Clause 6.—(POWERS OF COURTS TO MAKE ORDERS ATTACHING THE EARNINGS OF DEFAULTERS UNDER MAINTENANCE ORDERS.) (Hansard, 3 July 1958)

§ Mr. Renton
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is an Amendment which was moved on Report by the Opposition as an Amendment to a Government Amendment and was negatived by inadvertence. It is true to say that a fast ball from the umpire got past the wicket keepers on both sides. I did, however, give to the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) an undertaking privately that we would ask for this matter to be put right in the House Lords. That is what the Amendment does. Although there was considerable discussion in Committee and some discussion on Report about this very important matter, perhaps I should remind the House of the effect of the Amendment.
The Amendment precludes the making of an attachment of earnings order when it appears to the court that the defendant's default was not due to his wilful refusal or culpable neglect, rather than, as the Bill stood, that the defendant should satisfy the court that the default was not so due. We considered very carefully where the burden of proof should lie. We have left it open. The court will have that discretion in the matter which the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was so insistent about on an occasion when the House was very full and the Government were defeated. The court will have discretion in this matter yet, at the same time, the wife will not have imposed upon her an impossible burden of proof. I say "impossible", because the facts are essentially within the husband's knowledge.

§ Mr. Anthony Greenwood (Rossendale)
As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, this matter has concerned us over a considerable period during the passage of the Bill. It was one of the most critical issues in Committee, and it was a source of great disappointment to the Opposition, on Report, that the ball from the umpire was not, unfortunately, stopped by the hon. and learned Member or ourselves. The fact that the Amendment was incorporated in the Bill is a tribute to the persistence particularly of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. J. Silverman). Although he is not able to be present, I am sure that he would agree to our supporting the Amendment.

§ Mr. Ede (South Shields)
How did the umpire manage to get hold of the ball? He cannot do it even as a substitute. Under the rules a substitute shall not bowl.

§ Mr. Renton
One has many things to answer for from the Treasury Bench, but I cannot be expected to answer for the actions of an umpire.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche)
There is no Ministerial responsibility.

§ Mr. Renton
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It may be convenient, Sir, if we take with this Amendment the next two, to lines 19 and 23, as they are all drafting. They are designed to remove any possible doubt that an attachment of earnings order is to cover not only the liabilities under the maintenance order when the attachment of earnings order is made, but also future liabilities as they arise.
The attachment of earnings order, therefore, will apply to secure not only those earnings which are outstanding—and there have to be arrears outstanding, as the House will remember, before an attachment of earnings order can be made—but also current payments as they arise, until such moment as the attachment of earnings order is, by discretion of the court, discharged. It is only for the 1692 removal of doubt that these Amendments have occurred to us as being desirable.