HC Deb 31 May 1962 vol 660 cc1572-6
18. Mr. Abse

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many probation officers appointed last year in England and Wales were untrained on taking up posts; what percentage of probation officers during the last three years have taken up posts without prior training; and when he expects to receive the report of the Joint Negotiating Committee to which he has referred the question of the reassessment of salaries.

Mr. R. A. Butler

The answer to the first part of the Question is 94, and to the second part 44. 6 per cent. As regards the last part, I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) on 17th May.

Mr. Abse

Is it not abundantly clear that the figures which the Home Secretary has given illustrate the urgent necessity of giving salaries to harassed and overburdened probation officers which will attract fully trained people? Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that it costs £ 16 a year to put someone on probation and £ 400 a year to put someone in an institution. Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to stimulate rather than to prevent crime by preventing probation officers from having an adequate salary?

Mr. Butler

I have no wish to prevent probation officers from having an adequate salary. We hope that in due course we shall be able to meet their needs, but I cannot add to the statement made on 17th May.

Mr. Abse

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

22. Dr. King

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the rejection by the Probation Officers' Association of his proposal to limit a salary increase to 2½ per cent., if he will reconsider his decision in the matter.

23. Mr. C. Royle

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reply he has received from the joint negotiating committee on probation officers' salaries to his decision that a salary increase shall not exceed 2½ per cent.

24. Mr. Fletcher

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the rejection by the National Association of Probation Officers of his proposal to limit the increase in salaries in the probation service to 2½ per cent. he will now approve the recommendation of the joint negotiating committee for an increase of 10 per cent. as from 1st April, 1962, with. out prejudice to implementing the full recommendations of the Morison Committee at an early date.

Mr. R. A. Butler

The Government must regretfully adhere to the decision announced on 17th May. No s communication has been received from the Joint Negotiating Committee since the decision was made known to it on that day.

Dr. King

As the wage pause bears most heavily on this small but important group which the whole House, including the Home Secretary, admits to be understaffed and underpaid, will not the Home Secretary consider the matter again, realising that he can do justice to this little group of important servants of his without jettisoning the Government's economic policy?

Mr. Butler

I am very sorry, but I cannot depart from the Government's decision or from the statement made by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State on 17th May, in which he said, as the House will remember, that the Government were in no doubt that the probation service ought to receive a substan- tial increase of pay at the appropriate time and were prepared to examine its claims at the beginning of next year."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th May, 1962; Vol. 659, c. 139.,]

Mr. C. Royle

In view of the fact that the Departmental Committee recommended a rise of an average of 30 per cent. and that the joint negotiating committee recommended a 10 per cent. rise without consideration of the Departmental Committee's Report, and in view also of the fact that the probation officers have refrained from asking for a rise during the latter part of the Committee's deliberations, does not the Minister think that what he is now doing is the most outstanding despicable act we have seen during the incidence of the wage pause?

Mr. Butler

The facts as stated in the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question are correct. In regard to his observations, I can only say that the Government regret their decision. Taken in conjunction with the statement which I have just made about the end of the year, that is as much as I can say at the moment.

Mr. Fletcher

Does not the Home Secretary realise that this deplorable decision has caused great indignation and that this is not merely a question of an increase in pay, but a question of giving recognition to the enhanced status of probation officers in the service of the community, as recognised by the Morison Report? This case raises totally different considerations from all other wage claims. In view of the Morison Committee's Report and the recommendation, to which the Home Secretary's representative agreed, for an immediate increase of 10 per cent., will not the Minister reconsider the matter?

Mr. Butler

No, Sir. I am afraid that I cannot alter the statement made by my hon. and learned Friend and now repeated by me today. It does, however, acknowledge that a substantial increase of pay at the appropriate time is reasonable.

Dame Irene Ward

May I ask, because I am a magistrate, whether my right hon. Friend can explain why within the Government's incomes policy some people within the range of Government servants are limited to 2½ per cent. increases, some to 3½ per cent. and some to even higher levels? Why cannot they all have the same, and perhaps at the highest rate? This variety is irritating to understand. Surely it would have been possible to have given the same increase as has been given to university tutors and, perhaps, to those people employed by the Atomic Energy Authority, for whom, I see, Lord Hailsham made a better case than has been made for the probation officers.

Mr. Butler

I cannot answer questions on the Government's pay policy except to say that, while it has been a painful operation, it has had a salutary effect on the economy as a whole.

Mr. C. Royle

In view of the unsatisfactory replies that we have received, I desire to give notice that I will try to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

25. Miss Bacon

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he referred the proposals regarding salary increases contained in the Morison Report to the Joint Negotiating Committee for the Probation Service.

Mr. R. A. Butler

Because the proposals raised matters appropriate for consideration by this Committee, which is the established negotiating body for the salaries of probation officers in England and Wales.

Miss Bacon

Does not the Home Secretary realise that it was a waste of the time of the Committee, if he knew in advance that probation officers would get only a 2½ per cent. increase, to send it the Report of the Morison Committee to obtain its opinion upon it? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the debate on 10th May he held out hope of a 10 per cent. increase as recommended by the Joint Negotiating Committee?

Mr. Butler

It would not have been constitutionally correct if the matter had not been referred. All the reserved rights in relation to arbitration, and so on, would not have been operable had we not referred it.

Miss Bacon

Surely, the Home Secretary is making a mockery of the whole machinery, if he knows in advance that there is to be only a 2½ per cent. increase, to send the Report and ask the Committee to go through all the pro- cedure and then at the end to say "2½ per cent."

Mr. Fletcher

Is it not a fact that the Home Office representative on the Joint Negotiating Committee himself agreed to the recommendation for a 10 per cent. increase?

Mr. Butler

No, Sir. I would not accept that.