Alex White (Labour)

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 6, to delete lines 45 to 48 and substitute the following:

"(12) Failure by a debtor to comply with subsection (5)(a)(ii), without reasonable excuse, constitutes contempt of court, and the District Court judge may deal with the matter accordingly.".

This is a rather odd formulation in the Bill in respect of contempt of court. I am not sure whether I have seen this before, but I would like it to be explained and perhaps justified. Subsection (12) states that if "a debtor fails to comply with subsection

(5)(a)(ii), without reasonable excuse" the District Court judge may deal with the matter as if it were a contempt of that court. I do not understand why that formulation is being used, particularly when it is associated with "may" rather than anything more mandatory. To say, "the District Court judge may deal with the matter" is an unsatisfactory formulation, is unclear and leaves far too much to the imagination. It is either a contempt of court or it is not. If there is a better formulation than mine or one that is more desirable or advisable, I am certainly willing to debate that with the Minister of State. I propose that we reword the subsection as follows, for the avoidance of doubt: "(12) Failure by a debtor to comply with subsection (5)(a)(ii), without reasonable excuse, constitutes contempt of court, and the District Court judge may deal with the matter accordingly." The fact that the term "may deal" is included in that context seems to be all right because there has to be an element of discretion by the judge. It strikes me that the phrasing of that subsection, the notion that legislation states that a court may deal with contempt of an order "as if it were" contempt of court, is flawed. Contempt of an order is contempt of court so the section needs to be redrafted, accordingly, unless I am missing something.