§ Mr. SimsI beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 6, line 44, leave out subsection (6).
Although we are now free to discuss the Bill into the small hours, I have no intention of detaining the House. My arguments on this amendment are similar to my arguments in the previous debate. I do not need to repeat them. It is possible that a husband could unexpectedly find himself faced with proceedings. In view of what the Minister said, however, I shall not develop my argument. I hope that the amendment is acceptable.
§ Mr. JohnI am prepared to accept the amendment. The cardinal principle is that any party to a case who expects an order to be made on certain grounds should have to face only what he thinks he has to face.
In practice, I do not think that the amendment will make much difference. The power to deal with this situation if the magistrates are not satisfied is enshrined in the Bill. There is no way in which the matter can be transferred from a consent basis to a new basis without an adjournment and giving the other party an opportunity to prepare his answer. The amendment, although it is acceptable, will not change that practice.
Magistrates' courts have power to receive an oral complaint. I expect that if at the end of some evidence the magistrates were not disposed to make a consent order, they would accept an oral complaint and then adjourn the case. The advantage of that is that all the evidence would have been taken and would be part of the record.
By adopting the amendment, therefore, we shall not prejudice the applicant's case in any way, but we shall facilitate it by making sure that whatever evidence has been given does not have to be dealt with afresh the next time. I therefore advise acceptance of the amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.