Source · Select Committees · Justice Committee
Recommendation 37
37
Acknowledged
Paragraph: 129
However, it is not a question of simply raising fees, but rather making better use...
Recommendation
However, it is not a question of simply raising fees, but rather making better use of the resources available. We believe that the best way of ensuring value of money is to focus on expanding the capacity of those providers who are able to offer a high-quality service to the public at a relatively low cost when compared to the private sector. By doing this, we can reduce backlogs and help people solve legal problems more quickly. In certain areas of civil law, in particular immigration, community care and housing, we are concerned that the impact of Covid-19 will lead to a growing need for legal aid work, but that there will not be sufficient providers able to help. In those areas, we recognise that unless the civil legal aid review produces very speedy results, it is likely that individuals will be prevented from pursuing meritorious claims. The Lord Chancellor should consider using his powers under section 2 of LASPO to make direct grants to organisations to fulfil the statutory duty to ensure that legal aid is made available.
Government response summary AI-generated
The government states it is internally considering the sustainability of the civil legal aid market and whether different funding models might be appropriate, but does not commit to using Section 2 of LASPO for direct grants.
Summary of the government's response below — read the verbatim text to verify.
Paragraph Reference:
129
Government Response
Acknowledged
HM Government · verbatim extract
Acknowledged
We are already considering the sustainability of the civil legal aid market internally. As part of this work, we are considering whether different funding models might be appropriate in some instances.
Read the full response on Parliament ↗