pension safeguards. Mr Stanbrook will be in the forefront of such support. It is likely to be a matter of principle for the lobby: which can be most effective, witness their
success in obtaining an Early Day Motion which more than
half of all MPs signed on pensions for war widows (?). If
MPS feel that HMG is reneging an commitments, we could face
serious criticism.
Line to Take
21.
As set out above, it is inevitable that when we
promulgate the compensation scheme, we shall be asked direct
questions on sterling safeguards both for the scheme and for pensions. We will need to have replies ready. This issue might best be considered in two parts: pre-1997 and
post 1997.
Pre 1997
22. The arrangements for HKG pensions up to 1997 must be a
matter for HKG. HMG's responsibility for providing for
adequate safeguards, (including sterling safeguards) for
HMOCS members has always related to the period after the
change of sovereignty. This was achieved by concluding a Public Officers Agreement with the successor Government. Demands therefore from current HMOCS pensioners for
protection pre 1997 should be directed at HKG.
23.
Circumstances where HMG might consider it had a role
pre 1997 would arise if concern about the position post 1997 was having a deliterious effect on the current
administration and on our ability to maintain
administration up to 1997. Serving HMOCS members would
argue that this is now the case. HMG would seem to have 3 options open to tackle this:
ROZAUD/9