I should like to make a few remarks on this matter, Sir, if I may, before proceeding with amendment No. 1. It was rather unfortunate that the Second Reading of this Bill was presented only a few days after the House sat after the recess and it went through the House almost unnoticed. Unfortunately, I was absent for the Committee Stage, and I should like to put a few points to the Minister now, with your permission, Sir.
This is a Bill which we ought to be unanimous about passing, in so far as the provision of courthouses is a necessity and will, I hope, always be a necessity. I mean that whatever Government may be in power in this country they must look to it that there is accommodation for law and for the maintenance of order. There has been in this country a system of dual control so far as courthouses are concerned—dual custody and dual control—which has never been satisfactory and, in fact, has been far from satisfactory. I must say that the drafters of this Bill do not seem to be aware of that. This Bill is an attempt to perpetuate a system that has never been accepted as a satisfactory system by anybody. My suggestion is that the Minister ought to withdraw this Bill as it stands and get together county registrars and either county surveyors or the secretaries of the county councils and have a consultation with them. If he does that, I have not the slightest doubt that he will get a much better Bill for the provision and maintenance of courthouses than this Bill is.
As I have said, this Bill is an attempt to perpetuate the type of dual custody which is enshrined here in Section 2 and which, I would point out to the Minister, really governs the whole Bill. Section 2 says: "Where a part only of a building is provided and maintained and is used as courthouse accommodation within the meaning of this Act and the residue of such building is provided and maintained and is used for other purposes, nothing in this Act shall apply to such residue of such building." There is a type of dual custody which we have all over the country in large courthouses. Let us imagine a courthouse where a county registrar has his office and where he has to carry on at the present time the duties of a sheriff, and where you have also the county offices in the same building and there is need for an extension of offices and office accommodation. That sort of thing is arising every day. What is going to happen in that case? Who has the right to say which office belongs to the county registrar and which shall be used by the county secretary? That section really governs the whole spirit of the Bill and right through the Bill we have instances where the county registrar and the District Court clerk have the right to do certain things, such as letting and hiring out courthouses, which, to my mind, is extremely absurd. I think that there ought to be some one party or person in control of the courthouses and that party or person ought to be the county council that have the responsibility of erecting them. I object, however, to the county council being put to the expense of £12,000 or £13,000 to build courthouses and then to have them placed in the custody of the District Court clerk I would appeal to the Minister to have a consultation on this matter with the people interested.
I have interested myself, and I have had consultations with at least two county registrars, and the Bill does not please anybody as it stands, and, in my opinion, will not be effective in its present form. I should like to have the Minister's view on the matter.