Lawmakers decided last night to instruct a Senior Counsel to seek an independent legal opinion on Legco's Rules of Procedure after officials insisted some provisions contravened the Basic Law. The row hinges on a dispute with the Government over whether legislators have to seek the Chief Executive's written consent to introduce amendments to a government bill which relates to policies. Director of Administration Carrie Yau Tsang Ka-lai and acting Solicitor-General Stephen Wong Kai-yee urged legislators yesterday to take action as soon as possible to bring the rules adopted last July into line with the mini-constitution. In July Solicitor-General Daniel Fung Wah-kin failed to convince members on the legality of some provisions. After the closed-door meeting, Selina Chow Liang Shuk-yee of the Liberal Party, who chairs the rules committee, said: 'Members obviously found that the Government had not changed its views.' Mrs Chow said neither Mrs Yau nor the paper she presented had answered whether, or in what way, the Government had considered members' views. Mrs Yau's remarks that the Chief Executive could give blanket approval for non-legally binding motions sponsored by members have been seen as a minor concession. Maintaining that motion debates should be subject to the Chief Executive's consent, the Administration Wing said in a paper: 'The administration considers that Article 48 (10) covers the Chief Executive's authority to approve all motions moved in the legislature. 'As regards motion debates, we share members' views that Legco should debate all issues of public interest and the Chief Executive will have no difficulty in giving a blanket approval for the conduct of motion debates which may relate to 'revenue or expenditure'.' Democratic Party chairman Martin Lee Chu-ming said the 'blanket approval' would mean asking Tung Chee-hwa to be a 'rubber-stamp' to sign all motion debates sponsored by members. Mr Lee was puzzled by the Government's motives. He surmised that the Government might want to confirm legislators' stance for the purpose of deciding either to take the matter to court or to drop the idea of a lawsuit. Criticising the administration's attempt to limit legislative powers, Mr Lee asked: 'What's the point of having a legislature if we can't amend laws introduced by the Government?'