11-JUN-1992
16:28
PAUL FIFOOT
0372723755
P.02/02
Secretary of State;
(b) whose appointment was approved by the Secretary
of State;
(c) who entered into an agreement with the Crown Agents to serve in such an office; or
(d) who, although not in the above categories, was a member of HMOCS.
4.
Essentially these provisions indicate that there were two and frequently three main elements:
(a) an overseas officer;
(b) service as a substantive holder of a pensionable office ( i.e. on p and p terms);
(c) recruited or appointed on the kind of terms which rendered the appointee eligible for HMOCS, even though he might not be a member of HMOCS. But, having regard to the variations, there is room for individuals to argue that there are precedents which do not require membership of HMOCS.
5. The Department will, therefore, need to be clear from the outset what criteria it wishes to adopt. Will insistence on membership of HMOCS exclude some expatriate officers who have a reasonable expectation that something will be done to maintain the value of their pensions? If So, what alternative criteria should be established in the circumstances of Hong Kong ? Alternatively, does membership of HMOCS in fact include anyone who is not an overseas officer who serves on p and p terms (it should not, but that does not mean it does not), or can we adopt two qualifications i.e. membership of HMOCS and service as the substantive holder of a pensionable office (on pensionable terms) ? It would be as well to ask ODA for their views before we appear to commit ourselves as to the possible beneficiaries of any schemc for sterling safeguards.
2
FF
TATA!
נו