TNAG-0876-FCO40-1086-Development-of-social-welfare-policy-in-Hong-Kong-1979 — Page 261

CONFIDENTIAL

3

HKK 013/2

Original at: HKK 013/2

This Copy for:

See Here 234/1

'Information' only / Action en

Para(s)

12 January 1979

Sir Murray MacLehose GBE KCMG KCVO

Government House

BONG KONG

HKK 234/1

RECEIVED IN REGISTRY NO. 51 15 JAN1979

1981

INDEX

PA

RY

en

/which

1

SICKNESS, DEATH AND RETIREMENT BENEFIT BONEME

1.

w..kew

ممارف

I am sorry to have been so long in replying to your letter of 1 November 1978 about the Contributory Sickness, Death and Retirement Scheme. As a first step I thought it advisable to consult Strachan Heppell, who has produced a very helpful note (oopy attached). It then seemed right to delay writing until after the meeting of the Standing Committee on Hong Kong on 15 December. Thereafter, the Christmas and New Year holidays, Huey Fong, and the gap between the departure of John Thompson and the arrival of Patriok Williamson have all contributed to further delay.

2.

I should say first of all that we entirely agree with your intention of going ahead with a White Paper covering the social welfare provisions in the Green Paper "Help for those Least Able to Help Thamselves", without waiting for final decisions on how best to cover extended sickness, death and retirement. assume that you will have this well in hand by now.

I

3.

As I said in my letter of 5 January covering the minutes of the Standing Committee, the account of the discussion on the Social Security Scheme given in the minutes, was very compressed. There was in fact a good deal of understanding for the difficulties described in your letter. There was nevertheless considerable disappointment at your conclusion that it would probably be best to drop the idea of a contributory scheme and provide the cover which we all agree is necessary separately by other means.

As you know, we have regarded the contributory scheme as a valuable addition to the growing range of services and benefits

But its main attraction now provided on a non-contributory basis. from our point of view lies in its potential for future expansion: as Heppell points out in paragraph 10 of his commentary, it would provide a frɛmework into /other benefits, such as employment benefit could be inserted later on, as and when they become possible. alternative piecemeal approach lacks that advantage; in particular, reliance on employers could prove, as Heppell puts it, a blind alley. I should add that it is largely bec muse of the longer term impli-

1 CONFIDENTIAL

The