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 9

Questions on the work of the Government

9.1The Government of the HKSAR is accountable to the Legislature under the Basic Law. ^[1] Some of the powers and functions of the Legislative Council under Article 73 of the Basic Law are for the purpose of enabling the Legislature to exercise its monitoring role over the Government. These include the power and function to raise questions on the work of the Government, which is underpinned by a requirement under Article 64 of the Basic Law that the Government of the HKSAR shall answer questions raised by Members of the Council.

9.2This Chapter provides the historical background on the asking and answering of questions in the Council and explains the principles and rules behind how questions are asked by Members of the Legislative Council. In this Chapter, there are detailed explanations on the rules governing the asking and answering of questions as set out in Part E of the Rules of Procedure as well as the practices relating to the allocation of question slots, allocation of time for questions and supplementary questions at a Council meeting and the processing of questions as set out in the Rules of Procedure and the House Rules. President's rulings in respect of questions are also quoted to facilitate understanding of the principles behind the admissibility of questions as part of the mechanism for holding the Government to account.

9.3The rules referred to in this Chapter do not apply to questions put to the Chief Executive under Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure, except those rules relating to the contents of questions under Rule 25 of the Rules of Procedure.^[2]

Provisions under the Basic Law

9.4Article 73(5) of the Basic Law provides that the Legislative Council has the power and function to raise questions on the work of the Government. Rule 22(1) of the Rules of Procedure further provides that any Member may address a question to the Government on its work by either seeking information on such matter or asking for official action with regard to it.

9.5The Government, correspondingly, is required under Article 64 of the Basic Law to answer questions raised by Members of the Council and, under Article 62(6), to designate officials to sit in on the meetings of the Council and to speak on behalf of the Government. In this respect, Rule 9(3) of the Rules of Procedure provides that where it appears to the Clerk, when preparing the Agenda of the Council, that a particular item of business requires the attendance of a designated public officer, the Clerk shall state, in respect of that particular item, the name of the office of that public officer. In practice, as explained in Chapter 5 ^[3], the Director of Administration informs the Clerk of the name of the office of the public officer who will speak on behalf of the Government in respect of a particular item of business of a Council meeting.

Historical background

9.6The rules on questions to the Government are set out in Part E (Questions to the Government) of the Rules of Procedure. These rules were adopted from the Standing Orders of the pre-1997 Hong Kong Legislature which were modelled on the practice and procedures commonly adopted by colonial legislatures. As an item of business, questions to the Government first appeared in the 1884 Standing Orders ^[4] and were placed before the "orders of the day" of a sitting. Notice of intention to ask a question was required. The procedure was fine-tuned over the years to enable the relevant Government officials to have sufficient notice to provide a comprehensive response at a sitting and the questions were confined to matters relating to public affairs. By 1929, Unofficial Members were allowed to ask supplementary questions for the purpose of elucidating any matter relating to the answer given by an Official Member. All the restrictions relating to the asking of questions in the current Rules of Procedure began to emerge at that time although questions were still rarely asked during the first hundred years of the Legislature.

9.7From the 1960s onwards, more questions were asked although the frequency was only about once every few months. Nevertheless, the nature of the questions asked reveals that they were usually related to the most pressing issues faced by Hong Kong at the time – e.g. the concern over the cure for pulmonary tuberculosis in 1961 ^[5], the rise in rice prices in 1962 ^[6], the spate of industrial accidents in 1963 ^[7], the shortage of water supply in 1964 ^[8], "flight of capital" and reduction in bank deposits in 1967 ^[9], etc. Members also took the opportunity to question Government officials in respect of their speeches at the Budget debate ^[10] and their other public statements. It was not uncommon that questions were asked to facilitate the Government to make a statement on a policy.^[11]

9.8By 1968, the Standing Orders on putting questions to the Government had become more comprehensive. Apart from laying down the scope of questions that could be asked at Council sittings, the Standing Orders also prescribed the maximum number of questions at each sitting, the notice requirement, restrictions on the contents of questions, etc. At that time, all questions could be oral questions ^[12] and no more than 15 questions could be asked at one sitting. ^[13] In 1976, the number of questions that could be asked was increased to 20. ^[14] On 10 July 1991, following the decision to hold motion debates not intended to have legislative effect at regular Council sittings, the Standing Orders were amended to provide for not more than 3 questions requiring an oral reply if there was such a motion debate at that sitting, and not more than 8 if there was no motion debate. In April 1992,^[15] the number of oral questions that could be asked at a sitting with a motion debate was increased to 6; and in December 1992, the number of oral questions for a sitting with no motion debate was increased to 10.

9.9In 2011-2012, a review was conducted by the Committee on Rules of Procedure of the Fourth Legislative Council. At its meeting on 25 May 2012, the House Committee considered that with the number of Legislative Council Members to be increased from 60 to 70 in the Fifth Legislative Council, the number of oral and written questions at each regular Council meeting with a motion debate should be increased from 6 to 7 and from 14 to 16 respectively to enable each Member to have the chance to ask on average about 3 oral questions and 8 written questions in a session.^[16] The time for questions at each meeting would be extended from 2 hours to 2½ hours. However, as the motion to amend the relevant rules in the Rules of Procedure could not be dealt with before the Fourth Legislative Council stood prorogued on 18 July 2012, the matter was deferred to the Fifth Legislative Council which conducted a further review on the proposal. It was noted that the majority of Members of the Fifth Legislative Council were in favour of maintaining the number of oral questions at 6 for each Council meeting but Members supported increasing the total number of questions (including oral and written questions) to no more than 22. The proposal was approved by the Council on 20 March 2013 and the increase in the number of written questions from 14 to 16 ^[17] took effect on 17 April 2013. The number of oral questions that can be asked at a Council meeting remains unchanged.^[18]

9.10During the UMELCO days (in the 1970's)^[19], internal guidelines for Members were drawn up to provide an allocation system for the asking of oral and written questions. The guidelines were subsequently changed to a form of house rules similar to those currently provided in the House Rules ^[20] today. The objective of the allocation system is to ensure that Members have equal opportunity to ask questions, and where possible the questions should not be duplicated. The allocation system has been fine-tuned over the years to enable all question slots to be used up and all oral questions to be asked even in the absence of the Members concerned. These arrangements are now set out in the current House Rules.^[21] Detailed explanation of how the allocation system works is provided in this Chapter ^[22].

Meetings at which questions may not be asked

9.11There are a number of Council meetings at which no questions to the Government may be asked. These include the first meeting of a term of the Legislative Council where Members take the Legislative Council Oath and elect the President, or a meeting where the election of the President takes place, or a meeting where the Chief Executive delivers a Policy Address to the Council.^[23] The House Committee may also recommend to the President that no oral question may be asked at a particular Council meeting.^[24] Where such recommendation has been made by the House Committee and accepted by the President, all questions put to the Government for that meeting will be written questions.^[25] In this respect, the House Committee has decided that no oral questions may be asked at meetings where a debate on the Motion of Thanks or on the Appropriation Bill, i.e. the Budget, is held. Nevertheless, the President may still permit urgent questions to be asked at these meetings.^[26]

Notice of questions

9.12A Member who wishes to ask a question at a Council meeting must give notice to the Clerk not later than 7 clear days before the meeting. The notice period for questions to be asked at the second meeting of the first session of a term is shortened to no less than 4 clear days.^[27] This is to enable Members to give proper notice for questions to be asked at the second meeting after they have taken their Oath at the first meeting.

9.13Rule 24(3) of the Rules of Procedure provides that a Member may not ask more than two questions at any one meeting and not more than one of those questions shall require an oral reply. Nevertheless, the President may allow a Member to put forward an additional question if it is an important one of public concern provided that the total number of questions is not exceeded ^[28], or the question which is of an urgent character and relates to a matter of public importance is permitted by the President under Rule 24(4) of the Rules of Procedure.^[29]

Allocation of question slots

9.14The allocation system for the asking of questions aims to ensure that all Members, irrespective of their political affiliations, have equal opportunity to ask questions at Council meetings.

Registration of questions for obtaining question slots

9.15Before the start of each term, Members are invited to note the procedure relating to the registration and processing of questions to the Government to be asked at meetings of the Council. Any Member who wishes to address a question to the Government is required to register his question with the Legislative Council Secretariat. Members are reminded of the need to conform to the relevant rules and ascertain the accuracy of any statement of facts contained in their questions.

9.16Under the allocation system, each Member is invited to register not more than one oral and one written question or two written questions per calendar week at the start of a session.^[30] The cut-off time for registering questions for a Council meeting is 12:00 midnight of the third Friday preceding the meeting. For example, for a meeting to be held on, say, 26 November (of any year) which is a Wednesday, the cut-off time is 12:00 midnight at the end of Friday, 7 November although the notice deadline for questions for 26 November (assuming no intervening public holidays) is in fact 10 days later, on Monday, 17 November midnight.^[31] The need to register the question in advance is to enable the Secretariat to work out the relative priorities of the questions for the allocation of question slots, and to advise the Members concerned before the deadline of the relevant notice period of any modifications to the questions considered necessary for compliance with the relevant rules. A sample of the question registration form is attached at Appendix 9-A.

Slots for oral questions

9.17Oral questions are first dealt with to work out which 6 oral questions may be asked at the Council meeting. If the number of oral questions registered before the cut-off time does not exceed 6, all the questions registered will be given a question slot. Any available slots will be allocated on a first-come-first-served basis to Members who submit questions after the cut-off time, until all slots are taken up or the deadline for giving notices of questions for the meeting expires, whichever is the earlier. If the number of oral questions registered exceeds 6, priority is given to those Members who have given the least number of notices of oral questions since the beginning of a session. If the numbers of notices given by two or more Members are equal, priority is given to the Member who has registered his question earlier.^[32]

Slots for written questions

9.18Written questions are allocated according to the same method for oral questions but priority is given to those Members who have not been successful in obtaining a question slot for their oral questions for the same meeting and those who have not applied for a question slot. Members who have given the least number of notices of written questions have priority for the remaining slots. Any available slots for written questions are allocated to those who submit questions after the cut-off time for registration on a first-come-first-served basis.^[33]

General principle

9.19The general principle is that where the number of questions registered for a particular meeting exceeds the quota for oral and written questions, priority will be given to those Members who have given the least number of notices of questions.^[34] If a Member is unsuccessful in getting a slot to ask an oral question, he is given priority to ask a written question at the same meeting. This has been explained in paragraph 9.18 above. The reason why the number of notices given is used to determine the priority is that, as explained in paragraph 9.22 below, only those who are allocated a question slot will have the chance to give notice of a question. Situations arise where a Member decides not to give notice of the question after he has been allocated with a slot to ask that question. If the notice period has not expired, other Members who were unsuccessful in getting a slot will have a second chance. If a Member withdraws the notice after the notice period expires, the result would be that no other Member can have the chance to take up the slot. The Member who withdraws the question will be regarded as having taken up and used the slot. A sample of the notice of question is attached at Appendix 9-B.

9.20To ensure that all question slots can be used up, all draft questions which are scheduled to be asked at a Council meeting are issued as a paper for the meeting of the House Committee on the Friday before the deadline for giving notice of questions for the Council meeting concerned. Through this arrangement, Members will know if there are any unallocated question slots for that Council meeting before the deadline and may submit their questions accordingly. The priority of the questions submitted after the cut-off time is also determined according to the same principle, i.e. first-come-first-served based on the least number of notices previously given. If any Member wishes to seek the agreement of the House Committee to accord priority to his question on grounds of topical interest, public concern and urgency, he may do so at any meeting of the House Committee.^[35]

Allocation of slots for questions with the same content

9.21Draft wording is required for registering a question and the draft should be sufficiently clear to identify the subject matter and the scope of the question. Where two or more Members have put in questions of similar content, they will be so informed by the Secretariat and requested to reach an agreement among themselves on who will ask the question (if all of them are given question slots to ask questions at the same meeting).^[36] Where no consensus can be reached, Rule 5(c) of the House Rules provides that the Member who has an earlier slot will ask the question. It is not uncommon that those Members who do not have an earlier slot modify their questions so that the content of their questions would not be substantially the same as the one which is given priority to be asked. Any modification of the question or submission of a new question should reach the Clerk before the deadline for giving notice of the question, i.e. 7 clear days before the meeting.

Questions cannot be changed after expiry of notice period

9.22Members who have been given a question slot for the asking of an oral or written question at a particular meeting will receive from the Secretariat a notice form together with proposed amendments to the terms of the question, if any, about two to three days before the deadline for giving notice. Members are required to sign and return the notice forms to the Clerk before the deadline. In recent years, there were cases where Members submitted a new question just before the expiry of the notice period to cater for matters of topical interest. This is an acceptable practice but there will be little opportunity for the Secretariat to give advice on the possible non-compliance of the question. No changes to a question are allowed after the expiry of the notice period. All questions are submitted to the President for his agreement to their inclusion on the Agenda of that Council meeting. Where a question is found to be out of order by the President and no alteration is directed by the President under Rule 25(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the question will not be put on the Agenda but the Member will still be regarded as having taken up the question slot under the allocation system.

Oral questions cannot be changed to written questions after expiry of notice period

9.23Prior to 2006, Members were able to change an oral question to a written question even after expiry of the notice period. The matter was studied by the Committee on Rules of Procedure of the Third Legislative Council in 2005-2006. Members considered that changing an oral question to a written one would deprive other Members of the opportunity to ask supplementary questions. Besides, as a question which has been fully answered cannot be asked again during the same session ^[37], no other Member would be able to raise an oral question on the same subject matter within the session. The Committee noted that the need for a Member to change an oral question to a written one often stemmed from the fact that the Member concerned was not able to attend the meeting to ask the question. Although the Member who was absent could ask another Member to ask the question ^[38], this was not always done. On 16 December 2005, the House Committee endorsed a series of new arrangements to facilitate the asking of the oral question at the scheduled meeting despite the absence of the Member concerned. These arrangements include the calling of the Chairman of the House Committee ^[39] to ask the question if the Member has not given consent to any Member to ask the question on his behalf. ^[40] Those Members who have asked questions on behalf of other Members would not be regarded to have asked an oral question for the purpose of Rule 24(3) of the Rules of Procedure ^[41] or to have used a question slot under the allocation system.^[42] However, the Member whose oral question has been asked by another Member on his behalf will be regarded as having used his question slot.

Purpose and contents of questions

Purpose of questions

9.24The purpose of raising a question on the work of the Government ^[43] is set out in Rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure. Any Member may address a question to the Government on its work, and seek information on such matter or ask for official action with regard to it.

9.25A question must relate to a public matter for which the Government is responsible and should not be used for a private purpose. ^[44] In determining whether a matter raised in a question is a public matter, it is always useful to refer to the portfolios of the principal officials of the Government, the annual reports of the Government and its departments, relevant legislation or policy papers to ascertain whether the matter falls within the work of the Government.

Contents of questions

9.26Rules on the contents of questions are set out in Rule 25(1) of the Rules of Procedure. They were adopted from Standing Order No. 18 of the pre-1997 Legislature and are supplemented by Rules 6 and 8 of the House Rules which were originally part of the internal guidelines drawn up by UMELCO in the 1970s on the form of questions and supplementary questions.^[45] To understand how these rules are applied, it is useful to refer to their origins which were modelled on the long-established conventions adopted by the House of Commons of the UK, and the past practices of the Hong Kong Legislature including Presidents' rulings, as well as the practices of other parliaments which have the same provisions in their standing orders or have adopted the same practices.

Origin of the rules on the contents of questions

9.27Questions to the Government have a long history in the House of Commons of the UK. The first recorded question to Ministers was asked in 1721. The rules governing the form and subject matter of questions in the UK are based on Speakers' rulings which are collected and applied as precedents. As stated in "An Introduction to the Procedure of the House of Commons" first published in 1929 ^[46], questions at that time were recognized as a useful method to supervise the administration of the Government.^[47] The author, Sir Gilbert Campion (former Clerk of the House of Commons of the UK), grouped the rules adopted by former Speakers under three headings for easy understanding as follows:

(a)Information or Action: A question should be of a genuinely interrogative character. The object of a question is to obtain information or press for action. It should not be in effect a short speech, or an argument, or limited to giving information, or framed in such a way as to suggest its own answer or convey a particular point of view. The facts on which a question is based may be set out briefly but extracts from newspapers, quotations from speeches, etc. are not admissible. Questions with a subject matter too wide, repeating in substance a question fully answered; available in accessible documents; containing epithets or rhetorical, controversial or ironical expressions; or being hypothetical in form, etc. are out of order.

(b)Responsibility of Minister: A question should be directed to a Minister officially responsible for the subject matter with which it deals. Questions raising matters outside the responsibilities of the Government are out of order. Seeking an expression of opinion on a question of law such as interpretation of a statute is also out of order although if a policy matter is involved, there may be a way of asking an orderly question. Asking questions to confirm the accuracy of statements in the Press or of private individuals is not allowed.

(c)Constitutional propriety and the Rules of Order: Infringement of constitutional propriety refers to the use of names of, or reflections on, the Sovereign or to the influence of the Crown. It also refers to reflection on the decisions of a Court of Law or being likely to prejudice a case under trial. Constitutional propriety also refers to the seeking of information about matters which are in their nature secret, such as proceedings of the Cabinet, advice given to the Crown by Law Officers, etc. Infringement of the Rules of Order includes personal charges or reflections on the conduct of certain persons whose conduct may only be challenged on a substantive motion and on other persons otherwise than in a public capacity, introducing the names of persons or bodies invidiously or for the purpose of advertisement, anticipating a question or motion notice of which has already been given, etc. Such infringements are prohibited in questions.

9.28Even up to this date, these long-standing rules on the form and contents of questions are not set out in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons of the UK. It has been regarded as impracticable and against the interests of Members to set out the many variations that would be needed to cover the scope of admissible questions although guidance on the application of the underlying principles is set out in Erskine May.^[48] The Standing Orders only require Members to give notices of questions to the Clerk in a form determined by the Speaker.^[49] The principle adopted by the House in 1993 was that while the Speaker should continue to have regard to these basic rules, he should not consider himself bound, when interpreting these rules, to disallow a question solely on the ground that it conflicts with any previous individual ruling.^[50]

Adoption of Standing Order 18(1) of the pre-1997 Legislature as Rule 25(1) of the Rules of Procedure

9.29In the case of Hong Kong, the rules governing the contents of questions first appeared in the pre-1997 Standing Order No. 11 of 1929 which was further refined to become Standing Order No. 18(1) of 1968. While some minor amendments were made to the Standing Order over the years, the wording of the various provisions in Standing Order No. 18(1) remained largely the same. Rule 25(1) of the Rules of Procedure was adopted from Standing Order No. 18(1). ^[51] The interpretation and application of the rules on the contents of questions under Rule 25(1) of the Rules of Procedure rests with the President.

Rule 25(1)(a): shall not include names or statements not strictly necessary

9.30A Member must be able to justify why the name of a certain person or a statement ought to be included in a question. It remains the President's discretion to decide whether the inclusion of such name or statement is strictly necessary to make the question intelligible. Where the name of the person to be included in the question is that of a public officer, the Member is often advised to include the name of the office rather than the name of the incumbent in the question unless the identity of the person involved might be mistaken by the general public if his name is not mentioned.^[52] If the person to be named in the question is someone outside the Government, particular caution is exercised to ensure that the question will not be used as a tool to attack an individual or to advertise him.^[53]

Rule 25(1)(b): shall not contain a statement which the Member is not prepared to substantiate

9.31Rule 25(1)(b)^[54] was originally part of Standing Order 11 of 1929 which read as "A question shall not .. contain charges which the Member who asks the question, is not prepared to substantiate." The word "charges" was replaced by "a statement" in the 1968 version of the Standing Order. The word "statement" in this context may be interpreted to also include "a charge" although in a more general sense, which is consistent with the usage in other jurisdictions.^[55] ^[56] This is also consistent with the principle that it is the Member's responsibility to prove the authenticity of any facts to be included in a question.

Rule 25(1)(c): shall not contain arguments, inferences, opinions, imputations or epithets, or tendentious, ironical or offensive expressions

9.32A question should aim to seek information or press for actions but should not be a platform for a debate. Where a question contains arguments, inferences, opinions, imputations or epithets, ironical or offensive expressions, it tends to invite counter arguments and provoke debate on the question which is not the purpose of the Question Time. Where such a situation arises during the asking of a supplementary question, it is the practice of the President to request the Member to rephrase his question. If the Member fails to rephrase the question, the President may request the Member to resume his seat and call upon another Member to ask the next question or supplementary question. This practice is also commonly adopted in other parliaments.^[57]

Rule 25(1)(d): shall not contain independent questions or be too complex

9.33Some of the restrictions in Rule 25 of the Rules of Procedure aim to ensure that questions are put to effective use. A question is most effective if it is precise and to the point. A question should not contain independent questions or be so complex that it cannot reasonably be answered as a single question. This point is echoed in Rule 6 of the House Rules which states that multiple questions within a single oral question should be avoided. By making the question too complex, the answer can also be very broad-brush, making it difficult for Members to pinpoint the crux of the matter and press for actions.

9.34It has become a practice that Members use a preamble to put the question in context, followed by a number of specific questions. In overseas legislatures, Members are often reminded to keep the preamble as brief as possible.^[58] In Hong Kong, Members are given the same advice and are requested to keep the question which follows the preamble of an oral question to not more than 3 parts, i.e. limited to 3 sub-questions. Where it is necessary to ask a question which requires statistics, Rule 6(c) of the House Rules suggests that a written question should be used.

Rule 25(1)(f): shall not seek information on matters of a secret nature

9.35A question may not seek information about a matter which is of its nature secret. An example is the proceedings of the Executive Council. It is a long-established practice that Members cannot ask questions about the discussion at meetings of the Executive Council, the proceedings of which are classified as secret.^[59] Details of investigations by the police, the Independent Commission Against Corruption or other disciplined forces are also regarded as classified information and questions seeking such information are generally not allowed. However, there have been cases where the President has ruled a question admissible when it sought to enquire about the progress of investigations and the Government's follow-up actions in relation to the matter concerned. It would be for the Government to decide how to respond to the questions.^[60]

Rule 25(1)(g): shall not reflect on a court decision or prejudice a case pending trial

9.36A question must not reflect on the decision of a court of law or be so drafted as to be likely to prejudice a case pending in a court of law. ^[61] The issue of sub judice has always been a primary consideration when a proposed question touches upon matters before the courts although the sub judice rule is not explicitly spelt out in any resolution of the Council. Rule 25(1)(g) however does reflect the application of such a rule. As a matter of principle, Members should refrain from discussing cases which are still active in the courts to guard against any prejudicial effect on the outcome of a case pending before the court. Nevertheless, this does not mean that a question which relates to a case which is pending in court cannot be asked. In recent years, there have been occasions where the President has allowed questions referring to such cases to be asked in the Council. While bearing in mind the sub judice rule, the President is of the view that Members should not be deprived of the opportunity to call the Government to account if the question involves a matter of grave concern to the public. As such, the President may permit such a question if it is not framed in such a way as to prejudice a case pending in court. It is also the practice of the President to remind Members and public officers, at the time when the question is answered and followed up, of the need to ensure that the case is not prejudiced by their questions and answers.

Rule 25(1)(h): shall not seek to obtain an opinion or solution of an abstract legal question or an answer to a hypothetical proposition

9.37A question which seeks to obtain an expression of opinion, a solution of an abstract legal question or an answer to a hypothetical proposition is out of order. It is an accepted practice in parliaments that opinions on a question of law, such as the interpretation of a statute, should more appropriately be dealt with by the court which is more competent in such matters than politically appointed public officers.^[62] ^[63] Hypothetical questions are also not allowed as the purpose of a question is to find out what the Government is doing or has failed to do and not what it would likely to do in a hypothetical situation.

Rule 25(1)(i): shall not seek to confirm accuracy of press or individuals' statements or statements of private concerns

9.38No question is allowed to be asked about the accuracy of a statement in the press or of private individuals or private concerns. The Member asking a question is responsible for the accuracy of any facts contained in the question. It is general practice that extracts from newspapers or books or quotations from speeches are not permitted in questions.^[64] There have been cases where a proposed question contains a press report or a direct quote from a speech of a private individual in the preamble to provide the context for the question to be asked. If the question does not seek to confirm the accuracy of the press report or the statement, the inclusion of a brief summary of facts or circumstances which the Member has obtained from his source as the basis for his question may be allowed.^[65] How the Government responds to such a question is entirely a matter for it to decide. Generally speaking, the Government may make use of the opportunity to clarify misunderstanding of certain policies or facts which might have arisen from media reporting. This was particularly common in the pre-1997 Legislature. Whilst government statements may be used to address such misunderstanding ^[66], the provision of timely and useful information through responding to a question in the Council is usually regarded as an effective and interactive way to enhance the mutual understanding between the Government and the Legislature.

Rule 25(1)(j): shall not seek to ask about the character or conduct of the Chief Executive, Member of the Executive Council or Member of the Legislative Council, or any other persons except in their official and public duties

9.39Under Rule 25(1)(j), a question may not be asked to reflect on the character or conduct of persons listed in Rule 41(7) of the Rules of Procedure, i.e. the Chief Executive, Member of the Executive Council and Member of the Legislative Council. The Rule also provides that a question shall not seek to ask about the character or conduct of any other persons unless it is related to their official or public duties.^[67] Where these persons are allowed to be referred to in the question, the President also needs to be satisfied that the mentioning of their names are strictly necessary as required under Rule 25(1)(a).

Rule 25(1)(k): shall not seek information already in accessible documents

9.40A question may not be asked seeking information which can be found in accessible documents or ordinary works of reference. It is not an effective use of the Question Time if questions are used to retrieve information which is already in the public domain. There may be situations where Members are not aware of the existence of the requested information or the information is not easily retrievable from open documents or information in the public domain appears to be conflicting. There are various channels to confirm the availability of such information or seek clarification, such as using the service of the Legislative Council Library or writing directly to the relevant department or Bureau in the Government.

Rule 25(1)(l): Questions already fully answered in the same session cannot be asked again

9.41To ensure effective use of the Question Time, Members are not allowed to ask a question which has been fully answered in the same session.^[68] There may be occasions where the subject matter of a question is similar to but not substantially the same as that of a question already approved by the President for an earlier meeting. If the earlier question is an oral question, there is a possibility that the Government may, in response to the question or a supplementary question to this earlier question, provide information which answers in part or in full the question proposed for the later meeting. In these circumstances, the President will still allow the question to be placed on the Agenda of the later meeting, but in the event that any part of the question has been answered, he will direct that the part which has been answered be removed from the question.

Questions relating to the Central Government of PRC

9.42At times, questions relating to the Central Government of the People's Republic of China or its Liaison Office in the HKSAR are proposed. The President only allows such questions to be raised if they are related to the work of the Government. All the restrictions under Rule 25(1) of the Rules of Procedure, such as names and statements not to be included unless strictly necessary, apply to these questions.^[69]

The President to determine the admissibility of questions

9.43Notices of questions are given to the Clerk and it is the Clerk's office to advise the Members concerned if the questions comply with the rules governing their admissibility. The final authority to decide whether a question is admissible rests with the President.^[70] The responsibility of the President is confined to the compliance of the questions with the Rules of Procedure and other practices of the Council.

9.44The Rules of Procedure do not provide the President with any discretion for returning the question to the Member concerned for modification if found out of order after the notice period has expired, nor any power to dispense with the notice so that a fresh question can be submitted for the same meeting. Under the circumstances, if a question is found to have infringed any of the provisions of Rule 22 or Rule 25 of the Rules of Procedure, the President may direct that the Member concerned be informed that the question is out of order, or direct the question to be placed on the Agenda with "alterations".^[71] Such alterations include removal of words or part of the question so that the question complies with the Rules of Procedure, and also resultant editorial work to make the question readable after the removal of such words or parts.^[72]

Questions with notices given

9.45For the 22 questions to be asked at a regular Council meeting, approval of the President is sought after notices are received, usually on the Wednesday or Thursday in the week before the Council meeting. All questions considered in compliance with Rule 24 (Notice of questions) and Rule 25 (Contents of questions) of the Rules of Procedure by the President are listed on the Agenda of the Council ^[73] issued to Members on the Monday of the week of the Council meeting.

9.46The order of the questions on the Agenda is decided according to the time the notices of the questions were received by the Clerk. If a Member has given notice of more than one question at the same time, the order of the questions will be based on the order indicated by him.^[74]

9.47Any suggestion to accord priority to questions of topical interest, public concern and urgency may also be raised and decided by the House Committee for the President's consideration.^[75] This may be raised before the deadline for giving notices so that the question can be listed as one of the 22 questions for the earliest possible Council meeting. Alternatively, the House Committee may recommend to the President that the question to be raised as an urgent question at the next Council meeting.

Urgent questions

9.48Urgent questions are questions without notice. Notwithstanding the maximum number of questions permitted for each Council meeting and the requirement for notice be given, a Member may still ask permission from the President to ask a question without notice at any meeting except those meetings mentioned in Rule 23(1) of the Rules of Procedure. Questions without notice may be asked under Rule 24(4) of the Rules of Procedure on the ground that it is of an urgent character and it relates to a matter of public importance at any meeting.^[76] The President considers each individual case on the basis of the grounds submitted by the Member in support of his request and the draft wording of the question and whether sufficient private notice has been or will be given to the Government to enable it to answer the question. If the Member has put forward his request for asking an urgent question to the House Committee in accordance with Rule 10 of the House Rules before seeking the President's approval, the President will also take into account the views expressed by the House Committee.

9.49The principle adopted by the President in determining if the question has met the requirements laid down in Rule 24(4) of the Rules of Procedure is whether there would be any irreversible consequences if the question is not asked at that meeting or whether the asking of the question will become meaningless or will have no effect if it were asked at a later date.^[77] ^[78] ^[79] The President also needs to be satisfied that the question is on a matter of public importance. He may also take into account other relevant factors.

Rule of anticipation

9.50In addition, the President may refuse to include a question on the Agenda of the Council based on the rule of anticipation^[80] as set out in Rule 25(3) of the Rules of Procedure. Under this rule, the subject matter of a question or any part thereof must not be substantially the same as that in a matter raised in an earlier question scheduled for the same meeting, or raised in a motion or bill the notice of which has been given earlier for a specific meeting ^[81], or being considered by a standing committee or a select committee or a committee authorized by the Council to conduct an inquiry into that matter. This has been explained in Chapter 7 ^[82].

Communication with the Government regarding questions

9.51Throughout the course of the consideration of questions submitted by Members, the Secretariat keeps close contact with the Government at the working level regarding the questions that will be raised at Council meetings. House Committee papers on questions scheduled to be asked at a Council meeting are copied to the Director of Administration. The Government therefore is aware of the questions to be answered about 2 weeks before the Council meeting concerned. The President considers it important that the designated public officer responsible for answering a question should have sufficient time to prepare his answers to the question and any supplementary questions. As stated in paragraph 9.48 above, it is a requirement under Rule 24(4) of the Rules of Procedure that sufficient prior private notice should be given to the Government for asking urgent questions. There is a standing arrangement for the Government to issue the draft replies to all questions, in particular oral questions, to all Members immediately before the Council meeting to enable Members to prepare their supplementary questions.

9.52The Secretariat also communicates with the Director of Administration on which designated public officers will answer the questions. It is the Government which decides who will be the most appropriate public officer to answer a question. If the question is related to the portfolios of more than one policy bureau, the Government may assign more than one designated public officer or the Chief Secretary for Administration, the Financial Secretary or the Secretary for Justice to respond to the question.

9.53The Secretariat also keeps in view the provision of supplementary information promised by the designated public officer at the time he gave his oral reply at the Council meeting. Any such information is regarded as part of the reply of the designated public officer and is circulated to all Members for information.

Withdrawal of questions

9.54As mentioned in paragraph 9.23 above, the House Committee endorsed in December 2005 a series of measures to ensure that all oral questions would be asked at the scheduled meeting. These measures include amendment to Rule 26(8) of the Rules of Procedure, which was approved by the Council on 11 January 2006. Under the amended Rule 26(8), no question for which notice has been given may be withdrawn except in the case of a written question, where notice is given to the Clerk of such withdrawal not less than 1½ hours before the Council meeting, or in the case of an oral question, where the Member has the leave of the Council for such withdrawal with no dissenting voice before he asks the question at the Council meeting. In the latter situation, no debate is allowed on the withdrawal of an oral question by a Member.

Conduct of Question Time

9.55Under Article 73(5) of the Basic Law, it is the Legislature's constitutional power and function to raise questions on the work of the Government. Although the Rules of Procedure do not restrict the time for questions at a Council meeting, it is a convention that the Question Time will last for about 2 hours to enable 6 oral questions to be asked and answered with a reasonable number of Members to follow up with supplementary questions in relation to each of these questions. Following the live broadcasting of Council proceedings on TV, webcasts and various forms of social media, the proceedings of oral questions particularly capture the attention of the general public. Questions become an effective tool to call the Government to account and to press for Government actions. With the increase in the number of Members waiting their turns to ask supplementary questions, the control of proceedings and effective use of the limited time for questions are matters to be considered by the President.

Manner of asking and answering oral questions

9.56When each question is reached on the Agenda, the President calls upon the Member in whose name the question stands to ask the question. The Member is not allowed to make any alteration to the question. The designated public officer is then called by the President to give his reply.^[83] No Member is allowed to address the Council on a question or use a question as a pretext for a debate.^[84]

9.57If the Member is not present when the question is reached on the Agenda, with his consent, the question may be asked by another Member. If no prior notice is given to the President of whom to call to ask the question on behalf of that Member, Rule 26(6A) of the Rules of Procedure provides that the President must call upon the chairman of the House Committee to ask the question. Under Rule 26(6B) of the Rules of Procedure, "the chairman of the House Committee" also means the deputy chairman of the House Committee if the chairman of the House Committee is not present, or the Member present who has the highest precedence in the order of precedence of Members according to Rule 1A of the Rules of Procedure if both the chairman and deputy chairman of the House Committee are not present.^[85]

9.58In the event that the designated public officer responsible for answering a question is not present, the President may exercise his discretion to defer the question to the end of the Question Time.^[86] If the designated public officer is not present when the question has been asked, the President may suspend the meeting until the designated public officer is present or he is notified by the Government that another designated public officer who is present will answer that question.

Time limit for each oral question

9.59As mentioned in Chapter 7, questions addressed to the Government are asked before those items of business which require a decision of the Council. This 2-hour Question Time may be extended if the President considers it appropriate to do so. For more effective control of the time used for questions, the House Committee decided at its meeting on 25 May 2012 that a time limit should be laid down for each oral question, which is now reflected in Rule 9A of the House Rules. In gist, the time taken for the asking and answering of each oral question and any follow-up or supplementary questions should not exceed 22 minutes. In order that at least four other Members would have the chance to ask supplementary or follow-up questions, the asking of the main question should be limited to 3 minutes and the main reply to 7 minutes. That will leave about 10 to 12 minutes for the asking of supplementary or follow-up questions by other Members and the Government's further oral responses. The asking of each of the supplementary or follow-up questions should be confined to no more than 1 minute.

Supplementary questions

9.60Supplementary questions are to follow up any points from the response and should be short and to the point without any preamble or statement.^[87] The rules governing the asking of questions in Rule 22 and Rule 25 of the Rules of Procedure also apply to supplementary questions. In addition, Rule 8 of the House Rules also provides that a supplementary question cannot contain more than one question, and the Member asking a supplementary question which is of necessity complex should speak slowly to facilitate accurate interpretation of his question.^[88]

9.61When a Member is given a question slot to ask a question, he is usually the first Member given the opportunity to ask a supplementary question after the designated public officer concerned has given his oral reply to the main question.^[89] The Member is not obliged to ask a supplementary question. Neither is the chairman of the House Committee who may be called to ask a question on behalf of an absent Member. After the Member who asks the main question has asked the supplementary question or has decided not to do so, the President will invite other Members to ask supplementary questions. No notice is required for the asking of supplementary questions.

9.62In determining which other Members should have priority in the asking of supplementary questions, the President currently makes use of an electronic queuing system to register the time a Member pressed the button to indicate his intention to ask supplementary questions.^[90] The queuing list which shows the names of the Members in the order of the time they pressed the button also shows the number of supplementary questions each one of them has asked in the current session. The President accords priority to those who have asked the least number of supplementary questions within the session and, where the numbers of questions asked are equal, to those who were first registered on the queuing list.

Follow-up questions

9.63Rule 9 of the House Rules provides that if a Member feels that his question has not been fully answered, he may rise on a point of order and seek to ask a follow-up question. It is for the President to rule whether a follow-up question should be allowed. Even if the President has allowed the follow-up question to be asked, the designated public officer may decide whether or not to respond to the question or how to respond to it. A follow-up question is not counted as a supplementary question for the purpose of determining a Member's priority in asking supplementary questions.

Asking of urgent questions

9.64Urgent questions are asked before the questions for which notices have been given. The order of urgent questions, if more than one will be asked, is determined according to the time the requests to ask such questions were received by the Clerk. If more than one question are related to the same subject matter, it is the practice that supplementary questions are asked after all the main urgent questions relating to the same subject matter have been asked and answered. Necessarily in the interests of the Council, much discretion is exercised by the President in dealing with the time allowed for the asking and answering of urgent questions and their supplementaries. The time limits set out in Rule 9A of the House Rules for oral questions do not normally apply to urgent questions.

Written replies to questions

9.65The Government is required to give written replies to the written questions raised by Members. The present practice is that the draft written replies to Members' written questions are provided by the Government for distribution to Members shortly before the Council meeting. The final version of these written replies and any written answer offered to be supplied to Members in response to a supplementary question are recorded in the Official Record of proceedings of the Council, i.e. the Hansard.^[91]

[1]: Article 64 of the Basic Law.
[2]: Rule 27 of the Rules of Procedure.
[3]: See Chapter 5, para. 5.81-5.87.
[4]: Questions were recorded in the minutes of sittings as early as in 1867. At that time, questions were put to the Governor who responded to the questions. Please see minutes of sitting on 15 May 1867.
[5]: Council sitting on 15 November 1961, Hansard, pp. 278-280.
[6]: Council sitting on 22 August 1962, Hansard, pp. 244-246.
[7]: Council sitting on 8 May 1963, Hansard, pp. 186-187.
[8]: Council sitting on 17 June 1964, Hansard, pp. 230-231.
[9]: Council sitting on 28 June 1967, Hansard, pp. 341-343, and on 6 September 1967, Hansard, pp. 393-396.
[10]: Council sittings on 22 April 1964, Hansard, pp. 175-177; and 20 May 1964, Hansard, pp. 209-214.
[11]: Council sitting on 22 May 1968, Hansard, pp. 255-257.
[12]: An "oral question" is one of which a public officer is notified in writing before the Council sitting at which he is required to give an answer orally. This is in contra-distinction to a written question in respect of which a public officer provides an answer in writing which is served on all Members shortly before a Council sitting and is recorded in the Official Record of Proceedings for that Council sitting.
[13]: 14 oral questions were asked at the Council sitting on 30 July 1969. Hansard. pp. 433-448.
[14]: Standing Orders were amended on 13 October 1976.
[15]: Council sitting on 29 April 1992.
[16]: See Progress Report of the Committee on Rules of Procedure for the period July 2011 to July 2012, para. 2.8-2.16.
[17]: This is on the basis that the number of oral questions to be asked at a particular meeting is 6. Where there is no debate on a motion not intended to have legislative effect at a particular meeting, the number of oral questions that can be asked at that meeting is 10 and the number of written questions is therefore no more than 12.
[18]: Rule 23(3) of the Rules of Procedure.
[19]: See Chapter 1, para. 1.25, 1.47-1.48.
[20]: See Chapter 1, para. 1.52-1.54.
[21]: Rules 7 and 11 of the House Rules.
[22]: Para. 9.14-9.23.
[23]: Rule 23(1) of the Rules of Procedure.
[24]: Rule 23(4) of the Rules of Procedure.
[25]: Rule 23(4) of the Rules of Procedure.
[26]: Rule 24(4) of the Rules of Procedure.
[27]: Rule 24(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
[28]: Rule 24(3A) of the Rules of Procedure.
[29]: An example of the President allowing a Member to put forward an urgent oral question in addition to an oral and a written question under 24(4) of the Rules of Procedure is in the case of the 3 questions raised by Mr Ronny TONG at the Council meeting of 21 December 2011, Hansard, pp. 3877-3925.
[30]: Starting from the 1996-1997 session, a starting time for the registration of questions is given for Members to register their questions.
[31]: Under Rule 24(2) of the Rules of Procedure, a member shall give notice of a question not later than 7 clear days before the meeting at which an answer is required from the Government. The expression "clear days", according to Rule 93 (Interpretation), excludes the day of the giving of a notice, the day of the relevant meeting and intervening public holidays.
[32]: Rules 5 and 7 of the House Rules.
[33]: Rule 7 of the House Rules.
[34]: Rule 7(c) of the House Rules.
[35]: Rule 7(d) of the House Rules.
[36]: Rule 5(c) of the House Rules.
[37]: Rule 25(1)(l) of the Rules of Procedure.
[38]: Rule 26(6) of the Rules of Procedure.
[39]: See Rule 26(6B) of the Rules of Procedure regarding the meaning of "chairman of the House Committee" under the arrangement set out in Rule 26(6A) of the Rules of Procedure.
[40]: Rules 26(6A) and 26(6B) were added to the Rules of Procedure at the Council meeting of 11 January 2006. Hansard, pp. 3700-3704.
[41]: Under Rule 24(3) of the Rules of Procedure, a Member may not ask more than one oral question at any one meeting.
[42]: Progress Report of the Committee on Rules of Procedure for the 2005-2006 session, para. 2.8-2.15.
[43]: The raising of questions on the work of the government is a power and function of the Legislative Council under Article 73(5) of the Basic Law.
[44]: This principle was reflected in the pre-1997 Standing Order No. 15 which formed the basis for drafting Rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure of the First Legislative Council.
[45]: Rules 5-12 of the House Rules.
[46]: It was in 1928 that a draft code of model Standing Orders for Colonial Legislatures was published by the UK and in 1929 that the Standing Orders of Hong Kong was substantially revised on the basis on this draft. See Chapter 1, para. 1.18-1.19.
[47]: Sir Gilbert Campion (1950), An introduction to the Procedure of the House of Commons, 2nd Edition, pp. 145-152.
[48]: See Erskine May Treatise on The Law, Privileges and Usage of Parliament, 24th Edition, pp. 352-370.
[49]: Standing Order No. 22(1) of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.
[50]: See Erskine May (24th Edition), p. 359.
[51]: Rule 25(1)(e) of the Rules of Procedure was repealed in 2000 as the Council decided to add a new rule, i.e. Rule 25(3), to disallow anticipation and Rule 25(1)(e) became redundant.
[52]: An example is a written question raised on 13 July 2011 in relation to the engagement of multimedia production companies in undertaking government-funded projects. The question was permitted by the President after the name of the public officer was deleted. Hansard, pp. 14018-14020.
[53]: Rule 25(1)(a) of the Rules of Procedure provides that a question shall not include the names of persons, or statements which are not strictly necessary to make the question intelligible.
[54]: Rule 25(1)(b) provides that a question shall not contain a statement which the Member who asks the question is not prepared to substantiate.
[55]: Sir Gilbert Campion (1950), An introduction to the Procedure of the House of Commons, 2nd Edition, p. 151.
[56]: In Canada, a Member cannot make a charge by way of a preamble to a question. See House of Commons Procedure and Practice (Canada), 2nd Edition, p. 503.
[57]: See House of Commons Procedure and Practice (Canada), 2nd Edition, p. 497.
[58]: Mr Speaker Jerome of the House of Commons of Canada in his statement made in 1975 spoke about the use of preambles. He said, "In putting the original question on any subject, a Member may require an explanatory remark, but there is no reason for such a preamble to exceed one, carefully drawn sentence." See House of Commons Practice and Procedure (Canada), 2nd Edition, p. 501.
[59]: An example is a written question raised at the Council meeting of 30 October 2013 on the issuance of domestic free television programme service licenses. The original question submitted by the Member contained the seeking of information on the criteria adopted by the Executive Council in rating the applications and a comparison of the capabilities, etc. of the applicants. This part of the question was subsequently amended so as to comply with Rule 25(1)(f) of the Rules of Procedure.
[60]: An example is a written question raised at the Council meeting of 23 June 2010 on the investigation conducted by the Securities and Futures Commission and the Police into the leveraged foreign exchange transactions of CITIC Pacific Limited. In his written reply to the question, the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury stated that as the investigation was ongoing, the Police would not comment on the case.
[61]: Rule 25(1)(g) of the Rules of Procedure.
[62]: It is not out of order in the UK Parliament to ask Ministers by what statutory authority they have acted in a particular instance. See Erskine May (24th Edition), p. 362.
[63]: Also see Canada's House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 2nd Edition, p. 495.
[64]: See Erskine May (24th Edition), p. 359.
[65]: An example is a written question raised on 5 December 2012 in relation to the law enforcement against unauthorized building works found in the personal property of a public officer. The parts which sought to confirm accuracy of the allegations made in media reports were deleted before the question was submitted to the President for his approval. Hansard, pp. 3063-3069.
[66]: An example is a statement made by the Attorney General on 19 November 1969. Hansard, pp. 161-163. Also see Chapter 7, para. 7.72.
[67]: The President directed the reference to the designation of a public officer to be deleted from a question raised on 5 December 2012 which sought information on the law enforcement actions taken by the Government in respect of unauthorized building works. Hansard, pp. 3063-3069.
[68]: Rule 25(1)(l) of the Rules of Procedure.
[69]: An example is an oral question raised at the Council meeting of 17 January 2007 in relation to the protection of commercial transactions from interference by Mainland officials under the Basic Law. Hansard, pp. 3685-3694.
[70]: In the House of Commons of the UK, the Speaker is the final authority as to the admissibility of questions. The Speaker's responsibility in regard to questions is limited to their compliance with the rules of the House. Members may discuss the orderliness of proposed Questions when they table them with the Clerks in the Table Office. Responsibility in other aspects rests with the Member who proposes to ask the question, and the responsibility for answers rests with Ministers. See Erskine May (24th Edition), p. 356.
[71]: Rule 25(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
[72]: Examples are an oral question raised at the Council meeting of 17 December 2014 regarding additional demand for railway services, Hansard, pp. 3684-3694; and a written question raised at the Council meeting of 7 January 2015 regarding Asia Television Limited allegedly defaulting on payments of employees' wages, Hansard, pp. 4352-4355.
[73]: Rule 26(1) of the Rules of Procedure.
[74]: Rule 26(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
[75]: Rule 7(d) of the House Rules.
[76]: Rule 10 of the House Rules. Examples are the question on the acceptance of passage and discounts by public officers at the Council meeting of 29 February 2012 and on West Kowloon Reclamation Concept Competition at the Council meeting of 15 February 2012.
[77]: For example, an oral urgent question was asked by Mr MA Fung-kwok at the Council meeting of 19 June 2013 regarding the immediate actions to be taken in respect of the alleged hacking of the computer systems in Hong Kong by the US Government and the personal safety of Edward Snowden, Hansard, pp. 13381-13405.
[78]: The President allowed 4 oral questions to be raised without notice under Rule 24(4) of the Rules of Procedure at the Council meeting of 18 June 2014. These questions were related to the emergency actions to be taken to maintain public order and protect personal safety following the incident on 13 June 2014 at the Legislative Council Complex. Hansard, pp. 15147-15197.
[79]: In response to an application from Dr KWOK Ka-ki for asking an urgent question regarding an incident at the Tseung Kwan O Line of Mass Transit Railway, the President ruled that although the question concerned public interest, the subject matter was not of such urgency that would become meaningless or less effective if asked at a later meeting. See http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr13-14/chinese/pre_rul/pre1217a-ref-ec.pdf.
[80]: "Rule of anticipation" refers to the principle that a matter appointed for consideration by the legislature must not be anticipated by another matter of substantially the same content but contained in a less effective form of proceedings. See Chapter 7, para. 7.98.
[81]: The President allowed both a written question and a motion debate on the policy of the Moral and National Education subject to be placed on the Agenda of the Council meeting of 17 October 2012 as the question was considered not substantially the same as the proposed motion. While an amendment to the motion was found substantially the same as part of the question, the notice of the amendment was received after the question had been approved. There was no issue of anticipation in this particular case. Agenda of Council meeting of 17 October 2012 at http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr12-13/english/counmtg/agenda/cm20121017.htm.
[82]: See Chapter 7, para. 7.98-7.105.
[83]: Rule 26(3) of the Rules of Procedure.
[84]: Rule 26(5) of the Rules of Procedure.
[85]: Rule 26(6A) and Rule 26(6B) of the Rules of Procedure.
[86]: Rule 12 of the House Rules.
[87]: Rule 26(4) of the Rules of Procedure and Rule 8 (b) and (d) of the House Rules.
[88]: Rule 8(c) and (e) of the House Rules.
[89]: Rule 8(a) of the House Rules.
[90]: The electronic queuing system was enhanced in January 1999 to provide information on the accumulated total number of supplementary questions asked by each Member as well as the time at which a Member pressed the "Request-to-speak" buttons to register his intention to ask question.
[91]: Rule 26(7) of the Rules of Procedure.

Chapter 9 Questions on the work of the Government

Chapter 9

Questions on the work of the Government