Probation Officers (Pay)

HC Deb 01 February 1973 vol 849 cc1598-600

20. Mr. Spearing

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning anomalies in the pay scales of probation officers in the Greater London area; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. R. Carr

I have received representations against statutory rules made in November last, which treat members of the four probation services in outer London less favourably in the matter of excess rate payments than those in inner London. Any question of altering these arrangements would have to be considered by the Joint Negotiating Committee and in the context of the Government's counter-inflation policy.

Mr. Spearing

Does the Home Secretary agree that these anomalies do not exist in the closely associated professions in the social services, particularly after the recommendations in the Seebohm Report? Does he not feel that the regulations are unfair, and will he review them when an opportunity arises?

Mr. Carr

Yes, I shall be prepared to review them through the proper machinery, with the kind of proviso that I have made. The Butterworth Inquiry was a big forward step in trying to assess the true worth of the probation service, and brought about a large measure of fairness between the probation officers and social service workers.

Mr. Spearing

No.

Mr. Carr

I think the probation officers would accept that. It has equally proved to be the case that there are still some unfortunate rough edges, which are now causing trouble.

Mrs. Shirley Williams

Does the Home Secretary recognise that there is great concern in the probation service, first about the fact that many social service workers are being appointed above the basic grade, whereas most probation officers are being appointed on it, and that in this respect the Butterworth recommendation has not been implemented by local authorities; and, secondly, that there is a great deal of feeling over the A and B grades in a situation in which, in London, 80 per cent. of probation officers have qualified for B status and are conscious of the small rump of their fellows who are being treated as second-class probation officers?

Mr. Carr

I am aware of the divisiveness of the A and B grading system. This recommendation—whether it was wise is another matter—was one of the Butterworth recommendations which was implemented, but it is clear that it is a new development which we shall have to review before long.