- 6
CLAUSE
22(2)
(ii)
24
26
28(3)
30
33
REMARKS
In the circumstances of Crown Colony Government it seems controversial to give the right to the Commissioner to table in Legislative Council a report stating, in effect, that the Governor has not agreed to remedy the matter, and that he (the Commissioner) is in dispute with the Governor. This point has also been raised by the Commonwealth Office: see point 1 under "General Remarks" below.
The Defence Secretary has commented:-
"I don't feel particularly happy about the extent of the Commissioner's freedom from questioning. Surely a Commissioner (or one of his subordinates to whom he has almost unfettered powers to delegate) should be open to challenge on the grounds of prejudice, incompetence or bad faith or is the answer to this that we have our opportunity to challenge his findings when the C.S. reports to Leg.Co. and he ought to be protected from legal proceedings?"
Since the Commissioner's reports are absolutely privileged, and the power of decision as to whether disciplinary action against a civil servant lies not with him but with the Colonial Secretary, it seems undesirable that reports should publish officers by name. An officer has no protection against press reproduction of the report, and this may prejudice his case, or hold him up to "hatred, ridicule and contempt" even if subsequently no action against him is deemed justified.
It appears that this is an administrative decision which should be taken by the Colonial Secretary or the Deputy Colonial Secretary.
This seems controversial. See remarks against clause 22(2) above. In the last resort, should not the Governor (or the Secretary of State?) have power to excise a particular portion of the Commissioner's report e.g. if such portion were liable to cause embarrassment to the Government in its relations with a foreign power?
Under the UK Act Her Majesty in Council may remove or insert entries in the Schedule. There seems to be no reason why, in Hong Kong, the Governor in Council's power should be confined to circumstances of abolition of re-organisation. For example, it might become necessary for political reasons to remove a department from the schedule.
First Schedule:
(i) (ACS-C)
A variety of comments have been offered by Heads of Branches on the First Schedule:
The range of activities to be subject to scrutiny by the Commissioner in Hong Kong is wider than in the U.K. since the U.K. Act does not enable the Commissioner to deal with complaints against local authorities. Hence it may be advisable to consider whether the Commissioner will be able to cover the potentially vast range of public complaints in Hong Kong.
/It is.....