Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 17
17
Accepted
MoJ lacks understanding of early legal advice removal and litigant-in-person impacts.
Recommendation
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
Government Response 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.
Government Response
Accepted
HM Government
Accepted
4.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Recommendation implemented 4.2 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.