I do not want to enter the whole debate that took place when the appointment of chief probation officers was taken over centrally by the Home Office, and the problem that that caused. I just remind the Minister what paragraph 7 of the schedule states. It states that the trust appoints its own staff and sets its own terms and conditions. Paragraph 8 provides that, "““the determination of terms of employment ... relating to ... remuneration, fees or expenses, and ... pensions allowances or gratuities ... requires the approval of the Secretary of State””,"
unless he directs otherwise. That is very woolly. In other words, a trust may decide to pay less to a probation officer working in a rural area than to someone working in a highly concentrated area—for example, somewhere in London—as long as that arrangement is approved by the Secretary of State. That is not national negotiating standards; that will cause problems.
Offender Management Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Dholakia
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 5 June 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Offender Management Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
692 c1076 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:29:25 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_400581
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_400581
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_400581