Schedule 2 - Abolition of magistrates'
Courts Bill [Lords]
4:00 pm
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
These are probing amendments intended to clarify the effect of the schedule. I shall set out my worries, after which the Minister must tell me that they are misplaced. Several public or private authorities own property, which is used in connection with magistrates courts, but which forms no part of the magistrates courts committees estate. Under the Bill, it could, in effect, be requisitioned by the Department for Constitutional Affairs to promote its own interests. I am sure that that would not happen, but can the Minister explain the meaning of ''or in connection with''? I understand the meaning of ''for the purposes of'' and ''are otherwise attributable to''.
I shall cite an example. We have a magistrates court in Frome, and I hope that we shall still have one in a few months' time. We have a police station. The police station is next to the magistrates court. The police station and its curtilage are owned by the police authority and the magistrates court is owned by the magistrates court committee. One building is clearly ''in connection with'' the other. They may have other functions, but the positioning is not other than deliberate.
I am slightly worried that the present wording suggests that, when the transfers have taken place, the courts agency could quite properly say—although I do not say that it will—''That building is in connection with the magistrates court, so it now passes into our ownership by statute of Parliament.'' I find it hard to find any reason in the text to say that that is not the case. Will the Minister explain the meaning of ''or in connection with''? What circumstances is the provision intended to deal with?
Sub-paragraph (2) refers to ''persons'' who own property that will be transferred to the new agency. It lists those who we would expect to find in such instances and then includes a catch-all provision, which states:
''any other body which acts under any enactment or instrument for public purposes and not for its own profit.''
Thus, any agency of the state or local government that happens to own property that the Lord Chancellor has his eye on could be required to hand it over by virtue of the provisions for the purposes of adding to the Lord Chancellor's estate. I am sure that that is not the intention, although past Lord Chancellors would no doubt have found that an attractive element in British law. If the provision were not for that purpose, under what circumstances could a body unconnected with the magistrates courts committee and unconnected with an agency of the justice system be required to transfer ownership of property or assets to the Lord
Chancellor because it has some connection with the magistrates or other courts? That seems odd, but there must be a reason for it. Will the Minister say what it is?