aefl.mr/kw/7.4.2.
Subsidizing Commerial 6oan
out
Note on
are compensated. Yet annex A makes clear that compensation is only relevant where HMOCS members face "premature retirement," which is not the case for those in Hong Kong. Moreover, the 1960 White Paper which shifts at least part of the burden of paying compensation to HMG, explicitly excludes Hong Kong. You might principle? therefore amend the first sentence of your first paragraph to say: "HMG have commitments, set out in two White Papers of 1954 and 1960, to ensure that HMOCS members' interests are safeguarded in the event of a change in their status arising from constitutional change."
I also suggest the following specific changes:
and/or
in second sentence of para 15 replace 'HMG' by 'HKG'.
to redraft the third sentence of paragraph 15 to read: "From HMG's viewpoint, this scheme could provide (at a quantifiable price before 1997) a means of safeguarding the sterling value of HMOCS pensions. This assumes that financial institutions
without seeking from HMG a
sovereign guarantee
to redraft next sentence to read: "No assessment has yet been made of the level of government involvement which might be necessary to make a scheme viable."
to redraft the penultimate sentence of paragraph 15 to read: "Experts are considering further whether this option (or variants of it) could be made a viable scheme, and if so at what cost. And to insert between this and the last sentence: "The Hong Kong Government's consultancy report is not expected before the end of February."
to delete the second half of the second sentence of paragraph 18, after the comma.
"
I suggest deleting from the paragraph in annex D (5) under the FCO/ODA scheme for a sterling safeguard: ... but recommended at 16:1." You might usefully point out the current exchange rate and say that any rate would be set some way below this. You might then add: "The scale of HMG's contingent liability under such a scheme would obviously depend upon the rate fixed, plus any other variable features such as linking such a safeguard to ensure parity of treatment with UK counterparts".
I agree with the proposal in paragraph 4 of Peter Ricketts' letter of 17 January to Sandra Brown to set out Departmental positions on each of the options, with the reordering you suggest, save for the following correction: the line after option (e) (No scheme), should read: "Departments differ on whether any scheme should be ruled out at this stage as failing to deal with the problem.
For your paragraphs on SPOS, Ι suggest that you delete "inconsistent with the Act's purpose" from the middle of paragraph 19 and "is unfair and" from the last sentence of that paragraph. I
!
012