05-JUN-1992 12:03
PAUL FIFOOT
0372723755
all of
time by which they must opt for pensionable terms, which referred to that circular, were not relevant to officers in the Judiciary.
It does not appear from the papers that I have seen that the FCO was made aware that Circular 6/85 was
was not to apply to these officers, or the consequence this would have for membership of HMOCS. That could well be an issue between the FCO and HKG, but could the FCO use such a fact to disadvantage the officers concerned ?
5. The conclusions I draw from this history are:
(a) the HKG withdrew the notification that eligibility for P and
and P status was dependent on appointment before 28th March 1985
So far as the Judiciary was concerned and that notification was the only basis on which it can be asserted that notice was given to terminate eligibility to apply for membership of HMOCS;
(b) the notifications limiting the time for applying for p and p status were in
were in terms tied to Circular 6/85 and if that circular did not apply to the Judiciary, neither did those notifications. In short, once Circular 6/85 had been withdrawn, we cannot rebut the substance of Mr Suttil's case that a first (qualification) deadline was not notified to the Judiciary until some later date. Whether 15th April 1992 is the correct date I cannoi say, but would we be able to dispute it ? These conclusions raise the question whether we would he geeking to alter the zēāāūnāble expectations of the members of the Judiciary for eligibility to apply to become members of HMOCS retrospectively if we now sought to impose the deadline of 28th March 1985, or whether we must establish a new first deadline. Separate from that is the question of a second deadline for the time when members of the Judiciary must take relevant decisions.
6. We are here concerned with expectations, not terms of service (because the HMOCS is separate from employment by the HKG and is a matter of appointment by the Secretary of State) nor apparently of any pre-appointment inducement by the HKG acting on behalf of HMG. The possible sanctions for defeating such expectations are similar to those which we have considered for defeating the expectations of members of HMOCS ag regards compensation and retiring benefits,
and namely political and our reputation for fair dealing the possibility of judicial review. But HMG can change its policy.
7. As a start, I would suggest that we have no option but to break the connection between the continuing eligibility of members of the Judiciary to opt for the new judicial pensions terms and their continued eligibility to apply for membership of HMOCS. The former is apparently unlimited in time.
It would theoretically be possible to keep the latter
closer to 1997, but there is open until much reason why members of the Judiciary should be treated significantly differently
this respect from other the time for reason why we to the This would involve saying
in
contract officers, and if we wish to limit application earlier than 1997 there should not do
80.
по
no
༢
P.03/05
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.