GODE 18-**
ADMIN IN CONFIDENCE
(37)
HKA 431/13
Reference
нка 431 13.
2 2 JUN 1981
Mr Thorpe PSD via Mr Morrice
nu cupt
Nozo
CRIA
Action in hand.
34/3 weeks.
717.
...
пе
PA
BR
len
POSSIBLE ABSORPTION OF HMOCS OFFICERS INTO THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE
(36)
1. Please refer to your minute of 11 June copied to me.
2.
You asked whether we have any obligation towards the officers referred to in paragraph 2 of my minute of 18 May. We have no obligation, but it is convenient to be able to retain the services and expertise of these officers by offering them continuous employment rather than risking losing them if there is a prolonged gap between jobs. It was not our intention that they should be used in mainstream DS work, but rather specialise in Dependent Territory work (paragraph 4 of my minute of 18 May); is this feasible or would there be an administrative objection to such a restriction?
3.
1
The selection process would need to be done by a Board; the officers did not sit an exam as a prerequisite for entry and consequently do not have a certificate. The officers are certainly employed by another public service', although retired from HMOCS; but it would be unfair to give them an advantage over other candidates, e.g. the Armed Forces and their OCS colleagues who presumably transferred to the DS through an exam, by accepting them without a qualifying test. I am not sure whether we should ourselves propose those who should go to the Board or whether we should put them all up and let the Board choose; the latter course might be less invidious.
4.
You are right in assuming that the DS has an existing right to appoint whom it wills to existing senior posts as this demonstrates the Secretary of State's responsibility for the good administration of the Dependent Territories. This responsibility is exercised by HKGD at official level although submission is made to the
for Governors. I am afraid that the mechanics appear to have been set out in as much detail
and I am not able to contribute more.
Secretary of State of the deal do not as you would like;
In my
5. You enquired whether we were not being unfair to Hong Kong Government employees by not offering them a similar option. view, this does not create a precedent the officers we are considering at present are private individuals (not HMOCS) with particular skills, who are submitting to an exam for entry; there are slots available for them. Hong Kong civil servants similarly qualified could do likewise if manpower ceilings permitted. Colonial civil servants are vulnerable in respect of security of tenure from coups or independence, and financial arrangements are usually made for them by HMG as far as pensions and compensation go; it is not feasible to guarantee them a job in UK Government Service.
6. Mr Clift has enquired separately about the position of HK officers who sometimes move over to other Dependent Territories on transfer; if it is a permanent transfer, they are no longer Hong Kong employees and would presumably fall under paragraph 5 above; if it is a secondment, they remain Hong Kong employees and are not affected.
ADMIN IN CONFIDENCE
17.