Mr P Owen
Cabinet Office
Reference
From: D S FISH
(Ext 3444
Date: 12 May 1993
AH501)
Copy
itached
HONG KONG: HMOCS
Ꭵ . The only comments I have relate to the covering minute and to the paragraph on SPOS.
2. The FCO have not proposed arrangements which fully maintain the salary differentials, as suggested by the last two sentences of the third paragraph of the covering note.
3.
You may wish to consider the following alternatives:
"The Treasury note that
that remuneration in Hong Kong is roughly twice that in the United Kingdom and that any payment arrangements must take full account of this differential and produce protection only in line with that available to United Kingdom public servants. FCO propose arrangements which follow more closely the schemes introduced elsewhere, but which offer protection at some 14% less than that sought by the HMOCS Association [and some 25% less than would be provided using current exchange rates]."
The
4. On SPOS, paragraph 19 suggests that we have proposed the SPOS amendment to avoid the risk of Judicial Review. We have proposed it because we regard the current arrangements as difficult to defend. And in a letter of 24 February 1992 to the Secretary of State, the previous Chief Secretary described them as "inequitable". I propose the following amendment to paragraph 19:
entitlement. The FCO believe that the current regulations are inequitable and that, irrespective of the Current decisions UIL Hony Kong, there is possibility of legal challenge against them. Legal advice is that while legally we may be safe enough, there is an obvious lack of evenhandedness between providing for exchange rate gains but not losses'. FCO propose that
•
The
D S FISH
Overseas Pensions Department 12 May 1993