Under the Pensions laws, officers whose office is abolished, who are compulsorily retired to facilitate improvement in the service, who retire on medical grounds may be granted an immediate pension and those who are retired in the public interest or following disciplinary proceedings may be granted a deferred pension. Earlier instalment compensation schemes provided that in the first three cases outstanding instalments of compensation would become due on such retirement. What should be the case under HMG's scheme ? The circumstances cut away the argument that the officer can still serve and, that gone, what other reason is there for denying them the balance of the notional sum forthwith ? Is there any respectable argument for proposing only a payment forthwith of the whole instalment for the current year?
Earlier instalment schemes also provided that, where an officer dies, the whole balance of his notional sum should be paid to his next of kin/estate. I think the logic here in the case of an inducement scheme is less compelling than for living officers who have been deprived of the
opportunity for further service, but there is an emotional argument for similar treatment.
NOTE 4
Re-calculation
We have in mind re-calculation of the 1992 sterling equivalent in 1997 depending on rises in the UK PRI. Is there, therefore, not a case for further re-calculations on each date on which an inducement payment is to be made ?
NOTE 5
The Judges
The Judges are excluded form the HK scheme. A draft scheme was prepared in 1990, on which I commented (though the advice may have gone out under a minute from Mr David Edwards), but the scheme was not proceded with. However, judges may (perhaps, innevitably, will) be superceded, may be required to retire in the interests of localisation or may seek to make a case that it is unreasonable to expect them to continue in service. We cannot expect the pensionable among them to be satisfied with the HMG scheme.
How
The first question is how large is the problem? many judges are there who are pensionable and members of HMOJ ? What are the prospects of supercession and localisation ? Then we need to consider why the 1990 scheme was not proceded with and whether any, and if so what, alternatives were considered. Why does Mr Waters say there were doubts about the need for a scheme ( his letter of 10th February 1992)? Has the Chief Justice made any
representatins and if so what? minute please.
Can someone find my 1990
why med for
No
4
scheme.
Page 30Page 31
CODE 18-77