Select committee: Justice Committee
Recommendation 22
3rd Report - The Future of Legal Aid
Published 27 Jul 2021
Paragraph 92
Addressed to Ministry of Justice
Justice Committee The Future of Legal Aid All items in this report Report on parliament.uk ↗ Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗
Recommendation (the committee's words)
The Government should consider whether the model of the possession duty scheme should be used in other areas of the civil justice system where there are significant numbers of litigants in person. Non-means tested advice at court on the day of hearing could provide an economical way of offering some legal support to vulnerable litigants. We commend the Government and the Legal Aid Agency on their work on the duty scheme, but ask that they learn the lesson that schemes which are “assertive and flexible”, as Simon Mullings described the possession duty scheme, are what is needed.
From: Justice Committee, 3rd Report - The Future of Legal Aid (HC 70), paragraph 92, 27 July 2021
Government response
The government responded to the whole report on 16 November 2021 (deadline 27 September 2021).
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.The government responds mainly by pointing to ongoing reviews and pilots, in particular the Criminal Legal Aid Independent Review, and does not set out firm decisions on most recommendations.
- On criminal legal aid fees and sustainability, it says it "will address this issue" in its response to Sir Christopher Bellamy's review, and has "committed to responding to the Review's final report before the end of 2021".
- On the means test, it says it intends to publish the Means Test Review "alongside a public consultation shortly", and will address the report's related points following that consultation.
- On civil legal aid, it is "already considering" sustainability internally and is developing an early legal advice pilot in social welfare law, with further details to be announced "in due course".
- On judicial directions for Exceptional Case Funding, it says the Legal Aid Agency takes decisions "completely free from outside influence" and it does "not believe that this position should change".