'93-11-11 09:56
P.4
n:
To:
Trotter Dave (PD01DT) OSEHBF
Date:
Monday 25 October, 1993
1:43 pm
Subject:
HONG KONG COMPENSATION
24.11.88
letter from Howe to Major
A decision taken now to accept the obligations to finance a scheme would be a most unusual one. It would amount to a formal and public political commitment to expenditure which would not begin for ten years. But for the reasons given I do not believe that we can leave a decision to take its normal place in the PES cycle. I propose that the scheme should be managed by the ODA and borne on the ODA's Overseas Superannuation Vote, which meets existing HMG commitments in this field. I could not defend publicly diversion of funds from the Aid Vote to a territory which does not qualify for aid. I hope that you can agree that the starting point for the PES negotiations for the years in question should include sums to cover the additional costs of the scheme.
19.12.88
-
reply from Major
As you have acknowledged, the vote responsibility would naturally fall to the FCO/ODA. I think you are right to suggest that diversion of aid funds to
to a territory not qualifying for aid would not be defensible.
be defensible. But I do not think I can give any undertaking on the source of the funds so far in advance of requirement. If we commit ourselves to a financial obligation our successors will naturally recognise the force of that commitment. But I am sure that they will want to agree precisely how to meet it in PES terms in the light of the circumstances then prevailing.
Page 45Page 46