CONFIDENTIAL
on it before Easter, and that we are adjusting the operation of SPOS (Supplementary Pension for Overseas Service) to make it more equitable for Hong Kong HMOCS pensioners.
B 4.
The Chief Secretary's reply of 24 February is a classic Treasury try-on: he says he will agree to announcing compensation (already agreed in 1988) and SPOS adjustment (small beer) provided we agree now to renounce any future HMG funding of sterling safeguards, which is by far the largest item, and the most significant for HMOCS officers.
5. On sterling safeguards, the Treasury assume that if HMG decided to wash their hands of these HMOCS officers, the Hong Kong Government would eventually find some money to throw at the problem. But this ignores the political and diplomatic realities. Thus the Treasury approach would be to abandon a commitment which successive governments have made to HMOCS officers since 1960. It would also be likely to provoke an exodus of key police officers and civil servants from Hong Kong, undermining our ability to administer Hong Kong in the difficult years up to 1997, and perhaps precipitating a broad collapse of confidence.
6.
The Chief Secretary also proposes further discussion by officials of the details of our compensation proposal. This looks like time-wasting. Last November Treasury officials floated orally the idea of targeting compensation: we explained that this would not meet the bill; they did not pursue the notion during their FCO-funded visit to Hong Kong last December, but after the Governor's visit here in January told us that they still wished to discuss this - however they have so far been unable to find time to hold a meeting about it.
NC1ABU/2
CONFIDENTIAL