IC
Reference.........
00
j
ota
1.
cannot simply shrug off responsibilities even for the "basic" element of the post-independence portion of their pensions.
I
4. As regards the third paper I agree that, so far as West Indian Department is concerned, the question does arise whether Bahamas and Bermuda should be excluded from H.M.G."s field of responsibility. further agree, however, with the conclusion in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the paper that,' despite their wealth, they should not be excluded.
5. I have one other comment whic I feel bound to make although it relates to a matter which is not my own departmental responsibility. It concerns the first of the three papers, and it concerns in particular the question of East African expatriate Asians. It seems to me that certain parts of the first paper as it at present stands are highly objectionable on the grounds that they are quite frankly racialist in approach (for example, paragraphs 8 and 9) and appears to imply that it would be generally agreed as being a desiTable goal for H.M.G. to aim at to exclude the East African expatriate Asians from the field of H.M.G.'s proposed responsi-. bilities under the envisaged new scheme and to include the "British stock" East African pensioners. On the assumption (which I imagine is the position) that at any rate a large proportion of the Asians in question are citizens of the U.K. and Colonies (just like you or me) and have no other citizenship, and that the "British stock" East African pensioners referred to are citizens of the East African countries concerned, then all the arguments in relation to the proposed new scheme (except racial arguments) would point to including the former and excluding the latter, rather than the reverse, if one were looking for marginal ways of limiting the field of H.M.G.'s responsibility. Clearly there are in fact strong arguments (of different kinds) for including both categories, and I take it that this is the effect of the conclusions arrived at in paragraphs 31 and 32 of the first paper, although the "British stock" East African pensioners are not specifically mentioned there.
the
6. It is thus rot the conclusions of the first paper I am objecting to, but the tone of the Some discussion leading up to it. It seems to me that the paper ought to be discussing within the context of a broad conclusion that H.M.G. should take, over full responsibility for the pensions of overseas officers what categories of officer it would be right and proper to include. And this seems to me to be determined largely (as the paper itself recognises) by the commitments that H.M.G. has from time to time entered into in relation to various categories of officers. Purely racial considerations do not, it seems to me, properly come into the picture at all. I would make one further comment ..in relation to the East African expatriate Asians.
It is obvious that the difficult racial problems of Britain could be seriously exacerbated if there were a
/ large