§ 34. Mr. Bowdenasked the Attorney-General what would be the estimated saving in Government expenditure if the proposal to close the District Probate Registry at Leicester and its removal to Nottingham is implemented.
§ 36. Mr. Jannerasked the Attorney-General whether he is aware of the resentment in Leicester and district at the proposal to close the Probate Registry in that city; that this is regarded as a deprivation of reasonable amenities to the City of Leicester; and whether he will refuse to accept the proposal.
§ The Attorney-GeneralI am aware of the public feeling in this matter, and as I said in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Scott) on 11th November, a proposal that certain district probate registries should be closed is being examined by the President of the Probate Division. I cannot say what saving would result from the closing of any particular registry.
§ Mr. BowdenIs the hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that there can be no real saving from this petty proposal because, in this particular case, people 1389 will have to travel to and from Nottingham and that will mean considerably increased expenditure as far as they are concerned?
§ The Attorney-GeneralIt would not be for me to make any further comment on this pending the result of the inquiry of the President.
§ Mr. JannerIs it a fact that the Law Society has declared that this would be a quite wrong step to take? Secondly, is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the removal of a large number of Government offices to Nottingham is making people in Leicester feel that the Government are proposing to make Leicester a satellite town for Nottingham; and is he proposing, in those circumstances, to hold the next General Election count for Leicester in Nottingham?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI have no doubt that those matters have been brought to the attention of the learned President, but if they have not I will see that they are.