Mr. Tom Flynn:

Exactly. If you get instructions to judicial review a case, you have eight weeks, but you will be working on this before the eight weeks. Are you going to apply to this administrative body and get an answer within two, three or four weeks? There is the issue of the scale of costs as well. Our colleagues in the Legal Aid Board are upset that the scale of fees has not been increased for many years in criminal legal aid cases. There must be a concern that even if the initial scale of fees is, for example, market-based, it will not keep pace with costs. Is there to be a right or any role for the Office of the Legal Costs Adjudicators in this? The difficulty with one-size-fits-all cases is some cases are straightforward. Perhaps there can be a judicial review that is net point and might be able to be resolved in a day or a day and a half. Another case can be genuinely very complex. There can be multiple issues arising. How is the remuneration to be calculated? These are all fundamental issues that should be dealt with now, at this stage.

I wish to make one other point. There are two cost rules. There is a cost provision under Aarhus under the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act and then there is a separate cost. It is a little bit silly why there are two rules. The reason the legislation was enacted seems to be just administrative happenstance. It is one of the reasons there is a complexity around that. I saw there is an Aarhus Bill proposed in the latest legislative programme. I am not sure where that Bill is. It has been on the legislative timetable for many years. There may well be an argument to suggest that this issue of costs in environmental cases and the whole issue of Aarhus in relation to it is not just dealt with in this Bill but is perhaps dealt with in a more fundamental way across not just planning cases, but there are also other cases that are entitled to Aarhus protection. The sensible thing would be to have one rule or scheme, so to speak, or deal with this in an integrated manner rather than deal with it in a piecemeal manner. There may be an argument to suggest that is a better way to deal with it rather than dealing with it in the piecemeal manner here. If that course of action is adopted, it would be important that there would be a sensible and detailed interaction with the stakeholders involved. There is a complexity around this. In fairness, it has to be accepted that it is not straightforward how the EU rules and the Aarhus rules apply. There is a complexity around it.