CODE 18-77
CONFIDENTIAL
Reference
suggested, the most popular being to use the rate on the date that the JD was initialled.
It was wrong to use the 1991/92 salary range as a base. Salaries in 1997 should be used was the most popular alternative.
(e) Some respondents focused on the absence from the proposals of other elements to a package which they saw as essential:
2.
there should be provision for alternative employment the question of security vetting for jobs in the UK armed services/civil service should be firmly addressed the question of Consular protection for Chinese race spouses should be firmly addressed.
We were expecting to receive most of the points made. Given that we were unable to put forward the package (sterling safeguards and SPOS) that even we felt was adequate, it is hardly surprising that Noone thought highly of our proposal. The two points I found most telling were:
3.
the comment that it was quite wrong effectively to force a servant of the Queen to work for a foreign (communist) Government in order to obtain his pension. not portable in Hong Kong)
(Pensions are
the deep irony that on the one hand we were urging HMOCS officers to stay on but on the other, we could not guarantee consular access to their spouses of ethnic Chinese race. What sort of show was this?
In summary, a very clear message of frustration comes through many of the letters. Frustration both at the inadequacy of the proposal, after eight years of gestation, and, in respect of the police, frustration at the position they find themselves in with the HKG - and hence the more let down they feel by HMG on this issue.
Mühl ustane
M V Stone
WH 304 2651
15 May 1992
Mr Ricketts
cc Mr Fifoot
Mr Fish ODA
SISADJ
CONFIDENTIAL