TNAG-0205-FCO40-241-Pensions-policy-1970 — Page 107

CONFIDENTIAL

OVERSEAS PENSIONS

IMGA ELD OF RESPONSIBILITY: EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN COUNTRIES

If HMG should decide to accept financial responsibility for the pre-independence portion of overseas officers pensions it is questionable whether certain oversea countries and territories should be embraced within the new arrangements. Those concerned are India, Pakistan, Burma, Egypt, Suden, Israel, Jordan, the former Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, the former Federation of The West Indies, Bermuda, Bahamas, Brunei, Hong Kong and the New Hebrides in respect of its Condominions Service. A statement of their pensions and aid is at Appendix 10.

BAHAMAS, BERMUDA AND BRUNEI

2. Although Bahamas, Bermuda and Brunei are wealthy territories and on aid considerations only would not qualify for any relief of their pensions burden it is recognised that the major change of principle on responsibility would not permit their exclusion. Additionally there are cogent political reasons for their admission.

3. It is therefore agreed that these territories will be admitted to the field of HMG's financial responsibility. The pensions costs of Bahamas (£13,000), Bermuda (£15,000) and Brunei (£1,000) aggregate to only £29,000 and are of no real significance to the

main issue.

ISRAEL AND JORDAN

4. Israel is a donor country and this together with the 1951/1965 Financial Agreements between HMG and Israel on Palestine issues including pensions mean that Israel should and would be excluded.

5.

Jordan's Palestine pensions payable as a result of the 1950 Agreement are already met by HMG and therefore Jordan falls to be omitted.

INDIA, PAKISTAN AND BURMA

6. Background notes on the problems of India, Pakistan and Burma are at Appendices 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Consideration of these countries must relate to all three because of the historical, legislative and career amalgamation of the post as well as the geographical and political ties.

BURMA

7. The heart of the problem in the case of Burma is the unresolved Anglo/Burmese expropriation issues and so long as these remain outstanding it would not seem appropriate to include Burua within the British pensions take over, irrespective of what is done for India and Pakistan.

8. Against this view of exclusion stands the fact of continuous aid to Burma by way of technical assistance amounting in 1968 to £142,000. In addition, British oversea pensioners could argue although there is no real evidence of any existing feeling that as a matter of principle their pensions ought also to become HNGs responsibility.

INDIA

9. The crucial factor in regard to India is the question of any rejoinder by India to the new British policy from which it was excluded. The expectation is that India could and might well seek a refund of the unused portion of the £83 million net annuity transferred to Britain to cover the cost of the Indian pensions paid by Britain under the 1955 Agreement.

1

CONFIDENTIAL