| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.30 pm
It does not work like that in the probation service. People do not suddenly say, "You're on probation. We're going to send you to Westmorland, although you live on the Walworth road." Nor do they say in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), "Here you are in Somerton, but we've decided that you'll report every Saturday morning in Surrey." It is a local service, and there is a very strong argument that there should be flexibility in a local probation service. It seems unnecessary to restrict that.
I end by linking together the two points. We could always provide the Secretary of State with a reserve power to direct, and to intervene when a continuing dispute between a local board and the national service cannot be resolved. Therefore, it is unnecessary to bar the local probation service from owning land.
The new Lords amendment seems less satisfactory, and it would perhaps be better to stick to the original one. I wonder whether it might not be better to ask the House to vote on the matter--so that the serried ranks of hon. Members waiting to vote can do so, the Government can be overthrown, and we can have a little more excitement before Parliament rises.
Mr. Burns: I do not wish to detain the House for long--not only because I do not wish to test your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but because of an earlier intervention by the Minister in which he sought to be helpful in allaying my concerns. However--this is not a criticism of him--as I told him in an earlier intervention, I am not a lawyer and do not have a lawyer's mind, and I am still confused and concerned about the drafting of paragraph 13 of schedule 1, which seems to be contradictory. If I explain in some detail my concern
and confusion, perhaps the Minister, with his razor-sharp lawyer's mind, will be able to assure a layman that the Government's intentions are quite logical.As I understand it, if the Government accept the Lords amendment in lieu, schedule 1, paragraph 13(3)(a) will provide:
- But a local board--
(a) may not hold land though they may manage it.
- 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--
(a) holding property.
If that is a correct analysis of the word "property", surely paragraph 13(2)(a) is contradicted by 13(3)(a). The paragraph seems to be saying both that the board may hold property and that a local board may not hold land. I just cannot understand the logic of that.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: It might be helpful if I deal with the point now rather than in my reply. "Property" is a broad term that includes both land and things from computers to pencils. The provision is not inconsistent. It says that all types of property may be held, but land may not be held. That is the type of property that the board may not hold. The board may hold other types of property, from pencils to computers. Although it may also hold a lease, it cannot own freehold. Thus the board will not be in the business of dealing with the purchase and sale of freehold land or long leases involving land. Additionally, it may well be renting premises. So, although it will need to manage land, it cannot own it.
Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the Minister, but I am not altogether wiser. I am trying to think of the implications of what he has just said. I understood him to say that those involved may manage property and land, but may not own it. I understand that, but why does the Bill say that they may hold property but not land? I do not see the difference. Is the word "hold" legalese for own, rather than manage? If so, I will finally understand the point.
Mr. O'Brien: "Hold" will mean owning land or owning a right in land. The difficulty, as lawyers will understand, is that land law is essentially a legal fiction or structure. It is a creation of a way of ownership that is based on an understanding of the difference between legal ownership and equitable ownership. There are different ways in which land may be owned: some legal, some equitable. If I tried to explain it, I would confuse the hon. Gentleman even more, which I do not want to do.
Mr. Burns: The Minister is absolutely right. We will not move the debate forward if I pursue this narrow point.
This is a badly drafted proposal, unless one is a lawyer. I hope that it will not provide a rich seam for lawyers to benefit from in future years.The Minister has said that the probation service cannot own land. It can have a lease or manage land, but cannot own it. Does that mean that the land that the probation service currently owns will have to be divested so as to comply with the Bill?
Mr. Burns: The Minister helpfully nods; that raises a number of questions.
Mr. Clappison: The Minister's justification for his proposal is that owning land would distract the probation service. Will not the probation boards now have the distraction of selling land?
Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. The Minister said that the probation service can manage properties but cannot own them. Surely that will be a distraction in its own right.
I wish to return to the narrow point about the selling off of properties and land currently owned by the probation service, which, once the Bill comes into force, will be illegal for them to hold. I assume--this thought has only just entered my head on the hoof, so to speak--that there will be provisions in the Bill for a timetable for the probation service to divest itself of the land, so that it would not, for example, be acting illegally by still owning land if the Bill were to become the law of the land a week today. I am sure that the Government have realised that there will have to be a time lag to avoid such potential embarrassment and self-inflicted damage.
Mr. Hawkins: Might not it assist those who report our proceedings if my hon. Friend were to reflect further on the phrase that he employed when he said that something had entered his head on the hoof?
Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful and pertinent intervention. However, I do not want to test your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I shall return to the Bill.
I am not quite sure why selling off the land is so necessary as part and parcel of the schedule. I do not see an absolute need for the service not to own land. If it can manage its own property and land, why cannot it own them? From a long-term, Treasury point of view--the Government make so many criticisms of short-termism that one would think that they would welcome a long-term view--land and property prices generally appreciate in value. The probation service, as the freeholder of the land, will lose an asset that would otherwise appreciate in value, if it has to sell it.
What will be the mechanisms for selling off the land? The probation service might, for example, operate in a town in which it owned facilities, properties and land ideal for its uses. The property might even be purpose built and therefore unattractive for land developers to buy, demolish and redevelop. Why should the probation service go through the agony of the fruitless exercise of selling off its property under the provisions of the schedule, then have to look elsewhere to rent or acquire
similar property or land in order to carry out its duties? That would be a false economy, and rather--I am trying to think of a parliamentary term--foolish. Perhaps the Minister would like to put me out of my agony by explaining this now.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman makes some interesting points. However, if we were proposing to do what he suggests, he would be right--it would be foolish. We are not expecting the probation service to sell the land, then try to buy it back. Under clause 19, an order may be made to vest the land in the Home Secretary, who would then be able to administer it centrally. The offices that the local probation services currently occupy would continue to be their offices. The services would just not have the job of owning them--that would be done centrally by the Crown estate.
Mr. Burns: The matter is becoming clearer. The Minister is saying that, under the clause, the probation service will not be allowed to own the land or property. However, rather than being sold off to the private sector to make a profit, the land will be shuffled from the probation service to the Home Secretary. The ownership will then be transferred to the Home Office or to the Government body with responsibility for buildings.
Mr. O'Brien: A further point is that some land may be sold off because, if the number of local organisations reduces from 20 to eight, there will be some overcapacity by reason of that change. Therefore, there may be sales at some point, but they will be done centrally.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |