Select committee inquiry
Value for Money from Legal Aid
Closed
What the inquiry looked at
“The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO), implemented in 2013, significantly reduced the scope of legal aid in England and Wales, which provides legal services for those who are eligible, largely those who cannot afford to pay. LASPO succeeded in helping reduce the scheme’s expenditure from approximately £2.9bn in 2012-13 to around £1.9bn in 2022-23 (adjusted for inflation). In 2015, the Committee reported that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) introduced these changes on the basis of no evidence in many areas; had not properly assessed the full impact of the reforms; and did not at the time understand and showed little interest in the knock-on costs of its reforms across the public sector. Since LASPO’s introduction, the MoJ has commissioned several reviews of its legal aid schemes, including an independent review of the long-term sustainability of criminal legal aid published in 2021. Legal aid policy is currently subject to a high degree of scrutiny elsewhere, including the recent Bellamy review . In 2023 the MoJ announced plans to review the civil legal aid system. The National Audit Office (NAO) has conducted a study focusing on the effectiveness of LASPO. Based on the NAO’s work, the Committee will hear from the MoJ and the Legal Aid Agency on subjects including: Effectiveness of LASPO; Sustainability of legal aid market; Costs and benefits; Access to justice. If you have evidence on these issues, please submit it here by 23:59 on Sunday 10 March 2024. Please look at the requirements for written evidence submissions and note that the Committee cannot accept material as evidence that is published elsewhere. Please note that the Committee is unable to investigate individual cases. If you need help with an individual problem you are having, you may wish to contact your constituency MP. This inquiry was closed due to the 2024 General Election.”
The committee's words, from the inquiry page on parliament.uk ↗.
What it found
In the committee's words, from the summary of Thirty-Third Report - Value for Money from Legal Aid ↗
The government has a statutory duty to fund legal advice for the most vulnerable people in society. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) introduced reforms to legal aid in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO), implemented in April 2013. However, nearly a decade on from this Committee’s last report on the subject, MoJ still lacks an understanding of the costs and benefits of its 2013 legal aid reforms and whether those who are eligible for legal aid can access it.
We are deeply concerned about MoJ’s and the Legal Aid Agency’s (LAA’s) lack of curiosity on the impact of decreasing numbers of providers on people’s access to legal aid, despite evidence which suggests access is getting more difficult. In most categories of law, the proportion of people within ten kilometres of a legal aid office has fallen since 2013. Capacity within the housing and immigration advice, and police station duty schemes, are of particular concern. For example, there are areas of the country where people can only access housing advice remotely, but MoJ and LAA do not know enough about how this impacts vulnerable groups who may find it more difficult to access legal aid in this way.
Considerable wage inflation has meant a smaller proportion of the population has been eligible for legal aid each year, but MoJ has been slow to review financial eligibility thresholds and implement any changes. MoJ did commit to review thresholds in February 2019, but did not propose changes until May 2023 and does not expect to fully implement them until 2026. It has not set out how it plans to keep thresholds under review in future.
MoJ’s legal aid reforms have undoubtedly led to reductions in direct spending on legal aid, with a £728 million (28%) real-terms reduction in legal aid spending in 2022–23 compared with 2012–13. But both MoJ and His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) have failed to improve their understanding of where costs may have shifted to other areas of the justice system or wider government. For example, MoJ acknowledges that the removal of early legal advice for issues such as immigration and family issues may have led to additional costs, but it has failed to make progress in identifying or addressing them. HMCTS’s failure to improve the data it collects on the impacts of increasing numbers of people representing themselves (“litigants-in-person”) on courts, which have been under immense pressure in recent years, is particularly disappointing.
The Committee recognises that MoJ has taken steps to address issues with the market sustainability of legal aid through its large-scale reviews of criminal and civil legal aid.
But the pace of its response has been troublingly slow, particularly in civil legal aid, where fees have not increased for 28 years. MoJ must take a more proactive and routine approach if it is to ensure the future provision of legal aid.
What the government said
The government responded on 11 July 2025. The deadline was 24 July 2024.
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response.
The government states that it "agrees with the Committee's recommendation" on each of the six areas reported, with target implementation dates ranging from Winter 2024 to Summer 2026.
- On data, the Ministry of Justice and Legal Aid Agency "will though review the current data collected on demand for, and access to, legal aid" and the Ministry "will consider commissioning independent research", with a target date of Spring 2026.
- On financial eligibility, the Ministry has "committed" to reviewing income and capital thresholds "within three to five years of the new means test coming into operation", with full implementation "not expected before Summer 2026".
- On digital transformation to speed up changes, it says this "requires significant investment" and that funding decisions "will need to be made in the round in the context of wider priorities in the next Spending Review".
- On the sustainability of the legal aid market, it "acknowledges the recommendation to monitor" profitability more regularly and "is considering how best to do this alongside providers"; the Criminal Legal Aid Advisory Board's recommendations "are not binding".
Read the government's response ↗ Read the report ↗ Report an error
How the inquiry ran
Each dot is a dated item listed on this page, from the inquiry's opening on 10 January 2024 to 11 July 2025. The dashed mark is the deadline Parliament records for the government's response.
- Oral evidence 25 Mar 2024
- Report 24 May 2024
- Government response 11 Jul 2025
- Correspondence 8 letters
What it recommended 19 recommendations · 5 conclusions
2Clarify options and assess impacts of remote legal aid for vulnerable groups.
Concluded (the committee's words)
There are areas of the country lacking face-to-face provision of legal aid, which risks penalising vulnerable groups disproportionately. Stakeholders have consistently raised the issue of ‘legal aid deserts’ where large geographic areas lack a legal aid provider for specific categories of law. For example, large areas of the South West and North West have no face-to-face housing or debt support. MoJ has stated that where there is no provider, people can seek remote advice, which can work well for many. But it does not understand the impact of remote advice on vulnerable groups, for example those with limited access to public transportation, English as a second language or people with a disability. Charities such as the Child Poverty Action Group report that many of their clients struggle to obtain relevant evidence of their eligibility due to having limited access to technology or low digital capabilities: this is exacerbated when services are provided remotely as many are unable to travel, for example due to a disability. Recommendation 2: In its Treasury Minute response, the Ministry of Justice should: 6 Value for Money from Legal Aid • clarify what the options are for those who are unable to make use of remote advice. It should specifically consider vulnerable groups in areas with no face-to-face legal aid provision, whose issues may be too complex to solve via telephone; and • set out how it plans to better understand the impact of remote provision on vulnerable groups and address any problems identified.
3Monitor Illegal Migration Act's impact and assess Exceptional Case Funding efficiency for immigration.
Recommended (the committee's words)
We are concerned about access to legal aid for immigration matters which often involve extremely vulnerable people, and the effectiveness of the Exceptional Case Funding (ECF) scheme for some of these cases. Organisations including the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association provided evidence to the Committee of a ‘supply crisis’ in the immigration and asylum legal aid market. People eligible for support are often unable to find a provider with capacity to take their case. Additionally, those applying for help via the ECF scheme, intended as a safety net to ensure an individuals’ human rights are protected, face several hurdles accessing support. MoJ acknowledges that a shortage of immigration and asylum legal aid providers in some areas is concerning. It is trying to address expected increases in demand due to the new Illegal Migration Act 2023 (IMA) by increasing fees for work related to the policy. However, this risks exacerbating access issues for other immigration cases where MoJ has not increased fees, as providers may prioritise higher paying work. MoJ is looking at whether the ECF scheme is the most efficient route for immigration cases given the high rate of approval of applications (87%) and the additional administrative burden for LAA. Recommendation 3: The Ministry of Justice should set out in its Treasury Minute response: • how it plans to monitor the impact of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 on the capacity of other areas of immigration advice and how it plans to respond where evidence suggests people are unable to access advice; and • details of its plans to assess whether the Exceptional Case Funding scheme is the most efficient route for immigration cases.
4Ensure financial eligibility thresholds for legal aid are routinely reviewed and swiftly implemented.
Recommended (the committee's words)
The Ministry of Justice has been slow to review financial eligibility thresholds, leaving fewer people eligible for legal aid, and it has not set out how it plans to review thresholds in future. One of the aims of MoJ’s 2013 reforms was to target legal aid at those who need it most. However, it did not create a mechanism for reviewing financial eligibility thresholds for legal aid and has not altered them since. Consequently, each year a reducing proportion of people have been eligible for legal aid due to wage inflation. For example, over the period from 2012–13 to 2020–21 the proportion of UK income taxpayers eligible for civil legal aid decreased by 11 percentage points (73% to 62%). In February 2019, MoJ announced its plans to review means testing for legal aid, but it took until 2023 for it to propose changes, and changes will not be fully implemented until 2026 due to “wider competing Government priorities”. It has assured the Committee that thresholds will be adjusted for inflation before they are implemented as they are currently based on Value for Money from Legal Aid 7 2019–20 data. However, MoJ could not provide us with clear plans for how it will routinely review and uprate thresholds in the future, as it considers this to be a political matter. Recommendation 4: In its Treasury Minute response, the Ministry of Justice should set out what it will do to: • ensure that financial eligibility thresholds for legal aid are kept under review in light of changes in the economy; and • ensure that any proposed changes can be implemented quickly and efficiently.
5Collaborate with departments to understand legal aid reforms' wider public sector cost-shunting.
Recommended (the committee's words)
The Ministry of Justice has still not made sufficient progress in identifying or addressing wider system costs of its legal aid reforms. Almost a decade ago, this Committee urged MoJ to get a better understanding of the wider costs of its reforms. While MoJ has taken some steps to understand where additional costs may lie, its overall progress in measuring the scale of these costs is disappointing. For example, MoJ acknowledges that the removal of most early legal advice via the reforms is likely to have led to additional costs to the public sector. However, its attempts to understand the costs and benefits of providing early advice have been unsuccessful to date. Similarly, evidence suggests that MoJ’s attempts to reverse the decline in legally-aided mediation following its reforms are not working, and the proportion of litigants-in-person in courts remains high. Shortcomings remain in HM Courts and Tribunals Service’s data on litigants-in-person remain, which mean that its analysis in this area provides limited insight. MoJ says it is now working with other government departments such as the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to better understand where its reforms may have shunted costs to other government departments, but we are yet to see the results of this work. Recommendation 5: The Committee recognises that it will not be possible to calculate a precise figure of the costs of the reforms to other areas of government and the justice system. However, the Ministry of Justice should set out in its Treasury Minute response: • how it plans to work with other government departments such as Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Department of Health and Social Care to better understand where reforms may have led to cost-shunting and the potential scale of these costs. This should include looking at the extent to which local authorities are funding immigration legal advice; and • how it intends to work with HM Courts and Tribun
6Improve timely response to legal aid market sustainability issues and implement fee reviews.
Recommended (the committee's words)
We are not convinced that the Ministry of Justice has put in place sufficient measures to ensure the future sustainability of the legal aid market. MoJ has been slow to initiate and complete its large-scale sustainability reviews of both criminal and civil legal aid. While its review of criminal legal aid is complete, it has yet to implement some of the changes. Of particular concern is the civil legal 8 Value for Money from Legal Aid aid sector as MoJ will not complete its review of the sector until July 2024, despite not increasing fees for the last 28 years. Before these reviews, MoJ and LAA did not collect the routine data needed to respond to sustainability issues proactively. Low fees can impact firms’ ability to train and recruit new staff and impact their long-term sustainability. MoJ has assured the Committee that the Criminal Legal Aid Advisory Board will be able to make recommendations to ensure that criminal legal aid fees are reviewed more regularly in future. But it has not yet set out similar arrangements for the continued review of civil legal aid fees. Recommendation 6: The Ministry of Justice should set out in its Treasury Minute response how it plans to improve its ability to respond to emerging sustainability issues in a timely manner. This should include: • how it plans to work with providers to keep the profitability of legal aid work in view; • how it plans to implement the recommendations from the Criminal Legal Aid Board; and • what mechanisms it will put in place to review the sustainability of civil legal aid more routinely once its review is complete in July 2024. Value for Money from Legal Aid 9 1 Access to legal aid
1Committee took evidence on value for money from legal aid reforms.
Concluded (the committee's words)
On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), the Legal Aid Agency (LAA), and His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) on value for money from legal aid, following reforms to the system in 2013.1 We also received submissions from a wide range of organisations, which have been very valuable in informing our approach to this report.2
7Legal aid agencies lack demand and capacity data, hindering understanding of access issues.
Recommended (the committee's words)
Neither MoJ nor LAA estimate demand for legally aided services, nor do they capture routine data on whether providers are turning potential clients away.12 MoJ and LAA told us that this was partly because they do not want to place too high a burden on providers by requiring them to submit additional data.13 But this means that they do not have a good overall view of the impact of providers’ capacity on access to legal aid. Evidence indicates that it is getting harder to obtain legal aid and that providers cannot meet demand. MoJ’s survey of civil providers in September 2023 found that 80% were experiencing more demand than capacity, and among those providers an average of 26 eligible cases each were turned away in the month preceding the survey.14 This supports other evidence received by this Committee. For example, the Independent Provider of Special Education Advice, a charity that provides free legal advice to parents and carers of children with special educational needs, informed us that in over 20% of the cases they supported, the person was eligible for legal aid but had been unable to find a provider.15 Similarly, MoJ is aware of criminal cases where clients did not take legal advice due to no duty solicitor being available.16 Further, the Law Society provided examples of cases where 8 Qq 11, 32–33 9 C&AG’s Report, para 2.11 10 Q 5 11 Qq 39–40, 55 12 C&AG’s Report, para 2.10 13 Q 25 14 Survey of civil legal aid providers in England and Wales, January 2024 15 VMLA0005 16 C&AG’s Report, para 2.21 Value for Money from Legal Aid 11 suspects have been released from a police station as there is no duty solicitor available to represent them.17 They also noted that it was unclear how many people initially request a duty solicitor but do not receive one.18 Impact of gaps in provision of legal aid on disadvantaged groups
8Persistent "legal aid deserts" reduce face-to-face access to legal aid services nationwide.
Recommended (the committee's words)
Stakeholders, including the Law Society, have often raised concerns about “legal aid deserts”, where large geographical areas do not have a legal aid provider for a particular category of law.19 For example, 183 local authorities had no legal aid provider office for housing issues in 2022–23, with particular gaps in large areas of the South West and the North West. A declining number of providers have made it harder for people to get to their nearest legal aid office. Analysis undertaken by the National Audit Office showed that for most categories of civil law, less than 50% of the population was within 10 kilometres of a legal aid office in 2022–23. In some areas the nearest housing legal aid office is today more than 20 kilometres further away than it was in 2013–14. These distances may be understated as it does not take into account offices that are unable to take on new cases due to a lack of capacity.20 Evidence from Dr Jo Wilding at the University of Sussex also highlighted that even if a client has access to a provider with capacity to take their civil case, some may only provide legal advice services but not representation in court, or vice versa.21
9Remote legal aid provision's suitability for vulnerable groups remains unclear without data.
Concluded (the committee's words)
LAA explained that for some places where there are local gaps in legal aid providers, people could seek remote advice from providers elsewhere in the country, providers in neighbouring areas or via its telephone service. MoJ stated there were some benefits of remote provision for many in providing a more discreet service and in ease of providing interpreter services. It also told us that remote provision could be beneficial in bringing more providers into the market. LAA does not collect data on the extent to which firms are providing their services remotely.22 However, it accepted that remote provision would not be suitable for everyone.23
10Vulnerable individuals face significant barriers accessing remote legal aid advice
Recommended (the committee's words)
We asked LAA and MoJ how they can be sure that people in areas without face-to face provision can access advice, and what they are doing to assist vulnerable people. This might include people with limited transportation means, those for whom English is a second language or those with a disability24. Child Poverty Action Group reported that their clients face barriers to completing the means test due to limited access to technology or low digital capabilities which is exacerbated when services are only provided remotely.25 LAA gave examples of specific engagement at courts which had no housing advice service to ensure that people were aware they could seek remote advice from other providers or 17 VMLA0002 18 VMLA0002 19 VMLA0002 20 C&AG’s Report, paras 2.18–2.19, Figure 8 21 VMLA0009 22 Q 49 23 Qq 9–10, 40 24 Qq 11, 45–47 25 VMLA0013 12 Value for Money from Legal Aid the telephone helpline.26 MoJ also explained that it was carrying out research into the impact of remote legal advice in police stations to better understand the groups for whom remote advice may or may not be appropriate.27 Accessing legal aid for immigration issues
11LASPO reforms significantly reduced immigration legal aid, creating a supply crisis
Recommended (the committee's words)
The LASPO reforms significantly reduced the types of immigration cases that are eligible for legal aid. The reforms removed funding for all immigration cases except for asylum cases and a limited number of non-asylum cases, such as immigration detention and applications for leave to remain where the individual is a victim of trafficking or domestic violence.28 Several organisations provided evidence of particular capacity issues within the legal aid immigration market and the impact on people unable to get help. For example, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association described a “supply crisis”, with those eligible for support unable to find providers with capacity to take their case.29
12Targeted fee increases for IMA cases risk worsening broader immigration legal aid access
Recommended (the committee's words)
MoJ said that a shortage of immigration and asylum legal aid providers in some areas is concerning. It told us that it has taken steps to address capacity issues by increasing fees for cases related to the Illegal Migration Act 2023 (IMA) by 15% and providing additional funding to meet the cost of accreditation for new immigration asylum lawyers.30 However, the increase in fees specifically addresses an anticipated increase in demand for immigration work due to the IMA, which widened the scope of legal aid to support government’s aim of removing people swiftly if they have entered the UK illegally. MoJ has acknowledged that diverting effort to the IMA may risk exacerbating access issues for other immigration cases where MoJ has not increased fees, as providers may prioritise higher paying work.31
13Exceptional Case Funding for immigration suffers severe provider capacity issues
Concluded (the committee's words)
The government also runs a separate Exceptional Case Funding (ECF) scheme for legal aid, intended as a safety net to provide legal aid for people whose human rights would be breached without it.32 Immigration cases that are no longer within scope of legal aid may still be eligible for legal aid via this separate assessment process. Immigration cases account for two-thirds of applications to the ECF scheme but people still face challenges in finding a legal aid provider even once the funding is approved.33 The Public Law Project’s (PLPs) survey of immigration practitioners found that for every 16 referral attempts that were made across nine organisations, only one attempt was successful (83 out of 1,337 attempts). Submissions also highlighted that the reduced scope of legal aid means that those applying for support are often extremely vulnerable, for example they may include victims of modern slavery.34
14Suitability of Exceptional Case Funding for immigration cases questioned due to high costs
Recommended (the committee's words)
We asked MoJ whether it thought that the ECF scheme was the appropriate route for immigration cases given that LAA approves around 87% of immigration applications and that this funding is more difficult to access for claimants.35 Evidence also suggests 26 Qq 9–10 27 Q 41 28 C&AG’s Report, Figure 1 29 VMLA003, VMLA0004, VMLA0012 30 Qq 52–54 31 C&AG’s Report, para 3.12 32 C&AG’s Report, paras 2.23, 2.25, Figure 1 33 C&AG’s Report, paras 2.23–2.25, Figure 1 34 VMLA004, VMLA0012 35 Q 56 Value for Money from Legal Aid 13 that cases take longer for LAA to process, although LAA explained that calculating the additional cost of processing an ECF scheme case is challenging.36 In a subsequent letter to the Committee, LAA confirmed that it does not hold data on the time spent administering individual applications. However it estimated that an average ECF scheme case cost £203, almost six times the average cost of a standard application (£34), but only slightly higher than other complex civil applications (£197).37 On the ECF scheme, LAA told the Committee that it plans to take a more proactive stance in matching ECF applicants with providers.38 MoJ also confirmed that it was beginning some stakeholder engagement to look at whether the ECF scheme was the right route for these cases, but stated that ultimately any decision to add something back into scope of legal aid was a question of policy.39 Impact of financial eligibility thresholds on access to legal aid
15Legal aid financial eligibility thresholds lack routine review and remain stagnant since 2009
Recommended (the committee's words)
Through LASPO MoJ aimed to target legal aid at those who need it most. Aside from scope changes, MoJ can use its financial eligibility criteria to achieve this goal. LAA assesses people’s financial eligibility for legal aid using a means test based on disposable income and capital. LASPO reforms made some changes to financial eligibility criteria, but did not fundamentally change existing thresholds. Neither did they create a mechanism to review financial eligibility thresholds routinely. Since 2009, anyone earning over £31,884 has not been eligible for legal aid for civil cases, unless they are in receipt of certain benefits.40
16Wage inflation significantly reduced legal aid eligibility, making minimum wage earners often ineligible
Concluded (the committee's words)
Considerable wage inflation means the proportion of the population now eligible for legal aid has fallen. From 2012–13 to 2020–21, the proportion of UK income taxpayers eligible for civil legal aid decreased by 11 percentage points (73% to 62%). There was also a 16 percentage point decrease in those whose gross income made them eligible for legal aid for criminal cases in magistrates’ courts (53% to 37%).41 Evidence from Commons Law, a specialist criminal defence firm, told us that at present, someone working 40 hours a week at the minimum wage would earn too much to be eligible for support in the magistrates’ court.42 MoJ told us that its means test review, published in 2023, committed to implementing higher financial eligibility thresholds, which means that more people will be eligible for legal aid. MoJ expects this change to require an additional £25 million a year of legal aid funding.43
17MoJ's legal aid means test review implementation faces significant and repeated delays
Recommended (the committee's words)
MoJ first announced its means test review in 2019 but the review process has taken several years. MoJ wrote to us in March 2024 explaining that while it had implemented some minor changes identified in the review, such as removing means testing for children, it had delayed implementation of the remaining changes planned for 2025 until 2026.44 We asked why MoJ was taking so long to implement the changes and how it planned to review and uprate thresholds in the future. MoJ told us that delays were due to the complexity of the policy, which required a “huge amount” of stakeholder consultation, 36 C&AG’s Report, paras 2.25–2.26 37 Correspondence from Jane Harbottle, Chief Executive, Legal Aid Agency, 3 April 2024 38 Q 54 39 Q 57 40 C&AG’s Report, paras 2.2 & 2.6 41 Q 60 ; C&AG’s Report, para 2.6 42 VMLA0010 43 Q 60 44 Correspondence from Lord Bellamy KC, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, re Legal aid means test review: implementation update, dated 12 March 2024; C&AG’s report, para 2.7 & 2.8 14 Value for Money from Legal Aid and that there were challenges in updating LAA’s digital systems.45 It also identified competing government priorities such as developing and making changes resulting from the IMA as a contributing factor.46 MoJ assured the Committee that although the new thresholds are currently based on 2019–20 data, they would be uprated for inflation since 2020.47 MoJ told us that it would consider future reviews once the current changes were complete.48 It stated that it would not intend for a future review to take as long but that the frequency of reviews was a question for Ministers.49 45 Qq 60, 62 46 Correspondence from Lord Bellamy KC, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, re Legal aid means test review: implementation update, dated 12 March 2024; C&AG’s report, para. 2.8 47 Qq 60, 62; C&AG’s Report, para. 2.8 48 Q 62 49 Q 61 Value for Money from Legal Aid 15 2 Cost effectiveness and sustainability of legal aid Understanding
18MoJ failed to adequately assess wider cross-government impacts of legal aid reforms
Recommended (the committee's words)
When this Committee looked at legal aid in 2015, it noted the lack of analysis MoJ had undertaken of the wider impacts of the reforms on itself and other government departments and stressed that MoJ needed to do more. At the time, MoJ told the Committee that it was not possible to know what the wider impact of the reforms might be outside of the Ministry. However, there were already indications at that time from organisations that costs may have shifted elsewhere. For example, a survey of GPs indicated that GPs had noticed an increase in patients who would have benefited from legal advice on social welfare issues. The number of people representing themselves in court (litigants-in- person) had also increased, but MoJ lacked reliable data on the impact of this on courts.50
19MoJ acknowledges cost-shifting of legal aid reforms but struggles to quantify wider impacts
Recommended (the committee's words)
During this inquiry, we asked MoJ what it had done to look at the impact of reducing the scope of legal aid on other parts of government. While MoJ maintained that it is difficult to get an accurate measure of wider costs to the public sector, it acknowledged that it is usually possible to tell if costs have shifted elsewhere. It explained that its post- implementation review of the reforms had identified early legal advice as a “key area of focus” and that it had launched several pilots to better understand the costs and benefits of earlier intervention. It acknowledged that it had “failed fast” in its 2019 pilot – which had aimed to promote early legal advice – due to limited take-up, but stated that it would take lessons from this into future research. MoJ told us that it is working very closely with other departments, such the Department for Health and Social Care and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, to identify if earlier intervention would be more beneficial. It agreed that intervening earlier could be a lot cheaper for the system as a whole, if not necessarily for MoJ. We look forward to seeing the outcomes of this work.51
20Legally aided family mediation assessments remain significantly below pre-reform levels despite voucher scheme.
Recommended (the committee's words)
MoJ had expected that, following LASPO, more people with family law disputes would use mediation instead of court to resolve their disputes. However the number of legally aided mediation assessments (which determine whether a case is suitable for mediation) fell significantly following the reforms.52 MoJ told us that its mediation voucher scheme, aimed at encouraging family mediation, had “plugged the gap” as last year the number of publicly funded mediation cases was higher than before the pandemic.53 However MoJ’s statistics show that legally aided family mediation assessments had remained at around 40% below pre-reform levels even by 2022–23. The Family Mediation Council also noted that the number of legally aided family mediation starts had not recovered.54 Further, MoJ’s analysis of its non-means-tested voucher scheme suggests that only a very small number of people who would have qualified for legal aid had instead used the voucher scheme. So this route would not substantially improve take-up by those who were eligible for legally-aided mediation.55 50 Committee of Public Accounts, Implementing reforms to civil legal aid, Thirty-sixth Report of Session 2014–15, HC 808, 4 February 2015 51 Qq 65–68, 75 52 C&AG’s Report, para 1.19 53 Q 79 54 C&AG’s Report, para 1.19; VMLA0008 55 C&AG’s Report, Figure 5 16 Value for Money from Legal Aid
21HMCTS maintains very limited understanding and data on litigants in person's court impact.
Recommended (the committee's words)
We asked MoJ and HMCTS what they were doing to improve their understanding of the impact of litigants in person (LIPs) on courts.56 Following reforms, the number of LIPs in family courts increased significantly. Between January and March 2023, in 40% of family disputes around children both parties were LIPs, an increase from 14% on the same period in 2013.57 HMCTS told us that cases where both parties do not have a representative take slightly less time than when both parties are represented. However, it acknowledged that its data on LIPs remained very limited. HMCTS has not analysed this since 2018, and the data could not distinguish between a LIP who is very actively involved in their case and one that does not participate.58 HMCTS explained that cases where only one respondent is legally represented take much longer, which is generally where LIPs are more likely to be active.59 Ensuring a sustainable legal aid market
22Ministry of Justice demonstrates slowness in reviewing legal aid sustainability and provider fees.
Recommended (the committee's words)
MoJ has been slow to initiate and complete its large-scale reviews of the sustainability of civil and criminal legal aid. Lord Bellamy’s review of the criminal legal aid system was published in 2021, eight years after the reforms were introduced. While MoJ has now increased most criminal fees by the minimum 15% recommended in report, it has yet to make some of the recommended changes. Fees paid to civil legal aid providers have not increased since 1996, which means they are approximately half what they were 28 years ago in real terms.60 This Committee previously highlighted that MoJ reduced the fees paid to civil legal aid providers by 10%, but it did not assess the costs or providing legal aid or model the impact of the changes.61 MoJ’s review of civil legal aid is now underway but will not be completed until July 2024.62
23Ministry of Justice lacks routine financial data for proactive legal aid provider sustainability assessments.
Recommended (the committee's words)
MoJ told us that the volume of information it has needed to collect from providers, including surveys on profitability, is the main reason that the reviews have taken so long to complete.63 While MoJ and LAA have collected information on the profitability of providers through these reviews, they do not have routine access to financial data to allow them to assess sustainability issues before they arise.64
24Legal aid providers struggle to recruit and train staff, lacking civil fee review arrangements.
Recommended (the committee's words)
Maintaining a supply of qualified staff in the legal aid sector is crucial to ensuring the sustainability of legal aid. However, providers continue to raise concerns about their ability to train and recruit new staff.65 Evidence provided by the Law Society described its research which found that low fee rates leave little room for training and recruitment activities and means that practitioners struggle to grow their firms or secure a future pipeline of talent.66 MoJ acknowledged that recruitment into the sector was an issue. It told us that it was looking at what it could do to reduce barriers to entry into the civil legal aid profession as part of its review of civil legal aid and that the Criminal Legal Aid 56 Q 70 57 C&AG’s Report para 1.15 58 C&AG’s Report para 1.17, Q77 59 Qq 77–78 60 C&AG’s Report, para 3.9 61 Committee of Public Accounts, Implementing reforms to civil legal aid, Thirty-sixth Report of Session 2014–15, HC 808, 4 February 2015 62 Qq 81–83 63 Qq 81–84 64 C&AG’s Report para 3.6 65 C&AG’s Report, para 3.13 66 VMLA0002 Value for Money from Legal Aid 17 Advisory Board (CLAAB) will help to monitor the number of crime practitioners.67 It also assured us that the CLAAB would keep criminal legal aid fees in view and could consider Lord Bellamy’s recommendation that there should be a mechanism for uprating fees on an annual basis. However, MoJ has not yet set out any arrangements for reviewing civil legal aid fees.68 67 Q 91 68 Q 85 18 Value for Money from Legal Aid
Evidence
Oral evidence sessions 1
- 25 Mar 2024Value for money from legal aid4 witnesses, listed belowparliament.uk ↗
Who gave evidence 4 witnesses
- Antonia RomeoPermanent Secretary, Ministry of Justice
- Jane HarbottleChief Executive, Legal Aid Agency
- Jason LathamDevelopment Director, HM Courts and Tribunals Service
- Jerome GlassDirector General, Policy and Strategy Group, Ministry of Justice
Correspondence 8 letters
- 21 May 2024Correspondence from Richard Price, Director General – Performance, Strategy and Analysis, Ministry of Justice, re Committee hearing on 25 March 2024 on the “Value for Money from Legal Aid” update, dated 16 May 2024
- 20 May 2024Correspondence from Richard Orpin, Interim CEO, Legal Services Board, re Legal Services Board’s response to call for evidence on value for money from legal aid, dated 16 May 2024
- 15 Apr 2024Correspondence from Nick Goodwin, Chief Executive, HM Courts & Tribunals Service, re Value for Money from Legal Aid, dated 3 April 2024
- 15 Apr 2024Correspondence from Jane Harbottle, Chief Executive, Legal Aid Agency, re Public Accounts Committee Value for Money from Legal Aid – 25 March oral evidence follow up, dated 3 April 2024
- 15 Apr 2024Correspondence from Nick Goodwin, Chief Executive, HM Courts & Tribunals Service, re Value For Money From Legal Aid, dated 3 April 2024
- 15 Apr 2024Correspondence from Jane Harbottle, Chief Executive, Legal Aid Agency, re Public Accounts Committee Value for Money from Legal Aid – 25 March oral evidence follow up, dated 3 April 2024
- 15 Apr 2024Correspondence from Jerome Glass, Director General, Policy, Ministry of Justice, re Value for Money from Legal Aid, dated 3 April 2024
- 18 Mar 2024Correspondence from Lord Bellamy KC, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, re Legal aid means test review: implementation update, dated 12 March 2024