i
officers only now transferring to pensionable status.
5. Our Legal Consultant has advised that previous schemes in other territories going to independence did allow for such service to count, but that the arrangements for changing from contract to pensionable terms, especially as regards the Judiciary, are undoubtedly far more generous in
Hong Kong than elsewhere. Such transfers in other
territories are likely to have been small. Although precedent would point to allowing the buying back of service, we have been careful to present the scheme we are now promulgating as unique and tailored to meet Hong Kong's
circumstances. We could if we wished exclude such service.
6.
The case against permitting this is primarily threefold. First these officers cannot argue that they have suffered a
loss of expectation of career as HMOCS officers: they now
know exactly where they stand. Second all the officers
(except some 25 prominent members of the Judiciary) have had
over 7 years to change to pensionable terms: the fact they did not do so earlier suggest they were waiting to see what would give them most gain. Third it would add £3- 4 million
to the compensation bill. On the other hand the officers concerned would object strongly on the basis that past practice gave them a reasonable expectation that bought-back service would count. They would do their bets to press their case, possibly to the extent of seeking judicial review, and their dissatisfaction could undermine our chances of securing acceptance of any revised compensation arrangements.
7. The arguments are finely balanced. But I recommend that on balance we should allow any bought back service to count.
buy.back.HMOCS.mvs
3
5
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.