CONFIDENTIAL
Referenc
File (205)
Mr Ricketts
нка 233/1
¦ PRINCIPAL OFFICIALS: HMOCS MEMBERS: LIMITED COMPENSATION
SCHEME
1. I have discussed with Mr Fifoot the implications of paragraph 1(a) of Hong Kong telno 965 on what we are doing for HMOCS officers and how this could be coordinated with activity on Principal Officials.
где
2. Implication of this paragraph is that a fair number of HMOCS officers will face a genuine barrier to advancement post-1997 and will not be compensated for it by the SARG. This will apply to many administrative officers and to some police- in the latter it will depend on how vigorous the SARG is in localisation policy. This being the case, the generousity of our scheme begins to fall away. The HKG has recognised that if an officer is superceded for promotion he should be compensated. This term and condition of service is quite likely to cease in 1997. Our scheme will therefore only give such officers what they would have been entitled to under the HKG scheme it gives nothing else to compensate the officers for the change of sovereignty and the loss of the Secretary of State's protection.
3.
Mr Fifoot does not think this gives us any legal/judicial review problem vis-a-vis our scheme - it merely reinforces that our scheme is not particularly generous. However he has suggested that we may be able to negotiate an improvement for HMOCS officers if in the context of our discussions with the Chinese on prinicpal officials in general, we can persuade them that certain aspects of the HKG limited compensation scheme should continue post-1997
4.
As you know, the Chinese are keener than we to start negotiations in this area. Although we do not hold much of a lever over them since they can do whatever they want come 1997 - they do genuinely appear to want to have a joint approach. If their attitude in this subject is cooperative, we might be able to persuade them that it was in their interests to retain that part of the limited compensation scheme which dealt with supercession for promotion in pursuance of localisation.
This is not something for action now but I bring it to your attention so that we do not lose in the future.
5.
Mill star
M V Stone
2 April 1992
cc: Mr Cox o/r
Miss Brooks, Legal Adviser Mr Fifoot, Legal Consultant
REGACJ
CODE 18-77
CONFIDENTIAL