Recommendations & Conclusions
20 items
2
Conclusion
Thirty-Third Report - Value for Money f…
Accepted
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 …
Read more
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.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agreed, clarifying that citizens can use LAA tools to find face-to-face providers, and where none exist, LAA may intervene to find a firm or agent. It also committed to improving market intelligence and engaging firms to understand obstacles to providing legal aid and …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
3
Recommendation
Thirty-Third Report - Value for Money f…
Accepted
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 …
Read more
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.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agreed, outlining steps to monitor immigration advice capacity by commissioning research into demand monitoring methodology and providing £1.4 million for caseworker accreditation. It also detailed its assessment of the ECF scheme's efficiency, including recent stakeholder engagement and LAA data review, with outcomes currently …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
4
Recommendation
Thirty-Third Report - Value for Money f…
Accepted
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 …
Read more
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.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agreed, committing to review legal aid income and capital thresholds within three to five years of the new means test's full implementation (expected by summer 2026), and prior to implementation using ONS data. It will also seek to design policy for efficient delivery …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
5
Recommendation
Thirty-Third Report - Value for Money f…
Accepted
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 …
Read more
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
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agreed, stating it has already implemented the recommendation by engaging with other departments like MHCLG on cost-shunting and local authority funding of immigration advice, and will continue these discussions. It is also assessing cost shifts through early legal advice pilots (ELAP and HLPAS) …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
1
Conclusion
Thirty-Third Report - Value for Money f…
Accepted
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 …
Read more
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
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government 'agreed' with this introductory conclusion by reiterating various commitments from other recommendations, including reviewing data on legal aid demand and access, identifying data collection improvements, commissioning research on monitoring demand for immigration legal aid, and assessing the ECF scheme's efficiency.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
7
Recommendation
Thirty-Third Report - Value for Money f…
Accepted
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 …
Read more
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
Show less
Government response AI summary
MoJ and LAA will review data on demand for and access to legal aid, improve data collection, and consider alternative methods for monitoring access, aiming for implementation by Spring 2026.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
8
Recommendation
Thirty-Third Report - Value for Money f…
Accepted
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 …
Read more
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
Show less
Government response AI summary
MoJ and LAA will review the current data collected on demand for and access to legal aid, identify opportunities to make improvements, and consider commissioning independent research, aiming for implementation by Spring 2026.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
10
Recommendation
Thirty-Third Report - Value for Money f…
Accepted
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 …
Read more
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
Show less
Government response AI summary
The MoJ acknowledges the need for face-to-face advice and will continue to monitor its usage. Where remote advice is not appropriate, the LAA may intervene directly or via an external organisation.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
11
Recommendation
Thirty-Third Report - Value for Money f…
Accepted
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 …
Read more
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
Show less
Government response AI summary
The LAA will monitor the number of immigration and asylum advice providers, and the MoJ will commission research into a viable methodology for monitoring demand and data collection on legal aid provider challenges; the MoJ has also taken steps to assess whether the ECF scheme …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
12
Recommendation
Thirty-Third Report - Value for Money f…
Accepted
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 …
Read more
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
Show less
Government response AI summary
The LAA will monitor the number of immigration and asylum advice providers, and the MoJ will commission research into a viable methodology for monitoring demand and data collection on legal aid provider challenges; the MoJ has also taken steps to assess whether the ECF scheme …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
14
Recommendation
Thirty-Third Report - Value for Money f…
Accepted
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 …
Read more
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
Show less
Government response AI summary
The LAA will monitor the number of immigration and asylum advice providers, and the MoJ will commission research into a viable methodology for monitoring demand and data collection on legal aid provider challenges; the MoJ has also taken steps to assess whether the ECF scheme …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
15
Recommendation
Thirty-Third Report - Value for Money f…
Accepted
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 …
Read more
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
Show less
Government response AI summary
The MoJ has committed to reviewing income and capital thresholds for legal aid within three to five years of the new means test coming into operation, with full implementation not expected before Summer 2026.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
17
Recommendation
Thirty-Third Report - Value for Money f…
Accepted
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 …
Read more
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
Show less
Government response AI summary
The MoJ has committed to reviewing income and capital thresholds for legal aid within three to five years of the new means test coming into operation, with full implementation expected by Summer 2026 and will consider ONS data when reviewing thresholds.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
18
Recommendation
Thirty-Third Report - Value for Money f…
Accepted
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 …
Read more
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
Show less
Government response AI summary
The MoJ will engage with other government departments regarding the impact of legal aid policy changes and has begun discussions with the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
19
Recommendation
Thirty-Third Report - Value for Money f…
Accepted
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 …
Read more
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
Show less
Government response AI summary
The MoJ has engaged with other government departments and has begun discussions with the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government as to where changes in legal aid policy may impact on them.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
20
Recommendation
Thirty-Third Report - Value for Money f…
Accepted
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 …
Read more
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
Show less
Government response AI summary
The MoJ has engaged with other government departments and has begun discussions with the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government as to where changes in legal aid policy may impact on them.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
21
Recommendation
Thirty-Third Report - Value for Money f…
Accepted
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, …
Read more
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
Show less
Government response AI summary
The MoJ has engaged with other government departments and has begun discussions with the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government as to where changes in legal aid policy may impact on them.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
22
Recommendation
Thirty-Third Report - Value for Money f…
Accepted
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 …
Read more
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
Show less
Government response AI summary
The MoJ acknowledges the need to monitor the profitability of legal aid work more regularly and is considering how best to do so, including through collaborative groups and the CLAAB, aiming for implementation by Winter 2024.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
23
Recommendation
Thirty-Third Report - Value for Money f…
Accepted
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 …
Read more
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
Show less
Government response AI summary
The MoJ acknowledges the need to monitor the profitability of legal aid work more regularly and is considering how best to do so, including through collaborative groups and the CLAAB, aiming for implementation by Winter 2024.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
24
Recommendation
Thirty-Third Report - Value for Money f…
Accepted
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 …
Read more
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
Show less
Government response AI summary
The MoJ acknowledges the need to monitor the profitability of legal aid work more regularly and is considering how best to do so, including using data from representative groups and gathering evidence through the Review of Civil Legal Aid (RoCLA).
Read full response →
HM Treasury