`機密
CONFIDENTIAL ##
ANNEX B TO XCCI(77)11
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS ON THE SIXTI
REPORT BY HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS
Grading Principles
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Concern over the Committee's statement that the great majority of departments support the three- group system.
(Comment from one department only. The views of all departments on the grading of departments in groups had been invited, and no Head of Department had commented unfavourably on the present group system).
A direct reference to "professionalism!! should be made in the factors used to group departments.
(Comment from one department only. The need for "professionalism" is already implicit in existing factors which are still considered to provide an effective means of grading departments).
Support for the proposal to upgrade Group III deputy directors from D3 to D4.
(No Head of Department commented unfavourably).
The proposal to grade single deputies in Group I departments at D7 had breached the principle that a deputy head of a Group I department should be paid less than a head of a Group III department.
(This principle was purposely breached in recognition of the Committee's view that a single deputy of a Group I department now carries a heavier responsi- bility than the head of a Group III department)."
There should he two levels of Assistant Director in Group I departments with their grading related to the grading of the Deputy Directors.
(This is not consistent with the policy of "broad- banding" directorate posts. D2 is considered to be the correct grading for the Assistant Director level generally).
Doubts on the proposed upgrading of the DJL 3 salary level to equate with that of a deputy head of a Group II department.
(This grading was recommended after considering relativities within the Judicial/Legal Group, and the significant increase in responsibilities of posts at the DJL 3 level).
/Grading
CONFIDENTIAL
機密