individually, but the main factors are:
a)
Age. The 13 officers are aged between 41 and 61. Three of them (Mr R J Wallace, Mr Russell and Mr P Dale) are already over 60.
There would be no point in taking them on. Three more (Mr W W Wallace, Mr Bain and Mr Reardon) will reach 60 by the end of 1984. We should also leave them out of consideration, allowing them to retire from their present posts. The others need more careful consideration two of them are in their mid-fifties; Mr Lloyd will be 55 this year and 60 in 1986, so we could leave him to retire under his present arrangements as a career HMOCS officer. With HMOCS skills in very short supply, however, he could expect a spell as governor somewhere before retirement. Mr D K H Dale is in a similar position. He will be 55 in 1982 and 60 in 1987 and could also be left out of consideration for the DS even if given another spell as governor.
The other five are aged 50 or under.
b) Career Prospects. There would presumably be no difficulty over leaving the six older officers to retire from their present posts. We would not have to worry much, either, about the careers of the two officers in their mid-fifties (Mr Lloyd and Mr D K H Dale) who could be expected to retire from their next posts. More thought will have to be given, however, to the careers of the other five; Mr Gillet and Mr Redston in particular will not reach 60 until 1998 and 1999. Their relative youth makes it impossible to leave them where they are, but their valuable experience, coupled with the difficulty which some of them might have in adapting to new DS skills, suggests they might continue to specialise in dependent territory work. Such specialisation, although contrary to normal DS practice and therefore constituting special treatment, would presumably not present us with any great difficulties.
c) Hong Kong, Mr Lloyd is on secondment from Hong Kong. When deciding whether to give him the option to join the DS (unlikely on grounds of age - see a) above) we would have to decide what should be our criteria in dealing with suggest- ions that the option be extended to staff currently serving in Hong Kong. Such an extension would be out of the question.
Cost of Integration
6. Subject to the detailed implications of paragraph 3 above, the basic cost should be very little or nothing, since the officers concerned would continue to be paid largely as they are now. There would simply be a change of status from HMOCS to seconded DS.
Implications of Secondment Status
7.
As seconded officers, former HMOCS officers should suffer no change in local status. As far as their DS status is concerned, they would be indistinguishable from the DS officers currently serving in the dependent territories on secondment (see annex C) except where exception had been made and reserved rights exerci- sed.
Administrative Improvements
8.
Integration would provide an opportunity to simplify the present arrangements for the payment and recovery of the salary
/and