1971 — Page 52

Urban Council Proceedings 市政局議事錄 All AI Reviewed

Page 52

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Standing Order 8(1) provides that

"If seven clear days' notice in writing has been given to the Secretary a Member of the Council may ask the Chairman or the Chairman of any Committee any question relating to business of the Council:

Provided that the period of notice may be reduced with the permission of the Chairman.”

A few years ago the Acting Secretary of the Council, presumably after consultation with the Chairman, put forward a paper in effect stating that where notice is received on a Monday on a question to be asked on the following Tuesday, it was insufficient in respect to difficult and/or complicated questions, particularly if to answer it meant consultations with a department not under the general supervision of this Council. It was, therefore, proposed to cut out the words in 4(2) "if the intervening period is less than 6 days". In other words, the effect of that amendment was to give the department at least 10 days. But, as there is nobody to receive a question on behalf of the Secretary on Saturday afternoon, in practice, it means that most questions are received on or before Friday, to be asked at a meeting 11 days later. I can only think that the Council passed this amendment because of the clear proviso in Standing Order 8(1)

"provided that the period of notice may be reduced with the permission of the Chairman."

I certainly have had this permission of Chairman exercised in my favour in the past, as I expect very many other members have also.

On Monday the 26th April, I submitted a question which would have been in time, i.e., 7 clear days' notice, upon the ordinary meaning, but for the special meaning that this Council gave by the amendment of the Standing Order 4(2). The question was

"I have received a number of complaints from tenants of resettlement estates who are forced to use communal lavatories that they are dark, slippery, foul-smelling, damp, generally unhygienic, even sometimes dangerous and in some cases young hooligans have been observed hiding in the darkness and watching young ladies going there. Would the Commissioner for Resettlement inform the Council what measures have been taken to alleviate these complaints, if any."

The Chairman graciously admitted (over the telephone) that it was not a difficult question. But the Secretary, on instructions, rejected the question by the following letter

Dear Brook,

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

27th April, 1971

Thank you for your letter of 26th April in which you gave notice of a question. As I informed you yesterday afternoon, the closing date for questions was Saturday, 24th April, and the Chairman regrets, in the circumstances, that he cannot accept your question for the May meeting. I should be grateful to know if you wish me to carry your question over to the June Meeting.

Yours sincerely,

(J. A. M. TINSON) Secretary, Urban Council."

I wrote to the Chairman the following letter

Dear David,

27th April, 1971

I gave notice on Monday the 26th of April of a simple question that I want to ask at this month's meeting. But you are relying on Standing Order 4(2) in which the definition of clear day was amended, I think, at a meeting that I was not present, by the exclusion of the words 'if the intervening period is less than six days'. This exclusion is not in keeping with the Interpretation Ordinance, Cap. 1, and certainly not in keeping with the drafters of the Standing Orders, including myself, who designed them so that the last day could be on a Monday. Anyhow, you said you regret. You cannot possibly regret because by Standing Order 8(1) you have the discretion to reduce the period of notice. My question is a comparatively simple one that can be answered in the time allowed from receipt of the notice. Therefore, in all fairness, you should have allowed it. The only reason that, in effect, 10 days' notice can be justified is because the time of notice must allow for the extremely difficult question. If, therefore, you do not exercise your discretion to allow a shorter period on easier questions, then the whole system is thrown into chaos, and the amendments to the definition clause will certainly have to be cut out. I, therefore, ask you to reconsider the amendment, but if you do not, then I give you and the Secretary notice that at the May meeting I will move a motion to amend the Standing Orders by inserting in Standing Order 4(2) the words "If the intervening period is less than six days".

Yours

Brook BERNACCHI.

Page 52

Edit History

2026-05-14 14:42:33 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

Page 52 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL Standing Order 8(1) provides that "If seven clear days' notice in writing has been given to the Secretary a Member of the Council may ask the Chairman or the Chairman of any Committee any question relating to business of the Council: Provided that the period of notice may be reduced with the permission of the Chairman.” A few years ago the Acting Secretary of the Council, presumably after consultation with the Chairman, put forward a paper in effect stating that where notice is received on a Monday on a question to be asked on the following Tuesday, it was insufficient in respect to difficult and/or complicated questions, particularly if to answer it meant consultations with a department not under the general supervision of this Council. It was, therefore, proposed to cut out the words in 4(2) "if the intervening period is less than 6 days". In other words, the effect of that amendment was to give the department at least 10 days. But, as there is nobody to receive a question on behalf of the Secretary on Saturday afternoon, in practice, it means that most questions are received on or before Friday, to be asked at a meeting 11 days later. I can only think that the Council passed this amendment because of the clear proviso in Standing Order 8(1) "provided that the period of notice may be reduced with the permission of the Chairman." I certainly have had this permission of Chairman exercised in my favour in the past, as I expect very many other members have also. On Monday the 26th April, I submitted a question which would have been in time, i.e., 7 clear days' notice, upon the ordinary meaning, but for the special meaning that this Council gave by the amendment of the Standing Order 4(2). The question was "I have received a number of complaints from tenants of resettlement estates who are forced to use communal lavatories that they are dark, slippery, foul-smelling, damp, generally unhygienic, even sometimes dangerous and in some cases young hooligans have been observed hiding in the darkness and watching young ladies going there. Would the Commissioner for Resettlement inform the Council what measures have been taken to alleviate these complaints, if any." The Chairman graciously admitted (over the telephone) that it was not a difficult question. But the Secretary, on instructions, rejected the question by the following letter Dear Brook, HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL 27th April, 1971 Thank you for your letter of 26th April in which you gave notice of a question. As I informed you yesterday afternoon, the closing date for questions was Saturday, 24th April, and the Chairman regrets, in the circumstances, that he cannot accept your question for the May meeting. I should be grateful to know if you wish me to carry your question over to the June Meeting. Yours sincerely, (J. A. M. TINSON) Secretary, Urban Council." I wrote to the Chairman the following letter Dear David, 27th April, 1971 I gave notice on Monday the 26th of April of a simple question that I want to ask at this month's meeting. But you are relying on Standing Order 4(2) in which the definition of clear day was amended, I think, at a meeting that I was not present, by the exclusion of the words 'if the intervening period is less than six days'. This exclusion is not in keeping with the Interpretation Ordinance, Cap. 1, and certainly not in keeping with the drafters of the Standing Orders, including myself, who designed them so that the last day could be on a Monday. Anyhow, you said you regret. You cannot possibly regret because by Standing Order 8(1) you have the discretion to reduce the period of notice. My question is a comparatively simple one that can be answered in the time allowed from receipt of the notice. Therefore, in all fairness, you should have allowed it. The only reason that, in effect, 10 days' notice can be justified is because the time of notice must allow for the extremely difficult question. If, therefore, you do not exercise your discretion to allow a shorter period on easier questions, then the whole system is thrown into chaos, and the amendments to the definition clause will certainly have to be cut out. I, therefore, ask you to reconsider the amendment, but if you do not, then I give you and the Secretary notice that at the May meeting I will move a motion to amend the Standing Orders by inserting in Standing Order 4(2) the words "If the intervening period is less than six days". Yours Brook BERNACCHI. Page 52

Baseline (Original)

2421 Page 52 of 242 84 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL Standing Order 8(1) provides that "If seven clear days' notice in writing has been given to the Secre- tary a Member of the Council may ask the Chairman or the Chair- man of any Committee any question relating to business of the Council: Provided that the period of notice may be reduced with the permission of the Chairman.” A few years ago the Acting Secretary of the Council, presumably after consultation with the Chairman, put forward a paper in effect stating that where notice is received on a Monday on a question to be asked on the following Tuesday, it was insufficient in respect to difficult and/ or complicated questions, particularly if to answer it, meant consulta- tions with a department not under the general supervision of this Coun- cil. It was, therefore, proposed to cut out the words in 4(2) "if the intervening period is less than 6 days". In other words the effect of that amendment was to give the department at least 10 days. But, as there is nobody to receive a question on behalf of the Secretary on Saturday afternoon, in practice it means that most questions are received on or before Friday, to be asked at a meeting 11 days later. I can only think that the Council passed this amendment because of the clear proviso in Standing Order 8(1) "provided that the period of notice may be reduced with the permission of the Chairman." I certainly have had this permission of Chairman exercised in my favour in the past, as I expect very many other members have also. On Monday the 26th April I submitted a question which would have been in time, i.e. 7 clear days notice, upon the ordinary meaning, but for the special meaning that this Council gave by the amendment of the Standing Order 4(2). The question was "I have received a number of complaints from tenants of resettle- ment estates who are forced to use communal lavatories that they are dark, slippery, foul-smelling, damp, general unhygienic, even in sometimes dangerous and in some cases young hooligans have been observed hiding in the darkness and watching young ladies going there. Would the Commissioner for Resettlement inform the Council what measures have been taken to alleviate these com- plaints, if any." The Chairman graciously admitted (over the telephone) that it was not a difficult question. But the Secretary on instructions rejected the question by following letter 66 Dear Brook, HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL 27th April, 1971 85 Thank you for your letter of 26th April in which you gave notice of a question. As I informed you yesterday afternoon, the closing date for questions was Saturday, 24th April and the Chairman regrets, in the circumstances, that he cannot accept your question for the May meeting. I should be grateful to know if you wish me to carry your question over to the June Meeting. Yours sincerely, (J. A. M. TINSON) Secretary, Urban Council." I wrote to the Chairman the following letter 65 Dear David, 27th April, 1971 I gave notice on Monday the 26th of April of a simple ques- tion that I want to ask at this month's meeting. But you are relying on Standing Order 4(2) in which the definition of clear day was amended, I think, at a meeting that I was not present by the exclusion of the words 'if the intervening period is less than six day'. This exclusion is not in keeping with the Interpretation Ordinance, Cap. 1 and certainly not in keeping with the drafters of the Standing Orders including myself who designed them so that the last day could be on a Monday. Anyhow you said you regret. You cannot possibly regret because by Standing Order 8(1) you have the discretion to reduce the period of notice. My question is a comparatively simple one that can be answered in the time allowed from receipt of the notice. Therefore in all fairness you should have allowed it. The only reason that in effect 10 days notice can be justified is because the time of notice must allow for the extremely difficult question. If therefore you do not exercise your discretion to allow a shorter period on easier ques- tions, then the whole system is thrown into chaos and the amend- ments to the definition clause will certainly have to be cut out. I therefore ask you to reconsider the amendment but if you do not, then I give you and the Secretary notice that at the May meeting I will move a motion to amend the Standing Orders by inserting in Standing Order 4(2) the words "If the intervening period is less than six days". Yours Brook BERNACCHI."

2026-05-14 14:42:33 · Baseline

View content

2421

Page 52 of 242

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Standing Order 8(1) provides that

"If seven clear days' notice in writing has been given to the Secre- tary a Member of the Council may ask the Chairman or the Chair- man of any Committee any question relating to business of the Council:

Provided that the period of notice may be reduced with the permission of the Chairman.”

A few years ago the Acting Secretary of the Council, presumably after consultation with the Chairman, put forward a paper in effect stating that where notice is received on a Monday on a question to be asked on the following Tuesday, it was insufficient in respect to difficult and/ or complicated questions, particularly if to answer it, meant consulta- tions with a department not under the general supervision of this Coun- cil. It was, therefore, proposed to cut out the words in 4(2) "if the intervening period is less than 6 days". In other words the effect of that amendment was to give the department at least 10 days. But, as there is nobody to receive a question on behalf of the Secretary on Saturday afternoon, in practice it means that most questions are received on or before Friday, to be asked at a meeting 11 days later. I can only think that the Council passed this amendment because of the clear proviso in Standing Order 8(1)

"provided that the period of notice may be reduced with the permission of the Chairman."

I certainly have had this permission of Chairman exercised in my favour in the past, as I expect very many other members have also.

On Monday the 26th April I submitted a question which would have been in time, i.e. 7 clear days notice, upon the ordinary meaning, but for the special meaning that this Council gave by the amendment of the Standing Order 4(2). The question was

"I have received a number of complaints from tenants of resettle- ment estates who are forced to use communal lavatories that they are dark, slippery, foul-smelling, damp, general unhygienic, even in sometimes dangerous and in some cases young hooligans have been observed hiding in the darkness and watching young ladies going there. Would the Commissioner for Resettlement inform the Council what measures have been taken to alleviate these com- plaints, if any."

The Chairman graciously admitted (over the telephone) that it was not a difficult question. But the Secretary on instructions rejected the question by following letter

Dear Brook,

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

27th April, 1971

Thank you for your letter of 26th April in which you gave notice of a question. As I informed you yesterday afternoon, the closing date for questions was Saturday, 24th April and the Chairman regrets, in the circumstances, that he cannot accept your question for the May meeting. I should be grateful to know if you wish me to carry your question over to the June Meeting.

Yours sincerely,

(J. A. M. TINSON) Secretary, Urban Council."

I wrote to the Chairman the following letter

Dear David,

27th April, 1971

I gave notice on Monday the 26th of April of a simple ques- tion that I want to ask at this month's meeting. But you are relying on Standing Order 4(2) in which the definition of clear day was amended, I think, at a meeting that I was not present by the exclusion of the words 'if the intervening period is less than six day'. This exclusion is not in keeping with the Interpretation Ordinance, Cap. 1 and certainly not in keeping with the drafters of the Standing Orders including myself who designed them so that the last day could be on a Monday. Anyhow you said you regret. You cannot possibly regret because by Standing Order 8(1) you have the discretion to reduce the period of notice. My question is a comparatively simple one that can be answered in the time allowed from receipt of the notice. Therefore in all fairness you should have allowed it. The only reason that in effect 10 days notice can be justified is because the time of notice must allow for the extremely difficult question. If therefore you do not exercise your discretion to allow a shorter period on easier ques- tions, then the whole system is thrown into chaos and the amend- ments to the definition clause will certainly have to be cut out. I therefore ask you to reconsider the amendment but if you do not, then I give you and the Secretary notice that at the May meeting I will move a motion to amend the Standing Orders by inserting in Standing Order 4(2) the words "If the intervening period is less than six days".

1971 — Page 52

Edit History

Comments

Private Research Note