HC Deb 03 July 1958 vol 590 cc1692-4

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 26, leave out from "order" to end of line 27.

Mr. Renton

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This is the first Amendment which is both new to the House of Commons and an Amendment of substance, and, candidly, I found it a slightly complicated matter myself when studying it. It may help if I draw attention to the purpose of Clause 7 and compare it with the purpose of Clause 6.

Clause 7 deals with the power of the courts to make attachment of earnings orders in proceedings under existing legislation, and Clause 6 introduces the new power under the Bill to make attachment of earnings orders in proceedings taken against maintenance defaulters with that object. Clause 7 is designed to enable a court to make an attachment of earnings order in proceedings for the general enforcement of a maintenance order, proceedings which already exist under previous legislation and were codified in the Act of 1952. They are proceedings with a view to committing the defaulter to prison, and it is largely because that is the present position that we have this Bill at all.

Obviously, we have to dovetail the new procedure under this Bill with the procedure for the issue of a warrant of commitment for default under the existing legislation, and this is what Clause 7 does. It is a power additional to the power in Clause 6 to make an attachment of earnings order in proceedings taken with that purpose. However, the drafting of Clause 7, in its original form—that is to say, in the form in which it is to be found in the Bill as it left the Commons—did not cover the enforcement proceedings in respect of a certain small category of maintenance orders which is nevertheless within the scope of Clause 6, and ought to be within the scope of Clause 7 and of the provisions of the Bill generally.

There were in the Bill as it left us certain words of limitation, which are to be found in Clause 7, paragraph (b), lines 26 to 27. Those words of limitation are: … which is, or is enforceable as, an affiliation order … In other words, only those commitment proceedings under the Magistrates' Courts Act of 1952 which could be described as for the enforcement of a sum to be paid by a maintenance order which was or could be enforceable as an affiliation order.

I do not want to have to go into the whole of the 1952 Act to explain this point, but I hope that the House will take it from me that there is no need for us—indeed, that it is undesirable for us—to have those limiting words which is, or is enforceable as, an affiliation order". In other words, there are various types of order which are maintenance orders but which, under the 1952 Act, are not enforceable as affiliation orders; they are enforceable by the civil debt procedure, which we keep quite separate from this Bill. Indeed, we have intentionally done so, as far as we could. We suggest, therefore, that so that we should not have any kind of maintenance order left out of this new attachment of earnings procedure, we should omit those words of limitation.

My explanation of this slightly complicated point has been perhaps a little confusing, but I hope nevertheless that hon. Gentlemen have been able to understand it; if necessary, I will try to clarify it further.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 31, after "unpaid" insert: and that the defendant is a person to whom earnings fall to be paid,

Mr. Renton

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This is a drafting Amendment which is clearly intended to bring Clause 7 into line with Clause 6.

Mr. Lee

Is this Amendment strictly necessary, following the one which the hon. and learned Gentleman moved a moment ago, in which he pointed out that we were ensuring that not only past payments but present and future payments were attachable? I should think that we were merely duplicating that by inserting these words.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Renton

I am advised not. Indeed, I am further advised that unless we inserted these words the courts would feel obliged as a matter of interpretation to find some different effect in Clause 7 from that in Clause 6 and that we should insert these words to bring the two Clauses into line.

Question put and agreed to.