fr
сок
Menute overleaf. Store 2811
Mr. Cox.
Mr P Ricketts
CONFIDENTIAL
Reference
From: D S FISH
We need to try to build in
the points at 'x' +'ÿ them.
we have another go at the pape
M Sex 27 F
Miss Nxams
Hong Kong Department/FCO
M
(Ext 3444)
Date: 24 January 1992
0
cc Mr J V Kerby
но
10
Jess w.
1.
= Thanks you for coming to me
to
I have seen a copy of your letter of 17 January Sandra Brown but I am not now entirely clear about the contents of the paper on which you are seeking comments. As you know I went through the original draft with Nigel Cox and the second version, which I received under cover of your letter to Sandra Brown of 13 January, contains most of the amendments which I suggested.
2. I do not, of course, know exactly what amendments Kevin Woodfield proposed. I shall assume that all changes to the latest draft, and not just those underlined, are the result of Treasury suggestions. Perhaps I should first comment on the points made in paragraph 3 of your letter to Sandra - I shall call them 3a, b etc:
3 a) I very much agree that the Governor is best placed to offer authoritative comments on the likely response of serving HMOCS officers to the various options before us. But a decision not to proceed with a safeguard option, will also provoke major protest from current pensioners who will move quickly to mobilise parliamentary pressure.
Why not.
Surely the oog have told us thy fade
re consulted the CON Achicry.
3 b) Perhaps the best way to deal with the commitment point would be to say that "... will fall well short of HMOCS members expectations, we could argue that it satisfies the spirit of the White Paper
We should also bear in mind here that our thoughts on the detail of the incentive/compensation scheme are not particularly refined. You will recall that our figures are based on the Hong
Hong Kong scheme covering those superceded for promotion. I think that this is appropriate but we certainly need to consult further with the Government Actuary before we embark on any consultation process with the HMOCS Staff Association.
Pls check.
It is for to. to regain this,
A
S
2711
diag of
Mr Shone
околе
In Man
1951
tate
3 c) Your dispute with the Treasury in 9 c) of the draft, is
really the same as that on sterling safeguards. A traditional scheme would contain the appropriate safeguard and in theory, that could be offered by the Hong Kong Government or HMG. Elsewhere the guarantee was given by the incoming government (albeit at HMG's insistence); for most countries (not all) this guarantee was later taken over by HMG as an aid initiative.
If
3 d) I think that the Treasury amendment is reasonable.
capitalisation did not present problems for the Hong Kong Government, there would be no difficulty for HMG. The remainder of this paragraph makes clear the risks for HMG if we were to resort to coercion.
we
opted to try and get some cost estimates from HKG, rather than the Gort Actuary (more expensive & lengthier process), ODA produced the calculations info from HKG when it eventually arrived in early July 1991. There is no evidence
communication. Oh dear! RW 2811
any
ODA
GAD
on that
on file of
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.