瞷畍穦↖盜-
Μ︽現Ыぃ穦硄筁屡そガ-
硈Γ蹦穖毕︽笆カチ泊い珹иず常粄俱ンㄆ薄は琈畍穦Ч⊿Τ港種浪癚瞷﹚肂Μ禣畍穦程矗よみ琌搭基"盢基碞砯"よΑㄓ盢某﹚基窥籔盡穨狝叭┰闽玒畊硂贺は莱絋カチ紐納畍禦芥加┮矗ㄑ狝叭非㎝借
タ硂チΘ兵ㄒ〆穦ず单畍穦矗穝よ单ㄆ叭禣〆穦穦矗㎝兵ン琌单单σ納硂﹚肂Μ禣拜肈霉不瓣某稰程螟程繷礹チ秨﹙竡や﹚肂Μ禣繦ボΤ拜肈и兵ㄒ〆穦Ω钮-
弧Τ拜肈畒兵ㄒ〆穦〆笵-
琌单单ぃ笵琌单びτ畍穦篡腇琌硂4布琌璶闽龄┮и辨チ秆и-
ㄓ臛阶み╯澈琌﹚肂Μ禣蔼籔и-
Ω眏秸畊チ囊荡癸ぃ璶―搭基и-
璶―畍穦ぃぃぎ菏恨畍埃カチ粄ぃ瞶矗ㄑ籔Μ禣才盡穨狝叭
畊иぃ稱弧瞷竒琌と430だ癸ぃ癬и临ゼ癸產不某種ǎ莱某辨チ囊矗ㄑよи㈱フ弧チ囊粄狦﹚肂Μ禣痷琌ê或︙┮Τ畍禣㎝畍狝叭常ぃ﹚琌﹚肂Μ禣糂胺祸某弧加禦芥狝叭狦ぃ琌ǎ糂胺祸某莱笵坝穨狝叭ぃ琌狦璶竒筁10┪20︓丁ǎ拜肈瞷炊硄坝穨琌ぃ砞﹚肂Μ禣и獺–畍Τぃ猭斗璶璹繧玂毁τ硂莱パ畍穦璹硂玂繧ゲ斗パ盡穨︽穨┪盡穨畍刮砰矪瞶ぃ莱ノ硂﹚肂Μ禣ㄓ璹-
粄瞶基窥カチ禦芥加ぃ阶﹚肂Μ禣蔼籔常ぃ镑-
矗ㄑ玂毁и獺穦璸畍︽穨⊿Τ﹚肂Μ禣︙⊿Τ㎡︙畍穦矪瞶禦芥加穦Τ﹚肂Μ禣㎡辨︗σ納睲贰硂拜肈
畊セ略朝勉
襖略ビ某璓勉畊и稱酵ㄢ翴材﹚肂Μ禣ㄆ龟琌贺產竡(parentalism)現┎癸カチの禣⊿Τ獺み瞷竒Τ100窾虫︗ЧΘ禦芥ㄤ龟常ノ筁畍狝叭カチ琌痷ぃ眔獺ヴ粄Μ禣獽﹜碞琌チ囊種畍穦某-
粄瞶琘Μ禣キ畍穦瞷弧猭基300窾じ加狦Τ畍︽粄碩熬瞒硂基窥Μ2,000じ畍禣矪瞶基300窾じ加禦芥ê或禣穦拜︙穦Τ"硂或唉叼汒"琌痷暗︑礛穦粄硂琌⊿Τㄆ讽礛êㄇ畍秆睦-
跋砞Τ快ㄆ矪ê快ㄆ矪琌1じ1-
快そ丁τΤ瞯单狦-
镑弧狝禣碞⊿Τ拜肈
ㄆ龟禣琌莱赣ぃ砆獺ヴㄤ龟ㄆ常琌┯-
種現эぃ種场匡ㄤ龟-
種ǎ常妓-
ボ﹚璶Τ刮砰丁匡の〆ヴ单箩碞琌-
癸カチぃ獺ヴカチщ布-
ぃ獺ヴカチ匡拒狝叭-
ぃ獺ヴ粄カチ常琌稭镍璶Μ禣獽﹜獽硂贺種醚篈瞷さ穦吏挂い痷ぃ続﹜
材翴畊и稱癘魁弄臛阶弧筁и矗辨眔砛僚ê箇镑硂顶琿矗ㄇ穝璹盢Τ闽紀埃﹚肂Μ禣兵ゅミ猭Ы∕某Α祔龟琁ぃ琌龟琁玱┶荡иビ叫и辨笵或и临⊿Τ矗碞砆┶荡и矗ㄑ瞶パ琌瞷竒筐畊и碙∕﹚и稱盢Τ闽ㄆ薄癘魁ㄓ
艷祸某璓勉畊セиぃ稱產丁Τㄇㄆ薄ゲ斗坚睲┮叫產翴瑻┦
綠產碔某ぃフ︙秨﹍弧搭基ㄓ玱⊿Τゅ叫產单琌產畍穦篡腇"腇"硂ㄢ讽腨ㄤ瞇竡琌弧畍穦︽腇篡腇暗ンㄆ礛ēи谋眔и-
ぃ┯硂妓篕и璶秆睦
ㄤ龟現祇吭高ゅンぇ玡畍穦竒矗ゴ衡碞禦芥加畍﹚肂Μ禣秈︽浪癚竒筁浪癚ぇ穦盢︙秸俱種ǎ矗ユㄆ叭禣〆穦畊莱赣︙Μ禣琌パㄆ叭禣〆癚阶荡癸ぃ琌畍穦璊睹т眎璹ㄇ獽ㄆτ琌斗璶矗ㄇ瞶沮の计沮硂翴產不某莱赣だ睲贰︗某矗︙璸衡或膀娄┪或Θセ┪基ㄌ沮┮硂よ斗璶秈︽秸琩Τ砛非称ひ
ぃ┋畍常琌だ玂㎝铆畍籔穦璸畍坝癚︙秈︽硂兜秸琩ぃ┋パ產不某穦璸畍琌だ铆㎝玂┮-
璶―讽冈荷计沮癚阶硂ンㄆ禣〆穦秨﹍癸畍穦Τ┮ю阑ю阑﹚肂Μ禣琌ぃ癸畍穦谋眔︑搭基はτ穦瞦好τ淋叫禣〆穦ㄆ叭禣〆穦癚阶︙秸俱Μ禣基禣〆穦は琈禣種ǎㄏ畍ぃ璓ㄓ钩が﹃垦弧猭﹛籔畍穦﹃垦竒琌竜筁琌硂某贺贺砆禣〆穦┶荡竒筁贺贺猧ч程畍穦㎝穦璸畍沧笵﹚璶话е︽ㄆ盢诀虏てτе琌ЧΘぇ瞣疉贺猧чパ獶パ畍穦虫よ璶―秨ㄆ叭禣〆穦穦某﹚璶パㄆ叭禣〆穦畊秨穦某礚ー讽畍穦さ耕Ν矗秨穦某ㄆ叭禣〆穦畊程ぃ秨穦某讽肚碈Τ厨笵⊿Τび猔種程畊ごぃ秨穦某琌玡ミ猭Ы璶坝癚琌璶﹚肂Μ禣ㄓ畍穦叫畊σ納∕﹚秨穦某竒筁秨穦某计沮程莉眔硄筁┮絋Τê或猧чи稱綠產碔某フぃ琌畍穦珿種╈┑"腇"τ琌俱筁祘絋Τ猧ч
畊и钮ㄆ拜の︙琌加禦芥惠璶﹚肂Μ禣瞷ㄆ叭禣〆穦矗盢﹚肂Μ禣搭场だㄓ搭基琌ぃ癸搭基陪ボ畍篡腇︙и弧Μ禣璶ミㄨ磃иフи獶玍癲禣獶弧禣﹚璶―Μ禣獽﹜и-
琌弧禣ぃ璶―Μ禣獽﹜璶―畍狝叭借眔玂毁и-
绊璶Τ夹非玂靡加基龟び蔼┮и-
璸衡筁ぇ祇谋搭Μ禣╯澈и-
琌Τ砫ヴ秸俱畍禣猭ㄒ硄筁カチ琌禣ノよ眔龟磃и┮弧龟磃琌獶盽龟龟磃ê或某竒ボカチ–硔ǎ搭基ぷㄤ琌碩搭基獽穦ミㄨ胔好Μ禣琌莱赣搭ㄇ硂碞ま靡狦︑パ某基ㄏ基窥獽﹜禣琌穦みカチ穦拜琌ㄇ某基狦来眔妓某基穦ぃ穦ㄏ畍Μ禣獽﹜狦カチ绊搭基τ畍钡穦盢砯碞基硂ㄇ拜肈常穦祇ネ稱Τ购Μ禣Τ笵瞶
璶购Μ禣或琌加禦芥璶硂妓暗и虏虫矗筁禦芥加计秖τ瞣疉┮硂ㄇ竨叫畍莱赣妓-
Μ禣產笵络﹚禗砠禣狦產谋眔畍Μ禣び蔼┪ぃ瞶璶―猭畑络﹚禣ノ狦⊿Τ购Μ禣瞷某獽穦︑某基瞷某獽璶猭畑╉狦猭畑璶络﹚加禦芥畍禣穦疉の羉秖┮硂琌パㄆ叭禣〆穦璹购Μ禣
狦璶购Μ禣莱或膀娄酚畍┮丁碞┮丁琌穦硑Θ╉┪–ン狡馒祘膀娄Τㄇ璶琩ㄇΤㄇ玥ぃノ琩ê或莱妓矪瞶㎡酚加基τ﹚琌ㄤいよ猭
畊иぃ琌弧﹚肂Μ禣琌斑︽よ猭иョぃ琌弧ス﹚肂Μ禣畍狝叭非獽ぃ玂狦﹚肂Μ禣龟琁丁┛礛盢ぇㄆ玡⊿Τ竒筁眖冈璸某⊿Τ稱甅玂毁よ猭獽穦瞷睼睹薄猵и-
辨產σ納硂翴笵莱︙ээ筁祘︙礛и-
秨˙ǐ
畊и略干谅谅︗瑻み
バ玊某璓勉畊и庢も稰Τ翴佩稺糂胺祸某讽ご畒┋瞒秨и辨ぃ琌娩筿跌
畊秨穦êㄇ畍琌チ㎝そキボ膙璶キ单и祇谋ス酵の-
ネ璸薄猵獽ぃ-
獶盽绊︑ミ初坝穨羆坝穦㎝穨羆穦и纯酵阶硂拜肈
罺縷糂某ㄓ渤и-
酵筁硂拜肈ㄆ龟и-
ゼ∕﹚讽礛坝癸禣珇璶―蛤蒥チ礚钵羆琌辨琂獽﹜堡穦獶硂或瞶稱禣ぃぃ獽﹜はτ禥и┮ぃ琌畍τ琌и﹡┮縱禣ノ硂或蔼τ簗坝珇常琌禥畉
ㄆ龟盡穨穦璸畍计畍薄猵常ぃи-
そ竨叫计畍璶某基砏﹚计畍そ计穦莉眔ぶ蹿兜璝暗眔ぃそ勉癶赣计畍竨叫︗计畍计畍粄Μ禣耕獽﹜獽盢基碞砯ㄏΜ禣獽﹜狦瞷畉そ竨ノ︗计畍讽礛癸洛ネи-
常ぃ幢硂妓暗穦ヴパ洛ネ秨基礚阶Μ禣蔼и-
穦酚玥獽眞礚絘そㄆ薄猵碞ぃ
и瞶秆ささら筁寸戳丁常и-
ボ璣瓣рㄆ薄眔刮罺ㄆ龟иぃフ︙璣瓣穦рㄆ薄眔刮罺羆τēぇ璣瓣龟ぃ莱﹚肂Μ禣琂礛瞷畍そ穦矗搭Μ40%ユパㄆ叭禣〆穦坝癚ê或碞ㄆ圭琵ㄆ薄莉硄筁
и纯蛤綠癡某酵筁硂拜肈羆坝穦⊿Τ或疭種ǎ讽礛и璶倒糂胺祸某甃ㄎ瞶某畍そ穦畊㎝и狟ねびびи眖ゼ砆硂眏疨村弧筁さぱи㎝綠癡某穦や畍
琂礛畍そ穦畊初и辨矗眶ㄢ翴坝癸-
猭ぃび辨-
搭Μ40%禣ノぇ緇讽加基ど叫ぃ璶基加基ぃ璶ぶΜêㄇκだ瞯τ基ㄆ叭禣〆穦ぃ璶ミ猭穦┪羬ミ猭穦矗璹璶―基и辨-
硂妓┯空砛糂胺祸某-
┯空薄猵и-
穦や畍
霉不瓣某璓勉畊и璶碞綠產碔某癸チу蝶虏虫莱
チミ初琌や﹚肂Μ禣ぃ筁и-
谋眔莱赣だ顶琿ㄓτぃ琌ち硓筁セ兵ㄒτи-
粄禣舦痲ぃ琌瞶├拜肈τ琌龟悔璶镑禣の炊霉カチ硂兜э到
硂拜肈程睲贰э到碞琌狝叭借Τ玂靡薄猵痷タ镑搭基セ穦盙㎝ぃぶぱㄓ籔畍穦狟ね癚阶硂拜肈沮眡程穝よ琌阀25%︓40%搭基綠產碔某矗眶и-
ぃ璶腇ㄤ龟и-
┤穦腇さぱ畍穦福常畒ㄏиみㄆΩ矗-
┯空穦搭基иぃ獺-
穦ぃ空ē
材翴и種產不某㎝ㄤ某┮矗拜肈碞琌讽硂或祏丁ず秨╯澈穦Τ繧τ穦琌┯眔ㄓ沮ㄤ瓣產竒喷琌痷Τ瞷睼睹㎡┪癸禣盿ㄓぃ紇臫и-
把σ璣瓣㎝緿瑆竒喷眔耞琌ぃぶ繧
琵и虏虫庢莱ㄒㄑ產把σ︑眖い瓣龟琁竒蕾э秨蹲瞯戳瞷睼睹パ程眔﹛基跑ΘΤ堵カ基ョΤ蹲秸警いみ基Τ蹲ㄩ基瓣悔竒蕾厩常癚阶╯澈い瓣琌莱赣ミㄨ┮Τ蹲瞯эノ疊笆蹲瞯τ硂琌ぃ琌癸竒蕾程Τ暗猭临琌璶硋˙秨㎡讽礛и-
瞷常笵い瓣琌ノ场碞痁よ猭ㄓ矪瞶蹲瞯拜肈ㄓ蹲瞯膀セ参и-
い瓣チ刽蹲基ぃ禴はど讽礛璉Τиぃ沽刚冈灿秆睦
ㄒ睲贰玡默羛瓣產ぇ丁Ч秨蹲基-
眶筁ㄓǎ蹲基Ч疊笆挡狦︙и-
琌眔瓣產縞ガ常ぇ丁禨基禬筁κ钡チ璶逼钉禦难︓瞷硂ㄇ瓣產竒蕾常讽┮蹦ノ蹲瞯︑パて現郸紇臫竒蕾氨孩ぃ玡
и┮庢ㄒ弧盢璶祏戳ぇず秨杠и-
粄琌ぃ莱赣︳Τ闽繧狦и-
镑蹦耕铆﹚現郸τだ顶琿龟琁琌ゑ耕璽砫ヴ暗猭
谅谅畊
綠產碔某璓勉碞и┮ノ"腇"ㄢиタΑ艷祸某㎝パ艷祸某畍穦璓簆и獺讽и矗チミ初粂翴讽и薄狐耕縀笆┮ノêㄢ
ぃ筁畊и稱秆睦讽и或ノ"腇"êㄢи谋眔畍﹍沧倒"╈┑"禜ノ╈砕и钮Ч霉不瓣某だ猂のㄤЩ芠竒蕾阶иΤぶ砛ぃフぃ筁钮筁祇ēぇи谋眔タノ硂甅瞶阶ノ畍穦╈砕ㄓ∕は癸現┎﹚肂Μ禣
辨チ∕荡翴は癸獽弧は癸ぃ璶弧や﹚肂Μ禣矗ê或瞶パиぃ稱產び丁и粂び略艷祸某㎝畍穦璓簆
艷祸某綠產碔某ぃノи-
笵簆и琌坚睲絵
法此某璓勉畊綠產碔某癸チ┮弧杠и粄癸チ瞶秆ぃび睲贰弧"或チ玥は癸﹚肂Μ禣礛弧琌"ぃ筁ㄤ龟-
ぃ琌材Ω硂妓暗и稱矗癬さぱとи矗艷祸某Θ村弧︗и荡癸ぃ琌胔好港龟ぃ筁и谋眔癸硂э玂祘иΤ翴敢钵硄盽癸э常渡眎秨︑パ㎝そキ膙渡┕┕瞷眔ゑ耕翧硂Ω倒и-
禜琌ゑ耕疭玂иЧ⊿Τ借好港龟и癸碙
糂胺祸某祇Τ闽瞶Μ禣種ǎ翠琌そキ膙穦Τ盡穨のΤ瞷︑礛Μ瞶禣ノ硂Μ禣琌硓筁膙の瞷眔ぃ琌﹚肂Μ禣⊿Τ穦借好畍莱Τ瞶Μ禣ㄤ珹诀或ぃΤ瞶Μ禣и-
セ獺莱Τキ单诀穦и-
ぃ琌は癸砞Τ瞶Μ禣
バ玊某ノネ笆よΑ矗ㄢ獺弧-
禦狥﹁┪ㄇ狝叭常璶―琂獽﹜借琌獽﹜借ぃ琌璶ぃ眔硂ㄤ龟は琈ㄢ翴材禣笵︙匡拒ぃ璶禣ぃ来タバ玊某そ┮竨ノ计畍セ琌薄蒥初Τ戈癟瑈硄翠琌︑パ竒蕾の戈癟祇笷穦-
穦ぃ薄㎡︽ずㄇ暗眔ㄇ暗眔ぃ-
穦ぃ笵㎡材弧畍穦搭基暗猭ぃびㄤ龟種琌膀セ獺そキの秨膙┮ㄏ搭基﹍沧谋眔﹚肂Μ禣籔坝┮獺秨蒥初Τ翴笻璉ぃ筁さΩ畍穦羆衡竒搭基盢溃搭淮硂琌Θ帝
さぱとи弧筁膀セ﹚肂Μ禣だ絢Чぃ才翠薄猵霉不瓣某矗眖璸购竒蕾ǐ蒥初竒蕾硂妓庢ㄒ痷ぃび続ρ龟弧翠琌秨穦ǐ︑パ竒蕾庢璸购竒蕾ㄒぃ讽﹚肂Μ禣ぃ俱竒蕾砏购家Αи辨︗某や﹚肂Μ禣硂妓镑秈˙玂毁禣幫舦痲のそキ膙玥иョ獺畍琌Τ眖ㄆ︑パ膙筁┕竒喷靡硂翴璶獺-
らΤ诀穦硂妓暗畍ぃ斗璶ㄌ綼﹚肂Μ禣ㄓ蝴瞶Μ禣
谅谅畊
︙玊く某璓勉畊иぃ穦狡и稱矗ㄑㄇ戈иぃ笵畍穦程穝某琌搭ぶぶΜ禣и钮ǎΤㄇㄆ弧琌Θи稱矗ㄑㄇ戈沮и┮畍︽穨い禦芥い禦よΤ3ゅン加1处1禦芥膀膙拜肈畍︽穦Μ快瞶处┪Μ加禣ノぶ穦Μ1禦芥禣ノΜ1禦芥禣ノ琌ぃТ讽碞琌Θセぃ硂Μ禣Μ1处禣ノ琌タ盽暗猭ぃ穦デ砏и笵ぃぶ畍︽临穦Μぶ1加┪1处﹚肂Μ禣硂妓暗穦砆跌ぃ砏玥┮狦畍穦某搭Μ场禣ノΘㄤ龟ゼゲ瞷畍┮Μ基窥狦Μ加禣ノ杠碞琌3ゅンΘ基窥硂妓狦搭ぶΘΜ禣ョゼゲ琌瞷常Μ┮孔畍粄猭基窥
и矗ㄑㄇ戈讽礛Τ穦弧Τㄇ畍Μ禣び莱赣ΜせΘ癸иぃ穦﹚阶и稱矗ㄑ戈沮и︑竒喷禗產狦Τㄆ糂胺祸某┪ㄤㄆ谋眔硂戈ぃ非絋舧-
矗ㄓㄑ產把σ谅谅
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, could I start briefly by dealing with a technical point, and I am grateful to the Honourable Mrs Miriam LAU for picking it up. I believe that the Committee is currently debating the proposal to delete section 16 of the Bill. Section 16 relates to non-statutory scale fees set by the Law Society. Members will recall from my speech this morning that that essentially deals with fees for probate. Statutory fees for conveyancing are in fact set by the Costs Committee. As I made it clear, Mr Chairman, this morning, the Administration has agreed to the deletion of clause 16 because the Law Society has undertaken to submit the question of probate fees to the Costs Committee, and I am grateful to Mrs Miriam LAU for picking that point up.
We have enlarged into a fresh debate on scale fees. Nobody can say that this subject has not been talked through. A great many points have been made and a great many practical points from practising solicitors have been made, I think, to the great benefit and education of Members of the Council.
Let me very briefly, Mr Chairman, just pick up some points, but can I start unusually for me with an anecdote. When about 18 months ago we were well into this exercise, a member of my staff, not a lawyer, came up to me in the corridor and she said, "Attorney General, in my married life my husband and I have bought and sold a number of homes, not as investments but as places where we live. In all of those transactions we went to solicitors firms. In none of them did we ever actually get to see a solicitor and the fees seemed always to us to be extremely high, but we were told that nothing could be done. I hope that at least on this occasion something can be done." Not a lawyer, not a Member of this Council, nobody with a political axe to grind, just, if she will forgive me for saying so, Mrs Average Hong Kong who has bought her flat. That's what this is about. Reasonable answers to reasonable points put by lawyers' clients.
There are suggestions that the abolition of scale fees will lead to a condition of great disorder, that we will descend into a sort of warfare situation. As one or two Members have already pointed out, if that was going to happen it would have happened already. It would have happened, presumably, before 1980 when there were no statutory, mandatory scale fees. Those of us who were here before 1980 can remember many excitements, but I do not remember that sort of excitement in the conveyancing market. As I pointed out this morning, as has been repeated this afternoon, scale fees have largely gone. That is the product of market forces taking over.
I will not repeat, Mr Chairman, all the points that I made this morning, but it is counter-intuitive to say that scale fees are consistent with a free market economy. That is not the prevailing philosophy in Hong Kong, and I would remind Members what the Singapore Minister of Justice said in relation to scale fees that they are an anachronism in Singapore, inconsistent with Singapore's free market economy and they are bound to go eventually.
Much has been said about quality and the impact on quality. I have never actually understood the argument which really goes like this: "you have got to pay me, you have got to pay me a guaranteed sum before I can guarantee you quality for a professional. If I do not get that amount of money, sorry, quality is going to decline." That is what has been said this afternoon. I have been a solicitor since 1963. I have practised conveyancing in England. I would, frankly, be ashamed ever to advance that argument. But that's the argument that is being put on quality. That is basically it, shorn of all the surroundings.
I am a member, and proud of it, of an ancient and honourable profession with high standards, high standards of integrity, high standards of professional probity, committed to service to the public. That is true of solicitors in Hong Kong. That will continue to be true. There is no reason to suppose that the abolition of scale fees is going to lead to the horror, doomsday scenarios being painted about declining quality.
And consider other areas where there are no scale fees. Somebody goes to a solicitor to have a will made. It is pretty important. The consequences of getting it wrong may not be apparent until after death. Or tax advice. An example has been given of a contract, saying the errors will be readily apparent.
Maybe so in some contracts, but those who have ever wrestled with things like retention of title clauses will know the incredible difficulties inherent, those difficulties that may not surface years later, but there are no scales fees for that. In those areas lawyers charge what is fair and reasonable. So, what is wrong with lawyers charging what is fair and reasonable to carry out conveyancing for an apartment? What is the big difference?
A lot has been said about the horror shown in England. I said a lot about that a year ago and I will not bore the Committee with rehearsing all of that, but just let me pick up a few points from those who are closer to the scene of the action than I am, or indeed any of us. The English Consumers Association has said that the abolition of scale fees was far from disastrous and that their re-introduction in Hong Kong would not be in the public interest. The Office of Fair Trading has said that it does not believe that the abolition of fee scales has been harmful to consumers. The Office has never received any representations
from consumers for their restoration. Even the English Law Society, and I will, in fairness quote them, which represents solicitors has said that:
"views differ as to whether the abolition of scale fees was on balance for the benefit of the public. If it could be demonstrated that scale fees were in the public interest in England the Monopolies and Mergers Commission could allow them to be introduced, but the English Law Society has been advised that a scale of fees would be impossible to justify in the public interest and it has not even attempted to reintroduce them."
It has also been said that the abolition of scale fees led to disastrous declines, declines in solicitors' income and that that was linked to the abolition of scale fees. There is no evidence to substantiate that allegation. A Royal Commission Report published seven years after the abolition of scale fees in 1979 established that the abolition of scale fees had not caused a drop in solicitors' income. What did cause a drop in solicitors' income later on, in the late eighties and early nineties, was the worst recession England has experienced this century, when the volume of domestic conveyancing was halved between 1988 and 1992 and property prices fell by 45% between 1986 and 1993.
So, I think it would be unjustified to extrapolate from the English experience and wave that in front of the Council as the justification for retaining scale fees. And I have said this morning and drawn attention to the numerous other jurisdictions that have abolished scale fees. The Administration made enquiries of all those jurisdictions. None has any plans to reintroduce them and we have no evidence that any group of consumers in any of those jurisdictions is attempting to seek their reintroduction.
A price war. If scale fees are abolished we will have a price war. What will happen is that there will be price competition, something that Hong Kong in other walks of life is generally pretty well used to. In fact, it rather thrives on it. Price competition between solicitors in conveyancing work would be permitted, and each firm, each solicitor could decide for itself, or decide for himself, herself, what it considers would be reasonable fees for the work it carries out.
In calculating that they can have regard to their overheads and make allowance for a profit. They have to charge fees that are fair and reasonable, and I outlined this morning some of the factors that they would be obliged to take into account in fixing those fees, including the risk element, to pick up the Honourable Eric LI's point, and also the value of the subject matter involved. So, those are already built in to the way in which solicitors charge their fees for other work. It is not as if one goes from abolition of scale fees to a void. You go from abolition of scale fees to the normal system by which solicitors charge their fees to their clients for other work.
So, a vicious price war or just price competition? There will be firms that have got lower overheads or higher efficiency that will be able to charge less. But that is the product of market forces at work. Once again, something that I would suggest that Hong Kong is entirely familiar with.
It is said, or it could be said that some and they would be, I have to say, a very tiny majority unscrupulous solicitors might charge low fees in order to attract business without regard to the quality of service. Well, I have dealt with quality, but if a person, if a professional is determined to betray professional standards, scale fees or no scale fees, that person will betray professional standards. That is not a product of price. Professional standards are not a corollary to fees. They are inherent in the qualities of the profession itself and the rigorous policing of the profession, as the Law Society does of its members.
There have been one or two personal remarks in the debate. I always regret that because descent to personalities usually achieves nothing, but I would just very quickly dispose of them, if I may. There are no personal motives in this. This is not a question of the Attorney General trying to, sort of, do something good before he leaves. (Not on the Britannia, I hasten to add!) I would have been delighted if we could have had this debate a great deal earlier. I would have been absolutely delighted if we could have had this debate two years ago. No, there is nothing in this that is specific to the handover that represents some sort of plot by the departing British. There is nothing in that. Not that I am suggesting that those words have been used.
Nor is there a hidden political motive here. No political hidden agenda. This is just taking an issue on its merits and having, as we have had many times in this Chamber, a frank debate about a matter of great public importance to Hong Kong. It is simply that and no more. As I say, I would have been delighted to have had this debate two years earlier.
Mr Chairman, a great many views have been expressed in the course of a long, interesting, stimulating and serious debate. I have listened very carefully to all views. I have taken very careful note of the views expressed by many Members when they have said that they support the abolition of scale fees in principle but they are concerned about the timing. Some have expressed a preference for a phase-in approach. They are worried about moving too quickly, although as a matter of principle they support the abolition of scale fees. And some have linked those concerns to the Law Society's proposals to revise scale fees, revisions that are yet to be legislated upon by the Costs Committee but which are in train. As I say, Mr Chairman, I have given very careful consideration to those views.
The Bill as originally drafted provided for deferred commencement. I just want to make that clear, that if you look at the Bill as published, the Bill did not provide for its coming into force upon enactment. It provided for a deferred commencement. It had a provision that is very familiar to Members of this Council. It provides for its coming into operation on a date to be appointed. I will later on be making a technical amendment to that to enable certain provisions
relating to Senior Counsel and the Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal to come in upon enactment. But there is a deferred commencement date.
Having regard to the views that have been expressed today, I am prepared on behalf of the Administration to undertake that the provisions establishing scale fees, the abolition of scale fees, will not be brought into effect without there being consultations with the Legislative Council. That, I think, would enable those Members who have expressed support in principle but are worried about questions of timing, to have an opportunity to reflect further. It would enable the Council as a whole to consider the effect, to consider this debate and to consider the effect of abolition in the longer term, in the medium term and in the short term. And it would allow revisions to scale fees, which are in train, to be considered. If that were to be adopted, then I think that that would send, a very clear message to the community, to the Administration and to the Law Society that the Council agrees with the Administration that scale fees should be abolished in principle, but it would enable the abolition to take place in a phased manner.
Mr Chairman, with those thoughts, when we come to those provisions in the Bill and we have not quite got to them yet, I would urge Members to support the Administration's revision on the abolition of scale fees subject to the point that I have just last mentioned. Thank you.
MR EDWARD HO: Mr Chairman, I do not know whether the Attorney General would have the opportunity to clarify what he has just said regarding commencement on certain sections of the Bill. It sounds like to me that once this amendment is passed by this Council, then as far as the lawyers are concerned, they have already been just using a simile sentenced to death. It is not as serious as that, but I am just using that as a simile. They will be strapped on the electric chair, but before the button is pushed the Attorney General will consult them. I do not know if that is what the Attorney General meant to say.
I do not wish to waste any more time to argue about other points. I think there was some twisting of people's arguments in, for instance, guaranteeing a fee first before guaranteeing a service. I do not think any Member suggested that. I think Members were concerned that if there is an open market for fees then some firms might want to lower their services because they want more business. I think this is a fact of life and I am in the profession myself. I have seen this type of undercutting in the profession, what I would call a vicious price war myself. And at the end the client suffers. Thank you.
Question on the amendment put.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
Mrs Selina CHOW claimed a division.
㏄辩睶┥某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊セ畊稱矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈地某碞材16兵笆某ぇタ埃材16兵ぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊叫︗癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜﹟ろ1瞷陪ボ挡狦
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Miss Christine LOH, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Miss Margaret NG and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Miss Emily LAU, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-yin, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr Andrew CHENG, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted against the amendment.
Mrs Elizabeth WONG abstained.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 31 votes in favour of the amendment and 24 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θタ31は癸24琌ガタ莉∕
〆穦畊現パ某ぇタ材16兵莉∕ぃ笆某览某タㄓぇ材16兵糤干いゅセ赣兵ゅ瞷砆
Clause 17
兵ㄒ材17兵
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, I move that subclauses (a) and (c) of clause 17 be amended as set out under my name in the paper circularized to Members.
The amendments add a Chinese text to the subclauses. It has got nothing to do with scale fees.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 17 (See annex XII)
兵ㄒ材17兵ǎンXII
Question on the amendments put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
〆穦畊現地某の綠產碔某だ箇ボ览材17兵糤干材(aa)蹿
セ畊某秈︽ㄖ臛阶ㄖ臛阶現地某の綠產碔某碞材17兵糤干材(aa)蹿┮矗ぇタ
セ〆穦瞷秈︽ㄖ臛阶ㄖ臛阶現地某の綠產碔某だ碞材17兵糤干材(aa)蹿┮矗ぇタセ畊穦叫現笆某タ琌璽砫セ兵ㄒぇそ戮
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, I move the addition of subclause (aa) to clause 17 as set out under my name in the paper circularized to Members.
This amendment relates to the composition of the Cost Committee. As I explained in my main speech this morning the Administration proposes a 4:3:3 composition, that is four solicitors, three lay persons and three officials. Since two of the officials will be members of the independent judiciary they should not be treated as falling into either the Law Society or the lay persons category. Those two categories would then be evenly balanced with four members each. The proposed addition of subclause (aa) to clause 17 is one of the amendments needed to achieve the 4:3:3 composition. As I have said, it provides for the four solicitor members. I urge Members to support this amendment.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 17 (See annex XII)
兵ㄒ材17兵ǎンXII
〆穦畊セ畊瞷叫地某碞現ぇタのㄤセōぇ某の綠產碔某ぇ某祇ē地某祇ēセ畊穦叫綠產碔某碞現ぇタの碞地某ぇ某のㄤセōぇ某祇ēぃ筁顶琿ぃ眔碞地某ぇ某┪綠產碔某ぇ某笆某ヴ︙某
地某璓勉畊и兵ㄒ〆穦矗タ兵ㄒ〆穦∕Τ耕〆觅Θㄆ叭禣〆穦莱赣Τ计Θ畍┮и兵ㄒ〆穦笆某硂兜タ
兵ㄒ〆穦某ゑㄒ琌"せ"現┎某""и-
瞷ぃ琌弧ì瞴逼皚皚Ατ綠產碔某玥某"き"ㄤ龟虏虫璶琌畍计ヘぃ""膀セ琌ぃ跑だ琌せき临琌ㄆ叭禣〆穦ず畍计ヘ
ㄆ粄ㄤ龟玂痙﹚肂Μ禣璶パㄆ叭禣〆穦禣菏诡Μ禣∕﹚㏄辩睶┥某拜現┎︙ㄆ叭禣〆穦硂或ㄓ常ぃ璹﹚肂は筁ㄓ弧畍穦Τ3ㄆ叭禣〆穦Θ︙-
硂或ㄓぃ矗璹㎡-
︙ぃ弧Μ禣筁蔼㎡︙ぃ笆矗硂翴㎡и谋眔硂拜肈蛮よ常莱"ゴき狾"現┎⊿Τ硂妓暗τ畍穦⊿Τ矗硂拜肈
瞷闽龄琌"せ""き"临琌""現┎某〆穦ずΤ4畍3獶畍㎝3俱砰嘿そ叭ぃ筁ㄤい琌蔼皘猭﹛パ羆服〆ヴ踞ヴ畊琌痷タそ叭現羆竝竝┪醚玻舦竝竝-
跌癚阶兜ヘτパㄤい畊穦某材琌蔼皘盽叭﹛硂33よい常琌ぃ跑礚阶琌"せ"""┪"き"よΤ硂ㄇ拜肈琌硂3穦熬腊禣痲ы┪粄-
妮猭珿莱赣耕縒ミΤ︑種ǎ硂獽琌阶┮
兵ㄒ〆穦ず矗"せ"よㄆ粄琂礛ぃ琌畍Θ常耴穦熬禣┮畍籔ぃ琌畍Θ莱-
某"せ"6畍癸6ぃ琌畍綠產碔某祔穦矗チ囊種ǎиぃ穦狡現┎玥粄ぃ莱現┎矗""現┎粄蔼皘盽叭﹛㎝蔼皘猭﹛⊿Τ瞶パ熬腊ヴ︙娩疭琌畊猭﹛ぃ穦熬腊娩郴現┎场穦熬腊禣┮某4畍4ぃ琌畍硂琌и-
ゲ斗咎セō∕﹚ㄓ硂ンㄆ
ㄆ叭禣〆穦硂或ㄓ琂ぃ秨穦某ぃ璹﹚肂и谋眔﹍沧琌ぃ癸и辨さΩ臛阶筁ㄆ叭禣〆穦痷璶ㄇ瞷倒約蒥チ笵
谅谅畊
綠產碔某璓勉畊チ囊瞷矗"い丁辅茎"よ某Θゑㄒ"き"5畍3現┎㎝3パ羆服〆ヴㄤτ硂3琌羆服粄痷ㄏノ猭狝叭禣痲硂パ畊硄盽蹦穦某いミà︹ぶ旧惠璶硄筁ㄆ兜┮畍㎝獶畍癚阶ㄆ兜穦Τ璝А墩Τㄢよщ布ゴ㎝穦パ畊σ納そ渤㎝禣痲щ∕﹚┦布硂耕薄瞶耕玂毁〆穦ず矪畓墩禣痲
癸"せ"и粄"き"耕玂毁禣痲镑酚臮畍癸ㄤ计ぶ獶畍计紐納и兵ㄒ確弄臛阶矗"き"よい""ㄤい︗琌猭﹛讽踞ヴ畊畍㎝獶畍Τ5计ヘ璝薄猵и-
粄硂琌程そキτ程禣舦痲
и赖叫︗ㄆやチ囊"き"よ谅谅畊
艷祸某璓勉畊璶―地某や兵ㄒ〆穦タτ祇ē痷琌眏┮螟и㊣苸產や地某タ
畊翠⊿Τヴ︙︽穨盡穨狝叭Μ禣琌パ珹獶穨Θ〆穦┮砏﹚畍獶禗砠Μ禣琌斑ㄒ瞷ㄆ叭禣〆穦Θ畍㎝獶畍常琌3и粄琌瞶獶畍3Θㄤい1︗琌竝竝┪醚玻舦竝竝1︗琌猭盽叭﹛キら闽畍禣某常琌パ掉∕1︗琌猭﹛パ踞ヴ畊硂琌盡產穦某Α絋玂畍Μ禣Τ龟悔计沮沮τ┮璹キ瞶
穦秈˙禣舦痲禫ㄓ禫眔钡紇臫現郸诀穦ㄆ叭禣〆穦い糤禣и粄ぃ虫ゎ玂毁禣舦痲τΤ禣㎝畍穦ぇ丁肪硄琌某糤睰禬筁1禣ㄤ﹖磝螟伙㎝が干ぃìи粄琌瞶琌и粄糤Θㄓ舱麓А颗莱赣玂痙畍㎝獶畍Θ计ヘ莱赣А单疭琌硂э跑ゲ礛穦癸ミ薄Τ瞷磷獶畍Θ癸畍狝叭Μ禣局Τ北舦莱赣蛮よ计ヘ癸单и粄兵ㄒ〆穦某タ猭㎝現┎3禣3畍6硂"せ"よ琌眔や琌そ笵
現┎㎝綠產碔某┮矗タだ琌""㎝"き"妓琌ぃА单畍ぶ计畊︙璶硂妓暗㎡現┎㎝綠產碔某常弧ㄏ現┎㎝禣羛皚帹猭穦いミ┮畍ㄆ龟计硂贺弧猭ㄤ龟琌狦痷琌いミ碞ぃ璶琵猭Τщ布舦狦Τщ布舦碞ぃㄆ玡逼埃-
穦︽ㄏ硂兜舦ㄆ龟硂舱穦猭Θ"縤み"盢猭畑掉∕舦て現獀秖琌だぃ続
綠產碔某兵ㄒ弄臛阶矗"き"よΤキА羘ㄤい猭﹛琌踞ヴ畊畊硂ボ綠產碔某觅Θ璶ΤキА羘パ猭﹛琌畊┮某"き"硂ゑㄒぃ筁ㄤ龟畊щ布┮狦璶ΤА单羘碞莱赣蹦"せ"よ綠產碔某弧パ禣琌畓墩┮-
莱赣布ぃ筁畊竒筁さぱぞ臛阶и獺翠⊿Τ穦獺禣琌畓墩┮и赖叫綠產碔某σ納酚玥"せ"よ琌タ絋
現┎纯璣瓣ㄆ叭禣〆穦舱Θ畍ぶ计璣瓣ㄆ叭禣〆穦ず眖ㄓ⊿Τ禣礚阶︙秆睦膀或瞶パ⊿Τ獽琌⊿Τи稱拜拜骋狟ね安璶Θミ〆穦ㄓ络﹚-
戈τ骋Θぶ计-
ぃ钡㎡и粄硂琌陪ぃ瞶㎝ぃそキ
畊и㊣苸︗ㄆは癸現┎㎝綠產碔某タや地某タ
谅谅畊
㏄辩睶┥某璓勉畊и獺ヴ︙暗ネ種常フ┮孔"きき"產常ΤきΘ┪┮孔北舦琌或薄猵硂妓產﹚璶Т狦ヴ︙よ1Τ51碞穦Τ荡癸北舦狦и-
辨畍Μ禣よぃ琵畍︑︽∕﹚よぃ琵ㄤ北玥斑σ納よ祘Α碞琌"きき"硂だ皌よΑ
地某弧眔癸筁ㄓㄆ叭禣〆穦瞷莱"ゴき狾"拜肈琌⊿Τ穦︑笆搭基產Τミ初и谋眔ê3﹛よ璶ゴ眔ㄇ-
琌そ渤痲琌禣痲畍玥盡穨痲硂琌ぱそ笵ㄆиぃ谋眔Τ或┣┮狦璶┣碞莱┣ê3﹛よ-
荡癸Τì镑诀穦そ渤某基瞷-
祇揣ノ碞Θи凹籇畍瞷腀種せчΜ禣硂琌凹籇钩临ゼガ瞷ㄆ叭禣〆穦""Θ薄猵祇揣硂妓ノ或ぃ玂痙硂妓ゑㄒ㎡ㄆ龟狦砆禣┪﹛ㄓ北盡穨┮璹Μ禣龟琌獶盽ぃそ笵狦酚現┎某荡碞琌パê﹛∕﹚禣娩τ畍玥娩┮﹚パê﹛∕﹚ㄏ琌綠產碔某矗タㄤ龟琌パê﹛∕﹚硂龟獶盽ぃ瞶и辨產や兵ㄒ〆穦∕﹚蹦"せ"硂ゑㄒ
腑瓣辆某璓勉畊兵ㄒ確弄臛阶顶琿и纯ㄆ叭禣〆穦舱Θ莱キ颗盡穨籔禣计ヘτ現┎┮矗""よ兵ㄒ〆穦畊地某Τ矗の龟悔舱Θ琌4畍ㄤい珹畍穦穦の捌穦3禣㎝ノ產の3ㄓ︑現┎珹現羆竝┪醚玻舦竝竝1蔼单猭皘猭﹛㎝1猭盽叭﹛
チ羛猭琌硂贺舱4畍籔3禣1﹛よゑㄒタ琌4ゑ4и粄硂ㄏ〆穦種ǎ眔キ颗Τ矗のêㄢ猭眖チ羛àㄓ-
莱赣琌いミぃ莱ゲ礛琘よи纯眖猭钮Τ弧猭ゲ礛穦熬腊禣и眖ㄇ﹛い钮籇硂ㄇ猭﹚穦熬腊畍и粄猭ぃ穦瞷熬腊ヴ︙よ薄猵はи粄猭莱赣琌いミ狦璶翠蝴▆猭いミのそタ琌伐闽猔
硂薄猵チ羛粄ㄆ叭禣〆穦龟悔琌產が硓筁癚阶τ眔キ颗翴癸畍Μ禣∕﹚眖琘àㄓ琌パ禣秈︽菏诡
︓Τ闽"きき"瞶阶и谋眔礚阶琌"き"┪"せ"よ產阶翴﹍沧琌蔼单猭皘猭﹛иぃ粄匡拒"""き"┪"せ"ヴ︙よ碞笷畍㎝獶畍荡癸キ颗
珿チ羛や現┎矗某""よ谅谅畊
︙玊く某璓勉畊иΩまノ㏄辩睶┥某弧杠弧畍盡穨痲琌ぱそ笵τ禣は琈禣痲琌ぱそ笵狦硂弧猭琌タ絋杠丁碞螟钡畍琌计安畍–Ω常﹚盡穨痲–Ω秤Τ盡舦矪瞶猭ㄆ叭Τ畍踞ヴ硂ㄇ狦⊿Τ畍戈獽ぃ矪瞶┮硂妓弧猭畍﹚秤硂妓ㄆ叭禣〆穦祇揣ノ㎡ウ癬そタノ㎡硂穦ㄏ借好瘤礛иまノ㏄辩睶┥某弧杠иぃ種弧猭иぃ粄畍﹚盡穨痲àㄆ薄и谋眔璶產Гㄓ坝秖﹚穦弧笵瞶и獺ㄆ叭禣〆穦ず场だ薄猵琌產が弧狝癸よ弧笵瞶τぃ﹚–Ω常璶щ布ㄓ∕﹚┪畍㎝獶畍ゲ﹚琌癸ミ
и種腑瓣辆某だ猂и粄猭ㄢ癬耕禬礛縒ミノ-
ゑ耕秆猭笲-
セōぃ琌畍┮爵假à︹
狦琌硂妓杠チ囊よ瘤礛弧琌"き"龟悔琌"き"5琌畍4琌禣ㄢ琌猭或и-
璶矗硂某㎡и-
既ぃ瞶穦ê猭﹛硄盽ㄆ叭禣〆穦秨穦畊琌ぃ穦щ布埃獶布计穦щ布硂妓碞穦パê猭﹛程掉∕и粄硂琌ゑ耕そキ暗猭τи獺硂穦產钡琌ㄣΤ弧狝暗猭ぃ筁タи┮弧и獺场だ薄猵〆笵瞶が弧狝癸よτ礚斗–Ω常秈︽щ布
ㄆ龟и粄硂某Τよ讽畍㎝讽ㄆ畍禣よΤ某⊿Τ﹚肂Μ禣⊿Τㄆ玡某穦ユパ猭皘矪瞶パ猭﹛跌薄猵τ∕﹚琌続㎝瞶Μ禣猭﹛タタ祇揣妓ノ硂琌猭┮钡粄琌そキ暗猭и-
粄チ囊某眔キ颗τぃ穦綝у蝶弧畍琌计Τ或ㄆ薄祇ネ畍﹚Τ程沧∕﹚舦﹚穦蝴臔盡穨痲иぃ稱琵Τ硂贺禜и辨產やチ囊某谅谅畊
㏄辩睶┥某иぃフ︙玊く某粇秆и種иぃフ妓璸衡"せ"よい"せ"穦琌计㎡
︙玊く某琵и虏虫秆睦チ囊某琌"き"硂琌5畍3﹛よ......
〆穦畊㏄辩睶┥某拜"せ"
㏄辩睶┥某"せ""せ"篶Θ计㎡︙玊く某弧и種ǎ穦畍Θ计ま癬ぃТ到ぇ矪"せ"よい"せ"Θ计㎡
︙玊く某畊沮и瞶秆"せ"よい狦パ猭﹛踞ヴ畊獽穦跑Θ6癸5"せき"硂だ皌薄猵
〆穦畊︙某安砞畊穦某ぃ把∕
㏄辩睶┥某иフ︙玊く某種и稱︙玊く某┮弧ぃ絋ぇ矪パ12舱Θ〆穦い6ぃ妮计
郭Θ某璓勉畊兵ㄒ〆穦癚阶硂拜肈и矗"せ"硂よ讽и瞶パ琌材ㄆ叭禣〆穦戮砫琌璹﹚Μ禣τи-
辨ê琌瞶Μ禣ぃ﹚肂Μ禣薄猵パ赣〆穦璹﹚Μ禣琌耕そ笵琌┮孔材顶琿逼硂暗猭钩栋砰酵诀パ-
璹﹚Μ禣ぃ筁硂诀ゲ斗Τ碙盡穨︑玥砰瞷硂玥よ猭琌〆穦Θ琌盡穨τ琌ㄤ硂妓獽笷盡穨︑狦禬筁Θ妮ㄤ獶︽穨玥パ-
∕﹚赣盡穨Μ禣琌ぃ瞶笻は盡穨︑硂玥〆穦舱Θ琌"せ"┪""ゲ斗才硂玥
產碞硂拜肈癚阶丁Τㄢи癘眔讽綠產碔某ぃ初τ地某⊿Τ矗ê"き"某ㄤ龟某Τ笵瞶ê琌膀安砞碞琌畊琌ぃщ布钩ミ猭Ы畊┪ず叭〆穦畊妓琌ぃщ布緇–よ常琌5┮琌そ笵狦-
兵ㄒ〆穦癚阶矗硂よи-
獽穦臛阶硂妓碞穦耕-
ê⊿Τ矗ㄓㄓ-
某硂よ硂琌堡
ㄤ龟"せ"よ妓Τ綠產碔某矗ê矪闽龄畊щ布τぃ虫ゎщ布临щ∕﹚┦布"casting cote"ㄢよ琌6畊щ布狦щ布挡狦琌蛮よ布计畊щê∕﹚┦布и-
讽礛獺ê砆〆ヴ畊蔼皘猭﹛莱赣琌そタ矪瞶拜肈и-
倒硂∕﹚┦布硂妓ㄤ龟Τ"き"よ矪拜肈畊琌щ布硂ず场砏玥∕﹚
狦и-
讽Τ诀穦癚阶杠猭ㄒ蹦ノ"き"よ礛ず场砏玥糶畊琌ぃ穦щ布狦蛮よ布计碞Τ∕﹚┦布硂妓獽ぃ穦笻は盡穨︑玥堡讽-
⊿Τ矗硂某狦矗杠и穦や"き"よ┮弧ê诀畊癚阶ぃщ布Τ蛮よ布计穦щ∕﹚┦布硂獽秆∕拜肈
パ硂或筐矗硂よ┮и-
穦や兵ㄒ〆穦计Θ某∕"せ"よぃ筁狦硂某綝∕и-
穦や"き"よ硂琌и-
材匡拒
谅谅畊
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, the amendment moved by the Honourable Fred LI would perpetuate the current system in which half the members of the committee are solicitors and could result in the lay members having no effective voice in the decisions being made, and for the reasons already given I would urge Members not to support it.
The amendment moved by the Honourable Andrew CHENG is clearly a compromise between the amendment proposed by the Administration and that proposed by Fred LI. It would give the lay members of the Cost Committee a less effective voice than the amendment I have already moved. However, lay members would not be outnumbered two to one as under Mr LI's amendment.
If Members feel that they could not support the Administration's amendment then I would urge them to vote for the amendment moved by Mr CHENG.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
〆穦畊セ畊盢現ぇタ窖砰〆穦∕ぇ玡セ畊稱矗眶︗〆現ぇタ莉∕ボ某の綠某︑矗ぇ某ぃ硄筁セ畊ぃ穦叫某┪綠某笆某-
︑矗ぇ览某タ現ぇタ綝∕セ畊穦叫某笆某タ︓綠某琌笆某タ眔跌砰〆穦癸某ぇ某┮ぇ∕﹚
Question on the amendment put.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
THE CHAIRMAN said he thought the "Noes" had it.
畊ボ
Miss Emily LAU claimed a division.
糂紌某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊セ畊稱矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈現碞材17兵糤干材(aa)蹿ぇタ""よ
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊瞷陪ボ挡狦
Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Miss Emily LAU, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-yin, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Andrew CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE, Mrs Elizabeth WONG and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the amendment.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Miss Christine LOH, Mr James TIEN, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr Ambrose LAU, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr MOK Ying-fan and Miss Margaret NG voted against the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr IP Kwok-him and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen abstained.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 27 votes in favour of the amendment and 23 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θタ27は癸23琌ガタ莉硄筁
〆穦畊パ現某材17兵糤干材(aa)蹿莉∕某┪綠某ぃ笆某︑矗ぇタ硂籔ぇ∕﹚ぃ璓
〆穦畊現の綠產碔某だ箇ボ览碞材17(b)兵笆某タ
セ畊某秈︽ㄖ臛阶ㄖ臛阶現の綠產碔某だ碞材17(b)兵矗ぇタ
セ〆穦瞷秈︽ㄖ臛阶ㄖ臛阶現の綠產碔某だ碞材17(b)兵矗ぇタセ畊穦叫現笆某タ琌璽砫セ兵ㄒぇそ戮
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 17(b) be amended as set out under my name on the paper circularized to Members.
This amendment provides for three lay persons to be members of the Cost Committee and was supported by most of the Members of the Bills Committee. The Bill as amended would provide that of those lay persons at least one must be a person who, in the Governor's opinion, can represent the interests of consumers of legal services and the remainder are persons who, in the Governor's opinion, have substantial experience in banking, accounting or some other forms of commercial activity.
The purpose of providing for the latter category of persons is to make it possible for there to be lay persons on the committee who understand commercial activities and can therefore appreciate the financial and managerial side of solicitor's work. It is important that the rules to be made by the Cost Committee
reflect the operational needs of solicitors as well as the interests of consumers. However, one should not assume that if persons from the commercial sector sit on the committee they would necessarily be biased in favour of solicitors. They themselves are likely to be consumers of legal services and so will be able to see both sides of the picture.
Mr Chairman, I urge Members to support this amendment.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 17 (See annex XII)
兵ㄒ材17兵ǎンXII
〆穦畊セ畊穦叫綠產碔某碞現笆某ぇタのㄤセōぇ览某タ祇ē埃獶現ぇタ綝∕玥セ畊ぃ穦叫綠某笆某タ現ぇタ莉∕ボ綠產碔某ぇタぃ莉硄筁
綠產碔某璓勉畊и辨︗ㄆ冈灿秆睦現┎タ""よ硄筁3パ羆服〆ヴい程ぶ1琌羆服粄镑猭狝叭禣痲緇ㄢ玥琌羆服粄蝗︽穦璸┪琘ㄇㄤΑ坝穨笆よㄣΤ讽竒喷иタ耕現┎虏虫篒讽陪ボи-
チ囊禣舦痲и-
某琌3パ羆服〆ヴ羆服粄猭狝叭禣痲и-
粄羆服粄镑猭狝叭禣痲現┎篶某眔1τ緇ㄢ琌羆服粄蝗︽穦璸㎝ㄤΑ坝穨笆ㄣΤ竒喷и-
チ囊粄硂熬瞒ㄆ叭禣〆穦程璶ヘ
チ囊"き"よぃ莉眔硄筁畊ㄤ龟и獶盽戴辨"き"よ莉眔硄筁"き"癬ㄓ琌11舱Θやì瞴钉畊㎝и常尺舧金ì瞴ぃ┋ぃ硄筁и辨硂3Θだ皌よㄆ穦禣舦痲àㄓやチ囊某現┎某凹蝗︽穦璸┪ㄤ坝穨笆よΤ竒喷兵ㄒ〆穦いи-
チ囊ぃ砆弧狝硂ΑゼΤσ納禣舦痲
畊и略朝勉辨ㄆやиタ
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, Mr Andrew CHENG would require all three lay persons on the Cost Committee to be persons who represent the interests of consumers. This could deprive the Committee of commercial expertise and the views of individuals who are both providers of services and consumers of legal services. Those views might help to prevent a polarization of the attitudes of solicitors and consumers on the Committee.
I therefore urge Members not to support Mr CHENG's amendment.
Question on the amendment put.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊セ畊稱矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈現碞17(b)兵笆某ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊叫︗癸┮ぇ∕琌Τヴ︙好拜礚好拜瞷陪ボ挡狦
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Miss Emily LAU, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Miss Christine LOH, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LO Suk-ching, Miss Margaret NG and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-yin, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr Andrew CHENG, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE, Mrs Elizabeth WONG and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 27 votes in favour of the amendment and 28 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θタ27は癸28琌ガタ綝∕
〆穦畊パ現碞材17(b)兵笆某ぇタ綝∕セ畊瞷叫綠產碔某笆某タ
綠產碔某璓勉畊и笆某タ材17(b)兵タず甧更祇癳倒︗〆ゅンずи辨產膥尿硂妓∕
谅谅畊
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 17 (See annex XII)
兵ㄒ材17兵ǎンXII
糂紌某畊и矗拜肈狦硂兜タ綝∕ê快㎡
CHAIRMAN: Then there will be no amendment in respect of clause 17(b). The original clause 17(b) will stand.
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr Chairman, if the original clause 17(b) stands, does it accord with 4:3:3 composition? If it does not, then that is nonsense.
地某и辨產∕觅Θ綠產碔某タ玥狦腨セ現┎某琌4︓6獶畍......
〆穦畊ぃ琌パ祇ē矗砏祘拜肈拜肈︙
地某琌砏祘拜肈
畊叫拜肈┮
地某и矗拜肈琌狦妓∕綠產碔某タи-
獽穦ㄓ兵ㄒ某4︓6獶畍現┎氮薄猵琌硂妓
CHAIRMAN: Attorney General, can you help?
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, I think that the effect of the Council unadvisedly not supporting my amendment, and in the event that it did not approve Mr CHENG's, it would mean that the Costs Committee would consist of four solicitor members and then no fewer than four and not more than six persons appointed by the Governor, and then it would carry on as in the text of the original Bill.
What the previous amendment was to fix the number of solicitor members. We are now on to the second part of the amendment dealing with the lay persons. The clause would make sense, but it would not be in accord with, I think, the wishes of the Council.
MISS MARGARET NG: Mr Chairman, if I could ask a question. If Mr CHENG's motion is not approved, then the original clause 17(d) would stand and 17(d) refers to the quorum under......
CHAIRMAN: 17(b), not (d).
MISS MARGARET NG: Sorry, I have got the wrong question.
郭Θ某畊琌戈矗ㄑи瞶秆琌パ現タ綝∕┮ぃ糤4︓6砆〆ヴ狦и-
瞷∕綠產碔某タ碞穦程3畍3﹛某⊿Τヴ︙糤薄猵琌硂妓
6.05 pm
と605だ
〆穦畊瞷既氨穦某10だ牧
Committee suspended.
砰〆穦穦某既氨
6.17 pm
と617だ
Committee then resumed.
砰〆穦穦某確
〆穦畊セЫご礛琌砰〆穦吭高筁猭種ǎ挡阶琌現┮ēЧタ絋传杠弧璝綠產碔某タ莉眔硄筁〆穦舱Θ琌猭﹛猭盽叭﹛醚玻舦竝竝┪現竝竝34琌畍そ穦穦捌穦籔ㄢ穦3琌羆服〆ヴ禣璝タぃ莉硄筁〆穦Θ玡ㄢ猭﹛猭盽叭﹛醚玻舦竝┪現竝竝畍そ穦4〆ョㄤ玥Τ4︓6灿だセ兵ㄒ┮狦程р竒タ┪礚竒タ材17(b)┪17兵セ兵ㄒ某ぃ莉硄筁杠薄猵Чぃ┮︗〆∕璶み硂ンㄆ猭⊿Τ拜肈ㄏ猭Τ拜肈琌и-
猭璹ミ兜礚猭笲猭ㄒぇ獽璶タセ〆穦瞷膥尿∕
甃ㄎ瞶某畊安綠產碔某タぃ莉硄筁и-
璶碞ㄓ兵ㄒ∕狦Τベ杠и-
рㄓ∕
〆穦畊竒タ材17兵ぃ兵ㄒぃ穦琌17(b)兵τ琌俱兵17兵ぃぇ穦玻ネ︙贺挡狦セ畊ぃ笵璶膥尿╯ぃ╯и-
琌栋砰∕﹚癬絏Τ翴坚睲猭⊿Τ拜肈︓╯澈挡狦琌才︗〆讽種獽螟弧瞷碞綠產碔某碞材17(b)兵笆某ぇタ秈︽∕
Question on Mr Andrew CHENG's amendment put and agreed to.
綠產碔某ぇタぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
〆穦畊地某の現だ箇ボ览碞材17(d)兵矗タ
セ畊某秈︽ㄖ臛阶ㄖ臛阶地某の現だ碞材17(d)兵矗ぇタ
セ〆穦瞷秈︽ㄖ臛阶ㄖ臛阶地某の現だ碞材17(d)兵矗ぇタ酚穦某盽砏材25兵(4)蹿セ畊穦叫地某笆某タ
地某璓勉畊硂兜タΞ莱ㄆ叭禣〆穦糤Θ计某盢ㄆ叭禣〆穦穦某猭﹚计﹚畊の5ΘτΤ闽Θ盢礚舱ぇだセ兵ㄒ〆穦笆某硂兜タ
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 17 (See annex XII)
兵ㄒ材17兵ǎンXII
〆穦畊セ畊穦叫現碞地某矗ぇタのㄤセōぇ览某タ祇ē埃獶地某ぇタ綝∕玥セ畊ぃ穦叫現笆某タ地某笆某ぇタ莉∕ボ現ぇタぃ莉硄筁
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, the amendment moved on behalf of the Bills Committee by the Honourable Fred LI would enable the Costs Committee to operate in the absence of any lay members. This would defeat the purpose of providing for lay participation. It has been argued that the amendment is needed since, if the quorum were to include lay members, the lay members could by absenting themselves prevent the Committee from functioning.
The Administration can see no reason to assume that such a situation would arise. The lay members are to be appointed by the Government and it is safe to assume that responsible persons will be so appointed. I would not suggest that solicitor members would boycott the Committee. It is unfair to suggest that lay
persons may do so.
The Administration's proposed amendment provides for the quorum of the Chairman, two solicitors, one lay person and one official. This will ensure that each of the groups on the Committee is represented and is fair to all concerned.
I therefore urge Members not to support Mr LI's amendment. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
艷祸某璓勉畊琵и弧︙兵ㄒ〆穦ぃだ秨矪瞶琌и-
ぃ辨Τヴ︙Θ畊よΑ〆穦秈︽捧喝パ硂〆穦ずΤ猭﹛現┎и-
獺ぃ穦Τ璶Θ畊薄猵﹚璶∕﹚ョ⊿Τ或砏玥砏﹚〆穦﹚璶∕﹚┮兵ㄒ〆穦糵某矗ㄑ耕艶暗猭τパ瞷舱ΘよΑ跑Θ""10τぃ琌"せ"12璶6猭﹚计杠畉ぃ竒Τ┮玂靡и辨〆穦玂翴艶┦ぷㄤ琌獶畍Θ┪獶現┎Θ┪ぃ畊┪⊿Τ砍届杠琌-
⊿砍届畊穦某獽ぃ∕﹚㎡êンㄆぃ﹚惠璶硂妓把籔畊弧┏琌稱玂痙艶┦谅谅
Question on Mr Fred LI's amendment put.
地某笆某ぇタぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
Mrs Selina CHOW claimed a division.
㏄辩睶┥某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊セ畊稱矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈地某碞材17(d)兵笆某ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦ぇ玡叫︗〆癸┮ぇ∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ挡狦
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Miss Christine LOH, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Miss Margaret NG and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Miss Emily LAU, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-yin, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr Andrew CHENG, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE, Mrs Elizabeth WONG and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 30 votes in favour of the amendment and 24 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θタ30は癸24琌ガタ莉硄筁
〆穦畊現パ地某碞材17(d)兵笆某ぇタ莉∕ぃ碞材17(d)兵笆某览某タ硂籔ぇ∕﹚ぃ璓
地某璓勉畊材17(e)の(f)兵籔加禦芥﹚肂Μ禣Τ闽ぃ筁и稱и-
ぃ璶癚阶畊辨產ぃ璶癚阶瞷碞щ布и兵ㄒ〆穦笆某タ硂兜兵ㄒ埃ㄤ17(e)の(f)兵ㄏㄆ叭禣〆穦ご沮材3蹿璹ミ兜Μ禣传ēぇ狦某觅Θ玂痙加禦芥﹚肂Μ禣獽叫や地タ狦辨ぃ玂痙﹚肂Μ禣獽叫は癸タ
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 17 (See annex XII)
兵ㄒ材17兵ǎンXII
ATTORNEY GENERAL: My instructing solicitor, Mr Chairman, tells me I should ask you for a "no" vote.
Mr Chairman, I will not delay the Council but for a minute. I just want to take this opportunity to first of all urge Members to vote for the abolition of scale fees and so to vote against this amendment.
And I would like to take this opportunity of repeating what I said earlier on, as I have been asked about it and that is, that having regard to the many expressions this afternoon and this morning, and support in principle for the abolition of scale fees, the concern about the phasing and the timing, Mr Chairman, of that abolition, that and bearing in mind that the Bill as drafted has a delayed commencement date, I gave an undertaking on behalf of the Administration that I am happy to repeat that, in the event that scale fees are abolished, before any decision is made as to the time, as to the commencement date for abolition, the Administration would consult the Legislative Council. Clearly that would involve a process that may stretch over some time. I cannot be more specific than that, but I hope that gives an answer to the Honourable Member who questioned in somewhat exotic terms what the sense was of what I said earlier.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
MRS ELIZABETH WONG: May I seek clarification from the point just mentioned by the Attorney General? I was one of those who also felt that perhaps in principle I support the abolition but I am not very certain about the decision.
I am more and more perplexed by what you said about your undertaking. May I seek clarification: (a) whether your undertaking has any legal effect; and (b) what about your departure? Would your successor be actually undertaking your undertaking?
郭Θ某璓勉畊и稱碞硂翴祇ē現弧ス﹚肂Μ禣穦σ納だ戳龟琁拜肈и稱碞硂翴祇ē......
〆穦畊セ畊跌臛阶τ獶碞琘︗某┪琘︗﹛┮琘兜┯空璶―秈˙秆睦某碞讽玡某肈笷種ǎΤ闽埃材17(e)の(f)兵笷種ǎ┮弧ㄇ弧杠璶―坚睲琌碞俱ンㄆ璶―坚睲琌ぃ続セ畊跌独窥ㄤ军某弧杠Ω矗拜よΑ祇種ǎ祇ē籔玡祇ēΤ闽琌辨妓よΑ祇ē
郭Θ某畊и稱祇ē
〆穦畊叫祇ē
郭Θ某и筁翠猭ㄒ材1彻睦竡の硄玥兵ㄒㄤい材20兵籔猭ㄒネら戳Τ闽赣兵ㄒ砏﹚猭ㄒ穦祅讽ぱ秨﹍ネ︓妮ミ猭よ材28兵の材35兵ョΤ冈灿砏﹚ぃ筁現盢矗だ琿ネ矪瞶よ猭ㄤ龟琌ぃ镑秆∕チ┮拜肈
〆穦畊癸ぃ癬叉瞒某肈癚阶材1兵量硂ㄇ弧杠
郭Θ某畊ぃ筁и-
瞷獽璶碞硂兵щ布и-
竒∕﹚琌临琌ぃ﹚肂Μ禣硂琌Τ龟借璶┦
〆穦畊瞷︙∕瞷獽璶∕﹚︙碞材1兵∕玥∕﹚
︙玊く某沮и瞶秆独窥ㄤ军某絋琌稱莉眔坚睲иぃ琵現沽刚氮
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Thank you, Mr President, that undertaking is not personal to me. That is an undertaking that I am authorized to give on behalf of the Administration.
It is solemnly given in this Council with all the assurance and weight that attaches to an undertaking given to the legislature by the Administration. I have absolutely no reason to suppose that it would not be followed by the new Administration.
Question on Mr Fred LI's amendment put.
地某ぇタぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
Mrs Selina CHOW claimed a division.
㏄辩睶┥某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈地某碞材17(e)の(f)笆某ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦ぇ玡叫︗〆癸┮ぇ∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ挡狦
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Miss Christine LOH, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Miss Margaret NG and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Miss Emily LAU, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-yin, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr Andrew CHENG, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE, Mrs Elizabeth WONG and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 29 votes in favour of the amendment and 24 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θタ29は癸24琌ガタ莉硄筁
Question on clause 17, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材17兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Part VII
材VII场
〆穦畊地某箇ボ览タセ兵ㄒ材VII场更Τ材18兵ぇ场綠產碔某ョ箇ボ览碞材18兵笆某タセ畊某秈︽ㄖ臛阶ㄖ臛阶地某の綠產碔某だ矗ぇタ
セ〆穦瞷秈︽ㄖ臛阶ㄖ臛阶地某の綠產碔某だ碞材VII场材18兵矗ぇタ酚穦某盽砏材25兵(4)蹿セ畊穦叫地某笆某タ
地某璓勉и笆某タ材VII场タず甧更祇癳︗〆ゅンず
畊兵ㄒ材VII场琌Τ闽穨锣の癩玻兵ㄒタㄏ砏﹚禦よ斗煤芥よ禣ノ兵ゅ礚
兵ㄒ〆穦〆癸硂兜タΤぃ種ǎτセ兵ㄒ確弄璓勉ョ盢硂ㄇ種ǎは琈ㄓパ兵ㄒ〆穦∕计〆は癸材VII场タ┮и兵ㄒ〆穦畊ōだ〆穦笆某硂兜タ兵ㄒ材VII场
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Part VII (See annex XII)
材VII场ǎンXII
〆穦畊セ畊穦叫綠產碔某碞地某矗ぇタのㄤセōぇタ祇ē埃獶地某ぇタ綝∕玥セ畊ぃ穦叫綠產碔某笆某タ地某ぇタ莉∕ボ綠產碔某ぇタぃ莉硄筁
綠產碔某璓勉畊現┎某ㄤ龟Ξ潦禦加㎝穝加虫︗禦よ斗璶煤芥よ猭禣ノ兵ゅ跑Θ礚礚阶禦芥蛮よノ畍┪だ竨畍薄猵現┎某常ぃ莉〆穦種地某〆穦笆某埃俱某
タи-
確弄矗の現┎ノ兵ゅ礚硂よ猭ㄓ矪瞶硂拜肈チ囊ご礛Τ┮玂痙и-
キ颗禣舦痲粄禦產禦加禦穝加璶眏煤祇甶坝畍畍禣琌ぃそキи-
璶タ〆穦矗タ狦禦產Τ︑畍-
﹚ぃ砆煤祇甶坝畍禣
パ︗ㄆ竒秈︽臛阶┮и辨產щ布睲贰︑ミ初琵и秆睦睲贰ㄇ狦-
粄瞷暗猭琌ぃそキ杠-
獽璶は癸地某某タ狦-
粄и-
チ囊タ琌筁い眅玂粄ㄏ禦產竨ノ祇甶坝畍ぃ莱煤祇甶坝畍禣杠-
ぃЙ硈チ囊某は癸は癸и-
種セ兵ㄒЧ⊿Τタ挡狦ヴ︙禦穝加禦加礚阶竨畍┪竨ノ祇甶坝畍常ぃ穦砆煤祇甶坝畍禣辨︗ㄆやチ囊┪現┎某
谅谅畊
艷祸某璓勉畊и稱虏虫祇ē㊣苸︗某や地某某材18兵砏﹚鲸恨禦芥蛮よず種禦產ごぃ眔砆璶―煤芥產畍禣ノ硂兵ゅ琂笻は︑パ玥ョぃ龟磃钩禣掸畍禣ㄤ龟玱ぃ筁琌安钩τ產常笵加基琌パカ初ㄑ―∕﹚加基ど―筁ㄑ芥よ繦基"οをοō"盢畍禣は琈加基よ加カ睭繰芥產ぃ堡禦產畍禣ㄓ┷眛︗某常﹚ǎ筁硂摸約
硂兵ゅョ穦旧璓狦碞琌祙惠璶煤兜や瞷﹡Τㄤ虫︗禦芥芥よ畍禣琌パ禦よ煤兵ㄒ〆穦眔眡兵ゅス硄筁現┎獽璶糤掸挤蹿や扳﹡畍禣ぇノ╯澈Τ闽よ穦妓矗蔼加基よΑㄓ眖禦よΜ畍禣ノご琌ゼぇ
禣Чぃ磃祙璶窥穦瘆胊︑パ璹ミ玥硂琌莱赣綠產碔某タ琌盢兵ゅ絛瞅罽︓続ノ禦產の芥產だ竨叫畍薄猵ヘ琌躬纘禣︑︽竨叫畍и種禦芥蛮よ︑竨叫畍琌癸禣Τ玂毁暗猭璶ミ猭硚畖眏磅︽獽ぃ続讽現┎Τ妓猭獺產種竒蕾も猭箇ㄤ龟琌眏贺Α┮и粄綠產碔某タ琌ぃ莱赣や
и叫某瞷や地某某
谅谅畊
甃ㄎ瞶某璓勉畊и稱碞艷祸某簍勉翴干弧и常種иご稱拜產┏產琌笵瞷現┎矗某ㄆ龟ぃ珹︘临珹穨㎝坝穨加粄硂妓そキ盾硂疉の產┮孔︑パカ初︑パカ初吏挂ぇ狦產粄︑パ璹︙硂兵蹿璶疭砏﹚琌珹穝加礚阶琌坝穨穨┪︘
材現┎硂暗猭ョぃ琌瞶稱產笵安蝗︽窥蝗︽畍禣沮︽砏琌璶窥煤︙穝加璶Τぃ矪瞶よ猭
и簍勉琌硂或谅谅畊
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Thank you, Mr Chairman. As I explained in my main speech earlier today, a contractual provision requiring a purchaser to pay a developer's legal costs is unfair for two reasons. Firstly, it discourages buyers from obtaining the services of their own solicitor instead of using the one acting for the developer, and secondly, it discourages developers from negotiating reasonable legal fees.
Part 7 of the Bill will redress that unfairness by invalidating such a provision. The Honourable Fred LI's amendment to delete that part would, if passed, perpetuate that unfairness. I urge Members to vote against it.
Mr CHENG's amendment would limit the effect of clause 18 so that it applies only where the buyer is separately represented. In other words, it will provide that where a buyer is separately represented he or she cannot be made to pay the developer's legal costs. This amendment, like the original clause, would have the effect of encouraging separate representation. However, it would still allow a developer to pass his legal fees to a buyer who chooses joint representation. Those who, like the Administration, consider that consumers should not be subsidising developers are therefore urged to support the original clause in the Bill rather than Mr CHENG's amendment.
If Members are not prepared to support the original clause in the Bill I would urge them to vote for Mr CHENG's amendment.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Question on Mr Fred LI's amendment put.
地某ぇタぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈地某碞材VII场笆某ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦ぇ玡叫︗〆癸┮ぇ∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ挡狦
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Miss Christine LOH, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr Ambrose LAU, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr MOK Ying-fan and Miss Margaret NG voted for the amendment.
Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Miss Emily LAU, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Eric LI, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-yin, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr Andrew CHENG, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE, Mrs Elizabeth WONG and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted against the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung and Mr IP Kwok-him abstained.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 24 votes in favour of the amendment and 25 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θタ24は癸25琌ガタ綝∕
Clause 18
兵ㄒ材18兵
〆穦畊パ地某碞材VII场笆某ぇタ綝∕セ畊瞷叫綠產碔某碞材18兵笆某タ
綠產碔某璓勉畊и笆某タ材18兵タず甧更祇癳︗〆ぇゅンず
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 18 (See annex XII)
兵ㄒ材18兵ǎンXII
Question on Mr Andrew CHENG's amendment put and agreed to.
綠產碔某ぇタぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 18 be further amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 18 (See annex XII)
兵ㄒ材18兵ǎンXII
Question on the Attorney General's further amendment put and agreed to.
現秈˙ぇタぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Question on clause 18, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材18兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
地某璓勉畊穦某盽砏砏﹚ヴ︙莱兵ㄒぇ兵ゅ莉矪瞶Ч拨ぉσ納и沮穦某盽砏材68兵璶―畊種и笆某既氨磅︽穦某盽砏材46兵材(7)蹿獽и碞材20兵笆某タ籔и碞2笆某ぇタ某肈ㄖ莉眔σ納ウ-
琌Τ闽硈
〆穦畊地某パΤミ猭Ы畊種礚竒箇ぇ薄猵笆某既氨磅︽穦某盽砏矗ぇ叫―ぃ砰〆穦ず眔矪瞶セ畊㏑砰〆穦瞷確ミ猭Ы
Council then resumed.
砰〆穦繦τ確ミ猭Ы
畊地某セ畊у矗ぇ璶―叫笆某某
地某璓勉畊и笆某既氨磅︽穦某盽砏材46兵(7)蹿獽砰〆穦某肈ㄖσ納и碞材20兵㎝2┮笆某タ材20兵㎝2琌がΤ闽羛
Question on the motion proposed, put and agreed to.
某ぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕莉硄筁
Council went into Committee.
ミ猭Ы秈砰〆穦糵某顶琿
Clause 20 and Schedule 2
兵ㄒ材20兵の2
地某璓勉и笆某タ材20兵㎝2タず甧更祇癳︗〆ぇゅンず
畊兵ㄒ材20兵㎝2Ξ紀埃穨锣﹚肂Μ禣兵ㄒ〆穦〆硂よΤぃ種ǎτセセ兵ㄒ確弄臛阶璓勉ョ盢硂ㄇ種ǎは琈ㄓパ兵ㄒ〆穦∕﹚计〆は癸硂兜某┮и兵ㄒ〆穦畊ōだ〆穦笆某タ硂兜ヘ兵ㄒ材20兵㎝2玂痙﹚肂Μ禣
Proposed amendments
览某タず甧
Clause 20 (See annex XII)
兵ㄒ材20兵ǎンXII
Schedule 2 (See annex XII)
2ǎンXII
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Just to clarify, Mr Chairman. We are on clause 20 and Schedule 2?
PRESIDENT: Clause 20 and Schedule 2.
ATTORNEY GENERAL: This is the proposed deletion of the provisions abolishing scale fees. I would only reiterate what I have said many times today that the Administration continues to believe that scale fees should be abolished. These amendments propose to perpetuate scale fees at their existing level, as at today, and I urge Members to vote against them.
艷祸某璓勉畊иタΞタ猭ㄒ材56兵1蹿埃瞷ぃがベ琂礛︗某耕Ν顶琿ボ-
や玂痙﹚肂Μ禣и赖叫-
硂顶琿щ布觅Θ地タ
谅谅畊
地某畊и稱坚睲猭芠翴辨現镑秆睦ス硂兜兵ㄒタ綝は癸杠ぇ玡竒∕﹚玂痙﹚肂Μ禣硂盢穦︙㎡
〆穦畊セ畊弧筁璝ぃフ猭芠翴吭高︑猭臮拜璝碞ㄇ粄Τ拜肈薄猵矗砏祘拜肈セ畊獽氮璝弧硂场だ硄筁癸玡场だ┪ㄤ猭盢硑Θ或紇臫硂或┾禜拜肈ミ猭Ы穦借高丁ぃ拜現┪現┎セ畊弧筁︗〆莱癸硄筁êㄇ兵ゅ璽癬砫ヴ璝硄筁琘ㄇ兵ゅ瞷︑ベ薄猵獽ら盢ぇタ筁ㄓ琌⊿快猭秆∕
Question on the amendments put.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
Mr IP Kwok-him claimed a division.
腑瓣辆某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊セ畊稱矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈地某碞材20兵の2笆某ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦ぇ玡叫︗〆癸┮ぇ∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ挡狦
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Miss Christine LOH, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, , Mr David CHU, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Miss Margaret NG and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Miss Emily LAU, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-yin, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr Andrew CHENG, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted against the amendment.
Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han and Mr CHENG Yiu-tong abstained.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 27 votes in favour of the amendment and 23 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θタ27は癸23琌ガタ莉硄筁
〆穦畊現パ地某碞材20兵の2笆某ぇタ莉∕ぃ笆某览某タ糤干材20兵の2ぇいゅセ硂籔ぇ∕﹚ぃ璓
Question on clause 20 and Schedule 2, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材20兵の2ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, since the Standing Orders stipulate that the Schedule should be considered after the clauses and any proposed new clauses of a Bill have been disposed of, may I seek your consent to move under Standing Order 68 that Standing Order 46(5) and (7) be suspended in order that Schedules 1 and 3 may be considered ahead of clause 1 and the proposed new clauses?
〆穦畊現パΤミ猭Ы畊種礚竒箇ぇ薄猵笆某既氨磅︽穦某盽砏矗ぇ叫―ぃ砰〆穦ず眔矪瞶セ畊㏑砰〆穦瞷確ミ猭Ы
Council then resumed.
砰〆穦繦τ確ミ猭Ы
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr President, thank you. I move that Standing Order 46(5) and (7) be suspended to enable the Committee of the whole Council to consider Schedules 1 and 3 ahead of clause 1 and the proposed new clauses.
Question on the motion proposed, put and agreed to.
某ぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕莉硄筁
Council went into Committee.
セЫ秈砰〆穦糵某顶琿
Schedule 1
1
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, I move that Items 1 to 68, 70 to 127 in Schedule 1 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members. The amendments fall into two categories: those that are consequential to the amendment that I have already moved; and those that are drafting improvements. They also add a Chinese text to the Schedule.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Schedule 1 (See annex XII)
1ǎンXII
Question on the amendment put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
地某璓勉畊и笆某タ1ず材69兜タず甧更祇癳︗〆ゅンず
畊硂兜タΞタ某猭磅穨兵ㄒ材56(1)㎝(1A)兵砏﹚スㄆ叭禣〆穦络﹚﹚肂Μ禣籔畍㎝讽ㄆ┮某﹚禣ノΤヴ︙猍钵斗玡ㄌ耴
セ兵ㄒ〆穦畊ō〆穦笆某硂兜タ
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Schedule 1 (See annex XII)
1ǎンXII
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, the Administration considers that this amendment would have profound implications for conveyancing fees and is opposed to it.
Section 56 subsection 1 of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance provides that whether or not any rules made under section 74 are in force, a solicitor and his client may make an agreement as to the remuneration of the solicitor in respect thereof.
It seems clear on the face of the section that it allows a solicitor and a client to agree on an amount or method of remuneration that differs from that set out in rules made under section 74 of the Ordinance. Those rules which are made by the Costs Committee include the scale fees for conveyancing. Section 56 subsection 1 therefore reveals a clear legislative intention that a solicitor and a client can agree a fee for conveyancing work that may be higher or lower than the scale fee. This proposed amendment would limit the freedom to agree on remuneration by reference to the rules made by the Costs Committee.
Rule 3 Paragraph 5 of the current cost rules purports to prevent remuneration being charged at a rate less than that chargeable under the scale fees. Given that this appears to contradict section 56(1), there is a doubt as to the validity of this rule. However, if section 56(1) were amended as proposed, Rule 3(5) would effectively prevent a solicitor and a client from agreeing remuneration for conveyancing that is less than that provided for in the fee scales. This prohibition would be absolute and would apply regardless of whether there were special circumstances that justified a lower fee.
Scale fees in Hong Kong have never been strictly enforced. According to some solicitors, many consumers are now charged less than the prescribed fees. However, if there is to be a blanket prohibition on contracting out of scale fees, it is possible that consumers will be obliged to pay more under revised scales than they do in practice pay now. It is also possible that consumers will be obliged to pay fees that are, in the circumstances of the case, excessive.
If a system of scale fees is to continue, it does not follow that undercutting must be prohibited. It is not inconsistent with the system of scale fees to permit contracting out. Before 1973, a system of scale fees for conveyancing existed in England. Under that system solicitors were generally precluded from holding themselves out as being prepared to do conveyancing work for less than the scale fee. However, they could charge less than the scale fee where they were of the opinion that the scale fee would, in the circumstances, be an excessive charge.
If fee scales are to be retained it is essential that there should be flexibility within the system to prevent injustice in particular cases. This amendment if passed would eliminate any such flexibility. I therefore urge Members, including those who support the retention of scale fees, to reject this amendment.
艷祸某璓勉畊и耕Ν弧材20兵琌иΤ翴ㄠ粇穦莱赣琌硂兵琌続ノи弧硂兜タΞ璹猭ㄒ材56兵タ現┮ボи㊣苸︗某や地某兵ㄒ〆穦矗硂兜タ
и-
璶埃ㄇ或ぃ㎝︑ベ薄猵㎡沮畍穦瞶秆猭狝叭Μ禣竒ㄆ叭禣〆穦硄筁㎝ミ猭獽穦Τ畍ぃぃㄌ酚砏﹚Μ禣τ讽ㄆ璶砏﹚ㄓ煤禣и-
獺現┎秆﹚琌狦ぃ琌さぱ碞ぃノ骋畍笆渤ㄓミ猭﹚肂Μ禣現弧瘤礛砞Τ﹚肂Μ禣璝畍籔讽ㄆ種Μ禣ノ耕﹚肂Μ禣ぶ
畊Τ闽﹚肂Μ禣莱吭高㎝臛阶竒尿ㄢパ現ㄢ玡祇吭高ゅン︓瞷現┪ヴ︙﹛眖ㄓ⊿Τ矗猭眖ㄓ⊿Τ弧瘤礛砞Τ﹚肂Μ禣璝讽ㄆ籔畍種產ぃ宽眖﹚肂Μ禣砏﹚狦現秨﹍硂妓弧臛阶よ獽穦ぃ兵ㄒ〆穦俱糵某筁祘い現┎﹛ョ眖ㄓ⊿Τ矗硂阶翴瘤礛現┎某ゲ斗讽ㄆ籔畍蛮よ種薄猵甧砛ぃ宽﹚肂Μ禣┪ぶΜㄇ禣ノи-
谋眔現┎膀セ琌粄璶﹚肂Μ禣琌タ絋狦兵ㄒ糵某〆穦糵某筁祘い現┎﹛矗硂芠翴ぉ兵ㄒ〆穦σ納畍穦﹚穦莱滦琌瞷玱眖ㄓ⊿Τ矗の薄猵┛礛矗猭畊硂琌Чぃそキи獺現┎猭琌俱吭高筁祘い琂礛現┎眖⊿Τ矗のи-
粄現┎瞷礚惠硂妓暗狦さぱ琵現┎硂妓暗и-
俱臛阶獽璶眖繷秨﹍
琌材56兵材1蹿琌Τ種竡璓玻ネベ︗某さぱ璝や玂痙﹚肂Μ禣ê或猭絋碞璶や地某硂兜タ材56兵材1蹿ぃЫ禦芥加﹚肂Μ禣τ琌莱ノちㄆ叭禣〆穦硄筁Μ禣琂礛糤睰禣Θ瞷琌4畍癸3禣琂礛Θ栋砰酵ㄣи-
獽ぃ莱痙兵Юぺ璹﹚Μ禣宽眖┪ぃ宽眖
畊и略朝勉辨︗某や地某笆某
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, if I can just respond very briefly to the point made by the Honourable Miss Margaret NG about commenting on the point that I made in my speech on the inter-relationship between section 56 of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance and Rule 3 sub-rule 5 of the costs rules. I see that this was extensively set out in the paper which we presented to the Bills Committee in January this year at Pages 8 and 9, so I just want the Council to be aware that this was an issue before the Bills Committee and the arguments were set out some six months ago. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Question on Mr Fred LI's amendment put.
地某笆某ぇタ竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈地某碞1ず材69兜笆某ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦ぇ玡叫︗〆癸┮ぇ∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ挡狦
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Miss Margaret NG and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Miss Emily LAU, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-yin, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Andrew CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 26 votes in favour of the amendment and 26 votes against it.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θ26は癸26
〆穦畊沮硘ェ某1867玥セ畊︽ㄏ∕﹚┦∕舦琌は癸よΑ︽ㄏ┮タ綝∕
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, I move that Item 69 in Schedule 1 be amended by adding the Chinese text as set out in the paper circulated to Members.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Schedule 1 (See annex XII)
1ǎンXII
Question on the amendment put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Question on Schedule 1, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ1ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Schedule 3
3
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, I move that Schedule 3 be amended as set out under my name in the paper circularized to Members.
This amendment is consequential to the deletion of the provisions concerning interest on solicitors' clients accounts. It also adds a Chinese title for the expression "Senior Counsel" found in the Schedule.
I beg to move.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Schedule 3 (See annex XII)
3ǎンXII
Question on the Attorney General's amendment put and agreed to.
現ぇタぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
地某璓勉畊セи琌碞3笆某耕Ν玡材VII场兵ㄒ材18兵竒砆綠產碔某璹и瞷ぃ莱赣矗タ
畊3ぇタ琌.....
地某琌埃材5兵畊琌埃3材5兵畊埃3材5兵タ笆某琌兜闽タ琌耕Ν玡埃兵ㄒ材VII场兜consequential amendment 莱璹パ埃材VII场タぃ莉硄筁иぃ穦矗Τ闽3タ
Question on Schedule 3, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ3ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Clause 1
兵ㄒ材1兵
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 1 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
The amendment to clause 1 will bring the provision to the Bill that relate to the new status of Senior Counsel and to Barristers Disciplinary Tribunals into operation when the Ordinance is gazetted.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 1 (See annex XII)
兵ㄒ材1兵ǎンXII
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, I moved an amendment to clause 1 to provide that the new provisions relating to the status of Senior Counsel and to Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal should come into operation upon the Ordinance being published in the Gazette.
CHAIRMAN: We are on clause 1.
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Clause 1, yes, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRMAN: There must be some mix-up here. Oh, yes.
Question on the amendment put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Question on clause 1, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材1兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
New clause 20A
穝璹兵ㄒ材20A兵Amendment of Legal Officers(Fees and Costs) Rules
現禣ノの砠禣砏玥璹New clause 20B
穝璹兵ㄒ材20B兵Amendment of Legal Aid Ordinance
猭穿兵ㄒ璹New clause 20C
穝璹兵ㄒ材20C兵Amendment of Legal Aid Ordinance
猭掸穿砏ㄒ璹New clause 20D
穝璹兵ㄒ材20D兵Amendment of Solicitors (Professional Indemnity) Rules
畍盡穨辣纕砏玥璹New clause 20E
穝璹兵ㄒ材20E兵Amendment of Legal Aid in Criminal Cases Rules
ㄆン猭穿砏玥璹
Clauses read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 46(6).
兵ㄒ兵ゅ竒筁弄ㄌ沮穦某盽砏材46兵材(6)蹿砏﹚㏑逼弄
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, I move that new clauses 20A, 20B, 20C, 20D and 20E as set out under my name in the paper circularized to Members be read the Second time.
These new clauses make consequential amendments to subsidiary legislation which refer to the status of Queen's Counsel. The amendments reflect the creation of the new status of Senior Counsel.
Question on the Second Reading of the clauses proposed, put and agreed to.
兵ㄒ兵ゅ弄ぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕莉硄筁
Clauses read the Second time.
兵ㄒ兵ゅ竒筁弄
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, I move that new clauses 20A, 20B, 20C, 20D and 20E be added to the Bill.
Proposed additions
览某糤干
New clause 20A (See annex XII)
穝璹材20A兵ǎンXII
New clause 20B (See annex XII)
穝璹材20B兵ǎンXII
New clause 20C (See annex XII)
穝璹材20C兵ǎンXII
New clause 20D (See annex XII)
穝璹材20D兵ǎンXII
New clause 20E (See annex XII)
穝璹材20E兵ǎンXII
Question on the addition of the new clauses 20A, 20B, 20C, 20D and 20E proposed, put and agreed to.
糤干穝璹材20A20B20C20Dの20E兵ゅぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕莉硄筁
Council then resumed.
砰〆穦繦τ確ミ猭Ы
Third Reading of Bill
兵ㄒ弄
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL reported that the
現厨孔
LEGAL SERVICES LEGISLATION (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL 1996
1996猭狝叭ミ猭馒兜璹兵ㄒ
had passed through Committee with amendments. He moved the Third Reading of the Bill.
竒タ硄筁砰〆穦糵某顶琿笆某弄瓃兵ㄒ
Question on the Third Reading of the Bill proposed, put and agreed to.
兵ㄒ弄ぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕莉硄筁
Bill read the Third time and passed.
兵ㄒ竒弄硄筁
Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Bill
確兵ㄒ弄臛阶
LEGAL PRACTITIONERS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
1996磅穨畍璹兵ㄒ
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 14 February 1996
確せるら笆某弄臛阶
MISS MARGARET NG: This Committee formed to study the Legal Practitioners (Amendment) Bill 1996 first met on 16 April 1996. It met the Administration ten times and, together with the Administration, met the Hong Kong Society of Notaries (HKSN) twice. The Bills Committee studied the Bill in great length, in particular on the following three areas:
(a) mandatory membership of the Hong Kong Society of Notaries (HKSN);
(b) specifying the role of HKSN; and
(c) governance and regulatory framework of notaries public.
First, on the mandatory membership of HKSN, the Hong Kong Bar Association, the Law Society and the Hong Kong Society of Notaries support the proposed local appointment system for notaries public as set out in the Bill. HKSN, however, submits that there should be a provision in the Bill to stipulate its membership to be mandatory to enable it to continue to monitor the professional standards of notaries public and for its position to be in line with those of the Bar and the Law Society in Hong Kong, and the Scriveners Company in England.
The Bar and the Law Society support HKSN in this respect because it is in the public interest to do so. The then Chief Justice, when consulted in October 1995 by the Society, was also agreeable to the proposal.
The Bills Committee notes that all notaries public were members of the Society until recently when one notary public refused to enrol as a member. The refusal has caused concern that if notaries may choose not to be a member of the society then the Society may not be able to perform a regulatory function over the profession effectively.
The Administration, however, does not support mandatory membership of the Society. Its reasons are that:
(a) The law will provide for the Chief Justice and not the Society to exercise ultimate appointment or disciplinary power with regard to notaries public. In doing so the Chief Justice may seek necessary advice and assistance from the Society as well as other legal professional bodies.
The present advisory role of the Society can therefore be ensured even with voluntary membership. It is therefore not necessary for the Society to have compulsory membership and it will be a change to the existing system if the Society is granted mandatory membership;
(b) Article 22(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides that no restrictions may be placed on the right to association unless they are prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of other.
The Administration does not regard that mandatory membership of the Society is necessary for achieving any of these purposes since it is the Chief Justice who will possess the ultimate authority in appointing or disciplining notaries public, and since the Society will not possess such authority;
(c) If the Society becomes a regulatory or disciplinary body it may create an undesirable situation whereby notaries public will be subject to dual disciplinary control from both the Society and the Law Society as most of notaries public are also practising barristers; and
(d) The unique position of the Scriveners Company in England should not be taken as a model for Hong Kong since there are no statutory provisions for compulsory membership of notaries' societies in general in the commonwealth jurisdictions.
In short, the Administration is not supportive of the proposal on policy and legal considerations. The Society, the Bar and Law Society, however, do not agree with the Administration's legal view point that compulsory membership of
a professional organisation will necessarily infringe the right to freedom of association or disassociation.
The Society further points out that since the Law Society cannot enquire into alleged breach of exclusive notarial rules and practices, the case that notaries public will be subject to dual disciplinary control will not exist. As a matter of fact the Law Society has so far not taken any disciplinary action against any notary public for unprofessional conduct in relation to notarial work. The Society feels that the Hong Kong environment has given a strong case for its membership to be mandatory in spite of the practice of other commonwealth jurisdictions.
The Society also assures the Bills Committee that if granted mandatory membership, it will not exercise its powers unreasonably in directions such as to increase its membership fee unnecessarily and make it difficult for members to be admitted as these will not promote its interest.
The Bills Committee then separately obtained legal opinion of legal principles governing mandatory membership under the ICCPR and considered the issue carefully. It notes that the systems for notaries in other common law jurisdictions such as Singapore are wholly different from the system for Hong Kong. Its conclusion is that Hong Kong will need an effective and a long-standing notarial society to monitor and standardise professional rules and practice of notarial work from both the consumers' and professionals' point of view. This is a public interest to protect and there is public interest to justify the
restriction of the right to association or disassociation.
There is a need to ensure the Society have the necessary membership and in this light mandatory membership of the Society is consistent with Article 22 of the ICCPCR. The Society has subsequently sought a separate Counsel's opinion which is that mandatory membership does not breach the ICCPR.
Regarding the policy consideration raised by the Administration that there is no need for such mandatory membership, the Bills Committee holds the view that without mandatory membership the continued existence of the Society and its effectiveness in ensuring that the standard of notarial practice in Hong Kong meets that of international practice will be put at risk. In any event this is a matter for Honourable Members of the Legislative Council to decide.
The Bills Committee has unanimously asked me to move an amendment at the Committee stage to add new section 41(A) in order to include mandatory membership of the Society in the Bill. The provision has a flexibility such that in exceptional circumstances when the notary public cannot get himself qualified for admission as a member of the Society or cannot maintain such membership through no fault of his own he could still practise as a notary public without giving rise for a cause for complaint to the Chief Justice leading possibly to disciplinary sanctions against himself.
The Administration, however, remains of the view that the membership provision in the Bill is unjustified and unnecessary. It still runs the risk of a challenge against its validity under Article 7(5) of the Hong Kong Letters Patent and remains a very real restriction on the right to freedom of association protected
by Article 22 of the ICCPR.
The Administration has indicated to the Bills Committee that it will not proceed with the Bill if this Council agrees to the proposed Committee stage amendment. In reaching the decision the Administration has recognized that it is unlikely that any other locally-based system for appointing notaries public can be put in place before 1 July 1997, but it still regards that it is better on balance to live with a possible consequence of the gap than to set a precedent by enacting legislation containing a clause that the Administration believes to be vulnerable to
challenge in court and considers to have no merit in policy terms.
Having carefully considered the stance of the Administration the Bills Committee remains clearly, strongly and unanimously of the position that the public interest element can justify the restriction of the right to association or disassociation, and it upholds its recommendation to Honourable Members. The Society has been informed of this and has indicated its content for the position the Bills Committee is maintaining, notwithstanding the possible consequences.
The second area of concern of the Bills Committee is the specified role of the Society. The Bills Committee considers the society should play a role in the proposed regulatory frame work in the Bill in recognition of its professional status and the assistance it has hitherto given to the Archbishop of Canterbury in appointing and disciplining notaries public.
The Administration then agrees that the Society could be invited to give comment to the Chief Justice on any application for admission to a notarial examination. In this regard, the Administration will move a Committee stage amendment to add section 40(A) subclause 1(b)(iii) to stipulate that the Chief Justice may also notify the Society and invite it to comment on an application.
Regarding the role of the Society in the Enquiry Panel, the Administration officially holds the view that it will not be appropriate to stipulate in the Bill that any Enquiry Panel should have a Society member or members or majority of Society members since the full range of its issues, including the size of the panel and its membership, including the proposed representations of the Society, should be further considered when the disciplinary rules are made by the Chief Justice, and since there is no precedent in the relevant legislation of other jurisdictions which requires consultation with the Society of Notaries Public or defines the composition of the Enquiry Panel to include any member from such Society.
The Administration subsequently agrees to include at least one member of the Society in the Enquiry Panel subject to a qualification that the Chief Justice shall not do so if there is a good reason for not doing so in particular circumstances. The Bills Committee, however, regards it is of primary importance to ensure that the future system of appointment of notaries public is workable and it is essential that the Hong Kong Society of Notaries, being the most relevant party should have membership in the Enquiry Panel. It therefore unanimously agrees that I should move a Committee stage amendment on its behalf to propose section 42 subsection 6(a) to include at least one member of the Society in the Enquiry Panel in the principle ordinance. It would then be for the judiciary to specify inclusion of other number of members of the Society in the Enquiry Panel in the rules, which will be enacted subsequently by way of subsidiary legislation. The Bills Committee is assured by the Administration that the judiciary will be advised to consult the legal profession when it draws up such rules.
Lastly, on the governance and regulatory frame work of notaries public the Bills Committee considers that the Bill should provide for the criteria and procedure for the Chief Justice to follow when a complaint is received or when he needs to consider disciplinary action against a notary public or even to strike a notary public off the register.
The Bills Committee studied how disciplinary action against notaries public is made in England and other countries such as Singapore, the Australian state of New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia and South Africa. The Administration agrees to move a Committee stage amendment to propose section 42, that is removal from registration and suspension of notaries public and restoration, in order to set out the disciplinary criteria, circumstances for enquiry, disciplinary sanctions, restoration criteria and enquiry procedures.
The Bills Committee also discussed with the Administration whether there is a need to update the term "bankruptcy" which is set out as a ground for complaint for the Chief Justice to give direction, including disciplinary sanctions, whether unsound mind should be included as a ground of such complaint and whether a fine should be included as a disciplinary sanction against a notary public.
The Administration agrees to update the term "bankruptcy" along the formulation of that of Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap. 6) and unsound mind, along with the formulation of that of the Engineers Registration Ordinance (Cap. 409). The Administration, however takes the view that it is not necessary to include a fine in the Bill. The Bills Committee then decided to move a Committee stage amendment to propose to section 42 to include a fine of up to $50,000 as a disciplinary sanction in order to provide a fuller range of options to the Chief Justice.
Mr President, subject to Committee stage amendments, I commend the Bill to honourable Members.
7.25 pm
边725だ
THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, DR LEONG CHE-HUNG, took the Chair.
瞶畊辩醇翬某既穦某
︙玊く某璓勉瞶畊チ囊や硂兜兵ㄒ弄の弄ョや〆穦┮矗タ
艷祸某竒冈荷厨и礚斗干びи琌粄さΩ籔現┎程阶琌Τ闽猭ㄒ莱眏┦兵ゅ璶―–ΘАそ靡穦硂拜肈現┎猭瞶パ绊は癸ボ眏兵ゅ穦笻は現獀のそチ舦瓣悔そ現┎ボぃ镑钡и-
〆穦某Τ闽眏┦穦某硂拜肈ㄤ龟〆穦纯紉高碭猭刮砰種ǎ纯竨叫畍倒ぉ種ǎ挡狦睲贰陪ボぃ穦笻はそτㄆ龟糵某戳丁и-
ョ粄璝そ靡穦璶笲▆Τ菏诡穦絋玂玥眔碙单и-
琌荡癸Τ瞶瞶パ兜眏┦穦兵ゅ讽礛現┎ぃ觅硂種ǎ琌瞷ミ猭Ы〆穦璓ボやョ钡и-
┮竨叫畍種ǎス硄筁硂兵ㄒミ猭Ы讽礛穦┯踞砫ヴи-
粄材現┎ぃ琌荡癸タ絋材鲸恨現┎甡┤瞷拜肈甡┤璶┯踞狦ウ莱フㄤ龟さぱ睲贰癘魁現┎琌癸硂タ兵ゅ猭┦Τ┮借好и谋眔現┎莱碙ミ猭Ы種ǎ產常笵〆穦琌璓や硂兜タ現┎スΜ硂猭ㄒи獺穦旧璓腨狦るら舦簿ユぇ玡礚猭絋ミ猭﹚ㄓ┑尿そ靡┮и辨現┎ぃ璶硂妓㏕磅硂琌ミ猭Ы璓や睲贰癘魁и-
〆穦璓璶―莉计猭刮砰㎝縒ミ畍やи-
ぃ獺現竝硂拜肈﹚琌タ絋┕現┎猭ㄒ猭畑砆Θ珼驹ョぃ琌ゼ纯祇ネ筁︑眖舦猭硄筁ㄓョΤぃぶ兵ㄒ砆Θ珼驹糶猭ㄒ狥﹁ぃ﹚琌猭妓穦岿┮и辨現┎ぃ璶Μ硂兵ㄒ琵〆穦┮笆某タ镑抖硄筁
谅谅瞶畊
腑瓣辆某璓勉瞶畊繦るら舦耴砛猭常璶秈︽セて㎝続莱て翠猭そ靡ヘ玡琌パ璣瓣疭筽毙〆ヴパ璣孽疭砛畑癸猭そ靡龟琁恨逼るら玡ゲ斗セて珿璶ま硂兜兵ㄒ恶干瞷回
さΩ兵ㄒ糵某筁祘いま癬某の現┎伐某よ琌現┎绊∕┶荡眏┦兵ゅ璶―┮Τ猭そ靡ゲ斗Θ猭そ靡穦穦砰糵某〆糵某兵ㄒ筁祘いパ﹍︓沧種ǎ璓や穦璶Τ硂眏┦穦膟チ羛粄礚阶眖禣┪猭盡穨àτ阶翠常惠璶ΤΘτパㄓ猭そ靡穦菏诡の参猭そ靡盡穨玥眏穦膟穦ㄏ猭そ靡癸そ渤璽砫ョΤ砏恨猭そ靡盡穨巨の盡穨キ現┎绊は癸眏穦膟ㄤい瞶パ碞琌Τ闽某穦牟現獀のそチ舦瓣悔そ材22兵Τ闽玂毁︑パ挡のぃ挡舦ㄆ龟猭そ靡穦のミ猭Ы臮拜常睲贰ボ眏穦硂砏﹚琌才Τ闽兵ず甧
眏穦砏﹚癸猭そ靡穦穦ゲ璶┦碞タи-
瞷璶―磅穨畍畍そ穦妓㏕疉の玂毁そ渤痲㎝猭そ靡穦猭︗莱眔絋粄玡矗チ羛觅Θ眏穦膟兵ゅ琌Τゲ璶チ羛や糵某〆穦矗タ
セ略朝勉
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr Deputy, I just want to say a few words on this particular Bill. I think the depth of feeling in the profession is fairly clear and the only thing I really have to say is that the Government has adhered to its view that if there is compulsory membership of notary publics then it would infringe the Bill of Rights and, based on that, it is likely to withdraw this Bill.
I think that is a regrettable step to take because if we believe in handing to our professional bodies in Hong Kong the right to self-regulate, the right to self-discipline, I would have thought that as a matter of policy the Government would do its utmost towards promoting this aspect rather than to take a "father-knows-best" attitude and say to us, "sorry, young people, you can't behave as you wish to behave, responsibly, because I say you can't."
Up to now, we still have not heard a satisfactory explanation from the Administration as to why it opposes compulsory membership of notary publics, particularly with the background that notary publics themselves have actually asked for this requirement. So, it seems to me, Mr Deputy, that it really behoves the Administration to explain why not and why if it does, which I hope it will not, withdraw the Bill.
Thank you very much.
郭Θ某璓勉瞶畊иチ祇ēや硂兜兵ㄒ弄の弄俱〆穦糵某顶琿い程某よ琌莱璶―セそ靡﹚璶そ靡穦Θ穦ョ┮孔"mandatory membership"兵蹿碞硂よ矪瞶и〆穦矗秆∕よ猭
現┎粄ぃ莱赣硂兵蹿沮ウ猭種ǎ硂穦笻は舦猭疭琌ㄤいΤ闽︑パ┪ぃヴ︙舱麓舦兵蹿硂琌現┎眔猭種ǎи-
糵某筁祘い碞硂翴獶盽粄痷癚阶и-
疭猔種琌猭種ǎパ︗猭厩Andrew BYRNES┮级糶и冈灿綷弄计Ω硂猭種ǎи-
矗ヴ︙ゲ斗才舦猭玥传ēぇヴ︙ゲ斗瞶㎝Τゲ璶種ǎ程矗のи-
さΩ╯糤硂ゲ斗┯粄硂痷琌兜硂玱琌瞶㎝Τゲ璶и-
穦笷現郸ヘ夹そ靡穦镑ㄉΤ続讽︗ㄓ菏诡Θ巨硂琌穦狦τ狦痷Τ珼驹硂穝猭畑穦σ納3ンㄆ材ミ猭Ы糵某兵ㄒ纯冈灿σ納材ミ猭Ы矗硂兵蹿某А粄庢キ颗穦ㄇ惠璶粄琌瞶材ミ猭Ы粄Τ闽穦狦琌饼(desirable)穦狦τ某ョ粄硂镑笷硂穦狦Andrew BYRNES材23琿いㄤ龟Τ痷猭畑珼驹硂竒筁冈灿だ猂珼驹Θ┦玱硂薄猵現┎莱︙矪瞶硂ンㄆ㎡現┎癸廓Ъ矪挂ウ瞶秆琌Τ笻は舦猭τ現┎ミ猭瞶莱羘ウぃ穦矗ヴ︙笻は舦猭ㄆ兜и粄硂琌暗眔癸挡狦現┎硂筁祘い砈もぃ瞶琌琵ミ猭Ыσ納琵ミ猭Ы矗硂某の糤兵蹿
ミ猭Ыミ猭诀闽穦σ納┮Τ礛耞タи-
璹ミㄤ猭ㄒ薄猵妓常猭畑珼驹┮Τ猭礚阶琌祇瞷簗瑌常Τ硂ミ猭Ыσ納硂∕﹚璝痷Τ珼驹и-
ョ璶獺ヴ猭畑∕癸珼驹薄猵璶︙秆∕и某現┎甧砛ミ猭Ы矗硂某硄筁窾ぃ璶穦珼驹τΜ俱兵兵ㄒ翠ㄤ龟斗璶硂兵猭ㄒи-
镑砞ミ甅セて猭そ靡硂ョ琌и-
""玡獶盽斗璶璹ミ猭ㄒ硂薄猵и璶―現┎祔弄狦и-
硄筁и-
穝糤材41A兵現┎ぃ璶Μ硂兵兵ㄒ谅谅瞶畊
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Deputy, I would like to thank Members of the Bills Committee, especially its chairman, the Honourable Miss Margaret NG, for their hard work and thorough examination of this Bill. The Administration has responded positively to most of the ideas put forward by Members of the Bills Committee, and this is reflected in the Committee stage amendments which I will move later this evening. Those amendments are as follows:
The Administration's amendments
Firstly, the Administration accepts that the Hong Kong Society of Notaries (HKSN) should have an advisory role in the new system for examining and appointing applicants as notaries public in Hong Kong. I shall therefore move a Committee stage amendment to add a provision in proposed new section 40A(1)(b) (contained in clause 3 of the Bill) to provide that the Chief Justice may notify the Society of an application for appointment, and invite the Society to comment on that application. The Administration considers that the Chief Justice should be given the discretion to decide whether to consult the Society or not. This is appropriate because an applicant has yet to be admitted as a notary public and therefore cannot be a member of the Society at the time of the application. There may also be instances where the Society may not be in the best position to advise the Chief Justice.
Secondly, the Bills Committee suggested that the Bill should provide detailed criteria and procedures for handling complaints against notaries public, including a list of circumstances in which disciplinary action may be taken. Members also proposed that a range of disciplinary sanctions available to the Chief Justice should be provided for in the Bill. The Administration agrees that the Bill should set out the circumstances in which disciplinary action may be taken against notaries public, and the possible disciplinary sanctions. At the Committee stage, I shall therefore move amendments to proposed new section 42 to set out the circumstances in which disciplinary action should be taken; the sanctions that may be imposed by the Chief Justice; the inquiry powers of the Chief Justice; and the procedure for the appointment of a panel to make inquiries on behalf of the Chief Justice.
In addition, the Bills Committee suggested a number of technical amendments to clarify certain provisions of the Bill. The Administration accepts these suggestions. I will therefore move amendments to proposed sections 40A and 41 to improve the Bill. I shall also propose a number of other technical and consequential amendments to the Bill.
Miss Honourable Margaret NG's amendments
Mr Deputy, I now turn to the amendments to be moved by Miss Margaret NG. The Administration does not support those amendments.
The purpose of this Bill is to introduce a local appointment system for notaries public, which will replace the existing system under which appointments are made in England. The HKSN does not at present have any regulatory function in respect of notaries. Membership of that society is voluntary. The Bill does not propose to change either of these fundamentals.
Under the new system, the appointment and disciplining of notaries public will be the responsibility of the Chief Justice. The Bill provides that a notary may be disciplined by being removed or suspended from the Register. The Committee stage amendment that I will move to the proposed new section 42 will further provide that a notary may be censured, ordered to pay compensation to a complainant, and ordered to pay the costs of the inquiry and disciplinary proceedings.
However, Miss Margaret NG will propose a Committee stage amendment to add a further disciplinary sanction, namely a fine of up to $50,000. The Administration considers that all the circumstances which may give rise to disciplinary action against a notary can be appropriately dealt with by one or other of the sanctions in the Administration's amendments. For example, it would be meaningless to impose a financial penalty on a notary who is bankrupt, while the appropriate way of dealing with one who had engaged in fraudulent conduct is removal from the register together with an order to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings. The criminality of that conduct should be a matter for the courts. Again, activities on the part of a notary which are prejudicial to the administration of justice should be visited with the penalty of suspension or removal from the register. The addition of a financial penalty is therefore unnecessary and I would urge Members to vote against that amendment.
Miss Margaret NG will also propose a Committee stage amendment to proposed section 42(6)(a) to require that, of the three persons appointed by the Chief Justice to the inquiry panel to investigate a complaint against a notary public, at least one must be a member of the HKSN. The Administration agrees to this proposal subject to allowing the Chief Justice discretion not to include a member of the Society on the Panel if he considers that there is a good reason in the particular circumstances. This modification of the honourable Member's proposal is necessary to cover a situation where there may be a conflict of interest between the Society and the person who is under investigation. A provision which enabled a member of the Society to sit on the Panel as of right on every occasion could operate unfairly and is contrary to well-recognized principles of Administrative Law. Such a conflict of interest would arise, for example, if the Society itself had initiated a complaint against a notary and was therefore an interested party in the disciplinary proceedings. I shall therefore move a Committee stage amendment which is designed to provide the Chief Justice with the necessary flexibility to appoint a panel which is appropriate to the circumstances of a particular case.
Finally, Miss Margaret NG will move a Committee stage amendment to provide that every notary public on the Register of Notaries Public shall, as far as is allowed by the HKSN, acquire and maintain membership of that Society, and to provide that failure to comply with the membership requirement may be a ground for disciplinary action by the Chief Justice.
Mr Deputy, the Administration believes that this is a bad proposal, and is firmly opposed to it. Why should any person be compelled to join a certain society before he or she can lawfully offer services to the public? If the society in question has a regulatory function, as does the Bar Association and Law Society, then compulsory membership of that society may be justified. But, as I just explained, the HKSN has no such regulatory function.
The Administration therefore believes that there is no justification for forcing notaries to join the HKSN. Notaries should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they should join the society. Freedom of association is, in fact, a fundamental human right guaranteed by Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
The Bills Committee apparently considers that this freedom should be restricted by the mandatory membership requirement, on the grounds that otherwise there is a risk of the HKSN becoming ineffective. With the greatest respect, the Administration does not consider that this is a sufficient justification for restricting a right guaranteed by the ICCPR. If the HKSN performs a useful service to notaries public in Hong Kong, that I am sure it does, then individual notaries public will wish to be members of it. We do not see why they should be forced to become members of the Society.
In our view, compulsory membership of the HKSN is not "necessary" in the interests of the public, as opposed to the interests of the HKSN itself. As a result, this proposed amendment would, if enacted, run the risk of a challenge on the ground of inconsistency with the ICCPR.
Mr Deputy, the present constitution of Hong Kong prohibits the making of any law which restricts the rights and freedoms enjoyed in Hong Kong in a manner which is inconsistent with the Covenant as applied in Hong Kong. The provisions of the Covenant will remain in force in future under Article 39 of the Basic Law. The legal expert consulted by the HKSN, also admits this danger, although he does not agree with our assessment of the degree of such danger. It is, of course, up to the court to decide whether legislation is inconsistent with the ICCPR. However, it would clearly be irresponsible for the Administration to proceed with legislation that we believe is open to challenge, especially when such a challenge, in all likelihood, would likely be in respect of disciplinary action taken by the Chief Justice.
Mr Deputy, with a view to meeting the Bills Committee's concerns, I shall nevertheless move a Committee stage amendment to add a new section, namely, section 43B. It seeks to address Members' concerns about the promotion and maintenance of notarial standards in Hong Kong, and the protection of the interests of Hong Kong registered notaries. This amendment originated from a suggestion made during a recent visit to Hong Kong by Sir John OWEN, who as Master of the Faculties under the Archbishop of Canterbury, is responsible at present for issuing faculties authorizing the performance of notarial functions and the exercise of notarial powers in Hong Kong. The Administration considers that this amendment provides an appropriate role for the HKSN in these matters. We do not believe that there is any good legal or policy reasons for the Bills Committee's insistence on the mandatory membership provision. Indeed, as I have said, we believe it would run the risk of being challenged as being in breach of the ICCPR. I therefore strongly urge Members to adopt my Committee stage amendment and to reject Miss NG's amendment. Should Miss NG's amendment be passed by this Council, the Administration will have no alternative but to withdraw this Bill before its Third Reading.
We have carefully considered the effect that this would have. We recognize that, given the limited time available, it is unlikely that any other locally-based system for appointing notaries public can be put in place before 1 July 1997. We have considered the possible consequences of a gap in the appointment of notaries public following the last notarial examination organized by the Master of Faculties in March this year, and have come to the view that these consequences are less significant than the dangerous precedent of enacting legislation that we know is vulnerable to challenge in the courts. This does not mean, that no new notaries public will be appointed after 30 June 1997. The new Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government will of course be free to draw up its own legislative procedures in respect of notaries public and the absence of legislation on this topic for a short period would not be a serious problem.
Mr Deputy, I would urge all Members to consider the objections to this amendment that I have mentioned. The issue is whether individuals should be forced to join a society which has no regulatory function in respect of them. The Administration would rather have no legislation in respect of notaries public, than thoroughly bad legislation.
I urge you to vote for the Administration's amendments so that acceptable legislation can be put in place before the transfer of sovereignty.
Thank you, Mr President.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
兵ㄒ弄ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Bill read the Second time.
兵ㄒ竒筁弄
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
ㄌ沮穦某盽砏材43兵材(1)蹿砏﹚盢兵ㄒ〆ぉ砰〆穦糵某
Committee stage of Bill
兵ㄒ砰〆穦糵某顶琿
Council went into Committee.
セЫ秈砰〆穦糵某顶琿
8.03 pm
边803だ
MISS MARGARET NG: Mr Chairman, I wonder if it is possible, in view of what the Attorney General has just told this Council, to have a short break of about 10 minutes before we go to the Committee stage amendments?
〆穦畊既氨穦某10だ牧
Sitting suspended.
穦某既氨
8.13 pm
边813だ
THE PRESIDENT resumes the Chair.
畊確穦某
Council then resumed.
砰〆穦確ミ猭Ы
Committee stage of Bill
兵ㄒ砰〆穦糵某顶琿
Council went into Committee.
セЫ秈砰〆穦糵某顶琿
LEGAL PRACTITIONERS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
1996磅穨畍璹兵ㄒ
Clauses 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6
兵ㄒ材1245の6兵
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, I move that the clauses specified be amended as set out in the paper circulated to Members.
The amendments to clauses 1, 2, 5 and 6 aim to provide a Chinese version of the clauses.
The amendment to clause 4 is to clarify the meaning of "qualified notary public" in proposed section 44(3). It also seeks to provide a Chinese version of the clause as amended by the substantive amendment.
Proposed amendments
览某タず甧
Clause 1 (See annex XIII)
兵ㄒ材1兵ǎンXIII
Clause 2 (See annex XIII)
兵ㄒ材2兵ǎンXIII
Clause 4 (See annex XIII)
兵ㄒ材4兵ǎンXIII
Clause 5 (See annex XIII)
兵ㄒ材5兵ǎンXIII
Clause 6 (See annex XIII)
兵ㄒ材6兵ǎンXIII
Question on the amendments put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Question on clauses 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材1245の6兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Clause 3
兵ㄒ材3兵
〆穦畊現の艷祸某だ箇ボ览碞材3兵笆某タ
セ畊某秈︽ㄖ臛阶ㄖ臛阶現の艷祸某だ碞材3兵矗ぇタ
セ〆穦瞷秈︽ㄖ臛阶ㄖ臛阶現の艷祸某だ碞材3兵矗ぇタセ畊穦叫現笆某タ琌璽砫セ兵ㄒぇそ戮
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 3 be amended as set out under my name in the paper circulated to Members.
The purpose of the amendments is sixfold. Firstly, instead of giving the Chief Justice a discretion to admit as those applicants who pass the examination and satisfy other criteria, the amendments provide that the Chief Justice shall admit such persons. The Chief Justice will, however, retain a discretion over whom to allow to sit the notarial examination, and he may make relevant enquiries before making his decision. This will be achieved by amendments to the proposed sections 40A(1)(a) and 40A(1)(b).
Secondly, in order to recognize the advisory role of the Hong Kong Society of Notaries (HKSN) in the new appointment system, it is proposed that proposed section 40A(1)(b) be amended to provide that the Chief Justice may notify the Society of an application and invite it to comment on the application.
Thirdly, amendments to proposed section 42 set out the circumstances in which disciplinary action may be taken against a notary public and the disciplinary sanctions available to the Chief Justice. The power of the Chief Justice for the purpose of making inquiries in respect of a notary public, including the power to appoint a panel to make inquiries on the Chief Justice's behalf, are also provided for. In relation to this, provision is included to ensure that, of the three persons appointed to the Panel by the Chief Justice, at least one should ordinarily be a member of the HKSN, but it allows the Chief Justice a discretion not to include a member of the Society on the Panel where he considers that there is good reason for not doing so in the circumstances of any particular case.
Fourthly, proposed section 43B seeks to address the Bills Committee's concerns about the promotion and maintenance of notarial standards in Hong Kong, and the protection of the interests of Hong Kong registered notaries.
Fifthly, a number of minor or technical amendments are proposed to improve the Bill. For example, instead of allowing the public to inspect the Register of Notaries Public only by appointment, it is proposed that the public should be able to do so during office hours. And it is proposed to widen the rule-making powers of the Chief Justice under new section 43A.
And lastly, Mr Chairman, the amendments seek to provide a Chinese version of clause 3 as amended by the above substantive amendments.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 3 (See annex XIII)
兵ㄒ材3兵ǎンXIII
〆穦畊セ畊穦叫艷祸某碞現矗ぇタのㄤセōぇ览某タ祇ē埃獶現ぇタ綝∕玥セ畊ぃ穦叫某笆某タ現ぇタ莉∕ボ艷祸某ぇ览某タぃ莉硄筁
MISS MARGARET NG: I will, later on, I hope, have the opportunity to move my amendments.
Members of the Bills Committee unanimously agree that mandatory membership of the Hong Kong Society of Notaries be included in the Bill for the reasons advanced in my earlier speech introducing the resumption of the Second Reading debate. Although the new proposed section 43(b) to be moved by the Attorney General regarding functions of the Chief Justice is a move in the right direction by recognising the role of the Society, it cannot be a replacement of the requirement that every notary public should be a member of the Society.
I therefore urge Members to support my proposed amendment as mandatory membership of the Society is essential to maintain notarial standards in Hong Kong.
As pointed out in my earlier speech the purposes of my amendments are to include, apart from mandatory membership of the Society, at least one member of the Society in the Enquiry Panel without any qualification and a fine of up to $50,000 as one of the options of the disciplinary sanction to be imposed by the Chief Justice.
Mr Chairman, I take the opportunity to say at this point that, as Chairman of the Bills Committee, I will vote in accordance with the clear, strong and unanimous view it has expressed and maintains, and that is against the Attorney General's amendment and in favour of the amendments if I should have a chance to move them later.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: I rise to speak on the issue of mandatory membership. On that basis I will have to apologise to the Bills Committee. I will not be able to vote along the same line. The reason is very, very simple.
Some two years ago, when the Medical Registration Ordinance was passed there an issue relating to specialist registration. At the same time within the medical profession, there is a statutory body known as the Academy of Medicine which is the body to train and vet specialists. The argument then was whether to be specially registered you need to be a compulsory member of the Academy of Medicine.
On that basis the Administration used the same reason to say that it is against the issues of the Bill of Rights, and on that particular occasion there was no argument within the Bills Committee. The Bills Committee actually accepted the explanation of the Administration, as a result of which the compulsory membership issue was dropped.
And on that basis, Mr Chairman, I would have to vote "no" against the decision of the Bills Committee. Thank you.
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, I explained in my speech on the resumption of the Second Reading debate on this Bill why the Administration objects to the additional elements included in the Honourable Margaret NG's Committee stage amendments, particularly the Administration does not agree with the amendment requiring notaries to be members of the Hong Kong Society of Notaries (HKSN).
This is unjustified and unnecessary since the HKSN does not have any regulatory role under the Bill. The requirement would also be vulnerable to legal challenge as restricting the right to freedom of association protected by Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
I strongly urge Members to oppose Miss Margaret NG's amendments to clause 3, and I repeat that if Miss NG's amendments are agreed to by this Council, the Administration will have no option but to withdraw the Bill before it is given its Third Reading.
Question on the amendment put.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
THE CHAIRMAN said he thought the "Noes" had it.
畊ボ
Miss Emily LAU claimed a division.
糂紌某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈現笆某ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛眖3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦ぇ玡叫︗癸┮ぇ∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ挡狦
Dr LEONG Che-hung and Miss Christine LOH voted for the amendment.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr Martin LEE, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr SZETO Wah, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Miss Emily LAU, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Eric LI, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr Philip WONG, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr WONG Wai-yin, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Andrew CHENG, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr Albert HO, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching, Miss Margaret NG, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were two votes in favour of the amendment and 48 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θタ2は癸48琌ガタ綝∕
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: I move under Standing Order 37(4) that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the remaining motions at the Committee stage of the Legal Practitioners (Amendment) Bill 1996 at this sitting that Committee do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.
Question on the motion proposed, put and agreed to.
某ぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕莉硄筁
〆穦畊パ現碞材3兵矗ぇタ綝∕セ畊瞷叫艷祸某碞材3兵笆某タ
MISS MARGARET NG: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 3 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 3 (See annex XIII)
兵ㄒ材3兵ǎンXIII
Question on Miss Margaret NG's amendment put and agreed to.
艷祸某ぇタぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Question on clause 3, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材3兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Heading before New clause 5A
穝璹材5A兵ぇ玡夹肈
New clause 5A
穝璹兵ㄒ材5A兵Oaths and Declarations Ordinance
粆の羘兵ㄒ
Interpretation
睦竡
Clause read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 46(6).
兵ㄒ兵ゅ竒筁弄ㄌ沮穦某盽砏材46兵材(6)蹿砏﹚㏑逼弄
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, I move that Heading before new clause 5A and new clause 5A as set out in the paper circularized to Members be read the Second time.
This new clause 5A is a consequential amendment to the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance to bring the definition of "notary" in that Ordinance in line with the meaning given to "notary public" in the Legal Practitioners Ordinance.
Question on the Second Reading of the clause proposed, put and agreed to.
兵ㄒ兵ゅ弄ぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕莉硄筁
Clause read the Second time.
兵ㄒ兵ゅ竒筁弄
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, I move the Heading before new clause 5A and new clause 5A be added to the Bill.
Proposed addition
览某糤干
Heading before new clause 5A and new clause 5A (See annex XIII)
穝璹材5A兵ぇ玡夹肈の穝璹材5A兵ǎンXIII
Question on the addition of the Heading before new 5A and new clause 5A proposed, put and agreed to.
糤干穝璹材5A兵ぇ玡夹肈の穝璹材5A兵ゅぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕莉硄筁
Long title
冈肈
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, I move that the Long Title be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
The amendment aims to provide a Chinese version of the Long Title.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Long title (See annex XIII)
冈肈ǎンXIII
Question on the amendment put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Question on Long title, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ冈肈ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Council then resumed.
砰〆穦繦τ確ミ猭Ы
Third Reading of Bill
兵ㄒ弄
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr President, as I have explained during the Second Reading debate and the Committee stage, the Administration cannot accept the amendment agreed to by the Council to require that every notary public on the Register of Notaries Public shall acquire membership in the Society and maintain such a membership, and to stipulate that failure to comply with the membership requirement may be a ground for disciplinary action. The Administration therefore has no option but to withdraw this Bill.
The Administration regrets that it has been necessary to take this action after so much time and effort have been spent in scrutinizing the Bill over the past 15 months. We would very much like to have had a local appointment system for notaries public in place before 1 July 1997. However, given the serious policy and legal implications of the Honourable Miss Margaret NG's amendment, we consider that it would be better to withdraw the Bill now and sort out the problem of establishing a local appointment system for notaries in slower time.
Mr President, I hereby withdraw the Legal Practitioners (Amendment) Bill 1996.
PRESIDENT: As the Legal Practitioners (Amendment) Bill 1996 has been withdrawn in accordance with Standing Order 52, no further proceedings will be taken.
Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Bill
確兵ㄒ弄臛阶
SUPREME COURT (AMENDMENT) BILL 1997
1997程蔼猭皘璹兵ㄒ
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 5 March 1997
確るきら笆某ぇ弄臛阶
MISS MARGARET NG: Mr President, may I have a brief moment, please. Mr President, I seem to have lost my speech. Mr President, can I ask for an adjournment of five minutes so that I could find my speech? I am very ashamed of myself.
8.31 pm
边831だ
PRESIDENT: I order a suspension of five minutes.
8.36 pm
边836だ
Council then resumed.
セЫ穦某繦τ確
MISS MARGARET NG: Mr President, the main purpose of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Bill 1997 is to re-enact in an updated form the provision of the two United Kingdom Acts, Habeas Corpus Acts 1679 and 1816 insofar as those acts are relevant to Hong Kong.
A Bills Committee chaired by me was formed to study the Bill. The Committee has met the Administration, the Hong Kong Bar Association and the Law Society of Hong Kong. I am grateful for the views of the two legal professions, particularly Mr Gerard McCOY of the Bar Association for his valuable contribution to the studying of this Bill.
The Bills Committee, the Bar Association and the Law Society are gravely concerned about the proposed section 22A subsection 11. The proposed section in effect allows the person having custody of the detained person to remove the detainee from Hong Kong under the authority of an enactment or of the High Court where habeas corpus proceedings are underway. We object to the provision.
Firstly, only the Executive has the power to remove persons from Hong Kong. It is inappropriate to confer on the High Court the executive power to order the removal.
Secondly, it is fundamentally wrong to permit the removal of a person under the authority of an enactment when habeas corpus proceedings have commenced. It undermines the whole purpose of the writ, namely to have the person released if he is wrongly detained.
Once habeas corpus proceedings are in train, the detaining authority has no jurisdiction to remove the person from Hong Kong except with the direction of the court. We have therefore proposed to remove qualifications in a proposed section 22A subsection 11, enabling removal under the authority of an enactment or the High Court.
While agreeing to deleting the reference to the High Court, the Administration, however, does not agree to delete the provision enabling removal under the authority of enactment. The Administration takes the view that this would be a radical departure from the existing legal position under which the purpose of habeas corpus proceedings is to bring an illegal detention to an end, not to challenge or frustrate the removal of a detainee.
In the context of administrative detention under the Immigration Ordinance, it has been accepted that the statutory duty of the Director of Immigration is to end detention by removing from Hong Kong as soon as practicable whether or not habeas corpus proceedings are in train. Persons who consider that they should not be removed could apply for an interim injunction preventing removal.
The Administration is particularly concerned about the impact in respect of illegal immigrants if the Director of Immigration does not have such a removal power. The Administration is worried that the illegal immigrants and would-be illegal immigrants may take advantage of the habeas corpus proceedings to delay immediate repatriation or prevent removal. The Administration considers it necessary for immigration control to preserve an authority to remove a detained person even when habeas corpus proceedings are in train.
Mr President, the Committee agrees with the Administration that people who have no right to stay in Hong Kong should be removed. However, that removal should not be carried out without the court's permission once habeas corpus proceedings have commenced. At present the detaining authority can, under a number of enactments, remove persons from Hong Kong, namely the Immigration Ordinance, the Mental Health Ordinance, the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance and the Repatriation of Prisoners Overseas Territories Order 1986.
Clearly the detainees are not just illegal immigrants or Vietnamese migrants. They may be Hong Kong citizens who have the right to stay here. If the Administration is concerned that applications for the writ of habeas corpus will be made even when it is inappropriate to do so, the proper course to take is to assist the court to rapidly dispose of such applications. The separate proceedings for a judicial review and an injunction, as suggested by the Administration are unnecessary and undermine the precedence of habeas corpus.
The Committee is also unable to accept the Administration's initial proposal to limit the exception to removal from Hong Kong under an enactment to removal under the Immigration Ordinance. Habeas Corpus is the fundamental protection of the liberty of individuals, and that remedy should not be compromised simply because of the fear of possible abuse by illegal immigrants.
After considerable deliberations, the Administration has proposed an amendment to provide that once a writ has been issued the detaining authority is not permitted to exercise the power of removal until the writ has been discharged or the proceedings are concluded.
The Administration wishes to preserve the authority of the Director of Immigration to remove a detained person before a writ of habeas corpus had been issued by the court. The Bills Committee is still concerned that the detainee who has made an application may still be spirited away without his legal
representative's knowledge before the writ could be issued.
The Administration has assured us that this would not happen, that is, once an application for habeas corpus has been made and solicitors are acting for the applicant, the applicant will not be removed from the jurisdiction without prior notice to his solicitors. The Attorney General has agreed to give an assurance on this point when he speaks later on today. With this assurance, the Bills Committee has finally accepted the amendment as proposed by the Administration.
On proposed section 22A subsection 12, the Administration has agreed to move an amendment to provide that if a person who is formally detained on the particular ground is released upon an application for habeas corpus, the person shall not be re-detained on the same or similar ground unless there is material change in the circumstances justifying detention.
As regards the Bar Association's suggestion of specifying in the proposed section 22A subsection 5, a time limit of 48 hours for persons holding custody of the applicant to comply with an order for production and return, the Administration has explained that it will pose practical difficulties, particularly in mass actions involving a large number of people. It prefers to leave the matter to the discretion of the court, having regard to the circumstances of the case. As the current rules have been tested over a long period of time the Administration sees no need to change them.
When Members consider it desirable to specify a time limit of 48 hours, the Committee has agreed that the matter should be left to the discretion of the court. In view of the importance of the writ of habeas corpus sub judicium I should be glad if the Administration could undertake to have the relevant forms adapted for use before 1 July 1997, even if the modernization of the form's exercise could not be completed by then. Mr President, subsequently I understand that this has in fact been done and I would be grateful for the confirmation of the Attorney General later on.
With these remarks, Mr President, and subject to the amendments to be moved by the Attorney General, I commend the Bill to this Council.
Mr President, may I now add a few words of my own? I regard nothing so dear to a man as his liberty. As a lawyer there is no duty so fundamental to me as defending a person's liberty under the law. The court in our common law system has no role more sacred than this, that it protects the liberty of the subject. There is no instrument so powerful at the court's command for this purpose as the writ of habeas corpus. Although the first habeas corpus act was passed in England only in 1640, under the common law the writ pre-dated even the Magna Carta. It has therefore a very special place constitutionally. Indeed it has become the symbol of personal liberty and the release from illegal imprisonment under the rule of law. At the eve of the handover it has become of exquisite significance that we should preserve the right to obtain a writ of habeas corpus under the common law in Hong Kong's statute books.
We are today not just enacting a piece of legislation, we are pledging ourselves to the supremacy of the rule of law and that is why, Mr President, we cannot afford to weaken the writ of habeas corpus. We cannot allow any exception to the extent of its protection. If one exception is allowed today for administrative convenience, no matter how attractive and harmless it may seem at the moment, tomorrow another less attractive and less harmless exception will be made. Soon, we shall not know how to draw the line. The law as it is now admits of no exception. A Hong Kong legislation which admits of an exception
simply cannot claim to preserve the common law.
That is why in the Bills Committee when the Administration insisted on such an exception together with a provision under the proposed section 22A subsection 14 that, "the right to obtain a writ of habeas corpus under the common law is preserved and is affected by this section only insofar as it is inconsistent with this section". It is clear to me that an attempt was being made to change, not to preserve, the common law, and that is why together with the Bills Committee's amendment to remove that exception, I propose to move an amendment to remove the words "and is affected by this section only insofar as it is inconsistent with this section". This section should not be inconsistent with the common law.
I am thankful that the Administration has changed their stance even if it was at the eleventh hour. At least the final Committee stage amendment is not a blatant transgression of the present law, and I can breathe again.
But Mr President, preserving the common law is not just preserving the letter of the law but also what the law is in practice. In practice, although a writ of habeas corpus is not issued, once an application is made the court will not allow the detaining authority to do anything which will preempt the court's final decision. This includes not allowing the person detained to be spirited away. The Court of Appeal in England had made clear that compulsory removal from the jurisdiction "necessarily involves some deprivation of the liberty concerned". It is therefore not at all the same thing as setting the person free.
Under present Hong Kong practice, when an application is made, the court does not usually issue the writ forthwith but sets a return date for the detaining authority to appear before the court for arguments first. So, under the Administration's earlier Committee stage amendment, the detained person can still be spirited away and so rendering the habeas corpus proceedings meaningless. The application could even be taken as alarm bells to hasten the detaining authority to remove the detained person from Hong Kong. A protection of the court will then be turned into a weapon of injustice.
In England, the Home Secretary assured the court that as a matter of policy a person who has applied to the court challenging the lawfulness of his detention for removal will not be removed until the proceedings have been concluded. Any process in train to remove him will be stayed until that time.
I am told that, given Hong Kong's special immigration concerns, the Administration cannot give the same policy assurance, but in my view, they can at least give the assurance that no applicant will be removed without prior notice to his legal representative. This will at least allow him to make an urgent application to the court for an injunction at that stage. Without this assurance it will simply mean that every application for a writ of habeas corpus in future will be accompanied by an application for an injunction or for an undertaking not to remove the detained person from Hong Kong. It will waste more court time and probably taxpayers' money in legal aid costs.
Were the Administration to refuse to give that assurance today then refusal in itself would be a strong indication of the intention to spirit away the detained person without warning.
Mr President, I am relieved that the Attorney General is prepared to give that assurance. The Committee stage amendment the Administration will move later today, together with that assurance, may respectively be said to preserve the common law. I want to thank the Attorney General for appreciating the concern
of myself, the Bar and the Bills Committee.
Mr President, for these reasons I have also withdrawn the Committee stage amendment to 22A subclause 14 which I originally proposed. It would have been a matter of deep regret if I had to be at variance with the Attorney General on a matter of such constitutional importance.
Thank you, Mr President.
︙玊く某璓勉畊иチ囊祇ēや硂兵ㄒ弄㎝弄や兵ㄒ〆穦㎝現┎┮矗タи-
や琌膀現祔穦現┎そ秨┯空讽ヴ︙ビ叫ō玂臔祘タ秈︽現┎ぃ穦⊿Τㄆ硄讽ㄆ畍薄猵礛盢讽ㄆ缓
畊ㄤ龟ㄓи獺Ыずㄆ竒单硂兵ㄒ丁產谋眔硂琌玂毁舦ゲぃぶ猭ㄒ艷祸某祇ē睲贰矗硂猭ㄒ眣菌碭發饭︓ㄆ龟猭Τǎ秆碞琌Τ闽ō玂臔猭ㄒㄤ龟耕100兵Τ闽舦猭ㄒ临ΤㄏΤ玂毁舦兵ㄒ┪ē狦⊿ΤΤ诀㎝祘ㄓ玂臔ō︑パ㎝玥êㄇ兵ゅ┪ē常琌ēさぱи-
蔼砍硂兵ㄒ镑現舦簿ユ玡硄筁
糵某兵ㄒ戳丁程阶琌讽Τ砆╇痙ビ叫ō玂臔硂琿戳丁現┎盢缓㎡и-
程闽み硂ンㄆ览硂兵ㄒ現┎弧硂妓暗ウ谋眔硂妓暗⊿Τ或ぃ癸翠挂恨よウ谋眔Τ惠璶硂妓暗и-
だ佩砓狦現┎痷硂妓暗碞钩ウΤ璸购ノ猭┪ぃ猭も琿盢ㄇウ粄Τ惠璶砆缓╇痙礛讽ê猭ビ叫ō玂臔碞ミㄨ盢缓ǐㄏビ叫眔êō玂臔琌⊿Τノê砆缓
и-
痷礚猭钡硂翴獶盽佩砓現┎讽倒и-
硂妓氮讽礛ㄓ現┎琵˙瞷腀種ぃ虫ゎ祇ō玂臔現┎ゲ斗睦ê讽ㄆ硂琌ウ砫ヴ璶宽眖㎝碙猭畑∕﹚τ笵Τビ叫ō玂臔狦ウΤ︽笆盢讽ㄆ缓┪缓癳瞒挂ウ﹚璶ミㄨ硄讽ㄆ畍ê︗畍荷е猭畑ビ叫候┪璶―猭畑箋ガ羬ō玂臔и谋眔硂琌璶
и稱矗ㄢ翴種ǎ材現┎癸猭滦薄猵ㄤ龟莱赣Τ摸逼倒紇臫讽ㄆ丁猭畑ビ叫玂毁猭畑㏑┪羘и谋眔硂妓そキи谋眔畍猭畑ビ叫硂ㄇぃ╈┑丁疭琌ō玂臔硄盽琌еи谋眔現┎莱赣σ納猭滦薄猵Τ摸暗猭倒ぉ讽ㄆ瞶舦㎝诀穦猭畑矗ビ禗
材產常笵ビ叫ō玂臔ビ叫常惠璶猭穿и粄らΤ惠璶猭穿狝叭よэ到候薄猵镑荷еу讽礛硂妮兵ㄒ絛瞅ㄆぃ筁и谋眔硂翴琌だ璶
羆珹ㄓ弧и-
谋眔硂兵ㄒ莉眔硄筁癸翠だ璶и-
辨ら硂猭ㄒ翠膥尿磅︽ㄏ–カチ常ō玂臔硂祘だ玂毁
腑瓣辆某璓勉畊翠禥ぇ矪–カチ常ㄉΤだ︑パ礚阶琌ē阶︑パ┪ō︑パ硂兵1997程蔼猭皘璹兵ㄒ璶琌盢せのせ璣瓣ō玂臔兵ㄒぇいㄏΤ闽猭るら硓筁硂猭ㄒㄓ膥尿ō玂臔ビ叫玂臔ō︑パ
兵ㄒ程碔某┦兵ゅ琌材22A(11)(b)兵矪瞶兜ō玂臔ビ叫戳丁╇窽ビ叫現┎诀闽莱Τ舦ぃ竒筁猭畑砛僚ō玂臔続ノ癸硂兜タセЫㄇㄆ踞み兵ㄒ硄筁ゲ穦玠畓ō玂臔秖
и粄翠薄猵耕疭疭璶σ納筁寸戳丁穦秖獶猭挂敖寸ㄓ翠硂拜肈и-
ゲ斗蝴Τ挂恨ち龟︽絛瞅ず荷е盢獶猭挂簿瞒セ翠╇痙現郸ヘ琌ňゎ獶猭挂肩のよ獽р-
簿瞒セ翠狦盢讽Ыр獶猭挂缓瞒セ翠舦玥穦Τ笻硂ヘ狦現┎ぃ矗Τ闽タ玥┤ō玂臔Τ砆獶猭挂┮垒ノτ踞み獶猭挂Μ岿粇獺ノō玂臔┑翠硆痙丁
狦ō玂臔続ノチ挂兵ㄒи-
龟悔礚猭癸眖ず禫玭㎝ㄤ瓣產挂恨狦瞷︽現郸ぃ膥尿祇揣Τノセ翠獽穦秖獶猭挂撮拜肈┮狦薄猵ぃ北и-
穦㎝カチ穦紇臫
ヘ玡–ぱキАΤ65ㄓ︑ず獶猭挂砆┪砆缓安-
讽い场だ虑ビ叫ō玂臔硂猭祘╈┑砆缓癳丁現┎㎝猭畑矪瞶╇痙㎝禗砠よ盢穦癸伐螟癸カチ硑Θ璽踞硂ぃ才そ渤痲и-
ゲ斗σ納硂翴現┎ㄆ種ǎ瞷矗ユ硂兵ㄒ㎝タチ羛琌や
и略朝勉や現┎兵ㄒ㎝タ
︙玊く某畊и钮筁腑瓣辆某祇ēиぃぃ莱瘤礛程挡阶......
PRESIDENT: You are not allowed to speak for a second time. We are the full Council now.
琖皇某璓勉︙玊く某ぃ祇ē獽パиㄓ弧
畊и-
璶癘ō玂臔ぃ琌続ノ獶猭挂ㄤ龟и-
–穦ノ眔狦Τぱ眏舦盢и-
话挂и-
獽璶ビ叫ō玂臔┮ぃ﹚琌獶猭挂穦ビ叫狦眏舦礚瞶ри-
话挂и-
硂ㄇ翠ネ璶ノ硂炊硄猭结ぉи-
弧琌程腳禥"臔ō才"窾ぃ璶穦Τ垒ノ猭玥琌ㄏΤ垒ノㄏ筁99Τ竜羆ゑ岿礚竜夯и-
璶フ硂琌炊硄猭膀セ弘τ羛羘㎝膀セ猭常更穦辅龟炊硄猭
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr President, on 5 March this year, I introduced the Supreme Court (Amendment) Bill 1997 into this Council. The Bill aims to amend the Supreme Court Ordinance so as to re-enact, in an updated form, those provisions of the English Habeas Corpus Acts 1679 and 1816 that are relevant to Hong Kong, and to make consequential amendments to the Application of English Law Ordinance.
Freedom of the person is a fundamental human right. Effective mechanisms have to be put in place to protect it. This is echoed in Article 9(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which states that "anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful." The object of the Bill is to preserve the remedy of habeas corpus by which such proceedings may be instituted. We believe that the protection of liberty made available by habeas corpus will be preserved and improved with the enactment of this important Bill.
The Bills Committee, chaired by the Honourable Miss Margaret NG, attaches great importance to the Bill and has carefully studied its provisions with expedition and care. In conjunction with the legal profession, it has proposed a number of suggestions to the Administration. Most of these suggestions are very helpful and have been accepted by us with gratitude.
As Miss Margaret NG has outlined the major proposed changes to the Bill following discussion with the Committee, there will be a number of Committee stage amendments to be moved by me at the Committee stage. For the time being, I shall only highlight the one to amend proposed section 22A (11)(b). This provision allows for the removal of the detainees from Hong Kong under the authority of an enactment or of the High Court pending habeas corpus proceedings. In response to the Committee's suggestions, my proposed amendment will seek to delete the reference to the High Court.
As regards the statutory exception, Miss Margaret NG, the chairman of the Committee, originally put forward a Committee stage amendment which seeks to remove the statutory exception. However, having considered the Administration's latest proposed amendment, the Committee has agreed that she should withdraw her Committee stage amendment. To address the concern of the Committee on civil liberty as far as practicable, whilst maintaining our immigration control, my proposed amendment seeks to limit the authority of the Director of Immigration after the court has issued a writ of habeas corpus. Whilst it preserves the Director's authority to remove a detained person before a writ of habeas corpus has been issued by the court, our latest proposal provides that once a writ has been issued, the Director may no longer exercise the power of removal until the writ is discharged or the proceedings are concluded. This amendment strikes the right balance between the protection of civil liberty and our immigration control. This is essential given the unique situation in Hong Kong, particularly in view of the need to guard against the threat of illegal immigration.
The proposed Committee stage amendment gives the court the opportunity to assess the strength of the applicant's case and decide whether a stay of the removal of the detained person is warranted. This would prevent unmeritorious claims being successful. It is consistent with the approach under the existing law in judicial review whereby the court may stay the Director's decision to remove upon granting of leave to judicial review if there is a prima facie case supporting the granting of an interim injunction. It is also consistent with the position in the United Kingdom, where the court assumes control over the custody of the detained person on the return and production of him before it as required by a writ of habeas corpus.
As Members have heard, both Miss Margaret NG and the Bar Association have expressed concern that a detained applicant may be removed without his legal representative's knowledge before the writ of habeas corpus could be issued. Members may wish to note that as a matter of practice, once an application of habeas corpus has been made and solicitors are acting for the applicant, the applicant will not be removed from the jurisdiction without prior notification to the solicitors. Mr President, I am extremely happy to place that practice publicly on the record in this Council tonight.
We believe that our latest proposal represents the right balance between the protection of an individual's right to apply for a writ of habeas corpus and the maintenance of our immigration control.
Finally, on the point concerning the forms on which Miss Margaret NG asks for my assurance, I can confirm that the forms concerned with habeas corpus to which she refers have indeed been modernized and I believe they were tabled in this Council last week.
Mr President, with these remarks and subject to the amendments that I shall move, I commend this important and fundamental Bill to honourable Members.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
兵ㄒ弄ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Bill read the Second time.
兵ㄒ竒筁弄
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
ㄌ沮穦某盽砏材43兵材(1)蹿砏﹚盢兵ㄒ〆ぉ砰〆穦糵某
Committee stage of Bill
兵ㄒ砰〆穦糵某顶琿
Council went into Committee.
セЫ秈砰〆穦糵某顶琿
SUPREME COURT (AMENDMENT) BILL 1997
1997程蔼猭皘璹兵ㄒ
Clauses 1 and 2
兵ㄒ材1の2兵
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, I move that clauses 1 and 2 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Amendments to these two clauses aim to provide a Chinese version of them. Apart from that, clause 2(b) is also amended to clarify the meaning of "detention". This is a technical amendment.
Proposed amendments
览某タず甧
Clause 1 (See annex XIV)
兵ㄒ材1兵ǎンXIV
Clause 2 (See annex XIV)
兵ㄒ材2兵ǎンXIV
Question on the amendments put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Question on clauses 1 and 2, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材1の2兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Clause 3
兵ㄒ材3兵
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 3 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Firstly, amendments to this clause aim to provide a Chinese version of it.
Secondly, the amendment seeks to provide in proposed section 22A(4) that unless the Court, in exceptional circumstances specified by the Court, orders otherwise, all habeas corpus proceedings are to be conducted in open court. It also seeks to provide that all orders and decisions made in respect of those proceedings conducted in camera, and the reasons for such orders and decisions, have to be announced in open court. This amendment is in line with our policy of open justice.
Thirdly, the amendment seeks to provide in section 22A(5) that the judge to whom an application for a writ of habeas corpus is made may either issue the writ forthwith or arrange for the person having the custody of the detainee to be notified of the application and be given an opportunity to justify to the Court the lawfulness of the detention. This serves to incorporate the current arrangement under Order 54, Rule 2 of the Rules of the Supreme Court in proposed section 22A(5). I put forward this amendment in response to the Bills Committee's suggestion.
Fourthly, the amendment seeks to delete the provision in the originally proposed section 22A(9) on the making of consequential orders. This amendment is also in response to the Bills Committee's suggestion.
Fifthly, the amendment seeks to rewrite proposed section 22A(10). The Administration proposes that the new section 22A(10) should expressly provide that if a person having the custody of another persons fails to satisfy the Court that the detention is lawful, the Court must order the immediate release of the person. In addition, the amendment seeks to provide in proposed section 22A(12) that a released person should not be redetained on the same or a similar ground unless there is a material change in the circumstances justifying detention. The proposed formulation of these two sections has been agreed by the Bills Committee.
Mr Chairman, as I said when moving the resumption of the Second Reading debate, in order to address the Bills Committee's concern on civil liberty as far as practically possible, we propose to delete in proposed section 22A(11) the reference to the High Court and to limit the Director's authority so that if a writ of habeas corpus has been issued in respect of a detained person, he may not be removed until the writ is discharged or the proceedings are concluded. The proposal gives the Court the opportunity to assess the strength of the applicant's case and to decide whether a stay of the removal of the detained person is warranted. This would prevent unmeritorious claims being successful. And perhaps if I can reemphasize the point, I will repeat the practice, the undertaking that I gave in the Second Reading debate, about notice to solicitors when it has been instructed once an application has been made.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 3 (See annex XIV)
兵ㄒ材3兵ǎンXIV
9.10 pm
边910だ
THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, DR LEONG CHE-HUNG, took the Chair.
瞶畊辩醇翬某既穦某
︙玊く某璓勉瞶畊и稱禭硂诀穦碞腑瓣辆某矗ō玂臔硂祘穦砆垒ノ硂翴虏祏莱魁
瞶畊腑某踞み獶猭挂拜肈穦腨狦猭ㄒ糶ビ叫ō玂臔眔杠獽ぃ砆缓癳挂の現┮玂靡穦ㄇ垒ノ硂兜祘
и稱眏秸材礚阶獶猭挂拜肈或腨и-
莱赣猭硚畖秆∕τぃ獶猭秂獶猭╇窽ㄓ秆∕獶猭挂硂拜肈и-
粄舦琌璶и-
ぃ-
琌獶猭挂┮-
⊿Τ舦猭畑ビ叫ō玂臔腑某ゼゲ琌硂種拜肈琌礚阶-
琌街狦-
砆獶猭╇窽-
ō︑パ砆獶猭管-
莱赣Τ舦ビ叫ō玂臔莱赣眔玂臔и-
ぃ弧皐癸獶猭挂拜肈┮踞み硂祘綝琘ㄇ垒ノи-
眏秸莱赣琌猭獀弘礚阶或-
猭ぇ玡常莱ㄉΤキ单舦
ㄆ龟ビ叫ō玂臔丁ぃ穦び┮惠丁ぃ穦びぃ琌–常Τ竨叫畍硂妓暗τぃ琌–常镑Θビ叫猭穿Τ闽垒ノ硂拜肈и獺琌ぃゲ璶紐納ぃ筁礚阶︙硂荡ぃ虑躬纘現┎┪チ挂ㄆ叭矪繦獽獶猭秂ヴ︙┪盢-
缓癳挂琖皇某矗現┎╇ㄇ-
琌獶猭挂-
ぃ琌獶猭挂τ琌Τ靡沮靡-
Τ舦翠﹡痙狦-
⊿Τō玂臔硂祘玂臔穦砆缓癳挂璓Ч赤ア痙翠舦
и稱盢硂翴魁讽礛и蔼砍腑某程ボ穦や硂ㄇタи辨腑某Ωσ納睲贰硂阀├
Question on the amendment put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Question on clause 3, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材3兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Clauses 4, 5 and 6
兵ㄒ材45の6兵
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Deputy, I move that the clauses specified be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Amendments to these clauses aim to provide a Chinese version of them.
Proposed amendments
览某タず甧
Clause 4 (See annex XIV)
兵ㄒ材4兵ǎンXIV
Clause 5 (See annex XIV)
兵ㄒ材5兵ǎンXIV
Clause 6 (See annex XIV)
兵ㄒ材6兵ǎンXIV
Question on the amendments put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Question on clauses 4, 5 and 6, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材45の6兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
New clause 5A
穝璹兵ㄒ材5A兵Amendment of Schedule (Writs)
璹New clause 5B
穝璹兵ㄒ材5B兵Amendment of Rules of the Supreme Court (Forms)
璹程蔼猭皘砏玥
Clauses read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 46(6).
兵ㄒ兵ゅ竒筁弄ㄌ沮穦某盽砏材46兵材(6)蹿砏﹚㏑逼弄
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Deputy, I move that new clauses 5A and 5B as set out in the paper circularized to Members be read the Second time.
These new clauses seek to delete two obsolete writs of habeas corpus and repeal their two obsolete forms within the Rules of the Supreme Court.
Question on the Second Reading of the clause proposed, put and agreed to.
兵ㄒ兵ゅ弄ぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕莉硄筁
Clause read the Second time.
兵ㄒ兵ゅ竒筁弄
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Deputy, I move that new clauses 5A and 5B be added to the Bill.
Proposed additions
览某糤干
New clause 5A (See annex XIV)
穝璹材5A兵ǎンXIV
New clause 5B (See annex XIV)
穝璹材5B兵ǎンXIV
9.17 pm
边917だ
THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair.
畊確穦某
Question on the addition of the new clauses proposed, put and agreed to.
糤干穝兵ゅぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕莉硄筁
Long title
冈肈
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, I move that the long title be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Long title (See annex XIV)
冈肈ǎンXIV
Question on the amendment put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Question on Long title, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ冈肈ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Council then resumed.
砰〆穦繦τ確ミ猭Ы
Third Reading of Bill
兵ㄒ弄
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL reported that the
現厨孔
SUPREME COURT (AMENDMENT) BILL 1997
1997程蔼猭皘璹兵ㄒ
had passed through Committee with amendments. He moved the Third Reading of the Bill.
竒タ硄筁砰〆穦糵某顶琿笆某弄瓃兵ㄒ
Question on the Third Reading of the Bill proposed, put and agreed to.
兵ㄒ弄ぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕莉硄筁
Bill read the Third time and passed.
兵ㄒ竒弄硄筁
Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Bill
確兵ㄒ弄臛阶
VETERINARY SURGEONS REGISTRATION BILL
脋洛爹兵ㄒ
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 15 May 1996
確せきるきら笆某ぇ弄臛阶
霉璓某璓勉畊セ略脋洛爹兵ㄒ兵ㄒ〆穦畊ōだ某蹲厨兵ㄒ〆穦坝某筁祘虑诀穦纯竒碞セ兵ㄒ矗ユ種ǎ刮砰璓谅疭琌纯竒籔兵ㄒ〆穦穦坝秆睦ㄤ種ǎ刮砰璓谅
セ兵ㄒΞ砞ミ脋洛爹ョ璹﹚兵ゅ癸⊿Τ玂瞶盡穨夹非爹脋洛琁掉兵ㄒョ玂毁"爹脋洛"┪"registered veterinary surgeon"晃ㄏノ
兵ㄒ〆穦や﹚猭ㄒ砏恨脋洛翠磅穨ㄆ﹜才笆褐脋洛盡穨の禣痲礛τ坝某筁祘い〆祇瞷兜現┎讽Ы莱ぉ秆∕拜肈
兵ㄒ砏﹚碞爹ㄆ﹜τē脋洛恨瞶Ы"恨瞶Ы"琌络﹚莉眔粄戈夹非絋﹚才兜夹非戈の∕﹚㎝璹Τぃ戈︙莉眔┯粄斑诀篶〆粄兵ㄒ礚璹脋洛磅穨戈カチ渤斗璶癸恨瞶Ы︙﹚戈夹非才笆褐の穦程ㄎ痲よΤ獺み現┎讽Ы秆睦Τ莉そ粄纯钡ゲ惠盡穨癡絤ㄣ称龟悔竒喷︗盧蔼眖τ酚翠程ㄎ痲︽ㄆ莉眔穨獺ヴ穦莉〆ヴ秈恨瞶Ы恨瞶ЫΘ穦ōだ莉〆ヴτ獶穨ずヴ︙疭﹚刮砰
兵ㄒ砏﹚恨瞶Ы盢パ1畊3ōだ琌洛ネ媚警畍┪脋洛狝叭ㄏノ痲の6脋洛舱Θ兵ㄒ〆穦ぃ種恨瞶ЫΘōだ摸ゑㄒ〆粄恨瞶Ы莱だそ渤痲某恨瞶ЫΘ程ぶ莱Τ20%穨Θ獽籔ㄤ盡穨爹兵ㄒ摸砏﹚玂璓兵ㄒ〆穦疭某赣3獶脋洛Θいㄤい1莱琌洛ネ┪媚警畍ㄢ莱琌脋洛狝叭ㄏノ┪禣現┎讽Ы钡兵ㄒ〆穦某穦沮兜某笆某〆穦糵某顶琿タ
兵ㄒ礚ゅ砏﹚盢莉〆ヴ秈恨瞶Ы6脋洛続讽斗"爹"脋洛脋洛兵ㄒ﹚Θ猭ㄒ爹硂琌現┎瞶パτ兵ㄒ〆穦粄Τ惠璶秨﹍兵ゅ虑砏﹚玈戳爹ЧΘ赣6脋洛獽莱爹脋洛現┎讽Ы钡兵ㄒ〆穦種ǎ某笆某〆穦糵某顶琿タ璹碞砞ミ恨瞶Ы筁寸逼砏﹚沮Τ闽逼莉〆ヴ恨瞶ЫΘ脋洛ㄤヴ戳12る程ぃ眔禬筁18る埃獶赣琿ヴ戳骸玡赣脋洛Θ爹脋洛某種赣单览某〆穦糵某顶琿タ
兵ㄒ〆穦闽猔程恨瞶ЫΘ璉春蛤ㄤ∕﹚ㄇ戈莉钡Τ钡闽玒〆粄恨瞶Ыず脋洛莱А颗局Τ璣羛ü戈㎝獶璣羛ü戈脋洛翴だ璶某恨瞶Ы戳Θミ莱Τぃぶ3局Τ獶璣羛ü戈脋洛莉〆ヴ現┎讽Ы種龟琁兵ㄒ〆穦某セ眡竒蕾さぱ璓勉ず甧盢穦珹現┎讽Ы碞瓃逼┯空
兵ㄒ〆穦ЧΘ糵某独綺笽某盢穦竡笆某タ沮竒钡牟莉眔ㄤ〆┮や灿竊Τ独綺笽某ユ
畊セ略叫ミ猭Ыや硂兵兵ㄒの盢パ竒蕾笆某〆穦糵某顶琿タ
谅谅畊
竒蕾璓勉畊パ霉璓某踞ヴ畊兵ㄒ〆穦冈灿糵某脋洛爹兵ㄒセ-
璓谅
セ兵ㄒヘ琌璶砏恨翠脋洛磅穨薄猵翠砞ミ猭﹚脋洛爹菏恨の盡穨夹非兵ㄒ某Θミ脋洛恨瞶Ы恨瞶Ы璶戮碞琌砞ミの称爹脋洛虫璹ミ爹戈夹非钡┪┶荡脋洛爹ビ叫璹ミ爹脋洛盡穨巨㎝矪だ砏玥の矪瞶笻︽
и-
某恨瞶Ы莱パ1畊の9ㄤ舱Θи-
種兵ㄒ〆穦某莱赣ㄣ砰璹脋洛恨瞶Ы舱ΘよΑ埃畊ぇ脋洛恨瞶Ы9Θ莱赣珹1洛ネ┪媚警畍ㄢ脋洛狝叭ㄏノ痲の6爹脋洛兵ㄒ〆穦某τи-
ョ種脋洛恨瞶ЫΘミ戳莉〆ヴ秈恨瞶Ы6脋洛讽い莱赣程ぶΤ3琌Τ獶璣羛ü瓣產脋洛戈脋洛秈˙絋玂恨瞶ЫΘ镑だ脋洛盡穨镑碞爹戈矗そタ種ǎ讽Ы穦σ納妮獶璣羛ü瓣產舱脋洛讽い1脋洛
и-
種兵ㄒ〆穦種ǎ粄Τ惠璶ま秈筁寸兵ゅ砏﹚脋洛恨瞶ЫΘミ莉〆ヴ秈恨瞶Ы脋洛礚斗爹脋洛︓璹ミ爹戈夹非の砞ミ祘ЧΘゎ筁寸┦逼и-
某恨瞶ЫΘミ莉〆ヴ–脋洛埃獶讽竒Θ爹脋洛玥ㄤヴ戳璸ぃ眔禬筁18る
Τㄇ闽猔硂筁寸戳ず脋洛盡穨ご礛眔ぃ秨琌沮кネ兵ㄒの媚警穨の瑀媚兵ㄒご礛Τ璣瓣產脋洛厩穦穦戈Θ脋洛蹦ノкネ陈綤警のㄤ恨媚и-
粄穝爹ミぇ玡筁寸戳ず瞷逼惠璶玂ぃ跑и-
穦荷秖罽祏筁寸戳丁и-
ヘ夹琌恨瞶Ыセ┏玡ЧΘ祘碞琌络璹爹┮斗戈淋叫Τ闽矗ユ爹ビ叫の祇爹靡㎝磅穨靡и-
箇璸材у莉穝兵ㄒ爹脋洛盢穦珹璣羛üの獶璣羛ü跋癡
谅谅畊
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
兵ㄒ弄ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Bill read the Second time.
兵ㄒ竒筁弄
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
ㄌ沮穦某盽砏材43兵材(1)蹿砏﹚盢兵ㄒ〆ぉ砰〆穦糵某
Committee stage of Bill
兵ㄒ砰〆穦糵某顶琿
Council went into Committee.
セЫ秈砰〆穦糵某顶琿
VETERINARY SURGEONS REGISTRATION BILL
脋洛爹兵ㄒ
Clauses 2, 4 to 11, 13 to 16, 19 to 23, 25 to 34 and 42 were agreed to.
兵ㄒ材24︓1113︓1619︓2325︓34の42兵莉眔硄筁
独綺笽某璓勉畊パ穦某盽砏砏璹ヴ︙某ぇ穝璹兵ゅ莱兵ㄒ兵ゅ矪瞶Ч拨ぉσ納и沮穦某盽砏材68兵笆某既氨磅︽穦某盽砏材46兵(5)蹿獽и┮某ぇ穝璹材29B兵兵ㄒぇㄤ兵ゅ莉ぉσ納
〆穦畊パΤミ猭Ы畊種礚竒箇ぇ薄猵笆某既氨磅︽穦某盽砏矗ぇ叫―ぃ砰〆穦ず眔矪瞶セ畊㏑砰〆穦瞷確ミ猭Ы
Council then resumed.
砰〆穦繦τ確ミ猭Ы
独綺笽某璓勉畊и笆某既氨磅︽穦某盽砏材46兵(5)蹿獽砰〆穦兵ㄒぇㄤ兵ゅσ納и┮某穝璹材29B兵某ぇ穝璹兵ゅ琌籔兵ㄒぇ材1兵Τ闽硈
Question on the motion proposed, put and agreed to.
某ぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕莉硄筁
Council went into Committee.
セЫ秈砰〆穦糵某顶琿
New clause 29B
穝璹兵ㄒ材29B兵Transitional
筁寸┦兵--
Clause read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 46(6).
兵ㄒ兵ゅ竒筁弄ㄌ沮穦某盽砏材46兵材(6)蹿砏﹚㏑逼弄
独綺笽某璓勉畊и笆某弄穝璹材29B兵ず甧更祇癳︗〆ぇゅンず
и瞷笆某タ琌某筁寸戳丁埃璣瓣產脋洛厩皘穦Τヴ︙惠璶ЧΘ5厩︗揭祘脋洛厩皘┮祇靡ョ砆跌脋洛ㄏノкネ兵ㄒの媚警穨の瑀媚兵ㄒ┮菏恨媚︙璶笆某硂兜タ㎡竒蕾笆某タい筁寸┦兵ゅ砏﹚竒蕾〆ヴ獶爹脋洛脋洛程砞ミ恨瞶ЫΘτ竒蕾┯空恨瞶Ы6脋洛い穦Τ3獶璣瓣產脋洛厩皘穦礛τ材拜肈琌街琌脋洛㎡沮瞷︽кネ兵ㄒの媚警穨の瑀媚兵ㄒ龟悔Τ璣瓣產脋洛厩皘穦衡琌脋洛传杠弧獶璣瓣產脋洛厩皘穦脋洛厩皘拨穨ネセぃ衡眔琌脋洛⊿Τ戈砆竒蕾〆ヴ脋洛恨瞶ЫΘ璝琌硂妓埃獶иタ莉硄筁玥竒蕾さぱ┯空セ琌⊿猭辅龟セ兵ㄒ⊿Τ脋洛ㄢ﹚竡璝莉セЫ硄筁τΘ猭ㄒ琌弧恨瞶ЫΤ6脋洛Θи踞み硂薄猵竒蕾さぱ┯空и-
穦〆ヴㄤ猭ㄒ┮ぃ┯粄脋洛秈恨瞶Ы脋洛盢穦猭珼驹τ禗砠玥穦╈┑俱爹脋洛癸獶璣羛ü㎝獶稼幅脋洛厩皘拨穨ネぃそキ硂癸翠笆褐琌ぃそキ
兵ㄒ〆穦璓踞み恨瞶Ыず脋洛ΘΤ璣瓣產脋洛厩皘穦ぃ镑︽穨種ǎτ現┎琌ぃ辨Τゅ砏﹚┮パ竒蕾繷┯空璝иタぃ莉硄筁τ竒蕾┯空禗砠い毖禗杠兵ㄒ〆穦ノ種㎝璚み碞穦场辅
材иタ琌穦旧璓脋洛戈璶―キ㎡璣瓣產脋洛厩皘嘿ぃ岿琌讽笆钮ㄤ龟硂璣瓣產脋洛厩皘┮祇ぃ琌瞏硑耕蔼戈ヴ︙稼幅脋洛厩皘拨穨ネ籔璣瓣緿瑆﹁孽玭獶の脋洛厩拨穨ネ常刚Θ穦传杠弧狦ぃ弧"璣瓣產脋洛厩皘"硂钩琌貉谨纷ネ穛┷礟瞷︽猭┮ㄤ龟碞琌弧璣羛ü㎝稼幅脋洛厩皘厩︗ゅ咎Τ碞琌脋洛τΤㄤ瓣產脋洛厩皘ゅ咎碞ぃ衡琌脋洛иタㄤ龟碞琌某埃瓃璣羛ü㎝稼幅脋洛厩厩︗Τぇㄤ跋脋洛厩厩︗Τ硂筁寸戳丁常莱赣妓砆跌脋洛ǎи⊿Τэ跑ヴ︙Τ闽膀セ癡絤璶―常琌璶―脋洛厩皘拨穨戈琌盢跋耎いゎヘ玡ヴ︙瞶┪瓣挂┮玻ネ猍跌㎝ぃそキ薄猵иタ⊿Τ︽安砞ヴ︙跋癡絤﹚琌蔼┪跋琌ㄆ龟Τ龟悔拜肈琌產みΤ计碞琌弧и-
タ盢穦ㄏい瓣嘲㎝芖脋洛厩皘拨穨ネぃ綝猍跌現┎︓さ⊿猭矗ヴ︙靡沮弧璣瓣稼幅の璣羛ü–丁脋洛厩皘キ常﹚蔼┮Τい瓣嘲㎝芖脋洛厩皘キ┮ヘ玡砏﹚陪琌盿Τ猍跌㎝ぃそキ荡癸ぃ琌厩砃キ拜肈
材иタぃ穦脋洛恨瞶Ы盢ㄓ┮ヴ︙∕﹚ㄆ龟恨瞶Ы盢ㄓ翠爹脋洛璹蔼キ璶―蔼и弧ЧΘ5脋洛厩皘厩揭祘ぇ┮厩︗ゅ咎Ττи辨キ镑矗蔼и獺恨瞶Ы羆ぃ穦璶―ゑ5脋洛厩厩︗ゅ咎キ┮狦иタさぱ莉硄筁玥硂碞琌ミ猭Ы┮矗膀セキ璶―璶笷硂キぃだ跋常衡琌脋洛иタ盢穦ぱそキぃ穦渡凹ぃ穦硑ΘΤㄇ跋脋洛厩皘拨穨ネ蔼单ゲ﹚Τ爹戈τㄤ跋拨穨ネ玱ぃ阶キぃ莉┯粄脋洛盢ㄓ恨瞶ЫΘミ玥ゲ斗竒筁腨略糵琩┪σ刚爹脋洛硄筁иタ產常穦キ帹糵戈ぃ琌そキ盾
材畊︑眖и笆某иタΤㄇぃ耞弧翠脋洛キ穦硂癸笆琌摧гㄆ龟瞷薄猵琌妓㎡瞷ヴ︙常笆暗も砃セ或砏恨⊿Τ籔иさぱ笆某タ⊿Τ闽玒τиタョぃ瞣疉も砃拜肈瞷寒笰矪祇礟倒笰チ┪ㄤ潦禦кネ媚㎝瑀媚礚斗笷ヴ︙厩砃キ璶―А莉祇礟狦弧穦Τ垒ノ拜肈杠瞷Τ┮現┎瞷弧┯粄ㄤ脋洛厩皘厩︗Τ脋洛はτ穦硑Θ繧琵⊿Τ竒筁癡絤ㄏノкネ媚警㎝瑀媚癸笆硑Θ礹璚㎝摧г痷ぃ瞶パ眖︙τㄓ瞷現┎或琵笰チㄏノкネ媚警㎝瑀媚螟笵-
琌竒筁脋洛癡絤盾琵-
ㄏノ硂ㄇ媚珇琌摧г㎡或炊硄笰チΤㄏノ舦τい瓣嘲㎝芖脋洛厩皘拨穨ネ玱ぃ㎡︓粄穦Τ繧硂ぃ琌猍跌琌或㎡
и辨︗某やиタ瞷Τ闽脋洛戈﹚竡耴挡琸琌Τ猍跌㎝逼ジ┦兵ㄒ〆穦踞み硂妓猍跌㎝ぃそキ瞷禜穦┑尿τи弧筁и-
踞紐絋琌Τ龟悔沮и㊣苸︗某やиタ玥杠┤碞琌Θミ恨瞶Ы猍跌㎝ぃそキ瞷禜ご礛琌穦┑尿
︙庇古某璓勉畊иΜ獺碞琌現┎某矗兜︽現逼и笆某ヰ穦琿祏丁琵и-
籔独綺笽洛ネ蛤現┎秈︽祏既坝癚
〆穦畊琌パ独綺笽某矗続ぃ某Α璶―セ畊既氨穦某叫―セ畊既氨穦某璝妮某セ畊獽眔僚箇ㄤ龟セ畊Μ璶―既氨穦某兵非称既氨5だ牧琵-
坝癚临琌琵セ畊矗弄穝璹材29B兵某某肈盾ы┪琌璝セ畊既氨穦某τ独綺笽某眎坝癚Τ挡狦獽硈穝璹材29B兵ぃノ秈︽弄
独綺笽某畊狦現┎痷琌Τ港種矗ㄇ某и讽礛腀種钮ㄤ某......
9.41 pm
边941だ
〆穦畊矗弄某璝セ畊矗某某肈獽現┎莱獽ぃΜ埃獶Τは癸セ畊瞷既氨穦某5だ牧
Committee suspended.
砰〆穦穦某既氨
9.59 pm
边959だ
Committee then resumed.
砰〆穦穦某繦τ確
独綺笽某璓勉畊現┎稱祇ē叫拜и钮Ч∕﹚琌膥尿
CHAIRMAN: It is a highly irregular event. You are not moving it. Since I have not proposed the question on the motion, we just keep it.
独綺笽某畊狦иぃ讽Ы祇ēи砆璶瞷笆某иタ癸盾и讽Ы弧睲贰笆某狦иぃ讽Ы︽祇ē.....
〆穦畊笆某穝璹材29B兵セ畊ご⊿Τ矗某某肈瞷琌砰〆穦糵某顶琿︙庇古某稱笆某セ畊既氨5だ牧セ畊ボ辨パ独某矗既氨璶―虑戳丁籔現┎坝秖┮瞷琌拜肈獶現┎ㄆ薄セ畊р穦某既氨璝稱膥尿獽叫弧フセ畊穦矗某某肈玥セ畊獽ぃр矗穝璹材29B兵秈︽弄
法此某璓勉畊и叫︽ㄏ皍薄舦独綺笽某ヰ穦戳丁籔現┎坝酵笷Θㄇ瞶秆┮и辨畊镑笲ノ皍薄舦琵現┎矗-
穝逼癘魁и獺独某穦篗笆某タиフ硂妓暗Τ翴ぃ砏祘ご辨畊笲ノ皍薄舦纯琵-
ヰ穦坝酵谅谅畊
〆穦畊既氨穦某獶拜肈璝薄猵璶現┎祇ē獽璶Τ某肈セ畊某パセ畊矗某某肈礛パ現┎祇ēㄤ矗Μ璶―⊿Τは癸薄猵獽Μ某
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Mr Chairman, I apologise just now for not speaking at the second reading debate simply because I was trying to negotiate with the Government on the new clause that Dr HUANG would like to propose.
Now, I am a little bit sceptical about Dr HUANG's amendment, but should the Administration be willing to make a statement of alteration then hopefully that Dr Huang would withdraw his amendment.
Mr Chairman, currently only those vets approved by the Director of Health are allowed to use antibiotics and poisons while others who might be able to look after animals are not allowed to do so. In other words, currently there might be people who act as vets, not registered as vets, they look after animals but they cannot use antibiotics or poison.
What Dr HUANG aims to move in his amendment is to allow any person who holds a five year's degree in a course of vet science college to have the right to use antibiotics and poison until a proper system is set up. Now, while this may be a good thing for the so-called bona fide vets who are not yet registered and this will give them the fair chance, yet it also opens the floodgates for it is extremely difficult in my mind to authenticate certificates, and furthermore, the standards of the different so-called vet colleges around the world are not monitored by Hong Kong and we do not know their standards whatsoever. In short, the right to use antibiotics and poison might be inadvertently given to possibly unqualified persons and therefore become an abuse.
I would therefore hope that if a fair situation could be given to the so-called bona fide vet surgeons who are not registerable, the Government could take perhaps two steps. Obviously the first step, which is perhaps the most legal way or legalistic way, is to quickly establish a registering system and a board to minimize the so-called unfair period for these people to as short as possible.
The second way is, as the Administration is trying to consider, an administrative way. In other words, anybody who claims that they are vets, who can produce a certificate to say they are a vet, are firstly enrolled by the Administration. After their enrolment the Administration can actually vet the certificate, vet, perhaps even ask those applicants to give proof of the fact that such a vet college exists around the world, to receive letters from, for example, those colleges to prove the fact that there are really qualified people in those places. And with that as a basis, then the Administration can use an administrative direction to give them a temporary licence, as it were, to use drugs like antibiotics and poison. But with the understanding, and I must put that as a very strong proviso, with the understanding that on the day registration is established
that temporary approval use of anybody would immediately expire. I thought that could well be one of the things that we can perhaps at this late hour to ensure that we have a fair system to all and yet minimise the possible abuse. Even that, Mr Chairman, I still have my doubts but I would be willing to accept that if the Administration make that sort of statement. Thank you.
竒蕾璓勉畊独綺笽某笆某タ莉硄筁и-
琌獶盽闽猔硂兜タぃ虫ゎ疉の脋洛戈拜肈临疉のノ恨媚ㄆ﹜τ硂ㄇ恨媚珹кネ陈綤警㎝瑀珇单硂兜タ盢甧砛ヴ︙斗纯竒ЧΘヴ︙脋洛厩皘矗ㄑ5厩︗揭祘А眔のㄏノ硂摸恨媚硂兜タ琌弧ヴ︙脋洛厩皘⊿Τ砏絛硂ㄇ脋洛厩皘キ┪Τ闽揭祘籔癡絤⊿Τ矗ㄑ盡穨巨の魁矪だよ砏玥癸Τ闽盡穨醚の巨礚ヴ︙玂靡パ某戈獶盽阀珹璶琩店厨厩菌戈盢穦だ螟甧穦旧璓"睼篘辰"拜肈瞷
硂兜タ睝礚好拜穦菏恨кネ陈綤警㎝ㄤ恨媚よ硑Θ獶盽簗瑌и-
程踞みぃ琌êㄇ纯竒筁続讽脋洛癡絤и-
┮踞み琌ㄇみぃ▆ノ硂簗瑌眔瓃恨媚獀励笆獶猭ノ硚и-
獺︗某常ぃ稱硂ㄇㄆ薄祇ネи-
荡癸ぃ莱赣籹硑诀穦甧砛硂摸恨媚辅硂ㄇもず狦琌腨ㄏノ獀励笆よパゼ竒続讽癡絤笆琁ノ硂ㄇ媚穦穕甡笆胺眃の╡-
гぃゲ璶礹璚
脋洛恨瞶Ыㄤい兜璶戮碞琌璹﹚セ翠脋洛爹戈非玥現┎讽Ыの兵ㄒ〆穦常伐磷硂兜戮硂兜莱赣パ脋洛恨瞶Ы磅︽脋洛恨瞶ЫΘ冈灿糵﹚脋洛癡絤キのΜ栋┮ΤΤ闽戈礛络﹚らセ翠脋洛戈非玥硂琌獶盽璶и纯竒矗の讽脋洛恨瞶ЫΘミ6脋洛肂ずи-
穦〆ヴ程ぶ3獶璣羛ü瓣產脋洛戈〆硂恨瞶ЫΘΤ続讽キ颗独某粄竒蕾ぃ〆ヴ獶璣羛ü脋洛ヴΘミ恨瞶ЫΘ硂翴и荡ぃ種и祔笆某材29A兜タ盢穦倒ぉ竒蕾硂兜舦叫︗某み
ヰ穦и-
纯癚阶現┎フ某硂よ闽みи-
腀種┯空璝独綺笽某篗タи-
盢穦︽現惫琁筁寸戳ずヘ玡翠璝纯竒弄5粄脋洛揭祘現┎竒筁龟盢穦蹦ノ︽現惫琁-
祅癘琵-
ノΤ闽媚硂兜祅癘ぃ镑紇臫赣盢ㄓ脋洛〆穦┮璹非玥ビ叫祅癘戈传ēぇ狦-
ぃ镑才盢ㄓ脋洛〆穦┮璹砏ㄒ獽ぃ膥尿ㄏノ硂ōだ硂逼琌穦脋洛砞ミぇи辨独某種硂兜逼篗タ谅谅畊
独綺笽某畊現┎祇ēΤㄇ惫勉ぃ睲捶狦琌硂妓и琌ぃ骸種
CHAIRMAN: I do not regard Dr HUANG Chun-ya's speech as the final reply. In Committee, you are entitled to speak for a second time, a third time, and the Secretary for Economic Services can respond to that, but this is the first and the last exchange. I do not wish to see this Council Chamber turn into a lobby hall.
独綺笽某畊и稱弧睲贰计翴材現┎矗の┮孔粄厩иぃ睲贰琌妓厩и辨讽Ы镑坚睲
材琌闽ㄏノкネ媚㎝瑀珇拜肈酚瞷︽猭ㄒ寒笰矪琌祇礟倒ヴ︙琌珹笰チ┪⊿Τヴ︙厩︗ㄏノ硂ㄇ媚讽Ыぃ跌-
琌脋洛狦現┎琌弧и祇礟倒ㄏノ硂ㄇ媚琌狦-
セぃ琌脋洛杠獽⊿Τ秆∕и弧ぱ拜肈硂妓ぱㄤ龟ご礛琌渡弊璣羛ü厩拨穨ê技ōêㄇご礛ぃ琌脋洛琌莉讽Ы祇礟ττ琌籔笰チ⊿Τだ硂琌ぃ钡
竒蕾璓勉谅谅畊
┪砛и坚睲и-
┮孔粄揭祘琌寒笰矪粄続讽揭祘ぃ琌ㄇ店安揭祘┪ぃ琌ㄇぃのキ揭祘
硂ㄇ莉祅癘А穦砆嘿脋洛
材闽媚よ┮琌êㄇ︽洛惠ノ媚
и辨硂3翴坚睲ㄏ独某骸種
独綺笽某璓勉畊狦и⊿Τ钮岿竒蕾琌蹦ノ︽現惫琁祇礟倒硂ㄇぃ穦跌-
脋洛硂ㄤ龟琌籔瞷︽кネ兵ㄒ籔媚警の瑀媚兵ㄒずΤ闽脋洛﹚竡琌Τ┮ぃ狦琌硂妓ぃ跌-
莉寒笰矪祇礟笰チ┪カチ妓タи纯竒硂琌ぃ镑钡璝讽Ы痷琌硂妓暗杠и琌穦膥尿笆某иタ硂ボ現┎匡拒膥尿猍跌硂ㄇ
и稱翴沮瞷︽砏﹚脋洛璶恨媚珇–Ω患ユビ叫常璶厩菌靡ゅンパ徖ネ竝羛寒笰矪龟ゅン礛甭舦┮斗媚珇璶ビ叫繧媚玥斗璶徖ネ竝竝甭舦礛竒筁硈﹃も尿秈繧媚セ翠Τ扳媚珇﹚璶硄筁竒綪坝潦禦媚珇ゲ斗矗ユ㏕﹚磅穨禘┮戈のパ爹脋洛帽竝矪よ眔传杠弧瞷徖ネ竝籔寒笰矪狦癸ビ叫┮矗ユゅ咎痷鞍Τ┮胔好ㄤ龟琌ぃ祇倒媚┑筐甭舦︓┶荡ビ叫荡癸ぃ琌钩竒蕾┮弧иタス莉硄筁獽穦跑眔睝礚菏恨埃獶瞷現┎癸寒笰矪碞琌Ч⊿Τ菏恨癸璣瓣產脋洛厩皘ㄇ穦ぃ菏恨常ㄓぃ┶眖礚菏恨┪龟┮セ礚磅猭玥杠иㄤ龟琌倒ㄇ琵讽Ы菏恨τ讽Ы瞷琂礛Τ菏恨诀或ㄇ碞礚猭菏恨㎡螟笵瞷璶Τㄓ翠︑嘿琌璣瓣琘厩皘拨穨獽莉钡盾
現┎糶獺禗и弧狦иタ莉硄筁獽穦瞷薄猵碞琌Τㄇ筁寸戳丁琌脋洛盢ㄓパキぃ镑τぃ膥尿讽脋洛辩醇翬洛ネ踞み硂拜肈粄硂ㄇ穦Τē︓硑Θ磅︽螟現┎琌硂妓弧翠脋洛厩穦琌硂芠翴琌狦硂芠翴琌癸杠玥安翠瞷⊿Τヴ︙砆跌脋洛現┎硂杠獽琌癸и-
ぃ莱赣﹚猭弧ΤㄇΤ硂戈獽脋洛ㄆ龟絋ぃ琌硂妓瞷翠Τい瓣嘲㎝芖脋洛厩拨穨ネぃ砆跌脋洛眖璣羛ü㎝稼幅厩拨穨玥莉┯粄琌脋洛現┎临癸и-
弧安琵い瓣嘲籔芖脋洛翠爹脋洛盢ㄓ璶綪礟酚獽螟穦瞣疉猭禗砠┮ぃ莱赣琵-
爹ê或現┎琌ボ盢ㄓ恨瞶ЫΘミ┮Τ璣羛ü┪稼幅脋洛厩皘–拨穨ネ┪琌镑Θ璣瓣脋洛厩皘穦脋洛и-
场常璶酚虫Μ絋粄-
︗τぃ綪ヴ︙翠磅穨戈㎡硂妓瞶盾硂琌单癸и-
弧ㄤ龟翠┮孔脋洛爹碞琌琵硂ㄇ璣羛ü籔稼幅拨穨ネ膥尿翠ㄉΤ胋耞︗㎡и谋眔硂琌Τ拜肈呸胯狦硂ぃ琌猍跌ぃ琌ぃそキ琌或㎡
現┎弧腀種︽現逼и癸琌舧иフ產ぃ稱硂戳丁盢﹚竡耎惗иフ硂ンㄆи矗のㄤ龟и-
瞷Τぶ脋洛иㄤ龟琌稱タи秨﹍弧и-
璶∕﹚脋洛戈璶―產璶キ帹ぃ莱赣秨﹍獽弧璣羛ü脋洛厩皘拨穨獽琌脋洛ㄤ眖い瓣嘲┪芖脋洛厩皘拨穨琌Τ寒笰矪┮祇礟酚籔笰チ┪炊硄カチ⊿Τだ狦讽Ы痷硂妓∕﹚玥Τ硂妓狦材らΤ硂摸莉〆ヴ恨瞶Ы讽Ы獽穦猭珼驹材盢ㄓσ納爹戈痷穦瞷拜肈ㄆ玡рΤ闽だ秨ㄓΤㄇ琌脋洛Τㄇ玥ぃ琌砆购だぃ琌脋洛玥眖ㄓぃ琌脋洛┮獽膥尿ぃ暗脋洛┪﹚璶竒筁σ刚┪贺贺糵莉┯粄脋洛ㄤ玱ぃ惠璶и粄硂琌ぃ钡狦讽Ы︽現逼琌倒ぉêㄇ瞷翠竒龟琌タΑ脋洛厩皘5揭祘厩︗ゅ咎Τ脋洛︗籔璣瓣產脋洛洛厩穦穦(MRCVS)妓и獽穦篗иタ玥杠讽Ы琌倒и-
砛空τ龟悔玱琌蝴ㄤぃそキ㎝猍跌篈
CHAIRMAN: That was the final reply, Dr LEONG Che-hung.
Question on the Second Reading of the clause put.
兵ㄒ兵ゅ弄ぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
CHAIRMAN: Committee shall proceed to a division.
CHAIRMAN: I would like to remind Members that you are now called upon to vote on the question that new clause 29B be read a Second time. Will members please first register their presence by pressing the top button in the voting machine and then proceed to vote by pressing one of the three buttons below?
CHAIRMAN: Before I declare the results, Members may wish to check their votes. Are there any queries? A few short. The result will now be displayed.
Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Miss Emily LAU, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr James TO, Mr Albert HO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the motion.
Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Eric LI, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Miss Christine LOH, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, , Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr MOK Ying-fan and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted against the motion.
Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Michael HO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-yin, Mr Andrew CHENG, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr LAW Chi-kwong and Mr SIN Chung-kai abstained.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 11 votes in favour of the motion and 23 votes against it. He therefore declared that the motion was negatived.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θ11は癸23琌ガ某綝∕
Clause 1
兵ㄒ材1兵
〆穦畊パ独綺笽某┮某ぇ穝璹材29B兵ぇ弄ぃ莉∕ボ独綺笽某碞材1兵笆某ぇ览某タョぃ莉∕ê琌籔穝璹材29B兵Τ闽硈
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: I beg your pardon, a point of clarification, Mr Chairman. In the event that Dr HUANG's amendment is already negatived, does the statement that the Administration made still holds, or is this out of order?
CHAIRMAN: It is not for me to say. Perhaps you can seek clarification at the Third Reading.
Clause 1 was agreed to.
兵ㄒ材1兵莉眔硄筁
Clauses 3, 12, 17, 18, 24 and 35 to 41
兵ㄒ材312171824の35︓41兵
竒蕾璓勉畊и略笆某ㄌ酚矗ユ︗某肚綷ゅン┮更矗某タ脋洛爹兵ㄒ兵ゅ
タ兵ㄒ材3兵ノ琌璹脋洛恨瞶Ы埃畊9Θ舱よΑ竒タ赣9Θ珹1洛ネ┪媚警畍ㄢ脋洛狝叭ㄏノ痲の6爹脋洛兵ㄒ材17の18兵ョ莱タタ兵ㄒ材35兵ノ琌癸кネ兵ㄒ材2兵ず脋洛﹚竡莱タ皌脋洛爹兵ㄒず脋洛﹚竡緇癸兵ㄒ材1224の36︓41兵タΞㄏ兵ㄒΤ闽兵ゅ竡絋┪莱セ兵ㄒ┮矗ㄤ兵ㄒいゅ痷絋セЧΘτ斗
и略某セЫ某硄筁タ
Proposed amendments
览某タず甧
Clause 3 (See annex XV)
兵ㄒ材3兵ǎンXV
Clause 12 (See annex XV)
兵ㄒ材12兵ǎンXV
Clause 17 (See annex XV)
兵ㄒ材17兵ǎンXV
Clause 18 (See annex XV)
兵ㄒ材18兵ǎンXV
Clause 24 (See annex XV)
兵ㄒ材24兵ǎンXV
Clause 35 (See annex XV)
兵ㄒ材35兵ǎンXV
Clause 36 (See annex XV)
兵ㄒ材36兵ǎンXV
Clause 37 (See annex XV)
兵ㄒ材37兵ǎンXV
Clause 38 (See annex XV)
兵ㄒ材38兵ǎンXV
Clause 39 (See annex XV)
兵ㄒ材39兵ǎンXV
Clause 40 (See annex XV)
兵ㄒ材40兵ǎンXV
Clause 41 (See annex XV)
兵ㄒ材41兵ǎンXV
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: I only want to say a few words and I do thank you for this, and apologise for not speaking just now; but I thought this was a relevant time to say what I need to say about this particular Bill.
I am saying this in support of the Bill, and in support of the fact that a board should be established as quickly as possible to establish a proper registration system because to me a proper registration system determines a profession, and a professional practice is of utmost importance in two aspects.
Firstly, to give the proper professional status to those who are the genuine professionals, and more importantly, secondly, to protect the public to the best of their interests. Furthermore, there will be certainly improvement in the quality of veterinary service offered to Hong Kong.
Mr Chairman, while it may be said that vets may only be dealing with animals, yet they are no different in any way to the same privilege as offered to doctors and dentists in the use of drugs and operating the irradiation operators at practice, and so on. And because of that a proper control to ensure that only bona fide and properly qualified personnel are given such a right is very essential.
Yet for a proper registration system to work it must be based on a few basic principles. Firstly, registration must be based on standards, and standards alone. Secondly, standards could only be determined by the profession, and the profession alone. It should not be determined by the Government who should only be giving supportive directions. It should not be determined by the public. Nevertheless the public should be welcome to give their views.
Thirdly, in the initial phase of implementation of registration consideration must be given to those who are already in the trade and that their livelihood should not be jeopardized overnight because of the establishment of a registration system.
The setting up of a Vet Surgeons Board as part of the Bill with 50% of its members being members of the profession is, therefore, to me, a step in the right direction and a move towards the concept and spirit of professional autonomy. It is imperative, therefore, that the board should be set up as early as possible to avoid some of the problems that Dr Huang has mentioned just now, the unfairness, and we do not want the unfairness to extend into any length of time.
This board will have to shoulder the onerous task of setting criteria for registration. I would support that this board should consist of properly trained professionals of both Commonwealth graduates, which Hong Kong is accustomed to, and non-Commonwealth qualified persons who we can prove that they are from well-respected colleges. Together they should determine a system and a standard for Hong Kong, of Hong Kong and for Hong Kong. Yes, in the past, it may be based on the British system, but I think in the future we must base on a Hong Kong system and this could only be done through the cooperation between those who are graduates from the Commonwealth and those who are coming from outside the Commonwealth.
This board must also develop a system to accommodate those who are in practice prior to the passing of the law and yet do not compromise the very much needed standard.
Now, in the course of time, and I do hope that somewhere along the line the Administration can reply, that I think there are two areas that I would like them to develop too. Firstly is that the six vets in the board should ultimately be elected by the profession and not appointed by the Government. And secondly is that a self-declaration of no conviction be a requisite of yearly registration to practice.
I mention these two because these two will be in line with the registration system of the different statutory boards and councils of different professions, and we see that the Social Workers registration is moving along this line, the Nurses and Midwives registration are moving along this line and the doctors and dentists are definitely moving in this line. So, I do hope that, somewhere along the line, the Administration can respond to these two issues, that they will look into this in the course of time.
I support the amendment, thank you.
馋莱某璓勉畊и琌チや現┎タ讽礛程璶琌и-
钡竒蕾矗︽現逼よ某
翠禫ㄓ禫尺舧辽皑尺舧箎緄胐Τㄇ﹡︘縩Τκ虫︗カチ箎緄ο翠癸緄胐荐稲祘パǎ闯脋洛狝叭惠―ョ莱糤ㄆ龟笆籔и-
摸妓穦眞痜獶κ瑀ぃ獻
翠脋洛盡穨瞷薄猵钩ㄤ琘ㄇ盡穨妓ごゼタΑ璹Τ闽爹砏﹚ぃ筁и粄-
ご礛ゑい洛┋笲翴ごセミ猭穦穦戳糵某脋洛爹兵ㄒ狦さぱ硂兵兵ㄒ莉硄筁-
獽Τ盡穨︗兵ㄒ〆穦秈︽糵某戳丁и-
Μ闽刮砰種ǎ現┎矗ㄑぃぶ種ǎㄤいΤㄇ種ǎ琌ボ舧兵ㄒΤㄇ碞現┎筁癸獶璣羛ü瓣產癡脋洛猍跌ボぃ骸ぃ筁セ兵ㄒ膀セ盢场だ拜肈秆∕ㄤい珹恨瞶ЫΘよ竒筁兵ㄒ〆穦Θэ璣羛ü籔獶璣羛ü脋洛и-
斑籔現┎秈︽┰亏驹琌Τ闽ㄏノ媚の獶璣羛ü洛ネ筁寸戳逼ㄆ﹜碞琌赣6る丁ず︙琵獶璣羛ü脋洛妓ㄏノêㄇ洛獀笆媚珇и-
硂拜肈籔現┎Τ╉┑尿︓さぱ10オ現┎沧┯空蹦︽現惫琁秆∕硂拜肈и粄讽Ы硂兜某琌钡
畊瞷丁竒ぃΝ┮и稱虏祏祇ēи-
や現┎タ獶盽虏虫チ粄┮Τ翠カチ矗ㄑ狝叭盡穨常莱赣Τ参爹㎝菏恨碞钩и-
琍戳┮硄筁臔爹兵ㄒ妓硂妓镑玂毁約カチ痲籔胺眃τ硂兵兵ㄒ玥璶┮玂毁琌笆胺眃㎝痲畊и猋洁現┎さぱ┮蹦篈矗︽現逼衡眔琌舧尺и辨產常镑や硂兵兵ㄒ谅谅畊
霉璓某璓勉畊兵ㄒ〆穦糵某硂兜脋洛爹兵ㄒи竒矗ㄇ種ǎτ現┎ョΤσ納钡Τ闽场だиぃ狡瓃辩醇翬某祇ē矗ㄇиセㄓ稱矗種ǎぃ筁и辨镑癘魁┮笷и猭и糵某硂兵兵ㄒ拜肈碞琌Τ闽脋洛﹚竡㎝戈拜肈ご斗恨瞶ЫΘミ﹚τぃ刮砰︑礛Τぃ猭络﹚脋洛戈筁祘よи獺ご礛Τ琿羮ǒら
и粄硂兵兵ㄒΤ拜肈籔ㄤ盡穨爹Τ陪だ碞琌恨瞶ЫΘ琌硄筁〆ヴ玻ネ硂翴琌иゑ耕螟钡ぃ筁タ┮弧Τ硂或ぃ絋の临Τㄆ﹜斗璶琿丁辅龟┮и⊿Τ璶―現┎Τ闽よタи辨镑癘魁碞琌辨現┎ら碞硂拜肈籔らΘミ恨瞶Ы坝癚続讽ま匡庢Θだ赣6ΘА琌硄筁匡庢τ玻ネ谅谅畊
肅繟某璓勉畊癸脋洛盡穨秈︽菏恨璶┦竒眔絋粄ㄓセ翠箎緄胐禫ㄓ禫炊筂癸脋洛狝叭惠―ョ莱糤琌戳ㄓ玱⊿Τ猭﹚砏ㄒ砏恨セ翠脋洛磅穨薄猵
瘤礛瞷Τ猭ㄒ甧砛璣瓣產脋洛厩皘穦ㄏノкネ繧媚㎝瑀媚秈︽脋洛环璣瓣產脋洛厩皘玱螟癸ㄤ穦盡穨巨秈︽Τ菏恨腨琌パセ翠︑甅诀уぃよ┮箋戈菌Τ┮患ユ爹ビ叫セ翠矗ㄑ脋洛狝叭Ы璣瓣產脋洛厩皘穦и-
ǎ┣瞷禜碞琌瘤礛穦癸脋洛狝叭惠―ら痲ち現┎玱盢ㄇ獶璣羛ü瓣產钡脋洛盡穨癡絤拨穨ネ┶窖硂ぃ虫ゎ琌穦穕ア璶琌硑Θ贺伐ぃそキ瞷禜и種ΤㄇㄆΤ矗のτи種碞琌┋現┎〆舱Θよ笆某ㄇ〆穦糵某顶琿タи-
常種の苂砛現┎タ
脋洛爹兵ㄒ盢穦砞ミ脋洛爹﹚兵ゅ癸笻は盡穨夹非爹脋洛琁︽矪だチ羛辨硂兵兵ㄒ镑琵ぃよ脋洛厩皘拨穨ネ镑そキセ翠莉眔磅穨诀穦よ現┎Τ浪北ぃ戈脋洛搭ぶτ璚笆计ヘ磷笆ま癬肚琕痜矗蔼そ渤徖ネキ
畊セ略朝勉や兵ㄒ
独綺笽某璓勉畊Θミ脋洛恨瞶Ы琌翠脋洛キ眔絋玂ㄓ翠笆褐常綝┛跌ヴ︙ぃノΤヴ︙礟酚┪癡絤笆笆も砃ぃぶ胐┍ず盽盽祇ネ環笆薄猵
脋洛恨瞶ЫΘミ獽絋﹚Τ或戈琌脋洛ㄏêㄇセ⊿Τ戈眖ㄓ⊿Τ钡Τ闽癡絤ぃ︑嘿脋洛τ笆璚┮硂莱赣衡琌Τ┮秈˙и-
讽礛辨翠脋洛キ硂兵兵ㄒ硄筁ぇ矗蔼琌矗蔼キи-
﹚璶絋玂ンㄆ碞琌盢ㄓ翠脋洛︗ぃ穦砆琘ㄇ胋耞ぃ穦瞷ぃそキ瞷禜碞钩и┮猍跌㎝ぃそキ瞷禜眔┑尿ê妓
堡琌иタ砆產щ布∕パ硂兜タぃ镑Θ莉硄筁и-
獽⊿Τ快猭玂靡盢ㄓΤ闽脋洛戈夹非琌痷タそキτぃ琌熬会硂妓盢ㄓΤ跑ΘΤ璣羛ü㎝稼幅瓣產脋洛厩皘拨穨ネ膥尿翠ㄉΤ脋洛︗鲸恨-
讽いΤㄇキ畉眔厄絢额琌璶局Τ璣瓣產脋洛厩穦穦戈碞跑Θ脋洛
CHAIRMAN: Dr HUANG, according to Standing Order 31(3), "It shall be out of order to attempt to reconsider a specific question on which the Council has taken a division". I think you have made your point. I suggest you should rather reconsider it in the future.
独綺笽某畊и稱弧琌ご礛Τ┦碞琌Τㄇ斗璶竒筁σ刚┪腨略糵莉爹┮и癸現┎材翴璶―碞琌﹚璶絋玂恨瞶ЫΘミ戳уΘゲ斗璶Τそキ匡拒硂妓ぃ穦ㄏぱキ渡弊玥獽穦瞷ぃそキ瞷禜
現┎矗ㄇ┮孔︽現逼某и稱笵┪砛叫現┎祔祇ē弧睲贰Τ闽︽現逼琌穦и笆某硂兜タ獽┪ぃ龟琁碞琌弧ぃ稱琵瞷翠い瓣嘲㎝芖脋洛厩皘拨穨ネㄉΤㄏノ媚㎝кネ舦и辨竒蕾弧睲贰狦弧琌穦Μ硂ㄇ︽現逼杠и-
獽睲贰笵現┎ずみㄤ龟﹍沧常琌ぃ辨倒い瓣嘲㎝芖脋洛厩皘拨穨ネㄉΤ脋洛︗临⊿秨畑糵癟獽竒"ゴκ狾"⊿Τ坝癚緇ㄤ龟現┎竒弧碞琌ㄏ倒ぉ-
ㄏノ硂ㄇ媚舦琌跌-
笰チぃ筁и稱笵硂ㄇ︽現逼┏琌妓┪砛叫竒蕾弧弧
材翴琌闽盢ㄓ脋洛恨瞶Ыず脋洛и荡癸觅Θ辩醇翬某某﹚璶パ脋洛︽穨タΑ匡庢硂ㄇ﹚璶チよΑ匡⊿Τ瞶パ琌パ現┎〆ヴ
材翴碞琌爹戈拜肈и辨盢ㄓ爹戈﹚琌そキ爹戈窾ぃ璶р琘ㄇ购だ晋ρ晋琌瞷竒翠讽脋洛妮璣瓣產脋洛厩穦穦(MRCVS)盢ㄓゲ﹚计翠暗脋洛ぃ埃τぃノ筁拜-
キи辨盢ㄓ爹戈﹚琌そキ產ぃ阶琌瞷磅穨┪盢ㄓ穦磅穨场常琌夹非ㄓ耞
畊и程稱弧碞琌и癸Θ罿稰だア辨る碞е崔チ碞穦沧ゎ礛τ崔チΑ猍跌癸い瓣㎝芖脋洛猍跌玱ご礛穦┑尿и眔チチ羛羛穦瞷-
常钩竡礛рチ壁竡弧眔簘簘獹獹璶闽繷玱常芥︑い瓣琵崔チ......
〆穦畊独綺笽某ご礛酵阶綝毖材29B兵
独綺笽某畊иぃ穦矗硂ンㄆи竒弧и稱弧и稰だ框狙㎝ア辨
腑瓣辆某畊и稱坚睲独綺笽某┮矗の北弧或"芥"或и辨镑Τ掉∕
〆穦畊独綺笽某弧ㄇ或
独綺笽某畊竒ボиぃ莱膥尿弧êㄇ杠ê琌瞣疉29B┮иぃ稱膥尿弧腑瓣辆某Τ砍届叫把某ㄆ魁
馋莱某畊и琌辨坚睲独某矗のチ┮и稱笵北琌或
〆穦畊馋莱某琌砏祘拜肈
独綺笽某畊и琌ぃ穦璓簆и⊿Τま......
〆穦畊独某琂礛種祇ē程碭妮瞒肈璝硂碭杠玻ネ粇穦璓簆
独綺笽某畊и獺и琌弧ㄆ龟拜肈и┮弧ㄆ龟Τㄇキら竒盽弧タ竡杠ㄆ龟玱ぃ礛
腑瓣辆某畊砏祘拜肈タи粄独某┮弧ぃ琌ㄆ龟┮и辨畊镑坚睲掉∕
〆穦畊セ畊璶既氨穦某5だ牧獽钮穦某魁
10.50 pm
边1050だ
Committee suspended.
砰〆穦穦某既氨
11.00 pm
边11
Committee resumed.
砰〆穦穦某繦τ確
独綺笽某璓勉畊瞷竒琌瞏и-
﹟ΤΤ闽窟拜肈Τ矪瞶筁ǒ璚и篗и┮弧ê杠
法此某璓勉畊独綺笽某癸い瓣㎝芖脋洛琌だ闽猔┮さぱ疭辨镑埃現┎癸-
猍跌現┎縩伐莱иチ囊讽Ы璓谅τ祔-
祇ē临穦Τ縩伐莱и辨產よ癸脋洛薄猵㎝ら爹㎝菏恨镑闽猔
谅谅畊
竒蕾璓勉畊Τ︗某矗ㄑ腳禥種ǎ疭琌碞恨瞶Ы舱Θ拜肈矗ㄑ種ǎи-
璓谅и︗┯空脋洛恨瞶Ы盢ㄓ璹﹚Τ闽爹戈非玥ゲ﹚琌盡穨癡絤キ夹非τぃ琌办夹非┮盢ㄓぃ穦Τ璣羛ü┪獶璣羛üぇだи-
穦荷еΘミ恨瞶Ыタи纯竒矗のи-
箇璸パ恨瞶ЫタΑΘミ︓ㄤЧΘ络璹非玥㎝秈︽爹单阀穦さ┏獽ЧΘ禯さぃ筁琌计る丁
и纯┯空讽и弧狦独綺笽某篗タи獽穦龟筋┯空и竒砛硂┯空иぃ稱独某篗タ玱ぃ龟筋и瞷狡и┯空筁寸戳ずヘ玡翠纯竒拨戳5莉寒笰矪粄脋洛揭祘現┎盢穦蹦ノ︽現惫琁竒筁龟ㄤ戈祅癘ㄤ脋洛ㄏ硂ㄇノ矗ㄑぉ脋洛盡穨狝叭┮惠媚硂兜祅癘ぃ穦紇臫盢ㄓ脋洛〆穦络璹爹夹非∕﹚传杠弧狦恨瞶Ы┮络﹚戈Τ瞷и┮矗兵ン玥Τ闽獽ぃ纯竒脋洛τ莉爹爹脋洛
硂琌兜筁寸逼脋洛砞ミ穦и辨硂兜┯空坚睲ㄇ產ぃ睲贰よ
иΩや現┎某璓谅谅谅畊
Question on the amendments put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Question on clauses 3, 12, 17, 18, 24 and 35 to 41, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材312171824の35︓41兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
New clause 29A
穝璹兵ㄒ材29A兵Transitional
筁寸┦兵--
Clause read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 46(6).
兵ㄒ兵ゅ竒筁弄ㄌ沮穦某盽砏材46兵材(6)蹿砏﹚㏑逼弄
竒蕾璓勉畊и略笆某ㄌ酚矗ユ︗某肚綷ゅン┮更矗某弄材29A兵穝璹筁寸┦兵ゅ
硂兵穝璹兵ゅΞㄏ竒蕾恨瞶ЫΘミ戳〆ヴ脋洛秈恨瞶Ы埃獶Τ闽脋洛讽Θ爹脋洛玥ㄤヴ戳璸ぃ眔禬筁18る硂兜兵ゅ琌ゲ惠恨瞶ЫΘミ戳莉〆ヴ秈恨瞶Ы6脋洛ぃ琌材3兵┮砏﹚爹脋洛
谅谅畊
腑瓣辆某璓勉畊и舧現┎┯空ㄆ龟Τ闽脋洛恨瞶ЫΘよи-
痷獶盽辨現┎フ硂恨瞶Ыゲ斗珹獶璣瓣產脋洛厩穦Θτ現┎碞硂翴玂靡チ羛常獶盽绊脋洛恨瞶Ыゲ斗珹い瓣ずの芖癡脋洛琵-
硂恨瞶Ыи-
ボや独綺笽某某琌膀硂и-
ビチ羛硂拜肈琌やい瓣ずの芖脋洛硂恨瞶Ы
谅谅畊
独綺笽某璓勉畊и璶虑硂诀穦竒蕾璓谅и-
┮砛┯空и辨絋龟穦龟筋ㄏ脋洛恨瞶Ы镑ΘΘミのΝ痷タそキ矪瞶翠┮Τ戈脋洛爹ㄆ﹜
Question on the Second Reading of the clause proposed, put and agreed to.
兵ㄒ兵ゅ弄ぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕莉硄筁
Clause read the Second time.
兵ㄒ兵ゅ竒筁弄
竒蕾璓勉畊и略笆某セ兵ㄒ莱糤干穝璹材29A兵
Proposed addition
览某糤干
New clause 29A (See annex XV)
穝璹材29A兵ǎンXV
Question on the addition of the new clause proposed, put and agreed to.
糤干穝兵ゅぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕莉硄筁
Schedules 1 and 2 were agreed to.
1の2莉眔硄筁
Council then resumed.
砰〆穦繦τ確ミ猭Ы
Third Reading of Bill
兵ㄒ弄
THE SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES reported that the
竒蕾厨孔
VETERINARY SURGEONS REGISTRATION BILL
脋洛爹兵ㄒ
had passed through Committee with amendments. He moved the Third Reading of the Bill.
竒タ硄筁砰〆穦糵某顶琿笆某弄瓃兵ㄒ
Question on the Third Reading of the Bill proposed, put and agreed to.
兵ㄒ弄ぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕莉硄筁
Bill read the Third time and passed.
兵ㄒ竒弄硄筁
Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Bill
確兵ㄒ弄臛阶
DOGS AND CATS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
1996窟璹兵ㄒ
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 22 May 1996
確せきるら笆某ぇ弄臛阶
︙庇古某璓勉畊セ略1996窟璹兵ㄒ〆穦畊ōだ︗某蹲厨兵ㄒ〆穦坝某筁祘の虑诀穦纯碞赣兵ㄒ矗ユ種ǎ诀篶璓谅セ疭稰谅翠稲臔笆穦の翠穦Τその戈瞏絤畍狶簙吏ネ挤ぞ畊兵ㄒ〆穦穦某〆秆睦-
種ǎ
Τ闽恨唉瞷︽猭ㄒ続ノ唉礚矗瓃疭珇贺唉挪祇ネ﹙玶旧璓甡ō砰ぃ祘端甡赣兵ㄒ览砏恨繧唉痓緄の恨盢繧唉だ3摸"矮唉""繧唉"の"肩繧唉"–摸Τ疭﹚恨赣兵ㄒ莉眔硄筁羆服穦︽現Ы盢穦﹚繧唉砏ㄒ"赣砏ㄒ"碞龟琁赣兵ㄒ灿竊﹚兵ゅ
沮赣兵ㄒ羆服穦︽現Ы硓筁砏ㄒ碞Τ闽恨唉ㄆ﹜璹ミ兵ゅ赣单ㄆ﹜珹唉だ摸窽超醚浪琩Ι痙反防の⊿Μ单癸盿烩唉秈そ渤よ恨の碞唉τщ潦玂繧砏﹚砏﹚挪赣单ㄆ﹜癸そ渤Τ約獂紇臫τ硂Ω糵某竒喷ず兵ㄒ〆穦芠诡ぃ舱ぃ舱麓癸唉恨種ǎΤだ猍珿и-
粄讽Ы盢矗ユ妮猭ㄒぉミ猭Ыуミ猭Ы惠璶Τì镑丁坝某Τ闽拜肈の穦ǎΤ闽刮砰测钮-
紇臫翴種ǎ赣兵ㄒ┮砏﹚蹦ノ琌"ぃ∕∕某祘"珿糵某戳28ら┪程┑︓糵某戳Ωミ猭Ы穦某ゎㄏ某Τ丁糵某Τ闽妮猭ㄒ現┎讽Ы钡兵ㄒ〆穦璶―ヴ︙沮赣兵ㄒ材5兵﹚砏ㄒ斗沮"タ某∕祘"竒ミ猭Ыуи盢穦兵ㄒ〆穦矗タ
沮赣砏ㄒ览セ甧砛砏ㄒ┮瓃3摸繧唉⊿Τ盿瞣ま┪⊿Τ拦甅薄猵秈┪硆痙そ渤よ妮笻猭瞷︽猭ㄒョ璹赣单砏﹚赣砏ㄒ盢穦絋の睲贰璹Τ闽繧唉兵ゅ兵ㄒ〆穦〆癸赣单砏﹚続ノ"肩繧唉"Τ┮玂痙赣摸唉珹硄盽ぃ穦ゼ砆縀薄猵脓阑摸贺パ赣摸唉砰秖の肩瞨疭┦╡-
脓阑摸穦腨端〆粄贺盢唉肩繧唉摸ぃ讽-
踞みㄏ寒笰矪┪牡よョゼ讽初淮挪赣单贺筃阶カチ场だ砰胑唉瞨沮赣兵ㄒだ摸赣单唉ぃ妮肩繧唉摸贺薄猵ぃ虫ゎ穦讽Ы螟磅猭τョ穦籔獶ぇ丁侥碿て贺だ摸よΑョ穦旧璓カチ笿ゼΤ盿瞣まのゼ拦甅瞨唉赣单唉妮繧唉摸玻ネ獶瞶┦倪
〆诡眡唉砆拦甅┪穦稰╣募ぃτ跑眔繧τぃ続甅ョ穦唉環讽〆穦高拜Τ闽ㄤ瓣產Τ闽ミ猭竒喷現┎ョ镑矗ㄒ獽琌穝℡τぃ镑庢ㄤㄒ〆某紀埃肩繧唉摸蹦ノ甧磝搐┪ㄑ醚唉非玥癸赣单唉蹦ノㄇō砰惫琁パ虫琌唉砰稰┪ぃ〆穦璶―現┎讽Ыσ納ㄏノ秖┪蔼砏﹚蹦ō砰惫琁非玥
現┎讽Ы竒σ納蹦ノ唉秖砏﹚唉斗宽︽猭﹚ō砰惫琁非玥某秖非玥20そょい单砰睼贺キА砰〆穦ョ玥笷醚硂ㄇずそ渤よ莱赣拦瞣まの甅ぷㄤ琌ど诀单ゑ耕疷よㄤ稰┪ぃそ渤初┮瞷斗璶拦瞣ま現┎讽Ыョ種紀埃肩繧唉摸兵ㄒ〆穦粄赣单某砆钡礛τи-
粄砰20そょヴ︙唉獽斗ō砰惫琁恨砏﹚穦盿ㄓ獶盽約獂紇臫┮〆玃叫讽Ы璹赣惫琁約獂紉高カチσ納闽猔刮砰種ǎ硂琿戳丁ョΜㄤい闽猔刮砰倒и-
種ǎ硂種ǎ瞷竒锣笷倒現┎
現┎讽Ы盢穦矗〆穦糵某顶琿タ甭舦讽Ы﹚砏ㄒ龟琁兵ㄒ〆穦某紀埃肩繧唉摸の蹦唉砰砏﹚唉斗宽ō砰惫琁非玥現┎讽Ыョ穦笆某ㄤ〆穦顶琿タэ到兵ㄒ览よㄆ﹜
畊蛤и穦笷ㄇ種ǎ玶端ㄆンㄤ龟絋ま癬カチ闽猔иЧやミ猭砏絛ㄇ痓緄唉-
璶-
唉︽┮硑Θ逮耑璽砫ヴи琌緄иョ癚菇ㄇぃ璽砫ヴ-
ぃ唉硂ㄇ唉ぃ﹚刁玶╡-
盢ρ巾禴┪刁睹禲旧璓佩硂ㄇ薄猵ョ琌獶盽盽ǎセ癸猭ㄒの砏ㄒ栋い唉τぃ栋い稰ゑ耕ア辨現┎盢唉磞瓃眔瞨┪肩繧ゲ斗璶╡-
拦甅单иョ稰ゑ耕ア辨ㄓ砏ㄒ┮孔繧唉硂ㄤ龟穦倒ぉカチ岿粇獺カチ狦Τ硂稰谋杠-
穦唉獽┤眔璶㏑畊程獶盽瑈︽緄筿胐Τ筿蔓筿筿纒Τ弧琵酚臮ㄇ筿胐笼ウ-
狥﹁-
盿-
獽琌蚌緄狟ね砫ヴ稰㎝稲み畊狦盢ㄓ翠狟ね来緄硂贺τぃ琌痷┪砛-
┤и谋眔硂琌и-
毙▅獶盽ア毖タ絋暗猭琌畊и-
莱赣暗そチ毙▅緄暗璽砫ヴョカチぃ穦癸唉Τ筁だは莱ㄤい兜ド碞琌讽ǎ唉窾ぃ璶禲禲獽﹚發畊癚阶いョ矗筁и-
約偿そ堕琌砞ミぃ恨絛瞅琵礚斗╈唉偿そ堕︽畊硂琌翠瓜偿そ堕絛瞅痷琌眔パ芖︓瓾珹皐碪êぃΤ絙睫矰窟иぃ粄ê琵唉ぃ砆瞣╈τ篊︽穦硑Θ或繧狦и-
﹁癪盿パ玭矰癬︓俱﹁癪畄常琌偿そ堕и辨寒笰矪続讽薄猵购﹚ㄇ跋ㄇ唉偿拉ぃゲ璶砆瞣ま畊и谋眔硂琌瞶璶―иЧ秆磅︽ぃ穦び甧и硂某現┎続讽σ納セ略朝勉
竒蕾璓勉畊谅谅︙庇古某踞ヴ畊兵ㄒ〆穦冈灿τ糵稸σ納1996窟璹兵ㄒ㎝某繧唉砏ㄒ
現┎灿测钮兵ㄒ〆穦矗腳禥種ǎ縩伐莱и盢穦笆某兜〆穦糵某顶琿タは琈硂ㄇ種ǎτ硂ㄇタ场莉眔兵ㄒ〆穦や
兵ㄒΞ矗ㄑゲ璶舦㎝琜篶崩︽㎝﹚玂毁そ渤唉腨脓阑砏ㄒ
セЫ硄筁兵ㄒ現┎﹚繧唉砏ㄒ盢繧唉だ3摸矮唉繧唉㎝肩繧唉続ノ–摸唉疭﹚恨
兵ㄒ〆穦觅繧唉砏ㄒいΤ闽矮唉㎝繧唉场だи-
穦砏ㄒず玂痙硂ㄇ场だ癸繧唉砏ㄒずΤ闽肩繧唉场だ兵ㄒ〆穦ぃ觅τぇ兵ㄒ〆穦某禬筁琘秖唉ずそ渤よ莱盿瞣ま㎝盿竛τそ渤よ玥莱盿瞣ま礚斗盿竛˙σ納琌20そょ秖非玥
и-
玥種硂兜某ぃ筁タ︙某弧パ硂某籔程某Τだτ瞇籠絛瞅ョ讽約獂紇臫┪い唉и-
钡〆穦種ǎ穦硂兜某程﹚ぇ玡Ω秈︽そ渤吭高
︙某矗のσ納偿そ堕购﹚ㄇよ琵唉ぃ斗瞣まτǐ笆硂兜某и-
穦σ納
谅谅畊
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
兵ㄒ弄ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Bill read the Second time.
兵ㄒ竒筁弄
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
ㄌ沮穦某盽砏材43兵材(1)蹿砏﹚盢兵ㄒ〆ぉ砰〆穦糵某
Committee stage of Bill
兵ㄒ砰〆穦糵某顶琿
Council went into Committee.
セЫ秈砰〆穦糵某顶琿
DOGS AND CATS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
1996窟璹兵ㄒ
Clauses 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 9 were agreed to.
兵ㄒ材12367の9兵莉眔硄筁
Clauses 4, 5, 8, 10 and 11
兵ㄒ材45810の11兵
竒蕾璓勉畊и略笆某酚祇癳ぉ︗某ゅン┮更某タ兵ㄒ兵ゅ癸兵ㄒ材4兵璶タ琌埃Τ闽脋洛靡の脋洛览某﹚竡и-
粄盢硂ㄢ兜﹚竡祔矗ユ繧唉砏ㄒず穦続讽硂兜砏ㄒいΤ闽矮唉の繧唉荡▅兵ゅ穦矗の硂ㄢ迭粂癸兵ㄒ材5兵璶タи-
Τ舦璹砏ㄒ恨盢唉盿┕ヴ︙よずそ渤よョㄏи-
Τ舦嘿秖の秖唉龟︽兵ㄒ〆穦矗癸唉菏恨穝某硂ㄇタ琌ゲ斗癸兵ㄒ材8兵タ琌р"ō砰腨端"迭穝﹚ㄏΤ闽兵ゅ甧フ竒タ牡叭┪莉甭舦唉旧璓端穦Τ闽端"瞶斗ミ癳┕洛皘痙洛钡獀励"非玥ㄓ﹚-
琌腨端甡∕﹚琌斗璶穓琩Τ闽唉緇タ珹タ莱兵ゅ玂Τ砏ㄒいゅ癸莱迭のэ秈兵ゅ览よΑ叭―ㄏΤ闽兵ゅ睲捶и略某セЫ某硄筁硂ㄇタ谅谅畊
Proposed amendments
览某タず甧
Clause 4 (See annex XVI)
兵ㄒ材4兵ǎンXVI
Clause 5 (See annex XVI)
兵ㄒ材5兵ǎンXVI
Clause 8 (See annex XVI)
兵ㄒ材8兵ǎンXVI
Clause 10 (See annex XVI)
兵ㄒ材10兵ǎンXVI
Clause 11 (See annex XVI)
兵ㄒ材11兵ǎンXVI
Question on the amendments put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
︙庇古某璓勉и略笆某秈˙タ材5兵タず甧更祇癳倒︗〆ゅンぇず畊硂兜タ琌〆穦矗璶琌辨盢ㄓ沮材5兵璹ミ砏ㄒゲ斗莉ミ猭Ыタ硄筁眖τи-
盢ㄓ钡ǎぃ刮砰测钮-
種ǎ礚斗28ぱ浚現┎ョ竒種ぃ穦は癸
竒蕾и癸硂兜タ某⊿Τは癸種ǎ
Question on the amendment put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Question on clauses 4, 5, 8, 10 and 11, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材45810の11兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Council then resumed.
砰〆穦繦τ確ミ猭Ы
Third Reading of Bill
兵ㄒ弄
THE SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES reported that the
竒蕾厨孔
DOGS AND CATS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
1996窟璹兵ㄒ
had passed through Committee with amendments. He moved the Third Reading of the Bill.
竒タ硄筁砰〆穦糵某顶琿笆某弄瓃兵ㄒ
Question on the Third Reading of the Bill proposed, put and agreed to.
兵ㄒ弄ぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕莉硄筁
Bill read the Third time and passed.
兵ㄒ竒弄硄筁
MEMBERS' MOTIONS
某某
INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL CLAUSES ORDINANCE
睦竡の硄玥兵ㄒ
MR RONALD ARCULLI to move the following motion:
"That section 2 of the Government Rent (Assessment and Collection) Regulation, published as Legal Notice No. 296 of 1997 and laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 11 June 1997, be amended by repealing "as if the leased land were a tenement liable for assessment to rates under the Rating Ordinance (Cap. 116)" and substituting "in accordance with sections 7 and 7A of the Rating Ordinance (Cap. 116)"."
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr President, I rise to move the motion standing in my name in the Order Paper. Section 7 of the Rating Ordinance sets out the general rule in ascertaining rateable value: "The rateable value of a tenant shall be the amount equal to the rent at which a tenement might reasonably be expected to let from year to year."
Annex 3 of the Joint Declaration provides that all new leases of land granted on or before 30 June 1997 shall not require payment of additional premium after that date but, "an annual rent equivalent to three percent of the rateable value of the property at that date, adjusted in step with any changes in the rateable value thereafter" shall be charged. The same expression "an annual rent equivalent to three percent of the rateable value of the property at that date" is found in Article 121 of the Basic Law.
Initially, the Administration wanted to provide that the rateable value of such land would be 5% of the capital value and therefore it follows that the rent would be 3% of such rateable value. I believe that that was unacceptable and with the able assistance of my colleague, the Honourable Albert CHAN, we were successful in fighting against such formulation. As a result, the Administration amended that clause into Regulation 2.
However, the position is still not satisfactory as it could be argued that the Government can charge rent for undeveloped sites even if the sites are not liable for assessment to rates under the Rating Ordinance. If that were the case, Regulation 2 would go beyond the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. Regulation 2 is objectionable because it creates the notion that the leased land before development is liable for assessment to rates.
The second objection is that, whether this is so depends on Section 7, which I repeat, "the rateable value of a tenement shall be an amount equal to the rent at which the tenement might reasonably be expected to let from year to year."
My amendment seeks to clarify the position and a potential problem by confining the basis of assessment of rateable value to section 7 and 7A of the Rating Ordinance. These two sections respectively provide the formula and assumptions in ascertaining rateable values. There is no other section in the Rating Ordinance or in the subsidiary legislation that provide any basis for ascertaining of rateable values of land before development.
The Administration may try to draw Members' attention to a clause in the Conditions of Grant for all new land leases since 27 May 1985, the clause which, for the purposes of rent collection, gives the Director of Land a power to fix the rateable value for a tenement which is not included in the valuation list. However, this clause stands as contractual term between the lessor and lessee, whilst the regulation is going to turn this into public law. The Legislative Council's duty is to ensure that the regulation is fully consistent with the Basic Law and the Joint Declaration.
During my discussion with the Administration, the Administration raised an interesting point: "The fact that for rating purposes there may be no rateable occupation should not preclude the determination of a rateable value for the purpose of determining Government rent." If this is the reason why the Administration sticks to its drafting and rejects my amendments, this Council must consider whether it is consistent with Annex 3 and Article 121, and that is, whether these two documents warrant or call for a revision of the definition of rateable value.
In my submission, it cannot and does not seek to do so. Furthermore, to accept the Administration's position would be introducing into our rating laws the new concept of paying Government rent for non-rateable occupation. This is clearly wrong and inequitable.
I urge colleagues to support my amendment which will preserve the existing position. Thank you, Mr President.
朝岸穨某璓勉畊蝶︳の紉Μ兵ㄒ竒癚阶琿丁癸甃ㄎ瞶某碞硂兵ㄒ疭皐癸祇甶玡莱揭畉昏拜肈〆穦癚阶チ囊碞甃ㄎ瞶某┮矗璹瞏㎝浪癚㎝╯癸現┎矗硂兜某タ甃ㄎ瞶某┮弧琌兜穝現郸璹の硂逼琌そキ瞶㎝猭暗猭и-
蝶︳眔挡阶
膀セ硂兜某現┎蝶︳の紉Μ兵ㄒい﹚砏ㄒㄇ祇甶玡紉Μ畉昏琘祘и-
谋眔硂琌э跑硂э跑瞶パ︙の現┎硂э跑琌続讽и-
陆琩筁祇甶戈㎝Τ闽菌笵ㄤ龟硂砏ㄒ┮紇臫沮現┎и-
矗ㄑ戈陪ボ碭场常琌きい璣碞逼現┎穝芥Τ現┎き㎝ぇ扳芥芥兵蹿い竒Τ睲贰兵ゅ糶Τ闽Τ斗煤τ琌沮現羆竝竝蝶︳络﹚莱揭畉昏の現┎瞷┮矗砏ㄒ兵ゅいΤ闽灿玥
и-
纯兵ゅゑ耕и-
ゑ耕現┎硂砏ㄒい┮璹﹚砏﹚甃ㄎ瞶某矗璹の︑き現┎芥夹非ゅン硂よΤ闽兵ゅи-
纯籔チ囊畍某灿╯Τ闽兵ゅи-
挡阶睲贰陪ボ現┎蝶︳の紉Μ兵ㄒい砏ㄒ闽祇甶玡莱揭畉昏逼籔夹非ゅンず兵ゅ碭琌璓現┎硂砏ㄒ┮璹﹚逼膀セ琌蛤繦筁12芥夹非ゅンい兵蹿ㄤ⊿Τ紇臫ㄆ龟現┎и-
埃硂ㄇ芥紇臫Τㄢ碩紇臫ê碞琌ㄢ碩穨恏и-
╯筁┮Τ兵蹿粄現┎┮矗暗猭膀セ琌蛤繦筁ㄇ兵蹿┮и-
谋眔螟は癸現┎硂贺逼
糵某顶琿и-
癸現┎Ν玡某矗眏疨у蝶㎝ぃ骸現┎某暗猭琌㏕﹚κだゑㄓ络﹚莱揭畉昏現┎讽琌某基5%ㄓ络﹚祇甶玡莱揭畉昏礛沮硂璹﹚基璹3%ㄓи-
粄現┎讽硂暗猭琌荡癸岿粇現┎⊿Τヴ︙瞶パ安﹚莱揭畉昏琌基5%τ現┎ぃヴパ畉昏穨︳基竝竝虫よ笲ノ︽現舦ㄓ璹﹚⊿Τ倒Τヴ︙诀穦禗㎝ビ臛и-
ボは癸タ甃ㄎ瞶某┮弧現┎硂Ω璹璹現┎玡某τ穝逼琵Τ沮畉昏兵ㄒ禗㎝は癸
σ納┮Τ逼㎝Τ闽灿竊チ囊は癸甃ㄎ瞶某┮矗璹
谅谅畊
肅繟某璓勉畊煤ユ逼琌パい璣羛羘璹﹚セЫる硄筁蝶︳の紉Μ兵ㄒτさぱ癚阶蝶︳の紉Μ砏ㄒ璶琌莱瓃兵ㄒ兵蹿τ璹ミ璹ミΤ闽砏玥のま琌絋﹚琘贺摸莱揭畉昏現┎览Τ闽砏ㄒゴ衡盢уごゼ祇甶莱揭畉昏璹戈玻5%σ納玻砞坝穦種ǎ∕﹚ぃ盢戈玻5%糶兵ゅず畉昏穨︳基竝竝ら︳基ぃ逼埃ご戈玻5%夹非ぃ筁Τ闽ぃ骸種硂︳糵掉矪矗禗
︓甃ㄎ瞶某璹琌粄沮畉昏兵ㄒ莱揭畉昏琌︘舦ㄓ夹非パ赣碩ごゼЧΘ祇甶┮莱揭畉昏莱箂獽ユ甃ㄎ瞶某玻の硑ōセЫ璶蝴臔赣单︽穨痲み薄セだ瞶秆ぃ筁狦甃ㄎ瞶某某莉眔硄筁玥玻祇甶坝–Ω钡莉︳基硄磷煤ユτ糵掉矪矗禗糤糵掉矪秖ㄇ痷タ惠璶糵掉矪矪瞶τ砆╈┑硂ぃ琌セ┮腀種ǎ
タセるセЫ弄臛阶蝶︳の紉Μ兵ㄒ┮弧畉昏の琌ㄢン篒礛ぃㄆセぃ莱睼酵煤ユ猭砫ヴぃ琌跌Τ闽穨纯┪Τ煤畉昏τ﹚τ羛羘ン礚矗瓃兜穨斗畉昏蝶︳Τ煤ユ猭砫ヴ
侯瓃翴竒уごゼ祇甶沮畉昏兵ㄒユ畉昏玻祇甶坝ご礛Τ砫ヴ煤ユ現┎瞷逼祇甶坝碞︳糵掉矪矗禗龟竒酚臮-
痲
畊セ略朝勉チ羛は癸某
︙玊く某璓勉畊и瞶秆甃ㄎ瞶某┮Τ贺稱猭-
阶沮琌い璣羛羘ン砏﹚璶煤ユτ琌莱揭畉昏κだゑㄓ璸衡沮讽猭ㄒ狦ゼ祇甶⊿Τㄏノ琌⊿Τ莱揭畉昏現┎瞷礛砏ㄒ钩э跑讽帽竝羛羘瞶秆
ぃ筁и谋眔瞷硂砏ㄒ璹礚阶琌竚Τ祇甶﹚Τ莱揭畉昏ぃ琌笻は羛羘琌Τ舦猭ㄒず猭﹚﹚竡拜肈硂妓暗Τ硑Θぃそキ薄猵и穦みσ納硂翴
и睲贰琩拜筁現┎-
弧瞷紇臫场常琌уêㄇ兵蹿弧ぃ阶琌竚現┎АΤ舦蝶︳赣莱揭畉昏┮セ⊿Τ紇臫瞷琌蝶︳の紉Μ兵ㄒ硄筁盢ず兵蹿э猭ㄒΑ糶ㄓи谋眔硂礚ㄣ砰紇臫琌猭ㄒ蠢и獺ら現┎у穦Τ妓兵蹿ㄆ龟パ﹍︓沧êㄇ玻坝禦┪щА笵礚阶妓瞶秆い璣羛羘-
斗煤ㄏゼ纯祇甶ご斗沮現┎兵蹿ご琌Τ莱揭畉昏
硂薄猵и-
膀ㄢは癸甃ㄎ瞶某某材и-
粄ㄒΑ﹚琘ㄇ竚畉昏礚笻は羛羘ン材俱ンㄆ礚癸ヴ︙硑Θぃそキ紇臫
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President, the Administration does not support the motion moved by the Honourable Mr Ronald ARCULLI.
I would like to explain the Administration's position. As the Administration explained to honourable Members in Paragraph 3(b) of the Legislative Council brief on the regulation which was sent to honourable Members on 5 June 1997, section 2 of the regulation has already been substantially amended to take into account the concerns expressed to the Bills Committee by the Honourable Ronald ARCULLI and the Real Estate Developers Association (REDA).
The original wording of section 2 was to set the rateable value of newly granted sites prior to completion of the development at 5% of the market value of the land. After accepting the view of the Bills Committee the present wording of section 2 already clarifies that the rateable value of these sites will be ascertained as if they were assessable to rates under the Rating Ordinance. This will ensure compliance with Annex 3 to the Joint Declaration which provides that for all leases to which it applies the Government rent will be 3% of the rateable value. A rateable value must, therefore, be ascertained for every such lease. However, for rating purposes, no rateable value is ascribed to newly granted sites prior to completion of the development as there is no rateable occupation of construction sites.
By virtue of the present wording of section 2, developers will be able to make an objection against the Commissioner of Rating and Valuations Assessment under sections 17 or 25 of the Government Rent (Assessment, and Collection) Ordinance in the same way as for any other assessment and if necessary, appeal against his decision to the Lands Tribunal and also make a further appeal to the Court of Appeal on a point of law in accordance with sections 26 and 27 of the Ordinance.
Mr Ronald ARCULLI and REDA are, however, not content with the present wording of section 2. This is because as we understand it they consider the rateable value and hence the Government rent for newly granted sites prior to completion of the development should be nominal or nil because (a) there is no rateable occupation and hence there should be no rateable value; and (b) to impose a substantial rent now would be unfair as developers had no prior warning of the proposal to impose this special method of valuation.
By and large, the only leases which will be affected by section 2 have been granted or re-granted since the Joint Declaration came into effect on 27 May 1985. Our view is that the lease terms for all lots granted since 27 May 1985 are quite clear, that as from 1 July 1997 the Government rent will be 3% of the rateable value. There is no exception made for newly granted sites prior to completion of the development.
There is a provision in the standard lease documentation that the Director of Lands may fix a rateable value as if the tenement were assessable to rates under the Rating Ordinance. The present wording of section 2 follows the wording of the general lease conditions closely. We therefore feel that section 2 in its present form is fair to all parties and gives certainty and ensures compliance with the requirements of the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law.
If the wording of section 2 is amended as proposed by Mr Ronald ARCULLI, we will still argue that the rateable value must be ascertained for these sites. If the proposed amendment is passed and the Lands Tribunal were to rule that there is no rateable occupation for a newly granted site
prior to completion of the development and hence no rateable value this will strike at the legal basis for us to demand of payment of Government rent in accordance with Annex 3 to the Joint Declaration and Article 121 of the Basic Law. The position would be uncertain until determined by the Court of Appeal. From the lessor/lessee relationship point of view, the absence of a rateable value and hence no Government rent being payable will put the legality of the lease into question.
Mr President, I would also like to make clear that for the explanation I have just given the Administration does not accept Mr Ronald ARCULLI's assessment that the present wording of section 2 would go beyond the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law.
Honourable Members may wish to note that the general lease conditions on which the present wording of section 2 is modelled closely has been approved for use since the entry into force of the Joint Declaration by the Sino-British Land Commission. There is no question of the Administration redefining the rateable
value. The purpose of section 2 is simply to enable the Administration to ascertain the rateable value for the purpose of determining the amount of Government rent payable as required by the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, yet leaves room for the situation where a minimal rateable value or new rateable
value is ascertained in which case it is accepted that no Government rent would be payable.
Mr President, I wish to repeat that the Administration does not support this motion, and we would appeal to honourable Members to vote against it. Thank you.
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Very briefly, Mr President, I know it is late, so I will not hold Members for too long.
Firstly, I would like to make very clear that the praise lavished on me for defending my constituents' interests is wholly unmerited simply because I am not doing this at their behest.
If you read regulation 2, it says "Where any land leased has not been developed after commencement of the term of the applicable lease". That applies to most land in the New Territories that are undeveloped, so to say, that this only applies to new land sold is a mystery to me. So, for those that come from the New Territories that favour the Government's position, well, all I can say is that you had better start looking into your bank account to see whether you can afford to pay the Government rent.
Second point, Mr President, is this, that in terms of the leases that expire on 27 June this year there is, as it were, an automatic renewal for 50 years and in the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law it is provided that no premium will be paid, no premium will be paid. Instead it would be 3% of the rateable value. So, here we are, we have a whole bunch of land in Hong Kong where no premium will be paid, but on 27 June I bought a piece of new land, for which I pay full market price, that is, premium, and yet on 1 July I will have to pay 3% of the rateable value. Where is the fairness? Where is the equity? Where is the demand in the Joint Declaration or the Basic Law that compels the Government to collect an additional amount over and above premium for new land but not for old land, except of course the exception that I mentioned about any land in Hong Kong that has not been developed since the lease was granted?
The second point that I wish to make is this, whichever way you look at it there can only be one rateable value. You cannot have one rateable value for rates and another rateable value for rent. If you have no rateable value for rates, how on earth do you get a rateable value for rent? The Government is asking you to accept that notion, that fiction, that there are two rates. Well, as they say in Cantonese"﹛ㄢ"Now you know what it means.
As far as the conditions of sale of a contract relied upon by the Government to say that, "Well, don't worry about it, if there is no rateable value Director of Lands can fix one. So, I have got you anyway." Mr President, this is the first time I hear a government official saying that another government official can act outside the law capriciously simply because there exists a term in a contract that appears to give him the right to do so. We are talking about public law.
So, I think for those colleagues of mine that think I am spouting nonsense, and on the face of it, do not want to support my amendment, they have one last chance. I hope I have been able to persuade them. If that does not work, right, just think about this. For newly sold land Government rent will be payable. What would that mean? That would mean that the developer's costs have increased. Who then pays for that? Not the developers, but the people that either rent the flats from them or buy the flats from them. Now, if that is what Members want I rest my case.
Question on the motion put.
某ぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
Mr Ronald ARCULLI claimed a division.
甃ㄎ瞶某璶―翴∕
PRESIDENT: Council shall proceed to a division.
PRESIDENT: I would like to remind Members that you are now called upon to vote on the question that the motion moved by Mr Ronald ARCULLI, under the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance be approved. Will Members please first register their presence by pressing the top button in the voting machine and then proceed to vote by pressing one of the three buttons below?
PRESIDENT: Before I declare the results, Members may wish to check their votes. Are there any queries? The result will now be displayed.
Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Eric LI, Mr Howard YOUNG and Miss Margaret NG voted for the motion.
Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-yin, Miss Christine LOH, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Andrew CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr Albert HO, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted against the motion.
THE PRESIDENT announced that there were six votes in favour of the motion and 36 votes against it. He therefore declared that the motion was negatived.
畊ガ觅Θ某6は癸36琌ガ某綝∕
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
穦某既氨
PRESIDENT: I now suspend the sitting for the day. Council resumes at exactly 9.00 am this morning.
Suspended accordingly at two minutes past Midnight.
穦某笶贬002だ既氨
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL - 25 June 1997
568
ミ猭Ы せるきら
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL - 25 June 1997
569
ミ猭Ы せるきら
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.