| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
("(though they may manage it)")
Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendment in lieu of Lords amendment No. 135.
The amendment makes it clear that local probation boards will manage land even though they cannot own it. During the passage of the Bill, there were many discussions here and in another place about who should manage the land and the buildings that the probation service will occupy. The other place tabled an amendment to enable local boards to own and manage land with the approval of the Secretary of State. The Government were reluctant to go down that route, as we believe that all land occupied by the probation service should be owned centrally.
Local boards should not spend their time discussing whether they wish to buy, sell and administer land. Instead, they ought to discuss how to prevent reoffending and protect the public. We had a certain view about how the boards should spend their time, but have listened carefully to the debate and have always made it clear that those occupying certain premises should be responsible for their day-to-day management. The amendment that the Lords accepted in lieu of their original amendment makes that clear, and is consistent with the position that the House has taken all along. I commend the amendment to the House.
Mr. Burns: I accept the Minister's point about buildings, but will he explain more about the land that is involved and the purpose for which it is used?
Mr. O'Brien: The probation service has land for offices and the courses that it runs. If it had the resources, it might feel that it could purchase land on which it could run a scheme. For example, it might want to purchase garage land on which it could run training courses. Alternatively, it might want land on which to build classroom accommodation. Various possibilities, therefore, could result from the probation service wanting to engage in the ownership and management of land.
We were reluctant that boards should become too involved in that process. I do not think that other parties would disagree that the prime objective of the National Probation Service is to prevent reoffending. That should be the focus of boards' discussion.
Mr. Clappison: Do any of the current probation committees hold land in the sense in which that term is used in the Bill? If so, will they be required by the Bill to divest themselves of that land?
Mr. O'Brien: I am afraid that my knowledge of the extent of the ownership of land by the various local probation boards is limited. Officials are nodding to indicate that there is some ownership. As I said, we intend boards to spend their time not managing or owning land, but preventing reoffending. In future, the probation service will ensure that it deals with what constituents of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and my own constituents in North Warwickshire want it to tackle.
People want the service to prevent reoffending. I would be surprised if the hon. Member for Hertsmere were approached by constituents who said that they wanted the board of their local probation service to spend its time managing land. That would apply whether or not it owned the land, although I suspect that the probation service does not own much land and I am not aware of any particular examples of such ownership. However, I do not want to
suggest to the hon. Gentleman that there are no instances in which a current local board owns some land, as I suspect that somebody somewhere might well have entered into an agreement for the purchase of land.The hon. Member for Hertsmere asked what would happen in respect of such ownership. The source of the resources for the land and the circumstances under which it was owned would have to be examined. The hon. Gentleman can work through the legal points, just as I can. I suspect that, in a number of cases, resources will have been provided by a local county council. In such circumstances, the land would be likely to revert to those who had paid for it. However, that will depend on the particular local circumstances that apply. Those are broad legal principles and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can understand them.
Mr. Burns: Will the Under-Secretary give way?
Mr. O'Brien: I was attempting to finish, but I shall give way once more.
Mr. Burns: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am not a lawyer, so I should like to clear up a point that is causing me further confusion. Paragraph 13(1) of schedule 1 states that
- a local board may do anything which appears to it to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of, or in connection with, the exercise of its functions.
- That includes, in particular--
- But a local board--
That seems to contradict paragraph (2).
Mr. O'Brien: Property can be owned for a period, as it will not necessarily be land. It can vary. If I remember rightly, land is defined in the Law of Property Act 1925. As I have repeatedly said, the Government aim to ensure that the local boards do not spend a lot of their time managing land. Of course, they will hold various sorts of property. Substantial evidence, supported by the national conditions survey of probation accommodation, suggests that probation land is generally not well managed. For example, there is high overcapacity in accommodation across the current probation estate, a large part of which is deemed unsuitable for present or future purposes. That applies to as much as 30 per cent. of the estate. There is also significant over-staffing on estate management. According to the national conditions survey of probation accommodation, the level of over-staffing could be as much as 75 per cent. There are inefficiencies in the use of resources across the estate. There is a significant number of undocumented occupations and approximately £30 million is required to bring the estate up to standard. In its present state, the property--that which is occupied, and, in a small number of cases, owned by the probation service--is probably unattractive for the private finance initiative. The aim is to ensure that that is dealt with on a much more centralised basis or that property should revert
to those who previously owned it so that the probation service can focus on those matters with which the hon. Gentleman's constituents and mine want it to deal.References to property can mean anything from a paperclip and a pencil, but land usually means land with buildings. A person may lease a building but not necessarily own the freehold of the land on which it rests. That is an important distinction. The main aim of centralising ownership and management of the probation estate is to allow accounting responsibility to be placed squarely where it should be, which is on the Government. As a result, there will be better control of investment, procurement and development, thus making best use of the probation service's assets. It will be part of the wider civil estate and derive benefits from that. Cost savings will be achieved as a result of economies of scale and rationalisation, perhaps involving the sharing of accommodation where appropriate. There will also be greater effectiveness in the delivery of building and management services, which can benefit the probation service and other public sector organisations.
I repeat that the objective is to ensure that the new boards and service managers concentrate on delivery of their core functions and are not distracted by matters relating to real estate.
Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister makes the argument well, but does the Secretary of State for Health have the power to direct health authorities or trusts to dispose of property to streamline the estate, and does the Home Secretary have the power to direct police authorities to get rid of property in order to achieve a more streamlined result and to save money? I do not think they do, and, if they do not, there is no logical reason why the probation service should have such a power and no local responsibility.
Mr. O'Brien: I have just set out why we need more centralised control. There is a serious problem with the present quality of accommodation. There is overcapacity and some dilapidation. We need to be able to benefit from economies of scale, so we take the view that the probation service should be run differently. Whether the NHS is run in the same way and whether the Secretary of State has a particular power is completely irrelevant. We seek to deal with the matter in a sensible and straightforward way to ensure that taxpayers, who put so many resources into the probation service, obtain the value for money that they deserve. The National Probation Service requires a measure of central control in the way in which its property and land is administered, so that the boards can concentrate on what we want them to do.
Mr. Hawkins: When the Minister said in reply to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that the matter was perfectly straightforward, he was a little wide of the mark. My right hon. and hon. Friends and the hon. Gentleman, by their careful and skilful probing, have revealed how opaque is the Minister's thinking. Indeed, they hit on the very grave concern that several Opposition Members expressed in Committee. The issue arose in the first place because, during our probing in Committee, it was made clear that those few words--which are, on the surface, apparently
innocuous--reveal the Government's overall strategy towards Home Office matters and many others. They want to centralise and have all the control themselves.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |