24-JUN-1992 11:47
PAUL FIFOOT
0372723755
reasonable expectations, how do we distinguish this one from the others ?
4. Assume for the moment that we find a reason for a distinction which would enable us to argue that bought back service does not count, where are we going to draw the line? Is it to be drawn so as to exclude all contract officers who opted for p and p terms and had been admitted to HMOCS at any time after 30 June 1987 ? (Anyone one who did so before would have 10 years post p and p service). That would be retroactive in effect and would produce the justifiable response that we were changing retroactively and to their serious disadvantage a factor on which the officers concerned may have placed reliance in calculating the consequences of making the change. As a subsidiary clement, we would have no answer to the charge that we had not entered into meaningful discussions and given no notice of our change of policy. Alternatively, are we to fudge the question of discussion and notice, make an announcement now and draw the line now ? In effect this would be meaningless for anyone except the judges and judicial officers since the deadline for the remainder of the contract officers expires next week. And if you do make such a distinction, you would be accused of discriminating against one sector of the Hong Kong public service which, it may be alleged, is only now aware that they have a limited time to opt for p and p terms and apply for membership of HMOCS. What justification would there be for making this distinction ?
5. If you are to pursue your proposal, the matter needs to be argued more extensively in the submission. I do not think para 11(a), second half of (b) or (c) are convincing and the first half of (b) may very well depend on individual cases. The officers concerned will have to pay back their gratuities; the Hong Kong Covernment will benefit from that and the UK will have to pay the compensation cost, but the fact that the UK will not benefit from the return of the gratuity should not be used as an arguement against the officer; I have previously noted this as a matter which could be taken up with the Hong Kong Government as a reason for the UK seeking a share in the paid back gratuity think para 12(a) addresses a wider question than buy-back and we will have to deal with it whatever you decide on this issue. The remainder of para 12 is an inadequate description of the arguments against this proposal. these paras should be redrafted.
•
6. Finally on para 2, your legal consultant does not agrec. I shall be in later this morning.
I
Both
P.F.
P.02/02
TOTAL P.02/02