TNAG-0106-FCO40-142-Proposals-to-appoint-an-Ombudsman-1969 — Page 137

have everything needed to make them work as

effectively as possible, and that we are, by

thet much at least, clearer on the need for

; and it is unlikely

before.

of mind. until they

that they would be converted to this frame had had an opportunity of assessing for

themselves whither. The existing awangements (and in particular the UMELCO office), after being improved to the maximum extent,

д),

* publicly acceptable

pravitied an adequate equally effective

Substitute. With these considerations in mind

possible lines of argumenre ar

(i)

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

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.

NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS M

/ This