TNAG-0106-FCO40-142-Proposals-to-appoint-an-Ombudsman-1969 — Page 202

8

CLAUSE

(iv) (DS):

(v) (PACS-L):

(vi) (ACS-G):

(vii) (EO):

REMARKS

I see no objection to Part I, provided that the arrangements to safeguard certain decisions necessitated on grounds of security are adequate. Part II is curiously constituted, and some items might well come out e.g. Board of Examiners, H.K. Tourist Association, H.K.T.D.C., Productivity Council and U.G.C. at least. Others perhaps should go in, e.g. Authorized Auditors Board, Town Planning Board, School Medical Servico Board, Television Authority, Telecommunications Authority etc. I think the various auxiliary forces can stay in, but their own internal disciplinary decisions should be safeguarded as are those of Government and the Regular Forces. (NOTE: There are many other statutory bodies such as those listed by the

Are all their decisions to be subject to investigation?)

D.S.

As regards Part III of the First Schedule, I would suggest that this covers all organisations who are the creatures of Ordinances, e.g. The Heung Yee Kuk, the Helena May Institute, the C.U. HKU etc. If private bodies do not want to be subject to scrutiny, they can always seek repeal of the legislation in question and revert to the Companies Ordinance or Reg. Trustees Ordinance.

There is no objection to the Commissioner being entitled to "interfere" in the U.G.C. The U.G.C. does not deal with individual cases at the moment so that it is unlikely that the Commissioner would decide to investigate any complaint in view of Section 14(e).

I agree that the labour sphere is one which needs special consideration, particularly if the Industrial Relations Bill, work on which has not really yet commenced, contains any statutory powers for C. of L. to settle industrial disputes. Nevertheless, this can be considered when drafting on the Bill is more advanced.

Pension matters for the service are specifically excluded under para.9 of the Second Schedule, yet the Directors of the Widow and Orphans Pension scheme are included in Part II of the Schedule thus opening their decisions to investigation. If it is intended that dependants of Government Officers should have recourse to the Commissioner, I see no particular objection. But as para.9 of the Second Schedule is now worded W & O pensions are pensions in relation to service in an office under the Crown. Some amendment may be required because the two appear to be mutually exclusive, i.e. the Directors' decisions are related to pensions in the excluded category.

Second Schedule:

(1) It would appear that the definition of "tribunal" should be

extended so as to cover oertain statutory rights of appeal which are not in fact made to a 'tribunal'. In particular it may be desirable to exclude from the sphere of the Commissioner:

Decisions of the Governor personally (see also note (ii) below) and of the Governor in Council: whether made on appeal or otherwise.

as

Decisions of such bodies (not necessarily 'tribunals') the Inland Revenue Board of Roview, the Urban Council in its appelate jurisdiction etc.

/(ii).....