CONFIDENTIAL
preventing the members of HMOCS seeking a judicial review, we should do what we can to avoid judicial criticism on the grounds of overly obscure presentation, or misrepresentation of what, in the event will be seen to have been our aims. This is not always easy when certain details of the scheme have yet to be negotiated. Even so the draft is now clearer, while still leaving us some negotiating room.
7.
On the basis of this advice, the following paragraphs
explain the revised text:
(a)
Paragraph 1. This reflects Lord Caithness' comments
and the letter to the HMOCS Association. It also takes
in para 4 of the previous draft, so as to improve the
flow.
(b)
(c)
(d)
Paragraph 2. The reason for this paragraph is to state at the outset in a clearer way why we are proceeding on
the basis that is described further in the statement.
We have deliberately not referred directly to the previous policy papers and to historical precedent.
Paragraph 3. This is intended to set our scheme in the Hong Kong context and to provide more of a link with the Hong Kong Government compensation scheme.
Paragraph 4 endeavours to set out more clearly exactly what it is we are proposing. The main difference is that we have stated clearly that a first payment would
be made on 30 June 1997. Previously we had considered taking up a negotiating position by initially saying that the first payment should be due on 30 June 1998. However it is difficult to argue that this is a compensation scheme if there are no payments to those
YOOACR/3
CONFIDENTIAL