CODE 18-77
SS 8/78
LAST PAPER
Mr Morrice
Bu 19/1/81 to
Reference. JH. #4.38/1
.16
&BR
ar
Miss Butt Rooks o.r. grey 2/1/81.
CONFIDENTIAL: STAFF IN CONFIDENCE
Morfice 12
Miss Brett
NOTED
Roots Speran mo nanice. Agiveed not to feature suliifically
on Agenda. Ma i can handle ad hoc if necesary.
mid-sau. To me to dow typolipueues loìth csg one 1979 annual leave avergt- I have discussed the attached draft submission with Mr Goulden in PSD. I am afraid that the result is that we shall have to approach this problem differently. In the first place, Mr Goulden is sure that we would not get away with submitting this to the Chief Clerk without having examined in detail the implications for DS and ODA staff (paragraph 9(a) of the draft).
GOVERNORS' TERMS OF SERVICE Bu id-sau
nett 18112
2. Secondly, I do not accept the proposition that we make a case for all Governors across the board, either for responsibility allowance or for annual leave. It is, I am afraid, not convincing to argue that the pressures on all Governors are similar. Hamilton is a case where the pressures are not great, the compensations are and the Governor can easily get away to the States. But even without that extreme the posts are different. I do not think that we can use the Inspectors' recommendation here for posts which he has not visited.
3. Having said that, PSD are strongly of the view that we are unlikely to get anywhere with the CSD by arguing a case for Governors alone. They are generally fairly unsympathetic to this. Indeed, Mr Wilson's letter of 30 July 1979 to Mr Quantrill really bears this out since in that CSD were arguing for standardisation between the Governors and the other staff at their posts.
4. A further point is that I regard the case for a responsibility allowance, although much cheaper, as much less well founded than that for annual leave for some of the Governors. I am not very convinced by Mr Holloway's argument that Governors bear greater responsibility than Grade 4 High Commissioners, and I doubt if the CSD would be either.
5. I would like, therefore, to tackle the problem on a post by post basis in the first instance. I think we should look at Grand Turk, Tortola and Montserrat and see whether we can justify annual leave for all staff. This will mean talking to PSD and ODA. If there are other posts for which you think a reasonable case can be made, by all means examine them too.
6. The aim would be to submit to the CSD/Chief Clerk on this post by post basis. I realise that the problem may be that, particularly with a place like Montserrat, material conditions may be such that a general case cannot be made. We shall then have to consider whether the Governor's isolation justifies a special dispensation, using among others the arguments of the Inspector.
7. One or two minor points:
a) In calculating the extra cost of annual leave, have
we subtracted all present expenditure on existing journeys including any concessionary journeys for school children which would become unnecessary?
CONFIDENTIAL : STAFF IN CONFIDENCE
/b)