is reduced, it would be made up one way or another. une way, as I have previously stated, would be to earmark part of the Hong Kong increases for that purpose. This would be consistant with the practice adopted with POA's and could be done administratively so that you would not need to amenă the Regulations. Another way would be for the Hong Kong Government to guarantee the sterling value of the basic pensions of eligible pensioners in lieu of paying increases. This would provide a net saving for the HK Government but the ODA would then be required under the Regulations to pay all the increases.
4.
Ι
I am surprised that having reaffirmed the main principle of the Act in your letter of 26 November 1992 as being "that pensions should be maintained at a level or their original purchasing power in Britain", you then contradict it in your letter of 27 January by saying that "the Act is not concerned with the protection of the pension itself". can think of two ways that might explain this contradiction. First, your reference to the intentions of the Act "as modified by the Regulations", suggests that you are under the misapprehension that Regulations can modify the intentions of Acts of Parliament. They cannot. The purpose of кegulations is to implement the intentions of Acts not to modify them. Second, as your reaffirmation was made in the context of protecting the British Government's interests, you may have thought that the principle could be applied to the Government without it also being applied to the pensioners. This would be contrary to the Rule of Law. Would you please state which of these erroneous concepts influenced you or otherwise explain your contradiction. 5. You claim that you "fully appreciate" the points made in my letter of 10 January but, as on so many previous occasions, you have avoided answering these points. particularly aggrieved about your failure to respond to paragraphs 4 and 8 of my letter in which I pointed out that even when my aggregated pensions were below the level of their original purchasing power in sterling you continued to reduce my Tanzanian pension supplement still further. I wish to remind you that paragraph 12 of the Memorandum on the Fublic üfficers' Pensions (Tanzania) Agreement 1976 states, "The supplement payable under the Fensions (Increase) Act 1971 is in broad terms the increase in pension necessary to maintain the original (sterling) purchasing power of the Tanzania pension. I spent £2,000 for a legal opinion on the continued validity of this principle (see my letter of 21 September 1992) but I need not have bothered because you
I
I am
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.