TNAG-2424-FCO40-3526-Hong-Kong-Her-Majesty-s-Overseas-Civil-Service-(HMOCS)-poli-1992 — Page 24

CONFIDENTIAL

before 1 July 1997 are we not:

(a) inviting everyone to retire before then because, in the absence of Chinese acceptance of the arrangement, they do not believe the SARG will take the same view of Caps 89

and 99?

(b) in effect forcing ourselves to guarantee the

pensions of these HMOCS if the Chinese opt to call 'foul'

and default (justifying themselves on that basis) on JD 73?

4.

If para 3 above is the possible consequence of going

down this path, would we be worse off by discussing the

issues with the Chinese first. If they are negative we are

still at para 3.

5. Do we really expect HMOCS to put any faith in best

endeavours "in future discussions with the Chinese and

the SARG", particularly if we try, no doubt ineffectively,

to get HMOCs to maintain confidentiality? If not, a) what

is to stop them going public on our delaying matters and b)

how are we going to respond publicly to their complaints to

that effect?

6.

It would be defensible to go ahead with first part of

para 7(b) of draft tel (and para 6(b) and (c) of the draft

submission) if we are prepared to accept Para 3 above but

not if we tell the tale in para 6(b) apart from first line

and (d) of draft tel or latter part of 6(a) of draft

submission.

M

др

P Fifoot

NC1ACX/2

CONFIDENTIAL