нив 4311
- 9 APR 1990
E
SECRET
Taken
FROM:
DATE:
Mr Stone,
Hong Kong Department,
WH 312
Pa
HMocs ate.
Paul Fifoot,
Legal Advisers 15 March 1990
CC:
Mr Fish, ODA,
Pensions Dept,
Mr Paul, HKD
HONG KONG: COMPENSATION SCHEME FOR MEMBERS OF HMOCS
1. In case anyone thinks it is relevant, I think I had better start by stating for the record that some 25 years ago I myself was a beneficiary under a Compensation Scheme.
2.
I do not think that I can give you a definitive reply to all your questions at present because I am not satisfied that some of the premises in your minute are correct. First, has there always (at any rate since 1954) been a compensation scheme for a territory in which HMOCS officers have been serving at the time of independence? I have made a random search in the volumes of Statutory Instruments covering more recent years of the attainment of independence without finding Orders in Counsel dealing with compensation. This may be due to the fact that there were no HMOCS officers present in a territory, or to the fact that a scheme was introduced, as in the case of Fiji by a perogative order and the Statutory Publications office did not pick up the perogative order for inclusion in a particular year, or for some other reason. However, somewhere in ODA there must be material which can clear up that point. Secondly, have we always provided a right to retire once the circumstances set out in paragraph 3 of the Paper on Reorganisation of the Colonial Service ("the 1954 Paper") have been satisfied? I think the answer to this is no:
see the Fiji Compensation Order of 1970 which is included in 1970 SI, Part 2, Section 2, Page 4186. It appears from that Order that the only people who were entitled to retire and to receive compensation were those officers who were superceded or whose offices were localised or if it would have been unreasonable to require their continuance in the public service. There may be other cases where such conditions were placed on retirement and/or compensation.
3.
There is a third basic question. It is not clear to me that the 1954 Paper and the Paper on Service with Overseas Governments (the "1961 Paper") contain all the ground rules for retirement and compensation. In paragraph 6(6) of the 1954 Paper it is said that should a territory attain self government the relevant officers are entitled to expect that "in the event of premature retirement resulting from constitutional changes they will receive compensation...". Paragraph 17 of the 1961 Paper sets out a number of principles
SECRET
/to
PF1AAK