TNAG-0283-FCO40-319-Exchange-of-officers-between-government-of-Hong-Kong-and-UK--1970 — Page 52

(Z) Status: such an arrangement as you propose might raise doubts about the status of the officers concerned,

at both ends. If we each took

responsibility for paying our own

officers at the rates appropriate to their respective services ( and

for meeting the pension liability of our own officers arising from the period of service involved) it would

tend to blur the issue as to which

Government they are serving.

In a

sense they might be regarded as

"lent" or "attached", and in no way formally placed in the service of the

other government: it would be

almost as if they had been sent on

courses. What implications this (as distinct from the usual formal secondment terms) may have for such

matters as disciplinary control,

application of our respective

Official Secrets Acts, etc., we shall

have to look into. If you have not

already done so, you may want to

consider the danger that your

unofficials might regard officers

employed under such arrangements with

some suspicion. As you know, we have in the past had to move with great circumspection in relation to the Political Adviser's position in

order to make it clear that he is in

the service of the Hong Kong Government and is not an outpost of HMG. We shall need, I suggest, to

be equally careful in the case of any other Diplomatic Service officers working for the Hong Kong Government.

It would seem therefore that whatever

financial arrangements we might agree the exchanges must otherwise be brought strictly within the usual

secondment arrangements.

/ (2)

NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN