have everything needed to make them work as effectively as possible, and that we are, by
that much at least, clearer on the need for
a Commissioner".
4. The Governor probably shares these doubt and appears disposed to let matters rest on this basis. In any event further progress will not be possible until unofficials are
< Take in sty - brought round to a favourable view and a realisation that existing arrangements,
however much improved, do not provide a
substitute.- To this end, the Minister might continue to argue the case for a Commissione
possible lines of argument are
Матери
(1) Administrative machinery for the
redress of grievances may well be impartial and effective but is
it, and will it continue to be, publicly seen and accepted as such
(e.g. by dissatisfied complainants)?
(ii) In the U.K. Members of Parliament
have access to Ministers in charge of departments against whose actions complaints are made and often this channel is very effective in airing
and/or redressing grievances.
But there have been some classic
cases in which M.Ps. representing
the interests of members of the
public have not been successful in getting to the root of the matter and ensuring that justice is done (e.g. the Crichel Down case). It is against this eventuality that provision should be made.
(iii)
On the U.K. analogy see (ii) above -
www
there could be a place in Hong Kong
both for UMELCO action and a
Commissioner, the former shielding
the Commissioner from obviously
trivial or straight-forward
complaints, while handing on to him
those of some complexity requiring
lengthy investigation.
/ This
...
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THỊ