Index live · Last sync 22 May 2026

Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee

Thirty-Third Report - Value for Money from Legal Aid

Public Accounts Committee HC 481 Published 24 May 2024

Report Status

Government responded

Conclusions & Recommendations

24 items (19 recs)

Source

View on Parliament website ↗

Government Response

AI assessment · 24 of 24 classified

Not Addressed 3

Recommendations

18 results

3 Accepted

Monitor Illegal Migration Act's impact and assess Exceptional Case Funding efficiency for immigration.

Recommendation

We are concerned about access to legal aid for immigration matters which often involve extremely vulnerable people, and the effectiveness of the Exceptional Case Funding (ECF) scheme for some of these cases. Organisations including the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association provided … Read more

Government Response Summary

The government agreed, outlining steps to monitor immigration advice capacity by commissioning research into demand monitoring methodology and providing £1.4 million for caseworker accreditation. It also detailed its assessment of the ECF scheme's efficiency, including recent stakeholder engagement and LAA data review, with outcomes currently under consideration.

HM Treasury

View Details →

4 Accepted

Ensure financial eligibility thresholds for legal aid are routinely reviewed and swiftly implemented.

Recommendation

The Ministry of Justice has been slow to review financial eligibility thresholds, leaving fewer people eligible for legal aid, and it has not set out how it plans to review thresholds in future. One of the aims of MoJ’s 2013 … Read more

Government Response Summary

The government agreed, committing to review legal aid income and capital thresholds within three to five years of the new means test's full implementation (expected by summer 2026), and prior to implementation using ONS data. It will also seek to design policy for efficient delivery and acknowledges the need for significant digital transformation for quicker implementation, subject to future spending reviews.

HM Treasury

View Details →

5 Accepted

Collaborate with departments to understand legal aid reforms' wider public sector cost-shunting.

Recommendation

The Ministry of Justice has still not made sufficient progress in identifying or addressing wider system costs of its legal aid reforms. Almost a decade ago, this Committee urged MoJ to get a better understanding of the wider costs of … Read more The Ministry of Justice has still not made sufficient progress in identifying or addressing wider system costs of its legal aid reforms. Almost a decade ago, this Committee urged MoJ to get a better understanding of the wider costs of its reforms. While MoJ has taken some steps to understand where additional costs may lie, its overall progress in measuring the scale of these costs is disappointing. For example, MoJ acknowledges that the removal of most early legal advice via the reforms is likely to have led to additional costs to the public sector. However, its attempts to understand the costs and benefits of providing early advice have been unsuccessful to date. Similarly, evidence suggests that MoJ’s attempts to reverse the decline in legally-aided mediation following its reforms are not working, and the proportion of litigants-in-person in courts remains high. Shortcomings remain in HM Courts and Tribunals Service’s data on litigants-in-person remain, which mean that its analysis in this area provides limited insight. MoJ says it is now working with other government departments such as the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to better understand where its reforms may have shunted costs to other government departments, but we are yet to see the results of this work. Recommendation 5: The Committee recognises that it will not be possible to calculate a precise figure of the costs of the reforms to other areas of government and the justice system. However, the Ministry of Justice should set out in its Treasury Minute response: • how it plans to work with other government departments such as Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Department of Health and Social Care to better understand where reforms may have led to cost-shunting and the potential scale of these costs. This should include looking at the extent to which local authorities are funding immigration legal advice; and • how it intends to work with HM Courts and Tribun Show less

Government Response Summary

The government agreed, stating it has already implemented the recommendation by engaging with other departments like MHCLG on cost-shunting and local authority funding of immigration advice, and will continue these discussions. It is also assessing cost shifts through early legal advice pilots (ELAP and HLPAS) and working with HMCTS to improve data use and analysis related to litigants in person.

HM Treasury

View Details →

7 Accepted

Legal aid agencies lack demand and capacity data, hindering understanding of access issues.

Recommendation

Neither MoJ nor LAA estimate demand for legally aided services, nor do they capture routine data on whether providers are turning potential clients away.12 MoJ and LAA told us that this was partly because they do not want to place … Read more

Government Response Summary

MoJ and LAA will review data on demand for and access to legal aid, improve data collection, and consider alternative methods for monitoring access, aiming for implementation by Spring 2026.

HM Treasury

View Details →

8 Accepted

Persistent "legal aid deserts" reduce face-to-face access to legal aid services nationwide.

Recommendation

Stakeholders, including the Law Society, have often raised concerns about “legal aid deserts”, where large geographical areas do not have a legal aid provider for a particular category of law.19 For example, 183 local authorities had no legal aid provider … Read more

Government Response Summary

MoJ and LAA will review the current data collected on demand for and access to legal aid, identify opportunities to make improvements, and consider commissioning independent research, aiming for implementation by Spring 2026.

HM Treasury

View Details →

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 … Read more

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.

HM Treasury

View Details →

11 Accepted

LASPO reforms significantly reduced immigration legal aid, creating a supply crisis

Recommendation

The LASPO reforms significantly reduced the types of immigration cases that are eligible for legal aid. The reforms removed funding for all immigration cases except for asylum cases and a limited number of non-asylum cases, such as immigration detention and … Read more

Government Response Summary

The LAA will monitor the number of immigration and asylum advice providers, and the MoJ will commission research into a viable methodology for monitoring demand and data collection on legal aid provider challenges; the MoJ has also taken steps to assess whether the ECF scheme is the most efficient route for immigration cases.

HM Treasury

View Details →

12 Accepted

Targeted fee increases for IMA cases risk worsening broader immigration legal aid access

Recommendation

MoJ said that a shortage of immigration and asylum legal aid providers in some areas is concerning. It told us that it has taken steps to address capacity issues by increasing fees for cases related to the Illegal Migration Act … Read more

Government Response Summary

The LAA will monitor the number of immigration and asylum advice providers, and the MoJ will commission research into a viable methodology for monitoring demand and data collection on legal aid provider challenges; the MoJ has also taken steps to assess whether the ECF scheme is the most efficient route for immigration cases.

HM Treasury

View Details →

14 Accepted

Suitability of Exceptional Case Funding for immigration cases questioned due to high costs

Recommendation

We asked MoJ whether it thought that the ECF scheme was the appropriate route for immigration cases given that LAA approves around 87% of immigration applications and that this funding is more difficult to access for claimants.35 Evidence also suggests … Read more

Government Response Summary

The LAA will monitor the number of immigration and asylum advice providers, and the MoJ will commission research into a viable methodology for monitoring demand and data collection on legal aid provider challenges; the MoJ has also taken steps to assess whether the ECF scheme is the most efficient route for immigration cases.

HM Treasury

View Details →

15 Accepted

Legal aid financial eligibility thresholds lack routine review and remain stagnant since 2009

Recommendation

Through LASPO MoJ aimed to target legal aid at those who need it most. Aside from scope changes, MoJ can use its financial eligibility criteria to achieve this goal. LAA assesses people’s financial eligibility for legal aid using a means … Read more

Government Response Summary

The MoJ has committed to reviewing income and capital thresholds for legal aid within three to five years of the new means test coming into operation, with full implementation not expected before Summer 2026.

HM Treasury

View Details →

17 Accepted

MoJ's legal aid means test review implementation faces significant and repeated delays

Recommendation

MoJ first announced its means test review in 2019 but the review process has taken several years. MoJ wrote to us in March 2024 explaining that while it had implemented some minor changes identified in the review, such as removing … Read more MoJ first announced its means test review in 2019 but the review process has taken several years. MoJ wrote to us in March 2024 explaining that while it had implemented some minor changes identified in the review, such as removing means testing for children, it had delayed implementation of the remaining changes planned for 2025 until 2026.44 We asked why MoJ was taking so long to implement the changes and how it planned to review and uprate thresholds in the future. MoJ told us that delays were due to the complexity of the policy, which required a “huge amount” of stakeholder consultation, 36 C&AG’s Report, paras 2.25–2.26 37 Correspondence from Jane Harbottle, Chief Executive, Legal Aid Agency, 3 April 2024 38 Q 54 39 Q 57 40 C&AG’s Report, paras 2.2 & 2.6 41 Q 60 ; C&AG’s Report, para 2.6 42 VMLA0010 43 Q 60 44 Correspondence from Lord Bellamy KC, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, re Legal aid means test review: implementation update, dated 12 March 2024; C&AG’s report, para 2.7 & 2.8 14 Value for Money from Legal Aid and that there were challenges in updating LAA’s digital systems.45 It also identified competing government priorities such as developing and making changes resulting from the IMA as a contributing factor.46 MoJ assured the Committee that although the new thresholds are currently based on 2019–20 data, they would be uprated for inflation since 2020.47 MoJ told us that it would consider future reviews once the current changes were complete.48 It stated that it would not intend for a future review to take as long but that the frequency of reviews was a question for Ministers.49 45 Qq 60, 62 46 Correspondence from Lord Bellamy KC, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, re Legal aid means test review: implementation update, dated 12 March 2024; C&AG’s report, para. 2.8 47 Qq 60, 62; C&AG’s Report, para. 2.8 48 Q 62 49 Q 61 Value for Money from Legal Aid 15 2 Cost effectiveness and sustainability of legal aid Understanding Show less

Government Response Summary

The MoJ has committed to reviewing income and capital thresholds for legal aid within three to five years of the new means test coming into operation, with full implementation expected by Summer 2026 and will consider ONS data when reviewing thresholds.

HM Treasury

View Details →

18 Accepted

MoJ failed to adequately assess wider cross-government impacts of legal aid reforms

Recommendation

When this Committee looked at legal aid in 2015, it noted the lack of analysis MoJ had undertaken of the wider impacts of the reforms on itself and other government departments and stressed that MoJ needed to do more. At … Read more

Government Response Summary

The MoJ will engage with other government departments regarding the impact of legal aid policy changes and has begun discussions with the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government.

HM Treasury

View Details →

19 Accepted

MoJ acknowledges cost-shifting of legal aid reforms but struggles to quantify wider impacts

Recommendation

During this inquiry, we asked MoJ what it had done to look at the impact of reducing the scope of legal aid on other parts of government. While MoJ maintained that it is difficult to get an accurate measure of … Read more

Government Response Summary

The MoJ has engaged with other government departments and has begun discussions with the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government as to where changes in legal aid policy may impact on them.

HM Treasury

View Details →

20 Accepted

Legally aided family mediation assessments remain significantly below pre-reform levels despite voucher scheme.

Recommendation

MoJ had expected that, following LASPO, more people with family law disputes would use mediation instead of court to resolve their disputes. However the number of legally aided mediation assessments (which determine whether a case is suitable for mediation) fell … Read more

Government Response Summary

The MoJ has engaged with other government departments and has begun discussions with the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government as to where changes in legal aid policy may impact on them.

HM Treasury

View Details →

21 Accepted

HMCTS maintains very limited understanding and data on litigants in person's court impact.

Recommendation

We asked MoJ and HMCTS what they were doing to improve their understanding of the impact of litigants in person (LIPs) on courts.56 Following reforms, the number of LIPs in family courts increased significantly. Between January and March 2023, in … Read more

Government Response Summary

The MoJ has engaged with other government departments and has begun discussions with the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government as to where changes in legal aid policy may impact on them.

HM Treasury

View Details →

22 Accepted

Ministry of Justice demonstrates slowness in reviewing legal aid sustainability and provider fees.

Recommendation

MoJ has been slow to initiate and complete its large-scale reviews of the sustainability of civil and criminal legal aid. Lord Bellamy’s review of the criminal legal aid system was published in 2021, eight years after the reforms were introduced. … Read more

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 through collaborative groups and the CLAAB, aiming for implementation by Winter 2024.

HM Treasury

View Details →

23 Accepted

Ministry of Justice lacks routine financial data for proactive legal aid provider sustainability assessments.

Recommendation

MoJ told us that the volume of information it has needed to collect from providers, including surveys on profitability, is the main reason that the reviews have taken so long to complete.63 While MoJ and LAA have collected information on … Read more

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 through collaborative groups and the CLAAB, aiming for implementation by Winter 2024.

HM Treasury

View Details →

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 … Read more

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).

HM Treasury

View Details →

Conclusions (2)

Observations and findings

2 Conclusion Accepted

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 …

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.

View Details →

1 Conclusion Accepted

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 …

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.

View Details →