Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 2
2
Accepted
Clarify options and assess impacts of remote legal aid for vulnerable groups.
Conclusion
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.
Government Response 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 the impact of remote provision.
Government Response
Accepted
HM Government
Accepted
The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. recognises that face-to-face advice will be suitable for some people. MoJ’s approach to monitoring its usage, including with vulnerable groups, differs according to jurisdiction: for example, in crime, MoJ has worked with stakeholders to identify safeguards and to understand better the impact of remote provision on those in custody, and other users. In Detained Duty Advice Scheme (immigration), MoJ asks providers to use their professional judgement as to whether remote provision is appropriate but receives data from the Home Office to ensure the process is effective. Citizens can use LAA tools to check their eligibility for legal aid and help find a face-to- face legal aid provider. A provider may choose to travel to the location (payment for such depends on the scheme) or arrange for an agent to see them locally. Where there is no face-to-face provision and remote advice is not appropriate, the LAA may intervene directly by calling local providers to find a firm with capacity itself or via an agent. LAA will also improve market intelligence to understand what operational levers, in addition to tender activity, might overcome obstacles preventing firms from offering or expanding legal aid services. For example, LAA intends to engage with firms without a legal aid contract to establish the reason for that and encourage them to bid for one. Market intelligence will inform recommendations made to ministers and will complement policy work on the use of remote advice.