§ Mr. A. GREENWOODasked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that the Report of the Poor Persons Rules Committee, presided over by Mr. Justice Lawrence, recommended, and the 415W Rules of the Supreme Court (Poor Persons), 1925, subsequently provided, a privilege with regard to sex, in connection with legal aid to poor persons in the Supreme Court, by abolishing, so far as married women are concerned, the rigid poverty test limit, and by retaining a rigid poverty test limit so far as poor married men or other kind of poor person is concerned; and whether he will extend the scope of the reference to the Committee as to legal aid to the poor, presided over by Mr. Justice Finlay, so as to enable that Committee to consider the desirability or otherwise of recommending the abolition of the rigid poverty test limit, so far at any rate as poor married men are concerned, in High Court litigation?
§ The ATTORNEY - GENERALMr. Justice Lawrence's Committee recommended that the test as to means should remain the same as under the Rules of 1919. It is impossible in the limits of an answer to a Parliamentary question to state fully and exactly the respective rights and obligations of a husband and wife engaged in matrimonial proceedings. The only effect of the Rule now in force and that proposed to be substituted for it is to apply the ordinary law to poor persons. I am not prepared to suggest that the reference to Mr. Justice Finlay's Committee should be extended.
§ Dr. SALTERasked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that the Report of Mr. Justice P. O. Lawrence's Committee on the Poor Persons Rules (Command Paper 2358) did not consider or provide for anything other than administration; and whether, as the terms of reference to the Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Finlay as to legal aid to the poor included the provision of further aid to poor persons in the conduct of civil proceedings other than such civil proceedings in the Supreme Court as fall within the scope of the existing Poor Persons Rules, he will consider whether Mr. Justice Finlay's Committee may be empowered to inquire and, if thought desirable, recommend the provision of legal aid for those poor persons not now within the scope of the Poor Persons Rules and whose need was not considered nor was any recommendation made thereon by the said Committee presided over by Mr. Justice P. O. Lawrence, so 416W that provision may be made for poor persons unable to find any out-of-pocket expenses?
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALNo, Sir; I am not prepared to suggest to the Lord Chancellor or to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the reference to Mr. Justice Finlay's Committee should be extended. The subjects with which that Committee has to deal are already sufficiently extensive.
§ Dr. SALTERasked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that the Report of Mr. Justice P. O. Lawrence's Committee to inquire into the Poor Persons Rules, and dated 29th October, 1919 (Command Paper 430), found that the out-of-pocket expenses other than Court fees for poor persons in ordinary matrimonial cases amounted on an average to £10, and in ordinary nullity cases amounted on an average to £25; and that in addition to these ordinary expenses there are sometimes additional out-of-pocket expenses for service and obtaining evidence in the Colonies and abroad, amounting, according to the estimate made by the secretary of the Poor Person's Department to at least £5 for service and at least £20 for obtaining evidence; whether he is aware that the Report of Mr. Justice P. O. Lawrence's Committee as to the Poor Persons Rules, dated 17th February, 1925 (Command Paper 2358), suggested that the maximum deposit payable by poor persons to cover their out-of-pocket expenses should be £10; and whether he can suggest any source or fund from which these large and necessary out-of-pocket expenses can be paid, and how under the Poor Persons Rules can a poor person having no means petition or defend a nullity suit involving service and the taking of evidence abroad?
§ The ATTORNEY - GENERALMr. Justice Lawrence's Report of 1919 estimated the out-of-pocket expenses for a poor person in an ordinary matrimonial case at £5 (excluding office expenses, a charge for which is not permitted) and not £10 as stated in the question, and the cost of a nullity case—subject to the same exclusion—at £20 and not £25. The Rules now in force require a deposit of £5 or £15, as the case may be. The now proposed Rules enable the Solicitors' Committee to require a deposit in the first place of £5, and, if that sum be 417W found insufficient, a further £5. It is hoped that the measures of decentralisation proposed in the Report and the draft Rules will diminish considerably the out-of-pocket expenses.
§ Mr. W. BAKERasked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that the Report of the Poor Persons Rules Committee, presided over by Mr. Justice P. O. Lawrence (Command Paper 2,358), recommended that the Poor Person's Department should be abolished, the work of that Department to be taken over by the Law Societies, who were to obtain an honorary secretary, or a librarian, or a clerk, with power to pay a small honorarium, unless the clerk (or librarian) was willing to do the work in his spare time, the work being mainly that now done by the secretary of the Poor Person's Department, and that the accommodation of the clerk (or librarian) and the Committee should be a single room at the local courts or in some public building; whether it is intended that the clerk (or librarian) should give legal advice in the one room used as inquiry room, writing room, and consulting room; and whether he will ask the Committee as to legal aid to the poor, presided over by Mr. Justice Finlay, to inquire, and if necessary make recommendations, as to the librarian and his accommodation?
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALIt is not intended that the official employed by the Law Society or local Law Society should give legal advice. His duties will be purely administrative. The arrangements as to the accommodation of the Solicitors' Committee will differ according to the local circumstances. They are in418W an advanced state of preparation, and it is not necessary, nor would it be possible, to make them the subject of an inquiry by Mr. Justice Finlay's Committee.