| Courts Bill [Lords]
|
|
Mr. Hawkins: I concur. Mr. Leslie: This is déjà vu all over again. I take it that the amendment is a probing amendment that is intended to ensure that the Bill is not too widely drawn. The phrase ''in connection with'' is necessary to ensure that all buildings needed for the smooth running of the magistrates courts are transferred under the Bill. It is important that we do not leave anything out. The phrase ''in connection with'' is intended to cover functions related to magistrates courts other than specific court functions. Two main situations are envisaged, although there may be others. There are apparently 23 instances of MCC office accommodation separate from courthouses fulfilling a function that is subsidiary to but supportive of the judicial function of the courthouses themselves. I am told that there is at least one instance of an MCC management training centre that would be covered by the contentious but important phrase. Mr. Heath: I want to stop the Minister before he goes any further. Surely those functions are for the purposes of magistrates courts or otherwise attributable to magistrates courts, and do not have to be separately defined. Mr. Leslie: That is not the interpretation of parliamentary counsel in drafting the Bill. We feel that we need the latitude given by the phrase in question in order to encompass the relevant situations. I must put my hand on my heart and say that I have not necessarily visited all 24 examples that I have alluded to, but I shall consider the matter in closer detail. Norman Lamb (North Norfolk): I thank the Minister. I understand from what he said that the parliamentary draftsmen feel it necessary to include those words to ensure that the provisions catch the 24 examples that he gave. However, is there not a danger that the provisions go much further than that and potentially bring within their remit lots of other circumstances, which may not be intended? Mr. Leslie: I have not seen sufficient reason to believe that that would be the case. We have an obligation more in the other direction: to ensure that we do not have disputes over the future ownership of buildings whose functions are closely connected to but distinct from the primary function—I stress the word ''primary''—of the magistrates courts. Amendment No. 117 would leave out paragraph 1(2)(g), which is intended to cover two situations. There may be circumstances under which a public body other than those mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(a) to (f) has a freehold or leasehold interest in property used for the purposes of, in connection with or otherwise attributable to magistrates courts. Under such circumstances, it is intended that the interest should pass to the Column Number: 060 Department for Constitutional Affairs—the DCA. The national probation service was envisioned in constructing the schedule. The service has a significant presence in magistrates courts and in at least one known instance owns the court building. There may be similar situations involving other public bodies, but those have not yet been discovered, and I am certainly not aware of them, so we must err on the side of caution.In many cases, areas of magistrates courts are occupied by other parties with a connection to the court function, such as the Crown Prosecution Service. Those arrangements are generally on an informal basis for the mutual benefit of the parties. However, it means that in several situations a significant proportion of space available in a courthouse or another building, the function of which is connected with the magistrates courts, is occupied by bodies other than the MCCs themselves. While it is intended that in general those occupancies should remain in place, for the avoidance of complications, the interests of those subsidiary bodies should nominally transfer to the DCA, which will re-grant them back to those bodies. I hope that with that level of assurance and with those particular examples that I have been fascinated to learn about, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will withdraw the amendment.
4.15 pmMr. Heath: I do not know who would be prouder of the Minister's performance: Cardinal Wolsey or Thomas Cromwell. One of the two would have been pleased to have that power. I accept the Minister's explanation of why he needs the power for the specific instances. It is drawn too widely but I will have to trust to the good sense and lack of avarice of the new Department to ensure that it does not acquire, by virtue of this statute, property to which it is not entitled. Mr. Hawkins: A thought occurs to me. Given that the hon. Gentleman has made his comparison with two famous previous Lord Chancellors and that the most recent Lord Chancellor prior to the reshuffle compared himself to Cardinal Wolsey on a famous occasion, is the hon. Gentleman saying that Lord Falconer is his idea of Thomas Cromwell? Mr. Heath: Such comparisons would be odious. I notice that there is no specific reference to wallpaper in the clause. We must assume that the previous Lord Chancellor's writ no longer runs. The Minister has satisfied me about the use of magistrates courts' property by other bodies. However, I am still concerned about what is meant precisely by the phrase ''in connection with'', which is not within the other two definitions. It looks like one of those belt-and-braces jobs in which parliamentary counsel sometimes indulge just to make absolutely sure. It has probably always been put like that when people are taking over just in case someone comes up with a bright reason for resisting the transfer, but it seems otiose. Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Column Number: 061 Question proposed, That this schedule be the second schedule to the Bill. Mr. Miller: I want to ask my hon. Friend a couple of questions because there are some issues that are quite fundamental to the people who transfer. Staff transfers are covered in detail in part 2, which is very positive. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made an important statement recently about TUPE. It was a progressive statement that was welcomed by those of us who negotiated transfers of undertakings on behalf of employees over many years. I suspect that it is an academic issue in the context of people like members of the Association of Magisterial Officers because I would presume that their pension transfers would be treated as the kind of club transfers that apply within the public sector. Preferential arrangements are built in for those transfers. As a non-lawyer and not having visited too many magistrates courts, or indeed any other court, I presume that there are other employees who are not engaged on the kind of terms and conditions that are afforded to the Association of Magisterial Officers. I therefore seek an assurance that relates to the timing of the enactment of both this Bill and the statement on pensions. Can we ensure that when these public servants make that transfer the spirit of the statement made only last week is incorporated in whatever we finally enact? Paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 refer to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, and statutory instrument 1981/1794. TUPE specifically excludes pension provision. I appreciate that this is a technical matter, which may require liaison with colleagues in the Department of Work and Pensions, but I seek assurance that the timing of the enactment of the schedule will not disadvantage people. Secondly, I do not expect an answer today, but for the sake of those of us who are not lawyers, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to paragraph 14—
which states:
It is good to hear that legislation enacted by one of my hon. Friend's predecessors has survived for so long: all power to them and the civil service for getting things right. Similarly, paragraph 14(b) states:
That is a tad before anyone in the Room was born. It would be helpful to have some explanation of what that means in plain English, and to know whether there are possible contradictions. I presume that rights might be afforded to Commonwealth citizens who would be excluded from legislation that existed before the creation of the Commonwealth. I make only a general inquiry because I am intrigued by the fact that legislation has such longevity. It is a credit to the British parliamentary institution. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome shakes his head, but the Column Number: 062 Liberals were in power for some of that time, so we might have to blame them for it. I do not know.Mr. Heath: I honestly do not believe that the hon. Gentleman can blame us for the Administration of 1700, as it would not be considered to be Liberal Democrat in tone. Mr. Miller: Indeed. I was thinking more of the middle of the 20th century. There is a serious point to be made: we need to make legislation understandable to lay people. It would be very helpful if the Minister could put these points into context. Mr. Heath: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has raised some important points about pensions, because the announcement made by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is relevant to the debate. I am sure that he will be aware that the relevant trade union—the Association of Magisterial Officers—is now generally satisfied about the TUPE arrangements and the staffing issues that were a matter of contention at an earlier stage in our deliberations on the Bill. I am grateful to Ministers for listening to the points that it had to make. Its key point is whether the level of funding will be sufficient after transfer to achieve the objectives that the Bill sets itself, while also representing a fair deal for the staff who work in these institutions. That is a genuine and legitimate concern, which the Minister should be able to address. On the Act of Settlement 1700, I have little to add other than to say that I suspect that, if anything, it will be disobliging to Scots, rather than anyone else, given that period in English history.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 26 June 2003 |
