LC Paper No. CB(2) 1222/98-99

Ref : CB2/H/5

House Committee of the Legislative Council

Minutes of the 21st meeting
held in the Legislative Council Chamber
at 3:50 pm on Friday, 29 January 1999

Members present :

Dr Hon LEONG Che-hung, JP (Chairman)
Dr Hon YEUNG Sum (Deputy Chairman)
Hon James TIEN Pei-chun, JP
Hon David CHU Yu-lin
Hon Cyd HO Sau-lan
Hon Edward HO Sing-tin, JP
Hon Albert HO Chun-yan
Hon Michael HO Mun-ka
Dr Hon Raymond HO Chung-tai, JP
Hon LEE Wing-tat
Hon LEE Cheuk-yan
Hon Martin LEE Chu-ming, SC, JP
Hon Eric LI Ka-cheung, JP
Hon LEE Kai-ming, JP
Hon Fred LI Wah-ming
Hon NG Leung-sing
Prof Hon NG Ching-fai
Hon Margaret NG Ngoi-yee
Hon Mrs Selina CHOW LIANG Shuk-yee, JP
Hon MA Fung-kwok
Hon CHEUNG Man-kwong
Hon HUI Cheung-ching
Hon Christine LOH Kung-wai
Hon CHAN Kwok-keung
Hon CHAN Yuen-han
Hon Bernard CHAN
Hon CHAN Wing-chan
Hon CHAN Kam-lam
Hon Mrs Sophie LEUNG LAU Yau-fun, JP
Hon LEUNG Yiu-chung
Hon Gary CHENG Kai-nam
Hon SIN Chung-kai
Hon Andrew WONG Wang-fat, JP
Dr Hon Philip WONG Yu-hong
Hon Jasper TSANG Yok-sing, JP
Hon Howard YOUNG, JP
Hon YEUNG Yiu-chung
Hon LAU Chin-shek, JP
Hon LAU Kong-wah
Hon Mrs Miriam LAU Kin-yee, JP
Hon Ambrose LAU Hon-chuen, JP
Hon CHOY So-yuk
Hon Andrew CHENG Kar-foo
Hon TAM Yiu-chung, JP
Hon FUNG Chi-kin
Dr Hon TANG Siu-tong, JP

Members absent :

Hon Kenneth TING Woo-shou, JP
Hon HO Sai-chu, JP
Dr Hon David LI Kwok-po, JP
Dr Hon LUI Ming-wah, JP
Hon Ronald ARCULLI, JP
Hon James TO Kun-sun
Hon Ambrose CHEUNG Wing-sum, JP
Hon WONG Yung-kan
Hon LAU Wong-fat, GBS, JP
Hon Emily LAU Wai-hing, JP
Hon SZETO Wah
Hon Timothy FOK Tsun-ting, JP
Hon LAW Chi-kwong, JP

Clerk in attendance :

Mrs Justina LAM

Clerk to the House Committee

Staff in attendance :

Mr Ricky C C FUNG, JP

Secretary General

Mr Jimmy MA, JP

Legal Adviser

Mr LEE Yu-sung

Senior Assistant Legal Adviser

Ms Pauline NG

Assistant Secretary General 1

Mr Ray CHAN

Assistant Secretary General 3

Ms Bernice WONG

Assistant Legal Adviser 1

Miss Anita HO

Assistant Legal Adviser 2

Miss Connie FUNG

Assistant Legal Adviser 3

Mr Stephen LAM

Assistant Legal Adviser 4

Mrs Anna LO

Chief Assistant Secretary (Complaints)

Miss Kathleen LAU

Chief Public Information Officer

Mrs Betty LEUNG

Chief Assistant Secretary (3)1

Miss Mary SO Senior

Assistant Secretary (2)8

1. The Chairman informed members that the Bills Committee on Human Organ Transplant (Amendment) Bill 1999 would also make a report under agenda item VI, and that two additional items, namely, "Implications of the Judgment of the Court of Final Appeal on cases relating to the right of abode of persons born in the Mainland to Hong Kong permanent residents" and "Inviting the Chief Executive to respond to the three separate reports on the airport opening chaos" would be discussed under agenda item VII.

I. Confirmation of the minutes of the 20th meeting held on 22 January 1999
(LC Paper No. CB(2) 1169/98-99)

2. The minutes were confirmed.

II. Matters arising

(a) Report by the Chairman on his meeting with the Chief Secretary for Administration (CS)

3. The Chairman informed members that the Administration's legal advisers would re-examine the validity of subsidiary legislation which had been gazetted but not tabled in Council. CS had also agreed to review the present practice for the Administration to gazette subsidiary legislation and for the Clerk to LegCo to table them without formal notice given by the Administration.

(b) Resolution under section 16(3) of the Protection of Wages on Insolvency Ordinance (Cap. 380) - to be moved by the Secretary for Education and Manpower

4. Mr Eric LI informed members that the Secretary for Education and Manpower had replied in writing that the Protection of Wages on Insolvency Fund (PWIF) was estimated to incur deficits of $160 million in 1998/99, $114 million in 1999/2000 and $108 million in 2000/2001 arising from a very substantial increase in the number of applications to the PWIF. However, the Fund would still have a surplus of about $693 million, $579 million and $471 million in the respective financial years, on the assumption that the proposed resolution on raising the severance payment limit from $36,000 to $50,000 was passed by the Council. Given the financial strength of the PWIF and its very stable source of income, the Administration did not consider that the proposed increase would add an undue burden to the PWIF.

5. Mr LI said that he was prepared to support the proposed resolution and would not recommend the setting up of a subcommittee. He further said that the Panel on Financial Affairs would discuss a consultation paper on corporate rescue and the protection of wages on insolvency fund (treatment of employees in "provisional supervision") on 1 February 1999. He hoped that interested members would join the discussion.

6. Mr LI added that he had conveyed to the Administration Mr Ronald ARCULLI's concern that the proposed increase would benefit employees at middle management level and above, rather than those at junior levels. To address this deficiency, Mr ARCULLI had suggested whether consideration should be given to introducing a means test to the PWIF. The Secretary for Education and Manpower had undertaken to follow up the matter with Mr ARCULLI.

7. Mr LEE Kai-ming said that he had done some calculations on the amounts of severance payments applicants would receive from the PWIF if the proposed increase was implemented. The results showed that the main beneficiaries were employees earning low wages, while the benefits to employees at middle management level and above were negligible.

8. Mr James TIEN said that although he had some reservations about the proposed increase during this period of economic downturn, he would support the proposal since it would give more protection to low-income employees, and it had been endorsed by the PWIF Board and the Labour Advisory Board.

(c) The Hong Kong Standard case

9. The Chairman informed members that the Secretary for Justice (SJ) would attend a special meeting of the Panel on Administration of Justice and Legal Services on 4 February 1999 to address Members on her earlier decision not to prosecute Ms Sally AW. The Chairman added that after the House Committee meeting held last week, he and Miss Margaret NG had separately approached SJ requesting her to give her explanation at the earliest opportunity.

III. Business arising from previous Council meetings

(a) Legal Service Division's reports on bills referred to the House Committee in accordance with Rule 54(4)

(i) Adaptation of Laws Bill 1999 (LC Paper No. LS 89/98-99)

10. Referring to the paper, the Legal Adviser said that the Bill dealt with the adaptation of 17 ordinances relating to the incorporation of hospitals, charities and certain private bodies. As the amendments proposed by the Bill were along the same lines as some amendments proposed in the Adaptation of Laws Bill 1998, the Legal Adviser suggested that members should wait until the Bills Committee concerned had completed work before deciding on how this Bill should be dealt with. Members agreed.

11. The Legal Adviser added that the Legal Service Division was seeking clarification from the Administration on whether it had consulted the organizations concerned on the proposed amendments. A further report would be made to the House Committee in due course.

(ii) Factories and Industrial Undertakings (Amendment) Bill 1999
(LC Paper No. LS 90/98-99)

12. Referring to the paper, the Legal Adviser said that the main purposes of the Bill were to provide for mandatory safety training for persons employed in the construction and container handling industries and to empower the Commissioner for Labour to make regulations for the implementation of safety management systems in industrial undertakings. He added that as the changes introduced by the Bill would have an important impact on the future of industrial safety in Hong Kong, members might wish to form a Bills Committee to study the Bill and the proposed Regulation.

13. The Chairman said that the relevant industries and advisory bodies had been consulted. The Administration had also briefed the Panel on Manpower on the Bill on 7 January 1999.

14. The Chairman suggested that a Bills Committee should be formed. The following members agreed to join : Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr Ronald ARCULLI (as advised by Mr James TIEN), Mr HUI Cheung-ching, Mr CHAN Wing-chan and Mr Andrew CHENG Kar-foo.

(iii) Electricity (Amendment) Bill 1999
(LC Paper No. LS 99/98-99)

15. Referring to the paper, the Legal Adviser explained that the main object of the Bill was to amend section 59 of the Ordinance to enable the making of the Electricity Supply Lines (Protection) Regulation in due course. The purpose of the proposed Regulation was to ensure that activities performed in the vicinity of electricity supply lines owned by electricity suppliers were performed without risk of causing electrical accidents or interruptions to electricity supply. Offences and penalty were also provided for in the proposed Regulation.

16. The Legal Adviser further said that according to paragraph 19 of the LegCo Brief, the Administration had consulted the power companies and the construction industry. The power companies supported the proposals but the construction industry was of the view that the penalty proposed in the Bill was too heavy.

17. Mr James TIEN said that as the construction industry had expressed different views on the criminal liability of the proposed Regulation, he suggested that a Bills Committee should be formed. The following members agreed to join : Dr Raymond HO Chung-tai, Mr Fred LI Wah-ming and Mr Ronald ARCULLI (as advised by Mr James TIEN).

(iv) Firearms and Ammunition (Amendment) Bill 1999
(LC Paper No. LS 98/98-99)

18. The Legal Adviser introduced the paper and said that the object of the Bill was to tighten the existing statutory controls on the possession and use of arms and ammunition. He further pointed out that the Firearms and Ammunition (Amendment) Bill 1996 was introduced into the former LegCo on 3 April 1996. The House Committee of the former LegCo decided to form a Bills Committee to study the 1996 Bill. Most of the proposals in the 1996 Bill were similar to those in this Bill. As the Second Reading debate on the 1996 Bill was not resumed in the former LegCo, the 1996 Bill lapsed after the 1996/97 legislative session.

19. The Legal Adviser added that as the Bill raised policy issues which had generated concern of some members of the public and which involved the legal issue of replacing existing presumption provision with a new one, members might wish to form a Bills Committee to study these issues in detail. Mr MA Fung-kwok suggested that a Bills Committee should be formed. The following members agreed to join : Mr James TIEN Pei-chun, Mr David CHU Yu-lin, Mr MA Fung-kwok and Ms CHOY So-yuk.

(b) Legal Service Division's report on subsidiary legislation tabled in Council on 27 January 1999 (gazetted on 22 January 1999)
(LC Paper No. LS 105/98-99)

20. The Legal Adviser briefly explained the four items of subsidiary legislation gazetted on 22 January 1999 detailed in the paper.

21. Referring to the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Regulation 1999 made under the Fisheries Protection Ordinance, the Chairman said that Mr WONG Yung-kan had consulted the fisheries industry and they had no objection to the proposals set out in the Amendment Regulation.

22. Regarding the Electricity Ordinance (Commencement) Notice 1999 and the Electrical Products (Safety) Regulation (Commencement) Notice 1999, the Legal Adviser said that the Panel on Economic Services, at its meeting on 25 January 1999, decided not to examine the matter in detail as issues relating to the two Commencement Notices would be considered by the House Committee.

23. Mr SIN Chung-kai suggested that a subcommittee should be formed to study the two Commencement Notices. The following members agreed to join : Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr Fred LI Wah-ming, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Mr LAU Chin-shek.

24. The Chairman informed members that the deadline for amending the subsidiary legislation was 10 February 1999 or 3 March 1999, if extended by resolution. The Chairman pointed out that the two Commencement Notices had appointed 25 February 1999 as the commencement date. He suggested that the two Notices should be repealed if the subcommittee was unable to complete work before the deadline for amending the subsidiary legislation on 10 February 1999. Members agreed.

25. Members did not raise any queries on the remaining item of subsidiary legislation covered in the paper.

IV. Further business for the Council meeting on 3 February 1999

(a) Bills - First and Second Readings

(i) Legislative Council (Amendment) Bill 1999

(ii) Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Bill

26. Members noted that the above Bills and the Chinese Medicine Bill would be introduced into the Council on 3 February 1999 and would be considered by the House Committee on 5 February 1999.

(b) Members' motion

Motion on "Report of Select Committee"

27. The Chairman informed members that only the above motion, to be moved by Mrs Selina CHOW, had been scheduled for debate at the Council meeting on 3 February 1999.

28. Mr LEE Cheuk-yan asked whether Members who were on the Board of the Airport Authority would be allowed to vote on the motion.

29. The Legal Adviser replied that according to Rule 84(2) of the Rules of Procedure, a Member could speak on a matter in which he had a pecuniary interest so long as he declared the interest before speaking. However, as stipulated in Rule 84(1) of the Rules of Procedure, a Member would not be allowed to vote on the matter in which he had a direct pecuniary interest. The Legal Adviser pointed out that "direct pecuniary interest" was not a defined term. It was up to individual Members to determine whether they needed to make such a declaration before they spoke on the motion.

30. Assistant Secretary General 3 also referred members to Rule 84(5) of the Rules of Procedure which stipulated that the President, Chairman of a committee of the whole Council or chairman had the discretion to decide whether or not to propose the question upon a motion to disallow a Member's vote on the ground of his direct pecuniary interest; and in exercising such discretion, he should have regard to the nature of the question upon which the vote was taken and to the consideration whether the interest therein of the Member whose vote was challenged was direct and pecuniary and not an interest in common with the rest of the inhabitants of Hong Kong.

31. Mrs Selina CHOW said that in view of the scope and the complexity of the report of the Select Committee, she suggested that each Member should be allowed a maximum speaking time of 15 minutes, instead of the usual 7 minutes. Dr Raymond HO and Mrs Miriam LAU expressed support for Mrs CHOW's suggestion.

32. Mr CHAN Kam-lam considered that a maximum speaking time of 10 minutes for each Member was more suitable.

33. Mr Fred LI said that he did not oppose to the speaking time limit of 15 minutes but he hoped that Members would avoid making repetitious speeches.

34. Mr LAU Chin-shek said that in order to avoid repetitions, political parties or groups should consider selecting representatives to speak on the motion. Mr LEE Kai-ming concurred with Mr LAU.

35. Mr LEE Wing-tat asked whether the "breakfast group" would consider adopting Mr LAU's suggestion. Mr Eric LI undertook to discuss with members of the "breakfast group".

36. The Chairman suggested and members agreed that each Member should be allowed to speak for a maximum time of 15 minutes on the motion.

37. In reply to Mr Andrew WONG's enquiries, the Secretary General said that there was no restriction on speaking time for public officers. As regards which public officers would take part in the debate on the motion, Assistant Secretary General 3 said that the Secretariat had not yet been informed by the Administration.

38. The Chairman suggested that one public officer should be invited to speak after Mrs CHOW had moved her motion and delivered her speech, and another public officer should speak again after all other Members had spoken.

39. In response, Miss Margaret NG said that in view of the open remarks made by the public officers concerned that they did not have the opportunity to respond to the criticisms contained in the report of the Select Committee, they should be allowed to listen to all the views expressed by Members before responding. Dr YEUNG Sum concurred with Miss NG and added that it would be for the public officers to indicate as to when they wished to speak during the debate.

40. Mr Andrew WONG enquired whether Members were bound to agree with everything contained in the report, as the word "endorses" was used in the wording of the motion. He suggested that a more neutral word such as "receives" be used instead.

41. Mrs Selina CHOW responded that the wording of the motion followed that used in the former LegCo for motion debates on reports of Select Committees. She further said that this motion was no different than other Members' motions without legislative effect in that Members were free to express their views during the debate.

V. Business for the Council meeting on 10 February 1999

(a) Questions
(LC Paper No. CB(3) 1178/98-99)

42. Members noted the two new questions (Nos. 7 and 10) and one amended question (No. 5) set out in the paper.

(b) Bills - First and Second Readings

(i) International Organizations (Privileges and Immunities) Bill

(ii) Adaptation of Laws (No.3) Bill 1999

(iii) Adaptation of Laws (No.2) Bill 1999

(iv) Adaptation of Laws (No.4) Bill 1999

(v) Disciplined Services Welfare Funds Legislation (Amendment) Bill 1999

43. Members noted that the above Bills would be introduced into the Council on 10 February 1999 and would be considered by the House Committee on 26 February 1999.

(c) Members' motions

(i) Motion on "Promoting the economy"

44. Members noted the draft wording of the above motion to be moved by Mr SIN Chung-kai.

(ii) Motion on "Prices of fuel"

45. Members noted the wording of the motion to be moved by Mrs Miriam LAU Kin-yee.

46. The Chairman reminded members that the deadline for giving notice of amendments (if any) to the motions was 3 February 1999. The speaking time limits stipulated in rule 17(c) of the House Rules would apply.

47. In reply to Mr SIN's enquiry, Assistant Secretary General 3 said that the deadline for giving notice of motion had already expired and that the President would normally only allow minor textual changes to the wording of a motion after the deadline.

VI. Reports

(a) Position report on Bills Committees/subcommittees
(LC Paper No. CB(2) 1175/98-99)

48. The Chairman said that there were 15 Bills Committees and six subcommittees in action, including the three Bills Committees and one subcommittee formed earlier at the meeting.

(b) Report of the Bills Committee on District Councils Bill

49. Mr Ambrose LAU, Chairman of the Bills Committee, reported that the Bills Committee had held a total of nine meetings (12 sessions in total) since 4 January 1999. Although the Bills Committee had made good progress in its deliberation of the Bill, some clauses still needed to be further examined. In this connection, the Administration had agreed to defer resumption of the Second Reading debate on the Bill from 10 February 1999 to 10 March 1999.

50. Mr LAU said that some members of the Bills Committee had expressed strong objection to certain provisions in the Bill relating to the proposed appointed and ex-officio seats and would propose amendments to remove them. Some members also had strong views about the functions of the District Councils. They were of the view that matters relating to food safety and environmental hygiene services should not be included as part of the functions of the District Councils until a final decision on the future of the Municipal Councils had been reached. These members were worried that agreement to such provisions in the Bill would be tantamount to endorsing the Government's proposal to abolish the Municipal Councils.

51. Mr LAU further said that the Bills Committee intended to conclude its deliberation by 9 February 1999 and submit a written report to the House Committee on 26 February 1999.

52. Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong expressed strong dissatisfaction that the Administration did not allow adequate time for Members to scrutinize the Bill. He pointed out that despite the fact that the Bills Committee had not completed its work, the Administration gave notice to resume the Second Reading debate on the Bill on 10 February 1999. Although the Administration had subsequently agreed to defer resumption of the Second Reading debate to 10 March 1999, this had shown the Administration's lack of respect for the Bills Committee and total disregard for the quality of legislative work.

53. Mr LEE Wing-tat said that this was not the first time the Administration had set a tight timetable for Members to complete scrutiny of a legislative proposal. He cited the Estate Agents (Licensing) Regulation as an example.

54. Miss Margaret NG said that it was imperative that the scrutiny of a legislative proposal must be allowed its due process.

55. The Chairman said that he and the Deputy Chairman had, at every available opportunity, asked CS and bureau secretaries to give Members adequate time to scrutinize legislative proposals. He would bring up this matter again at his next meeting with CS.

(c) Report of the Bills Committee on Human Organ Transplant (Amendment) Bill 1999

56. On behalf of Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Chairman of the Bills Committee, the Chairman reported that the Bills Committee supported resumption of the Second Reading debate on the Bill on 10 February 1999. He added that the Administration would move Committee Stage amendments to the Bill, which were technical in nature.

VII. Any other business

(a) Implications of the Judgment of the Court of Final Appeal on cases relating to the right of abode of persons born in the Mainland to Hong Kong permanent residents

57. Miss Margaret NG briefly explained the Judgment of the Court of Final Appeal (the Judgment) on cases relating to the right of abode of persons born in the Mainland to Hong Kong permanent residents. Miss NG said that the Administration must explain the implications of the Judgment on the immigration policy of Hong Kong and the necessary follow-up measures to be taken by the policy bureaux concerned as soon as possible. As the Judgment had rendered certain provisions of the Immigration (Amendment) (No.2) Ordinance 1997 and the Immigration (Amendment) (No.3) Ordinance 1997 null and void, the Administration should also be asked to make the necessary legislative amendments expeditiously.

58. Mr Martin LEE expressed concern that before the judgment was delivered, a senior government official had commented that there would be a possible influx of illegal immigrants should the judgment be unfavourable. He considered such comments most inappropriate.

59. Mr Albert HO said that the Government should either set up offices to vet applications for Certificates of Entitlement or ask the Mainland authorities to process such applications on its behalf.

60. The Chairman suggested that the Administration be asked to brief the House Committee on the implications of the Judgment at the earliest opportunity, before the relevant Panels followed up on the matter. Members agreed.

(b) Inviting the Chief Executive (CE) to respond to the three separate reports on the airport opening chaos

61. Mr LEE Wing-tat suggested that CE should be invited to attend a meeting of the Council to respond to the three separate reports on the airport opening chaos. Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung expressed support for Mr LEE's suggestion.

62. Mr Ambrose LAU said that Members should wait and see how public officers taking part in the motion debate on 3 February 1999 responded to the report of the Select Committee before deciding whether there was a need to take such a course of action. Mr Gary CHENG and Mr Howard YOUNG shared Mr LAU's views.

63. Mr Fred LI said that the decision to invite CE should not depend on how the Administration would respond to the report of the Select Committee at the motion debate on 3 February 1999, as the purpose of the invitation was to elicit CE's response not only to the Select Committee's report but also to Hon Mr Justice WOO's report and that of the Ombudsman. Moreover, CE could decide on the timing of such a meeting.

64. Mr Andrew WONG said that according to Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure, CE might at his discretion attend meetings of the Council for addressing the Council at any time as he saw fit, including during a special meeting; answering Members' questions put to him on the work of the Government; and proposing any policy, measure, bill, resolution, motion or question for debate by and in the Council or any such committee or subcommittee.

65. Mr CHAN Kam-lam said that an invitation should only be extended if CE, after studying the respective reports of the Select Committee and the Ombudsman, failed to make any response.

66. Dr Raymond HO said that an invitation should be extended to CE immediately, rather than after the motion debate on 3 February 1999. He added that as there were criticisms that the Select Committee should have proposed sanctions on those who were named in the report to be responsible for the airport opening chaos, it was important that Members had an opportunity to put questions to CE in this regard.

67. Mr TAM Yiu-chung said that CS rather than CE should be invited to respond to the three separate reports on the airport opening chaos, given that CS was the Chairman of the Airport Development Steering Committee.

68. Miss Margaret NG said that as CS was one of the public officers named in the report of the Select Committee to be responsible for the airport opening chaos, CE and not CS was the most appropriate person to answer questions relating to sanctions.

69. Miss HO Sau-lan hoped that should CE agree to such a meeting, it should not be counted as one of the three CE's Questions and Answer sessions for the current legislative session, and that it should be longer than one hour.

70. Mr LEE Wing-tat proposed that the Chairman should put the question of whether an invitation should be sent to CE at this stage to vote. The results were that 13 members voted in favour of extending an invitation to CE, seven members voted against and four members abstained.

(c) Legislative Council Building to be completely smoke-free - to be raised by Hon Martin LEE Chu-ming

71. Mr Martin LEE said that a press report recently revealed that the tobacco industry planned to keep Asians addicted by making the tar and nicotine levels of cigarettes sold in Asia higher than those sold elsewhere. Such a plan had remained company secrets until the release of confidential memos on the Internet by the tobacco industry after a legal settlement in the United States. To counter such onslaught by the tobacco industry, Mr LEE proposed that the Council should set a good example by making the LegCo Building completely smoke-free.

72. The Legal Adviser said that the President was empowered under section 8(3) of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to issue administrative instructions for regulating admittance to and conduct within the precincts of the Chamber of LegCo. According to Administrative Instruction No.10, a person might smoke in a room in the LegCo Building where that room was designated by the President as a room in which smoking was permitted; where that room was allocated to that person's sole use or to the sole use of that person and another person, or other persons, who also wished to smoke in that room; or where that person had permission to do so granted by the person or persons having sole use of that room.

73. Miss Margaret NG enquired whether the making of provisions for ensuring proper conduct within the precincts of the LegCo Building included restriction on smoking in the LegCo Building. In response, the Legal Adviser said that he would look into the relevant legislation and let Miss NG know after the meeting.

74. Members expressed support for Mr LEE's proposal of making the LegCo Building completely smoke-free.

75. The meeting ended at 5:32 pm.


Legislative Council Secretariat
3 February 1999