§ 3.14 p.m.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what weighting allowance is given to probation officers serving in the Inner London area, and what, if any, exceptions there are to this provision.]
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM)My Lords, all probation officers in the Inner London Probation and After-Care Service at present receive a London addition to their salary of £90 a year. There are no exceptions. The Joint Negotiating Committee for the Probation Service has recommended that, with effect from May 1, 1971, this sum should be increased to £144 a year. The Government have not accepted this recommendation for all Inner London officers, but my right honourable friend the Home Secretary received a deputation from the Committee to discuss this matter on January 14. and he undertook, without commitment to give it further consideration.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, the noble Lord has said, as I understand it, that it is proposed to raise the weighting allowance from £90 to £144. What he did not say was that the proposal was that within the boroughs of Hammersmith, Wandsworth, Lewisham and Greenwich it should be only £105. How can we possibly justify this discrimination between the rest of the Inner London Service and those four boroughs?
§ LORD W1NDLESHAMMy Lords, my reference was to the proposal by the Joint Negotiating Committee. They proposed that all officers in Inner London 171 should receive £144. The Government's reply has been that where the probation officer's place of work is in a London borough within a four-mile area from Charing Cross—that is, in eight out of the 12 Inner London boroughs—the London weighting should be £144, and that in the other four boroughs it should be at the lower rate of £105. The reason for this is that it is in line with the existing rates payable to local authority administrative, professional, technical and clerical staffs.
§ LORD WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that in the four boroughs to which he made reference, Greenwich, Hammersmith, Lewisham and Wandsworth, the clerical assistants employed by the Inner London Probation Service will get £144 a year London weighting allowance and the probation officers in those areas will get only £105? How can the Home Office reconcile those two allowances without creating a very absurd situation? Furthermore, may I ask the noble Lord whether his right honourable friend is aware that the probation officers in those four areas have applied to be transferred to courts in the other eight areas, that officers who have been asked to go into those four areas have declined to do so, and that this is really threatening the morale of the Inner London Probation Service?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, following the reorganisation of local authority social work departments there was some feeling, as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will know, that a gap was likely to widen between the pay of probation officers and that of local authority social workers. Consequently an inquiry has been set up under Mr. Butterworth, Vice-Chancellor of Warwick University, to look into the appropriate relationship between probation officers and social workers. As I have explained, the proposal the Government have made to the Joint Negotiating Committee is exactly in line with the London weighting allowances which are paid to social workers in the London boroughs.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, if the noble Lord is anxious to relate the remuneration of the probation officers to that of the social workers, why does he 172 not do it in the case of salary and not simply in the case of the weighting allowance? When the noble Lord refers to the fact that in the boroughs within four miles of Charing Cross there is to be a different rate, does he not accept that employment of the probation officer is to a single unit, to the Inner London probation service, and that officers are likely to be posted to any of the boroughs within the London area and not simply those within four miles of Charing Cross?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, the relationship between the overall rates of pay is the subject of Mr. Butterworth's inquiry; that is what he will be looking into. I appreciate what the noble Lord has just said about the difference in the nature of employment between the probation officer and the local authority social worker, but I understand there are other categories of people who are centrally employed in the public service where differential rates of London allowance are payable. I should like to say to noble Lords who have expressed interest in this subject that it is because of arguments of the sort that have been raised in the House this afternoon that the Home Secretary has undertaken, without commitment, to give the matter further consideration.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for saying that this matter will be considered without commitment; I hope he will also say "with a measure of sympathy". Would the noble Lord agree that it will be very difficult to believe that the Government take the expansion of the Probation Service seriously if they insist on this kind of discrimination?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, it is not a question of insisting on discrimination. The local authorities' staffs in the Inner London area until May of last year all received the same rate of London weighting allowance. After negotiations, it was agreed with the local authorities that there should be differential rates according to whether the place of work is within or outside four miles from Charing Cross. This already is the case with civil servants, and has been for some years. Therefore, there is an existing body of precedent. It is a question of the scale to which the Probation Service should most properly be attached.
§ LORD WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, would the noble Lord be good enough to deal with the point that I raised with regard to clerical assistants, and bring to the notice of his right honourable friend that it is rather an absurdity when you have a professionally qualified person working in an office and dictating letters to a clerical assistant who is getting £39 a year more London weighting? It is a ridiculous situation. I hope the noble Lord will bring the attention of his right honourable friend to this matter.
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, there are certain anomalies, and there always will be where there are differential rates, because it will depend on who is the employer as well as the nature of the work done. As I explained in my initial reply, as recently as last Friday the Home Secretary saw a delegation on this matter. Negotiations being at the stage they are, it is difficult for me to add any more to that to-day.