1974 — Page 76

1

Page 76 of 187

121

120

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

which is the subject matter of my second motion and provided that this delegation does not do away with the necessity for adopting formally by vote in open meeting any matter previously required to be passed in such a way, but I do object to decisions being finally taken in Stand- ing Committee so that the general public does not know even of what is the present policy of the Urban Council, or why. I therefore so

move.

MISS CECILIA L. Y. YEUNG (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, I support Mr. BERNACCHI's motion. Mr. BERNACCHI and I feel that the August 1973 resolution should be criticized because the legal advice to the Council, this motion is too extensive. For example, the administra- tion of Hong Kong Government and like the Urban Council and the Legislative Council. Legislative Council and Urban Council, these two Councils what we act and what we think should be opened to the public and should be made known to the public and all these decisions and policies should be considered and supported or opposed before final decision should be reached. Mr. BERNACCHI in his speech has very carefully dealt with the resolution taken in August last year and said that the objective of that resolution and previous extensions have been largely extended. I sincerely think that this resolution had never been amended. We have no tradition of hiding facts from the public, but in the last few months the activities of the Council have extended and they have been dealt with in the Standing Committee and they were not dealt with in the open meeting of the Urban Council. And I hope that this Council should revert to the previous openers because we are more concerned with the daily life of the people and what we do should be opened to the public so that we can get the co-operation from the public to assist us in dealing with all matters and therefore I support the points of Mr. BERNACCHI and I support these two motions.

CHAIRMAN (in English):-The motion on the order paper has been proposed by Mr. BERNACCHI and seconded by Miss YEUNG. It is now open for debate. Does any Member wish to take the floor?

MR. KENNETH T. C. Lo (in English):-Mr. Chairman, I rise to address you on the first of Mr. BERNACCHI's motions. In considering this motion, we must, first of all, try to understand the effect of it. This is far from easy. Indeed, I understand one Urban Councillor, when first confronted with the motion, confessed that he did not under- stand it. Later, after due consideration, he thought he understood it. But later still, after further consideration, he again came to the con- clusion that he did not understand it. Now, our industrious Secretary, Mr. Jack TINSON, has produced for our benefit a memorandum on the

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

effect of Mr. BERNACCHI's motion. But on reading it, it is apparent that the effect is not very clear to Jack himself. At any rate, the motion, the amendment, is to require a formal vote in open meeting form and here I quote "Any matters previously requiring to be passed in such a way". A question arises concerning the word "previously", previous to what date? Although the amendment is proposed to be made today, yet it will only make sense if the opportune date is 14th August, 1973. For if today is the opportune date, then the only matters requiring a formal vote in open meeting are the one set out in Section 36(4) of the Urban Council Ordinance and this clearly does not make sense. What then are the matters which require a formal vote in open meeting prior to the motion of 14th August, 1973. According to Mr. Jack TINSON's research, the only matters are the fixing of com- mon seal, the making or mending of Standing Orders, the appointment of committees and the delegation of powers. The fixing of common seal is not the topic on which we are likely to wish to debate formally. The appointment and delegation of powers are more expeditiously dealt with in Standing Committee. No useful purpose is served by requiring them to be subject of a formal motion in open Council. As regard the making or mending of Standing Orders, presumably the initiative will be taken by the Standing Orders and Procedure Select Committee. Their recommendations are best considered, discussed and decided upon in the Standing Committee. The public is not interested in the exact wording of our Standing Orders and to publish them in an open meeting serves no useful purpose. The August 1973 motion gives us greater flexibility in carrying out the business of the Council and this should be retained.

One point I would like to stress is that this delegation to the Standing Committee does not in any way deprive the Council of its power to consider any matter within its jurisdiction in open meeting. The delegation does not and cannot have the effect of depriving any Member of his right to propose his motion in open Council. Indeed no one has suggested such a thing. Of course, Members have the right to propose the motion, if not, it is not entirely without limits and is subject to Standing Orders. There is no need for me here to discuss what can be the proper subject of a motion and what cannot. rate, it is clear that the August 1973 motion does not in any way affect the Members' right to propose a motion. So far as I can see the pro- posed amendment will deprive us of some flexibility in carrying out Council business and could confer no benefit. For these reasons, I intended to vote against the first motion and would urge Members to do likewise.

At any