§ Mr. Ralph Howellasked the Minister for the Civil Service what, with regard to the Megaw report, are the broad definitions used to summarise overall performance in the Civil Service appraisal scheme; and what proportion of civil servants fell into each category in the years 1976, 1978, 1980 and 1982.
23W
§ Mr. HayhoeThe broad definitions are: 1—Outstanding, exceptionally effective; 2—Very Good, more than generally effective but not positively outstanding; 3—Good, generally effective; 4—Fair, performs duties moderately well; 5—Not Quite Adequate, definite weaknesses make him not quite good enough to get by; 6—Unsatisfactory, definitely not up to the duties. Adverse reports giving 5 and 6 markings may lead to proceedings for compulsory premature retirement. Comprehensive information is not collected on the distribution of overall performance markings.
Research evidence from a limited sample shows that distributions vary considerably between Departments, grades and organisational units. Broadly, as reported to the Megaw committee, this evidence suggests a range of between 40 and 75 per cent. of staff in categories 1 and 2; between 20 and 50 per cent. in category 3; between 5 and 10 per cent. in category 4; and about 1 per cent. in categories 5 and 6. Departments are currently seeking to remedy indentifiable deficiencies in their reporting standards, and the reporting system is itself under review.