Rith Reply
pls, sent on 10/6
Mr Stone
HKD
8/6
HKA 233/7
FROM:
Miss S Brooks Legal Counsellor
DATE:
5 June 1992
3
AUTHORITY FOR RETIREMENT: LIMITED COMPENSATION SCHEME
1.
I agree generally with the advice which has been given by Mr Wingfield, Crown Solicitor, in his minutes of 19 March and 3 April, including the points he had made about the Pensions Benefit Ordinance, Cap. 99. I do not read Mr Wingfield's advice as turning on Colonial Regulation 55 (CR 55). Mr Wingfield mentions CR 55 because the question raised by Mr Broadley in his second letter of 25 March turns on whether the Secretary of State has approved the Limited Compensation Scheme and delegated his power under CR 55 to determine a public officer's service when his retirement is required in the interest of localisation. Your question about CR 55 in paragraph 4 of your minute, is therefore not the nub of the matter (however, the phrase, through the Secretary of State' means that the Secretary of State is the channel through which the pleasure of the Crown is signified).
2.
t
I think we do need to look at the exchange of telegrams and letters referred to in Mr Walters' letter of 8 April. Hong Kong clearly has copies and it may be simpler for you to ask Hong Kong Government for copies of the telegrams and letters exchanged by the FCO and the Hong Kong Government, rather than wading through yet more files. We need to see the letters and telegrams because we have to discover whether the Secretary of State did in fact approve the Limited Compensation Scheme and delegate his power under CR 55. There appears to be no good reason why the delegation by the Secretary of State should not have been done in a telegram rather than a letter. But we need to see the terms of the telegrams and letters before we can decide whether or not there is any need to put the matter beyond doubt by obtaining confirmation of the Secretary of State's approval and delegation.
РОІААР