reaffirmed it yourself in your letter of 26 November 1992 after having previously denied its authority. The 1972 to 1975 Regulations, on which the Ministry of Overseas Development Guide was based, did provide for the basic pension to be supplemented in accordance with this principle (although, because of mistakes in drafting, supplements paid became excessive when sterling fell). Even if you believed mistakenly that the 1977 Regulations could modify this main principle of the Act, there was the commitment in paragraph 4 of the Tanzania Agreement Memorandum that should have prevented you from doing so. You agreed in 1976 that
The British Government will not, however, alter any existing governing provision so as to make such provision less favourable to him." With the introduction of the 1977 Regulations you did just that.
6. I welcomed your letter of 26 November 1992 as a small step towards fulfilling the Government's requirement under the citizen's Charter for the administration to be accountable and explain its policies and practices. However, your latest letter reverts to the familiar, but counter-productive, defensive tactics of giving minimum information and avoiding answering questions. I think 1 am entitled to full, frank and proper replies to the points and questions I have raised in this ongoing complaint. I believe I have put forward overwhelming evidence to prove that the OLA is wrong in the way it is exercising its responsibilities over certain aspects of pension matters that concern me. I think the time has come for the ODA to either honour its obligations or come clean and admit publicly that it has reneged on its commitments to a substantial number of overseas pensioners.
I shall look forward to hearing from you.
7.
Yours sincerely,
A. Alche
R.B. Blanche