CONFIDENTIAL ##
We considered that the three years since 1974 had seen many significant
changes in the Civil Service and the private sector and that it was
therefore timely to conduct another overall review.
4.
As in previous reviews, we invited heads of departments to
comment on grading principles generally, the grading of individual
All these posts in their departments, and on conditions of service.
submissions were carefully examined and were of great assistance in
cur deliberations.
GRADING
5.
sections:
Our consideration of gradings can be divided into five
(a)
heads of departments;
(b)
deputy directors;
(0)
assistant directors;
(a) the Judicial/Legal Group; and
(c)
other posts.
These are dealt with in the following paragraphs.
(a) Heads of departments
6.
As in past reviews, the fundamental issue is the three-
group system of grading heads of departments: does it remain appropriate?
The great majority of heads of departments support the three-group system
and after a re-examination of the advantages and disadvantages of a
two-group or four-grop system, which are detailed in our Fifth Report (1974), we recommend that the present three-group system continues,
7.
Having determined this we next reconsidered the factors used
to grade departments, and on these factors we recommend no change: the criteria detailed in our First Report (1964) still provide an effective
means of grouping departments.
See Appendix 2.
機密
CONFIDENTIAL #2
8.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.