(Z) Status: such an arrangement as you propose might raise doubts about the status of the officers concerned,
at both ends. If we each took
responsibility for paying our own
officers at the rates appropriate to their respective services ( and
for meeting the pension liability of our own officers arising from the period of service involved) it would
tend to blur the issue as to which
Government they are serving.
In a
sense they might be regarded as
"lent" or "attached", and in no way formally placed in the service of the
other government: it would be
almost as if they had been sent on
courses. What implications this (as distinct from the usual formal secondment terms) may have for such
matters as disciplinary control,
application of our respective
Official Secrets Acts, etc., we shall
have to look into. If you have not
already done so, you may want to
consider the danger that your
unofficials might regard officers
employed under such arrangements with
some suspicion. As you know, we have in the past had to move with great circumspection in relation to the Political Adviser's position in
order to make it clear that he is in
the service of the Hong Kong Government and is not an outpost of HMG. We shall need, I suggest, to
be equally careful in the case of any other Diplomatic Service officers working for the Hong Kong Government.
It would seem therefore that whatever
financial arrangements we might agree the exchanges must otherwise be brought strictly within the usual
secondment arrangements.
/ (2)
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN