6. Will the Counsel General outline how much money the Welsh Government spends on court cases that relate to air pollution? OAQ51714

Thank you for the question. In this Assembly, the Welsh Government has incurred £20,486.30 in external legal costs, excluding value added tax. Further such costs are anticipated in relation to the Welsh Government’s recent appearance before the High Court, along with the claimants’ costs, to be capped in accordance with the Aarhus convention.

Thank you to the Counsel General for confirming the costs. Clearly, the costs wouldn't be met unless there was a failure by the Government to meet the legal requirements with regard to air pollution. I realise that you as Counsel General are not responsible for that side of things, but the sums that you have talked about are more than enough to pay for several air pollution monitoring stations outside schools or hospitals as a contribution towards meeting this legal requirement that has stemmed from that. So, just to make sure that the Welsh Government doesn't face further costs, what steps or what guidance do you use as Counsel General, when you deal with court cases of the kind, to ensure that the Welsh Government either defends itself or yields, or whatever's appropriate, to ensure that the funds spent on these costs don't go on legal cases, but go on getting to grips with air pollution?

As a former solicitor, of course, I am aware that the expenditure on legal costs and court costs are of necessity unpopular, and I can well understand the reason why that is so. When the Government finds itself in a position where somebody brings a case against the Government, we have to ensure that when the Government has a good case to fight, that that happens, and that's important in terms of public resources in general.

He asked a question about the guidelines, or which steps can be taken when we have a situation where specific actions by the Government could have a positive impact on the costs of defending or bringing a court case. Well, this is an example of what is possible: namely, an analysis of the point of view and the legal position of the Government and then deciding in the case itself to make it clear that we accept that we did have a deficiency as regards meeting the statutory standards and agreeing to do so—in partnership, that is, or trying to do so in partnership with those who had brought the case. That, of course, might have a positive impact on court costs or legal costs in general.