Clause
14
Transfer
of property, rights and
liabilities
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Harper:
I want to make two brief points. The first
concerns transparency, which we have already debated at length, so I
shall not revisit the arguments. How does the Minister intend to
publish the information when the Secretary of State makes a scheme of
transfer? Will it be made available by the commission or the Minister,
or placed in the Library of the House? What has he in mind from a
transparency point of view?
My other question is on
subsection (5). That refers to the certificate confirming the transfer
to be given by
the Secretary of State, whereas the explanatory notes say that the
certificate will be given by the commission. I suspect that it should,
indeed, be the Secretary of State, and it would be helpful if the
Minister would clarify that.
Danny
Alexander:
I have a few questions to add. The clause looks
innocuous, but one or two matters could usefully be fleshed out to help
us to understand how the clause would be implemented should the Bill
become law. I appreciate that the Minister’s throat is getting a
bit dry after the number of speeches that he has been making, but I
suspect that this will be his last, at least for today.
The clause relates to the
transfer of property rights and liabilities from the Secretary of State
to the commission and vice versa. It would be useful if the Committee
could understand how the Minister envisages that working in practice. I
presume, although the Minister should clarify this, that the measure
applies to buildings currently occupied by the CSA, computers currently
used by them and other fixtures and fittings of their buildings.
Presumably, those things would be transferred to the commission. The
clause is needed because the CSA is an Executive agency and its
property is currently owned by the Secretary of State. A transfer would
mean that, in future, that property would belong to the
commission.
6.15
pm
If that is the
case, perhaps the Minister could explain what rights or interests over
transferred property the Secretary of State may seek to retain in the
case of such a transfer of property to the commission. Would it be a
controlling interest that would give the Secretary of State a veto over
any future disposals that the commission may make? For example, if the
commission decides that it wishes to sell property, will he have the
right to veto that decision or could the money that might be raised
from the sale of property be returned to the consolidated fund, rather
than becoming additional money in CMEC’s account?
I think that I am right in
saying that the CSA occupies seven regional centres throughout the
United Kingdom. Is it the Minister’s intention for CMEC to have
initial access to all those centres and that the commission will take
decisions about its property needs in due course or might he be
inclined to dispose of some of that property to raise funds for the
Exchequer before the commission is set up?
Finally, is the Minister
considering any disposals or alternative uses for the property?
Reduction of staffing has been a constant feature of these debates, so
that may be an issue in that there may be a need for less property and
fewer centres. Under this Government as under previous Governments,
there has been a tendency to centralise services, core centres and so
on. Does he predict that that is likely to happen in the future, with
relation to property, computer systems and other goods and
chattels?
I shall
stray slightly to talk briefly about property disposals that may take
place. There have been several debates about the future use of property
that is owned by the public sector in relation to meeting housing
needs. If the Minister were to give directions to the
commission, would he advise it about how it might seek to dispose of
property should it wish to do so? That property could be used, for
example, by housing associations or other housing providers to provide
affordable housing. I am sure that that would satisfy the Opposition
and meet demands for brownfield
sites. Does the
clause enable the Minister to give such directions to the commission to
ensure that, if it is disposing of property, it will be done in a way
that could meet other Government objectives? The point that I have just
made would be one such relevant objective and, with that in mind, I
look forward to the Minister’s
response.
Mr.
Plaskitt:
First, I shall try to deal with the points that
have been raised about property. In general terms, the CSA has access
to property via existing contracts under TUPE. All rights under those
contracts will transfer to the commission. Long-term decisions about
estate strategy will be a matter for the commission, which will review
the situation as it evolves.
Clause 14 concerns the
transfer of property rights and liabilities to the commission. The
commission will need to operate from day one to enable those existing
contracts and assets to be transferred from the CSA to the commission.
It will benefit significantly by accessing the current contract, rather
than being obliged to renegotiate afresh. First, most of the contracts
are Department-wide and therefore make extensive savings through
economies of scale. Secondly, many of them have been entered into on a
long-term basis to achieve maximum efficiency. It is therefore in the
commission’s interests that rights and liabilities are
transferred under these contracts. Most contracts in which the
commission has a partial or total interest will contain provisions
allowing them to be novated or assigned—that is, allowing the
straightforward transfer
of the contractual rights and liabilities from the Department to the
commission—and ownership of both assets can then simply be
transferred. For example, if the supplier had contracted with the DWP
to supply stationery to the CSA centre, the contract would be amended
so that it should instead supply stationery to the commission. In a few
specific cases that may not be possible. For instance, if the
provisions in the contract are not extensive enough to allow for
transfer to the commission, the power will simply allow the Secretary
of State to transfer the property rights or liabilities in question
through a scheme. Similarly, if it proves necessary for the commission
to make use of property owned by the Department, the scheme could be
created to provide for exactly that. It is not unusual for the transfer
of property rights and liabilities to be provided for in this way. The
clause echoes closely the provisions of section 41 of the Food
Standards Act
1999. On liabilities,
the clause is intended to allow us to transfer contractual rights and
liabilities and not to transfer the Secretary of State’s
liability for previous actions. For example, the Secretary of State
will retain liability for cases of maladministration that occurred
before the
handover.
These
straightforward measures simply ensure that the commission is provided
with the tools and capabilities it will need to function effectively as
an organisation from the first day that it is set up.
Question put and agreed
to.
Clause 14
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
The
Chairman:
Order. There will now be 77 days of summer
reflection.
Further
consideration adjourned.—[Mr.
David.]
Adjourned
accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Six
o’clock
till Tuesday 9 October
at half-past Ten
o’clock.
| 
