2
and because the overpayment in the first place was the fault
of the Hong Kong Inland Revenue Department, the Hong Kong Government have agreed to make Mrs Penhearow an ex gratia payment H(13) of £50. (Hong Kong telegram No 222 of 8 February.)
I
4
5 This outcome follows Mr Blaker's comment in his minute of 11 January
on my submission of 8 January. In this he also asked whether there was
a procedure in Hong Kong similar to the Ombudsman system, to which
Mrs Penhearow could have recourse if she were not satisfied by our
reply. The appropriate procedure for any individual in a Dependent
Territory who wishes to complain about any action of the Government,
is to petition the Governor, the Secretary of State or The Queen.
By taking up her case with an MP who then raised it with an FCO Minister,
Mrs Penhearow has achieved the same effect as if she had petitioned
the Secretary of State. It is of course possible for people to put
complaints through UMELCO, but these would also be raised by the
unofficial members with the Hong Kong Government. UMELCO can probe and
challenge the answers of Government departments, just as the Minister has done, but it does not have an Ombudsman-type power to pronounce
a verdict on a case. Thus I do not think Mrs Penhearow would in
practice get any further through UMELCO than she has done already.
14 February 1980
Dip
R D Clift
Hong Kong and General Department
MARB.
14/r.