§ 12. Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of letters he has had during April, 1972, on the subject of the non-payment of alimony awarded by court order.
§ Mr. CarlisleFour, Sir.
§ Mr. DalyellIn giving credit to Home Office Ministers for recent legislation on attachment of earnings orders, may I ask whether they imagine that they have done anything to reduce the number of these awful cases which arise? How about the Home Secretary introducing in the Queen's Speech next year legislation along the lines of the Ten Minute Bill which I introduced, which is not perfect but is at least another step in the right direction?
§ Mr. CarlisleWe are aware—we are repeatedly reminded at monthly intervals by the hon. Gentleman—of the fact that there are still many women who have a maintenance order in their favour but that it is not being met. The hon. Gentleman has always been good enough to appreciate that this is a very difficult problem. In the end it comes to how one obtains money from a man who either does not have the means or has a determination not to pay. We are doing what we can to improve the existing arrangements.
§ Mr. Elystan MorganHas not the time come when Parliament should intervene in the system whereunder it is practically impossible, according to precedent, for the courts to grant more than one year's arrears of maintenance? Is there any good reason why a claimant should not be able to go back well beyond 12 months?
§ Mr. CarlisleI was not aware of any such regulation. I shall certainly look at this position again with regard to arrears or whether one writes them off. When the court has to assess what is the reasonable practicality of whether they will be paid, we do not gain advantage for deserted wives by sending many husbands to prison for non-payment.