§
Lords Amendment: After the Amendment last inserted, insert new Clause B:
Where a defendant has been imprisoned or otherwise detained under an order or warrant of commitment issued in respect of his failure to pay a sum due under a maintenance order, then, notwithstanding anything in this Act, no such order or warrant (other than a warrant of which the issue has been postponed under paragraph (ii) of subsection (5) of section (Powers of magistrates to review committals, etc.) of this Act) shall hereafter be issued in respect of that sum or any part thereof.
§ Mr. RentonI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I am sorry that, without your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I referred to this new Clause in moving the other Amendment. I do not wish to repeat my explanation, but will just say that the new Clause will have the effect of preventing a man being imprisoned more than once in respect of the same arrears.
1699 There is, however, an exception of which I think the House might wish to take note. The case where a defaulter who applies for discharge before his term of detention has been completed, and whose commitment is suspended on conditions which he subsequently fails to observe, will be an exception to the general principle that no one will be imprisoned more than once in respect of the same arrears.
§ Question put and agreed to.