Independent Review of Administrative Law Update

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Monday 22nd March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend’s comments on the report. I think the consultation period is six weeks. As soon as we have the responses in, we will work at pace to bring back the Government’s response to that consultation.

On ouster clauses and the decision in Miller II, perhaps I should merely stick to what I have said so far. I do not really want to get dragged into an analysis of Miller II this evening.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, does the Minister agree with the former head of the Government Legal Service, Sir Jonathan Jones, as quoted in the Law Society Gazette, that:

“The review doesn’t bear out the suggestion that there has been significant judicial overreach or a surge of cases in recent years, or that large numbers of unmeritorious cases are being allowed to proceed”?


If so, why does the Statement imply the opposite? Further, does he agree with Sir Jonathan that:

“The proposal that remedies might be available only prospectively will, at least, have to allow for exceptions”


if only to

“avoid the risk of serious injustice to claimants who have already suffered loss or damage”?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, on the first point, I respectfully disagree with the comments of Sir Jonathan, whom I respect very much. In conclusion 7, particularly the first two sentences of that paragraph, it seems to me that the panel is clear that there are cases where the courts have gone beyond a supervisory approach.

On the question of potential injustice for those who have suffered, if one is going to have a suspended quashing order or a prospective remedy, as I have made clear, that is something that we are interested in consulting on. Indeed, I would welcome the noble Lord’s involvement in that consultation.