10 MAY '93
10:23
HM TREASURY HEF DIVIDENTIAL
TREAS
THE TREASURY SOLICITOR
<< Mr Ms of Ermar
nor Richardsons nor Rayson our Mr Brance
Queen Anne's Chambers, 28 Broadway, London SW1H 9JS
DX No. 2318 Victoria Fax 210 3310 Switchboard 071 210 3000 (GTN 210)
Kevin Woodfield Esq
HM Treasury
Parliament Street London
SW1P 3AG
Direct Line 071 210 3493
41204
Honded wit
3c
by Tras at muting in Cabinet
Please quote:
A92/70
The
Your reference:
Dale: HKA 2331,
6 May 1998
17
1993
10/5
Dear Wenin
HONG KONG PENSIONS: COMPENSATION
As you know, I have been asked to reply to your letter of 30 April addressed to Mrs Dayer. Thank you for filling me in on some of the background by telephone.
My broad conclusion is that if
that if the Treasury proposal were adopted, any legal challenge to it would probably not succeed; but there would be a risk which could not altogether be discounted if HMG were to base its decision to pay less than under earlier schemes on the better pay enjoyed by Hong Kong HMOCS by comparison with those covered by those other schemes.
Does the 1954 White Paper apply?
Vey
Sizinhart,
The White Paper was clearly focusing on situations in which colonies achieve
achieve self government. This is clear from the beginning of paragraph 3 and from the language in which the relevant substantive obligations in paragraphs 6 and 7 are couched. However, the mischief at which the White Paper is addressed, as articulated in the last 4 lines of paragraph 3, applies equally in the context of a handover to another power. Therefore, I think it would be difficult to say that the terms of the White Paper do not cover the situation which will arise Yes in Hong Kong in 1997. Any such argument would probably be perceived as an unmeritorious attempt to make irrelevant distinctions in order to create a technical loophole.
Unlike in the 1960 White Paper, there is no express mention of Hong Kong. The 1954 White Paper, insofar as it creates obligations, entitlements or expectations, does so equally in respect of Hong Kong HMOCS as it does in relation to other HMOCS. The 1960 White Paper provides cumulative protection ie it does not detract from any of the assurances contained in the 1954 Paper (see the first sentence of paragraph 4 of the 1960 Paper).
Does the 1960 White Paper apply?
This White Paper covers more or less the same substantive ground as the 1954 white Paper. The point of the 1960 paper was largely
CONFIDENTIAL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.