Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Dholakia (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 5 June 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HL) on Offender Management Bill.


Offender Management Bill

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.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
692 c1076 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Conditions of employment Contracts Councillors Finance Rehabilitation Private sector Offenders Qualifications Pay Membership Management Magistrates Probation Standards National Probation Service for England and Wales Voluntary organisations Training Probation trusts Probation officers
Legislation
Offender Management Bill 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk