Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 24
24
Accepted
Legal aid providers struggle to recruit and train staff, lacking civil fee review arrangements.
Recommendation
Maintaining a supply of qualified staff in the legal aid sector is crucial to ensuring the sustainability of legal aid. However, providers continue to raise concerns about their ability to train and recruit new staff.65 Evidence provided by the Law Society described its research which found that low fee rates leave little room for training and recruitment activities and means that practitioners struggle to grow their firms or secure a future pipeline of talent.66 MoJ acknowledged that recruitment into the sector was an issue. It told us that it was looking at what it could do to reduce barriers to entry into the civil legal aid profession as part of its review of civil legal aid and that the Criminal Legal Aid 56 Q 70 57 C&AG’s Report para 1.15 58 C&AG’s Report para 1.17, Q77 59 Qq 77–78 60 C&AG’s Report, para 3.9 61 Committee of Public Accounts, Implementing reforms to civil legal aid, Thirty-sixth Report of Session 2014–15, HC 808, 4 February 2015 62 Qq 81–83 63 Qq 81–84 64 C&AG’s Report para 3.6 65 C&AG’s Report, para 3.13 66 VMLA0002 Value for Money from Legal Aid 17 Advisory Board (CLAAB) will help to monitor the number of crime practitioners.67 It also assured us that the CLAAB would keep criminal legal aid fees in view and could consider Lord Bellamy’s recommendation that there should be a mechanism for uprating fees on an annual basis. However, MoJ has not yet set out any arrangements for reviewing civil legal aid fees.68 67 Q 91 68 Q 85 18 Value for Money from Legal Aid
Government Response Summary
The MoJ acknowledges the need to monitor the profitability of legal aid work more regularly and is considering how best to do so, including using data from representative groups and gathering evidence through the Review of Civil Legal Aid (RoCLA).
Government Response
Accepted
HM Government
Accepted
6. PAC conclusion: We are not convinced that the Ministry of Justice has put in place sufficient measures to ensure the future sustainability of the legal aid market. 6. PAC Recommendation: The Ministry of Justice should set out in its Treasury Minute response how it plans to improve its ability to respond to emerging sustainability issues in a timely manner. This should include: • how it plans to work with providers to keep the profitability of legal aid work in view; • how it plans to implement the recommendations from the Criminal Legal Aid Board; and • what mechanisms it will put in place to review the sustainability of civil legal aid more routinely once its review is complete in July 2024. 6.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: Winter 2024 6.2 The MoJ has undertaken detailed work to understand the profitability of legal aid work, but acknowledges the recommendation to monitor it more regularly, and is considering how best to do this alongside providers. As part of the Criminal Legal Aid Independent Review (CLAIR), a detailed financial survey was conducted. Following CLAIR, the Criminal Legal Aid Advisory Board (CLAAB) was established. CLAAB is independently chaired and attended by the main practitioner representative groups. Previous meetings have included discussion of criminal legal aid data to give an outline of the current market position. CLAAB provides valuable advice to the Lord Chancellor on the operation and structure of criminal legal aid fee schemes and assesses how these schemes should change and modernise. However, CLAAB is independent of MoJ and the Lord Chancellor and its recommendations are not binding, but assessed alongside other considerations. 6.3 The Review of Civil Legal Aid’s (RoCLA) evidence-gathering phase sought to collect profitability information to support policy development. MoJ collaborated with The Law Society to receive data from their quantitative research on the profitability of housing and family providers. MoJ also conducted a survey of civil legal aid providers, in which responders reported whether they are loss-making, breaking even, or profit-making, and of those who are profit-making, responders reported approximate profit margins. This survey received