24/01/92
11:38
OVERSEAS DEV ADM
NO. 022
002
46
HKA 233/1
Mr P Ricketts
CONFIDENTIAL
Hong Kong Department/FCO
M
Mr. Qf
Mrustrex
Miss
In corporated.
Reference
From: D S FISH
(Ext 3444)
Date: 24 January 1992
cc Mr J V Kerby copy then puter pls.
Нашеше?
Mi
HONG KONG: HMOCS MATTERS
10
1. A minute is on its way to you, offering some further comments on your letter of 17 Januáry to Sandra Brown. In the meantime Michael Stone has shown me A copy of the draft of a further submission to the Secretary of State.
2. As you know I have all along been a strong advocate of the one package approach. I continue to have real doubts about the wisdom or indeed practicality of separating the incentive scheme from the issue of sterling safeguards, but given the most recent advice from the Governor I can understand why you have decided on a different approach.
3.
I do agree that we must allow
allow the Treasury alternative methods of providing the safeguard but separation of to examine the issues will certainly relieve the pressure on them to search for a solution. I can imagine that it might be possible to buy time by announcing that we recognise our obligation to ensure that pension values are safeguarded but that we are some determining how this should be done.
way from If we fail to accept that we have any obligations in this area, I fear that the storm will break immediately both in Hong Kong and here you will have seen Lord Grey's letter to Lord Caithness seeking an answer principle involved, in absence of a decision on the detail.
-
on the
4. I have no specific amendments to suggest to the draft, other than to ask that paragraph 13 (as renumbered) should make a clear reference to the point made by John Kerby in his letter of 16 January to Andrew Burns about the ability of HMOCS officers to decide their futures without any guarantee about the ultimate value of their pensions. We know that the compensation/incentive scheme will not be well received and that the absence of even a commitment in principle to a safeguard is likely further to weaken the incentive effect of the scheme. The Secretary of State needs to be clear about the importance of the safeguard for HMOCS officers in the context of their assessment of the value of our incentive proposals.
5.
Finally, could I remind you that if/when we get to the point of Ministerial correspondence, it is important that all letters to the Treasury should be cleared with our Finance Department.
D S FISH
Jul
Overseas Pensions Department.
24 January 1992
CONFIDENTIAL