Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 1
1
Accepted
Committee took evidence on value for money from legal aid reforms.
Conclusion
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
Government Response 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.
Government Response
Accepted
HM Government
Accepted
The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. regular qualitative discussions with providers which includes their workload; and liaises with the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) if a policy remedy ought to be considered. MoJ and LAA will though review the current data collected on demand for, and access to, legal aid, including assessing the methodology for collecting; quality; usability; and completeness of that data. MoJ will identify opportunities to make improvements to data collection and visualisation (such as producing a new series of maps similar to those produced by National Audit Office), and consider any opportunities to enrich insights used for monitoring, where practicable, with other relevant data. MoJ will consider commissioning independent research on this point. It is important that data collection minimises any burdens placed on providers. MoJ and LAA will also review their approach to monitoring whether people are able to find a legal aid provider to take on their case (if eligible). MoJ and LAA will consider alternative methods for doing this and look to establish a more robust evidence base on barriers to access, including capacity related factors. Again, any approach should take into account the burdens placed on providers. million of funding for accreditation and reaccreditation of senior caseworkers to conduct immigration and asylum legal aid work. 3.3 The new government has decided not to proceed with the Rwanda migration partnership, but to bring forward a new border security, asylum, and immigration Bill. Notwithstanding, as per the response to recommendation one, MoJ will seek to commission research into what might be a viable methodology for monitoring demand, as well considering how we collect data on any challenges in finding a legal aid provider. This will include immigration and asylum issues. 3.4 MoJ has taken steps to assess whether the ECF scheme is the most efficient route for immigration cases. For example, the MoJ has recently undertaken targeted, further engagement with stakeholders in the sector to better understand the experience of providers and applicants to ECF and reviewing LAA data to better understand the types of immigration cases within the cohort of ECF grants. MoJ is now carefully considering the outcome of this stakeholder engagement and data review.