CONFIDENTIAL
8 June 1992
Mrs S D Brown HM Treasury LONDON
HKA 233/1
Foreign & Commonweaith
Office
London SWIA 2AH
368"
File
HONG KONG HMOCS
-343
1. Thank you for your letter of 21 May. Your ideas of what might be prejudicial continue to differ from ours, but we duly amended the line to take for Mr Goodlad as you wished. I enclose a record of his meeting with representatives of the HMOCS Association.
2. Our legal advice about needing to consult the Association before taking and promulgating a final decision on sterling safeguards, even if that is a decision that HMG should not provide any safeguards, was given orally, so I cannot send you a copy. However, the following is the substance:
although sterling safeguards do not feature in the specific elements set out in the two White Papers, their inclusion in Public officers' Agreements constitutes a package with compensation and retiring benefits and, having regard to HMG's past practice, forms a part of the reasonable expectations of members of HMOCS. Even though the decisions on judicial reviews are complex and sometimes inconsistent, and it is not easy to come to conclusions as to how the courts might deal with an application by members of HMOCS, it is prudent to conduct ourselves as though an application might be made for judicial review, and therefore to take account of those decisions which attach importance to full consultation with those affected in the event of a change of policy which would defeat their reasonable expectations. This would mean that the consultations should cover the principal elements of the package including sterling safeguards.
3. When we have taken decisions in principle on all the HMOCS arrangements we envisage, we may well wish to obtain fuller written legal advice on the implications, and perhaps to consult the Law Officers.
ستا
PF Ricketts
Hong Kong Department
NC1ACR
SLM
fincaid
Peter Peleath
CONFIDENTIAL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.