§ 9. Mr. Fowlerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now make a statement on an increase in salaries for probation officers.
§ Mr. MaudlingThe employers' side of the Joint Negotiating Committee for the Probation Service, with the agreement of the Government, has offered increased salaries for main grade officers with effect for one year from 1st April, 1971. There would be a general increase in the basic scale ranging from 8 to 8½ per cent. and a special annual allowance of £70 payable beyond the fourth point of that scale. Additionally, a long-service increment of £72 would be payable after 10 years on the maximum of the scale, making £2,150 a year in all. The employers were also prepared to offer a common starting salary of £1,500 for professionally trained entrants, although this would involve smaller percentage increases at certain points on the basic scale. I understand that the staff side representatives would have been prepared to conclude an agreement on this basis at a future meeting of the Joint Negotiating Committee. But the recent Annual Conference of the National Association of Probation Officers passed a vote of no confidence calling upon them to resign.
§ Mr. FowlerI thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that a strong probation service is a vital factor in the Government's plans to tackle crime? Many probation officers regard this offer as sadly inadequate. In view of the importance of a strong probation service, will my right hon. Friend consider setting up an independent inquiry into the conditions and pay of the probation service?
§ Mr. MaudlingThis offer was designed with that point very much in view—namely, the need to make a special 1497 increase in the strength of the probation service. I believe that, if accepted, it would have had that effect. It is, in a sense, analogous with the settlement with the police which included a two-part settlement: a basic increase equivalent to the general increase in wages and salaries and a subsequential increase to deal with special problems, particularly wastage.
§ Mr. CrawshawIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that I believe that he is trying to help probation officers? But surely there must be something wrong when people dedicated to the probation service know that, by moving to the local authority and doing a similar job, they can get a tremendous increase in salary? Is not the right hon. Gentleman putting a premium on the loyalty of these people? Will he take the matter back to the Cabinet and tell his colleagues that if he does not do something about it, far from an increase in the numbers of probation officers, there will be fewer at the end of the year?
§ Mr. MaudlingI do not believe that that will happen. Recruitment has been going well recently. As I said, staff side representatives would have been prepared to conclude an agreement on this basis.
§ Mr. DeedesIs my right hon. Friend aware that while, on the face of it, this has been a reasonable offer, if he wants to get the strength of the probation service up from about 3,200 to nearer 5,000, in view of its manifold responsibilities and to meet the claims of Seebohm, he will have to take a wider look at the matter, possibly on the lines recommended by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler)?
§ Mr. MaudlingI should not have recommended the settlement unless I believed that it would carry out the policy which the Government announced, and to which we are committed, of expanding the size and strength of the service.
§ Mr. CallaghanIs it much good the Home Secretary's calling in aid the negotiating committee if it has been sacked by its annual conference? Does not that reveal a depth of feeling perhaps unknown to the right hon. Gentleman when he made the original proposals? Will not he 1498 respond to the expression of opinion on both sides of the House that he should take the matter into consideration again himself? Does he propose to impose the settlement now, or are there any further steps he intends to take to try to get some acceptance among the staff?
§ Mr. MaudlingWe must for the moment await what the staff side intends to do. There was the negotiation about which I have spoken, and the staff side representatives were prepared to conclude an agreement. I do not yet know what it intends to do at the next negotiating committee.
§ Mr. CallaghanMust the Home Secretary wait until he sees what the staff side will do? Is not the primary responsibility his? As he is obviously aware of the dissatisfaction which the staff side feels, because it has sacked its negotiating committee, will he say whether he is ready, in advance of the proposals from the staff side, to consider alternative and better arrangements?
§ Mr. MaudlingThe responsibility for making offers rests with the employers' side. I agree with the offer which it put forward and think that it is right in the circumstances. I understood that it was accepted by the representatives. I am sorry that that has led to the present situation. It is right to wait and see the form taken by the new situation.