LegCo rule book can learn from Westminster

The original common law parliament would never tolerate antics seen in LegCo; Richard Cullen points out it is time to adopt its procedures

isbehavior

the Legislative Council refuses to go away. Disruptive shouting (sometimes notably abusive) is regularly combined with various equally disorderly physical demonstrations and stunts. These tactics, more suited to street marches, are recurrently used by “pan-democrat” lawmakers to protest against the government, its policies, LegCo procedural rules and are clearly designed to generate more than your proverbial 15 minutes of fame.

The LegCo Committee on Rules of Procedure, chaired by Paul Tse Waichun, has recently announced an investigation into the introduction of possible new rules to regulate and discipline disorderly conduct within LegCo. The announcement said the 12-person committee will consult all lawmakers and will review comparative rules used in a range of parliaments, including those in the United Kingdom, Australia and Taiwan.

Dennis Kwok Wing-hang of the Civic Party, who represents the Legal functional constituency, was quoted after this announcement as saying: “Democrats are, in principle, against any further amendments of house rules.” He also argued that: “There are no countries in the world, at least no democratic countries to speak of, that would suspend a member of parliament for up to one year with no end in sight.”

With respect, if Kwok has been quoted accurately, this “no countries” claim simply does not stand up.

The British Parliament in London is comprehensively recognized as the originating source of democratic parliamentary practice for the entire common law world — of which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is part. The House of Commons has rules in place which allow for members, in certain circumstances, to be suspended from the house, without pay, for disorderly conduct for up to an entire session of the parliament (that is, for up to a year).

How do we know this? Because the statement of the Disciplinary and Penal Powers of the House of Commons tells us so at: https://www. parliament.uk/documents/commonsinformation-office/g06.pdf.

It is worth quoting the gist of the relevant provision:

Naming of a Member and suspension:

If a Member has disregarded the authority of the Chair, or has persistently and wilfully obstructed the House by abusing its rules, he or she (after generally being given every opportunity to set matters to rights) may be named. … If the motion is agreed to … the Member is directed to withdraw and suspension (for five sitting days for a first offence) follows. A second offence in the same Session will lead to suspension for 20 sitting days and a third to suspension for a period the House shall decide. Should a Member refuse to withdraw and then resist removal by the Sergeant at Arms, suspension for the remainder of the Session ensues. Where the Member has been suspended from the service of the House under Standing Order No 44, salary is forfeited during the period of suspension.

Protesting LegCo members commonly refuse to withdraw and resist the duly authorized LegCo security staff, frequently having to be carried or marched out of the chamber.

The Rules of behavior and courtesies in the House issued by the Speaker (see: https://www.parliament. uk/documents/rules-of-behaviour.pdf) also provide, at paragraph 20 that:

You should always bear in mind Erskine May’s advice in Parliamentary Practice that “good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language” … Any abusive or insulting language used in debate will be required to be withdrawn immediately.

Paragraph 24 says that:

…The ostentatious display of badges, brand names, slogans or other forms of advertising of either commercial or non-commercial causes is not in order. (This is an area where the “pan-democrats” and their collaborators have been in gross violation for a very long time.)

Members failing to comply with paragraph 24 will normally not be allowed to speak and they may be asked to withdraw from the Chamber (paragraph 25).

The very serious financial and regulatory costs visited on the residents of the HKSAR by the varied methods used within LegCo to protest-by-maximizing-delay over the past several years are manifest. Documented additional payments arising from excessive delays run into some billions of Hong Kong dollars. It is a standard point to make but it should be restated: These are funds which could have been spent on improvements to hospitals, schools and many other deserving institutions and various sectors of the community.

Given the excellent Westminster lineage of the well-considered rules outlined above, it is fair to ask why Hong Kong would not use them to help build a renewed template to govern proper behavior within LegCo? A heavy onus surely falls on those “against any further amendments of house rules” to demonstrate why LegCo should not follow this unusually sound guidance from the House of Commons.

The move by the LegCo Committee on Rules of Procedure to investigate possible disciplinary rule changes is therefore welcome news. Hong Kong deserves a legislature which is home to the most robust debate conducted within a framework — applicable to all members — which stresses mutual respect, orderly conduct and facilitation of reasoned exchanges with a view to achieving solutions to local problems.