-7-
49.
Mr. Hammond said she began to turn circles again. He said it would be best if the Staff Side would put down their questions on a piece of paper and the Official Side would look into the answer and provide them.
50.
Miso So repeated her questions. The first one was in the 1976 survey the manufacturing company No. 11 offered a minimum but no maximum, but in 1974 survey, the company had a minimum as well as a maximum and Miss So said that to have one company representing one pay level was already inappropriate and it was even worse to have one person to represent the whole pay level whereas the rank of steno- grapher in Government was going to be based on the sort of informa- tion. Miss So was of the opinion that if there were only one person in a particular company, and if the information was inadequate, the best thing for the PIU to do was to drop that company out.
It would be inappropriate to adopt it.
The second question was that the company No. 17 (Utility) and No. 4 (Miscellaneous) offered the same maximum of $1,760 and if that figure was to represent two different pay levels it would affect the pay of SAT.
51.
Mr. Hammond asked Miss So whether she could furnish him all questions in paper.
52. hand.
Miss So replied that she only had the draft of questions in
53.
The Chairman asked the Staff Side to prepare it after the meeting and give it to the Secretary.
54.
Miss So continued to refer to the PIU report. The informa- tion given by the PIU report was funny and she doubted that it might contain a lot of inappropriate information. If Mr. Hammond said that the PIU report was more accurate than the Productivity Centre report, she was of the view that the information provided by the PIU report was crippled. That was all she had to say. But she added that she was rather disappointed that she could not get a simple answer to a simple question as to why there were 3 manufacturing companies in 1976 whereas there were only 2 manufacturing companies in 1974 when the 17 companies were being picked out from the 24 companies as stipulated in 1973 and 1974 PIU report.
55.
Mr. Hammond said from the Staff Side's point of view their points might be fairly simple but they could only be answered by the Controller of PIU. They would certainly get him to answer those questions as quickly as possible.
56.
Mr. Hammond then asked if the Staff Side still had any questions on the PIU.
57.
Mrs, Cheung said that they would like to have full answer from the Official Side concerning the question where did Code No. 22 come from and they wondered whether the Official Side would like to have to discuss this.
Cont'd. .../58