TNAG-0992-FCO40-1211-Policy-on-salaries-and-pensions-for-civil-service-in-Hong-Ko-1980 — Page 67

C

CONFIDENTI AL

Foreign and Commonwealth Office London SW1A 2AH

HiKkKC 43011

RECEIVED IN REGISTRY

Telephone 01- 233 3184 12 DEC 1980

I FC Macpherson Esq

Director of Administration and

Management Services Government Secretariat HONG KONG

+

DESK OFFICER

Your referenINDEX

PA

HEMISTRY Action Taken

Our reference

Date

Dear Lain,

ARTICLE XVI OF LETTERS PATENT

9 December 1980

во

3weeks

MS

NOTED

15/12

12.12

1. Thank you for your telegram No 1578. It is a relief that the result of the appeal has removed the need for immediate action since we were about to send you a telegram explaining that we were not in favour of an amendment to the Letters Patent.

2. Part of the problem is that the statement in paragraph 14 of EXCO Memorandum XCC (80) 120 does not accurately reflect the existing practice in the UK Civil Service and HM Diplomatic Service. Where an officer here withdraws his labour, he is regarded as absent without authority and is liable to have his pay stopped for the period of his absence. He is not officially suspended and the loss of pay is therefore self-inflicted. In addition, suspension is not used in handling official trade union disputes.

3. You have therefore already adopted, and apparently now been given legal authority for, measures in disputes involving Civil Service unions in excess of those which would be taken by HMG in similar circumstances. HMG have found its existing powers sufficient and we have not seen arguments why they would be inadequate for the Hong Kong Government.

4. A more important consideration is that an amendment to the Letters Patent would have to be made by Her Majesty in Council on the advice of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. The subject of Civil Service pay disputes in Hong Kong has, as you know, attracted considerable attention in the UK through representations to Ministers, MPs, the TUC's International Committee and to the ILO. If made, such an amendment would be unlikely to escape Parliamentary attention and could, there- fore, cause embarrassment to HMG.

5.

If the appeal had gone against you, we would therefore have had to recommend to Ministers that the Letters Panent should not be amended. We would, however, have also recommended. that if there were overriding reasons for your requiring these powers, they should be secured through the Hong Kong legislature process. This would be likely to attract less interest here.

CONFIDENTIAL

/6..

ตา

rl