§ Dr. Cunninghamasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the effect on the numbers of those awaiting trial and those awaiting parole should the finance available for the probation and aftercare service within an authority be reduced due to the effects of rate-capping by any whole percentage point up to 10 per cent.; and what effect this might have on the cost of the prison service.
§ Mr. MellorThe information needed to answer this hypothetical question is not readily available, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
§ Dr. Cunninghamasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what amendments he considers necessary to paragraph 6(2) of schedule 3 to the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 in the light of the Government's proposals for the probation and after-care service in the event of the abolition of the metropolitan county councils.
§ Mr. MellorParagraph 6(2) of schedule 3 to the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 provides that the total number of persons co-opted to a probation committee is not to exceed one-third of the number of members of the committee, and prohibits the co-option of justices of the peace for any area covered by the probation area. In relation to probation committees in areas affected by the abolition of the Greater London council and metropolitan county councils, the Local Government Bill will provide for co-option of elected members of local authorities, and will allow elected members of local authorities who are also justices of the peace to be co-opted under this provision. It will retain the limit of one-third on all co-opted members.
§ Dr. Cunninghamasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had with the National Association of Probation Officers on the effects on the probation service of rate-capping legislation; and if he will make a statement.
108W
§ Mr. MellorNone. I do not accept that the operation of the Rates Act 1984 need affect the capability of the probation service to discharge its functions.
§ Dr. Cunninghamasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates have been made of any changes in manpower levels in the probation and after-care service which may be required to support the recommendation for more community measures for offenders in place of prison sentences; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. MellorThe Standing Committee on Probation Manpower Needs, which includes members from the three organisations representing the probation service, has forecast from work load projections that an additional 100 probation officers (with supporting staff) will be needed for the service as a whole in 1985–86. That forecast has been taken into account in consideration of the Government's expenditure plans.
§ Dr. Cunninghamasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make arrangements to ensure that probation authorities continue to provide the required level of service in the event that they are subject to the rate-capping legislation.
§ Mr. MellorThe level of staffing necessary for area probation services to provide appropriate levels of service is primarily a matter for individual probation committees. County councils are statutorily required to defray the cost of these staff. In the event of disagreement on the cost of staff other than probation officer grades, a committee or council has the right to seek my right hon. and learned Friend's determination.