CODE 18-77
SECRET
Mr Fish, Pensions Department
ODA, East Kilbride
This 931/6
FICE
Reference
RECE
MAY 1990
tur Taken
29
려
HONG KONG: COMPENSATION/INCENTIVE SCHEME FOR MEMBERS OF
HMOCS
1.
18
(23
で
I have been looking again at Mr Fifoot's minutes of 15 March and 11 April and your minute of 30 March on this subject. At the end of paragraph 5 of his minute of 15 March, Mr Fifoot states that the loss of the Secretary of State's protection and the prospect of continuing in a very different service milieu from present can be held to justify compensation and has been so held in a number of cases in the past.
2.
You do not seem to have picked up this point in your minute of 30 March and I should be grateful for your comments on it. In general we will obviously have to be very well armed with knowledge of all the precedents and why none of them should apply in Hong Kong's case. Mr Fifoot raises some issues in paragraphs 2 and 3 of his minute of 15 March which I think we should also have answers to before we meet HMOCS members.
3. I should also like to take up one of the points that you have made strongly on a number of occasions and that concerns the fact that staff have a written guarantee about future employment and pensions as set out in the Joint Declaration. You go on to argue that the compensation that has been paid in the past which was for loss of career is therefore not appropriate. Indeed your minute of 30 March states "our scheme has been prepared on the basis that there is no loss of career". I have been looking at the 1960 White Paper on this which seems to give conflicting advice. In paragraph 16 there is a sentence which reads "in one or 2 schemes local conditions have been such that the transfer of the Secretary of State's authority to an Executive Public Service Commission has not of itself prejudiced the career of expatriate officers and compensation has at this stage been limited to individual cases of loss of career." Of course this should be read in conjunction with the fact that these officers would have been given the option to retire early with early payment of pension. Paragraph 17 goes on to describe how future schemes would be organised. Sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) are particularly relevant. Paragraph (b) clearly indicates that those who were "free to continue to serve" would receive compensation.
4. I therefore find it difficult to accept your contention that because there is in theory no loss of career this means that no compensation should be payable. It seems clear that
BATAHD
SECRET