Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 10
10
Accepted
Vulnerable individuals face significant barriers accessing remote legal aid advice
Recommendation
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
Government Response 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.
Government Response
Accepted
HM Government
Accepted
2. PAC conclusion: There are areas of the country lacking face-to-face provision of legal aid, which risks penalising vulnerable groups disproportionately. 2. PAC recommendation: In its Treasury Minute response, the Ministry of Justice should: • 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. 2.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: Winter 2024 2.2 Remote provision can be an effective method of providing legal advice, but MoJ 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. 2.3 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. 2.4 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