ساتا
215,
Hidden
copy
to:
Aus (c)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Main Building, Whitehall, London SWIA 2HB Telephone (Direct Dialling) 01-218 6144
(Switchboard) 01-218 9000
Enter Package.
J27/3
D/Sec(0)(C)/6/7
Mrs E Grimsey Immigration Department Home Office London
нко 340/4
RECEIVED IN REGISTRY
2 4 MAY 1990
23 March 1990
DESK OFFICER INDEX
PA
REGISTRY
Action Taken
DEN Mrs Gansey,
HONG KONG RIGHT OF ABODE:
1.
GARRISON LOCALLY ENTERED STAFF
We are due to meet on Monday to discuss the way forward in the treatment of garrison staff following the outcome of OD(K) on 15 March, but I thought it would be useful to write in advance setting out a particular concern of ours, on the coverage of Disciplined Services Scheme.
2.
We accept that there is now no prospect of a separate allocation for garrison staff, but it is not easy to see why the locally entered uniformed staff (what we term the LEPs) should be excluded from the Disciplined Services Scheme. They appear to be the only disciplined body not to be included; moreover exclusion means that individuals with almost exact counterparts in eg the Hong Kong police will be treated less favourably. All this is contrary to OD (K)'s recognition that garrison locally entered staff should not be disadvantaged compared with their counterparts working for the Hong Kong government (page 3 of the minutes of the OD (K) meeting held on 20 July 1989).
3. This was raised by the Defence Secretary at last week's meeting but the only points adduced in the minutes against an allocation for the garrison within this scheme - that it would involve a special concession for the garrison and create a precedent for other groups
seem to be based on a misunderstanding (perhaps because it was not sufficiently clear that a distinction was being drawn between uniformed and civilian locally entered staff). Moreover, on the assumption that the same DSS "success rate" one in six were to apply, the 1500 uniformed staff would generate only 250 assurances - quite small
CONFIDENTIAL