Offender Management Bill

My Lords, I support the amendment, and I hope that the Minister will have some words of encouragement in response. My noble friend Lady Gibson has made out the case for the amendment. She is obviously representing the views of the National Association of Probation Officers, with which I have considerable sympathy, hence my hope that the Minister will have something helpful to say. I noted with interest what he had to say about the approach of the Probation Boards’ Association, and suggest that he ought to grab this amendment with a degree of enthusiasm. My background is in the transport industry, not least the railway industry. I saw the effects under the previous Government of the break-up of that industry and national collective bargaining. One group within the railway industry whose bargaining position was greatly strengthened by the decisions of the previous Conservative Government was the train drivers, because negotiations then took place on a company-by-company basis. They had considerable bargaining power and, having secured a particular increase in one company, went along to the others and demanded comparable increases. The result has been a considerable improvement in the pay of train drivers. The Minister may feel that we might end up with a shortage of probation officers or staff. If we do, and if we have bargaining done separately by each probation trust, precisely the same scenario will apply. If a probation trust feels that it has a problem securing sufficient probation staff, it is likely to offer an increase which will attract such staff. If staff in surrounding areas find that the rate of pay or conditions are better in the next area, they will simply decide to move. Then that adjacent area will have a similar problem, and will have to move on its pay levels. Therefore, an argument could be made that it might be in the interest of the National Association of Probation Officers to go along with what is proposed. Clearly, however, the association has a view, with which I sympathise. It is better from its point of view to have national bargaining and a degree of stability. I say to my noble friend that it may be in the interests of the Probation Service to go along with this amendment. If there are issues over recruiting sufficient probation staff, he may find that not having national collective bargaining causes problems for the different probation trusts, which after all will be under contract to deliver services. Something that they might think about in negotiations is that if they do not pay an appropriate rate, and have difficulties recruiting, that may affect their ability to deliver contracts. I am sure that that would concentrate their minds quite considerably.