HC Deb 26 October 1945 vol 414 cc2456-64

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Mathers.]

5.1 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton (Brixton)

The traditional sympathy extended to those who, like myself, address this House for the first time will, I hope, speedily transfer itself to the much more deserving object, namely, the provision of legal aid for poor persons, on which I venture to speak this afternoon. In May of this year the report of the Committee on legal aid and legal advice in England and Wales was presented to Parliament. This highly qualified Committee, consisting of men and women of great eminence and wide experience, presented unanimous and very practical findings on which I would urge His Majesty's Government to express an opinion at the earliest possible moment. I am only too well aware of the very heavy demands upon the Government's time, but this can be said: this question of legal aid is fortunately one that requires no world-wide preliminary measure of international agreement, but is one that can be solved within our own unfettered jurisdiction. It is, I think, generally agreed that existing facilities are totally and hopelessly inadequate. Laws and Regulations of all kinds are pouring forth in an ever-growing flood, and many of them are not clear even to some hon. Members of this House. Legal assistance for ordinary folk, therefore, becomes all the more necessary, and an adequate scheme of legal aid must be regarded as an essential contribution towards improved social services. There are of course many aspects of this problem covering both criminal and civil proceedings. I shall not attempt to deal with more than one aspect of the problem, an aspect which I know is a source of gnawing anxiety and suffering of spirit to very large numbers of our fellow citizens—how large this House will, in a moment or two, be able to judge.

In 1942 the Army Council, realising the importance of legal aid to Service men and women in their civil affairs, introduced a scheme of legal aid in which I have had the privilege of taking some part. The other two Services followed suit. It is not for me, either now or at any other time, to appraise the value or the necessity of this scheme; of legal aid for the Services.

Suffice it to say that, according to the latest annual report of the Law Society, the number of cases submitted by the Army and the R.A.F. Legal Aid Sections to the Poor Persons Committee now reaches no less a figure than 900 a month. Largely as a result of Service cases, the number of applications received by the Poor Persons Committee of the Law Society in London during 1944 was 11,137, treble the figure of 1941. Of these cases, 97 per cent. are matrimonial. I understand that so far this year over 13,000 new applications have already been received, and that the number of cases awaiting consideration by the Poor Persons Committee increased between January and October of this year from 9,000 to 14,000. The Poor Persons Committee, I know, is doing its best to cope with the influx of cases but it now takes nearly ten months before a poor persons' certificate is granted. After that certificate is granted, the actual conduct of the case is assigned to another committee of the Law Society, the Services Divorce Department. I understand that at this moment there are 2,500 cases in respect of which poor persons' certificates have been granted and they are held up because they cannot be accepted by the Services Divorce Department, which is itself more than occupied with current cases. The Services Divorce Department has over 12,000 cases in hand at the moment.

Here is a state of affairs which, when its full moral and social implications are realised, ought to stir the conscience of the nation. Everyone knows that a major casualty of the war on the home front has been the number of homes broken and ruined, not by enemy bombs, but by the infidelity of one or the other spouse. I have known of cases where our men have come back from German and Japanese prison camps to find children in their homes of which they were not the fathers. I have known other cases in which the first intimation that anything was wrong was when the Service man contracted venereal disease from his wife on his return to his home. To a Service man who applies for legal aid, one has to say, "Yes, you have a good case, and you; should certainly be able to obtain a dissolution of your marriage, but it will take at least two years, and it may be a bit longer." It is tribute to the self-control of our men that in so few cases, when faced with domestic tragedies of this kind, do they take the law into their own hands, and when they do English juries, flatly disregarding judicial direction, have been known to return a verdict of manslaughter rather than murder, a danger signal that the law and public opinion are drifting apart. I do not ask for the impossible, or even for the difficult. At this moment I am not asking for the law to be changed. I ask only that it be applied. A practical solution has been worked out and is available in the report to which I have ventured to draw attention. It is one which, I believe, will be supported in most quarters of the House and by most people whose opinion in the matter is worth taking into account.

It involves no new revolutionary principle. It merely reaffirms a principle established 730 years ago in Magna Charta: To none will we refuse or delay right or justice. I emphasise the word "delay." It is on this principle that I base my very heartfelt appeal to the Government to give early attention to the report of this Committee. There is another reason. Each of the thousands of cases to which I have referred affects two, if not three, or more persons. The happiness and wellbeing of thousands of men, women and children are involved. Delay amounting almost to a denial of justice puts a premium on irregular unions, illegitimate children who can never be legitimised and all the other unsatisfactory social consequences of unsettled and completely severed family ties. Real social security is not just a matter of housing, education, food and such material things, essential though they are. Social security is just a facade which is not buttressed by the spiritual values that develop out of happy homes. It is our duty to rebuild or to repair the social fabric of these broken lives as well as it is our duty to rebuild our shattered houses. Despite the alarming figures to which I have referred, the vast number of men who have served will happily return to homes where the purity of family life has been cherished and preserved in all these trying years. Let us ensure, as we can do, given the assistance of His Majesty's Government, that for those of our serving men whose home-coming is darkened by domestic misfortune, the fruits of victory shall not be made bitter because the opportunities of legal redress have become so increasingly remote.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller (Daventry)

The hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) has done a service in raising this topic to-night. It is one in which I personally take considerable interest, because I happen to be one of the members of the Rushcliffe Committee. It was with regret that I saw no reference in the Gracious Speech to the implementation of the unanimous report of that Committee, on which sat representatives from both sides of the House and of almost every other body which is concerned in the problem. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has confined his remarks to the pressing and urgent need of improving the machinery with regard to poor persons' cases in connection with divorce. I am sure he will agree that the problem goes far deeper. It is the problem of providing legal aid for those who are involved in litigation which they cannot afford, and which may involve them in ruin and in bankruptcy. It may be that a man wants to bring a case and has not the funds with which to do it, or that he wants to defend a case and dare not risk the cost of the defence.

This problem applies not only to the poor but to those commonly referred to as black-coated workers who get involved in expensive litigation. This Report provided a scheme which endeavoured to deal with just that kind of problem, and I hope the Solicitor-General, when he comes to reply, will be able to indicate, not only that the proposals with regard to divorce contained in that Report will be carried into effect as soon as possible, but also the other recommendations, made with a view to assisting persons to obtain representation, not only before local tribunals, but before all the other kinds of tribunal that are now set up, and, in addition, obtain legal advice.

I wanted to intervene only to make it quite clear that I myself, and, I am sure the majority of those who sit on this side of the House, are fully in favour of steps being taken as soon as possible to deal with this very pressing social need, which affects so many people in this country and so many more who are still overseas.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. Janner (Leicester, West)

I should like to follow the hon. Member who has just sat down in complimenting the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) not only on having raised this question but also on the excellent way in which he presented his case, and also on the valuable contribution which he has made to the Debates in this House. I am quite certain that all of us will be anxious to hear him often in the future, and that any contribution he will have to make will, in view of the manner in which he has spoken to-day, be received with considerable pleasure and interest by the House. I rise in order to deal with one or two points which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not covered. There is no doubt that the common man is placed in a very serious position at the present time if his means do not enable him to deal with matters of a legal nature with which he may be concerned. The Rules that prevail in respect of poor persons' assistance are somewhat difficult, and, in very many cases, not sufficient to cover the real needs of the average man and woman. I know, of course, that the desire that this matter should be dealt with is felt on all sides of the House, but I do want the House to understand that, in dealing with a position of this nature, we must not regard the question as one of charitable assistance but must regard it in the light of the needs of people who are not in a position to deal with litigation which may face them, and who are not in a position, in consequence of their means, to receive the necessary advice to enable them to decide whether they should litigate or not.

There is a great debt due to, the voluntary organisations which have given advice in the past, but they are only spasmodically used and they are not organised or co-ordinated. There are certain districts in which people have considerable difficulty in obtaining advice, and, after all, it is the advice in the first instance that matters in enabling men and women to know where they really stand. On this side of the House the matter has been given very careful consideration and a committee was set up by the Labour Party to deal with it. They came to certain conclusions, which have been communicated to the committee which was sitting.

I would like to refer to two specific matters. One is the question of the county court, which is the poor man's court. It is not right—and I am sure this must be the opinion of all concerned with litigation in the county courts—that an individual should be deprived of the right to present his case adequately in the county court in consequence of the fact that he has not the means to be properly represented. Important matters arise. It is true they may not involve as large a sum, although in many cases they do, as those involved in the High Court, but it is the common man's court and in my view the matter of providing proper legal assistance there should be dealt with as speedily as possible.

In the police court a man's honour is at stake in many cases equally with a man's honour which is in issue at the higher courts. It may be a small matter that is concerned. It may be that to some people it is considered as a trivial matter, but to others the slightest reflection on their character is of extreme importance. A man who comes before a police court to-day, even on a trivial matter as it may appear to others, considers his case to be a very important one, and in my view he is entitled to have proper legal aid in order to assist him. The atmosphere of the court is not known to him and he often finds that those in the Court do not understand why he is nervous or why he cannot present his case. I am sure we are all anxious to hear the reply of the Solicitor-General, and I do not wish to detain the House any further, but there is one further point which I would mention. We would like the question of appeal in civil cases dealt with to, so that a man who has been refused legal assistance in the first instance, if he has to go to appeal, may still be assisted in the appeal if he has not the means to deal with it himself.

5.22 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Major Sir Frank Soskice)

I have, in the first place, to crave the indulgence of the House on this my first utterance within its precincts. May I associate myself with what was said by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) to the effect that it was a public service to raise this extremely important topic? I will say at once that the Government accept that the position at the moment is unsatisfactory, and that it must be remedied as soon as possible. I would like, if I may, nevertheless to pay a tribute to the work that has been done by the many voluntary organisations which assist poor persons up and down the country, and I would also like to include in the tribute which I venture to pay those many members of the Bar and of the solicitors' profession, some of whom I see before me now, who have assisted in the matter of securing justice for poor persons. The fact remains that the position is unsatisfactory. This complex and manifold problem affects not merely the different courts concerned—police courts, county courts, assize courts and high courts—but it takes on different aspects both in relation to divorce appeals and in relation to the various types of litigation that come before the courts; and, of course, a distinct problem is that of procuring facilities for obtaining legal advice before any litigation has been started.

The House, I hope, will not expect me at this stage to say what are the Government's proposals in the matter of dealing with the situation which requires remedying, but this I can say: Reference has been made to the report prepared by the Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Rushcliffe. The Law Society has been asked to prepare a detailed report covering the various proposals contained in the Rushcliffe Committee's Report on poor persons' procedure. Work is actively in progress on the preparation of that Report, but hon. Members will understand that the Report must of necessity take some time. In particular, the financial aspect of the proposals requires the most careful and anxious consideration, but I can assure the House that the Government have given and are giving, immediate and sympathetic consideration to the various proposals in the Report.

Lieut.-Colonel Morris (Sheffield, Central)

If the learned Solicitor-General could give us some general idea of the gist of these proposals, it might be for the benefit of new Members like myself.

The Solicitor-General

I can furnish the hon. and gallant Member with a copy of the Report which, on pages 40–43, sets out the proposals in very succinct form. If he peruses the Report, I think he will get all the information he wants. I have a copy with me and I will let him have it afterwards. I want to add to what I have said that, within the present frame-work of procedure in the courts, the Government are considering at the moment what steps can be taken both to accelerate it and to save expense, in so far as is possible.

With regard to the matter of divorce, which was particularly dealt with by the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), that of course presents its own problems. In the matter of Poor Persons Divorce the matter is particularly unsatisfactory and again, as things stand at present, and before the Report is prepared by the Law Society, steps are being taken to improve the position so far as possible by obtaining further staff and more accommodation for new staff, and generally by speeding up matters. My Noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is also watching the lists of divorce cases in the High Court in order that they may also be accelerated as far as possible.

I want before I conclude to remind the House that the Government are faced with an extremely heavy legislative programme. There is no need, indeed, for me to remind the House of that very patent and obvious fact, and, of course, first things must come first, but it is accepted that this is a matter of importance and urgency which affects a very wide section of the population, and it is hoped that in due course the Government will be able to lay proposals before the House which will be found satisfactory in all parts of the House.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

If I may be allowed to say one or two words more, I would like to congratulate my old friend—if I can still call him so—the Solicitor-General upon the way in which he has overcome the ordeal of a maiden speech, and a maiden speech from the Front Bench at that. Indeed, I would like to congratulate him on the manner in which he delivered the speech and also to thank him for what he has said. It is a matter of the greatest urgency and I am sure his words will bring hope to many. I would like also to apologise to the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) who delivered his maiden speech with such fluency that I must confess I did not appreciate that it was a maiden effort.

It being half an hour after the conclusion of Business exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order, as modified for this Session by the Order of the House of 16th August.

Adjourned at Twenty-nine Minutes past Five o'Clock.