asked the Attorney-General whether sufficient experience has now been gained of the working of the Legal Aid Scheme to enable him to make a statement thereon; if he is aware that an unassisted person is at a disadvantage when engaged in litigation with an assisted person; and what measures he proposes to redress this disequilibrium.
The Report of the Legal Aid Advisory Committee, which has recently been laid before Parliament, gives, on the whole, a favourable judgment of the Scheme. My noble friend the Lord Chancellor agrees with their view, but he thinks there is room for improvement. He has the Report under consideration at present. Section 2 (2, e) of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, which limits an assisted person's liability for costs to what he can reasonably pay in all the circumstances, is based on a recommendation of the Rushcliffe Committee on Legal Aid and Legal Advice. It was fully discussed when the Act passed through Parliament, and no amendment of that particular provision is at present contemplated.
Since an unassisted person has to pay his own costs even if he is successful in his litigation and an assisted person gets his costs paid for him even if he loses, does not my hon. and learned Friend think that this is a rather dangerous situation—one in which it is almost impossible to induce an assisted person to settle, even though he should settle, because there is no inducement for him to settle? Does he not think that this conflicts with the basic principle of equality before the law?
Would the hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that a great many of the present anomalies would be removed if the Government would bring into operation the Sections of the Act in regard to giving advice, and would he say what the intentions of the Government are in that respect?
Has my hon. and learned Friend's attention been drawn to a case about a dog, which was recently before Mr. Justice Lynskey, in which both sides had all their costs paid, so that, whichever won, either side could not have paid damages?