practicable at the present time, although they both recommend reviewing the position in about 1980 to monitor progress and to examine possible extensions of the scheme to provide, e.g. a non-means tested unemployment benefit. When the scheme is being worked out in detail, we shall need to examine what is envisaged by way of a retirement benefit. The paper (para 8.15) puts forward only tentative proposals on this important aspect of the scheme.
6. The main need in my view is for the Hong Kong Government to press ahead and to let it be seen that the scheme has their backing. The Government should actively set about obtaining the "substantially favourable response" which is a prerequisite to proceeding with this scheme. The assistance and advice of the trade unions might be helpful in this. A decision not to implement this scheme would be a set-back to our hopes that the principle of a contributory social security scheme be accepted in Hong Kong.
7. The proposals are satisfactory as far as they go. However, the Hong Kong Government maintain that they are not affected by financial constraints. We would like to see a higher level of public spending on social services but the Hong Kong Government maintain that the restraints on any proposed extension of social services are non-financial, e.g. in recruitment and training of staff, planning and building necessary accommodation and the need to educate the public about the growing extension of these services. As they have accepted the bulk of Mr Heppell's advice on the new social security scheme, we cannot criticize the Hong Kong Government on this front. Nevertheless, it will continue to be important that we should continue to press them for advances in other fields.
8. The OLA concurs.
21 December 1977
Cc: OLA
3
B. Steet.
зав
A B Stewart
Hong Kong & General Dept
ハ
I agike
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.