CONFIDENTIAL
B
informing them that they would not be discriminated against in any arrangements that would apply to HMOCS officers; second the amount of compensation involved is likely to be small since it is Hong Kong's judgement that few of these officers will in fact decide to join
HMOCS and fewer still will be able to buy back the five years of service required to gain maximum
compensation.
8. Mr Fifoot's changes are largely a matter of presentation. The substance remains very much on the lines set out in my submission to the Secretary of State dated
24 January and reflected in his letter of 11 February to the Chief Secretary. This is attached, together with an extract from Annex C setting out the outlines of our compensation proposals. The two points on which our latest
proposals differ from that outline are:
(i) As a result of advice, (paragraph 7 (d) above), the
first payment will now be made on 30 June 1997 instead
of "in 1997, after transfer of sovereignty"; and
(ii) Again as a result of advice from Hong Kong and the lack
of any Chinese response (paragraph 7(h) above), payments in years after 1997 will be to the officers
and not held by HMG.
The key however, is that neither of these points affect the
cost and should not therefore be of concern to the
Treasury. We have had official level discussions with the
Treasury following the Secretary of State's minute, in which
the Treasury have shown little interest in the details of
our scheme. I have now written to them enclosing the draft statement and giving them a full account of the changes.
YOOACR/6
CONFIDENTIAL