SECRET
←
The
that officers may remain in service on existing terms and conditions. If my memory serves me, that was not an unusual provision in POAS with Governments of independent states. opportunity for retirment is not so much a matter that there is no longer a job that is a question of redundancy; the right to retire is a consequence of a change in the constitutional status of the territory concerned and although Mr Maude's letter of 21 August 1989 to Mr Taylor makes the point that a person in the service of the SAR would not be working for the Chinese authorities, such a person would be working in the PRC for a subordinate government of the PRC, however autonomous that subordinate government may be.
8.
Thirdly, there is the question of inducement for future service. Sub-para (b) of your proposal is a straight-forward inducement proposal and, incidentally, unintentionally or not, the draft submission does tend to confuse the compensation scheme of one tenth with nine annual payments, the latter only being paid (and again this is not made clear) to those who remain for the next 8 or 9 years. The scheme is in fact two schemes. First, a highly limited compensation scheme and a separate inducement scheme.
9.
To turn, tentatively, to your questions, though, as I have said above, I need further information before I can give a more definitive view, I think the issue on question (a) is essentially a policy and precedent question not a legal one. I do not however exclude the possibility that attempts might be made to invoke the courts jurisdiction in judicial review to examine a scheme on these lines on the basis of a failure to give effect to expectations (the decisions of the courts in judicial review are now so confusing as to make it almost impossible, even as regards a quasi employment issue, to exclude that possibility). However, confining myself to the policy and precdent point of view, I believe that the most serious element in the scheme is the absence of a right of retirement. I believe that the Government could properly be criticised by an HMOCs lobby if, on the resumption of Chinese rule, a member of HMOCS could only avoid continuing to serve in Hong Kong at the cost of his earned pension. It will be argued, with every justification that he should have the right to leave with his earned pension.
10. The amount of compensation is a much more difficult matter. Clearly you believe that some compensation should be paid. That being so, it requires some objective basis for determining what the compensation should be. Again, what is the objective basis of one tenth?
11. As regards paragraph (b) of your questions, not to consult the staff would be a departure from paragraph 17 of the 1961 Paper. That is a reasonable expectation in view of
SECRET
/that