I do not think there is much difficulty in answering the compensation argument. It is legitimate to take the line that there is a substantial difference between para 2 a) officers and HMG's scheme officers in that the former get the total sum provided by the HK scheme in one payment whether they stay or go and the latter get only [one fifth of that sum] and have to work in the future to get more. Those differences are sufficient having regard to what follows I think it would be difficult to say more than sufficient) to compensate the para 2 a) officers for all relevant elements.
The problem comes with the inducement elements (and whatever we call them, the subsequent payments are only made conditional on officers earning them over a number of future years). What do we say to the para 2 a) officers who argue that they may stay or go and, if we want them to stay, they should be eligible for the same inducement payments ? Do we say blankly that there is no question that the UK scheme will extend to any officer who benefits from the HK scheme. even if the elements of the two schemes are different; the para 2 a) officers are entitled to a substantial benefit over and above that payable under the HMG scheme (a hostage so far as HMG scheme officers are concerned); and we do not propose to offer inducements to the former?
NOTE 2
HMG scheme and subsequent supercession
The HK scheme is presently intended to finish on 30th June 1997. I understand the reasons HK advance for this so far as paras 2 b), c), d) and e) are concerned (though I do not recall that this was the case in earlier schemes and, in logic, there is no reason to bring it to an end at that time), but those same reasons need not necessarily apply to para 2 a).
It is possible that there will be supercession after 1997 and there are, therefore, good reasons to go to the Chinese with a proposal for retaining at least that part of the HK scheme; though any payments made after 1997 should be reduced by any sums paid under HMG's scheme.
If the HK scheme is not retained after 1997, should we be considering provision in the HMG scheme in respect of officers (other than para 2 a) officers) who stay on but are superceded after 1997? At the minimum, there is a case for ensuring that if an officer is superceded during the course of a years service for which he will be entitled to an inducement payment, he should be entitled to the whole payment [forthwith] for that year and not a mere apportioned part. The officers may argue that, in this event, they are entitled to more, i.e. that they should be put in the same position as those who were eligible under para 2 a) of the HK scheme and therefore should receive the balance of the notional sum forthwith.
NOTE 3
Officers who are required to retire, or die, after 1997
3