Chapter 1

An overview of the development of practices and procedures in the Hong Kong Legislature

1.1On 1 July 1997, Hong Kong which had been under British administration since 1843 was established as a special administrative region directly under the Central People's Government in accordance with Article 31 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China. To bring about this reunification, the People's Republic of China decided that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR") would be governed under the "one country, two systems" principle with a high degree of autonomy. The original capitalist system and way of life would remain unchanged for 50 years, and the laws of Hong Kong would also remain basically the same. The Constitution of the People's Republic of China and the "one country, two systems" principle became the guiding principles in the drafting of the Basic Law of the HKSAR, which was adopted at the Third Session of the Seventh National People's Congress ("NPC") of the People's Republic of China on 4 April 1990 to take effect on 1 July 1997. [1] The laws previously in force in Hong Kong, that is, the common law, rules of equity, ordinances, subordinate legislation and customary law would be maintained in the HKSAR by virtue of Article 8 of the Basic Law. On 23 February 1997, except for a few ordinances, the then existing Laws of Hong Kong were adopted by the Standing Committee of the NPC to continue to be in force upon the establishment of the HKSAR.

1.2Under the Basic Law, the Legislative Council of the HKSAR "shall be the legislature of the Region" and it "shall be constituted by election".[2] Annex II to the Basic Law stipulates that the Legislative Council shall be composed of 60 Members, and in relation to its first term, it is to be formed in accordance with the "Decision of the National People's Congress on the Method for the Formation of the First Government and the First Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region". That Decision was adopted by NPC at the same meeting at which the Basic Law was enacted. According to this Decision[3], if the composition of the last Hong Kong Legislative Council before the establishment of the HKSAR was in conformity with the relevant provisions of this decision and the Basic Law, those of its members who upheld the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the HKSAR and who met the requirements set forth in the Basic Law would, upon confirmation by the Preparatory Committee for the HKSAR, become Members of the First Legislative Council. The term of office of the First Legislative Council, as stipulated in Article 69 of the Basic Law, was two years while a normal term of office of the Legislative Council is four years. The intention was to enable Members of the last term of the Hong Kong Legislative Council, who served from October 1995 to 30 June 1997, to continue to serve as Members of the First Legislative Council from 1 July 1997 for another two years.

1.3However, in October 1992 Governor Christopher Patten, who replaced Governor Lord David Wilson in July that year, introduced in his first Policy Address a new package of electoral arrangements for the last Legislative Council which were considered by the Government of the People's Republic of China to have deviated from the electoral arrangements originally agreed with the British Government.[4] Despite opposition from the Chinese Government, the relevant legislation to implement Governor Patten's electoral arrangements was passed in the Legislative Council in June 1994. In September 1995, 60 Members were returned as Members of the last term of the Hong Kong Legislative Council in accordance with the new legislation.

1.4On 24 March 1996, the Standing Committee of the NPC endorsed the report of the Preparatory Committee that the composition of the last Legislative Council of Hong Kong was not in conformity with the Basic Law, and that a Provisional Legislative Council should be set up to perform the duties of the legislature of the HKSAR under the Basic Law and to undertake any essential matters which should be carried out by the legislature before the setting up of the first Legislative Council of the HKSAR.[5] The Provisional Legislative Council was elected in December 1996 and held its meetings in Shenzhen between January and June 1997. The Council conducted its first meeting in Hong Kong shortly after midnight on 1 July 1997 and confirmed all bills and resolutions passed by it during its operation in Shenzhen through

the passage of the Reunification Bill [6]. During the year from 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1998, the powers and functions of the legislature of the HKSAR under the Basic Law were performed by the Provisional Legislative Council. On 3 October 1997, the Provisional Legislative Council passed legislation to provide for the election of Members to the First Legislative Council in accordance with the method for the formation of the Legislative Council as set out in Annex II to the Basic Law. The Provisional Legislative Council also commenced deliberation of a set of rules of procedure for consideration by the Members of the First Legislative Council for adoption at the start of their term on 1 July 1998.

1.5Under the provisions of Article 75 of the Basic Law, the rules of procedure of the Legislative Council of the HKSAR shall be made by the Council on its own, provided that they do not contravene the Basic Law. The rules of procedure are the internal rules made by resolution of the Legislature to regulate its proceedings, and are binding on all Members. They provide the principles and framework for the conduct of business in the Legislative Council and its committees and set out, among other things, the procedural steps for processing bills and subsidiary legislation, requirements governing the moving of motions and amendments, rules regulating the conduct of Members at meetings including manner of speaking, disclosure of pecuniary interests, etc.

1.6The draft rules of procedure presented to Members of the First Legislative Council for consideration in June 1998 before they took office were modelled on the Rules of Procedure of the Provisional Legislative Council which were in turn modelled on the Standing Orders of the pre-1997 Legislature which had been in existence when Hong Kong was under British administration. The Convenor of the Working Group on Rules of Procedure [7] of the Provisional Legislative Council explained the rationale for using the Standing Orders as a framework for the Rules of Procedure as follows:

"… we should adopt a set of legislative procedures that is generally recognized and accepted by the people of Hong Kong. As the Standing Orders of the existing Legislative Council are tried and proven, we think that with the exception of certain clauses that need to be adapted with reference to the Basic Law, the rest could generally be adopted." [8]

1.7On this basis, the Working Group used the Standing Orders of the pre-1997 Legislature as the starting point. It also drew reference from procedures of legislatures of other common law jurisdictions, in order to produce a set of rules of procedure that would be suitable for the HKSAR and also acceptable and comprehensible to the people of Hong Kong.

1.8The contents of this Chapter will focus on the nature of the "parliamentary" system embodied in the Standing Orders of the pre-1997 Legislature which the Legislative Council of the HKSAR adopted and adapted for use in the HKSAR and the practice and procedures which the Council and its committees have followed in conducting their business.

The parliamentary system behind the Rules of Procedure adopted by the Legislative Council of HKSAR

1.9After the elections for the First Legislative Council of the HKSAR on 24 May 1998, the 60 Members-elect held a series of informal meetings to consider adopting rules of procedure for the Council based on a draft prepared by the Legislative Council Secretariat ("the Secretariat") under the instruction of the Committee on Rules of Procedure of the Provisional Legislative Council.[9] When the Members-elect met to discuss the draft Rules of Procedure in June 1998, they agreed that there was a need to formulate and adopt a set of rules that would allow the First Legislative Council to operate immediately in an efficient and effective manner. The Members-elect were also aware that the draft Rules placed before them for consideration were based on the rules and practices adopted by the pre-1997 Legislature of Hong Kong with additional procedures having been formulated to ensure conformity with the relevant provisions of the Basic Law. They studied the proposed rules and the underlying policies and principles in detail, and exchanged views with the Department of Justice on the interpretation of certain provisions of the Basic Law. There was an understanding among Members that some issues required further study or more in-depth discussion with the Government and that these would be followed up at a later stage.[10] At its first meeting on 2 July 1998, the First Legislative Council formally adopted its Rules of Procedure by resolution.

The parliamentary system operated under the pre-1997 Standing Orders

1.10When the First Legislative Council of the HKSAR used the Standing Orders of the pre-1997 Hong Kong Legislature as a model for its Rules of Procedure, it did not do so out of convenience or expediency. The Standing Orders contained the formal rules of a parliamentary system with which Hong Kong had been associated for over a century. This system, which originated from the Parliament of the United Kingdom ("UK"), embraced a body of customs, precedents and traditions, some of which subsequently became written rules in the form of standing orders to codify practices and to cater for modern day needs. As this was the system with which the people of Hong Kong were familiar at Hong Kong's reunification with the People's Republic of China in 1997, it was generally accepted that the Legislature of the HKSAR should continue to operate in the same manner under the "one country, two systems" principle embodied in the Basic Law.

1.11As described in Erskine May[11], the rules applied in the UK Parliament are themselves of different kinds and derive from different sources – from practice; from standing orders and ad hoc orders and resolutions; from rulings from the Chair and (occasionally) from statute. Historically the Houses reached decisions by passing Resolutions which were then referred to as precedents when future decisions were made. By the 19th Century as Government became involved in more and more areas of public life and the party system became more clearly defined, the executive needed greater control of the time available to pass bills and deal with other measures. The Standing Orders were introduced to ensure that the handling of business, particularly in the House of Commons, was more effective. They could be modified as changed circumstances arose.

1.12The UK House of Commons also has a body of case-law consisting mainly of Speakers' rulings in response to questions on points of order on current business. Such rulings are constantly needed for the purpose of applying the Standing Orders to doubtful or new cases, and for harmonizing them with older practice and with each other. They form the precedents from which principles and practices may be drawn for future reference for specific situations.

1.13In the first 15 years after the issue of the Letters Patent (the Royal Charter for Hong Kong) and the Royal Instructions[12] in 1843, the conduct of business in the Legislative Council in Hong Kong was mainly guided by the rules and regulations endorsed by the Executive Council[13] in 1845 for two Councils, i.e. the Executive Council and the Legislative Council.[14] These rules and regulations only provided the broad framework within which the business of the two Councils should be transacted, such as date and time of meetings, notice requirement for motions and amendments, duties of the Clerk in keeping an Order Book and notifying Members of matters to be discussed at the next meeting, keeping of minutes of proceedings, etc. It was not until July 1858 that the first set of Standing Orders and Rules for the Legislative Council were adopted. The minutes of proceedings of the Legislative Council provided little information on whether other practices had been followed at that time, but from 1929 onwards it was quite clear that the practice and procedures of the Council, as reflected in its Standing Orders and other unwritten practices, had followed closely the development of the parliamentary system of the UK House of Commons though with due regard given to the local conditions such as political development and changes in public opinion.

From 1858 to 1929

1.14The 1858 Standing Orders and Rules stipulated the need for giving notice to Members for meetings, and also set out the manner of speaking at the Council, quorum, voting method, duties of the Clerk, procedure on handling petitions, procedure in processing of an "ordinance", and examination of witnesses, although the Council at that time remained an advisory body and did not have power to consent to bills.[15] The reference to the "committal or re-committal" of a bill together with the proposed amendments to a "committee"[16] appointed for the purpose after second reading was found in this early version of the Standing Orders. The committal to a select committee or a committee of the whole Council was regarded as an important part of the legislative process in the House of Commons at that time as it would allow Members "to speak as often as they see cause" at a committee without the "constraining presence of the Speaker"[17] since the Chairman of Ways and Means presides in Committee of the Whole House. The extent of details put into the 1858 Standing Orders and Rules on the procedure for processing a legislative proposal had paved the way for the new version of Standing Orders and Rules endorsed in 1873 which contained a separate section for bills.

1.15In the 1873 Standing Orders and Rules, the procedure to take a bill through the various stages of the legislative process, including the committal of a bill to a Special Committee for detailed examination, was set out in a dedicated section called "Progress of Bills". Details of the procedure covered not only how Members should act at each stage in the progress of a bill but also the requirement that notice of affected vested rights and interests in property arising from the bill should be published in the Government Gazette.[18]

1.16The procedure for any parties whose individual rights or interests in property were peculiarly affected by a bill to be heard by the Council (or any committee to which the bill was referred) was provided in the 1873 Standing Orders and Rules. This procedure was further fine-tuned in the 1884 Standing Orders and Rules under a dedicated section entitled "Private Rights". There was provision in the section to allow any affected parties to be heard upon a petition or motion made in the Council, and witnesses could be directed to appear before the Council or a committee to give evidence. To protect the property of private persons, more stringent requirements for notices were imposed on private bills in the 1890 and 1912 Standing Rules and Orders.

1.17The changes made in the two revisions of the Standing Orders in 1884 and 1890 were more related to the manner in which debates on bills were conducted in the Council. In the 1884 Standing Orders, a dedicated section was given to the "Rules of Debate" which also covered the manner of speaking and voting. Explicit provisions for motions which could be moved without notice were set out, e.g. for adjournment of the Council or a debate, referral of a matter to a committee, the tabling of a petition, etc. General principles governing the admissibility of motions and amendments were also added to the procedure. In 1888, the Royal Instructions were amended to give the Legislative Council the important added constitutional function of giving consent to bills. This was reflected in the 1890 Standing Rules and Orders.

From 1929 to 1968

1.18In 1929, a substantially revised version of the Standing Orders was adopted. The revision was based on the draft code of model Standing Orders for Colonial Legislatures published by the UK in 1928 following the study by a committee appointed in the wake of the Colonial Office Conference of 1927. The reason put forward by the Attorney General when proposing the new version was that there would be a large degree of uniformity in the procedure of the Legislative Councils and Assemblies of the Crown Colonies generally. In the 1929 Standing Orders, new provisions were included for regulating the order of business and also Members' behaviour at sittings, such as relevancy in debate, the rule of anticipation, termination of debate, the President (i.e. the Governor) to be heard without interruption, observance of the rules of order, breaches of order, and withdrawal and suspension of a Member for grossly disorderly conduct. The scope of petitions was expanded to cover not just legislation, but any matters except for the grant of public money unless with the recommendation of the Governor. These provisions reflected practice in the UK House of Commons at the time.

1.19One special provision added to the Standing Orders in 1929 was the need to follow the practice of the House of Commons of Great Britain and Northern Ireland "in case of any doubt as to the application of the Standing Orders, and in any case where the Standing Orders make no provision".[19] The reason put forward by the Attorney General was: "[t]hat again, of course, tends towards uniformity. It also gives a carefully worked out and easily ascertained body of practice by which we may be guided in doubtful cases". In other words, the body of practice which applied to the UK House of Commons also applied to Hong Kong. Records show that there were communications between the Attorney General's Office in Hong Kong and the Clerk of the House of Commons on doubtful cases in the application of Standing Orders in early years. This provision had remained in modernized language (in substantially the same terms) in the Standing Orders until 30 June 1997.

From 1968 to 1984

1.20On 23 November 1966, the President allowed the moving of an adjournment debate, for the first time in the history of Hong Kong, by an Unofficial Member (over practices in the Police Force). Although the adjournment debate at that time was "an old established and popular practice in the House of Commons in London",[20] there was no such practice in the Legislative Council of Hong Kong. The Standing Orders which had remained primarily the same since 1929 were found to be deficient in many respects to cater for the needs of the Council and this prompted a detailed examination of the Standing Orders. On 9 October 1968, the much revamped and modernized 1968 Standing Orders were adopted.

1.21The 1968 Standing Orders provided a significantly more organised structure which later provided the foundation for drawing up the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council of HKSAR. Unlike previous Standing Orders which focused mainly on the processing of bills, the 1968 Standing Orders set out the procedures for the Legislature's various functions in dedicated parts as the UK Standing Orders did. They included the delivery of and debate on the Governor's address at the start of a session, questions to the Government, procedure on bills, financial procedure, adjournment debates on public issues, etc. As regards petitions, the requirement of a motion for referring a petition to a select committee was removed and in its place a minimum of 10 Members rising in support would allow the petition to stand referred to a select committee. At this point, it became clear that the Legislative Council was not only to enact laws, but also to undertake a wider range of activities to call the Government to account. In 1971, for the first time, Members could address the Council in Cantonese.

From 1985 to 1997

1.22Several major reviews of the Standing Orders were conducted having regard to the constitutional development of Hong Kong following the decision that the People's Republic of China would resume the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong with effect from 1 July 1997. Discussion on the future of Hong Kong in fact took place over a period of two years from 1982 to 1984 between the UK Government and the Government of the People's Republic of China with the common aim of maintaining the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong. During this discussion period, the Chinese Government's concept of establishing Hong Kong as a Special Administrative Region with a high degree of autonomy under Chinese Sovereignty was explored with a view to putting the details of implementation into an agreement.[21] In April 1984, Sir Geoffrey Howe, Secretary for State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, made a statement in Hong Kong to make it clear that Hong Kong would be returned to China in 1997. On 18 July 1984, at a special sitting[22] of the Legislative Council, the Governor announced the publication of a Green paper on The Further Development of Representative Government in Hong Kong.[23] On the same day, the Standing Orders were amended to enable the Public Accounts Committee to meet ordinarily in public for its hearing of evidence.

1.23On 19 December 1984, a Joint Declaration[24] was signed between the Governments of the UK and the People's Republic of China to declare that Hong Kong would be restored to the People's Republic of China with effect from 1 July 1997, that a Hong Kong Special Administrative Region would be established with a high degree of autonomy, vested with executive, legislative and independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication, and that the laws then in force in Hong Kong would remain basically unchanged.

1.24In February 1985, the Standing Orders were further amended to enable the Finance Committee to meet in public. In June 1985, the Legislative Council passed the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Bill which set out the immunities and privileges enjoyed by the Council and its committees as well as by its Members.[25]

1.25In October 1985, the first batch of 12 Members returned by functional constituencies and another 12 Members elected by an Electoral College joined the Legislative Council, making it necessary to replace all references to "an Unofficial Member" in the Standing Orders by "a Member" in 1986. In July 1991, the Standing Orders were amended to provide for a new office of Deputy President to preside over sittings of the Council apart from the Governor, and a new mechanism to require Members to register and declare their pecuniary interests. With the return of 18 directly elected Members returned from geographical constituencies and 21 from functional constituencies in October 1991, there was strong support for the opening up of all meetings of the informal committees[26] under the OMELCO[27] structure, leading to a major review of the committee structure of the Legislative Council. None of these committees were appointed by the Legislative Council and so they did not fall within the meaning of "committees" under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. Their meetings were not open to the public. As a result of the review, the Council decided to provide for the setting up of a House Committee and bills committees under its committee structure in July 1992 and the setting up of panels in October 1993.[28] In an important development on 19 February 1993, the Legislative Council of Hong Kong elected its President from among its Members for the first time. The Governor of Hong Kong no longer presided over the meetings of the Legislative Council but he could at his discretion attend sittings of the Council or its committees. All these significant developments were reflected in amendments to the Standing Orders during the period from 1984 to 1993.

1.26Following the establishment of the independent Legislative Council Secretariat in April 1994, the Standing Orders were amended in July 1994 to provide for the designation of the Secretary General of the Legislative Council Secretariat as Clerk to the Legislative Council and the Legal Adviser of the Legislative Council Secretariat as Counsel to the Legislature.

1.27Moving towards reunification, references in the Standing Orders to ex officio Members were removed in July 1995 since all 60 seats in the Legislative Council, from October 1995 onwards, would be taken up by non-Government Members only. In July 1996, a Chinese version of the Standing Orders was adopted by the Council.

Continuity of the parliamentary principles and values in the working of the Legislature following reunification

1.28The power of the Legislative Council of the HKSAR to make its own rules is provided for in Article 75 of the Basic Law with the proviso that any such rules do not contravene the Basic Law itself. The Rules of Procedure adopted by the First Legislative Council of the HKSAR have been in use since 2 July 1998 and have been amended from time to time according to the practice and procedures of the Council. As mentioned in the earlier part of this Chapter, by using the pre-1997 Standing Orders as a framework to develop the rules of procedure of the HKSAR Legislature, the First Legislative Council was putting in place a parliamentary system with which Hong Kong people were familiar, and this system embraced a body of customs, precedents and traditions, some of which were being written into rules. The Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council were therefore not a standalone document. Associated with this set of rules is a body of precedents and conventions which have been followed over the past century and which are still valid unless they contravene the Basic Law or are no longer appropriate in the development of the Legislature. The continued application of this body of precedents and conventions in the HKSAR Legislature is consistent with the guiding principle of continuity set out in Article 8 of the Basic Law.[29]

1.29A legislature is similar to a living organism in which its rules of procedure evolve with the thinking of the majority of Members at the time, who in turn represent the views and aspirations of the citizens whom they represent. The changes made in the rules of procedure invariably reflect the principles and values which Members wish to see adopted in the system. The British parliamentary system has been characterized by "a temper of moderation and the spirit of fair play".[30] A 'temper of moderation' refers to the cooling effect brought about by practice and rules, such as requiring Members to speak to the Chair, not to interrupt another Member who is speaking, not to address another Member by name, not to use 'unparliamentary' language, etc. This kind of conversational tone helps turn a debate into a process of arguments and conciliation, rather than declamation and violence. 'The spirit of fair play' is another important underlying principle to preserve the rights of the minorities. The rules on motions provide equal opportunity for any individual Member to propose a motion, to amend the motion, to speak on the motion, and to vote on the motion, and if the Member is the mover of the motion, an opportunity to reply.

1.30One of the pressing problems of all modern legislatures is lack of sufficient time to conduct the ever growing volume of business. In the 1880s in the UK there was the "threat of widespread obstruction which at one time appeared likely to break down completely the procedure of the House".[31] It was during this period that drastic measures, such as closure[32] and restrictions[33] upon both dilatory motions and substantive motions for the adjournment of the House, were introduced. In the UK system, as mentioned above, the principal common characteristic of the rules of practice was to provide ample opportunity for debate and for initiative in choosing subjects for debate, and there were safeguards to prevent business being taken without due notice and matters being decided without due consideration.[34] The introduction of more institutionalized procedures, such as standing orders, had the effect of restricting the opportunities given to individual members of Parliament in former times by the traditional practices.

1.31In the case of the HKSAR, the Basic Law sets out the powers and functions of the legislature, the powers and functions of the President of the Legislative Council and rights of individual Members, but does not prescribe how these powers, functions and rights should be exercised. The Legislative Council, on the other hand, is given the power to make its rules of procedure on its own, provided that they do not contravene the Basic Law. The rules of procedure therefore serve more to qualify the use of the powers and rights given to the legislature under the Basic Law, rather than expanding such powers and rights. An example is Member's freedom of speech in the Legislative Council. There had never been any limit to the length of Members' speeches in the proceedings of the Council prior to July 1991. On 10 July 1991, the Standing Orders were amended to limit the time of speaking on each occasion to no more than 15 minutes except in special circumstances permitted by the President. The intention was to enhance the efficiency of the Council given the increase in the number of non-Government Members[35] in October 1991. On 3 February 1993, a new Standing Order was made to enable the House Committee to recommend a time limit to the President, usually a shorter one, for debates on motions not intended to have legislative effect. These arrangements have also been adopted in the Rules of Procedure in the HKSAR. Accordingly, even the President cannot allow a Member to speak for more than 15 minutes unless he is satisfied that the circumstances meet the requirements laid down in other rules in the Rules of Procedure which permit him to do so.

1.32After reunification, there has been an understanding among Members that, where possible, the general philosophy and principles underlying the way Council business is conducted should be maintained and existing procedures should remain unchanged.[36] Consequently the whole body of rules, practice, precedents and conventions which existed in the pre-1997 Legislature of Hong Kong has continued to apply in principle and serves as an important reference for the President or chairmen of committees when determining the business of the Council or committees and deciding on points of order during their proceedings.

Rulings from the Chair

1.33Under Article 72(1) of the Basic Law, the President of the Legislative Council shall have the power and function to preside over Council meetings. Rule 3 of the Rules of Procedure also provides that the President, when present at a meeting of the Council, shall preside as President or when present at a committee of the whole Council, shall be Chairman. In the absence of the President, the meeting shall be presided over by the President's deputy (who is the Chairman of the House Committee) or in his absence, by the Deputy Chairman of the House Committee or in the absence of the President's deputy, the Member elected by and from among the Members present. The President's deputy or other Member presiding shall enjoy all those powers conferred by the Rules of Procedure on the President or Chairman that are exercisable in respect of the meeting or part of the meeting at which the President's deputy or that Member presides.

1.34Similar to parliamentary practices in other common law jurisdictions such as the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the Hong Kong Legislature also has a body of rulings made by the Presidents of the Council over the years. These rulings are on questions raised by Members on points of order or requests for motions or bills or amendments to such motions and bills to be moved, or questions seeking a reply from the Government. They form a body of precedents which the President uses as a guide to interpret and decide upon the application of the Rules of Procedure and previous practice. In conducting meetings of the Council or committee of the whole Council, the President or any Member who is presiding should ensure the orderly conduct of business in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. In the event that the matter in question is not provided for in the Rules of Procedure, Rule 92 provides that the President shall decide on the practice and procedure to be followed and in so doing, he may, if he thinks fit, be guided by the practice and procedure of other legislatures.

1.35As precedents are often referred to when a ruling is made, there is a growing trend for the President's rulings to be put in writing. Since 2000, the President's rulings were made public on the Legislative Council website to ensure greater transparency and to offer more opportunity for the public of Hong Kong to understand the work of their Legislature. Generally speaking, the Clerk of the Council and the Counsel to the Legislature, who are officers of the Council, give respectively procedural and legal advice to the President of the Legislative Council based on the Rules of Procedure, the relevant provisions of the Basic Law, and the relevant practice and procedure relating to the matters concerned in order to assist the President in making his own decisions on the issues. The President also takes into account the views of the Government and the Members concerned when making his ruling.

1.36From time to time, the President may instruct the Clerk to inform Members of certain arrangements which are within his authority to decide but may not have been provided for in the Rules of Procedure or the House Rules for the purpose of facilitating the smooth conduct of business. These include the arrangements for the resumption of a suspended Council meeting for the continuation of the unfinished business on the agenda, order of speaking within a debate, order of asking supplementary questions, etc. Where the

arrangements directly affect Members, it has been the practice for the President to consult Members through the House Committee or the Clerk before he makes his decision. These decisions have become the general practice of the Council unless any of these matters are subsequently raised for discussion and a rule is made to codify or change the practice.

Source of authority to make rules to regulate proceedings

By virtue of the Basic Law of the HKSAR

1.37The Legislative Council of the HKSAR is empowered to make its rules of procedure under Article 75 of the Basic Law of the HKSAR. There is no stipulation in the Basic Law as to how the Rules of Procedure should be made. It has been the practice in the HKSAR Legislature that the making of and amendment to the Rules of Procedure are effected by way of a Member's motion. In accordance with Annex II to the Basic Law, the passage of a Member's motion requires a simple majority vote of each of the two groups of Members present: Members returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies. Following the passage of such a motion, the resolution so made is published as a Legal Notice in Legal Supplement No. 2 of the Government Gazette. The updated version of the Rules of Procedure is then uploaded onto the website of the Legislative Council. As there is no requirement in the Basic Law that the Rules of Procedure of the Council should be regarded as law, such resolutions of the Council do not fall to be reported to the Standing Committee of the NPC in accordance with Article 17 of the Basic Law.

1.38The Legislature has the responsibility to ensure that the rules it makes do not contravene the Basic Law. To this end, there is a committee under the Council named the Committee on Rules of Procedure which is given the responsibility to review the Rules of Procedure and the committee system of the Legislative Council, and to propose such changes as are considered necessary. It has been the practice of the Committee on Rules of Procedure to communicate with the Administration on any issues which may give rise to questions of conformity with the Basic Law. All deliberations on proposed changes are put to Members through the House Committee for discussion before they are brought before the Council for a decision. Any proposed

amendments to the Rules of Procedure, once passed by the Council, will be binding on all Members as well as public officers attending to any business of the Legislative Council.

1.39Despite the mechanism put in place by the Legislature to deal with questions relating to the conformity of the Rules of Procedure with the Basic Law, there have been challenges by individuals in past years regarding consistency of some rules with the Basic Law, through judicial review proceedings in court. In 2006 [37], a Member applied for the Court's leave to judicially review a decision made by the President of the Legislative Council on grounds which included the allegation that Rule 57(6) of the Rules of Procedure was inconsistent with the Basic Law. The Court of First Instance held that whilst "the Basic Law is supreme", nevertheless "the qualifying phrase 'on its own' in Article 75(2) underscores the fact that the Basic Law recognises LegCo [Legislative Council] to be a sovereign body under that Law [the Basic Law]. In setting rules of procedure to govern how it goes about the process of enacting, amending and repealing laws, provided those rules are not in conflict with the Basic Law, the Legislative Council is answerable to no outside authority." [38]. The Member's application was dismissed. A list of the court cases on judicial review challenges and other proceedings that involved the Legislative Council since 1997 is at Appendix 1-A.

By the authority of the Rules of Procedure

1.40The power for committees to determine their own practice and procedure derives from the Council and is provided for in the Rules of Procedure. Any such practice and procedure determined by the committees must not be inconsistent with the Rules of Procedure. Cases where inconsistencies in the practices of different committees have raised concern among Members are usually referred to the House Committee for an initial discussion followed by a referral to the Committee on Rules of Procedure for detailed study and recommendations on the way forward.

1.41In relation to some of the provisions of the Basic Law where a decision of the Legislature is contemplated, the Council has provided the necessary procedure for it to adopt to reach that decision. Examples are the Chief Executive's return of a bill passed by the Legislative Council for reconsideration by the Council under Article 49 of the Basic Law, and the disqualification of a Member under Article 79(6) and (7) of the Basic Law. As regards proceedings on motions mentioned in the Basic Law, such as a motion to impeach the Chief Executive under Article 73(9), it has been agreed among Members that where no specific procedure has yet been devised for dealing with a particular situation that has arisen, existing provisions in the Rules of Procedure would be used as far as possible, with adaptation if necessary, to deal with it.

By statute

1.42Apart from the Basic Law, there are various provisions in local ordinances which have a bearing on the manner in which certain business of the Council is transacted. Most of these provisions formed part of the ordinances adopted by the Standing Committee of the NPC on 23 February 1997 as those ordinances previously in force in Hong Kong which would continue to be in force upon the establishment of the HKSAR on 1 July 1997. The Legislative Council, when making any changes to the Rules of Procedure, has regard to these provisions. An example is Section 34 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) which provides for the procedure for amending subsidiary legislation. This procedural arrangement is complemented by Rule 29(2)(a) of the Rules of Procedure which provides for a notice requirement for moving a motion to amend subsidiary legislation.

1.43Another example is the Chief Executive's power to determine the commencement and ending dates of a legislative session. This power is set out in Section 9 of the Legislative Council Ordinance (Cap. 542) and reflected in Rule 11 of the Rules of Procedure. Where any changes are to be made to the Ordinance, similar changes may need to be made in the relevant Rule.

1.44A further example is the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap. 382) which declares and defines certain powers, privileges and immunities of the Legislative Council, its Members and officers, the Chief Executive and public officers designated by him in relation to attendance at sittings of the Legislative Council and its committees. The Ordinance was enacted in June 1985 to codify into statute law the powers and privileges which Members of the Legislative Council had historically enjoyed to enable them to discharge their functions properly, without fear or favour, and to uphold the dignity of the legislature.[39] Section 9 of Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, which provides for the power of the Council, its standing committees and committees specially authorized, to summon witnesses and documents, is reflected in the principal part of Rule 80 of the Rules of Procedure. Since some of the provisions in the Ordinance also apply to committees authorized to exercise the power to summon witnesses, these committees will have regard to such provisions when deciding on practice and procedure to regulate their work.

By resolutions of the Council

1.45The Council may provide a specific procedure to facilitate the conduct of certain proceedings of the Council or its committees by way of passing a resolution to that effect. This type of resolution may either provide a new procedure which is not already in the Rules of Procedure[40], or suspend an existing Rule and provide a substitution[41] for application on a temporary basis. It is common practice for the House Committee to be consulted and the matter fully deliberated by the relevant committee(s) before the proposal is put to the Council for a decision.

1.46The Rules of Procedure allow for the suspension of rules by way of the moving of a motion. Under Rule 91, a motion which has the object or effect of suspending a Rule in the Rules of Procedure shall not be moved except after notice or with the consent of the President. Suspension of rules is not a common practice in the Legislative Council to deal with procedural difficulties. Where such difficulties have arisen and the current rules cannot apply, the practice is to refer such matters to the Committee on Rules of Procedure to consider if the relevant rules ought to be changed. An example is the amendment of Rule 58(2) in March 2011 to allow changes to the order of consideration of clauses and schedules for the purpose of enabling a single discussion to cover a series of interdependent amendments to a bill.

Types of procedural rules in the Legislative Council

1.47The Hong Kong Legislature has a relatively short history in the development of its procedures. As explained in the earlier part of this Chapter, the pre-1997 Standing Orders had mainly provided a framework on the progress of bills, handling of motions and amendments, rules of debates and maintenance of order. Very limited procedures were provided on the operation of committees except select committees. The incorporation of a large number of informal OMELCO committees into the formal committee structure of the Council in 1992 -1993 had brought about the need to maintain, apart from the Standing Orders, a set of procedural rules which set out some of the more important practices in the Council and committees for reference by Members and staff.

1.48The informal committees operating under the then UMELCO[42] structure (renamed as OMELCO [43] in October 1986) during the 20 years in the 1970s and 1980s aimed to assist the Unofficial Members of the Legislative Council to carry out their duties. When conducting their business, they were guided largely by agreed guidelines and practices, which were turned into house rules in 1988 serving as guidelines for Members in the conduct of OMELCO business. In 1992, the Standing Orders were amended to provide for the setting up of bills committees (to replace OMELCO Ad Hoc Groups on bills) and a new House Committee (to replace LegCo In-house Meetings), and in 1993, to make Panels formal committees of the Council. There was an understanding that since these committees had been working effectively for many years their mode of operation, which was more of an informal question and answer type of communication between Members and representatives of the Government, should continue. As a result, only basic and essential procedural rules such as membership, chairmanship, quorum, etc. were provided in the Standing Orders while each of these committees could determine its own practice and procedure according to its own needs.

Rules of Procedure

1.49The Rules of Procedure adopted by the First Legislative Council on 2 July 1998 contained 93 rules. Apart from adopting those Standing Orders of the pre-1997 Legislature which were considered relevant to the post-1997 Legislature, the First Legislative Council also incorporated in the Rules of Procedure new provisions that were necessary for the Legislative Council to implement some of the provisions in the Basic Law. Examples are provisions on quorum[44] and voting procedures[45], restrictions that apply to bills introduced by Members[46], and the procedure for reconsideration of bills returned by the Chief Executive[47]. During the term of the First Legislative Council, the Committee on Rules of Procedure continued to study other provisions in the Basic Law and provided new procedures such as those on the disqualification of Legislative Council Members from office under Article 79(6) and (7).

1.50The Committee on Rules of Procedure has the responsibility for reviewing the Rules of Procedure in response to requests by the House Committee in the light of new developments in the Legislature. Such reviews have on occasions resulted in incorporation of relevant practices into the Rules of Procedure to achieve uniformity and clarity. Examples are the standardisation of the timing and method of election of chairmen and deputy chairmen of committees.

1.51Currently[48], the Rules of Procedure contain 105 rules, set out in 16 parts. They describe in detail how business in the Council should be transacted. Such details include the introduction and processing of bills and amendments, requirements for the moving of motions and how motions are debated, amended and voted on. There are also detailed provisions on the behaviour expected of Members in the performance of their duty in the Council, including rules of speaking and the rules of order. There are also broad framework provisions on the operation of committees.

House Rules

1.52In addition to the Rules of Procedure, practices of the Legislative Council and its committees also play a significant part in the regulation of their proceedings. Practices are developed over time through the application of provisions of the Rules of Procedure which are normally drafted in broad terms of principle and are not intended to deal with all circumstances. Some of these practices may subsequently be written into the Rules of Procedure if it is found necessary to do so. Some may become House Rules[49] made by the House Committee.[50]

1.53The House Rules contain guidelines to complement the Rules of Procedure. The House Rules also set out those practices which reflect agreements among Members as to how certain business of the Council and its committees should be conducted. While the Rules of Procedure are approved by resolution in Council, the House Rules are adopted by the House Committee. Most provisions in the House Rules are operational guidelines to provide consistency in the conduct of business and to implement the Rules of Procedure. Members are expected to respect and observe the House Rules, although there are no formal sanctions for non-compliance.

1.54The House Rules consist of 41 rules [51] which cover a wide span of areas that concern the daily working of the Legislature. They provide operational arrangements such as the allocation of questions and motion slots to individual Members so that each Member will have a fair chance to seek a reply from the Government or to move a motion debate on an issue which is of concern to the Member. The House Rules also provide general guidelines on how committees should operate.[52] There is a growing trend to provide for more specific guidelines in the House Rules on matters which concern all Members, such as the activation of subcommittees formed to study policy issues and the mechanism for handling invitations for the Legislative Council to conduct duty visits outside Hong Kong.

Other procedures made by committees

1.55The Rules of Procedure provide only a general framework for the operation of committees. Committees of the Council may determine their own practice and procedure subject to the rules provided in the Rules of Procedure for the respective committees[53]. This general provision however is not made available to select committees, the operation of which is guided by the Rules of Procedure. The purpose of conferring such general power to these other committees is to give them a suitable degree of flexibility in the conduct of their business. Committee clerks and legal advisers are designated to assist committee chairs on procedural and legal issues. Before a procedural decision is made, the usual practice is for the chair to consider the relevant provisions in the Rules of Procedure, the House Rules and the practice of other committees and relevant precedents in order to decide the best way to deal with the matter.

Standing committees

1.56To date, only the three standing committees with power to summon witnesses have some form of procedures adopted by the committees to conduct their business. The Finance Committee has specifically endorsed a set of procedures for itself as well as for each of its two subcommittees, based on the relevant provisions in the Rules of Procedure and the established practices in processing financial proposals submitted by the Administration and in examining the estimates of expenditure each year during the budget exercise. The Public Accounts Committee sets out in a dedicated part of its reports the procedural steps it takes when considering the Director of Audit's Reports. The Committee on Members' Interests has also formulated a set of procedures for conducting its investigations.

Select committees

1.57The procedure of select committees is specifically provided for in Rules 60 - 62 (for the study of a bill) and Rule 79 (for general application) of the Rules of Procedure. Select committees have the longest history since they were the first form of committee set up by the pre-1997 Legislature to study bills and specific matters. Records show that they existed even before 1858 and the arrangements governing the formation and operation of select committees were originally published in the Government Gazette. It was not until 1929 that the procedure of select committees was for the first time written into the Standing Orders. As mentioned earlier in this Chapter, the Standing Orders were substantially revised in 1968, as a result of a modernization exercise. The procedure of select committees was set out in former Standing Orders No. 48 - 50 and 62 and became the current Rules 60 - 62 and Rule 79. These Rules have been strictly followed by select committees. It has also been a practice that each select committee after being appointed would draw up a set of practice and procedures based on the relevant provisions in the Rules of Procedure and incorporate in it operational details so as to provide a practical guide for its members and all parties concerned. In the course of its work, the select committee may adopt further procedures to supplement the standing arrangements in order to address issues not foreseen by it at the start of its work, or in response to requests made by those invited to give evidence to the select committee or other partiesconcerned.[54] When drawing up the operational details for its practice and procedures or adopting supplementary arrangements, the select committee would make reference to the practices and procedures of previous select committees[55].

Investigation committees

1.58Another committee which has adopted its own practice and procedures is the Investigation Committee set up in 2008 to investigate an allegation against a Member. The Committee was established following a motion moved in the Council to censure a Member for the purpose of disqualifying him from office under Article 79(7) of the Basic Law. The matter of the motion was referred to the Committee to establish the facts. Although the procedure of an Investigation Committee is provided in Rule 73A of the Rules of Procedure, the Committee considered that without any precedents to follow, it was necessary to formulate, before it began its substantive work, a set of practice and procedures on the basis of the framework of procedures provided in the Rules of Procedure. During the process of drawing up its Practice and Procedure, the Investigation Committee made reference to the general principles of natural justice as well as the procedures adopted by other committees in conducting investigations. The Practice and Procedure adopted by the Investigation Committee were also subject to amendment in the light of experience or changes in circumstances. The principles adopted in the Practice and Procedure were also explained in the Investigation Committee's report published after the completion of its work.[56]

[1]
See Address delivered by Ji Pengfei, Chairman of the Drafting Committee for the Basic Law of the HKSAR at the Third Session of the Seventh NPC on 28 March 1990.
[2]
Articles 66 and 68 of the Basic Law.
[3]
See Decision of the NPC on the Method for the Formation of the First Government and the First Legislative Council of the HKSAR adopted at the Third Session of the Seventh NPC on 4 April 1990.
[4]
See Chapter 3.
[5]
See Report of the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of the HKSAR adopted by the Standing Committee of NPC on 24 March 1996.
[6]
Hong Kong Reunification Bill sought to confirm the 13 Bills passed by the Provisional Legislative Council before 1 July 1997, endorse the appointment of judges of the Court of Final Appeal and the Chief Judge of the High Court, assist the interpretation on and after 1 July 1997 of laws previously in force in Hong Kong, continue those laws and confirm certain other laws, establish the various levels of courts, tribunals and boards, continue legal proceedings, the criminal justice system, the administration of justice and the course of public justice on and after 1 July 1997, continue the public service on and after 1 July 1997, and other matters in consequence of the resumption of the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong by the People's Republic of China, and for connected purposes.
[7]
The Working Group on Rules of Procedure was replaced by the Committee on Rules of Procedure of the Provisional Legislative Council on 10 September 1997.
[8]
See speech of Hon Selina Chow, Convenor of the Working Group on Rules of Procedure when proposing the adoption of the Rules of Procedure of the Provisional Legislative Council at the Council meeting on 12 April 1997. Hansard.
[9]
The Committee on Rules of Procedure of the Provisional Legislative Council was set up in September 1997.
[10]
See speech of Dr Hon LEONG Che-hung at the Council meeting on 2 July 1998. Hansard.
[11]
See Erskine May's Treatise on The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, 22nd Edition, pp. 3-8.
[12]
The Letters Patent were the earliest constitutional documents generally known as "The Hong Kong Charter", which set out the powers given to the Governor in general terms and authorized the creation of the Executive Council and the Legislative Council, with emphasis on the need to preserve all the rights of Her Majesty's Government over the colony. The Royal Instructions which had the same legal force as the Letters Patent were issued under Clause II of the Letters Patent. The Royal Instructions set out the detailed mechanism of how the Legislative Council and the Executive Council were to be formed and to carry out their work. Both the Letters Patent and the Royal Instructions were first issued on 6 April 1843, and were amended from time to time and published in the Government Gazette.
[13]
Following the issue of the Letters Patent and the Royal Instructions in 1843, the Executive and Legislative Councils started to hold meetings in January 1844, either jointly or separately, about once a week.
[14]
The first set of rules and regulations for the Executive and Legislative Councils was passed by the Executive Council on 7 March 1845.
[15]
Clause IX of the 1888 Letters Patent provided that the Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council, may make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Colony.
[16]
Only "Special Committees" existed from 1884 to 1929, and they were replaced by Select Committees thereafter.
[17]
Sir Gilbert Campion (1950) An Introduction to the Procedure of the House of Commons, p. 27.
[18]
Notice of bills which may affect vested rights and interest in property ought to be published at least three times before introduction of the bill, and another three times before the bill went into committee.
[19]
See Attorney General's speech at the Council sitting on 19 December 1929. Hansard.
[20]
See Colonial Secretary's address in moving the adjournment motion on 23 November 1966. Hansard.
[21]
A draft Agreement enclosing a Joint Declaration and 3 Annexes was tabled in the Parliament of UK in September 1984.
[22]
The word "sitting" in relation to a meeting of the Legislative Council is used interchangeably with the word "meeting" in this Companion. "Sitting" was used in statutes enacted before 1997 and in the pre-1997 Standing Orders. "Meeting" is used in the Basic Law and the Rules of Procedure of the HKSAR Legislature.
[23]
The Green Paper introduced a package of proposals which aimed to develop progressively a system of government with authority firmly rooted in Hong Kong and was able to represent authoritatively the views of the people of Hong Kong and became more directly accountable to the people of Hong Kong. See the Governor's address on 18 July 1984.
[24]
The full name is the "Joint Declaration of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Question of Hong Kong".
[25]
It was the Government view that the inherent powers and privileges which derived from the status of the Legislative Council as a colonial legislature and which would cease to have effect after 1997 should be codified to smooth the transition. See speech of the Chief Secretary at the Council sitting on 15 May 1985.
[26]
These informal committees included "Ad Hoc Groups" to examine individual legislative items and to discuss issues of topical interest and "Panels" to deal with topics of continuing importance. These committees reported to the then OMELCO In-house and LegCo In-house on their work.
[27]
OMELCO stands for Office of the Members of the Executive and Legislative Councils. More details are provided in Chapter 6.
[28]
Panels provided a forum for exchange of views between the Government and the Unofficial Members on public policies and issues of concern. See Chapter 6.
[29]
Article 8 of the Basic Law provides that the laws previously in force in Hong Kong, that is, the common law, rules of equity, ordinances, subordinate legislation and customary law shall be maintained, except for any that contravene the Basic Law, and subject to any amendment by the legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
[30]
Sir Gilbert Campion (1950) An Introduction to the Procedure of the House of Commons, pp. 50-54.
[31]
Ibid., pp.39-40.
[32]
Under Standing order No. 36 of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons in the UK, a motion for closure "That the question be now put," may be proposed by any Member at any time during a debate. Unless it appears to the chair that such a motion is an abuse of the rules of the House, or an infringement of the rights of the minority, the question "That the question be now put," is to be put immediately and is decided without amendment or debate. When the motion for closure has been decided in the affirmative, the original question should be put to a vote.
[33]
In the UK, a dilatory motion often refers to a motion for the adjournment of a debate or of the House during any debate as such a motion moved under Standing Order No. 34 of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons has the effect of slowing down the progress of the matter under consideration. However, under Standing Order No. 35, if the Speaker, or the chair, is of the opinion that a dilatory motion is an abuse of the rules of the House, he may forthwith put the question thereupon from the chair, i.e. without further debate, or he may decline to propose the question thereupon to the House or the committee.
[34]
See Erskine May (22nd Edition), p. 5.
[35]
The number of non-Government Members in the Legislative Council was increased from 46 in 1988-1991 to 57 in 1991-1995.
[36]
See Report of the Committee on Rules of Procedure of the First Legislative Council tabled at the Council in September 1998.
[37]
LEUNG Kwok-hung v The President of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region [2007] 1 HKLRD 387.
[38]
LEUNG Kwok-hung v The President of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region [2007] 1 HKLRD 387, Judgment, para. 10.
[39]
See Chief Secretary for Administration's speech at the Second Reading debate of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Bill on 15 May 1985. Hansard.
[40]
An example is the arrangements to deal with possible claims of "public interest privilege" by witnesses. See resolution passed by the Council on 25 May 1994 and resolutions of the Council to amend this resolution.
[41]
See resolution of the Council on 19 October 2011 to suspend Rule 47(1)(c) and (2)(c) and Rule 49(8) and adopt substitute arrangements to lengthen the duration of the ringing of division bells.
[42]
UMELCO stands for the Unofficial Members of the Executive and Legislative Councils.
[43]
OMELCO stands for Office of the Members of the Executive and Legislative Councils.
[44]
Rule 17 of the Rules of Procedure is to reflect Article 75(1) of the Basic Law which provides a quorum requirement of not less than one half of all its members for meetings of the Legislative Council.
[45]
Rule 46 of the Rules of Procedure reflects the voting requirements in Articles 49, 52(2), 73(9), 79(6), 79(7), 159 of and Annex I and Annex II to the Basic Law.
[46]
Rule 51(3) and (4) of the Rules of Procedure reflects the effect of Article 74 of the Basic Law on the introduction of bills by Members.
[47]
Rule 66 of the Rules of Procedure to provide a procedure to implement the steps set out in Articles 49 and 50 of the Basic Law.
[48]
The position is as at 30 November 2013.
[49]
The House Rules first came into existence in 1988 and were originally a Members' Guide issued to Members at the start of a new session. Since October 1992, proposed amendments to the House Rules were first referred to the Subcommittee on Procedural Matters of the House Committee for discussion before they were put to the House Committee for endorsement. The Subcommittee was no longer required when the Committee on Rules of Procedure was set up as a committee of the Council in 1998.
[50]
The House Committee is a committee comprising all Members except the President of the Legislative Council to consider any matters relating to the business of the Council.
[51]
The position is as at 30 November 2013.
[52]
Rule 75(8) of the Rules of Procedure provides that the House Committee may provide guidelines relating to the procedure of the Bills Committee, Panels and its subcommittees.
[53]
See, for example, Rules 71(13), 72(11), 73(7), 73A(13), 74(6) and 75(18) of the Rules of Procedure.
[54]
During the inquiry of the Select Committee on Building Problems of Public Housing Units, supplementary practices and procedures were adopted to facilitate the following: a) measures to avoid possible prejudice to a person's interest in pending legal proceedings; b) handling of information contained in classified documents or obtained at closed hearings; c) provision to witness of verbatim transcripts of hearings; and d) opportunity for parties concerned to comment on its draft findings and observations.
[55]
When determining their practices and procedures, principles such as fairness, transparency in proceedings and operational efficiency were adopted by select committees.
[56]
See report of the Investigation Committee established under Rule 49B(2A) of the Rules of Procedure in respect of the Motion to censure Honourable KAM Nai-wai.