§ 37. Mr. Abseasked the Attorney-General how far the inquiry now considering whether undefended divorces may be tried in county courts has proceeded; and, in view of the heavy burden on legal aid funds resulting from undefended divorces being taken only in the High Court, whether the conclusion of the inquiry may be expedited.
§ The Attorney-GeneralMy noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is still considering this matter.
§ Mr. AbseWill the Attorney-General give an assurance that the long consideration is not due in any way to any vested interest on the part of the Bar, since there is widespread public concern at the fact that the cost of divorces is unnecessarily high? Does he not think that, irrespective of the Bar's interests, it would 985 be far more desirable if some of the money which has been spent on divorces were deployed not in wrecking marriages but in healing them? Does the Attorney-General not recognise that it would be more profitable to give some of this money to the Marriage Guidance Council and to probation officers, instead of squandering it on young barristers who may think they have a vested interest in the conduct of divorce cases in the High Court?
§ The Attorney-GeneralNot only members of the Bar but the solicitors' profession are engaged in undefended divorces" and I think the principle of both professions is that they should only have fair remuneration for work done. That is all that either profession requires or desires.
This is a difficult matter. I appreciate the arguments in favour of sending these cases to the county court. On the other hand, one must remember that on three occasions in the past the question of whether divorce cases should be taken in the High Court has been examined. It was examined by the Gorell Commission in 1912, by the Denning Committee in 1946 and by the Morton Commission in 1956. Those two Royal Commissions and the other Committee all came to the unanimous conclusion that the dissolution of marriage was of such high interest to the State that these cases ought to be undertaken by the High Court. It is with those matters, that have to be balanced on both sides, that my noble Friend is concerned.
§ Mr. Bourne-ArtonIs my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the very strong and wide body of opinion throughout the country that, if the most solemn contract of a person's life is to be ended, it should be done with great solemnity and dignity and that, without disrespect to the county courts, it is far too grave a matter to be sandwiched between the collection of a couple of bad debts?
§ The Attorney-GeneralIt was, of course, upon the basis of the importance of the question that the Royal Commissions and the Committee came to their conclusions. The status of individuals and, possibly, the status of children is involved. It is a matter of substance 986 which requires very careful consideration. My noble Friend is considering it.
§ Mr. AbseDoes the Attorney-General really think that the solemnity of marriage is in any way affected if a marriage is dissolved by someone in a black robe instead of in a red one? He must know quite well that it is not and that, since county court judges are acting as commissioners, that is all there is to it, and it is just a nice distinction. Is it not time that we got rid of some of the humbug; surrounding the whole procedure in connection with divorce and allowed county court judges at least, who are already considering questions of the interests of children, to be able to do this work so that we could reduce fundamentally some of the costs involved in the antiquated paraphernalia which now goes on?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI have not said that there are not arguments both ways. There certainly are, and they have been expressed from both sides of the House. As I have said, my noble Friend is considering them.