24-JUN-1992 17:19
PAUL FIFOOT
0372723755
P.03/04
Para 13:
a course:
waiting to see what benefits are on offer from compensation proposals. But compensation proposals not are designed for a profitable investment and quick profit, but to recompense for a real or anticipated loss."
Replace as follows:
"13. There are, however, arguments against such
(a) past compensation schemes have calculated compensation on the basis of pensionable service; no distinction has been made between service after an officer has been admitted to the pensionable establishment and service which is bought back. (No such distinction is made under the UK pension scheme in cases when officers are compensated for a premature termination of career). The proposal therefore constitutes a significant departure from past colonial and current UK practice. One answer to this is likely to be that, unlike the Hong Kong case, the prospect of the loss of career was not advertised 12 years in advance and before the officers had bought back service. (b) nevertheless, from past practice, contract officers who opt for pensionable terms and were accepted into HMOCS had a reasonable expectancy that their compensation would be based on pensionable service with no exceptions made for bought back service; arguments about knowledge of the limitation of career prospects are irrelevant because the Hong Kong Government continued to allow them the pensions henefit of permanent and pensionable service and because the UK Government continued to allow them to become members of HMOCS with all the traditional benefits that promised. Sir D Ford has, in effect, advanced the first of these propositions.
2
(c) not only would this proposal defeat reasonable expectations, but if applied to any officer who opted between 27th May 1985 and the date it is announced, it would constitute a change in past practice which was intended to have effect retro-actively; officers could complain that they had been misled in taking a decision to opt for pensionable terms, decision which it may be alleged they took in the reasonable belief that they could buy back years which would be taken into account in whatever compensation scheme was prepared. (a) former contract officers and those who still have the right to opt (in effect the judiciary) could complain that they were being discriminated against in not being allowed to count bought back service. This, however, is not a good argument since 10 years service is a maximum factor in compensation schemes and our proposal does not discriminate for compensation purposes in favour of any one who
3