378
CONFIDENTIAL
379
Mr Ricketts
En 16 Less wither
(Included in submission. I
ра
My Stone 10/6 MS HHA 233/1
Mr
Cox (by FAX)
HMOCS: COMPENSATION
Mo
9/ni
From:
Date:
CC:
J V KERBY
(Extn 0380)
9 June 1992 Mr Fish
муна
You charle be aware Hal Mr Muir close eye a His arped refularly chivvied your predecessor
Keeps
a V.
Perhaps I could add a note to what Mr Fish has said in his minute of 8° Lo ensure dat
June. It reflects a point which I made at the Ministerial meeting last
week.
2.
we do not lose sight of the point. We don't.
Beleeth 7/6
меня
I do not resist the conclusion that if we are making a comprehensive
effort to resolve the various HMOCS issues at Cabinet/Ministerial level,
taking advantage of Mr Patten's presence, we should aim for the best
possible deal.
This does indeed point to upgrading our proposals for
compensation from the present incentive based scheme using the
"supersession" factors to a more traditional compensation scheme based on
the "loss of career" factors. However, if we propose this, we need to
brief our Ministers very carefully on the financial aspects.
3.
Assuming that we do not fix the cap at such a low level that it
provokes the hostility which we are seeking to avoid, the implication of
moving to the traditional factors will be that the potential cost of the
scheme would be significantly higher than the cost of what we have proposed
hitherto. The Treasury may simply reject it accordingly. Alternatively,
they may argue that they would be prepared to let us offer the enhanced
scheme provided that the FCO is prepared to accept the financial
consequences. This would mean that any increase over the cost which they
have so far provisionally agreed could be met from the Superannuation Vote
would have to be found by transferring funds from other FCO Votes when the
time comes. This would be a significant hostage to fortune for the Aid
Programme and/or Diplomatic Wing programmes.
4.
The Treasury may of course not take this line. But I think that our
Ministers should be briefed that they may be faced with this argument,
which they would need to resist strongly.
Lo
J V KERBY
CONFIDENTIAL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.