concerned about the implications of 1997 and we are giving careful thought to how we can most appropriately meet these concerns. We are not yet in a position to make an announcement, but intend to do so as soon as possible.
Mr McIntyre asks specifically about protection of the pensions of HMOCS officers before and after 1997. Pensions are of course the responsibility of the Hong Kong authorities. As I have already pointed out, the Joint Declaration contains very clear assurances about these matters. There is no reason to believe that these undertakings will not be honoured by the future Hong Kong SAR Government. If however the situation warranted it, I am sure that the British Government of the day would take appropriate action in recognition of its responsibilities for HMOCs officers.
Mr McIntyre expresses concern about potential access to Government personnel records after 1997. I do not believe that the situation will be as he describes: the records will be in the hands of the Hong Kong SAR authorities, not the central authorities; and will consist of only such records as are necesary to enable the SAR authorities to exercise their responsibilities on behalf of their employees.
Mr McIntyre asks about the status of HMOCS members after 1997. Those who elect to remain in service after the transfer of sovereignty could not be regarded as members of HMOCS. As regards the oath of allegiance taken by members of the police, this would for obvious reasons be inappropriate after 1997. But as I have already indicated above, the position of those who elected to stay on after 1997 is safeguarded by the provisons of the Joint Declaration.
I hope this information will be of some assistance to Mr McIntyre and his colleagues. I can assure him that we shall continue to keep the interests and concerns of HMOCS members clearly in mind.
hun
سال
مهبو أمام
*
Francis Maude
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.