Thirty-Third Report - Value for Money from Legal Aid
Select Committee
Public Accounts Committee
HC 481
24 May 2024
Government Response (AI assessment · 24 of 24 classified)
Accepted
20
Recommendations
0 resultsNo recommendations found matching the selected filters. Clear filters
Conclusions (3) Observations and findings — click to expand
9
Conclusion
Not Addressed
LAA explained that for some places where there are local gaps in legal aid providers, people could seek remote advice from providers elsewhere in the country, providers in neighbouring areas or via its telephone service. MoJ stated there were some benefits of remote provision for many in providing a more …
Government Response Summary
The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: Spring 2026. The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) monitors the supply and distribution of providers; holds 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.
13
Conclusion
Not Addressed
The government also runs a separate Exceptional Case Funding (ECF) scheme for legal aid, intended as a safety net to provide legal aid for people whose human rights would be breached without it.32 Immigration cases that are no longer within scope of legal aid may still be eligible for legal …
Government Response Summary
The government response addresses a separate recommendation about access to legal aid for immigration matters and the ECF scheme, not the initial conclusion regarding challenges in finding a legal aid provider.
16
Conclusion
Not Addressed
Considerable wage inflation means the proportion of the population now eligible for legal aid has fallen. From 2012–13 to 2020–21, the proportion of UK income taxpayers eligible for civil legal aid decreased by 11 percentage points (73% to 62%). There was also a 16 percentage point decrease in those whose …
Government Response Summary
The government response addresses a separate recommendation about reviewing financial eligibility thresholds and doesn't acknowledge the initial conclusion about considerable wage inflation.