§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is the case that in Scotland before a legal aid committee can consider an application for a legal aid certificate the applicant must have given notice to the intended defendants, whose letter in reply must be before the legal aid committee when considering the application; and, if so, or in any event, whether Her Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of introducing a provision of the foregoing nature into the administration of the Legal Aid Scheme in England.]
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)My Lords, in Scotland notice of an application for legal aid has to be given to the intended opponent, who is entitled to submit to the legal aid committee reasons why the application should be refused; but those reasons are acted upon only if they show that the applicant's case cannot succeed on legal grounds; and this very rarely happens. For that reason, and because there are certain relevant differences between English and Scots law, the Scots procedure has not been adopted in England. I think it would be an expensive innovation and doubt whether it would help assisted persons' opponents to any significant extent. May I remind the noble Viscount that a legally aided person's opponent at present may at any time make representations to the legal aid committee to show why the legal aid certificate ought to be withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMy Lords, I thank the noble and learned Viscount for his Answer, arising out of which I would ask whether this is not one of the things which is better in Scotland than in England?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORIf I may put it colloquially, the noble Viscount has "pulled a fast one" in phrasing his supplementary question in such terms as to appeal to a Scot's heart. Coming down to more pedestrian matters, I would remind the noble Viscount that if this suggestion were adopted in England, the expense which I mentioned 789 would be incurred through serving every prospective opponent—perhaps some 30,000 a year—as compared with about 5,000 a year in Scotland for an anticipated very small saving in applications refused. As the noble Viscount knows, there are other reasons. The Scheme is still in its initial stages, and I am sure he will see the force of wanting to avoid that any pre-trial of the question should be conducted by the Committee; and also that we want to avoid placing a State-aided person at a disadvantage as compared with a non-aided person. I would ask the noble Viscount to take from me that there are cases within my experience where advance notice of intended litigation might prejudice the applicant because the intended respondent might try to avoid service by leaving the country. I assure him, however, that I will give the matter full consideration.