10 MAY '93 10:23 H M TREASURY AEF DIV
COMPIDENTIAL
P.7
་
terms of mechanism and timing rather than to add anything to substance of the compensation guarantee. The 1954 Paper focused on what was to happen when a colony actually became independent: it was only then that HMG would enter agreements to HMOCS' position in the aftermath. The 1960 Paper protect HMOCS' provided for 10 year agreements to be entered into before self government, so that the attainment of self government during the lifetime of the agreement would not be unduly disruptive. This met the need to retain confidence and prevent uncertainty in the minds of staff in the lead up to independence, which need was not met by the arrangements provided for under the 1954 Paper.
The 1960 Paper expressly stated that such agreements would not be entered into 'at least for the present', in the case of four named territories of which Hong Kong was one. The correspondence I have seen reveal some measure of dispute about why these four were selected. I would venture to add a further speculation of my own in relation to Hong Kong: there was not the slightest chance that Hong Kong would cease to be a colony during the initial 10 year lifetime of the agreement or for a long time thereafter and so there was probably no concern, even among quite young staff, which needed to be allayed at that stage.
in the 1960 white fur
Whatever the reason
the reason for the exclusion, I do
I do not think the exclusion really helps HMG very much because the 1960 Paper does not seem to add anything to the substantive (as opposed to mechanistic) safeguards contained in the 1954 agreement.
The substance of the assurances
Paragraph 6 of the 1954 Paper states that HMOCS are 'entitled to expect that certain conditions will be observed in the case of attainment of self government. One of them is:-
"(6) In the event of premature retirement resulting from constitutional changes they will receive compensation from the government of the territory concerned."
Although this places an obligation only on the local government, in paragraph 8 HMG 'make known their intention, if and when a territory attains self-government, to ensure the observance of these conditions by securing their embodiment in a formal agreement to be entered into between HMG and the government of the territory'.
There is therefore something of an assurance that HMG will take steps to secure the observance of the primary obligations by the local government (it would seem to be implicit that if the local government failed to comply with the terms of such an agreement with HMG, HMG would take appropriate action to secure observance).
In this case, HMG would prefer to provide the safeguard not by entering into such an agreement, but by paying the compensation itself direct to the HMOCS. Clearly, this is no less of a safeguard than entering into
an agreement; indeed it is presumably more secure and satisfactory from the point of view of the HMOCS provided, of course, that the level of compensation
BRIDENTIAL
Yes.
me wit
une He
Trans agment