-Our general responsibility was to see that adequate arrangements were made in the JD for the payment of pensions.
-This we have done by the inclusion of several provisions
which state how pensions are to be paid.
-We have also recognised our special responsibilities towards
HMOCS officers and are considering what measures would be
appropriate.
The key differences in this context between HK and other Colonies
moving to independence are:
There will not be a POA as such. POAS were entered into
For HK equivalent pension and
by the successor government.
other safeguards have been written into the JD
-
Because we cannot in practice negotiate a POA, HMG is taking on itself the burden of putting in place arrangements for HMOCS officers for whom we have special responsibility.
It is possible that at least some of these pensionable overseas officers will try to seek an assurance that HMG will safeguard their
pensions in the same way as HMOCS officers. Some officers are spouses of HMOCS officers and there could be a number of judges (who may still
transfer to pensionable terms at any time- but not HMOCS) who will be
aware of the history. We doubt that those officers retired on the Indian Sub-continent will pursue the issue.
We consider that we should hold the line and not expand our
safety net beyond HMOCS officers. This is for four main reasons:
-Our whole thrust in this area has been on HMOCS officers. We
have not given any indication that others would benefit
-The JD makes appropriate provision for the payment of pensions in general. We have no reason to think that they will not be fully met.
-Our main aim in this matter is to maintain good
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.