PROBATION OFFICERS' SALARIES (Hansard, 24 March 1971)

§ LORD WELLS-PESTELL
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ LORD WINDLESHAM
My Lords, the current probation pay agreement had effect from April 1, 1970, and runs until the end of 1971. But it provided for an interim review by the Joint Negotiating Committee for the Probation Service in January, 1971, which could, if the circumstances so warranted, lead to a revision of the settlement and new salary scales effective from April 1, 1971. To undertake this detailed review the Joint Negotiating Committee set up on January 15 a Sub-Committee which has since met on February 12 and March 15. The review continues.

§ LORD WELLS-PESTELL
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his reply. May I ask him whether it is not a fact that these negotiations have been going on for over two months and that no settlement has yet been arrived at? Can he tell me the reason for the delay. Is it due to the fact that the employing authority is willing to agree to a substantial increase in salary scales and the Government have opposed it?

§ LORD WINDLESHAM
My Lords, I think the House will accept that it is difficult to comment on wage negotiations while they are in progress. My right honourable friend has already received representations and is due to see representatives of the staff side and of the employers again very shortly. It would not be right for me to comment on the details of these particular negotiations at this stage.

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Advisory Council on Probation and After-Care had the task of advising on the steps necessary to recruit probation officers, and they made it very clear that the targets agreed on cannot be reached unless there is a very substantial increase in the rates of pay for rated officers? Have the Government representatives serving on the joint negotiating inquiry been informed of this fact, and will they act accordingly?

§ LORD WINDLESHAM
My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the Home Secretary is very well aware of the relationship between the salary scales paid to probation officers and the targets which have recently been announced for 913 expanding the size of the Probation Service. These are considerations which are very much in his mind and which he will take into account in receiving the representations.

§ LORD BESWICK
My Lords, while there are considerations in the mind of the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Home Secretary, is it not also a fact that Treasury intervention overrides what is in his mind? And is it not also a fact that it is impossible to do justice to the Probation Service if an attempt is made to keep this wage award to the 9 per cent. figure which the Government seek to apply?

§ LORD WINDLESHAM
My Lords, I would not accept the noble Lord's last comment. I would agree that in any wage settlement in the public sector the Minister responsible, the Home Secretary in this case, has to take into account two things: he has first to take into account the representations made to him, in this case by the staff side and by the employers; and he has to reconcile those with the Government's economic policy as a whole. This claim has to be seen against the background of Government policies designed to combat inflation. The Government have emphasised the need for progressive and substantial reductions in the general level of pay settlements. My right honourable friend will have to reconcile these two conflicting considerations.

§ LORD BESWICK
My Lords, I am sure all responsible people will accept the necessity to keep down inflation and the inflationary push of wage claims. But will the noble Lord not accept that here is another case in the public sector of a too small percentage on a salary rate already too low, and the consequence is not only false economy but grave social injustice?

§ LORD WINDLESHAM
My Lords, these are powerful arguments but they cannot outweigh the general considerations which I have referred to, and which must be taken into account.

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that there is a third consideration which the Home Secretary has to take into account; that is, where there is a special case? This he did in the case of the police, very suc- 914 cessfully. The Probation Service is in a comparable position, and unless they receive an increase in salaries above and beyond the norm, we shall not get the recruits we need for the Service. This will be utterly disastrous. This is not an exaggeration, but a statement of basic fact.

§ LORD WINDLESHAM
My Lords, I have already said that this factor—the urgent necessity to increase the size of the Probation Service—is very much in the Home Secretary's mind. But the noble Lord, who has great personal experience in this field, will know that it is very difficult to take up a definite position while negotiations are in progress.

§ LORD WELLS-PESTELL
My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he would remind his right honourable friend of the large number of resignations from the Probation Service in the last five years and of the qualifications of those who have resigned? I am most grateful to him for his help this afternoon.

§ LORD WINDLESHAM
My Lords, I take note of what the noble Lord has said, but the annual rate of wastage is not quite so high as might be expected. Since 1965 it has been almost constant, expressed as a percentage. The size of the Service has gone up but, expressed in percentage terms, in 1965 the rate was 7.6, and in 1970 it was 7.5. I do, however, take into account the quality of some of those who have left the Service.

§ LORD WELLS-PESTELL
My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister expected a much higher percentage of resignations.