CONFIDENTIAL
package. They argue that valuable assurances should not be
reserved for those who happen
happen to work for a participating organisation at the expense of other, perhaps more worthy, candidates who do not. They are also concerned that a process
of nomination by companies would open up risks of corruption.
Their view and I see some strength in it is that young people
likely to be moving into key positions can more fairly be dealt
with in the allocation of the second tranche of the 50,000
places, nearer to 1997.
-
5. My own view is that the balance of advantage lies in not
proceeding with the secondment scheme. That view is based not
simply on the arguments in the last paragraph but more
particularly on the practicalities.
The administrative
procedures involved in assessing the bona fides of organisations
wishing to participate, approving their schemes and allocating
the available places between them would be cumbersome and
disproportionate to the relatively small numbers (500 or even
1,000) who might benefit (see paragraph 36-46 of Annex A). The
areas of discretion given to me in selecting participating
organisations, for example, and allocating the available places between them would put me, rather than the Governor, at the
centre of this one aspect of the citizenship scheme and would
give scope for challenge by way of judicial review in the UK; and
the inclusion of the secondment scheme would undoubtedly
complicate the drafting of the Bill and hamper our chances of
early introduction. I recommend, therefore, that we do not
proceed with this proposal, but point to the later tranche of
applications under the general scheme as a more appropriate way
of dealing with those moving into key positions in the future.
THE SELECTION SCHEME
6.
If the approved secondment scheme is dropped, the selection
scheme will have four components:
CONFIDENTIAL
3