TNAG-2059-FCO40-2937-Hong-Kong-Overseas-Service-Pensioners--Association-(OSPA)-1990 — Page 78

P. C. Mr Paul ir

2. Mr Stone - for draft reply

-

OVERSEAS SERVICE PENSIONERS' ASSOCIATION R7jbjy

PRESIDENT :

The Lord Grey of Naunton, GCMG GCVO OBE

SECRETARY:

Mr. C. D. Stenton

Your Ref:

HKB 233/1

RECEIV

STRY

3. MAY 1990

63 CHURCH ROAD

OVE SUSSEX

N32BD

RECEIVED IN Leephone: Brighton APR 1990

Brighton (0273) 721630RY

DESK OFFICER

Our Ref: FNMP/RJH/F3H.K.

WHY PH

R.J.T. McLaren, Esq., C.M.G., Assistant Under Secretary of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Whitehall,

London,

SW1A 2AH.

INDEX

For for

1990

Miss Marsden, HKD)

I I have acknowledged (appy attached)

I shouse he gratefur

2.

A

ante reply

See

hoz

f7f

for advice &

noh myself

I do

Cm

KINJACIAL

2 pensions

Dear Mr. McLaren,

10

3.

for protection ? the mome

when they are

of them.

not vergonsible for the payment

on X overent, did my letter contzuni

quile such

explicit arwana ?

am

Thank you for your letter of 13th February 1990, which I have now been able to discuss with my colleagues in Council at the Association. Also under discussion has been a letter from Sir David Ford, Chief Secretary, Hong Kong, outlining the latest position there on pensions, in response to a query as to progress on the recommendations of the Executive Council last year (copies of correspondence attached for easy reference).

You will see that there has been no progress to speak of although a token paper to the Executive Committee is promised for April to set up a small fund for one off payments to distressed pensioners, and to make pension increases a statutory right rather than at the discretion of the Hong Kong Government.

2 Vor

Significantly, Sir David repeats that "there is no satis- factory means whereby the Hong Kong Government can provide currency protection for the pension of overseas officers alone" and that "this must therefore remain a matter for Her Majesty's Government".

Frankly, we find it difficult to reconcile this position with that expressed by you in your letter of 13 February, 1990, when you said "the question of the protection of the value of Hong Kong pensions

we consider to be the responsibility of the Hong Kong Government."

Sir David has been challenged on this contradiction, and this is now to ask if you can resolve it. Hong Kong/United Kingdom pensioners cannot be left to fall between two stools. In what appears to be an impasse it must surely be within the powers of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office to direct the Hong Kong Government to assume rightful responsibility for its pensioners?

. . . / . . .