CONFIDENTIAL
whose morale and effectiveness he is particularly keen to uphold. In sum, the Governor is keen to stick to the date of 15 April 1992, which we originally proposed.
Motivation for Transfer
3.
It
The Private Secretary's minute also raised the question of whether the aim of judicial officers in moving to HMOCS status, although they were hired on contract terms, was to cash in on the generous settlement they anticipate in 1997. It is difficult to be sure about people's motives, but the compensation package on which we have committed HMOCS officers is not particularly attractive or generous. would involve the payment of, say, £30,000 in 1997 and eight subsequent payments of £15,000 each year, if the officer remained in service. So far, we have given no indication that we intend to improve this offer. So it is perhaps more likely that the judicial officers who have been contemplating crossing over to the pensionable establishment have been spurred into doing so by the realisation that if they do not do so quickly, they will lose any protection they might gain under HMOCS membership primarily for their pension. (Judicial officers on contract terms have the legal right to transfer to the permanent establishment at any time they wish this right will continue irrespective of what steps we take vis-a-vis HMOCS membership.)
Treasury Angle
4.
-
We
As for possible difficulties with Treasury, we have had meetings at official level to follow up the Secretary of State's and Mr Patten's meeting with Mr Portillo. advised the Treasury that we now expected between 90 and 120 contract officers to transfer to pensionable terms and become HMOCS members. The Treasury showed no signs of being alarmed at this figure, and indeed were relieved that it was substantially lower than it might have been. The potential
BE3ACB/2
CONFIDENTIAL