HL Deb 14 July 1942 vol 123 cc808-30

LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether they propose to introduce a scheme for giving free legal advice and aid to members of the Armed Forces of the Crown. The noble Lord said: My Lords, since my question was put on the Paper I have received through the courtesy of the Secretary to the War Office a copy of the A.C.I, dealing with this matter so far as the War Office is concerned. I wish to say only a few words on the subject. This Army reform dates back to the last war when there was an agitation for free legal advice because of conscription. Men coming into the Army who had had this advantage in civil life expected it in the Army. When I was at Cologne we tried unofficial methods which proved very successful in difficult cases, particularly matrimonial cases involving relations with German families. The War Office did not carry on the system, although pressed to do so, but voluntary societies have given help during this war. I know many cases where officers who have legal experience and are now commanding units give free advice to men to the great advantage of those men.

I think we in the Army certainly owe a debt of gratitude to the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, for the sympathy he has shown those who have tried to get this very necessary reform. There are two things in the A.C.I which I hope the noble and learned Viscount will be able to expound. I cannot understand why you should stop at the rank of sergeant in giving advice. It seems to me a sort of means test to determine whether a man should receive free legal advice or help in the case of litigation. Why stop at the rank of sergeant? I know of many cases of young officers whose financial position makes them in greater need than sergeant:; or sergeant-majors of free advice in legal matters and assistance in litigation if that follows. I think that is a point that might be considered with a view to amendment. Then there is the position of Scottish soldiers. They travel all over the world and unless some special arrangements are made for them, it may be that they will not find in a particular area advisers with sufficient experience of Scots law. I am very grateful that such a reform should have been brought in and I hope the noble and learned Viscount will be able to clear up the small points I have raised.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity provided by the question of my noble friend to make a short statement on this important matter. In time of war, when the serving soldier is likely to be away from home and cannot leave his duty to attend to his own affairs, it seems to the Government, and I think it seems to all of us, of great importance to devise some adequate scheme to help him—or it may be to help her if she is a member of the Women's Auxiliary Services in connexion with the Army—in cases where he or she needs legal advice about his or her private affairs. If he gets into trouble—and in what I am saying the masculine includes the feminine—with the military authorities, that of course is; dealt with under the Military Code and his interests are already protected. Similarly if criminal proceedings are taken against him in the ordinary criminal courts the Poor Persons Defence Act, 1930, applies. But it must be very worrying to a serving soldier when at a distance from home not to know what to do about some civil difficulty such as the rent of his house or the claims of a building society or a hirepurchase contract or the complaint of a neighbour reported to him by his wife.

We have had in this country for a long time past an organization for helping poor people with legal advice and assistance, an institution known as the poor man's lawyer. It was originally started, I think, in settlements like Toynbee Hall, and I know that I myself gave a little help there a generation ago. Advice is provided gratuitously by such organizations for those who need it. Here I would make an observation which I am sure will appeal to your Lordships. It is even more important to advise individuals, whether rich or poor, how their troubles can be adjusted without going to law than it is to leave the Law Courts to deal with them. There is also a poor persons litigation scheme established many years ago, and since then much developed, which has been organized between the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Bar and the Law Society—the Society representing solicitors—under which, when litigation cannot be avoided, poor persons may get the services of solicitor and barrister gratuitously.

I would like to take the opportunity of saying what I think your Lordships will confirm, that we are grateful to those professional men who most generously and whole-heartedly give the best of their professional services and time without fee or reward when needed in cases of that sort. Thousands of divorce cases and a considerable number of other cases in the High Courts are dealt with under this beneficent system. Under this system barristers and solicitors make the contribution of their services free. The State from public funds—one of the Lord Chancellor's not very extensive financial responsibilities—provides a remission of Court fees and a subsidy to the offices of the Poor Persons Committees throughout the country. That really was our peacetime system for ordinary people. But those are peace-time systems and, though they are very useful so far as they go, they are not sufficient for the needs of the serving soldier to-day.

I wish to acknowledge the good work which has been done under this head by some officers who have been charged with welfare work in the Army. I do not at all overlook the value of the welfare schemes that were set on foot, I think, early in the war. But in the view of the Army Council there is more that is required to put this whole matter on a proper footing, and, as my noble friend has said, the Army Council has now issued this red book, in conjunction with an Army Council Instruction on the 4th July, which does represent the result of a great deal of discussion betwen the War Office and my Department. My noble friend said something about the limits within which the scheme applies. I will say a word about that. I think it must be clear that the rules which limit free assistance in litigation to those below a particular income limit must depend on the application of some test of means. I do not consider that these rules are suitable in the condition of Army service. You do not want to have an inquiry of that sort unnecessarily. A far better standard in many cases, I think, is rank, and the new scheme provides for both advice and assistance for soldiers up to and including the rank of sergeant.

I will say a word about that and as to whether we can go further in a moment. The only qualification is that an individual sending in an application should say that he has not sufficient private resources to enable him to employ a solicitor. That is not at all a means test, and I have no intention that there should be a means test. It does not involve any elaborate inquiry or test, but after all, it would be absurd to provide a scheme of this sort for use in the case of men of wealth who are serving—as men of wealth did in the last war—in the ranks. My noble friend has raised a most important point as to whether the rank limit could not be raised. He points out that a young subaltern in many cases may be as much in need of this sort of help and as awkwardly placed when it comes to paying for it as a man in the ranks. I appreciate the point, but I thought myself that it was important to get the scheme on foot and working. I have no authority to make a statement on the part of the War Office as to any extension of it. But I am sure that what has been said by my noble friend, and what is probably approved by every noble and gallant Lord in the House, will receive very full and careful consideration.

Now how is the scheme to work? The Army Council has arranged that in each Command there will be officers whose peace-time experience qualifies them to give the best legal advice. For this purpose there has been established in each Command a Command Legal Aid (Civil Affairs) Section. That is an official organization and the staff of this Section will consist of officers who from their peace-time avocations are qualified solicitors or barristers or men who otherwise have experience in legal affairs. So much for advice in the Commands. There will also be in units and in formation headquarters Legal Advice Bureaux where barristers and solicitors serving in the Forces will give voluntary advice and help, and where, if necessary, civilian lawyers living in the neighbourhood will attend to supplement their labours. I attach great importance to this scheme whereby we are going to get help from skilled civilian lawyers who will come in and lend their services.

The main functions both of the officers in the Command Legal Aid Sections and the Legal Advice Bureaux, and particularly in the latter, will be advisory. That will not necessarily be in regard to litigation. They will advise people as to how they should proceed and what are their rights; and where the subject matter is likely to result in litigation in the High Court the officers will refer the papers to the local Poor Persons Committee or the Poor Persons Committee of the Law Society in London. The Law Society have throughout co-operated most loyally in the working out of this scheme and they have set up a special department of the Poor Persons Committee to deal with Service cases. This department will handle by far the largest proportion of Service matrimonial cases. That is not unimportant. Although the officers of the Command Legal Aid Sections will not themselves undertake litigation they will act as liaison between the Services Divorce Department or local Poor Persons Committee and the soldier. For instance, they will assist the Services Divorce Department in getting statements from the applicant and any necessary witnesses. Take a simple example. If, unhappily, a soldier acting under the advice of the Poor Persons Divorce Department decides to bring matrimonial proceedings, it is necessary that a statement should be got from the man himself who is actually serving—it may be in some part of this country or outside—and that statement must be furnished to those who are going to look after his interests in the Court. The officers of the Command Legal Aid Sections will be in a position to obtain the statement and forward it to the Services Divorce Department.

Such is the general outline of the scheme. I cannot doubt any more than does my noble: friend that it is capable of conferring great advantages on the serving soldier. Such a scheme may provoke criticism. If you will only look through this little red book I am sure you will find that plenty of questions will arise in your minds on certain points. It may well be that some people may find it much easier to hit upon its imperfections than to appreciate its great value. But I am quite sure that the most important thing is to establish the scheme and set it working. When we have set it working, then we shall see whether or not it requires correction or improvement in one direction or another. Undoubtedly the serving soldier has been admirably helped in many ways by welfare officers, but at this moment there is no officially organized adequate assistance available to him, if he is a poor man, should certain legal difficulties assail him arising from his private life. This scheme, I hope and believe, is going to do a great deal to improve that situation. I venture to commend it to the House not only because it is calculated to promote the interests of justice—end we all want to do that—but because the morale of the fighting soldier will be strengthened by the knowledge that we in Parliament and in Government Departments are doing this much to help him in his difficulties.

There is only one other matter which I must mention. Although the scheme which I have just described, and which is in this little red book, applies only to the Army, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Air proposes to apply the scheme to the Air Force as soon as the appropriate arrangements can be made. Any question of the application of the scheme to the Navy is much more difficult, but I understand that the matter is being considered by the Admiralty. I have described this matter in some detail, because it is really one which affects vast numbers of people outside this House and which is, I am sure, of the greatest interest to your Lordships. I wish to make it quite plain that I am not overlooking or neglecting the valuable services which have been rendered already under the welfare scheme; but it is the view of the Army Council and of my Department that it is possible, under this new scheme, greatly to enlarge and improve the organization of that assistance, and to bring in, I am proud to say, large numbers of members of the profession of the law, not only those who are serving in the Army but those who, on account of age or for other reasons, are still attending to their legal business, and who will come forward to give their full assistance, without fee or reward, for the purpose of making the soldier's life one such as we should wish to make it, in view of all his contribution to our defence and to the solution of our difficulties.

LORD ADDISON

My Lords, I am sure that the whole House and, when they come to know it, the Forces, will appreciate the great importance of this matter, and I should like to thank the noble Lord opposite for giving the noble and learned Lord Chancellor the opportunity of making this statement. I would wish the noble and learned Viscount to understand that, if I have criticisms to make, I am not in any way depreciating the immense value which may arise, and which we hope will arise, from this scheme for the members of the Forces who will benefit by it. It is not altogether new, as we have been told. I well remember the operation of it in the last war, and I know, too, that in this war the Welfare Department of the Army have dealt with many thousands of cases. I think that it is fair to say that so much did their work increase that a memorandum from them had something to do with the initiation of this wider scheme.

There are, however, certain questions which I should like the noble and learned Lord Chancellor to take account of with his Department. First of all, has this paper been issued formally or not? Is it at the present time, that is to say, an instruction to the Commands? I hope, for reasons which I shall mention, that it is not, although I want the scheme to go forward. Then I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount to tell us why criminal offences are excluded from this scheme of advice. I am not a lawyer myself, and therefore I recognize that I may be treading on somewhat thin ice; but I cannot imagine why criminal offences are excluded. I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for his courtesy in supplying me in advance with a copy of this booklet, together with a memorandum, which was very helpful to me and to my friends. So far as the first page of the booklet is concerned, matters affecting the status of the soldier, such as Courts Martial, pay, allowances and so on, are dealt with by Military Courts, but why should the soldier be excluded from any advice and assistance if the charge is a criminal one? He may be an innocent person, and I can see no reason for limiting the benefit in that way.

On page 7 there is another limitation which I should be glad if the noble and learned Viscount could explain, with regard to matrimonial cases. It states: The section will satisfy itself that the applicant is entitled to the benefit of the scheme, that he has a prima facie case and that he is not debarred by his own conduct from seeking relief. That is an instruction to the Commands. What do the words "seeking relief" mean? I gather that if a man were cited as a respondent he would not be a person seeking relief, and therefore he would not be entitled to be helped. I may be quite wrong, and I expect that I am, but, if I am, the position should be made plain.

I now come to something much more serious—namely, to two important objections. The points I have raised so far have been questions which, as an amateur, I ask to obtain further information, but I come now to two very serious objections. I cannot for the life of me see why this scheme is limited to men of the rank of sergeant and under. I should like the support of the noble Lord opposite on this. There are thousands of young men in the commissioned ranks who may not be in the least better off than many privates and sergeants. They have given up their businesses, they may have young wives and a child or children, and they may have almost nothing but their pay to live on. There are thousands of them. I can assure the noble and learned Viscount, speaking for the whole Party which I represent, that we take the strongest possible exception to that limitation of the scheme. The scheme ought to be made available to anybody in the King's uniform because he is in the King's uniform. I notice that the noble and learned Viscount expressed in advance his readiness to consider this objection, but it is a very serious objection, and I hope that this limitation will be removed before this leaflet is issued in an authoritative way.

This limitation seems to have been invented—I use the word "invented" deliberately—in order to get round the rules of the Supreme Court, which define what is a "poor person." It seems to have occurred to somebody that the expression "poor person" could be done away with by limiting this scheme to noncommissioned officers and privates. It is an invention which may have occurred to someone, but it has no relation whatever to the realities of life, and I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will ask his colleagues to think again about it.

There is another very serious objection which I have to raise. I cannot accept the explanation which the noble and learned Viscount gave us with regard to the means test in this scheme. He tells us that the applicant has to assure the persons concerned that he is not able himself to pay the lawyers' and other fees. On page 3 of the booklet, however, we find this: Every soldier applying for advice must, before being advised, sign a certificate on Form ' A '. Form "A" is on the lines of which we have been told. It says: I have not sufficient private resources to enable me to employ a solicitor. That, however, is not all. The adviser at the bureau must satisfy himself that the applicant has not sufficient private resources to enable him to pay his own lawyer, and it goes on to say: In assessing whether an applicant has not sufficient private resources to enable him to pay his own lawyer, the adviser will inquire from the applicant what his resources are and will apply roughly as a test the standard laid down in the Poor Persons' Rules (as amended) or their Scottish equivalent. I leave the "Scottish equivalent" to the noble Lord opposite, but the Poor Persons Rules provide an income limit of £2 a week, or in exceptional cases £4, or a capital sum amounting to £50 or £100. However, the adviser has to inquire from the applicant what his resources are.

We object absolutely to this inquisition into the man's private means. It opens the door to all kinds of odious proceedings, and it ought not to be. I do not care what the man's rank is—he is serving his country and doing his best. If he gets into trouble, and it is thought desirable—as it is—that this kind of service should be available to a man in the King's uniform, men he should not be exposed to this private inquiry into his savings and family circumstances. It may be thought that the Labour Party has got a bee in its bonnet about the means test. You can say that if you like—we object to it on principle. The Party which I represent will never agree to this. Not that I want to deprive lawyers of their proper remuneration—not at all, they are entitled to be paid, like other professional men, and they ought to be paid properly. If it is desirable—and I am sure it is—to make these facilities available for men, scattered as they are, and away from their homes and exposed to all kinds of difficulties, then we ought to be able to pay for it as self-respecting citizens, and have done with it. I do not want to be dependent upon charity. Pay the fee, if it is required to be paid, to some competent person to deal with the case.

I entreat the Lord Chancellor to convey to his colleagues our vehement objection to the private inquisition which may lie behind these words, and which we consider to be thoroughly objectionable. I do hope that he will get them withdrawn, and that we shall not start this thing with this odious—it really is odious—condition attached to it. It will lead to all kinds of unfortunate inquiries which ought not to be made, and it will prejudice the plan very much. As a matter of fact, I believe that this paper has not yet gone out to the Commands, and that gives us an opportunity. I am sorry to strike what seems to be a jarring note. It is not out of any lack of appreciation of the need of the scheme; but to these two points, the limitation of benefit to persons of the rank of sergeant or under and the means test as applied to every man in the British Army who happens to get into difficulties, we take the strongest possible exception. I entreat the noble and learned Viscount to get this amended.

LORD MOTTISTONE

My Lords, I wish to join with previous speakers in thanking the Lord Chancellor for—as he is constantly doing—giving his own careful thought to this problem, and I welcome the regulations proposed. I have not yet had a copy of the A.C.I., or "Army Council Instructions," as I should prefer to call the book—these short initials are absolutely baffling to the ordinary man. Call it the "Army Council Instructions," and be done with it. I hope that the Army Council, and the Air Council too, will continue to employ welfare officers and to encourage those officers to be acquainted with the elements of the law because, as I know after two and a half years' experience of the war, it is an immense comfort to the men when the welfare officer can go and say, "You need not worry about that particular thing"—as in the case the Lord Chancellor quoted, when the man entered into a contract for hire purchase. The welfare officer says, "This will easily be adjusted," and the man goes about his business with his fears removed. Also the welfare officer can utter a word of warning, and that is extremely valuable. I hear that from all ranks of the Army, so I hope they will continue the welfare work.

But this goes further, and is very much needed. When the danger point comes and you have to go to law, I am sure this machinery will be of value, and on the whole I dare say it is very well advised. As for the limitation to the rank of sergeant and under, I go the whole way both with the noble Lord, Lord Hutchison, and with Lord Addison. I think that is a mistake on the part of the Army Council, due to the fact that they are accustomed to draft orders, when they say, ''The subaltern has so much, and the sergeant so much less; we will stop at the sergeant, because naturally he has got less money." If it comes to available resources, as has been pointed out, that may be wholly untrue. It is very often the case—in fact, I am told that in many units it is more often the case than not—that the subalterns and the second-lieutenants who are married have far less resources than the non-commissioned officers. As the object of the scheme is to avoid these real embarrassments to men who cannot afford to pay for legal advice, I would respectfully beg the Lord Chancellor to ask the Army Council—and the Air Council when they come into the scheme—to think again.

As for the other point, the inquisition, I think there is a misapprehension there. Naturally, I sympathize with the view of my noble friend, being Chairman of the National Savings Committee, and also Chairman of the Army Savings Committee. You do not want a man to suffer because he has saved a little money for the sake of his wife and himself when his service is over. But to say, as Lord Addison did, that odium attaches to an inquiry whether a man can afford to pay or not, that is going too far, and I think on consideration he will agree.

LORD ADDISON

Have you read it?

LORD MOTTISTONE

Well, you have the advantage of me there, you have the particular words. But I had it from the Lord Chancellor himself that there was no intention whatever that there should be that kind of inquiry into the private resources of the individual. I think the intention was that the man should be asked: "Can you really afford to pay? Of course it is fantastic, the whole Army would laugh if you called yourself a ' poor person,' but if you are really hard up and cannot afford it, it docs not matter whether you are a sergeant or a subaltern." The Lord Chancellor will no doubt tell us when he replies what the Poor Persons Rules will be. I would respectfully suggest that, whatever those rules are, it should be made plain to the Army that the object is to relieve the anxieties of soldiers, whether officers or men, who really are too hard up to be able to provide the necessary funds for proper legal assistance. If they are so hard up through no fault of their own, there is this great organization being set up to help them out. I would not go beyond that and have too precise terms. I submit that that is the best way. Make the Army understand it, and I am quite sure there will be no discontent, no feeling that the soldier's private means are to be inquired into. They would just be asked, "Would it be fair and right that you should be regarded as a poor person?" And if a reasonable man says, "Well, I am satisfied," there is an end of it. With these two or three considerations I heartily commend the scheme to the House.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

My Lords, the House will appreciate, and excuse me on these grounds, that as a serving officer I have a particularly keen interest in the scheme the noble and learned Viscount has described. There has, everyone would agree, been a real need for a long time past for an organized service of legal aid as a contribution to the morale of the Army. A man who is worried and preoccupied by his private affairs cannot, in the nature of things, be a first-class fighting soldier. The two essential requirements of any scheme of this sort are these. In the first place it should be administered by a staff of trained lawyers, men of experience in the legal profession, and in the second place that expert legal advice and, if necessary, access to the Courts should be available for every man in the Forces irrespective of his rank or pay or other irrelevant circumstances.

The scheme just described satisfies completely the first of these two criteria. It will set up the Legal Aid Sections at Commands and Legal Advice Bureaux at lower formations, and these bodies will be staffed by barristers or solicitors, whether they appear in uniform or in mufti. The sole criticism I should like to offer regarding this part of the scheme is that every effort should be made, and I am sure will be made, to avoid removing trained regimental officers from fighting units for whole-time legal work at Commands. The work at Commands is to be whole-time, and at the lower formations that will probably not be the case. May I make one suggestion? If the requisite staff cannot be raised from officers who are over age or in a lower medical category, it should surely be possible to employ members of the legal profession whose call-up has been deferred, either in their civilian capacity or, probably more economically, by giving them what are termed emergency Commissions.

Let me pass from the first requirement, which has been fully satisfied, with that small proviso which one hopes may prove unnecessary. The second criterion I mentioned was that every fighting soldier, without regard to any irrelevant circumstances (which from this point of view includes rank) should be in an equally favourable position to solve his legal problems. This criterion is far from being satisfied by the terms of the scheme. In the first place—and here I should like to support the plea that has been made by all the speakers in the discussion—it makes rank in the Army an essential condition for those entitled to benefit under its provisions. The beneficiaries are, in fact, limited to sergeants and other ranks. The assumption that every man above the rank of sergeant can afford legal costs, and very often extremely heavy expense of litigation, is manifestly false. I shall not labour that point. It has been underlined by all the three speakers in this discussion that very often a young subaltern with a wife and family to support, and no private means, is in fact worse off than a young unmarried sergeant, and therefore in greater need of help in these circumstances. Yet neither junior officers nor warrant officers, or even staff-sergeants, because the line is drawn at the sergeant——

LORD LATHAM

Nor company sergeant-majors.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

And, as my noble friend reminds me, company sergeant majors as well, however limited their financial means may be in relation to their obligations, cannot look forward to relief under this scheme from the added burden of legal costs. To draw the dividing line in this way is extraordinarily artificial and bears little relationship to real economic hardship. If it were necessary (and the assumption is that it is necessary) to separate in this way the deserving from the undeserving, the test should surely be related directly to need—that is to say, to the amount of income left after the price of indispensable purchases has been deducted. It would surely be universally agreed that military rank is a rough and, very often, a misleading indication of its holder's financial circumstances.

The number of those entitled to benefit under this generous scheme is subject to yet another limitation. As my noble friend and leader has pointed out, those below the sergeant level will only be eligible if they have signed a declaration that they are unable to afford this service. Furthermore, according to the terms of the A.C.I., although the noble Viscount did not seem to be completely in agreement with this interpretation of it, there will be an inquiry by the officer' into the resources of the applicant. This inquiry will be based on the Poor Persons Rules. These are the terms of the A.C.I., and I very much hope the noble and learned Viscount will reply to the questions that have been raised in order to clear up what is a manifest contradiction between what he has said in the first instance and what is laid down in black and white in this section of the A.C.I.

May I make a case on rather different-lines from the case made hitherto for the dropping of this particular income test? I am not objecting in principle to all income tests, or even to the application of income tests in the case of civilians who wish to benefit from poor persons' facilities in the Courts; but the validity of such a test should be dependent on its usefulness, and in this case it serves no useful purpose. Surely all services that help to maintain morale in the Army should be given to the troops free of charge. Mental fitness is just as essential to a satisfactory state of morale as physical fitness. If a soldier is supplied with hospital and dental treatment without inquiry into his means, so also should he be supplied with facilities for banishing worry from his mind. He can attend evening classes without paying a penny, and receive instruction in any subject under the sun, because it is recognized that an educated man is the more efficient soldier. Surely it is high time that we should acknowledge that a legal service as well as a medical and an educational service should be available to every member of all three Forces, if possible without regard to their rank or other circumstances.

There are three practical objections, I think, to the present test which I should like to mention very briefly. In the first place it will give rise to hard cases, particularly under the Poor Persons Rules if they are applied literally. The man who has managed to save £200 or £300 will be obliged to realize half of it at any rate, because otherwise he cannot qualify under the scheme, or he will have to forego his legal rights. If I am mistaken—and it all depends on that initial point—I shall be glad to have it pointed out. Secondly, there can be little doubt that most of the officers who can now afford the luxury of litigation and professional advice will continue their present habit even if they are entitled to make use of this new procedure. Senior officers of the Regular or Territorial Army—and they are the soldiers with sufficient private means—will always prefer to transact their legal business through the accustomed channels. It surely follows from this that a means test is unnecessary for the protection of the legal profession. Solicitors and barristers will continue to be employed by those of their military clients who could afford to make use of their services in the past, and they will not be deprived of any new clientele, because the ordinary soldier is never likely to be in a position to afford their fees.

I submit that an income test of this kind is really superfluous as a protection for those who wish to earn their living by the law, that it is unnecessary as a means of preventing an abuse of the new procedure by those who can afford to employ solicitors, and that it is definitely damaging in border-line cases. Those of us who serve in the Army know that the Army Council Instructions are subject to alteration and amendment. I beg very humbly to submit that in the light of the criticisms, I hope constructive criticisms, that have been made by all the speakers this afternoon, it may be possible at a future date for this scheme to be reconsidered and to be improved by such of the suggestions as commend themselves to the Government and to the Army Council.

LORD STRABOLGI

My Lords, before the Lord Chancellor replies, I am going to ask him seriously to consider advising the authorities to withdraw the A.C.I. altogether. My noble friend informs me the instructions have been actually issued, but there is some confusion and conflict of evidence as to that. If they have been issued then they should be altered as Lord Mottistone suggested. If they have not been issued I would appeal particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Croft, that he should stop the issue. In a few sentences I will add something to what has been said already as a reason for doing so. In the first place this scheme does not provide any new service at all. All the work has been done by welfare officers, with this difference, that the welfare officers have not the limitations with regard to means or rank or the class of advice they can give, which are imposed by this A.C.I. Furthermore, welfare officers can help all soldiers. In this case the help is limited to the soldier or members of the A.T.S. and so on.

It is very important to remember that we are dealing with a scheme which, if it goes out in its present form, affects the whole Army, and will apparently be copied by a similar scheme for the Royal Air Force, and even the Admiralty are considering something of the same sort. We are therefore talking about a scheme which affects directly or indirectly a very large percentage of the population of these islands. It certainly does affect an immense number of people, and we in this House must be very careful that no confusion or doubt is allowed to arise. May I add to the objections already made and to what was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Addison? There are other important limitations apparently for soldiers. In a case in the County Court, has he not to employ outside legal aid in the ordinary way? I would like to ask the Lord Chancellor if that is the case. For example, there are very frequent cases of applications to the Courts for separation maintenance or for affiliation payments. Is the soldier to be assisted there? According to the Instructions, apparently not. All this advice and help are given at present by the welfare officers without any limitation at all.

Now, like my noble and gallant friend Lord Mottistone, I had not had the advantage of seeing the little red booklet until my noble friend Lord Hutchison was courteous enough to lend me his copy, but I have been advised as to its contents. I come back to the question of assistance being given to the soldier in matters of divorce. This of course is important because a man who has matrimonial difficulties, as Lord Listowel has pointed out, is worried and accordingly the efficiency of such a man is impaired. According to the scheme what assistance do the Aid Departments, as I shall call them, give to the soldier in collecting evidence and preparing the case in connexion with the Legal Aid Bureaux? I think that is important. At any rate, this means that the evidence will be collected, not by the solicitor's clerks and people of that kind who usually do it in cases decided in the Divorce Court, but by officers or other ranks who will be in uniform. I appeal to my noble friend Lord Croft in this matter. He is not a lawyer. Does he consider it altogether fitting that officers and soldiers in uniform—not that the work is dishonourable—should be used to collect evidence? It may be suggested that the uniform gives them a certain prestige and that the evidence may have been collected under duress. That is a real danger and I suggest that it should be reconsidered. I hope that will be taken up by my noble friend Lord Croft, and I hope the Lord Chancellor will have a suitable reply to make in regard to it. These are only one or two of the objections that we see in addition to those already dealt with so adequately by my noble trends and other speakers.

I am told that this scheme was drawn up by people who might have been better chosen for the purpose. The genesis of the scheme, I understand, arose from certain suggestions made by welfare officers themselves. These suggestions were referred to a committee of very eminent lawyers who are unfamiliar with Army life, assisted by a number of distinguished soldiers who are not acquainted with the law, with what result we see. I am unacquainted with Army life, I am also unacquainted with the law, but I have some little knowledge of what my fellow subjects and His Majesty's lieges think and feel, and, speaking from what I know of the Navy, if this sort of scheme is introduced there will be trouble. I dare say the same thing will happen in the Army. All sorts of difficulties will arise, although it is all done with the best intentions and with the desire to secure the happiness and welfare of the soldier. It would be better to leave it to the welfare officers until it is possible to bring out a better scheme.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, perhaps I may have leave to say a few words upon what has been, I think, on the whole, a very useful and helpful debate. The list of objections which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, strung together—I gather out of a still longer list in his hand—almost made one feel that he did not want the scheme, although no one else has said that. This red book was in fact only issued to-day. I am sure speaking from my own knowledge of the matter, that it is far better to put the scheme into operation because then one can see what adjustments may have to be made. I am most unwilling to enter into the wholly unfruitful discussion of whether this is being done by the welfare service, which seems to be the impression of the noble Lord who has just spoken, because I do not wish to say one single word which would in the least depreciate what that service has done. The welfare service, however, so fax as I know, is not staffed by lawyers, and so far as I know it has not got its liaison and communications with the Law Society. I should feel that I had wasted time if I had been negotiating with the Law Society in arriving at a scheme when the whole thing was in operation thanks to the welfare officers all the time. I am sure that those really interested in the welfare service will be glad that there should be this addition made to their own efforts.

Two or three points have been made in the debate which I must endeavour to answer. The noble Lord, Lord Addison, asked whether this scheme covered criminal charges. It does not, for the reason that the Poor Person's Defence Act provides the regular machinery by which people who cannot afford to defend themselves in a criminal court are assisted. This scheme is directed to matters in the nature of contracts and divorce and civil complaints for which there is not otherwise adequate help. My noble friend Lord Addison, who is a bit of a heresy hunter on this point, almost smelt the scheme to discover defects in it. His bull point was that he had been informed that there was some regulation which required investigation to discover whether a person asking for help has an income of £2 per week. I am sure he will be glad to know that in that respect he has been led up the garden path. The regulations do not deal with that. What they do provide is that the consideration which would determine whether a man should be helped is whether, excluding any pay or other emoluments, he has an income and assets which render it unreasonable that he should be assisted as a poor person.

LORD ADDISON

May I be allowed to interrupt in order to say that I derived the information which I quoted from the noble and learned Viscount's own office? Through the abundant courtesy of the officials there I was provided with this document which I hold in my hand, and that is where I find it set out. The noble and learned Viscount's own office provided me with a document which seems not to contain the latest information.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

If the noble Lord will let me have the document after the debate is over I will see that suitable disciplinary action is taken. My idea is very much the same as the idea presented by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, that is that we do not want to go too closely into figures, but that it is obvious that there must be some people who ought not to take advantage of a scheme like this because they can well afford to look after themselves. Indeed I would agree with my noble friend that in many cases they would prefer to do so. It is ridiculous when you are trying to do good to the serving soldier that you should be meticulous about these wretched inquiries which I dislike when they are not necessary just as much as the noble Lord dislikes them. The noble Lord also called attention to another point which shows that, I will not say a suspicious mind, but at any rate an inquiring and anxious mind has been applied to this red book. It is solemnly suggested that it is the intention of the Army Council, the Solicitors' Society and the Lord Chancellor only to help in divorce cases if the man is a petitioner. It would take some pretty strong language to make me think that that is what anybody meant to do. The red book provides that an applicant for help must show that he is not debarred by his own conduct from seeking relief. Everybody knows that exemplary as is the conduct of the British Army, there may be cases in which, whether rightly or wrongly, a serving soldier may be made a respondent. That of course is a case in which he is entitled to help provided he has really got a defence.

LORD ADDISON

I am awfully sorry to interrupt again, but may I be allowed to ask what is meant by the words "is not debarred by his own conduct from seeking relief"? What does "seeking relief" mean?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I should think it refers to the case where the man is the proposed petitioner and is seeking relief from the Court. It does not say and is not meant to say that a man shall not have any help unless he is a person seeking relief. Another point which I ought to mention is that relating to a man's rank. I must say that when I heard the objection first taken, I thought the noble Lord on the Front Opposition Bench wanted to include Field-Marshals, but I gather that it is not proposed that there should be no limit, but that the limitation of rank should be put higher. That may be so. I have no authority to give any pledge, but I shall be very glad to represent what has been said to the War Office. I have no doubt they will carefully study the report of this debate and give due weight to everything that has been said.

There may be some who say that there is nothing new in this scheme and others who think that it is all wrong, but leaving those two points of view to knock their heads against one another, I think it can be said that this is a very considerable reform and that it will work sufficiently well to commend itself. If it is found to be the case that changes are needed, changes will be made. The great thing is that something has been done which ought to have been done before and I think our thanks are due to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchison, for raising this question.

LORD STRABOLGI

Would the noble and learned Viscount be good enough to answer the question I put about a soldier sued for affiliation?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I beg the noble Lord's pardon, I had no wish to avoid the question. Of course affiliation proceedings take place in a magistrate's court, a police court, and would not be covered by this scheme. The County Court is on the whole the poor man's court, and a great many cases go through the County Court without solicitors or counsel, but so far as this scheme is concerned it is a scheme which applies to litigation in the High Court. That is deliberate because experience has shown that it is there that help is chiefly needed. Undoubtedly the expenses there are greater and the machinery more complicated. It is for that reason that in peace-time the Lord Chancellor's Department has got a very considerable service which helps poor persons in divorce cases. I do not think that up to the present there has been any official scheme which assists in the County Court. I am sorry that I did not answer Lord Stabolgi's question on that before, but I had inadvertently overlooked it.

LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE

My Lords, I would like to thank the noble and learned Viscount most sincerely for his extraordinary clear and lucid exposition of this new scheme. We may not agree with it—it has been brought in as something new in the Army—but it has produced a first-class debate. I am only sorry that more noble Lords were not present to hear this debate and to take part in it. As I say, this scheme has introduced a new thing in the British Army, but at this late hour I do not wish to enlarge on what has already been so well said. But do not forget that Army Council Instructions such as these are never absolutely perfect when they are first issued. Very seldom have I seen an Army Council Instruction of this length which stood very long without alteration.

I only hope that my noble friend who represents the War Office so well here, and whom I see on the Bench to-day, will convey to the Adjutant-General the hope that he will support these Army Council Instructions in their various actions in the country. First of all he must see that the legal officers go out coutinually to the units and that the unit orders contain times well in advance of those at which these officers go to the various units. I am delighted to see that use is going to be made of the huts and other premises of the Y.M.C.A., the Y.W.C.A., the Salvation Army and other organizations rather than the orderly rooms for the purpose of consultations. This legal advice is tremendously important to the civilian soldiers whom we now have in the Army. The point regarding limitation by rank has been very well put by various speakers. This rule has got to be altered, and no doubt in due time it will be put right. There is no finality to anything like this. It will go on and develop into a great scheme for the Army. I particularly hope that special arrangements will be made in respect of that splendid corps, the A.T.S., because the members of that corps will have many legal difficulties upon which they will wish to consult various authorities. I again thank the Lord Chancellor for the splendid answer which he has given. I wish this scheme well. I hope that good fortune may attend its progress and that it will do a great deal of good in the Army.