Parliamentary Written Answer (Correction)

Friday 13th September 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

I regret to inform the House, because of an administrative error within my Department, the written answer given to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on 10 September 2013, Official Report, column 690W, was incorrect. The revised answer is as follows:

Jeremy Wright: The Government have carefully considered the responses to the consultation “Transforming Legal Aid: Delivering a more credible and efficient system” and has published the response “Transforming Legal Aid: Next Steps” available at: https://consult. justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-legal-aid-next-steps. We remain of the view that taxpayers should not be expected to pay the legal bills for a significant number of weak judicial review cases which are not permitted by the court to proceed at the permission stage. This does not just cost the legal aid fund, it also means more costs for the courts in considering applications and for public authorities in defending proceedings.

However, the Government have listened to concerns raised by a number of respondents who argued that the original proposal not only targets weak judicial review cases but would also unfairly affect meritorious cases where permission is not granted simply because the case concludes prior to consideration by the court. The revised proposal seeks to address this concern.

We are therefore consulting on a further proposal in which providers would not be paid unless granted permission, subject to discretionary payment in certain cases which conclude prior to a permission decision without a costs order or agreement.

The further proposal is set out in a separate consultation paper on judicial review and is accompanied by an impact assessment available at: https://consult.justice. gov.uk/digital-communications/judicial-review