MANAGEMENT IN CONFIDENCE
COVERING CONFIDENTIAL - STAFF IN CONFIDENCE
ANA 430!! Co
Miss Brett Rooks
HKGD, K 270
BBR
28
1. I am a little worried about this submission and feel that I must ask a fairly fundamental question at the beginning. Does the PUS in fact have power to authorise the sort of expenditure and changes in conditions of service for people serving in Dependent Territories as you are asking him to do? It would be normal for us to have to consult the CSD in this sort of case and indeed there would normally also be some sort of consideration with the Staff Side.
It may be that your department has some special sort of delegated authority but I am not sure.
2. Apart from this, I should like to make some comments on what has been proposed. For a start there are plenty of DS4 Officers, including some Heads of Mission, who are serving in posts which are a good deal less pleasant than those we are considering.
You may know that in PSD at present we are drawing up tables to differentiate between the various levels of hardship at the 100 most difficult posts to which Diplomatic Service Officers can be sent. Our evidence from most of the posts you are considering, with the exception of Anguilla, is that they do not come anywhere near the top category. In any case bad conditions at posts are covered by the payment of EDSA and the addition of Unhealthy Leave Addition where appropriate. We have also been considering the whole question of annual leave for Heads of Mission and have run into snags there too, not only of cost but also that of equity with other Diplomatic Service staff stationed at the post concerned. It would not be right to bring back the Governors in British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands and Saint Helena, and not extend the facility to their staffs. We do not see the Staff Side, for one, agreeing to such an arrangement without some form of protest.
3. All this means that PSD would not be happy to see the difficulties experienced by the Governors in living conditions at their posts compensated for in the way in which you suggest.
4.
We do not see how an allowance of £1,000 p a for extra responsibilities could be awarded without the prior agreement of the Civil Service Department. In present circumstances a water- tight case would have to be put to them and I am not sure without seeing the Inspectors' recommendations in full, whether such a case could be made out. In any case, it seems very doubtful to us whether an allowance could be made quite arbitrarily non-taxable without contravening UK Taxation regulations.
5.
I realise that this is not from your point of view a very helpful minute. I shall be glad to discuss it with you at any time.
1)Ts usedian de-bieging.
G107.3pm.
a) Inform Braut f wetting.
of 1) Carseat Finance Jept. ✓
5 September 1980
T Bryant
Personnel Services Department
MANAGEMENT IN CONFIDENCE
CODE 18-77
COVERING CONFIDENTIAL
SS 8/78
STAFF IN CONFIDENCE