HC Deb 07 June 1944 vol 400 cc1470-80

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now a djourn."—[Captain McEwen.]

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison (Edinburgh, West)

The subject that I intend to raise is the unsatisfactory procedure for dealing with the collection of arrears of alimony. This unusual and somewhat complicated legal subject is not one which has attracted much public attention, nor is it one, I imagine, that is known to very many Members of the House, but it affects the welfare of a considerable number of married women, and especially those with young children, and I therefore think it ought to be ventilated in the House. In raising this matter I labour under two distinct disadvantages. In the first place, I am not a lawyer and am not, therefore, competent to deal adequately with all the intricacies of the law of husband and wife in England and Scotland. In the second place, it is out of Order to make any suggestions involving legislation on a Motion for the Adjournment. That limits the scope of my argument to some extent, but, subject to these two limitations, I shall endeavour to make out a case to show that the present procedure for dealing with the arrears of alimony is unsatisfactory.

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison

I would ask the Attorney-General, the Lord Advocate and the Under-Secretary for the Home Office to look into this matter with a view to seeing whether something cannot be done to improve the present arrangements. I want in the first place to refer to the existing procedure for the enforcement of the payment of alimony and of arrears thereof. I have had no complaints about the procedure in Scotland, so I need not dwell on that point. I think that is due to the fact that the Scottish law of husband and wife is more clearly defined and less complex than the English law. In England the position is less satisfactory. On 26th April I put a Question on this matter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. It received a certain amount of publicity in one of the Sunday papers, and, rather to my surprise and embarrassment, I received a "fan mail" from ladies all over England who were complaining bitterly of the delays and uncertainties of the procedure for enforcing the payment of alimony. I want to quote one sentence from the Attorney-General's reply: The existing methods of enforcement, including as they do, procedure by judgment summons, have on the whole proved sufficient in England."—[[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1944; Vol. 399, c. 779.] There is a qualification in my right hon. and learned Friend's reply inasmuch as he makes use of the words "on the whole," which seem to show that there is some doubt in his mind as to the efficiency and adequacy of the present practice. I am convinced that there are loopholes for evasion because, at the same time that I got this considerable fan mail from ladies, I got a number of abusive, fluent and mainly anonymous letters from gentlemen who are very much opposed to a change in the law, thereby showing that there are certain guilty consciences.

However, whatever may be the position in England, the Attorney-General and Lord Advocate will agree, that the real trouble arises in those cases where one of the parties is domiciled in England and the other is located in Scotland. I think that unfortunately there are a large number of such cases. I would add as a rider that the difficulties of dealing with this type of case are accentuated by the fact that in England the system of legal aid for poor persons seems to be less highly developed than it is in Scotland and that the majority of alimony cases seem to concern persons of humble means. With a view to illustrating some of the practical difficulties that arise, I propose to quote, without mentioning names, a case of the mixed type where one of the parties is in England and the other is in Scotland. I have had a great deal of correspondence with various right hon. Gentlemen on the front bench about this matter during the past three years. I will give the history of it very briefly, for the information of the House.

In this particular case, the parties concerned were separated by a decree of separation in December, 1937, the decree being given in Edinburgh. The husband was ordered to pay the wife alimony of 20S. per week. Some time after the decree was given the husband, who is an engineer by trade, left Scotland and took up work in Manchester where, to the best of my knowledge and belief, he has been in good and steady employment ever since. For reasons into which I do not intend to enter, he fell into arrears with the payment of the alimony. This bore very heavily upon my constituent, a lady who is in poor health and unable to do very much work, and is mainly dependent upon this alimony for a livelihood. In March, 1941, the payment of alimony being very irregular, my constituent found it necessary to take legal action, and she obtained a judgment summons in March, 1941, at the Salford Hundred Court, under which her husband was ordered to pay arrears of 15s. per week.

However, payment continued to be irregular, and in August, 1941, shortly after I was elected to this House, my constituent came to see me and explained the difficulties which she was experiencing. As a result, I took up the case, and I have been grappling with it ever since and, as hon. Members will see, I have accumulated a pretty fair batch of correspondence, having written to almost every legal authority and organisation in both England and Scotland on the subject, without, I am afraid, having obtained as much success as I had hoped. Well, 1942 passed by with various vicissitudes, payment generally being irregular and my constituent being put in a position of considerable financial difficulty, until, at last, goaded beyond all measure, in April, 1943, she took further action in the same court, obtaining another judgment summons, which gave her an additional payment of 5s., over and above the payments of 20s. and 15s. This order was, however practically speaking, ignored by her husband. Last autumn, in desperation, she applied for a default summons and then came up against more obstacles, about which I feel very strongly.

The position is that although the home address of my constituent's husband was well known to all the parties concerned, and although the place where he was working was well known to everybody concerned, the papers necessary for the hearing of the case could not be served upon him. The official process server was never able to serve the necessary writs or summonses upon him, with the result that although the case was down for hearing twice, first in January, 1944, and secondly in March, 1944, it had to be cancelled on each occasion, owing to the failure to serve the necessary papers upon the defaulting husband. I had another consultation with my constituent in April of this year, and I decided finally that, as all the channels for obtaining justice appeared to be blocked, the only advice I could give her was that she should go to Manchester herself. I am glad to say that the lady, being a woman of determination and character, so galvanised the authorities there into action that the case was heard on 23rd May, and judgment was obtained for another 10s. per week, in respect of the arrears; but this judgment summons covers only part of the arrears. My constituent has yet to obtain another judgment summons for another part of the arrears. Frankly I can see no end to this litigation, which I consider is highly unsatisfactory. I cannot refrain from pointing out to my right hon. and learned Friend that in Scotland, where arrestment of wages is permitted in cases where a decree for alimony exists, it is possible to arrest the entire wages of a defaulting husband.

Mr. Kirkwood (Dumbarton Burghs)

Not the entire wages.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchinson

Yes, for alimony. [Interruption.] There is a little dispute about that. Perhaps I might read a letter I received from the Lord Advocate which says: There is a general provision that only the, excess of wages above 35s. per week can be arrested, but this limitation does not apply where the arrestment proceeds on a decree for aliment, and accordingly the whole of the wages can be arrested for such a decree. That is from the highest Law Officer in Scotland. If I may summarise the position I would say that here we have the story of a poor woman who has been put to very great trial of the spirit and mental worry, who suffers from ill health, and has been put to a good deal of expense, which she can ill afford, owing to the inadequate machinery and inefficient operation of the law. It provides my justification for bringing this case to the notice of the House.

There is one other point. It is not my only reason for bringing it forward. I would not like it to be thought that I was taking a gloomy or pessimistic view of the future, but we all know that war has a very unsettling effect on people. Domestic life has been broken up and disorganised by what has been going on. One of the consequences of war, unfortunately, is that many people enter into hasty and sometimes unwise marriages, which may bring in their train an increase of court cases. I think it is our duty as Members of Parliament to make sure that adequate machinery does exist for dealing with these cases. which, I apprehend, may arise.

Finally, I am not competent, of course, to suggest remedies, and indeed it would be out of order for me to do so now. But I do make this appeal to my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench—I hope they will not spurn the suggestion—that the Attorney-General, the Lord Advocate and the representatives of the Home Office should get together to see if something cannot be done in two directions, first to improve the existing machinery for enforcing the law, particularly in those cases where one of the parties is in one country and the other in the other country; and, secondly, I ask them to review the state of the law within their respective domains in regard to this subject to see whether further improvement is required.

Mr. Burke (Burnley)

I would like to say a few words in support of what has already been said on this matter, because I have had a case somewhat similar to the one mentioned. I have had correspondence with the Home Office about it without getting any satisfaction. Briefly the facts are these: A woman in my constituency has an order for 30s. a week. The order is not paid and she goes down to the police station and gets a warrant. The warrant is sent to Birmingham. The people at Birmingham say they cannot find the man and send it back to Burnley with a note that they think he has gone to Durham. This man happens to be working for the Ministry of Home Security, and has to draw his wages from some place every week. They must know where he is. He must report from time to time, but six weeks go by and is owing. She takes out a warrant, but before the warrant is served and the money is paid another eight weeks have gone by, and there is £21 owing. As soon as she gets the first £9, she is still £12 in arrears. She takes out a warrant. That is going on continuously. She is a very decent woman doing her best to bring up her two children, aged 13 and 9. Perhaps I had better read her own words, which may count for more than mine. She says, in a letter: I apply to the law for my rights, but nothing is done. All that is done is that they are helping him to evade his obligations. I feel that something should be done, either by speeding up the machinery, so that the police may get in touch with the husband, or, better still, by some method whereby the money can be paid to the woman, perhaps through the public assistance committee, to which she has to go. She has to perform her household duties, and she is not in good health. She has to pay rent of 10s. per week. She is always in debt and she is harassed by the fact that she does not know whether the money is coming or not. That case, I am sure, can be multiplied over and over again. There is a case for an alteration in the machinery, or perhaps in the law itself.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell)

I am grateful, and so is my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) for raising this point. I was, of course, familiar with the case which he has raised, and I am in a position to deal with it, I hope, to his satisfaction and that of the House. I had no previous knowledge of the case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke), which deals, I think, with a different point. The real point which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Edinburgh has raised is the enforcement in England of orders obtained in Scotland and—although the case which he put did not raise the converse question—the enforcement in Scotland of orders obtained in England; in the first case where the husband has gone to England after the order has been made, and in the second case where the husband has gone to Scotland after the order has been made. The case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley does not bring up that issue, but raises the general issue of the enforcement of these orders, and possibly some further question about the position of somebody employed under the Minister of Home Security.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member. for West Edinburgh referred to the procedure on the other side of the Border, which I think is described as execution by arrestment of wages. That procedure we do not have South of the Tweed. It has been suggested sometimes, but there has been very considerable opposition to it, not only from employers, and not only from employed, but from both sides. There are arguments which have been advanced against it. I can tell my hon. Friend and others from North of the Tweed that, if that procedure were proposed in England, it would involve legislation and controversy, and I cannot at the moment hold out any hopes of the Government introducing it here. It might not be so effective as it may sound. There have to be arrears and they have to be due. If wages are paid promptly, it means that there is some difficulty in Scotland. I do not want to start a controversy about it, but only to make is clear. My hon. and gallant Friend did not press this.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison

It works very well.

The Attorney-General

It may be. I have seen that stated. I am not in a position to hold out hopes that we are going to alter the law in England, by a method of enforcing orders of this kind, or, indeed, other orders and judgment debts, because this process applies generally. Where my hon. and gallant Friend has done a useful service is in drawing the attention of the Lord Advocate and myself, and of the Home Office, to the existing procedure regarding the enforcement of English orders in Scotland and Scottish orders in England. Although each country may decide to stick to what I call its own method of enforcement, it would seem to be right that, in cases of this kind, which, as has been pointed out, affect people of slender means, and, in some cases, maybe, their only resource, the procedure for getting the order made effective in one country or the other should be as simple as possible. If someone has got a good Scottish order, and comes to England, the general English procedure to enforce alimony orders should be at her disposal, with as little delay and expense as possible. Conversely, if somebody has a perfectly good English order for alimony, and the husband goes to Scotland, the procedure there should be as simple and expeditious as possible for putting at the disposal of the wife the Scottish procedure for the enforcement of alimony orders.

I do not want to weary the House with references to, or details of, the existing legislation. I think it might be inadvisable for me to do so, for it might lead to inquiries on matters which might involve fresh legislation. But I will give my hon. and gallant Friend an undertaking, on behalf of the Home Office, the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Office, and on behalf of my Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, and myself, that we will look into this point, with regard to the enforcement in Scotland of English orders and in England of Scottish orders, because I am bound to say that such investigations as I have made, do indicate that there are uncertainties in the procedure at present.

Sir Joseph Lamb (Stone)

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said he is willing to look into the question of the enforcement of Scottish orders in England. Will he also look into the question of the enforcement of orders in this country? There is a great deal of hardship and, although I cannot suggest legislation, I will ask him to keep an open mind on this question so that we can, on some other occasion, bring particular cases before his notice. At the present time, a court order is nothing more than a request to a man to pay. If he refuses, the only resort the court has, is to commit the man to prison, which the wife does not wish the court to do because that takes away from the man the possibility of earning any money. If he goes to gaol, and it is worked off, the woman is deprived of the money. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to keep an open mind, and not to confine his inquiries to the question of one country or the other.

Mr. Burke

Can nothing be done in a case like that to which I have referred where the woman is allowed to go on month after month being constantly in arrears? Is there no way in which the police can help?

The Attorney-General

I have come here on the Adjournment, as I am sure the House will appreciate, to deal with the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Edinburgh. The points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) are concerned with the position where orders are obtained in courts of summary jurisdiction, and have nothing whatever to do with me as Attorney-General. It is entirely a Home Office matter. If that had been the point, I should not have been here. It is because my hon. and gallant Friend raised the general point as to enforcement over the whole field, including High Court orders, that I and my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate are here. I have been in touch with the Home Office, and no doubt what has been said by my hon. Friend will be considered by that office, but I do not think that I ought to give any pledge or commitment now, with regard to English procedure as such.

Mr. McGovern (Glasgow, Shettleston)

I have the utmost sympathy with those affected by the type of case that has been raised, but I would say to the Attorney-General that he should not be taken in too much when considering this matter, in regard to the procedure in Scotland when arrestment of wages takes place. It is a very sore point with a large number of workers in Scotland. Many women get into trouble through debt, and very cute sheriff officers try to enforce the decree in the courts by taking or poinding the wages of the men, and many innocent and good husbands, affected in that way, have lost good jobs because of wives who have failed in their duty in that respect. In considering the matter, I can understand that there would be trouble in England if they tried to put a case over. I have the utmost sympathy with those concerned, and speaking as a result of wide experience and having close touch, extending over 27 years, with many houses in Glasgow, I know it is a very sore point among industrial workers. The arrestment of wages can be used by unscrupulous sheriff officers with deadly effect against men. Sometimes men have been driven to drink, and have lost their jobs, through the policy of arrested wages in industrial employment.

Mr. Mathers (Linlithgow)

I join with the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) in the point he makes, although my experience has not led me to believe that the fault is due to unscrupulous sheriff officers, but the thing works out sometimes in the way he mentions, especially in instalment payments which are often incurred by the wife un- known to the husband in many cases. This is a different thing entirely. In the question of the legal responsibility of a man to provide for a wife whom he is in the process of deserting a real case has been made out for special action to be taken in the matter. In matters of that particular kind the Law Officers of the Crown and the Government as a whole might be fortified by the knowledge that there would be unanimous support in this House for any action they cared to take, even the action which I am not allowed to mention to-night—the action of bringing forward legislation to deal with the matter. Even that would be supported by the House, to meet what is a crying scandal. The matter is not so limited as it appears to be by bringing forward here to-night only two isolated cases; it is much wider than that and deserves to be dealt with.

Mr. Kirkwood (Dumbarton Burghs)

I would like to have one point cleared up. I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that they could arrest the whole of the wages. That is news to me. They used to get everything up to £1, but we have fought it here, since I came, and we have had it increased to £2. Does it mean that has gone, and they can arrest all the wages?

The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. S. C. Reid)

Originally one could arrest all wages for all debts. Then, 60 or 70 years ago, the limitation was put on, that for all other debts, except aliment, £1 must be left. That sum which must be left is now increased to 35s., but one can arrest the whole amount for aliment.

It being the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER ajourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.