5 -
42/1.
Age of Retirement (29)
Mr. Clinton regretted it had not proved possible to realise his hope (expressed at the April meeting) of reaching a conclusion on this. He explained that a full examination of the matter had been completed by the Cost Control Division of Finance Branch within the past few days. The Secretariat Branches concerned would now have to make a judgement on the likely financial implications and the practical effect on the efficiency of the public service if a significant number of officers retired at 45 and then refer the matter to the Executive and Legislative Councils. Mr. Haddon-Cave apologised for the time taken to examine the proposals and explained the difficulty he had encountered in finding a valid measurement to gauge the financial implications especially as it was not known how the service would re-act to the proposals if they were introduced. He had now studied the matter on the basis of earned pension rights in proportion to salary earned and this indicated clearly that early retirement would be more costly. He added that on the efficiency of the service aspect the proposals, if introduced, might well result in many junior officers (e.g. clerks) working until 60 and many professional officers retiring at 45. As no one knew how many officers would retire early the exact extra cost could not be calculated but at least there was no longer any doubt that it cost more to allow an officer to retire at 45 than at 50 or 55. He added that introduction of the proposals for a trial period could prove most misleading as some officers might retire at 45 during the trial period, just because of a closing date, who might otherwise have elected to remain for several years more.
42/2. Mr. Hodson reverted to his suggestion at a previous meeting that if the financial implications proved to be an obstacle, officers who retired early should be allowed 100% lump sum commutation of pension. Mr. Haddon-Cave replied that this could bring the pension factor under question which was based on retirement at 55. Mr. Chung enquired why 55 was the basis. Mr. Clinton said to the best of his recollection prior to 1932 the factor was lower and was based on retirement at 60. Clearly if the normal age of retirement reverted by law to 60, the pension factor would have to be changed to the disadvantage of the service. Mr. Chung said he hoped the proposals would not be ruled out because of their cost. reply Mr. Henderson stressed the significant effect any decision to allow retirement at 45 might have on the public scrvice. In reply to a question from Mr. Lai, Mr. Clinton confirmed that the examination referred to centred on the 45/50 package deal porposals. He hoped that he would be able
In
to let the staff side have the Government's decision on the proposals by the next Council meeting.
/43/1
Page 60Page 61
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.