qualified private sector applicants where they compete in
the same quota relating to a specified occupational group. If the number of British links points had been increased as
much as you suggest, the effect would have been to give a
disproportionate number of passports to civil servants and
employees of British companies, leaving almost none for the
rest of the private sector.
Secondly, you suggest that the prime age band should have been extended to cover officers in the age group 30
45. No one would deny that officers who are now in their
mid or late forties will have a valuable role to play during the transitional period. But it was decided to give maximum
points to the 30 -41 age group because they will be in a key age bracket during the transitional years and because they are most prone to emigrate. Older officers scoring less
under the age points might well score more under experience.
The Governor also has the power to allocate "special
circumstances" points in individual cases where the
significance of age and experience may otherwise not be
adequately recognised.
Thirdly, you suggest that too few places have been allocated to civilian civil servants in comparison with the
disciplined services we do not believe that this is the
case. Those in sensitive posts will be eligible to apply
under the Sensitive Services Class. In addition civil
servants will also be able to apply under the various
occupational categories in the General Occupational Class. Indeed a separate quota has been reserved for civil servants in the first occupational group (Managers and Administrators) so that they will not have to compete
against private sector applicants.
Finally, you express concern about security of pensions. The payment of pensions is now a statutory charge
on general revenue. Both the Joint Declaration and the
Basic Law also contain very clear assurances about the
MATAAG/2