HC Deb 03 July 1958 vol 590 cc1694-8

Lords Amendment: In page 14, line 26, at end insert new Clause A: (1) Section seventy-four of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952 (which relates to the enforcement of payments under affiliation orders and orders enforceable as affiliation orders) shall have effect, in relation to complaints under that section made on or after the date on which this section comes into operation and to proceedings in pursuance of such complaints, as if for subsections (3) to (7) thereof there were substituted the following subsections. that is to say— (3) In relation to complaints under this section, section forty-seven of this Act shall not apply and section forty-eight thereof shall have effect as if the words 'if evidence has been received on a previous occasion' were omitted. (4) Where at the time and place appointed for the hearing or adjourned hearing of a complaint under this section the complainant appears but the defendant does not, the court may proceed in his absence: Provided that the court shall not begin to hear the complaint in the absence of the defendant unless either it is proved to the satisfaction of the court, on oath, or in such other manner as may be prescribed, that the summons was served on him within what appears to the court to be a reasonable time before the hearing or adjourned hearing or the defendant has appeared on a previous occasion to answer the complaint. (5) If a complaint under this section is substantiated on oath, any justice of the peace acting for the same petty sessions area as a court having jurisdiction to hear the complaint may issue a warrant for the defendant's arrest, whether or not a summons has been previously issued. (6) A magistrates' court shall not impose imprisonment in respect of a default to which a complaint under this section relates unless the court has inquired in the presence of the defendant whether the default was due to the defendant's wilful refusal or culpable neglect., and shall hot impose imprisonment as aforesaid if it is of opinion that the default was not so due; and, without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this subsection, a magistrates' court shall not impose imprisonment as aforesaid—

  1. (a) in a case in which the court has power to make an attachment of earnings order under the Maintenance Orders Act, 1958, unless the court is of opinion that it is inappropriate to make such an order;
  2. (b) in any case, in the absence of the defendant.
(7) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (3) of section sixty-four of this Act, the period for which a defendant may be committed to prison under a warrant of commitment issued in pursuance of a complaint under this section shall not exceed six weeks. (8) The imprisonment or other detention of a defendant under a warrant of commitment issued as aforesaid shall not operate to discharge the defendant from his liability to pay the sum in respect of which the warrant was issued. (2) Subsections (7) and (8) of the said section seventy-four as amended by the foregoing subsection shall have effect in relation to a warrant of commitment issued on or after the date on which this section comes into operation in pursuance of a complaint under that section made before that date (not being a warrant of which the issue was postponed before that date by virtue of section sixty-five of the said Act of 1952) as those subsections have effect in relation to a warrant of commitment issued in pursuance of such a complaint made after that date.

Read a Second time.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 37, to leave out "for the defendant's arrest", and to insert: to arrest the defendant and bring him before the court". The proposed new Clause relates to Section 74 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, the section which provides for the enforcement of payments under affiliation orders and orders enforceable as affiliation orders, and proposes to replace subsection (3) to subsection (7) of the Section by the subsections in the Clause.

I am seeking to amend subsection (5) of the proposed Clause, which provides that: If a complaint under this section is substantiated on oath, any justice of the peace acting for the same petty sessions area as a court having jurisdiction to hear the complaint may issue a warrant for the defendant's arrest, whether or not a summons has been previously issued. We tabled an Amendment to that because we were struck by the difference between Section 74 (3) and subsection (5) of the proposed new Clause. Section 74 (3) is very similar, reading as follows: A magistrates' court shall not hear a complaint under this section except in the presence of the defendant; and for the purpose of securing his presence a justice of the peace acting for the petty sessions area for which the court acts may, if the complaint is substantiated on oath, issue a warrant to arrest the defendant and bring him before the court, whether or not a summons has been previously issued. Hon. Members will notice that the difference is that in the 1952 Act it is provided that the defendant should be brought before the court, but those words are omitted from the proposed Clause. We should be most grateful if the hon. and learned Gentleman would give the reasons for the omission.

Mr. Renton

It is true that the words: … and bring him before the court … are in Section 74 of the 1952 Act, but those words were unnecessary in that Measure. It is very strange how the words got there. They are a hangover from the days of the Bastardy Laws (Amendment) Act, 1872, under which enforcement proceedings were not formally on complaint. But the proceedings under both the 1952 Act and this Bill are, and will be, by complaint, and when a warrant for the defendant's arrest is issued the warrant must necessarily provide, and will state in its terms, that the defendant must be brought before the court to answer the complaint.

The words were, therefore, otiose in the 1952 Act, and we do not see why it is necessary for us to repeat words which were unnecessary then. The words "for the defendant's arrest" meet the case and the procedure, and that is why they have been inserted.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood

I am most grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his explanation, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Renton

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

During the passage of the Bill through this House it was strongly represented that a logical consequence of Part I was that imprisonment imposed by a magistrates' court in default of maintenance payments should be subject to a maximum term of six weeks, and should not extinguish the liability to pay the arrears. It was fairly pointed out that if that were done the magistrates' court procedure would be assimilated with the procedure in the High Court.

At present, imprisonment imposed by a magistrates' court is subject to a maximum term not of six weeks, but of three months, if the amount of the default is more than £20. Further, that imprisonment at present wipes out the arrears. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave an undertaking on Report stage that, after the necessary consultatations with judicial and other authorities, a Government Amendment would be put down in another place to reduce the maximum term to six weeks and to provide that the imprisonment did not wipe out the arrears. He pointed out that it would also be necessary to provide that, as in the High Court, imprisonment could not be imposed more than once for the same arrears.

Therefore, these three changes which I have mentioned are made by these rather lengthy two new Clauses. An additional minor change has also been made, in that in future it will not be essential, as it is now, for the defaulter to be present throughout the enforcement proceedings. Of course, he will still have to be present when the court is inquiring into the reasons for his default, because his cross-examination on the matter and his opportunity of giving explanations are essential.

The other point is that the court will not be able, and this is the corollary to what I have just said, to impose a sentence of imprisonment in his absence. That seems a brief explanation for what looks like a great deal of law, but I can assure the House that I have explained the essentials, and if I can be of further assistance, with your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will try to do so.

Mr. Greenwood

I should like to thank the Joint Under-Secretary for the changes which have been incorporated in this Amendment which comes from another place. We particularly welcome the concession which the Government have made which limits the period for which the defendant may be committed to prison to six weeks, and also the subsection which provides that imprisonment will no longer wipe out the debt. That was a point which was very hotly contested on the Committee stage and later on Report, and my hon. Friends the Members for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) and Dagenham (Mr. Parker) both felt very strongly upon it. I think that all of us are grateful to them for having persuaded the Government to incorporate this improvement in the Bill.

The other provisions, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, regarding the fact that the defendant need no longer he there throughout all the different stages of the proceedings, is also a welcome concession which the Government have made. They have provided him with more protection from that character which we got to know so well during the Committee stage—the vindictive wife. We therefore welcome the changes which the Government have made, and we are prepared to support the hon. and learned Gentleman in hoping that the House will agree with the Lords in this Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.