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 II: Conduct of business in the Council and committees

Chapter 8

Decorum and order at Council meetings

8.1Decorum generally refers to the way a Member behaves in the Council ^[1] including his manner of speaking, the expressions and words he uses in his speeches and his behaviour when not speaking. The general principle is that a Member should respect the office of a Legislative Council Member. While Members enjoy freedom of speech and debate, such freedom is not without bounds. They should treat other Members and persons attending meetings of the Council including the Chief Executive and public officers with courtesy and civility in the legislature which is and is also expected by the public to be an esteemed institution.^[2]

8.2The preservation of decorum and order at Council meetings is the responsibility of the President who refers to Part H and Part I of the Rules of Procedure to regulate Members' behaviours at meetings of the Council. Part H on "Rules of Speaking" was originally known as "Rules of Debate" in the Standing Orders of the pre-1997 Legislature and the rules in this Part were primarily related only to debates. However, as some of the principles, such as those relating to interruptions, behaviour while not speaking, etc., also apply to other speeches, Part H was retitled in the Rules of Procedure as the general rules on speaking. Nevertheless, when making a ruling on the speeches made under those items of the Agenda for which no debate is allowed, the President would first refer to the specific provisions in the relevant rules before referring to the general provisions in Part H.

8.3In this Chapter, apart from setting out the rules and practices regarding Members' behaviours in the Council, some precedents of the behaviour and expressions ruled unacceptable by Presidents over the years are also quoted to illustrate the principles behind the rulings at the time and the development of these principles in recent years. The rules and practices examined in this Chapter, though described in the context of a Council meeting, also apply to a committee of the whole Council. The President, who is also Chairman of the committee of the whole Council, is responsible for preserving the decorum and order in the committee of the whole Council. This chapter also describes how some of the principles also apply to other committees.

Manner of speaking

Speaking to the Chair

8.4At a meeting of the Council or a committee of the whole Council, a Member may speak when called upon by the President or Chairman and should stand when speaking. He should address his observations to the President or Chairman.^[3] The philosophy behind this arrangement, as explained in Chapter 1 ^[4], is that when a Member's speech is directed to the Chair and not to individuals, there is a cooling effect which helps cultivate 'a temper of moderation' in the Council.

Speaking order

Historical background

8.5Prior to 1993, Members were called to speak in a fixed order of precedence which matched the order of their seating in the Chamber with the most senior Members being seated in the front row. Although Standing Order No. 27 provided that those Members wishing to speak "shall rise" to indicate their intention to speak,^[5] Members in practice tried to 'catch the President's eye' by raising their hands instead of rising and those recognized by the President would have their names entered on a list. In a debate, as soon as the mover of the motion had spoken, the President referred to the list of Members he had recognized and called them in the order of their precedence in the Council. Towards the end of the debate, the President might ask Members to raise their hands to ascertain who else wished to speak. He would then call upon those who raised their hands to speak before he invited the mover of the motion to reply and the question was put to vote. Where an amendment was to be moved, the mover of amendment could only move the amendment at the time when he was called upon to speak on the motion according to his seniority.^[6]

8.6After the first batch of elected Members were returned to the Council in 1985, some Members suggested to the President that the system of speaking by order of seniority should be changed to one that would "prevent repetition of points" and "allow junior Members to participate more lively" in a debate.^[7] ^[8] This wish of Members to have a more spontaneous and lively debate was echoed by the newly elected Members returned from geographical constituencies in 1991. In February 1993, when Sir John SWAINE was elected as President, he began to exercise discretion in the way he called upon Members to speak. While he basically referred to the order of precedence, he also alternated Members from different political groupings to speak in a debate.

8.7On 28 July 1995, Standing Order No. 27 was amended to allow Members to raise their hands as an alternative to rising since raising of hands had already been a long-standing practice adopted by Members to indicate their intention to speak ^[9].

8.8In January 1999, the electronic voting system which was installed in 1991 ^[10] was enhanced to provide a queuing device which recorded the time at which a Member pressed the "Request-to-speak" button. This queuing device, originally designed for registering requests for asking supplementary questions, was extended to motion debates to enable the President to refer to the time Members indicated their intention to speak in order to determine their speaking order. At the Council meeting of 28 April 1999, the Council amended Rule 36(4) to replace the words "shall rise or raise their hands" by "indicate or have indicated their intention to speak".^[11] ^[12]

Current practice

8.9Any Member who wishes to speak in a debate may press the "Request-to-speak" button in the electronic queuing system to indicate his intention to speak or he may raise his hand to catch the eye of the President or the Clerk. Since the 2011-2012 session, with the help of a more advanced information display system in the new Chamber, it has become possible for the names of the next three Members on the speaking list to be shown on the annunciators which are installed in main corridors, Members' dining and reading areas as well as through the internal broadcast system accessible in Members' individual offices. After all those Members on the speaking list have spoken, the President usually asks if any other Members wish to speak before he invites the mover of the motion to speak in reply. If the motion is a Member's motion, the President will invite the designated public officer(s) responsible for the policy area relevant to the subject matter of the motion to speak^[13] before the mover makes his reply.

8.10Strictly speaking, any Member who has not yet spoken may still speak after the public officer's last speech so long as the mover of the motion has not made his reply. However, it is the convention that Members are encouraged to speak before the public officer's last speech. Where the President has exceptionally allowed a Member to speak after the public officer's last speech, he would ask the public officer if he wishes to further respond. After that, the President will ask the mover of the motion to make his reply. The reply should be confined to matters raised during the debate and once the reply has been made, or in the event that there is no reply, the debate comes to a close. No other Member is allowed to speak after the mover of the motion has made his reply.^[14]

Interruptions

Raising a point of order

8.11A Member has the right to finish his speech without interruptions, unless another Member raises a point of order.^[15] ^[16] A point of order in this context is a procedural intervention by a Member if he considers that the rules and practices of the Council have been breached and he wishes to bring this to the attention of the President. It is the practice that a Member rises to indicate that he wishes to raise a point of order. If a Member is speaking when a point of order is raised, the President will ask the Member speaking to resume his seat and allow the Member who interrupts to explain the point he wishes to bring to notice for the President's decision.^[17] It is at the President's discretion as to whether he would allow other Members to express views on a point of order.^[18]

Seeking elucidation

8.12If a Member who is not speaking rises to seek elucidation of a matter raised by the Member speaking, the President should first ask the Member speaking if he is willing to give way. If the latter agrees, the President will ask the Member speaking to resume his seat and call upon the Member who interrupts to speak. If the Member speaking is not willing to give way, the interruption will not be allowed.^[19]

Explaining misunderstanding

8.13If a Member who has spoken rises to explain something which he said earlier but has been misunderstood by the Member speaking, it is again up to the Member speaking to decide whether to give way. If the Member speaking does not wish to give way, the President may allow the Member who finds himself misunderstood to speak again after the Member speaking has finished his speech, but only to explain the part which has been misunderstood.^[20]

President's power under Rule 36(2) of the Rules of Procedure

8.14From the above, it is clear that a Member has the right to speak without interruptions. Only one Member is allowed to speak at any one time and he should speak standing. When he has finished, he should resume his seat. If two or more Members rise to speak at the same time without waiting to be called or do not resume their seats even when ordered, the President may rise. When he rises, every Member must sit down.^[21] If any Member refuses to stop interrupting or sit down when the President rises, the act alone is a violation of Rule 36(2) of the Rules of Procedure and may be regarded as grossly disorderly conduct.^[22]

8.15When the Committee on Rules of Procedure of the First Legislative Council conducted a review of the Rules in 1999, it was noted that Rule 36(2) was modelled on a previous standing order which was seldom used. However, the Committee considered that "this subrule would be relied on to maintain discipline in the event of serious disorder during the proceedings of the Council", and decided that Rule 36(2) should be retained in the Rules of Procedure.

Speaking time

Normal speaking time

8.16In any debate in the Council, a Member may not speak for more than 15 minutes on each occasion except with the permission of the President in exceptional circumstances.^[23] This time limit however does not apply to the speech on a report of a Bills Committee on a bill made under Rule 54(7) at the commencement of the resumption of the second reading debate on the relevant bill.^[24] This speech, which is supposed to be made under Rule 21(4) of the Rule of Procedure for the purpose of presenting the report of a Bills Committee, may, with the permission of the President, be delivered during the second reading debate ^[25] to provide completeness and coherence to the debate on the bill. As speeches made under Rule 21 (Presentation of Papers) are not subject to the 15-minute time limit under Rule 36(5), the President allows the Member presenting the Bills Committee's report to speak for more than 15 minutes. If the Member presenting the report continues to make his own speech or speak again at a later time, this second speech, permitted by the President under Rule 38(2) of the Rules of Procedure, will then be subject to the 15-minute time limit.

Speaking time for debates on motions not intended to have legislative effect

8.17Under Rule 37 of the Rules of Procedure, the House Committee may recommend to the President the speaking time for motions not intended to have legislative effect. In this respect, a decision was made by the House Committee on 7 October 1992 ^[26] that for motions of this nature the speaking time limits should be shortened. A new Rule 17 of the House Rules was made on 16 October 1992 to set out this arrangement which has continued in force. Under this House Rule, the speaking time for speaking on a motion not intended to have legislative effect is 7 minutes except for the mover of the motion who has 15 minutes in total for moving the motion and making his reply and an additional 5 minutes to respond to amendments, if any. Any Member proposing an amendment to the motion has 10 minutes for his speech and, with the permission of the President, an additional 3 minutes to speak on his revised amendment if an earlier amendment has been passed and there is a need to reword his original proposed amendment.

8.18To streamline the process for seeking agreement to the shortened speaking time limits, the House Committee decided on 16 March 2001 ^[27] to amend Rule 17(b) of the House Rules to the effect that the speaking time limits for motion debates stipulated therein are deemed to have been agreed by the House Committee unless it has decided otherwise, and a recommendation would be made to the President for his agreement. This deeming arrangement only applies to debates on motions not intended to have legislative effect, including those initiated by the chairmen of committees to take note of the reports of committees^[28] or consultation papers published by the Government ^[29]. These motion debates do not include those on reports of the House Committee on the consideration of subsidiary legislation and other instruments, for which the 15-minute speaking time limit is adopted. For motions relating to investigative reports, such as those from select committees^[30], the Public Accounts Committee ^[31] or any committee conducting an inquiry, the general practice is that the shortened speaking time applies unless agreed otherwise by the House committee.

8.19As stated in Rule 37 of the Rules of Procedure, the Rule does not apply to motions intended to have legislative effect or those motions referred to in Part JA of the Rules of Procedure. The 15-minute speaking time applies to all these motions and also motions to adjourn the Council under Rule 16(2) of the Rules of Procedure, as well as other motions relating to the conduct of proceedings of the Council, such as shortening the ringing of the division bell to one minute ^[32], seeking withdrawal of a Member or disallowing his vote on grounds of direct pecuniary interest ^[33], etc. In the event that a motion is moved to adjourn a motion debate for which a specified time recommended by the House Committee has been accepted by the President, Rule 17(c) of the House Rules provides that the same specified time will also apply to the motion to adjourn debate if it is accepted by the President.^[34]

8.20This 15-minute speaking time also does not apply to motions to adjourn the Council under Rule 16(4) of the Rules of Procedure. It is due to the fact that the duration of the debate on the issue, or each of the issues if more than one is included in the motion, is kept within one and a half hours (75 minutes for speeches by Members and 15 minutes for replies by designated public officers) unless extended by the President. Each Member, including the Member who raises the issue for debate, may speak up to 5 minutes.^[35]

Public officers' speaking time

8.21The restrictions on speaking time which apply to Members do not apply to designated public officers.^[36] However, there are exceptions such as the speaking time for the debate on the Motion of Thanks which has been specified as a result of a decision of the House Committee. As the debate on the Motion of Thanks is conducted in 5 sessions under specific themes, those designated public officers responsible for the policy areas in each session will each speak for 15 minutes subject to not exceeding 45 minutes in total for a session. This has been explained in Chapter 5 ^[37]. Another exception is the reply of a designated public officer at the end of an adjournment debate moved under Rule 16(4) of the Rules of Procedure. The speaking time is limited to not more than 15 minutes, as stipulated in Rule 16(6) and (7) of the Rules of Procedure and explained in Chapter 10 ^[38].

Speaking more than once on a question

8.22A Member may not speak more than once on a question (which is the subject matter of a motion before the Council or committee of the whole Council to be voted on).^[39] However, there are exceptional circumstances, provided for in Rule 38 of the Rules of Procedure, as set out below, which allow a Member to speak more than once:

(a)in committee of the whole Council except on a motion to adjourn further proceedings of the committee; ^[40]

(b)at the resumption of the second reading debate on a bill when a Member is making a report of a Bills Committee on the bill; ^[41]

(c)during a debate when a Member wishes to explain some part of his speech which has been misunderstood after he has spoken in the same debate; ^[42]

(d)to enable a Member to reply at the end of the debate on a motion if he is the mover of the motion; ^[43]

(e)to enable Members to speak on each of the items under a motion to take note of a report of the House Committee on the consideration of subsidiary legislation and other instruments if the motion relates to more than one item; ^[44]

(f)to enable Members to speak on a motion and also on an amendment to a motion if a joint debate is not held; ^[45]

(g)to enable Members to speak again during the debate of a motion on a motion to adjourn that debate; ^[46] or

(h)any other circumstances permitted by the President.^[47]

8.23Regarding the number of times a public officer may speak on an item of business for which he attends a meeting, Rule 10 of the Rules of Procedure ^[48] provides that with the exception of those rules set out in that rule ^[49], the Rules of Procedure shall apply to that public officer as they apply to a Member. The rules of speaking are not part of those exceptions. It therefore appears to follow that the rule limiting Members to speak not more than once to a question should also apply to a designated public officer.

8.24In 2000, Rule 38(1)(f) and Rule 38(8) were added to the Rules of Procedure to specifically provide that a designated public officer ^[50] may speak a second time upon a Member's motion. This was resulted from a study conducted by the Committee on Rules of Procedure on the speaking order of Members in a motion debate. The Committee noted that there was a strong wish among Members that the designated public officer responsible for the subject matter of a debate ought to speak at an earlier part of the debate to enable Members to understand the position of the Government. Since Members could only speak once in a debate, it would not be possible for them to respond to the points made by the designated public officer if the latter only spoke at the end of the debate just before the mover's reply. To encourage designated public officers to speak both at the start and at the end of a debate, the Committee recommended the addition of new Rule 38(1)(f) and Rule 38(8) which were endorsed by the Council on 5 April 2000. ^[51] Since then, it has been the practice for the President to first ask the designated public officer if he wishes to speak after the mover(s) of the motion and amendments have spoken at the start of the debate.

Speaking in committee of the whole Council

Historical background

8.25As mentioned in Chapter 7 ^[52], a committee of the whole Council as part of the 3-reading process in the consideration of a bill was adopted from the Westminster parliamentary model. The original intention of creating this form of "grand committee" in the House of Commons was to provide Members with greater freedom of debate and the opportunity to speak to a question as often as they wanted without the presence of the Speaker. ^[53] In following the Westminster mode of deliberation, the pre-1997 Hong Kong Legislature provided in its Standing Order No. 28(1) that "Save with the leave of the President, a Member may not speak more than once on a question, except (a) in committee;" (the word "committee" was replaced by "committee of the whole Council" in 1995). Standing Order No. 28(1)(a) became the present Rule 38(1)(a) in the Rules of Procedure of the HKSAR Legislature.

8.26There have been discussions on whether there is, or should be, a limit to the number of times a Member may speak in a committee of the whole Council, as referred to in Rule 38(1)(a) of the Rules of Procedure. According to Rule 55 of the Rules of Procedure, after a motion for the second reading of a bill has been agreed to, the bill stands committed to a committee of the whole Council unless the bill is committed to a select committee by the decision of the Council or the direction of the President. ^[54] In a committee of the whole Council, Members discuss the details of the bill, not its principles. This stage in the progress of the consideration of a bill is accordingly known as the "committee stage". The committee has the power to make amendments including the addition of new clauses and new schedules to the bill provided that they comply with the requirements set out in Rule 57 of the Rules of Procedure. ^[55] It becomes inevitable that Members should be allowed to speak more than once in a committee of the whole Council as this is the stage at which Members speak and vote on the clauses and schedules as well as any amendments to such clauses and schedules.

8.27The issues raised by Rule 38(1)(a) were first discussed by the Committee on Rules of Procedure in the 1999-2000 session. The Committee noted that there was no rule to put an end to a debate in a committee of the whole Council even if the debate had become a protracted expression of views by a few members. A consultation was then conducted among Members of the Council but the majority of Members considered that the arrangement as set out in Rule 38(1)(a) of the Rules of Procedure should be maintained. ^[56]

Measures to deal with filibusters

Closing of debate in May 2012

8.28In May 2012, after the passage of the second reading of the Legislative Council (Amendment) Bill 2012 ^[57], two Members proposed over 1 300 amendments to the Bill and started a filibuster during the joint debate at the committee stage of the Bill. After 33 hours of debate with primarily three Members persisting in, according to the President, irrelevance or tedious repetition of arguments, it was clear to the President that they had no intention to end the filibuster and that would bring Council business to a standstill, adding much pressure to the need to deal with the bunching of outstanding business before the Council stood prorogued on 18 July 2012. Subsequent to a point of order raised by a Member, the President, by invoking Rule 92 of the Rules of Procedure, decided to allow the movers of the amendments to conclude their speeches within 3 hours and close the debate on the seventh meeting day of the debate on 17 May 2012.

8.29In his written ruling issued on 22 May 2012 (Appendix 8-A), President Jasper TSANG provided an account of the matters that he had considered for, and how he had arrived at his decision to close the debate. The President considered it his duty to ensure the efficient conduct of meetings. Article 72 of the Basic Law had given him the power and function to preside over meetings and to exercise other powers and functions as prescribed in the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council. Where he had difficulty in conducting a meeting in a reasonably efficient manner in accordance with Article 72 and where a matter which should have been provided for in the Rules of Procedure but had not been so provided, it fell to him as President to decide what practice and procedure should be followed. In accordance with Rule 92 of the Rules of Procedure, when making the relevant decision, he would be guided by the practice and procedure of other legislatures which are relevant to the matter under his consideration if he should think fit.

8.30In the absence of any procedure in the Rules of Procedure to close protracted debate or any measures used by other legislatures which could immediately be adopted in the Hong Kong Legislature, the President noted that the ultimate decision on how to deal with the situation rested with him. As a wide and protracted debate had been allowed and all Members had been given the opportunity to speak, he considered that there were reasonable grounds for him to put an end to the joint debate.^[58] Before he announced his decision that the debate should come to an end, he had a private meeting with Members of the Council and, after listening to Members' views, ordered an extension of the debate by 3 hours to allow other Members to speak and the movers of amendments to conclude their speeches.

8.31This was the first time the President of the Hong Kong Legislature invoked Rule 92 to curtail a debate although the Rule had been invoked from time to time to facilitate the conduct of business, such as the order of a joint debate in committee stage before Rule 58(2) was amended.^[59] Following the President's decision to end the joint debate and thus the filibustering exercise, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, a Member who took part in the filibustering, sought the court's leave for an application of judicial review of the President's decision in court. Mr LEUNG's main grounds of challenge were based on his claim that Members' constitutional rights to make and repeal laws under Article 73(1) of the Basic Law, and hence their right to speak in the debate had been infringed. Mr LEUNG's application was dismissed by the Court of First Instance and his appeal was also rejected by the Court of Appeal which upheld the principle that the courts do not interfere with the internal workings of the Legislature, and the Legislature has exclusive control over the conduct of its affairs ^[60].

8.32Mr LEUNG was subsequently granted leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal ("CFA"), but his appeal was dismissed unanimously by CFA.^[61] CFA held that the purpose of Article 73 of the Basic Law is to confer certain powers and functions on the Legislative Council as a law-making body, i.e. as an institution. The courts will not intervene to rule on the regularity or irregularity of the internal processes of the legislature but will leave it to the legislature to determine exclusively for itself matters of this kind, subject to any constitutional requirements. In its judgment, CFA also stated that the President has the power to set limits to and terminate a debate. The existence of the power is inherent in, or incidental to, the power granted by Article 72(1) of the Basic Law to the President to preside over meetings, quite apart from Rule 92. The provisions in the Rules of Procedure, as far as they relate to the President and his powers and functions, are necessarily subject to Article 72 of the Basic law which sets out the President's powers and functions. CFA concluded that it is not for CFA to consider whether or not the power was properly exercised.

Scheduling of business for the remainder of the 2011-2012 session

8.33The bunching of business at the end of the 2011-2012 session arose not only as a result of the protracted debate on the Legislative Council (Amendment) Bill 2012 but also due to the protracted debate on almost every Government bill on the Agenda when it reached committee stage when Members were allowed to speak more than once on a question. These protracted debates were initiated by the same Members with the effect of delaying the Council's consideration of a motion related to the re-organization of the Government Secretariat which was placed at the last item of Government business on the Agenda. In dealing with the bunching of outstanding business before the Council stood prorogued on 18 July 2012, the President decided to schedule additional meeting days for the remaining Council meetings before prorogation based on the recommendations of the House Committee which reviewed at each of its meetings the Secretariat's assessment of the time required for each of the outstanding items on the Agenda. Between 25 May 2012 and 18 July 2012 (day of prorogation), there were altogether 28 meeting days for 7 Council meetings. The Council was able to dispose of all Government items on the Agenda except the motion related to the re-organization of the Government Secretariat. In this particular case, the House Committee played an important role in consulting Members on setting timeframe for debates in the Council for dealing with the bunching of business which resulted from protracted debate.

Time orders

8.34On 13 May 2013, after the committee of the whole Council had spent 55 hours debating the 710 amendments to the Appropriation Bill 2013, with four members mainly speaking alternately, President Jasper TSANG noted with grave concern the impact of the protracted debate on the Bill on the transaction of other Council business. After examining various alternatives on how to deal with the remaining proceedings, he considered that setting a timeframe was the only appropriate course of action as he had to strike a balance among all relevant factors, including the right of Members to participate in the legislative process, the use of filibuster by Members as a tactic to bargain with the Administration, the smooth conduct of Council meetings and the proper functioning of the Council as a law-making institution. The President, after meeting with Members, ordered that a timeframe should be set for the remaining proceedings on the Bill so as to complete all the proceedings before 22 May 2013. The President's ruling is at Appendix 8-B.

8.35Regarding the Appropriation Bill 2014, the President ruled admissible 1,192 amendments to the Bill. By 16 May 2014, the committee of the whole Council had spent 63 hours debating the amendments, with three Members speaking 161 times in total, and there were at least 47 occasions on which the President reminded the Members who, in his opinion, persisted in irrelevance or tedious repetition of their arguments in the debate of the need to comply with Rule 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure. At the start of the Council meeting of 21 May 2014, the President set out a timeframe to complete the remaining proceedings on the Bill by 4 June 2014. In allocating the time for the remaining proceedings on the Bill, the President had also taken into account the need for the Council to deal with all the outstanding business in the current legislative session.

8.36In his ruling, the President said, "The setting of a time limit for debates does not deprive Members of the right to monitor the work of the Government. On the other hand, allowing the debates on the Bill to be protracted without any time limit would definitely deprive Members of the opportunities to monitor the Government by various effective means in the Council." The President's ruling is at Appendix 8-C. The setting of a timeframe to complete proceedings was also adopted for the Appropriation Bill 2015.

Further discussion by the Committee on Rules of Procedure

8.37President Jasper TSANG attended meetings of the Committee on Rules of Procedure on a number of occasions on the way to deal with protracted debates at the committee stage of bills and the handling of voluminous amendments to bills. On 24 February 2014, he invited the Committee to examine the feasibility of four procedural options ^[62]. He stressed that in the past incidents of protracted debates in the Council, in order to ensure the orderly, fair and proper conduct of meetings, he had no alternative but to exercise the constitutional power given to the President to exercise proper control over meetings by ending the relevant debates. He considered the absence in the Rules of Procedure of specific procedure for dealing with filibusters highly undesirable. In response to the President's request, the Committee conducted a consultation exercise among Members on the procedural options and made reference to the experience in overseas legislatures. However, no consensus could be reached on the proposals.

Content of speeches

8.38A Member may speak on a question being proposed. His speech should be confined to the subject under discussion and no irrelevant matters should be introduced.^[63]

8.39A Member is not allowed to impute improper motives to another Member in his speech.^[64] Any Member may raise a point of order if he considers that improper motives have been imputed to another Member in a Member's speech. The Member speaking is required to explain the part of his speech that has given rise to the point of order. If such remark is ruled out of order by the President, the Member is required to withdraw such remark.

8.40A Member is not allowed to use the name of the Chief Executive to influence the Council.^[65] No reference to the conduct of the Chief Executive may be made in a Member's speech unless the conduct is related to the Chief Executive's performance of official duties or the conduct is the subject of a motion moved under Article 73(9) of the Basic Law for the impeachment of the Chief Executive.^[66] Details are provided in Chapter 5.^[67]

8.41Rule 41(2) of the Rules of Procedure provides that no reference should be made to a case pending in a court of law in such a way as, in the opinion of the President or Chairman, might prejudice that case. In recent years, more cases of disputes over public administration or involving public funds are placed before the court for adjudication or judicial review. As a result, in order that Members may still raise the related issues for debate in the Council, the President has allowed motions relating to such issues to be moved. Nevertheless, the President reminded Members on each occasion of the need to comply with Rule 41(2) so as not to prejudice the cases which were sub judice.^[68]

Offensive and unparliamentary expressions

8.42Under Rule 41(4) of the Rules of Procedure, it is out of order to use offensive and insulting language about Members of the Council. Where a Member is challenged for having used expressions which are regarded as offensive and insulting especially when such expressions are used to direct at certain persons who may include Members of the Council, the President will ask the Member to clarify. Whether an expression is regarded as offensive or insulting depends on the context in which it is used. If the Member clarifies that such expressions are not intended to refer to any Member of the Council, the President is unlikely to rule the use of such expressions out of order. ^[69] Otherwise, the Member is required to withdraw such expressions. On occasions, even if the expressions are not intended to refer to any Member, the President may rule that such expressions are 'unparliamentary' and so cannot be used in the Council.^[70] A list of the expressions having been ruled as offensive, insulting or 'unparliamentary' is kept as reference for use by the President and committee chairs and is available on the Legislative Council's website (Appendix 8-D). Any Member who considers that any expression on the list should be removed may refer the matter to the Committee on Rules of Procedure for a review. It is for the Committee to decide if such a review should take place.

Behaviour when not speaking

8.43Members are expected to behave appropriately in the Council even when they are not speaking. The requirement that a Member should enter or leave the Council with decorum is a tradition which can be dated back to 1858.^[71] The behaviour expected of a Member when he is in the Council has been extended to cover every moment when he is present at a Council meeting including the time when he is not speaking, as illustrated in Rule 42 of the Rules of Procedure.

Attire

8.44Rule 42(a) of the Rules of Procedure refers to the requirement for Members to enter or leave the Council with decorum. The Rule was amended in 1998 to require Members also to be properly attired. Although the term "properly attired" is not defined, Members are expected to be attired in a manner that reflects their respect for the proceedings of the Council. This requirement was first included in the Rules of Procedure by the Provisional Legislative Council and was adopted by the First Legislative Council of the HKSAR in its Rules of Procedure.

8.45Prior to July 1997, although Members' attire was not mentioned in the Standing Orders, there was a general understanding which was in line with the common practice of overseas legislatures that male Members were expected to wear jackets and ties.^[72] President Sir John SWAINE took a serious view on any Member who displayed any sign or message on the Member's clothing, which was not permitted in the case of persons admitted to the press or public gallery according to the Administrative Instructions issued by him under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ^[73]. At the sitting on 28 July 1995, he asked a Member to zip up his jacket so that the slogan on the Member's T-shirt would not be shown.^[74] The same approach can be found in the ruling made by President Andrew WONG at the Council sitting on 13 March 1996. He requested two Members to have the signs on their clothing removed.^[75]

8.46During the early years of the HKSAR, Members were reminded that casual attire such as T-shirts and sweat shirts was not acceptable when attending a meeting of the Council.^[76] This standard of attire was generally accepted and respected by Members. In October 2004, following the return of a Member who insisted on wearing T-shirts with slogans, President Mrs Rita FAN invited the Committee on Rules of Procedure to look into the matter. After deliberation, the Committee considered that in view of the change of times, T-shirts and sweat shirts should no longer be regarded as improper attire. The Committee also considered that there was no need to expressly provide in the Rules of Procedure what was not acceptable as the President's rulings in this regard would gradually develop into conventions and practices. Nevertheless, the Committee agreed that if a Member, whose attire was considered by the President as extremely improper, ignored the President's advice, the Member might be regarded as behaving in a grossly disorderly manner and could be dealt with in accordance with Rule 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure.^[77]

8.47At the Council meeting of 9 July 2014, upon a point of order raised by a Member, President Jasper TSANG considered the attire of Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung who wore shorts to the meeting improper and a violation of Rule 42(a) of the Rules of procedure. The President ordered Mr LEUNG to change to trousers before returning to the Chamber.^[78]

8.48As regards the display of signs and messages on Members' clothing, the consideration is whether the contents of such signs and messages would give rise to unreasonable interference with the proceedings of a meeting as in the case of interruptions during debates or would compromise the dignity of the Council. On occasions, a Member has put on a mask when he speaks in the Council. In considering whether the wearing of a mask is acceptable, the President must be satisfied that he can recognize the Member wearing the mask and that the use of the mask is relevant to the subject matter of the speech he is making.^[79] ^[80]

Other behaviour

Crossing the floor

8.49Rule 42(b) of the Rules of Procedure provides that no Member is to cross the floor of the Council unnecessarily. In the configuration of the Chamber, there is unobstructed line of sight between the President and Members as well as among Members (including designated public officers) themselves. When a Member or public officer speaks at a Council meeting, the speech is addressed to the President. Any unnecessary crossing of the space between the President and the Member speaking is disrespectful to the President and the Member concerned, and is therefore not allowed.^[81]

Reading other materials

8.50Under Rule 42(c) of the Rules of Procedure, Members are not allowed to read newspapers, books, letters or other documents at a meeting unless they are directly connected with the business of the Council. With the advancement in technology, Members do not necessarily read any written materials from printed copies. There is no prohibition against Members using electronic devices to access information. It is for individual Members to exercise prudence to ensure that anything they read at a meeting is related to the business of the Council and no disruption is caused to other Members. Members' behaviour inside the Chamber is also subject to public scrutiny.

No interruptions to a Member or a public officer speaking

8.51Under Rule 42(d) of the Rules of Procedure, a Member is expected to be silent and should not make unseemly interruptions when another Member is speaking. This principle also applies where the person speaking is the Chief Executive or any designated public officer. It is basic courtesy that Members listen to the speeches of others and make no interruptions unless allowed under the Rules of Procedure.

Display of objects at meetings

General principles

8.52Though not explicitly provided for in the Rules of Procedure, Members are expected to exercise self-discipline when bringing in objects for display at meetings of the Council. In principle, such objects are only allowed if they are used as visual aids to assist the Members when speaking in the Council. The objects displayed should be related to the agenda item(s) of the meeting. Where the objects are not in use, they are usually allowed to remain in the Chamber during the meeting provided that such objects do not disturb the proceedings of the meeting or cause obstruction to other Members or public officers in their participation in the proceedings, or block the President's view of those present in the Chamber.^[82] The objects in display should also be placed within the Member's own seating area.^[83] If a Member displays a sign or message the content of which is improper, or if the Member refuses to stop the display of objects as ordered by the President, his behaviour may be regarded by the President as grossly disorderly conduct and he may be ordered to withdraw for the remainder of the meeting under Rule 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

Studies conducted by the Committee on Rules of Procedure

8.53At the Council meeting of 14 October 2009 when the Chief Executive delivered the Policy Address, over 20 Members displayed placards at their desks throughout the meeting. President Jasper TSANG, who was presiding at the meeting, did not ask the Members to remove the placards. After the Council meeting, 32 Members jointly wrote to the President expressing their concern. In his response, the President advised that the display of placards caused no disturbance to the proceedings of the meeting or obstruction to any Member or public officer attending the meeting. Nevertheless he affirmed that should any Member hold a placard high up or attempt to present the placard to any public officer hence affecting the order in Council, he would regard such behaviour as grossly disorderly and would order the Member to withdraw immediately from the Council in accordance with the Rules of Procedure.

8.54The subject was subsequently taken up by the Committee on Rules of Procedure for detailed study. Given the controversial nature of the subject, a consultation exercise was conducted among all Members on whether the current regulatory standards ought to be changed. Two-thirds of Members did not consider it necessary to change the current standards, but there was a strong view among Members that displays of signs and messages should only be allowed when Members were speaking and the objects helped illustrate their arguments. The Committee did not propose any change as a result of this study.

8.55The subject was revisited by the Committee on Rules of Procedure after the occurrence of several incidents in January and February 2011 involving some Members throwing objects at public officers during meetings of the Council and committees. In this review exercise, the Committee studied the rules and practices of parliaments in some overseas jurisdictions and noted that most allowed the use of visual aids by Members during debates, but those objects which might pose danger would not be permitted in the Chamber. The Committee also noted that the practice in the HKSAR Legislature was for individual Members to raise a point of order if they considered that any objects being brought into the Chamber were causing obstruction. Upon the point of order, the President would, if necessary, direct the Member concerned to remove the objects and, if the Member refused to do so, would order the immediate withdrawal of the Member for the remainder of that meeting. The Committee considered this arrangement adequate to deal with disruptions at Council meetings caused by the display of objects by Members at meetings. It also considered that there was no need to regulate the kinds of objects which could be brought into the Chamber.

8.56In the course of this review exercise, the Committee noted the principle adopted by the House of Representatives of the New Zealand Parliament in its Standing Order 108 ^[84] under which a member may use an appropriate visual aid to illustrate a point being made during his speech provided that the aid does not inconvenience other members or obstruct the proceedings of the House; and the aid must be removed from the Chamber at the conclusion of the member's speech. The Committee held the view that the President should consider making reference to this principle in the event that he needs to rule on the use of any object which may cause inconvenience to other Members or obstruct the proceedings of the Council. On 30 May 2011, the Chairman of the Committee wrote to the President and put forward this suggestion.^[85] On 8 March 2012, President Jasper TSANG, through a circular to all Members issued by the Clerk, reminded Members that any objects displayed during Council meetings should not cause obstruction to other Members in their participation in the proceedings of the Council and should be confined to the Members own seating area. Refusal to comply with the President's direction would be regarded as grossly disorderly conduct.

8.57Restrictions on the objects that could be brought into the Chamber were again studied by the Committee on Rules of Procedure in the 2011-2012 session after the Legislative Council had moved to the new Legislative Council Complex. Following an incident in the new Chamber during which a Member allowed an inflated balloon to rise to the ceiling, the President instructed that such objects would be prohibited from being brought into the Chamber in view of the potential safety risks posed to the lighting system of the Chamber.^[86] The Committee concurred with the President's view and agreed that all chairmen of committees should be advised to apply the same approach during meetings of committees.^[87]

8.58Since the commencement of the Fifth Legislative Council, the display of objects by Members during Council meetings has become more frequent and the size of the objects has also become a matter of concern. Another study was conducted by the Committee on the Rules of Procedure in the 2012-2013 session to consider if Members should stow away their display items after speaking and whether there should be any restrictions on the size of the display objects. The Committee noted that the practices adopted by other legislatures varied, but some legislatures did stipulate restrictions on the size and style of the objects displayed. Generally speaking, the size limit is that the display should be confined to the desk of the Member speaking or the immediate area where the Member is making a speech. Regarding the style of objects displayed, the concerns include the effect on the intelligibility of the official records of proceedings, the impact on the public perception, esteem or decorum of the legislature, and whether the objects may pose a threat to the safety of Members and other persons. As divergent views were expressed by members of the Committee, no decision was made to propose any changes to the current arrangements.

Decision of the Chair final

8.59In the Council, the President has the duty to preserve order and ensure that business of the Council is conducted in an orderly, efficient and fair manner in accordance with the Rules of Procedure.^[88] Under Rule 44 of the Rules of Procedure, the decision of the Chair is final. Whilst most decisions of the President can be made on the spot, he may decide to study the matter and provide a ruling after the meeting. The President usually announces his decision in the Council. His decision, once made, is not open for debate or discussion at the Council. On occasions, Members may raise a point of order in the Council for the purpose of seeking clarification after the President has made a decision. The President may upon his own initiative provide a more substantial response, which is not obligatory, or advise Members to refer to his written ruling later.

Disciplinary actions under the Rules of Procedure

Discontinuation of speeches

8.60Speaking in the Council is one of the most fundamental rights of a Member but, as explained in Chapter 2 ^[89], this right is not without bounds. To preserve the order of the Council, the President is given the power under Rule 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure to direct a Member to discontinue his speech if the Member persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition of his own or other Members' arguments in the debate. In so doing, the President should call the attention of the Council to such repetition and direct the Member to discontinue his speech. This direction of the President is not subject to challenge as the decision of the Chair is final. If the Member disobeys the direction of the President and refuses to discontinue his speech, his behaviour can be regarded by the President as grossly disorderly and he will be ordered to withdraw immediately from the Council for the remainder of that meeting under Rule 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

8.61This power of the President under Rule 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure can also be exercised by the Chairman of the committee of the whole Council. In the case of a committee of the whole Council, where Members may speak more than once on a question during the committee stage in the consideration of a bill ^[90], a Member who has been directed by the Chairman to discontinue his speech may rise and speak again. Questions have been raised on how far a Member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition can be stopped from speaking any further in the same debate. Rule 45(1) does not provide for such a situation. The President has adopted the practices in other jurisdictions that only the refusal to obey the direction of the Chair to discontinue a speech is regarded as grossly disorderly conduct but not irrelevance or tedious repetition.^[91]

Withdrawal of offensive or unparliamentary expressions

8.62The mere utterance of an expression which is offensive and insulting or unparliamentary does not constitute disorderly conduct. However, if a Member is ordered to withdraw such expressions and he refuses to withdraw, his refusal to obey the President's order can be regarded as grossly disorderly conduct for which the President may order him to withdraw immediately from the Council for the remainder of the meeting under Rule 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

8.63It is not uncommon for the President to suspend the meeting to consider in greater depth whether an expression used by a Member is out of order before he makes his ruling. Prior to the resumption of the meeting, he may make his view known to the Member concerned in a private meeting if he considers that the expression is out of order and ought to be withdrawn. ^[92] Once the President has announced his ruling in the Council, no more discussion can take place. If considered necessary, the President may refer the matter to the Committee on Rules of Procedure for further study.

8.64On occasions, a Member may make insulting or offensive remarks towards a certain person or impute improper motives to a person but whose name is not identified in his speech. Where a point of order is raised, the President will ask the Member if he is referring to any Member of the Council. If the Member admits that he is referring to a Member or some Members of the Council, the President will ask him to withdraw the remarks.^[93] If he refuses, the President would regard it as grossly disorderly conduct and order his immediate withdrawal for the remainder of the meeting.^[94]

Resumption of seat

8.65Under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure, a Member should speak standing. Members are not allowed to speak when seated and they should remain silent when another Member is speaking.^[95] Where a Member is persistently interrupting another Member or a public officer who is speaking and if leave is not granted to allow the interruption ^[96], the President will order the Member to resume his seat.^[97] If such request of the President is ignored, the President will repeat his order which is regarded as a warning to the Member(s) concerned. If such warning is again ignored, the President may regard such behaviour as grossly disorderly conduct and may order the Member(s) to withdraw immediately from the Council.

Immediate withdrawal from the Council for grossly disorderly conduct

8.66Under the current Rules of Procedure, the ordering of a Member to withdraw from the Council for the remainder of that meeting is the most severe form of punishment that can be imposed against a Member for refusal to rectify behaviour that the President considers disorderly. Rule 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure provides that the President "shall" order a Member whose conduct is grossly disorderly to withdraw immediately from the Council, and the Clerk shall act on such order received to ensure compliance with it.

8.67In the Hong Kong Legislature, the term "disorderly conduct" is not defined. It is for the President to determine whether any breach of the stipulations set out in Rules 41, 42 and 45(1), or any other conduct of a Member constitutes grossly disorderly conduct and as he deems fit, to order the Member concerned to withdraw from the Council. The grossly disorderly conduct involved in previous cases where a Member or a group of Members were ordered to withdraw from the Council or in a committee of the whole Council under Rule 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure included the following:

(a)refusal to withdraw offensive language or accusations; ^[98] ^[99] ^[100]

(b)refusal to discontinue speech after having persisted in irrelevance in a debate; ^[101] ^[102]

(c)refusal to stop displaying improper signs; ^[103]

(d)speaking aloud and refusal to sit down; ^[104] ^[105] ^[106] ^[107] and

(e)crossing the floor of the Council and refusal to return to seat.^[108] ^[109] ^[110]

8.68In the event that a Member is ordered to withdraw from the Council but refuses to leave the Chamber, the present practice is that the President will suspend the meeting to allow the Clerk to persuade the Member to leave or to physically remove him with the help of the security staff.

8.69On occasions, there may be acts which amount to a certain degree of rudeness and disorderliness, such as throwing of objects. These acts themselves are considered by the President as grossly disorderly behaviour. Members who act in such a manner are immediately ordered to withdraw from the Council.

8.70Questions have been raised on whether a Member who has acted in a manner which may constitute a criminal offence ^[111] at a meeting is subject to arrest and prosecution under the Laws of Hong Kong. Under section 4 of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap. 382) ("Powers and Privileges Ordinance"), no civil or criminal proceedings shall be instituted against any Member for words spoken before, or written in a report to, the Council or a committee. However, this only covers words (spoken or written) but not other types of conduct which may constitute a criminal offence ("criminal conducts"). The immunity given to a Member under sections 3 and 4 of the Powers and Privileges Ordinance does not cover criminal conducts even if they are performed during the proceedings of the Council or a committee. The only protection that the Member has is immunity from arrest whilst attending a meeting of the Council or a committee.

8.71Under Article 77 of the Basic Law, Members of the Legislative Council shall be immune from legal action in respect of their statements at meetings of the Council. Under Article 78 of the Basic Law, Members shall not be subjected to arrest when attending or on their way to a meeting of the Council. Section 5(b) of the Powers and Privileges Ordinance further provides that no member shall be liable to arrest for any criminal offence whilst attending at a sitting of the Council or a committee. Thus, it appears that Members are not immune from prosecution for their criminal conducts. A Member may be arrested for a criminal offence if he is not attending or on his way to a meeting of the Council or a committee.

Repeated grossly disorderly conduct at Council meetings

8.72There is no sanction in the Rules of Procedure to deter repeated or persistent disorderly conduct of Members at Council meetings. Studies of the subject have been conducted by the Committee on Rules of Procedure since the Fourth Legislative Council in response to requests from President Jasper TSANG following a number of incidents involving persistent grossly disorderly conduct of some Members at Council meetings. The Committee has deliberated on various measures adopted by other legislatures, such as naming and suspension of service and salaries. The Committee generally considers that the power given to the President under Rule 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure is adequate to deal with the situation. Nevertheless, with the increase in the number of incidents involving the throwing of objects at meetings of the Council, the Committee re-visited the subject in the 2011-2012 session and agreed to examine a proposal to enable the President or Chairman of the committee of the whole Council to formally propose the question that a Member who has been ordered a second time to withdraw under Rule 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure be prohibited from attending the next Council meeting. No decision has yet been made.

Extension of rules of order to other committees

8.73Rule 44 (Decision of Chair Final) and Rule 45 (Order in the Council and Committee) of the Rules of Procedure are modelled on Standing Orders No. 43 and 44 which originally applied only to the Council, the committee of the whole Council, standing committee and select committees. When the Standing Orders were amended in 1992 to incorporate the informal OMELCO committees into the committee system of the Council, no change was made to these standing orders. Committees such as the House Committee, bills committees, panels, and subcommittees of these committees were not included in these Standing Orders. In 1999, a review of whether these rules should also be applicable to these other committees was conducted by the Committee on Rules of Procedure. Noting the more informal nature of the deliberations of these other committees, the Committee at that time did not consider that there was any need for the chairmen of these committees to give effect to the rules of order of the Council in order to maintain order at meetings of these committees.

8.74In 2003, the subject was studied again by the Committee on Rules of Procedure following the lodging of a complaint against the Chairman of a joint meeting of Panels during which the Chairman ordered a member to withdraw from the meeting after the member refused to withdraw a remark considered offensive by the Chairman.^[112] While no members at the joint panel meeting disputed the Chairman's decision, there was a question on whether the scope of the power given to Panels under Rule 77(15) ^[113] of the Rules of Procedure should be so extensive that the chairman of a Panel could order the withdrawal of a member on the ground that there was no dissenting view from the members present. On 1 March 2004, the Committee concluded that the power given to the chairmen of these other committees under the then Rules of Procedure was adequate for them to deal with disputes at meetings,^[114] and that no extension of Rules 44 and 45 to these other committees, such as Panels, was needed. The Committee however suggested that guidelines should be provided in the handbooks for committee chairmen on how to deal with controversies during meetings, e.g. by the suspension of the meeting.

8.75Following the spate of incidents involving disorderly conduct of Members at Council meetings since the commencement of the 2008-2009 session, the Committee on Rules of Procedure decided to undertake another study on the disorderly conduct of Members and whether Rules 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure should be extended to other committees. A consultation exercise was conducted among Members, who had divergent views on the proposed extension of the two Rules. ^[115] It was not until 2011 when several incidents involving the throwing of objects at public officers at meetings of the Council and committees that the Committee decided to look into the matter again. After deliberation, the Committee agreed that suspension of meeting could no longer be effective in dealing with the disorderly conduct of Members and proposed that Rules 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure should be extended to cover all committees of the Council. At the Council meeting of 11 May 2011, the motion to extend Rules 44 and 45(2) to all committees was approved by the Council, while the motion to extend Rule 45(1) to all committees was negatived. ^[116] As a result of this decision, the power to direct a Member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition of arguments to discontinue his speech in the case of a committee only rests with the Chairman of the committee of the whole Council, or the chairman of any standing committee or select committee, but not the chairmen of other committees.

[1]: Rule 42 of the Rules of Procedure.
[2]: Progress Report of the Committee on Rules of Procedure (October 2008 to June 2009), para. 3.5. In response to a Member's challenge on whether Rule 41 should apply to the Chief Executive, the President stated in his letter to the Member on 23 October 2013 that the Chief Executive should be given the courtesy and respect in his capacity as the head of the HKSAR. In a circular to all Members on 10 January 2014, the President called upon Members to uphold the dignity of the Council and respect all persons who attend Council meetings.
[3]: Rule 36(1) of the Rules of Procedure.
[4]: See Chapter 1, para. 1.29.
[5]: Standing Order No. 27(4) of the 1991 Standing Orders of the Hong Kong Legislative Council.
[6]: There is an example of separate debates held on the motion and amendments at the Council sitting on 21 November 1990, Hansard, pp. 535-537. Another example of the speaking order of separate debates on a Member's motion can be found in the Council sitting on 13 November 1991, Hansard, pp. 53-54.
[7]: Point of order raised by Mr Jimmy McGregor at the Council sitting on 29 November 1989, Hansard, pp. 482-483.
[8]: Mr Martin LEE spoke during the debate on amendments to the Standing Orders at the Council sitting on 10 July 1991, Hansard, pp. 74-77.
[9]: See paragraph 8.5.
[10]: Standing Order No. 36A was added to the Standing Orders of the Hong Kong Legislative Council on 10 July 1991 to provide for electronic voting when a division was called.
[11]: Legal Notice 107 of 1999.
[12]: Progress Report of the Committee on Rules of Procedure for the period July 1998 to April 1999 (April 1999), para. 4.6-4.7.
[13]: It has been a practice that the relevant designated public officer is invited to speak both at the early part and also towards the end of the debate.
[14]: Rule 33(3A) and Rule 33(4) of the Rules of Procedure.
[15]: Sir Gilbert Campion (1950), An introduction to the Procedure of the House of Commons, 2nd Edition, p. 188.
[16]: Council sitting on 13 January 1993, Hansard, p. 1596.
[17]: Rule 39(a) of the Rules of Procedure.
[18]: In the House of Commons of Canada, Standing Order 19 permits a brief debate on the point of order at the Speaker's discretion. House of Commons Procedure and Practice (Canada), 2nd edition, p. 633.
[19]: Rule 39(b) of the Rules of Procedure.
[20]: Council sitting on 21 November 1990, Hansard, p. 85.
[21]: Rule 36(2), (3) and (4) of the Rules of Procedure.
[22]: Reference can be made to the practice in the UK House of Commons where the Speaker should be heard in silence when he rises to intervene in a debate. Any Member who is speaking or offering to speak should sit down. Any Member who persists in standing after the Speaker has risen and refuses to resume his seat when directed by the Chair to do so may be either directed to withdraw from the House for the remainder of the sitting or named for disregarding the authority of the Chair. See Erskine May's Treatise on The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, 24th Edition, p. 456.
[23]: Rule 36(5) of the Rules of Procedure.
[24]: Rule 36(6) of the Rules of Procedure.
[25]: Rule 21(k) of the House Rules provides that the chairman or any member of a Bills Committee, when reporting to the Council on the work of the Bills Committee, shall address the Council at the resumption of the second reading debate on the bill unless the purpose of resumption is for the withdrawal of the bill, in which case the speech should be made under Rule 21(3) of the Rules of Procedure.
[26]: Minutes of the House Committee meeting on 7 October 1992.
[27]: Minutes of the House Committee on 16 March 2001.
[28]: Council meetings of 8 February 2006, 1 November 2006, 25 June 2008, 2 July 2008, 7 July 2010, 15 February 2012, 29 February 2012 and 11 July 2012.
[29]: Council meeting of 14 March 2001.
[30]: Council meetings of 12 February 2003, 7 July 2004, 15 December 2010 and 11 July 2012.
[31]: Council meetings of 2 March 2011 and 13 July 2011.
[32]: Rule 49(4) of the Rules of Procedure.
[33]: Rule 84 of the Rules of Procedure; Rule 3 of the House Rules.
[34]: Rule 17(c) of the House Rules.
[35]: Rule 18(b) of the House Rules.
[36]: Rule 36(6) of the Rules of Procedure.
[37]: See Chapter 5, para. 5.33 to 5.36.
[38]: See Chapter 10, para. 10.82.
[39]: Rule 38 of the Rules of Procedure. The word "question" under this Rule means the question proposed by the President to the Council in respect of the motion moved. Members may speak after the question is proposed.
[40]: Rule 38(1)(a) and Rule 40(4) of the Rules of Procedure.
[41]: Rule 38(2), Rule 54(7) and Rule 76(9) of the Rules of Procedure.
[42]: Rule 38(3) of the Rules of Procedure.
[43]: Rule 38(1)(d) of the Rules of Procedure.
[44]: Rule 38(1)(fa), Rule 49E(7) and (8) of the Rules of Procedure.
[45]: Rule 38(5) of the Rules of Procedure. See Council sitting on 10 July 1991, Hansard, p. 88.
[46]: Rule 38(5) of the Rules of Procedure. See Council meeting of 19 February 2014 on motion to adjourn a debate, Hansard, pp. 7260-7362, and Council meeting of 9 May 2012 on motion to adjourn proceedings of the committee of the whole Council, Hansard, pp. 9457-9569.
[47]: At the Council meeting of 19 April 2012, the President allowed Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung to speak again at the end of the debate on a motion to disqualify him from office under Article 79(6) of the Basic Law as provided in Rule 49B(1) of the Rules of Procedure. Hansard, pp. 8336-8338.
[48]: Rule 10 of the Rules of Procedure.
[49]: The rules which do not apply to public officers under Rule 10 of the Rules of Procedure are Rules 1, 3, 8, 17, 20, all rules in Part J (Voting) and Rule 71(2), (5A), (5B) and (5C).
[50]: Under Article 62 of the Basic Law, the government designates officials to attend meetings of the Council and to speak on behalf of the government. For details, see Chapter 5, para. 5.81-5.87.
[51]: Progress report of the Committee on Rules of Procedure (May 1999 to June 2000), para. 3.29-3.31.
[52]: See Chapter 7, para. 7.11-7.13.
[53]: House of Commons Procedure and Practice (Canada), 2nd Edition, pp. 915-916. Also Chapter 1, para. 1.14.
[54]: Rule 55 of the Rules of Procedure.
[55]: Rule 57 of the Rules of Procedure sets out the requirements for amendments to bills which are further explained in Chapter 11.
[56]: Progress Report of the Committee on Rules of Procedure (May 1999-June 2000), para. 3.32-3.33.
[57]: The Legislative Council (Amendment) Bill 2012 sought to restrict a Legislative Council Member who had resigned from office from standing in any by-elections in the same term within 6 months of his resignation.
[58]: On 17 May 2012, after 33 hours of debate on the Legislative Council (Amendment) Bill 2012, the President suspended the meeting for a private meeting with Members and decided that he would allow the three movers of the 1 307 amendments to the Bill and the designated public officer responsible for the Bill to speak for another 3 hours before he closed the debate.
[59]: Rule 58(2) was amended at the Council meeting of 30 March 2011 to allow a single discussion in relation to a series of interdependent amendments to the bill to be held at committee stage.
[60]: Unreported, CACV 123/2012, dated 1 February 2013.
[61]: Unreported, FACV 1/2014, dated 29 September 2014.
[62]: The 4 procedural options put forward by the President to the Committee on Rules of Procedure on 24 February 2014 were time allocation by the House Committee, time allocation by the Council, extending the application of Rule 57(4)(d) to cover a series of amendments and empowering the President to select amendments.
[63]: Rule 41(1) of the Rules of Procedure.
[64]: Rule 41(5) of the Rules of Procedure.
[65]: Rule 41(6) of the Rules of Procedure.
[66]: Rule 41(7) of the Rules of Procedure.
[67]: See Chapter 5, para. 5.70-5.74.
[68]: For example, at the Council meeting of 19 October 2011, when proposing the question on a Member’s motion not intended to have legislative effect that sought Council's support in opposing foreign domestic helpers’ enjoyment of the right of abode in Hong Kong, the President reminded Members that a recently decided court judgment on a case that involved issues relating to foreign domestic helpers’ right of abode in Hong Kong was subject to a notice of appeal that had been filed by the HKSAR Government, and in accordance with Rule 41(2) of the Rules of Procedure, Members should avoid making references in their speeches to matters which might prejudice that case which was pending before the Court of Appeal. Hansard, p. 435.
[69]: At the Council meeting of 13 January 2010, the President ruled the remarks made by a Member not out of order as he was referring to "people" and not the Members of the Council. Hansard, pp. 4133-4134.
[70]: See President's ruling at Council meeting of 13 January 2010, Hansard, pp. 4133-4134.
[71]: Standing Order No. 32(a) of the Standing Orders of the Pre-1997 Legislature was modified to become Rule 42(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the HKSAR Legislature.
[72]: Erskine May (24th Edition), p.451; House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Canada (2009) 2nd Edition, p. 605.
[73]: Section 12 of the Administrative Instructions for Regulating Admittance and Conduct of Persons (Cap. 382, sub.leg. A).
[74]: Council sitting on 28 July 1995, Hansard, p. 6369.
[75]: Council sitting on 13 March 1996, Hansard, p. 10.
[76]: On 10 October 2003, as instructed by President Mrs Rita FAN, the Secretary General issued a circular to remind Members that they should be properly attired when attending a meeting of the Council. Casual attire such as T-shirts and sweat shirts was not acceptable.
[77]: Rule 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure provides that the President, the Chairman of a committee of the whole Council or the chairman of any committee shall order a Member whose conduct is grossly disorderly to withdraw immediately from the Council or the committee for the remainder of that meeting.
[78]: Council meeting of 9 July 2014, Hansard, pp. 16167-16169.
[79]: Council meeting of 25 May 2005, Hansard pp. 7728-7745.
[80]: Council meeting of 13 January 2010, Hansard, pp. 4086-4087.
[81]: "Crossing the floor" in some overseas legislatures is an expression to refer to a Member changing to another political party but this does not apply in Hong Kong's situation.
[82]: Council meeting of 14 November 2012, Hansard, p. 1798.
[83]: Council meeting of 25 October 2012, Hansard, p. 925. Also see Progress Report of the Committee on Rules of Procedure (October 2013 to June 2014), para. 2.14.
[84]: Standing Order 108 was renumbered as Standing Order 112 in the 2014 version of the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives of the New Zealand Parliament.
[85]: Progress Report of the Committee on Rules of Procedure (October 2010 to June 2011), para. 2.8-2.16.
[86]: A circular was issued by the Clerk to the Legislative Council on 2 November 2011.
[87]: A circular was issued by the Chairman of the Committee on Rules of Procedure to all chairmen of committees on 23 November 2011.
[88]: According to the Judgment of the Court of Final Appeal on 10 September 2014, Articles 73 and 72 of the Basic Law indicate that the Legislative Council is to have exclusive authority in determining its procedure and that the President is to exercise his power to "preside over meetings" under Article 72 so as to ensure the orderly, efficient and fair disposition of the Council's business.
[89]: See Chapter 2, para. 2.29-2.30.
[90]: Rule 38 of the Rules of Procedure.
[91]: Erskine May (24th Edition), p. 452.
[92]: Council meeting of 9 December 2009, Hansard, pp. 2926-2928.
[93]: Council meeting of 25 June 2010, Hansard, pp. 10254-10261.
[94]: Council sitting on 13 November 1996, Hansard, pp. 96-107.
[95]: Rule 36(1), (4) and Rule 42(d) of the Rules of Procedure.
[96]: Rule 39 of the Rules of Procedure.
[97]: Reference can be made to the practice in the UK House of Commons as explained in Erskine May (24th Edition), p. 453.
[98]: Council sitting on 13 November 1996, Hansard, pp. 96-107.
[99]: Council meeting of 10 November 2004, Hansard, pp. 1189-1192.
[100]: Council meeting of 16 March 2005, Hansard, pp. 5574-5579.
[101]: Council meeting of 27 April 2005, Hansard, pp. 6633-6636.
[102]: Council meeting of 13 December 2006, Hansard, pp. 2927-2928.
[103]: Council meeting of 27 June 2005, Hansard, pp. 8911-8917.
[104]: Council meeting of 12 October 2005, Hansard, pp. 9-11.
[105]: Council meeting of 11 October 2006, Hansard, pp. 8-12.
[106]: Council meeting of 3 May 2007, Hansard, pp. 6674-6676.
[107]: Council meeting of 7 January 2009, Hansard, pp. 3762-3763.
[108]: Council meeting of 5 July 2007, Hansard, pp. 10152-10155.
[109]: Council meeting of 15 October 2008, Hansard, pp. 20-25.
[110]: Council meeting of 15 January 2009, Hansard, pp. 4058-4060.
[111]: In light of an incident at the Council meeting of 16 April 2014, the Chief Secretary for Administration wrote on the following day to the President to express concern about the throwing of objects by a Member at a public officer during the meeting. She considered that such violent misbehaviour was menacing in nature and might constitute criminal conduct such as common assault. The President in his reply on 28 April 2014 stated that the Member was ordered to withdraw immediately from the Council due to his grossly disorderly conduct. He also reiterated that Members were aware that while enjoying certain privileges and immunities as provided under the Basic Law and the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, they are subject to the same laws that apply to people in Hong Kong generally. Similar letters were issued in respect of the incident at the Council meeting of 23 February 2011.
[112]: Joint meeting of the Security Panel and the Administration of Justice and Legal Services Panel on 17 June 2003.
[113]: Rule 77(15) of the Rules of Procedure.
[114]: Progress Report of the Committee on Rules of Procedure (November 2010 to June 2011), para. 3.2.
[115]: Progress Report of the Committee on Rules of Procedure (October 2008 to June 2009), para. 3.13-3.15.
[116]: Progress Report of the Committee on Rules of Procedure (November 2010 to June 2011), para. 3.2-3.5.

Chapter 8 Decorum and order at Council meetings