Reference.....
*
Fed
Mr. Blaine
Department.
(Commonwealth Co-ordination
Parliamentary Question
in Dependent Territories.
Ombudsmen
I am replying to your minute of 17 March on the above subject.
2.
With respect, I think that the reply as drafted gives the impression that HMG do not consider that there is any need for the appointment of an Ombudsman in any dependent territory. I do not think that this is
necessarily the case. I accordingly suggest that the reply should also include the suggested reply to the first supplementary question and that it might read on the following lines:
member
"No, my Lord. Machinery already exists in dependent territories whereby any number of the public can bring any grievances that he may have to the notice of the authorities.
However, should the Goverment of any dependent territory express a wish to appoint an Ombudsman Her Majesty's Government would
^
of course give the matter careful and sympathetic
consideration.
3.
11.
The above is a somewhat long reply, but since it is a House of Lords Question
I do not think that this would matter greatly.
4.
As regards the draft nots for supplementaries
I suggest the substitution of the following for the draft reply to supplementary number 3:
"Yes, in Hong Kong. In that case it has been decided that before any conclusion is reached on the subject, steps should first be taken to strengthen the machinery which already exists to enable members of the public to bring their complaints to the notice of the authorities."
5. The idea of an Ombudsman has been under consideration in Hong Kong since 1965.
I doubt whether the reference to "City District Officer" would mean very much in the House
of Lords without some painting in of back- ground. (Although a report of the first year's operation of the City District Officer scheme in Hong Kong was placed in the libraries of both Houses of Parliament in June or July 1969)
6. I am not sure how far supplementary questions will be permitted to stray from the general to the particular, but in case supplementaries are asked about the existing machinery in Hong Kong, you may like to make use of the information given in paragraph 2 of the supplementary notes at (24) on the 1968/69 volume of this file (in which case I should be grateful for a further sight of the draft notes to make sure that they are presented in an up-to-date form).
7. If the amendment to the proposed sub- stantive reply as suggested above is accepted,
}