TNAG-2427-FCO40-3529-Hong-Kong-Her-Majesty-s-Overseas-Civil-Service-(HMOCS)-poli-1992 — Page 156

Paul Fifoot,

Legal Consultant

CONFIDENTIAL

HKA 233/1

500

Reference.

ELIGIBILITY FOR STERLING SAFEGUARDS

1.

499

Thank you for the advice in your minute of 17 August which sets out clearly what has been the past practice in Territories going to independence and also the current practice with regard to the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971. I am also grateful for your pointing out that even if we allow Fuad and Kempster to become HMOCS members, this does not necessarily solve the problem, because judges have a continuing right to join the pensionable establishment.

2. However, I do not think your minute answers the question of whether or not we are in a safe position to decide to exclude, as a matter of policy, all officers who are not HMOCS officers from benefiting from any arrangements which we may decide to implement to safeguard pensions.

3.

You have pointed out that past practice was not to confine such arrangements to HMOCS officers. You have also pointed out that in regard to SPOS, HMG continues to safeguard the interests of officers who are not members of HMOCS.

set out in the attached note my researches into correspondence HMG has had on safeguarding the interests of overseas pensionable officers, beyond those in the JD. My preliminary conclusion is that all our relevant statements have been in respect of HMOCS officers only. It therefore seems to me that a good argument can be made that no legitimate expectation has been created in the case of Hong Kong for officers other than HMOCS officers.

Our concern in all this is that our policy on HMOCS, and hence to a degree on Hong Kong generally, could be jeopardised if we now have to tell the Treasury there may be a sizeable further group who could argue for a sterling safeguard.

4.

5.

We have asked Hong Kong to comment on some points which may have a bearing on this matter and Mr Fish has been given a copy of your minute and so should respond to your para 5. But in the interim I should be grateful for your assessment of our position if we were to decide not to include non-HMOCS overseas pensionable officers in any safeguard arrangements over and above those in the JD. I should also be grateful for your advice on whether we would need to make our position publicly clear - I have in mind the question of procedural proprieties - or could we, as Mr Cox suggested in para 5 of his undated minute to Mr Ricketts in early August, simply have a line available if asked.

fif.min.ADM

CODE 18-77

SLM

CONFIDENTIAL

1