13 December 1990
W A Blye Esq
Thank you for your letter of 9 December to Lord Caithness, to which I have been asked to reply. In your letter you raised substantial doubts about the three points made in Lord Caithness' letter on the position of HMOCS pensioners.
I agree that new recruits to the Hong Kong Government are now unable to earn their full pension entitlement in 3313 years. Lord Caithness was however referring to the body of Hong Kong civil servants to which HMOCS members belong. These would have joined when the pension earning rate meant that full pension could be obtained within 3313 years. Those still in the service can remain on these terms if they so wish. I do not think it necessarily relevant to compare these terms with those obtaining service in the diplomatic service. The comparison should be with the bulk of Home Civil Servants who will obviously comprise the great majority of UK Civil Service pensioners.
The other two points are essentially related. The point that we are trying to convey is that the ODA, who are entirely familiar with the levels of pension benefits given to HMOCS members from all previous territories and who are aware of the pension benefits Home Civil Servants, tell us that Hong Kong Civil Servants continue to do well in comparison to their UK counterparts and to HMOCS pensioners retired from other territories. This of course must be a generalised statement. In considering total pension benefits, we must also take account of any commutation that Hong Kong pensioners might have taken when they first retired the length of service they may have had in Hong Kong, and therefore, any mixed pension arrangements that they may be under. Our information is that somebody who spent their career in Hong Kong, and did not take any commutation of pension, and retired in the last, say 14 years (to fit in with the actuarialy assessed average life span of a pensioner following retirement), is doing better than his UK counterpart.
ROZAVH