Recommendations & Conclusions
27 items
2
Recommendation
59th Report - Ministry of Justice follo…
Acknowledged
Despite closing the prison in August 2024, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and HMPPS still do not have clear plans for the future of Dartmoor. MoJ previously assured us that its aim was to remediate HMP Dartmoor and bring it back into safe use. However, over a year since HMPPS …
Read more
Despite closing the prison in August 2024, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and HMPPS still do not have clear plans for the future of Dartmoor. MoJ previously assured us that its aim was to remediate HMP Dartmoor and bring it back into safe use. However, over a year since HMPPS closed the prison, MoJ and HMPPS still do not have clear plans for how and when they will do this, and are less certain that reopening the site will represent the best value for money. HMPPS is waiting for the outcome of a Health and Safety Executive review of current workplace regulations on radon 3 before it assesses what work it would need to do to the site and by when. Once the review is complete, MoJ and HMPPS plan to base their decision about whether or not to reopen on whether continuing with the works represents the best value for money for taxpayers. recommendation Once it has decided on its proposed approach to remediating the Dartmoor site, the Ministry of Justice and HM Prison and Probation Service should write to the Committee and set out in detail: • its assessment of any proposed works against the Accounting Officer tests of regularity, propriety, feasibility and value for money; • its estimate of when the prison will be fit for use and how much the remediation will cost. • that it will continue to assess whether best value for money is served by continuing to spend money on an unoccupied prison or try to negotiate an early exit from the lease by carrying out a full commercial negotiation with proper professional advice.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees that a decision on remediating Dartmoor has been made. However, the response is truncated and does not explicitly commit to providing the detailed assessment, cost estimates, or value-for-money analysis to the Committee as requested.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
3
Recommendation
59th Report - Ministry of Justice follo…
Accepted
We are not satisfied that MoJ and the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) are doing enough to ensure that people eligible for legal aid can access it, particularly those who are digitally excluded. This Committee previously raised concerns that LAA’s reliance on remote advice in areas of the country which lack …
Read more
We are not satisfied that MoJ and the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) are doing enough to ensure that people eligible for legal aid can access it, particularly those who are digitally excluded. This Committee previously raised concerns that LAA’s reliance on remote advice in areas of the country which lack face-to-face provision of legal aid risks disproportionately penalising those who are digitally excluded (estimated to be around 24% of the population), and who are often most in need of legal assistance. For example, individuals with disabilities or those living in poverty. Significant gaps in face-to-face legal provision still exist in areas of the country, in particular for housing and debt advice. LAA has begun to explore what it can do to remove barriers to providers meeting with clients face-to-face. For example, it is looking at how it could adjust the terms of its contracts to make this easier. However, we were disappointed that MoJ and LAA could not demonstrate an improved understanding of whether those who are digitally excluded are able to access help. recommendation In its Treasury Minute response, the Ministry of Justice and the Legal Aid Agency should set out: • outside of exploring changes to contracts, how it plans to better monitor whether digitally excluded individuals can access legal aid. • what it is doing to close gaps in provision in areas where legal aid deserts still exist. 4
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government accepts the recommendation, detailing a civil demand feasibility study with Ipsos (reporting March 2026) to monitor access for digitally excluded individuals and a programme to transform legal aid services. To close provision gaps, they are injecting £20m into the sector and have secured …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
4
Recommendation
59th Report - Ministry of Justice follo…
Accepted
More than ten years since the legal aid reforms, MoJ has still not demonstrated a sufficient understanding of the additional costs of legal aid reforms, particularly the impact of litigants in person. A decade ago our predecessors urged MoJ to get a better understanding of the wider costs of its …
Read more
More than ten years since the legal aid reforms, MoJ has still not demonstrated a sufficient understanding of the additional costs of legal aid reforms, particularly the impact of litigants in person. A decade ago our predecessors urged MoJ to get a better understanding of the wider costs of its reforms, which removed access to most early legal advice, and the previous Committee pressed on this again in its 2024 report. MoJ’s continued failure to demonstrate meaningful progress in this area is disappointing. While MoJ has done some work with the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government to understand where it is funding additional legal advice, it was not able to demonstrate significant changes it had made as a result of the work. Meanwhile, organisations including the Law Society and the Public Law Project have pointed to research which suggests several areas where the lack of early advice is leading to additional costs, such as healthcare. Given continued widespread concern about the impact of the increased number of litigants in person on courts, we were also dissatisfied with progress MoJ has made on improving its data to ensure it can get a more accurate understanding of the problem. recommendation The Ministry of Justice should write to the Committee alongside its Treasury Minute response setting out: • the results of and its response to its survey of local authorities about the effects of shunting costs to other government departments, and any further investigations it plans. For example, exploring where a lack of early advice creates additional costs for other areas, such as healthcare. • on the impact of the increase in litigants in person on courts, including any additional time and cost as a result, and how it will improve the data it bases its analysis on. For example, taking into account how active a LIP is in court processes.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees and states it has already written to the Committee, alongside the Treasury Minute, providing the results of its local authority survey and planned investigations. It also committed to writing to the Committee in October 2026 to detail how it will improve data …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
5
Recommendation
59th Report - Ministry of Justice follo…
Accepted
We remain unconvinced that MoJ has put in place sufficient measures to ensure the future sustainability of the legal aid market. In its 2024 report, this Committee raised concerns that while MoJ was undertaking large scale reviews of both criminal and civil legal aid it had not put in place …
Read more
We remain unconvinced that MoJ has put in place sufficient measures to ensure the future sustainability of the legal aid market. In its 2024 report, this Committee raised concerns that while MoJ was undertaking large scale reviews of both criminal and civil legal aid it had not put in place mechanisms to routinely review the profitability of legal aid fees. MoJ has since committed to increasing legal aid fees for housing and immigration but it has not yet implemented these uplifts. Further, fees for other areas of civil legal aid, which have not increased since 1996, remain under review. Even after these commitments, organisations such as the Law Society remain concerned that these uplifts are insufficient to tackle the long-term sustainability of the market. LAA is exploring what it can do to reduce the administrative burdens on providers and has made entry into the market 5 for providers easier. However, there remains no mechanism in place for routinely reviewing the profitability of all types of legal aid. While we accept MoJ’s argument that setting legal aid fees is a decision for Ministers, regular reviews of profitability and sustainability would provide Ministers with the information they need to make informed decisions. recommendation Although Ministers are responsible for setting legal aid fees, the Ministry of Justice should better support them by routinely reviewing profitability and sustainability for all types of legal aid. It should set out its plans to do this in its Treasury Minute Response.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the recommendation and is undertaking a feasibility study with Ipsos to establish a repeatable methodology for monitoring legal aid demand and market sustainability. They will also explore options to routinely monitor the profitability of legal aid firms and will provide an …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
6
Recommendation
59th Report - Ministry of Justice follo…
Accepted
Despite lessons learned from the cyberattack on the LAA, funding to address weaknesses across MoJ systems is uncertain. Vulnerabilities in LAA’s systems had been on MoJ’s risk register since 2021. However, MoJ’s investment of over £50 million to transform and stabilise LAA’s systems was insufficient to prevent hackers accessing a …
Read more
Despite lessons learned from the cyberattack on the LAA, funding to address weaknesses across MoJ systems is uncertain. Vulnerabilities in LAA’s systems had been on MoJ’s risk register since 2021. However, MoJ’s investment of over £50 million to transform and stabilise LAA’s systems was insufficient to prevent hackers accessing a large amount of both provider and legal aid applicant data. While the investment led to improvements that enabled LAA to identify the breach in April 2025, this came four months after attackers initially accessed the system in December 2024. LAA recognises that contingency measures it put in place as services were taken offline have created additional pressures for providers and its staff, and that there are several lessons to be learned from the crisis that can be shared across government. For example, the importance of longer-term continuity plans, and of ensuring that senior leaders understand the vulnerabilities associated with their systems. Following the attack, MoJ reviewed all of its systems to identify where vulnerabilities exist but addressing these vulnerabilities will depend on its internal decisions on how it allocates its Spending Review settlement. recommendation In the Treasury Minute response, the Ministry of Justice and the Legal Aid Agency should set out: • the lessons it has learned from the crisis and how and when it plans to share these lessons with other government departments. • whether it has sufficient funding to address the key risks identified from the review of its systems, once allocations are decided. 6 1 MoJ and HMPPS’s decision to renew the HMP Dartmoor lease Introduction
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the recommendation, detailing numerous ways lessons learned from the cyberattack have been shared across government. It also confirms that funding has been allocated for the transformation of LAA systems for 2026-2029, alongside continuous security reviews.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
1
Conclusion
59th Report - Ministry of Justice follo…
Acknowledged
We took evidence from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) and the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) to follow up on our recent scrutiny of several topics. This included HMPPS’s management of the lease renewal at HMP Dartmoor, MoJ and LAA’s response to the previous Committee’s …
Read more
We took evidence from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) and the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) to follow up on our recent scrutiny of several topics. This included HMPPS’s management of the lease renewal at HMP Dartmoor, MoJ and LAA’s response to the previous Committee’s 2024 report on legal aid and their management of the recent LAA cyberattack.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledges the committee's work and outlines lessons learned from the Dartmoor lease negotiations, including improved radon policies and embedding learning into future decision-making for estates projects.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
7
Conclusion
59th Report - Ministry of Justice follo…
Acknowledged
HMPPS acknowledged that it would have been helpful to have more information on the density of radon at the Dartmoor site prior to the lease negotiations.11 However, it bizarrely maintained that signing the lease without undertaking a recent survey was sensible, given the prison capacity crisis at the time. It …
Read more
HMPPS acknowledged that it would have been helpful to have more information on the density of radon at the Dartmoor site prior to the lease negotiations.11 However, it bizarrely maintained that signing the lease without undertaking a recent survey was sensible, given the prison capacity crisis at the time. It argued that in the context of needing to spend over £600 per cell per night to temporarily hold prisoners in police cells under Operation Safeguard, £1.5 million a year for 640 prison places felt like good value for money.12 MoJ also stated that it put mitigation measures in 5 HC Committee of Public Accounts, Value for money from legal aid, Thirty-Third Report of Session 2023-24, HC 481, 24 May 2024. 6 HMT, Treasury Minutes, 5 September 2024 7 HMG, “Legal Aid Agency data breach”, accessed on 22 November 2025 8 Committee of Public Accounts, Improving family court services for children, oral evidence, HC 883, 23 June 2025 9 Letter from the Ministry of Justice concerning HMP Dartmoor, 21 October 2025 10 Letter from Ministry of Justice concerning HMP Dartmoor, 2 October 2025 11 Qq 7, 11 12 Q 15 8 place following the results of the June 2022 survey but that it was a later cell-by-cell survey which led, following discussions with the Health and Safety Executive, to the decision to close the prison in 2024.13
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledges it would have been beneficial to have a comprehensive understanding of radon presence before making a decision on the lease. HMPPS has improved radon policies, procedures, and training and are embedding learning from Dartmoor into future decision-making.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
8
Conclusion
59th Report - Ministry of Justice follo…
Acknowledged
Under the terms agreed HMPPS cannot terminate the new lease until after December 2033. The cost of the lease is £1.5 million a year, a slight increase on the £1.44 million it was paying when the lease expired in December 2023.14 We asked HMPPS what the total costs of keeping …
Read more
Under the terms agreed HMPPS cannot terminate the new lease until after December 2033. The cost of the lease is £1.5 million a year, a slight increase on the £1.44 million it was paying when the lease expired in December 2023.14 We asked HMPPS what the total costs of keeping the empty prison running were. It explained that there are several ongoing costs in addition to the £1.5 million a year in rent, including business rates of £300,000 per year and additional security costs, which it said it was exploring how to minimise.15 In total MoJ confirmed that the fixed costs associated with running the prison are around £4 million per year, including rent, rates, utilities and security costs.16 In addition there is a requirement for the government to pay additional costs (around £68 million) on fabric improvements to the Dartmoor site over the period of the lease.17
Show less
Government response AI summary
HMPPS has significantly improved and implemented updated radon policies and procedures, and training for employees, to ensure the effective management of radon and is embedding learning from Dartmoor into future decision-making, to ensure that any future contracts deliver value for money.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
9
Conclusion
59th Report - Ministry of Justice follo…
Acknowledged
Given their knowledge that radon had previously been detected at the site, we asked MoJ and HMPPS why they had not negotiated an earlier exit term, or provisions to change the terms if radon levels were to increase so that the prison became partially or wholly unusable. MoJ stated that …
Read more
Given their knowledge that radon had previously been detected at the site, we asked MoJ and HMPPS why they had not negotiated an earlier exit term, or provisions to change the terms if radon levels were to increase so that the prison became partially or wholly unusable. MoJ stated that HMPPS had negotiated a shorter break clause compared with the previous lease and that the rent is only marginally more than it was previously. It argued that these terms seemed reasonable and good value for money at the time, but acknowledged that with hindsight it may have acted differently.18 Plans for bringing the site back into use
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledges it would have been beneficial to have a comprehensive understanding of radon presence before making a decision on the lease. HMPPS has improved radon policies, procedures, and training and are embedding learning from Dartmoor into future decision-making.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
10
Conclusion
59th Report - Ministry of Justice follo…
Acknowledged
In our January 2025 session on prison estate capacity, MoJ stressed that it aimed to remediate HMP Dartmoor and bring it back into use if it could find a technical solution to radon issues at the site.19 MoJ reiterated that this remains its ambition as it does not want to …
Read more
In our January 2025 session on prison estate capacity, MoJ stressed that it aimed to remediate HMP Dartmoor and bring it back into use if it could find a technical solution to radon issues at the site.19 MoJ reiterated that this remains its ambition as it does not want to lose permanently the capacity the prison provides.20 It explained that it had engaged a wide range of suppliers, including radon mitigation specialists, the UK Health Security Agency, independent Radon Protection Advisers and airflow engineers, 13 Qq 14-15, 18 14 Letter from Ministry of Justice concerning HMP Dartmoor, 2 October 2025 15 Qq 31-32 16 Letter from the Ministry of Justice, 6 November 2025 17 Qq 22-23 18 Qq 16, 18 19 Prison estate capacity, HC 366, 27 January 2025, Qq 125-128 20 Q 17 9 for their expertise on addressing radon issues.21 This included advice on long-term plans to reduce radon levels to safe levels, to allow the prison to be reoccupied.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The MoJ and HMPPS will write to the Committee once the proposed approach to remediating Dartmoor has been decided.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
11
Recommendation
59th Report - Ministry of Justice follo…
Deferred
We asked MoJ at what point it would make a judgement on whether continuing the works represented the best value for money. MoJ told us that to date it has spent £1.2 million on radon mitigation works, but that it is not currently spending any money on the site until …
Read more
We asked MoJ at what point it would make a judgement on whether continuing the works represented the best value for money. MoJ told us that to date it has spent £1.2 million on radon mitigation works, but that it is not currently spending any money on the site until it decides whether to reoccupy the prison. It explained that it cannot make a decision on this until work the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is doing to look at workplace radon regulations is complete. It expects this work to conclude in December 2025.22 It explained that it will then look at the most sensible decision to make in terms of the site. It acknowledged that this could include giving notice on the lease.23 This should include trying to negotiate an earlier exit date than 2033. We urged MoJ and HMPPS to factor in the possibility that there may be asbestos in the roof of the prison into its decision.24 There must be total transparency on all these matters as soon as possible. 21 Letter from Ministry of Justice concerning HMP Dartmoor, 2 October 2025 22 Letter from the Ministry of Justice, 6 November 2025 23 Qq 16, 20 24 Q 24 10 2 Legal aid recommendations and cyberattack Understanding access to legal aid
Show less
Government response AI summary
The MoJ and HMPPS will write to the Committee once the proposed approach to remediating Dartmoor has been decided, which will be in June 2026.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
12
Recommendation
59th Report - Ministry of Justice follo…
Deferred
Our predecessor Committee’s May 2024 report on legal aid in England and Wales raised concerns around access to legal aid advice in areas of the country lacking face-to-face provision of legal aid. Where there are gaps in provision MoJ and LAA often rely on remote advice to fill the gaps. …
Read more
Our predecessor Committee’s May 2024 report on legal aid in England and Wales raised concerns around access to legal aid advice in areas of the country lacking face-to-face provision of legal aid. Where there are gaps in provision MoJ and LAA often rely on remote advice to fill the gaps. The Committee stressed that ‘legal aid deserts’, large geographic areas without legal aid providers, risk disproportionately penalising groups that cannot access remote advice. Groups affected can include people with a disability or those who have limited access to technology.25 Written evidence we received from the Law Society pointed to research which suggests that millions of people across the UK are digitally excluded (around 24% of the population).26 The Committee recommended in 2024 that MoJ and LAA should clarify what options are available for those unable to make use of remote advice and set out how it plans to better understand the impact of remote provision.27
Show less
Government response AI summary
The MoJ commenced a civil demand feasibility study with Ipsos to identify options for the routine monitoring of demand for civil legal aid and will report by the end of March 2026 and the department will report back to the Committee on progress against that …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
13
Recommendation
59th Report - Ministry of Justice follo…
Accepted
In its Treasury Minute response to our predecessor’s 2024 report, MoJ acknowledged that while remote advice can be effective, some people will always require face-to-face advice. It said that it had worked with stakeholders to identify safeguards and better understand the impact of remote provision, for example, for those in …
Read more
In its Treasury Minute response to our predecessor’s 2024 report, MoJ acknowledged that while remote advice can be effective, some people will always require face-to-face advice. It said that it had worked with stakeholders to identify safeguards and better understand the impact of remote provision, for example, for those in custody. It stated that where remote advice is not appropriate, the LAA may intervene directly by calling providers to find a firm with capacity. But it did not set out clear details on alternative routes for those unable to access remote advice. Nor did it mention how it planned to improve its understanding of remote provision on different groups.28 25 Committee of Public Accounts, Value for money from legal aid, Thirty-Third Report of Session 2023-24, HC 481, 24 May 2024. 26 Law Society of England and Wales (MOJ0002) 27 HC Committee of Public Accounts, Value for money from legal aid, Thirty-Third Report of Session 2023-24, HC 481, 24 May 2024. 28 HMT, Treasury Minutes, 5 September 2024 11
Show less
Government response AI summary
The MoJ will explore removing barriers to providers meeting clients face-to-face, increase understanding of demand from digitally excluded individuals, and report back to the Committee in October 2026.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
14
Recommendation
59th Report - Ministry of Justice follo…
Accepted
We asked MoJ and LAA for an update on what they are doing to ensure that different groups can access legal aid, particularly those for whom remote advice may not be suitable. LAA explained that since the previous Committee’s evidence session, it had been looking at how to empower providers …
Read more
We asked MoJ and LAA for an update on what they are doing to ensure that different groups can access legal aid, particularly those for whom remote advice may not be suitable. LAA explained that since the previous Committee’s evidence session, it had been looking at how to empower providers to use their judgement on the best way to deliver advice to individuals. It stated that it has also been examining whether its contract provisions create barriers to this, and told us that it had agreed to pay travel costs for providers to travel to clients where there were gaps in the provision of criminal legal aid.29
Show less
Government response AI summary
The MoJ will explore removing barriers to providers meeting clients face-to-face, increase understanding of demand from digitally excluded individuals, and report back to the Committee in October 2026.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
15
Conclusion
59th Report - Ministry of Justice follo…
Accepted in Part
LAA did, however, acknowledge that there are still gaps in securing sufficient provision of legal aid across the country, particularly for housing and debt advice.30 MoJ explained that LAA is currently meeting its standard of ensuring there is at least one provider for the different types of legal aid (five …
Read more
LAA did, however, acknowledge that there are still gaps in securing sufficient provision of legal aid across the country, particularly for housing and debt advice.30 MoJ explained that LAA is currently meeting its standard of ensuring there is at least one provider for the different types of legal aid (five providers for family cases) in each of its procurement areas, except for housing and debt where 19 areas lack face-to-face provision. It stated that LAA has worked to ensure that seven of these areas are supported through outreach arrangements with neighbouring areas, which it is working to replicate in the remaining areas.31 Written evidence we received from Public Law Project stressed that LAA’s capacity assessments are based on a relatively low level of coverage in each procurement area, not on how active or effective coverage is in each area.32 Understanding the wider costs of legal aid reforms
Show less
Government response AI summary
The Government is taking steps to support these sectors with uplifts for controlled immigration & asylum and housing and debt legal aid work and secured outreach provision in eight of the 21 areas with a further six outreach offers currently being assessed and will report …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
16
Recommendation
59th Report - Ministry of Justice follo…
Acknowledged
For a decade, this Committee and its predecessors have urged MoJ to get a better understanding of the wider costs of its legal aid reforms. A 2015 report noted the lack of analysis MoJ had undertaken of the wider impacts of the reforms on itself and other government departments and …
Read more
For a decade, this Committee and its predecessors have urged MoJ to get a better understanding of the wider costs of its legal aid reforms. A 2015 report noted the lack of analysis MoJ had undertaken of the wider impacts of the reforms on itself and other government departments and stressed that it needed to do more.33 In its 2024 report, the previous Committee noted that while MoJ acknowledged that the removal of most early legal advice via its reforms was likely to have led to additional costs to the public sector, its progress in measuring the scale of these costs 29 Qq 33, 59 30 Q 59 31 Letter from the Ministry of Justice, 6 November 2025 32 Public Law Project (MOJ0004) 33 Committee of Public Accounts, Implementing reforms to civil legal aid, Thirty-sixth Report of Session 2014–15, HC 808, 4 February 2015 12 was disappointing. The Committee acknowledged that it would not be possible to get a precise figure on these costs, but stressed the need for MoJ to take further action to better understand these costs.34
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees and states the department has written to the Committee, alongside the Treasury Minute response, setting out the results of its survey of local authorities and any further investigations planned.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
17
Recommendation
59th Report - Ministry of Justice follo…
Accepted
MoJ’s Treasury Minute response indicated that it had begun discussions with the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government (MHCLG, or the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, as it was then called) to understand whether local authorities were funding immigration legal advice. However, its response on understanding the …
Read more
MoJ’s Treasury Minute response indicated that it had begun discussions with the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government (MHCLG, or the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, as it was then called) to understand whether local authorities were funding immigration legal advice. However, its response on understanding the impact of removing other areas of early legal advice was lacking. For example, it referenced its past Early Legal Advice pilot, which did not generate any findings due to poor participation. In written evidence, organisations including the Law Society and the Public Law Project stressed that early legal advice could help reduce wider costs to government. For example, legal aid in housing cases can reduce health- related costs by addressing unsafe living conditions.35 Regarding the impact of increased numbers of people who represent themselves in court (litigants in person) following its reforms, MoJ stated that its improved digital systems would allow it to do more detailed analysis to understand this. However, it did not state whether the new systems would allow it to address our predecessor Committee’s point on distinguishing between a litigant in person (LIP) who is very actively involved in a case and someone who does not participate.36
Show less
Government response AI summary
The department has written to the Committee, alongside the Treasury Minute response, setting out the results of its survey of local authorities and any further investigations planned.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
18
Recommendation
59th Report - Ministry of Justice follo…
Acknowledged
We asked MoJ what work it had done to better understand the effects of its legal aid reforms on local authorities and their legal advice services. MoJ said that it has surveyed local authorities to understand where they were providing additional legal advice and why, but it told us that …
Read more
We asked MoJ what work it had done to better understand the effects of its legal aid reforms on local authorities and their legal advice services. MoJ said that it has surveyed local authorities to understand where they were providing additional legal advice and why, but it told us that it did not have a high response rate to the survey. It explained that while the response rate was low, responses showed that there may be several reasons for local authorities to be providing advice, including that the issue or individual’s circumstances may be outside the scope of legal aid. It also stressed that it had done a lot of work with MHCLG, particularly around the Renters’ Rights Bill, which may create more legal disputes, and how to ensure that provision of legal aid is in the right places to meet this demand. We asked MoJ whether these conversations had changed anything for local government. However, in response it only stated that it had rolled out a new pathfinder pilot in family courts which it said should help to reduce burdens on local government as a specialist worker will point families to legal advice that it now funds.37 34 HC Committee of Public Accounts, Value for money from legal aid, Thirty-Third Report of Session 2023-24, HC 481, 20 May 2024. 35 Law Society of England and Wales (MOJ0002): Public Law Project (MOJ0004) 36 HMT, Treasury Minutes, 5 September 2024 37 Qq 37-41 13
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees and states the department has written to the Committee, alongside the Treasury Minute response, setting out the results of its survey of local authorities and any further investigations planned.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
19
Recommendation
59th Report - Ministry of Justice follo…
Accepted
On litigants in person, MoJ acknowledged that its data have not been good enough to understand the impact of LIPs on courts. However, it said that its court reform programme, which included the introduction of a common platform in criminal courts, will allow it to capture data about LIPs and …
Read more
On litigants in person, MoJ acknowledged that its data have not been good enough to understand the impact of LIPs on courts. However, it said that its court reform programme, which included the introduction of a common platform in criminal courts, will allow it to capture data about LIPs and more accurate data on hearing times. We asked MoJ what it had learned from this data and whether it allows it to differentiate between litigants in person who are more actively involved in presenting their case compared with those who are not. MoJ explained that it does not yet have full data from its new systems, but that its previous analysis showed that LIPs do not slow court processes down. We note that LIPs may add costs in other ways. MoJ told us that its new systems record whether a LIP has appeared at a hearing, but that assessing their involvement in a case from this data could be quite subjective.38 Sustainability
Show less
Government response AI summary
The department will improve data and analysis regarding litigants in person, and will write to the Committee in October 2026 setting out the current position on data collection for litigants in person, and the department’s intention to write to the Committee in October 2026 setting …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
20
Recommendation
59th Report - Ministry of Justice follo…
Deferred
Our predecessor Committee’s 2024 report on legal aid stated that MoJ had been slow to initiate and complete its large-scale reviews of the sustainability of both the criminal and civil legal aid systems. It raised particular concerns around the civil legal aid sector where legal aid fees had not increased …
Read more
Our predecessor Committee’s 2024 report on legal aid stated that MoJ had been slow to initiate and complete its large-scale reviews of the sustainability of both the criminal and civil legal aid systems. It raised particular concerns around the civil legal aid sector where legal aid fees had not increased since 1996. The Committee recommended that MoJ needed to improve its ability to respond to emerging sustainability issues in a timely manner and that it should put mechanisms in place to regularly review the profitability of legal aid work.39
Show less
Government response AI summary
The department will explore options to routinely monitor the profitability of legal aid firms, improve management information collected on demand, streamline processes and reduce administrative burdens, and will provide an update to the Committee on this work in October 2026.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
21
Recommendation
59th Report - Ministry of Justice follo…
Accepted
In its Treasury Minute response MoJ stated that it was considering how to monitor profitability more regularly. It said that the Independent Criminal Legal Aid Board (CLAAB), established following the review of criminal legal aid, had included discussion of the current market position. But MoJ did not set out any …
Read more
In its Treasury Minute response MoJ stated that it was considering how to monitor profitability more regularly. It said that the Independent Criminal Legal Aid Board (CLAAB), established following the review of criminal legal aid, had included discussion of the current market position. But MoJ did not set out any proposals for more routine monitoring of civil legal aid beyond its review of civil legal aid.40 Since then MoJ has committed to increasing legal aid fees for housing and immigration, but has not yet implemented these uplifts.41
Show less
Government response AI summary
The department will explore options to routinely monitor the profitability of legal aid firms, improve the management information collected on demand with the support of Ipsos, and provide an update in October 2026.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
22
Recommendation
59th Report - Ministry of Justice follo…
Accepted
We asked MoJ and LAA for an update on how they were monitoring the sustainability and profitability of legal aid work. MoJ said that it had recently surveyed both criminal and civil legal aid providers and that it was currently considering recommendations made by the CLAAB. It also stated that …
Read more
We asked MoJ and LAA for an update on how they were monitoring the sustainability and profitability of legal aid work. MoJ said that it had recently surveyed both criminal and civil legal aid providers and that it was currently considering recommendations made by the CLAAB. It also stated that fees across the rest of civil legal aid remain under review. However, it 38 Qq 44-53, 67-68 39 HC Committee of Public Accounts, Value for money from legal aid, Thirty-Third Report of Session 2023-24, HC 481, 24 May 2024. 40 HMT, Treasury Minutes, 5 September 2024 41 Letter from the Ministry of Justice, 6 November 2025 14 stressed that any changes to fees are ultimately a decision for Ministers.42 LAA acknowledged that the sustainability of legal aid remains a concern and that while setting fees is outside of its domain, there are several things it was doing to help address this. This includes looking at what it can do to reduce the administrative burden on providers, extending contract terms to give providers more certainty, and making contract processes more flexible to enable firms to join the market more regularly, which was previously only possible every five years.43
Show less
Government response AI summary
The department will explore options to routinely monitor the profitability of legal aid firms, improve the management information collected on demand with the support of Ipsos, and provide an update in October 2026.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
23
Conclusion
59th Report - Ministry of Justice follo…
Deferred
Written evidence we received from organisations including the Law Society, Public Law Project and Law Centres Network all raised concerns about whether the actions MoJ has taken to date were sufficient or fast enough to tackle long-term sustainability issues.44 For example, the Law Society stressed that for civil legal aid, …
Read more
Written evidence we received from organisations including the Law Society, Public Law Project and Law Centres Network all raised concerns about whether the actions MoJ has taken to date were sufficient or fast enough to tackle long-term sustainability issues.44 For example, the Law Society stressed that for civil legal aid, there is no mechanism to ensure regular fee reviews going forward, no timetable for the implementation of housing and immigration fees and no commitment for increases to other areas of civil legal aid which are in urgent need of investment. Regarding criminal legal aid fees, it stated that it has been two years since MoJ committed to restructuring the Litigators’ Graduated Fee Scheme (LFGS) through the CLAAB but that no viable scheme has been proposed as MoJ has stated it does not have the required data.45 Cyberattack response
Show less
Government response AI summary
The department will explore options to routinely monitor the profitability of legal aid firms, improve management information collected on demand, streamline processes and reduce administrative burdens, and will provide an update to the Committee on this work in October 2026.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
24
Conclusion
59th Report - Ministry of Justice follo…
Accepted
MoJ and LAA acknowledged that the cyberattack on LAA’s online digital services began in December 2024, four months before the LAA detected the attack on 23 April 2025.46 LAA explained that in April, it took action to boost the security of the systems concerned and informed legal aid providers that …
Read more
MoJ and LAA acknowledged that the cyberattack on LAA’s online digital services began in December 2024, four months before the LAA detected the attack on 23 April 2025.46 LAA explained that in April, it took action to boost the security of the systems concerned and informed legal aid providers that their bank details may have been compromised. However, it did not take its systems down until 16 May 2025.47
Show less
Government response AI summary
The MoJ and LAA have already identified and shared lessons from the attack through several routes including internally across MoJ, with Permanent Secretaries, to the cross-government data practitioners’ network and the Government Cyber Coordination Centre (GC3) Impact Coordination Group, as well as writing to the …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
25
Conclusion
59th Report - Ministry of Justice follo…
Acknowledged
We asked LAA why it had taken so long to detect the attack and to then take systems offline.48 LAA explained that the risk of a cyberattack on its systems had been rated as extremely high on MoJ’s risk registers since 2021. It told us that MoJ had subsequently provided …
Read more
We asked LAA why it had taken so long to detect the attack and to then take systems offline.48 LAA explained that the risk of a cyberattack on its systems had been rated as extremely high on MoJ’s risk registers since 2021. It told us that MoJ had subsequently provided over £50 million in total to help address some of the system issues and improve security, which allowed it to implement a new security monitoring service.49 It explained that it was 42 Qq 62, 65 43 Q 58 44 Law Society of England and Wales (MOJ0002); Public Law Project (MOJ0004); The Law Centres Network (MOJ0008) 45 Law Society of England and Wales (MOJ0002) 46 Q 70 47 Q 70 48 Q 71 49 Qq 71, 96 15 this new service which meant it was able to detect the breach in April 2025. On the delay to taking its systems down, LAA told us that discussions at senior levels around the trade-offs between access to justice and the risks posed by the cyberattack were ongoing between April and May 2025. However, it said that it did not discover the full extent of the attack—that a large amount of information relating to legal aid applicants may also have been accessed—until 16 May 2025, at which point it took systems offline.50
Show less
Government response AI summary
The Chief Executive of the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) set out the initial lessons learned at the Committee evidence session in October 2025, including the need for senior leaders to ensure that cyber-vulnerabilities are fully understood and business continuity plans cover a long period.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
26
Conclusion
59th Report - Ministry of Justice follo…
Acknowledged
LAA acknowledged that contingency measures it put in place to keep the legal aid system going placed additional burdens on providers, and that there are several lessons to be learned from the attack. This included, ensuring senior leaders understand risks in systems, ensuring longer term business continuity plans are in …
Read more
LAA acknowledged that contingency measures it put in place to keep the legal aid system going placed additional burdens on providers, and that there are several lessons to be learned from the attack. This included, ensuring senior leaders understand risks in systems, ensuring longer term business continuity plans are in place and considering the impact on staff of responding to the attack, which it said had been brutal. It also stressed the importance of consistent communication and collaboration with stakeholders to work through the response.51
Show less
Government response AI summary
The Chief Executive of the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) set out the initial lessons learned at the Committee evidence session in October 2025, including the need for senior leaders to ensure that cyber-vulnerabilities are fully understood and business continuity plans cover a long period.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
27
Conclusion
59th Report - Ministry of Justice follo…
Accepted
We asked MoJ whether the public could have confidence that data stored across MoJ’s systems is safe, following the attack. MoJ stated that it has comprehensively reviewed all of its systems to understand where vulnerabilities lie. It stated that its review had given it a better understanding of where the …
Read more
We asked MoJ whether the public could have confidence that data stored across MoJ’s systems is safe, following the attack. MoJ stated that it has comprehensively reviewed all of its systems to understand where vulnerabilities lie. It stated that its review had given it a better understanding of where the risks in its systems are and explained that a transformation programme is now in place to update systems and make them less vulnerable. It acknowledged, however, that there are huge costs associated with improving systems and that addressing the risks identified will be dependent on its decisions on how to allocate its Spending Review settlement across the business. It gave the same response, when we asked whether it planned to accelerate the transformation programme in light of the attack on LAA’s systems.52 50 Q 71 51 Qq 77, 88 52 Qq 81-86, 89 16
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the committee's recommendation and states the MoJ and LAA have already identified and shared lessons from the cyberattack through various routes, including internal committees, cross-government meetings, and the National Cyber Security Centre.
Read full response →
HM Treasury