Two recent inquiries by the Justice Committee and Public Accounts Committee have found that the government must take urgent action to secure the future of the civil legal aid system. Public Law Project’s (PLP) evidence has been cited numerously across both reports, feeding into the Committees’ recommendations across four key aspects of legal aid: the sustainability of the sector, insufficient access to legal aid, the bureaucracy of the Legal Aid Authority (LAA), and the Lord Chancellor’s statutory duty to secure the availability of legal aid. PLP Submission Access to Justice Inquiry PLP Submission Public Accounts Committee Sustainability of the legal aid sector A key focus of both inquiries was the sustainability of the legal aid sector. PLP submitted evidence that the current legal aid rates are not financially sustainable, with legal aid firms relying on external funding to remain solvent and train staff. PLP argued that the Ministry of Justice’s (MoJ) fee increases for housing, immigration, and asylum legal aid work, while welcome, are not sufficient to cover increasing staff costs, and do not address loss-making work in other areas of law. Additionally, PLP highlighted that without retrospective application of the new rates, legal aid providers could be paid at the previous lower rates for up to several years. The Justice Committee found that the government has failed to properly implement previous recommendations aimed at improving the sector’s sustainability, and that 2025’s fee increases will not prevent further decline (at [79]). The Committee also argued that the government is “not thinking strategically about its future supply of lawyers or how to ensure sectoral retention” (at [87]). The Public Accounts Committee called on the MoJ to regularly review the profitability and sustainability of legal aid, to inform legal aid fees (at [5]). The Justice Committee went further, recommending that other civil legal aid fees should be increased in line with housing, immigration, and asylum, and that these increases should be implemented retrospectively and reviewed regularly (at [80]). It also encouraged the government to publish a civil legal aid workforce strategy, and to fund training schemes for the most underserved areas of civil law (at [88]). Access to legal aid The lack of profitability of legal aid work, and the associated decline in civil legal aid providers following the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) have led to legal aid deserts, where there are few or no providers in an area. PLP’s evidence submission described the situation for immigration and asylum legal aid, reporting that the LAA’s creation of a directory of providers willing to take on cases remotely has not been effective: on average, only 11% of providers had the capacity to take on new cases. Moreover, PLP’s national Legal Aid Capacity Data Collection Survey found that only 1 in 16 referral attempts made by support organisations to legal aid providers were successful. The Justice Committee found that the MoJ’s current actions are insufficient to increase the number of legal aid providers (at [96]). It recommended that the government act immediately and intervene directly to improve the provision of legal aid in underserved areas (at [104]). Similarly, the Public Accounts Committee directed the MoJ and LAA to set out the steps they are taking to close the gaps in provision in areas experiencing legal aid deserts (at [3]). Legal aid administration and bureaucracy The extensive bureaucracy and demanding audit processes required by the LAA create additional work for legal aid providers. PLP informed the Justice Committee that these factors create unnecessary burdens and financial risk for providers, and reduce the time available to assist clients. In particular, PLP encouraged the LAA to simplify application and billing processes and adopt a proportionate approach to compliance. The Justice Committee found that the LAA is too narrowly focused on improving processing times and reducing error rates, rather than addressing its broader policy remit of enabling access to justice (at [149]). It recommended that the LAA reduce unpaid administrative work by simplifying cost guidance, reducing unbillable work, and piloting a high-trust model (at [152]). In the longer term, the Committee encouraged a consultation on whether the LAA can, in its current form, deliver access to justice (at [153]). The Lord Chancellor’s duty It is PLP’s position that shortages in immigration and asylum legal aid, particularly in the Southwest, are resulting in eligible individuals being denied access to legal aid and, as a result, that the Lord Chancellor is in breach of his statutory duty to ‘secure that legal aid is made available’ in accordance with LASPO. The Justice Committee concurred that there is ‘substantial evidence’ that the Lord Chancellor is failing in this duty, and deemed existing mechanisms for accountability, such as judicial review, insufficient to ensure adequate provision (at [113]). It found that the government is not taking adequate steps or exercising its full powers in relation to this duty (at [114]). The Justice Committee urged the government to take an active role in ensuring that there is sufficient legal aid provision to meet eligible demand. It encouraged the Lord Chancellor to use his duties under section 2(2) of LASPO to make grants to providers in areas where there are high levels of unmet need, or increase the LAA’s delegated authority to enable it to offer incentives for providers in underserved areas (at [115]). Looking ahead: the future of legal aid PLP welcomes the recommendations of the Justice Committee and Public Accounts Committee. The Committees’ findings reflect a system under severe strain that is unable to meet its policy purpose. To secure an accessible and sustainable future for legal aid, the government must take steps to ensure that legal aid deserts are addressed, work is sufficiently remunerated, and the administrative burden on providers is reduced. The government must act urgently in doing so – as the Justice Committee warned, “a legal aid system that people cannot qualify for or access, and that providers cannot sustainably deliver, is no system at all.” Image: Dembee Tsogoo