247
Hong Kong
[ 14 MARCH 1985 ]
'He called in aid a number of documents which he argued ought to place officers on the same footing as other officers recruited for overseas service. I took advantage of the Library to look at one or two of the documents to which he referred and it seemed to me that the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, has been making a reasonable case which deserves a careful response.
In the Second Reading debate on 19th February the noble Baroness replied that the agreement will ensure that serving officers in Hong Kong will continue on terms and conditions including pay and pensions as they will be on 30th June 1997. That was the reply she gave to the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, at that time. I thought it was a helpful reply, so far as it went. But perhaps the noble Baroness can clarify the position beyond doubt by answering this question. Will the Hong Kong ex-patriate officer be on the same footing as other officers recruited by Her Majesty's Government for service overseas? It may be that the previous reply of the noble Baroness conceded that point, but it would help me and other noble Lords if she will repeat it and if necessary elaborate it now so that we may be put beyond all doubt.
I
Baroness Young: I am sure we have all listened with great care to the amendment moved by my noble friend. Lord Gridley. The purpose of this amendment seems to be to enable the Government to provide by Order in Council for matters relating to members and ex-members of the Hong Kong public service, particu- larly the payment of pensions and other benefits.
The first thing about this amendment is that it is not necessary for the purpose which I believe the noble Lord has in mind. The Government already have extensive powers to make provision for pensions and other benefits under the Overseas Pensions Act 1973. I hope that that answers the question that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, has put. Moreover, in the extremely unlikely event that these powers were ever to prove insufficient in the case of Hong Kong, it would be possible to amend or add to them by means of an Order in Council under this paragraph as already drafted.
The Government remain fully alert to their responsibilities for seeing that adequate arrangements are made for the payment of pensions earned in the service of the Government. As I explained to my noble friend Lord Gridley when he raised this issue during the debate on the Second Reading, the Government consider that the agreement provides satisfactorily for the continuity of service by members of the public service in Hong Kong on terms and conditions, including pay and pensions, no less favourable than on 30th June 1997.
In the debate on 19th February my noble friend Lord Gridley made specific reference to the position of members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service in Hong Kong, and asked that a binding agreement, such as a public officers' agreement, be provided for them between now and 1997. While the provisions of the agreement in relation to pay and pension apply to members of HMOCS in Hong Kong as much as they do to other civil servants, I take this opportunity to reiterate the response I gave my noble friend on that
Bill
248
occasion; namely, that the Government recognise the particular concerns of HMOCS officers in Hong Kong, and will continue to keep their interests in mind in the 12 years leading up to 1997, including the question of a public officers' agreement. I do not rule out a public officers' agreement in due course: such an agreement may prove to be the best means of laying down the provisions to be applied to HMOCS in Hong Kong in respect of benefits payable after 1997. It is equally possible that in the unique circumstances of Hong Kong there may prove to be other ways of achieving these ends.
In due course there will need to be discussions with the Hong Kong Government on this subject. But I might sound one note of caution: if we wish to make arrangements which will be truly durable, and thus provide a real assurance for HMOCS in Hong Kong, we should not make them precipately or without full consultation and discussion of the issues.
I hope I have said enough to indicate that the Government are firmly of the view that in current circumstances the pensions and benefits of the Hong Kong Civil Service, including members of HMOCS in Hong Kong, are not a subject upon which there is at need to legislate in the manner proposed in the amendment before the House.
I was grateful for the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. I think all parts of the House have in mind the needs of the Overseas Civil Service in Hong Kong and I hope that, with the assurances that I have given on the future provision of the public service in Hong Kong, my noble friend Lord Gridley will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Gridley: I greatly appreciate what my noble friend the Minister has said in response to my amendment. I will look at what she has said when I receive Hansard at a future date. I am a little upset as I feel that no notice has been given to a point I emphasised about the difference which exists regarding the granting of independence in Hong Kong. There is a difference between Hong Kong and everywhere else where Her Majesty's Government have given independence to territories for which they were responsible. As I emphasised, the case lies 12 years ahead from now and concerns the remaining officers in the service of Hong Kong, who may be 30 years old at this time. They may have anxieties. Goodness only knows, we do not want any of them to leave the service of that country and seek employment elsewhere. They are loyal officers and I believe they would be most distressed if that ever came into their consideration. Therefore, there is this point about waiting for something to be written into a legal document to give the assurance that my noble friend has given. I greatly appreciate what she has said. We will look carefully at her reply to my amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment: Report received.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.