Skip to main content

Orders Of The Day

Volume 477: debated on Friday 14 July 1950

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

Maintenance Orders Bill Lords

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 2—(Jurisdiction Of English Summary Courts To Make Orders For Custody And Maintenance Of Infants)

11.7 a.m.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 23, to leave out from "Acts." to "by," in line 24.

I suggest that it would be convenient to consider at the same time the next Amendment, in line 26. These are drafting Amendments designed to cure a possible ambiguity pointed out by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) during the Committee stage. I think that they will remove any doubt.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 26, at end, insert:

"for an order relating to the custody of an infant (including, in the case of proceedings by the mother, an order requiring the father to make payments to the mother towards the infant's maintenance)."—[Mr. Ede.1]

Clause 16—(Application Of Part Ii)

I beg to move, in page 8, line 36, after "made," to insert "or deemed to be made."

Again, it would be for the convenience of the House to consider at the same time the next Amendment, in line 38.

The enactments named in the first three paragraphs of subsection (2, a) are being consolidated. These Amendments substitute for references to the enactments at present in force references to the consolidating Measure. The Matrimonial Causes Bill provides that it shall come into force on 1st January, 1951—the same day as this Bill.

Is there any precedent for altering a Bill in this way by inserting a reference to a Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950. when there is no such Act and when, judging from experience we have had recently, it may well be that when a consolidating Bill comes before this House, though it is a consolidation Measure, it may bear a different title? We have had recent experience of consolidating a lot of Acts in the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Bill, and the consolidating Measure has borne a title which did not correspond with them at all. Is there any precedent in this House for amending a Bill by inserting references to an Act of Parliament which is not yet an Act and which may not become an Act under that title at all?

By leave of the House, may I say that I have a precedent in my own legislative experience with regard to the Licensing Bill, which passed through this House, and in which a reference was made to the Justices of the Peace Bill, which also passed this House. On that occasion, while it is true that it was not a consolidation Measure, it was passed by both Houses and received the Royal Assent. In the event of it being found that the other Measure is not likely to go through, we shall endeavour in another place to have inserted such Amendments to these House of Commons Amendments as will provide that the position may be rectified.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 38 to leave out from beginning, to end of line 4, page 9, and insert—

"(i) sections nineteen to twenty-seven of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950."—[Mr. Ede.]

I beg to move, in page 9, line 38, after "under," to insert "or by virtue of."

I think it might be for the convenience of the House if we discussed this Amendment and the next four Amendments together. The effect of the first three Amendments is to bring within Part II of the Bill, as has been done in this case of the corresponding jurisdiction of the High Court in England, maintenance orders made by the High Court in Northern Ireland by virtue of jurisdiction inherited from the ecclesiastical courts. Such jurisdiction was preserved in the High Court by Section 28 of the Matrimonial Causes Act (Northern Ireland), 1939. An example of such an order is an interim order for alimony made in a case of judicial separation. The fourth Amendment, that to line 16, is a drafting Amendment of a transitional nature.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 9, line 42, leave out "or."

In line 42, after "twenty-two," insert

"or subsection (1) of section twenty-eight."

In page 10, line 15, leave out from "section," to end of line 16, and insert

"twenty-three of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950."

In line 16, at end, insert:

(3) For the purposes of this section any order made before the commencement of the Matrimonial Causes Act (Northern Ireland), 1939, being an order which, if that Act had been in force, could have been made under or by virtue of any provision of that Act, shall be deemed to be an order made by virtue of that provision.—[Mr. Ede.]

Clause 17—(Procedure For Registration Of Maintenance Orders)

I beg to move, in page 10, to leave out lines 22 and 23.

I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House if we discussed along with this Amendment the two following Amendments in my name—in page 10, line 26, to leave out from "magistrate," to end of line 27, and in line 29, to leave out "which made the order."

When the Bill was before the Standing Committee, I raised a point on Clause 17 that provision should be made in the Bill that a wife who had obtained a maintenance order in any particular court and had later moved to another part of the country, should not necessarily have to go back to the court which originally made the order to carry out the registration procedure. I received the impression from the right hon. Gentleman, when he was dealing with that point in the Standing Committee, that he would consider it favourably, but in fact I have not heard anything from him, except a very courteous letter which he wrote to me, in which he pointed out that this matter might be dealt with by rules of court.

I feel that it is a great hardship upon a woman who has obtained an order and then moved to another part of the country that she should have to go back many miles to the original court which made the order to apply for registration, when it might easily be done in a far more simple manner. That is the purpose of my Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I do not think it is generally appreciated that the Bill enables the proceedings to follow the husband or the person who makes application to the court to the place to which he has moved, but that it does not assist the wife in any way by enabling her to apply to the court in the place to which she has moved. It is for that purpose that I support this Amendment.

11.15 a.m.

The principle which guided us in framing this Clause was the desire to allow the court which made the order to deal with the application, but we quite appreciate that there might be the practical difficulties which the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) has indicated and which might impose a certain amount of hardship to the wife. Therefore, we then applied our minds to the question of how best to get over that difficulty, and I think the hon. Gentleman admits that he did receive a letter from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary indicating the line which we propose taking.

We think that the best course for the purpose of dovetailing the two positions is to leave it to the court which made the order, but by rules of court to enable the wife to make application by letter, if need be, so that she will not be required to make the journey from the area in which she is then residing to the area of the court, if those two areas are in different places. In some later Amendments, we have provided for the making of statutory declarations, and I think that by the combination of these factors we can leave the application to the court which made the order to deal with any practical difficulties which might occur. I do not think it will be desirable to accept the alteration proposed in the Amendment to the course which we have suggested.

On that assurance from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 11, line 7, to leave out from "registration," to the end of line 8, and to insert:

"in the prescribed manner to the prescribed officer of the court which made the order.
(5) The officer to whom any notice is given under the last foregoing subsection shall cause particulars of the notice to be registered in his court in the prescribed manner."
This Amendment is really one of a series of Government Amendments to the Bill which have been put down as the result of a re-examination of Part II of the Bill arising from points made by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) in Committee. The purpose of this series of Amendments is threefold. First, to make it clear beyond doubt that the manner of giving notice may be prescribed by rules; secondly, to place upon the officer of the court who receives such notice a duty to enter particulars of the notice in the official record of the court; and thirdly, to ensure, in the case of summary maintenance orders, that proof is available as required of the content of the order, and of the fact that it is or is not registered in another part of the United Kingdom. I hope that the Amendments, of which this is really the first, meet the points made by the hon. Gentleman, and will also make the administration of the Bill more clear to those who will be affected by it.

I am extremely grateful to the Home Secretary for taking up the points which I put forward in Committee. I have looked at these Amendments, and I think they admirably meet the points which I had in mind.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23—(Notice Of Variation, Etc)

I beg to move, in page 15, line 27, to leave out "to that effect," and to insert

"of the variation in the prescribed manner."
I think this Amendment and the next two Amendments could be conveniently taken together, as they form part of the series of Government Amendments to which I have already referred. They make the corresponding provision in relation to the notice of variation to that made in relation to notice of registration by the Amendment which we have already made in page 11, line 7.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 15, line 32, leave out "to that effect," and insert:

"of the discharge or variation in the prescribed manner."

In line 33, at end, insert:

"(3) The officer to whom any notice is given under this section shall cause particulars of the notice to be registered in his court in the prescribed manner."—[Mr. Ede.]

Clause 24—(Cancellation Of Registration)

I beg to move, in page 15, line 34, to leave out from the beginning, to "cancel," in line 38, and to insert:

"At any time while a maintenance order is registered under this Part of this Act in any court, an application for the cancellation of the registration may be made in the prescribed manner to the prescribed officer of that court by or on behalf of the person entitled to payments under the order; and upon any such application that officer shall (unless procedings for the variation of the order are pending in that court)."
As at present drawn, subsection (1) gives a person entitled to payments made under an order registered in a court in another part of the United Kingdom an absolute right to have the registration cancelled. This would mean that a person entitled to payments could block any proceedings in the court of registration on the part of the person liable to payments for a variation in the rate of the payments by having the registration cancelled before those proceedings have been completed. This Amendment is designed to remedy this defect by providing that registration shall not be cancelled while any proceedings for variation are pending in the court in which the order is registered.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 16, line 10, to leave out "to that effect," and to insert:

"of the cancellation in the prescribed manner."
With permission, perhaps this Amendment and the next one—page 16, line 11—might be taken together. These two Amendments form part of a series of Amendments to which my right hon. Friend has already referred. They make corresponding provision in relation to notice of cancellation of registration to that already made in relation to notice of registration by the Amendment previously dealt with in Clause 17, page 11, line 7.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 16, line 11, at end insert:

"and the last-mentioned officer shall cause particulars of the notice to be registered in his court in the prescribed manner."—[The Lord Advocate.]

Clause 25—(Rules As To Procedure Of Courts Of Summary Jurisdiction)

I beg to move, in page 16, line 35, to leave out "proceedings before."

I think it would be convenient if we took this Amendment and the next three Amendments together, because they all deal with the same subject matter. This Amendment and that in page 16, line 41, are designed to make • it clear that the rule-making power is not confined to the regulation of the practice to be followed in proceedings, but covers things to be done in a court of summary jurisdiction prior to or where no proceedings are actually pending before the court; for instance, the action to be taken by the clerk of the justices who receives notice that an order made in his court, but for the time being registered in another court, has been varied according to the rates of payment. This is a drafting Amendment to ensure that it covers not only proceedings in the court, but cases where proceedings may not actually be before the court.

The purpose of the Amendments in page 16, line 36, and page 16, line 42, is to delete some superfluous words, and I think these Amendments will commend themselves to the House. The words in the Clause as it stands at present, which give power to the Lord Chancellor in England and to the Lord Chief Justice in Northern Ireland to prescribe in the rules anything that requires to be prescribed, are unnecessary in view of the definition of "prescribe" in Clause 28, which is to the same effect. Accordingly, we seek to cut out these superfluous words.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 16, line 36, leave out from "Act," to end of line 38.

In line 41, leave out "proceedings before."

In line 42, leave out from "Act," to end of line 44.—[ The Lord Advocate.]

I beg to move, in page 16, line 44, at the end, to insert:

(3) Rules made for the purposes of this Part of this Act may require that any order or other matter required under this Part of this Act to be registered in a court of summary jurisdiction in England or Northern Ireland shall he registered—
  • (a) in England, by means of a memorandum entered and signed by the prescribed officer of the court in the register kept pursuant to section twenty-two of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879;
  • (b) in Northern Ireland, by means of an entry made and signed by the prescribed officer of the court in the order book kept pursuant to Section twenty-one of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851.
  • The purpose of some of the earlier Amendments of this same series was to provide that when the prescribed officer of court receives notice of any matter under Part II of the Bill, he shall record it in a manner prescribed by rule. This Amendment ensures, in relation to summary courts in England and Northern Ireland, that the rule shall provide that the particulars of the notice are recorded in the register of the appropriate court in accordance with the normal practice.

    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 26—(Proof Of Declarations, Etc)

    I beg to move, in page 17, line 5, to leave out from "summary," to "shall," in line 7, and to insert:

    "made for the purposes of this Act or of any rules made thereunder."
    This Amendment is really designed to meet a point raised by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) in Committee when he suggested that Clause 17 should enable application for the registration of an order under Part II of the Bill to be made in the court having jurisdiction in the place where the person entitled to payment resides. As I said earlier, it was considered that there was a valid point in his argument, but that we could meet it better by providing in the rules that application could be made by letter, supported possibly by a statutory declaration. The result is that, although the application will still have to be made to the court which made the order, it will not be necessary for the person to attend personally at that court.

    Clause 26, which provides that statutory declarations and other documents shall be deemed without further proof to be the documents which they purport to be, applies only to statutory declarations made under Part II of the Bill. A statutory declaration to support a written application for registration will be made not under the Act, but under the rules, and accordingly this Amendment is designed to apply Clause 26 to such declarations.

    Amendment agreed to.

    I beg to move, in page 17, line 11, at the end, to add:

    (2) Paragraph 7 of the Second Schedule to the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947 (which relates to the proof of affiliation orders and maintenance orders and of orders for the discharge or variation of such orders), shall apply to the registration of orders under Part II of this Act, and to the cancellation of such registration, as it applies to the variation of orders; and for the purposes of that paragraph
  • (a) a maintenance order registered under the said Part II in a court of summary jurisdiction; and
  • (b) any proceeding under the said Part 11 relating to a maintenance order made by or registered in such a court, being a proceeding of which a memorandum is required to be entered in the register kept by the clerk of that court pursuant to section twenty-two of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879,
  • shall be deemed to he an order made by that court.
    This is the last of the series of Amendments with which we have been dealing. Its purpose is to ensure, in the case of a maintenance order made by an English court of summary jurisdiction, that proof is available when required both of the content of the order and of the fact that it is or is not registered, as the case may be. This Amendment effects that purpose by attracting and adapting the provisions of paragraph 7 of the Second Schedule to the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, relating to the proof of maintenance orders.

    Amendment agreed to.

    Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

    11.27 a.m.

    As this Bill owes its origin to such a large extent to the efforts made from this side of the House, it would be a pity to depart from it without saying a few words of farewell. I think all hon. Members will agree that it is a very desirable Measure, but I must say that in my opinion it contains one defect which is likely to give rise to considerable trouble in operation in the future. That defect, unfortunately, I understand, remains in the Bill to soothe Scottish susceptibilities. It is one which we sought to eliminate in the Committee stage, and it has certainly been lessened in degree by the Amendment made during that stage. But, in certain cases under the Bastardy Laws (Amendment) Act, under the National Assistance Act, and under the Children Act, 1948, jurisdiction of the English courts and of the Scottish courts will depend upon where an act of intercourse took place. This is something quite novel, and I do not believe that it will work well in practice.

    Usually, before a court comes to hear and determine the issues in the case, it is enabled to decide whether it has jurisdiction to hear and to determine the case at all. But under this Bill; when certain proceedings are brought under those Acts, a court of summary jurisdiction will not know whether it has any jurisdiction at all until the conclusion of the complete trial. If, in a disputed case, the complainant alleges that an act of intercourse took place in this country, and the respondent denies it—and, indeed, may establish that it took place north of the Border—then whether or not the court makes an order against the respondent will depend whether they come to the conclusion that the act of intercourse took place north or south of the Border.

    They will only make the order if they come to the conclusion that it took place south of the Border, and so they will only resolve the question whether they have jurisdiction or not at the very conclusion of the trial. I think this departure from the previous practice is likely to cause considerable difficulty; and I do not think it will be very long, notwithstanding the objections which have been raised from another part of the United Kingdom, before we shall have to have an amending Measure eliminating this one difficulty in the Bill. I do not believe that it serves any practical purpose.

    I am sorry that the Government have not been able to accept the Amendment which was moved in Committee to delete this condition, which is an important condition affecting jurisdiction in these cases. I cannot think of any case in the courts of this country when, at the end of the day when all the evidence has been heard, the court may say, "It has not been established to our satisfaction that the respondent is the guilty man and, therefore, we must, while deciding that, decide also that we have no jurisdiction at all in the case." The court might have been engaged on the hearing for one or two or more days, and then find they have no jurisdiction whatsoever to hear it.

    It seems to me a most extraordinary position, which will result in considerable difficulties in some of the courts of the country. After all, magistrates, quite rightly, are very careful to see that they do not act in excess of the jurisdiction they have. If they do act in excess of their jurisdiction, they may be visited with certain penalties. Now, in this category of cases, they will not know whether they have jurisdiction or not until the conclusion of the case. It seems to me to be wrong, and not to serve any useful purpose.

    I hope that by making this comment on what I believe is the one remaining defect in this Bill, I shall not be thought to be departing, in any way, from the main purposes of the Bill, and from the welcome we have extended to it throughout, with our efforts to improve it. We take the view that this Bill will meet a want which has been long felt. We hope it will work well. We feel it would have been certain of working better if the Amendment we moved had been accepted.

    When this Bill was read a Second time, it received general approval from all quarters. I believe that now, as we take leave of it, it is in a form better adapted to carry out in an expeditious manner the purpose for which it was intended. However, I should like to emphasise again the point my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) has raised in connection with this provision relating to affiliation orders. It is still an unsatisfactory situation. During the proceedings in Standing Committee, we did our utmost to impress upon the Government that very serious difficulties would arise from the practical point of view. We can only regret that, even at this stage, they have not been able to see our point of view.

    We are here making a Statute, and we have to bear in mind that, eventually, some parts of that Statute may come before the higher courts for decision. As it stands, Clause 1 of the Bill contains what I still consider to be an inaccuracy which is bound to cause a certain amount of dissatisfaction from the point of view of a superior court which might have to consider it eventually. In our view, the reference to residence together as man and wife, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) and myself had put down an Amendment, which has not been called, does introduce to our law an entirely new sort of expression. In Committee I said it would have been far better to say out and out "co-habitation between the parties," or some other expression which would make more clear what the Government had in mind. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department pointed out that what they had in mind was residence together by husband and wife, but it is not clear.

    In our law we have this clear definition of co-habitation and all that it means. That has been clearly settled by the courts on many occasions. It is also clear what is meant by residence in a particular place by separate persons. Here we have the hybrid expression, "resided together as man and wife." I ask the Government to look at it again and consider what is meant, and what will be believed is meant by people who have to consider those words. This is a sort of half-way house between two well-established definitions, and it is something which is a blot on the Bill as it stands.

    But, generally, the Measure is going to do a great deal to help a most deserving type of persons. We have done something to improve the law relating to maintenance orders and the unhappy circumstances that arise when man and wife fall out.

    11.37 a.m.

    The hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) has endeavoured once again to establish his claim, or that of his hon. Friends, to the paternity of this Measure. One can only wish that some of the people to be dealt with under this legislation were as eager to accept paternal responsibility as hon. Members opposite have been eager to accept it for the Bill we are now discussing.

    As has been pointed out already, it may well be that this new principle, of making the place of intercourse a factor in deciding jurisdiction, may give rise to some difficulties. It adds a new principle in the administration of the law in this aspect. But, as the Lord Advocate pointed out in the Committee Stage, the difficulties may not be as great as have been anticipated by hon. Members opposite. In any event, it will he for the complainant to be very careful before deciding to take action in a particular court; because the complainant will not wish to prejudice a claim by seeking to take proceedings in a court if she is not going to be in a position to establish, fairly conclusively, that the act of intercourse relating to the birth of a child took place within the area of the jurisdiction of that particular court.

    The main advantage of this Bill is that it will make a little more worth-while the mass of separation and maintenance orders that are being churned out in the courts up and down the country. Unfortunately, in the past, some of these have not been worth the paper on which they are written. This Bill is to be welcomed to the extent that it makes some of these orders imposable. There is still a yawning gap in the administration of the law in this matter in the British Isles. Normally, a person has only to go to the Republic of Ireland, and nothing we are discussing can possibly apply. I hope that, some time, it may be possible to stop up that particular gap, which may operate very harshly in a number of cases. Nevertheless, this Bill has proceeded fairly happily through all its stages, and we all wish it well on the Statute Book.

    11.40 a.m.

    I should like to say one word in support of the point raised by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) on Clause 1. We are introducing here, so far as my research goes, a phrase new to our statute law:

    "residing together as man and wife."
    It is, I believe, a well-established rule that, in a field like this which has been the subject of so much litigation, when a new phrase appears in the statute, the courts feel obliged to find a new meaning for it.

    As has been said, the courts have thoroughly defined the state of affairs known as cohabitation, and there is no doubt, apparently, as to what is involved in residing at the same address. I read in this morning's paper that a man and wife resided at the same address in such a state of estrangement that they erected a screen between them when eating their meals. Here we have a state of affairs midway between the two conditions I have indicated. I hope that we may be able, before we bid farewell to this Bill, to know exactly what these words are intended to convey.

    There is one other point to which I should like to refer. It relates to Clause 20 and to the extent of arrears of maintenance which may have accrued during the time when a husband living in Scotland has not been making payments. This Bill, for the first time, makes provision for enforcing these payments, and, therefore, one has to look carefully, as the Bill does, to these arrears, which may be very substantial. Provision is made in Clause 20 (3) for a court in Scotland to have a discretion as to whether it will or will not remit the arrears. I think that we have to bear in mind in practice—those of us who practise in the courts in this sort of case that where a court has a discretion to exercise, it will require to hear evidence before it will exercise that discretion.

    The position in this country is that if a husband wants the arrears remitted he must go to the court and give evidence why they should be remitted. In Scotland under this Clause the position will be reversed. If the wife does not want them remitted, she will have to go and explain why they should not be remitted. We have gone to the trouble in this Bill to remove the gearing, as it were, to the place where the husband lives. A husband is present in Scotland in circumstances envisaged in this Clause. The husband is the person who has a court on the doorstep. The hearing takes place, and yet it is the wife who has to satisfy the court before it will exercise its discretion and keep alive the arrears. I say that that will be a hardship in practice, because it will mean that, if the wife wants to keep long arrears alive and seeks to enforce them in the future, she will lose the whole benefit of this Bill unless she goes to Scotland to explain why she wishes to do so.

    I had hoped that at some stage in these proceedings, the Government would have been persuaded to view it in that light. It does arise in practice, and the courts do insist on hearing evidence before they will exercise their discretion, and we should have preferred the evidence which they would require to hear, to be that of the husband, which is the conventional procedure on the subject, and not that of the wife who might have to travel a long distance. These are matters of detail and do not derogate from the general welcome which we give to the Bill.

    11.44 a.m.

    I should like to express my pleasure that the Bill has got to its final stage in this House. I have been interested in this matter for nearly nine years, as a result of a case in my own constituency of which the Lord Advocate is aware. I hope that the intentions of the Bill will be carried out. Frankly, not being a lawyer, I do not like to express an opinion on the technical points raised by the hon. and learned Member for Northants. South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) and the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay). I think that the broad purpose of the Bill is admirable, and I hope that it will bring relief and assistance to a great many women who have had a very rough deal in the past.

    11.45 a.m.

    In adding my word of farewell to the Bill, I should like to say on behalf of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies on this side of the House, that we think that the Bill is now in better state than it was on Second Reading. We should have preferred it, if the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) and supported by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), affecting Clause 3, had been accepted, but, apart from that, we think that this is an excellent Measure and that it will bring relief to people by whom it is much needed.

    11.46 a.m.

    I should like to thank the House for the reception which they have given to this Measure, and for the way in which on the Committee stage and this morning we have had co-operation from both sides of the House, in a non-party spirit, in an endeavour to improve it. I never apologise for the fact that Amendments have been accepted or introduced into a Bill during its passage through this House, because that is what the House and the various stages of the proceedings are designed to secure.

    I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Belfast, North (Lieut.-Colonel Hyde) that the Measure is a better Measure now than it was when it was brought from another place to this House. I am bound to say that I do not share the view expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) about the origin of the Bill. It is true that it had been talked of for a long time, and one of the first things that I did when I took office was to see if something could be done to make a determined legislative effort to deal with the subject. I was not greatly helped in that matter by any heritage of documents left by the party opposite when they were in office.

    Undoubtedly, we did come across a conflict of opinion between English and Scottish lawyers, and we have had to enshrine the result in this Bill. I would point out to the hon. and learned Member one of the curious things that happened during the Committee stage when, in his absence, the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) was most gallantly and efficiently leading the Opposition party. The case for the English practice was very well argued, but when it came to the Division we had the curious experience that the two Scottish Members of the Opposition declined to vote, and, in that way, I think, indicated that while, of course, they would not vote against their party they could not support them.

    I had the humiliation of having the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann), who can always be relied upon in such circumstances to place the representative of the Government in as uncomfortable a position as she can, not only speaking against me but having the pluck to vote against me. Fortunately, the Committee rejected the Amendment moved by the Opposition by, I think, 20 votes to 14, which is quite a good majority for these days even on the Floor of the House, and is, of course, simply overwhelming when it is secured in Committee.

    Personally, I regret that the victory of Bannockburn should have been repeated on this occasion. If the hon. and learned Gentleman can arrange a Flodden Field in the future, I am not at all sure that I should not feel that there was a very great deal to be said for the line of argument he adopted, but, at any rate, we have managed, I think without doing any substantial injustice, to ensure that a certain number of scoundrels who on both sides of the border have been evading their liability will in future be amenable to the courts of the country, and will not be able, merely by going north or south of the Tweed, to escape their liability. They will in future have to contribute what the law says they ought to contribute.

    I am not going to enter into a new argument about the question of a man and wife living together. I thought that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave a very able answer to that question during the Committee stage. I am not at all sure that the erection of a screen at breakfast time between the two parties is not almost proof that they are living as man and wife. I have heard complaints on occasions that the size of "The Times" at the breakfast table, when one is trying to discover what happened to the speech one delivered the previous day at the House, as constituting a barrier, can be regarded as almost a matrimonial offence.

    The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) raised the question of arrears. In my experience as a magistrate, the question of what should be done when substantial arrears have accumulated is very often a matter of great concern. It is often wondered whether the money will ever be got out of the man. On occasions, I think that the woman is well served when the accumulated arrears are wiped out or reduced and it is made quite clear to the man that arrears must not be allowed to accumulate in future.

    There is the problem I dealt with in relation to the jurisdiction of the courts and the place where the matter has to be heard. I think we shall find that, in the long run, the position created by the Bill will help a good many women to get money they would not otherwise have got. With the limited amount of knowledge we have on the future working of the Bill, I am not going to put it any higher than that. This is a Measure to which both sides have made a contribution. Perhaps, as viewed by the lawyers, some of it may not be very good law, but I believe that the whole of it is most excellent justice, which, after all, is what the House has attempted to achieve. I thank the House sincerely for the way in which the Bill has been treated.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed with Amendments.