NOTE
12
179
Flagged A
Flagged B
Met. Polie service counts towards the
Messrs. Saul, Brown and Winch are all ex-Metropolitan policemen who are now serving in Hong Kong Police Force.
As indicated in their letters, their main purpose is to secure recognition of all their previous Home police service for the purpose of pensions, pay and seniority.
One or two new points arise in these matters, but before commenting upon them I would invite attention to my note on the petition at (39) on the 1947 file and to the Secretary of State's reply to petitions on this same subject dated the 7th February, 1948 at (42) on the 1947 file.
(1)
In order to avoid any misunderstanding it will be as well to take the points numbered 1 to 6 in the letters separately:
there can be no points of difference here. The Hong Kong Government have already been told that the ex-Metropolitan police officers will be regarded as having been temporarily transferred and as such,
(2)
on subsequent retirement from Hong Kong in pensionable circumstances they will be awarded:·
(a) the pension for which they had qualified under
the Metropolitan Police at the time of their transfer, and
(b) pension from Hong Kong funds which they will
have earned, which will be calculated either as a simple pension, or a scheduled pension (i.e. taking into account the period of Home service) whichever is to their advantage.
I understand from Scotland Yard that the Police Pensions Act of 1948 is now law. This Act however merely permits the Secretary of State for Home Affairs to make regulations under the Act. Such regulations have not yet been made. In view of what is said under (1) above this point appears to be irrelevant in any case. By the "temporary transfer" arrangements, their transfers to Hong Kong are recognised by the Metropolitan Police who accept responsibility for that part of the pension.
(3) Whilst they transferred with the consent of their
Chiefs of Police, they did so only by resigning their Home appointments, and although this is not a material factor, the point raised here also has no relevance.
(4) Apart from the fact that the Hong Kong Pensions
10 years qualifyn's
Ю
servici
for love
pension
PRZ
legislation has not yet been amended to include the new retiring age, the writers are completely wrong in asserting that their previous service does not count for pension. The position as explained on point (1) above, makes it clear that such service will be taken into account as qualifying service. There will be few, if any, who would not qualify for pension and in any case, new legislation would not penalise
a man by taking from him his existing right to continue serving to the age of 50.
in this contention.
There is in my opinion no force
(5)
Page 180Page 181