CONFIDENTIAL
we have found it necessary to say specifically that no "punishment" is involved suggests that this might not be the case under R.55.
6. In any case, however, it seems to me that even under R.59 it is not necessary to reveal all the grounds on which the officer's retirement is contemplated. Furthermore the Governor agreed that, in 9 cases out of 10, an officer dealt with under R.59 might well go quietly, with R.55 in reserve if he proved recalcitrant. I think therefore that the regulations as drafted in fact provide virtually everything the Governor asks for.
7.
It is also perhaps relevant that it is not the case, as Sir A. Blair-Kerr suggests, that the FCO insisted on a form of R.59 which was not acceptable to Hong Kong. This regulation was drafted in Hong Kong. Our objection was to the deletion of R.61 and 62.
8. There remains the suggestion of amending the Pensions Ordinance. I am doubtful of this for several reasons. One, raised by Mr Scott, is that staff associations in Hong Kong would expect reciprocal rights to retire before 45. Second, if we are to avoid endless petitions to the Secretary of State there is something to be said for a degree of formality in compulsory retirement provisions. In discussions with the Governor we touched briefly on the "three wise men" provision. If we did accept Sir A. Blair-Kerr's proposed change I think we would have to suggest a suitable comment. Third, Sir A. Blair-Kerr's suggestion is linked to the deletion of R.59. I wonder if this is necessary or desirable. My instinct is that, since these would not be simple cases of retirement, the half-way house of R.59 would normally be the right one to use. It is also relevant that, under R.59, practically all cases including those of local officers would have to be approved by the Secretary of State, which is what the Governor says he wants, while under the Pensions Ordinance the Secretary of State's approval would only be required for a restricted group of senior officers.
9.
To sum up, I think that the suggestion in paragraph 2 (ii) of Miss Kelly's notes for reply to the Governor is the right one. I would be grateful for your early comments
ACR-
A C Stuart
Hong Kong & Indian Ocean Department
20 September 1973
CONFIDENTIAL