Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region - A Companion to the history, rules and practices of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ¶ Part III: Partnership with people

Chapter 15

Redress system

Partnership with people

15.1Part III of the Companion is on "Partnership with people". As an elected body, a legislature must be able to represent the views of people and ensure that people have access to its proceedings and its documents and records. Where there are views or grievances from people over any legislative or financial proposals, or any matters related to Government policies or operation, the legislature should provide adequate channels for such views or grievances to be heard, discussed and brought to the attention of relevant authorities for their actions. It is through this partnership with people that the legislature can perform its legitimate role as a people's legislature.

15.2Part I and Part II of the Companion have focused on the way the proceedings of the Council and its committees are conducted. The background of the changes which took place in the history of the Hong Kong Legislature has been provided to facilitate understanding of the Rules of Procedure and other practices currently in force in the HKSAR Legislature. Part III is on the Legislature's interaction with people. There are two themes in Part III and they are each described in two separate Chapters. This Chapter is on how people's grievances are redressed and channeled to the relevant authorities for actions; while Chapter 16 is on how people are engaged in the process of legislation and in calling the Government to account.

15.3In this Chapter, there is an overview of the historical development of the Redress System operated by the Legislative Council Secretariat and how this System interfaces with the committee system of the Council. Although the HKSAR Legislature has the power and function under the Basic Law to receive and handle complaints from Hong Kong residents,^[1] the Redress System is not part of the formal structure of the Council but has remained as a service to the public with a high degree of independence and flexibility. The scope of complaints handled under the Redress System, the role played by Members individually or as a group in dealing with a complaint or representation from the public, as well as the steps taken to deal with a complaint or representation are explained in this Chapter.

Legislative Council's power and function to handle complaints from members of the public

15.4Under Article 73(8) of the Basic Law, the Legislative Council has the power and function to receive and handle complaints from members of the public. This power and function was written into the Basic Law ^[2] during the decade from 1985 to 1994 when a highly structured Redress System was being operated by the then OMELCO Office to deal with complaints or representations against Government maladministration and on issues of public concern. This Redress System, despite the changes since its establishment in 1963, has remained as an important link between the people and the legislature on the governance of Hong Kong.

Redress System

Historical background

Before 1963

15.5In parliamentary practices, the presentation of petitions is a long-established tradition to enable citizens to seek redress of grievances, derived from the Westminster system. In the pre-1997 Hong Kong Legislature, prior to 1963, petitioning the Governor (or the Council from 1917 onwards) through Unofficial Members at sittings of the Council was the only means to seek redress of grievances, and this was required to be done in accordance with the relevant Standing Orders. Originally, as explained in Chapter 7 ^[3], petitions presented to the Council should be related to the individual rights or interests of property peculiarly affected by any proposed bills, in particular private bills, considered by the Legislative Council, and on motion made, seconded and carried, such petitions would be heard before the Council or any committee of the Council.^[4] When a petition was referred to a committee for consideration, the committee concerned was required to report back to the Council.

1963 – 1985

15.6In August 1963, to promote closer relationships between members of the public and the Unofficial Members of the Executive Council and the Legislative Council, the UMELCO Office was established to enable members of the public to call at the Office to put forward their views on any matter of public interest or to lodge individual complaints against Government departments.^[5] A Redress System was then developed and evolved into a roster system in 1965 to enable an Unofficial Member each from the Executive Council and the Legislative Council to be on duty together for one week as Duty Roster Members to deal with public complaints against Government departments.

15.7With the increase in the number of cases handled by the UMELCO Office, it was decided in 1969 to strengthen the Office so as to enable public complaints to be dealt with more effectively. A senior Government officer was seconded to head the UMELCO Office in August 1970 to introduce a more effective system to deal with public complaints. The funding for the UMELCO Office was also for the first time included in the Estimates of Expenditure under the Appropriation Bill, with the aim of strengthening the support for Unofficial Members to give maximum possible help to any person who felt aggrieved by Government actions or policies and who wished to put forward views and suggestions on any matter of public concern.

15.8In carrying out this function, UMELCO Office's scope of duties was defined by administrative direction but was nonetheless almost unlimited except in cases which involved private disputes, civil service employment matters, Court actions and some decisions of statutory bodies. Government departments were required to co-operate with the Unofficial Members who had direct access to senior officials in the Government and could challenge established policies and procedures. Although there were also other channels to deal with public complaints at that time, the UMELCO system provided the extra dimensions of investigation and rapid escalation to the highest level of the Government especially on urgent matters.^[6] By mid 1980s, the UMELCO Redress System, although not defined nor confined by the law or any Standing Orders, had become an important and effective channel for members of the public to lodge complaints alleging maladministration of Government departments and to raise objections to Government decisions or proposed legislation and policies.^[7]

1986 – 1997

15.9The Redress System operated by the UMELCO Office (renamed as OMELCO in 1986) in 1985 continued to remain an essential service to address public grievances in the decade that followed, despite the separation of the two Councils ^[8], changes in the composition of the Legislative Council ^[9] and the setting up of the independent Legislative Council Secretariat in 1994 ^[10]. Under the then Redress System, members of the public put forward their problems by letter (and later by telephone and by fax) or through a personal visit to the Complaints Division staffed by directly-engaged complaints officers who reported to Legislative Council Members under a duty roster system. After an interview with the complainant, enquiries were made with the Government department concerned where necessary. At times, upon instruction of the Member(s) on the roster, visits could be arranged to enable Members to understand the problems fully. Case conferences were then held with the department concerned to explore ways to address the problem. Where the response from the department was inadequate or unsatisfactory, Members could raise the matter with the Head of the Department, or raise a question in the Council, or refer the related policy matter to a relevant Panel if considered appropriate.

15.10One significant change that took place during the decade after 1985 was in relation to the establishment of the Office of the Commissioner for Administrative Complaints ("COMAC") in February 1989. From then onwards, complaints alleging maladministration by Government departments were referred by Members to the Commissioner for investigation if so requested by the complainant and considered suitable by the referring Members, and the Commissioner was required to report the findings of his investigation to Members.^[11] Also during the same period, significant changes and developments took place in other complaints systems in Hong Kong with the aim of ensuring higher standard of public service and greater accountability in the public sector. At the same time, the enhancement of the operating expenses reimbursement for Members in early 1990s had made it possible for individual Members to set up their own ward offices which, apart from undertaking other activities, also handle public complaints and requests for assistance. From 24 June 1994 onwards, it was no longer required for a complaint to be lodged with COMAC to be referred by a Member. In the light of these developments, it was decided that the primary target of the Redress System should be representations that raised wide policy issues and matters of public concern although the scope of services to the public remained unchanged. ^[12]

15.11Another major development was the handling of complaints against the Police or against the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC"). Since early 70's and up until 1986, although cases of this nature were referred to the Complaints Against Police Office or the ICAC respectively, such cases were monitored respectively by the UMELCO Police Group and the ICAC Complaints Committee under the OMELCO structure. The UMELCO Police Group was subsequently reconstituted to become the Police Complaints Committee in 1986 and later renamed as Independent Police Complaints Council in December 1994.

1997 – present

15.12Following the coming into force of the Basic Law upon the establishment of the HKSAR on 1 July 1997, questions were raised on the implementation of Article 73(8) regarding the power and function of the Legislative Council "to receive and handle complaints from Hong Kong residents". In July 1998, a subcommittee was set up under the House Committee to examine what structural changes needed to be made in the Redress System of the Legislative Council in the light of this provision in the Basic Law. Divergent views were expressed on whether the immunity and privileges under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap. 382) should be extended to cover the handling of complaints under the Redress System. After extensive discussions at the Subcommittee and at the House Committee, it was decided by the House Committee on 19 March 1999 that the Redress System should remain status quo, being operated in an informal manner without the coverage of Cap. 382. The then procedure used for handling and following up complaints should continue. Nevertheless, the House Committee endorsed the recommendations of the Subcommittee on the matters which should be regarded as outside the scope of the Redress System, which is explained below.

Nature of cases handled under the Redress System

15.13Originally, the scope of the cases handled by the Unofficial Members when the UMELCO Redress System was first established in 1963 covered any public complaints against Government actions and policies as well as representations on matters of public concern. However, after two decades, several categories of cases were by practice regarded as outside the scope of the Redress System. These included private and labour disputes, court decisions and matters which were sub judice, matters relating to non-government bodies, complaints against Members, complaints against Police or ICAC officers ^[13], and matters outside the jurisdiction of Hong Kong. The Redress System also did not provide legal advice or legal services to complainants.

15.14Despite the emergence of more and more complaints-handling bodies in the public sector in the 70's and 80's, the UMELCO Redress System remained an effective channel for expressing grievances. In 1985, in the light of the constitutional changes in Hong Kong, an UMELCO Ad Hoc Group was formed to review the redress systems in Hong Kong. This review had led to the enactment of the Commissioner for Administrative Complaints ("COMAC") Ordinance (Cap. 397) in July 1988 and the establishment of the Office of COMAC in February 1989. The original intention was that COMAC was to provide for the public a means whereby an independent person outside the public service could investigate and report on grievances arising from administrative decisions, acts, recommendations or omissions. It was designed to supplement and strengthen the OMELCO Redress System but not to replace it. Therefore the scope of cases handled under the Redress System remained unchanged. Where an Unofficial Member of OMELCO considered that an independent investigation of a maladministration case ought to be conducted, the case would be referred to the COMAC Office. ^[14]

15.15In 1993 and 1994, the Redress System was reviewed in conjunction with the reorganization and review of services of the Legislative Council Secretariat. As a result of the reviews, it was considered that the Complaints Division should continue to handle public complaints but publicity to promote the service should cease. On the side of COMAC, changes began to take place in expanding its jurisdiction. The COMAC Ordinance was amended in June 1994 to enable the public to have direct access to COMAC without the referral by a Member and to empower COMAC to initiate direct investigations. In April 1996, a number of major statutory bodies ^[15] were included under COMAC's jurisdiction. In December 1996, the English title of "COMAC" was changed to "The Ombudsman" and, with the extension of the Code of Access to Information to all government departments. The Ombudsman was also empowered to investigate complaints on non-compliance with the Code against those departments previously not covered by the Ordinance, namely the Hong Kong Police Force, the Hong Kong Auxiliary Police Force, the ICAC and the Secretariats of the Independent Police Complaints Council and the Public Service Commission.

15.16In a review conducted by a Subcommittee of the House Committee on the Redress System in 1998-1999, the possible duplication of work done by the Legislative Council's Redress System and The Ombudsman was examined. The Subcommittee recommended and the House Committee agreed that cases examined or being examined by The Ombudsman and prima facie maladministration cases should not be totally excluded from the Redress System. Cases which appeared to be more appropriately handled by other redress systems should be referred to those systems with the consent of the complainants. Where it was known that a case was received by both The Ombudsman and the Complaints Division and the outcome of the investigation by The Ombudsman was awaited, the Complaints Division would suggest to the complainant that the case be held in abeyance, but if the complainant wished that it be handled in parallel, his wish would normally be respected. ^[16]

15.17As regards the scope of the Redress System, the House Committee endorsed that the scope should not be strictly confined to decisions and actions of government bureaux and departments. In principle, the Redress System operated by the Legislative Council Secretariat should not go beyond the scope of work of the Council as stipulated in Article 73 of the Basic Law. The scope of Panels might be adopted as the scope of the Redress System, as there was no reason why matters which might ultimately be referred to the Panels for review of the relevant policies should be excluded from the Redress System. Nevertheless, the House Committee agreed that the following matters should normally be outside the scope of the Redress System but may be handled flexibly:

(a)Court decisions, matters which are sub judice or could involve criminal charges, and matters relating to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings;

(b)Matters outside the jurisdiction of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region;

(c)Requests for legal advice or legal services;

(d)Private disputes;

(e)Labour disputes between individual employees and employers, except those of wide public concern or relating to discrimination of trade union leaders;

(f)Complaints against individual members of the three-tier system of representative government (i.e. Legislative Council, Municipal Councils and District Boards); and

(g)Complaints which are handled by independent or statutory channels (e.g. ICAC Complaints Committee, Independent Police Complaints Council, Administrative Appeals Board).

15.18The House Committee's decision to exclude the above matters from the scope of the Redress System was made on the basis of the principle of recognizing:

(a)the independence of the judicial system;

(b)the existence of a statutory or independent channel for dealing with or overseeing the handling of a certain kind of complaints or appeals, e.g. ICAC Complaints Committee, Independent Police Complaints Council, Labour Tribunal, etc;

(c)the existence of a professional or statutory body to regulate and oversee the practice of a trade and/or the conduct and performance of its individual members in the trade, e.g. Medical Council, Law Society, etc; and

(d)the jurisdiction of the Legislative Council.

15.19As it was agreed that the Redress System should remain as an informal part of the operation of the Legislative Council, the decision on each case could not be regarded as a decision of the Council. However, a complaint could be escalated to the Council level by way of a petition, or a question or a motion in the Council, or be referred to a relevant Panel for discussion. The above decisions of the House Committee have been kept in force up to the present.

Secretariat's support

15.20Notwithstanding the changes in the organization of the Secretariat providing services to Unofficial Members during the UMELCO/OMELCO period or after the establishment of the independent Legislative Council Secretariat, the Complaints Division (retitled as the Public Complaints Office in August 2013) has remained as the first contact point for members of the public to seek redress of grievances. The Complaints Officers report to Duty Roster Members in respect of the handling of complaints or representations. Administratively, they report to the Senior Complaints Officers who oversee the management of the cases within their own teams. The Chief Complaints Officer of the Public Complaints Office is responsible for overseeing the operation of the Office and is accountable to the Secretary General who serves as the link between the Redress System and The Legislative Council Commission (in relation to quality of service) and the House Committee (in relation to performance of function). A chart which illustrates generally how a complaint is handled first by a Complaints Officer and then reported to a Member(s) for advice and follow-up action or referred to a committee of the Council for consideration is provided at Appendix 15-A.

The Duty Roster Member System

15.21The Redress System is operated according to a Duty Roster Member system whereby Members, in groups of seven, are put on a roster drawn up by the Public Complaints Office for serving as duty Members for one week. This system to receive complaints and representations from the public has been in use for a long time. The rationale is to share the workload among Members. In drawing up the roster, the Public Complaints Office would try to make it as representative as possible with preferably at least one member from each main political party or affiliation or the group of Members without affiliation. Views received from the public during the past week are normally circulated to Duty Roster Members on the following Tuesday for information and advice on follow-up action if required. Complaints cases are reported to Duty Roster Members as and when appropriate after initial enquiries have been made by the Public Complaints Office. The list of Duty Roster Members for the next 3 weeks is provided in the official website of the Legislative Council. ^[17]

The Ward System

15.22Each individual Duty Roster Member takes turn once during his/her duty week to be on "ward duty" for two hours to receive individual complainants and to give advice to the staff of the Public Complaints Office in the processing of cases. Previously, "Ward Members" used to stand by in the Complaints Division during the duty hours. With the drop in number of walk-in individual complainants and in order not to waste Members' time, requests for interviews with Members are now arranged by appointments. Walk-in complainants are received by staff of the Public Complaints Office.

Meeting with deputations

15.23From time to time, deputations will notify the Public Complaints Office of their intention to lodge complaints or submit views on matters of public concern. Arrangement is then made to schedule a meeting with the Duty Roster Members to enable the deputation to explain their views to the Members in person and the Members to have the opportunity to enquire more about the subject matter. The same group of Members will be responsible for all the follow-up actions on the case. If needed, the same group of Members will meet the deputation again in case it is not satisfied with the outcome of the case or for further discussion on the case in the light of new evidence.

15.24If a similar complaint has been made by another deputation, the deputation may wish to invite Members of the same group to meet them. These invited Members would join the Duty Roster Members of the duty week in meeting the deputation. This new group of Duty Roster Members would also be briefed on the decision of the previous group of Members on how to follow up the case. If it is decided that a case conference should be held, and where time allows, the two (or more) groups of Members will be arranged to attend the same conference in order to avoid duplication of efforts. If it is decided that the case should be referred to the Government in writing, the case officer will make a consolidated report to all Members concerned.

Procedure for handling complaints and representations

Handling complaints against Government decisions or actions

15.25Any member of the public may lodge a complaint with the Public Complaints Office by telephone, letter, fax, email or in person. A complaint form (Appendix 15-B) is provided to facilitate the complainant to put down the essential information about the complaint. If the lodging of the complaint is done by telephone or made in person, the Complaints Officer will take down the salient points of the complaint for the complainant's confirmation where necessary. All personal data is kept confidential within the Public Complaints Office and will not be revealed to any person unless with the consent of the complainant. Information about the complaint is only accessible to the Member(s) and staff of the Public Complaints Office responsible for handling the case, and will only be disclosed to the Government and other relevant organizations with the consent of the complainant.

15.26After receipt of a complaint, the Complaints Officer examines the information obtained from the complainant. If the allegation concerns matters which are outside the scope of the Redress System, the Complaints Officer will advise the complainant accordingly and, where appropriate, with which body he or she may lodge the complaint directly. For example, if the complaint is an allegation concerning an action of a police officer, the complainant will be advised to lodge the complaint with the Complaints Against Police Office; or if the complainant has already done that but is not satisfied with the outcome, he or she will be advised to approach the Independent Police Complaints Council whose function is to observe, monitor and review the handling and investigation of all reportable complaints against the police.

15.27In examining the details of a complaint, the Complaints Officer may find it necessary to obtain more information from the Government department(s) concerned. Subject to the complainant's consent and on the instruction of the Ward Member, the Complaints Officer writes to the department(s) concerned to ascertain more facts about the case and what has already been done to address the complainant's concern.

15.28Upon receipt of additional information from the department(s) concerned, the Complaints Officer examines the complaint in the light of Government policies and procedures and if there are justifiable grounds to pursue the complaint, the Complaints Officer will take it up with the department to ascertain whether any remedial action can be taken. The handling of the case is reported to the Ward Member for advice and, if the follow-up action concerns a matter of policy or legislation, for referral to a relevant Panel. The same Ward Member will continue to be briefed on the progress and the outcome of the case.

15.29In the 1998-99 review of the Redress System, there were questions on whether a case which had been handled by one Member could be taken up by another Member. According to the view of the Subcommittee responsible for this review, if an individual complainant or a deputation is not satisfied with the outcome of the case handled by a Member or a group of Members and requests that the case be referred to another Member, that request would not normally be entertained unless there is something new that justifies acceding to the request. This is to prevent duplication of efforts and deter abuse of the Redress System. However, exceptionally, the specific Member(s) specified in the request for referral may be consulted on whether he or she sees any new grounds for pursuing the case. In the circumstances, the Member should be provided with a brief on the case together with the advice from the previous Member who has handled the case so that he or she can decide whether to take up the case.

Handling of representation of views on Government policies and issues of public concern

15.30Where the complaint is a representation of views either from an individual member of the public or from a deputation, the present practice is that the Public Complaints Office will first ascertain if the views are related to a matter being currently or scheduled to be considered by a committee of the Council. If that is the case, the submission will be forwarded to the committee clerk concerned. Under normal circumstances, the person or deputation which submitted the views would be notified if a public hearing has been scheduled to listen to the views of the public on such matters. Even if the public hearing has already taken place, the views received will also be circulated to members of the committee for their attention. This is further explained in Chapter 16.

15.31Where the views expressed by a deputation involve a proposed change in policy or legislation and the matter is not on the agenda of any committee, the Public Complaints Office will report the matter to the Duty Roster Members and arrange for the Members to meet with the deputation. Subject to the agreement of the Duty Roster Members and the deputation concerned at the beginning of the meetings, meetings with deputations may be held in camera or in public. If the meeting is held in public, media representatives are allowed to cover the meeting. However, as these meetings do not enjoy the privileges and immunities provided under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap. 382), members of the deputation and the media are reminded about that at the start of the meeting. After the meeting, the Duty Roster Members may instruct that the case be referred to a relevant Panel for follow-up discussion. It is normal practice that if the Panel decides to discuss a Government policy related to the case at any of its meetings, the deputation will be notified and invited to present their views direct to the Panel.

15.32There are occasions where the Duty Roster Members decide to hold case conferences to deal with the specific matter instead of referring it to a Panel if the Panel is unlikely to be able to discuss the matter shortly. This is often initiated by a Member on the roster who finds it necessary for the Duty Roster Members to sit together to consider the way to deal with the matter. Representatives from the relevant Government departments may be invited to brief Members on the position of the Government and any plans to address the concerns. Case conferences are closed meetings. Members are not expected to divulge the content of deliberations. Sometimes, the Duty Roster Members may decide not to follow up the case or, if the matter has caused wide public concern and there is no appropriate committee to follow up the matter, they may submit a report to the House Committee for it to decide how the matter should be dealt with.^[18]

15.33Under the Duty Roster Members system, there may be a situation where different groups of Members may meet different deputations on the same subject or related subjects. To avoid duplication of efforts, co-ordination is provided by the Public Complaints Office by arranging the same group of Members to handle complaints about substantially the same issues as those lodged by the same or other deputations. In addition, all Members are notified of meetings with deputations so that interested Members may participate in any of these meetings. Written notice of the place, date and time of every meeting should be given to Members at least 2 clear days before the date of the meeting, but shorter notice may be given where urgency of the case so dictates. Where needed, depending on the complexity of the matter raised by deputations, Members with the expertise in that matter may participate in the handling of those cases.

15.34On occasions, for various reasons, some deputations may request to exclude a particular Member from the meeting. The practice, which was endorsed by the Subcommittee on the Review of the Operation of the LegCo Redress System in its review in 1998-99, is that such request will not be entertained, but the Member concerned will be duly informed. It is the Member's own decision as to whether he or she should attend the meeting with the complainant or deputation.

Handling of complaints relating to constituency and individuals' issues

15.35With more Members of the Council setting up their own constituency offices to maintain direct contact with their constituents, public complaints about local and personal issues are generally handled by Members in their own offices. Members may also approach the relevant Government department or authorities direct. The scope of the complaints they may deal with is not restricted by the scope of the Redress System.

Handling of complaints against Members of the Legislative Council

15.36Towards the second half of the Third Legislative Council, the number of complaints and views from members of the public on the conduct and behaviour of Members began to increase significantly. Notwithstanding the fact that complaints against Members were outside the scope of the Redress System, the Complaints Division had assumed a co-ordinating role in referring these complaints to the relevant committees, such as the Committee on Members' Interests if the complaint was related to a breach of Rule 83A and/or Rule 83AA of the Rules of Procedure ^[19].

15.37As most of the complaints received by the Complaints Division in the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 were outside the ambit of the Committee on Members' Interests, there was no mechanism to follow up the complaints within the Council except under the procedure set out in Rule 49B(1A) of the Rules of Procedure which could lead to the disqualification of Member from office for misbehaviour or breach of oath. In April 2009, a review was undertaken by the Committee on Members' Interests on the nature of the complaints against Members received by the Complaints Division. It was noted that the complaints were mainly related to Members' performance and conduct (e.g. disorderly behaviour, low attendance rate at meetings) and their handling of complaint cases (e.g. refusal to offer assistance in cases outside the scope of the Redress System). According to the then practice of the Complaints Division, the complaints were circulated to the Duty Roster Members including the Members under complaint. It would be for the Members to decide how to proceed with the complaints.

15.38The Committee noted that in respect of a complaint or allegation relating to a Member's claim for reimbursement of operating expenses or application for advance of operating funds, the Secretary General as Controlling Officer would seek clarification from the Member concerned and report to The Legislative Council Commission. If the complaint was also received by the Committee, the Secretary General's findings from the clarification would be submitted to the Committee on Members' Interests when the Committee proceeded to consider the complaint in accordance with the procedure set out in Appendix 13-B. If the allegation was an anonymous complaint or from media reports, such allegation could be followed up by the Secretary General as the Controlling Officer only if there was sufficient information to do so. The Committee however maintained that it would not follow up anonymous complaints or media reports.

15.39The division of responsibilities between the Redress System and the Committee on Members' Interests over complaints against Members as well as the mechanism in following up complaints received by the Complaints Division have since then been formalized and have remained unchanged up to this date.

Role of the House Committee

15.40There are no provisions in the Rules of Procedure or in the House Rules governing the handling of public complaints although the Redress System currently operated by the Legislative Council has existed since 1963. Prior to 1991, deliberations on the mechanism in the handling of complaints and on specific cases took place at the OMELCO In-house meetings which were closed meetings. With the opening-up of the meetings of the LegCo In-house which took over the functions of the former OMELCO In-house in November 1991 and the setting up of the House Committee to replace LegCo In-house in 1992, matters relating to specific complaint cases could no longer be considered at the House Committee. However, the House Committee continues to provide a forum for the consideration of matters relating to the operation of the Redress System to ensure that Legislative Council's power and function to receive and handle complaints from Hong Kong residents under the Basic Law is performed fairly and effectively.

[1]: Article 73(8) of the Basic Law.
[2]: The power and function prescribed in Article 73(8) was included in the consultative document endorsed by the Drafting Committee of the Basic Law of the HKSAR in April 1988.
[3]: See Chapter 7, para.7.48 – 7.53.
[4]: Standing Order No. 47 to 49 of the 1884 Standing Orders of the pre-1997 Legislature.
[5]: UMELCO Annual Report 1970-71, p. 1; also Report of the Subcommittee on Review of the Operation of the LegCo Redress System presented to the House Committee meeting on 27 November 1998.
[6]: UMELCO Annual Report 1972-73, p. 1.
[7]: UMELCO Annual Report 1985, p. 34.
[8]: Chapter 4, para. 4.5.
[9]: Chapter 3, para. 3.3 – 3.11.
[10]: Chapter 4, para. 4.9 – 4.10.
[11]: OMELCO Annual Report 1989, p. 30.
[12]: LegCo Annual Report 1993-1994, p. 55; also LegCo Annual Report 1994-1995, p. 53. Also see paragraphs 15.14 to 15.16.
[13]: Complaints against the Police and ICAC officers were not dealt with because of the existence of the Independent Police Complaints Council and the ICAC Complaints Committee which respectively oversaw investigation of complaints against these two departments.
[14]: See paragraph 15.10.
[15]: In June 1994, 6 statutory bodies came within COMAC's jurisdiction. They were the Mass Transit Railway Corporation, the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation, the Securities and Futures Commission, the Urban Council, the Regional Council and the Housing Authority. In April 1996, 4 other statutory organizations came under COMAC's jurisdiction. They were the Airport Authority, the Hong Kong Housing Society, the Land Development Corporation and the Vocational Training Council.
[16]: See Second Report of the Subcommittee on Review of the Operation of the LegCo Redress System and minutes of House Committee meeting on 19 March 1999.
[17]: Under "Redress System" in the Legislative Council website at http://www.legco.gov.hk/general/english/sec/corg_ser/redress.htm.
[18]: An example is the report made by the Duty Roster Members to the House Committee on 9 October 2009 in relation to the views expressed by members of the public against a Member. The Duty Roster Members put forward a number of recommended actions for discussion by the House Committee. See Report of the Legislative Council Investigation Committee established under Rule 49B(2A) of the Rules of Procedure in respect of the Motion to censure Honourable KAM Nai-wai, para 1.11 – 1.19.
[19]: Cases falling within the scope of Rule 83A and Rule 83AA are those relating to failure to disclose personal pecuniary interest during the proceedings of the Council or committees, and inaccurate or incomplete information provided for claiming reimbursement of operating expenses or applying for advance of operating funds.

Chapter 15 Redress system