Failure at the Ministry of Justice: Scathing PAC report holds Department to account

- Excuses for leasing £4m/yr empty radioactive gas-filled prison dismissed as it is found a needless waste of taxpayers' money

- PAC returns to scrutiny of legal aid as MoJ fails to ensure sector's future sustainability

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has returned its scrutiny focus to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). Its new report covers two areas of major weakness – the landscape for legal aid, in which the PAC follows up on its predecessor Committee's 2024 report on the topic; and HM Prison and Probation Service's (HMPPS) decision to spend £4m/yr of taxpayers' money on HMP Dartmoor - an empty prison that it cannot use, due to the detection of high levels of radon gas.

Large gaps in face-to-face legal provision still exist in some parts of the country, particularly for housing and debt advice. In 2024, the PAC expressed deep concern at the MoJ and Legal Aid Agency's (LAA) lack of curiosity about what decreasing numbers of providers would do to people's access to legal aid, despite evidence suggesting that access was getting harder. The Committee is now still unconvinced that MoJ has done enough to ensure the future sustainability of the legal aid market. Some legal aid fees that have not increased since 1996 remain under review, while MoJ has committed to increasing some others without acting on this promise. Even with these commitments, the report highlights concerns within the sector that they will not be enough in the long-term.

The PAC is disappointed at the MoJ's continued failure to make meaningful progress in better understanding the impact of its reforms, which removed access to most early legal advice over a decade ago. Research suggests this is leading to additional costs in the system. The report underlines the already-established risk of reliance on remote advice penalising digitally-excluded people - c.24% of the population and often those most in need of legal assistance (e.g. disabled people or those living in poverty). Given this, the PAC is further disappointed that MoJ and LAA still cannot show an improved understanding of whether digitally excluded people are able to access help. Government must now lay out what it is doing to close gaps in provision where legal aid deserts still exist.

Following the cyber-attack on the LAA, the report finds that funding to address MoJ systems' weaknesses is uncertain. The PAC is seeking clarity on whether it has sufficient resources to address key risks.

On HMP Dartmoor, the report finds that HMPPS made poor commercial decisions which resulted in a needless waste of taxpayers' money. HMPPS' reasoning for signing the £4m/yr lease for an unusable prison was the urgent need for places due to the prison capacity crisis. The PAC does not accept this excuse. HMPPS signed a lease for the site despite knowing it suffered from high levels of radon two years prior, and without carrying out further comprehensive radon testing. It further failed to negotiate a corresponding reduction to the annual rent, safeguards to mitigate the financial risks of radon levels increasing, and under the contract terms is unable to terminate the lease until at least 2033. It also must pay additional improvement costs of £68m over this period.

HMPPS must now set out what it has learned for the future from the failures of its decision-making and contract management. But the report further finds that neither MoJ nor HMPPS have clear plans for the future of Dartmoor, despite closing the prison in August '24 and previously assuring the PAC that the aim was to bring it back into safe use.

The inquiry finds that MoJ and HMPPS are now less certain that reopening Dartmoor represents best value for money. Once a plan for the site has been decided, the report urges both bodies to assess whether they should continue to spend money on an unoccupied prison; or whether they should try to negotiate an early exit from the lease by carrying out a full commercial negotiation with proper professional advice.

Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, said: “When I was elected as Public Accounts Committee Chair, I promised to follow up on areas of weakness identified through our scrutiny where government continues not to live up to taxpayers' expectations. We are therefore returning with our first report of 2026 to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS).

“The criminal justice system remains in crisis, end to end. These are areas well-covered in other PAC inquiries, but this report covers two areas overseen by MoJ which demand both our particularly close attention, and that of the wider public. On legal aid, the reforms of a decade ago are now at serious risk of going down in history as an extinction event for the entitlement to access to legal advice in large parts of the country. Our report finds government remaining stubbornly uninterested in whether this is the case, but it must now wake up on this subject. If it refuses to, the Ministry of Justice should, frankly, consider changing its name to the Ministry of Justice (for Certain People). This might be more appropriate for a nation without a sustainable solution in the long-term to provide legal aid to the digitally-excluded quarter of the population who need it most.

“The issue of HMP Dartmoor is an absolute disgrace, from top to bottom. We heard claims that the leasing of this unusable building, known for years by HMPPS to be choked with radon gas with all the health risks that entailed, was sensible, driven by the need for prison places. Our Committee rejects this excuse outright. Dartmoor appears to the Committee a perfect example of a department reaching for a solution, any solution, in a blind panic and under pressure. This is, obviously, not how policy should be delivered. Government must now respond to us on what it has learned from this catastrophic failure, and how nothing like it will ever be allowed to happen again.”

PAC report conclusions and recommendations 

HM Prison and Probation Service's (HMPPS's) failure to negotiate a good deal on the lease of HMP Dartmoor means it is spending around £4 million a year of taxpayer's money on a prison it cannot use. HMPPS signed a new lease for HMP Dartmoor in March 2022, despite knowing that there were high levels of radon at the site in 2020. More concerningly, it signed the lease before carrying out further comprehensive radon testing, which it subsequently completed in July 2022. HMPPS claims that its decision to renew the lease when it did was sensible, given the context of the urgent need for prison places. However, despite its knowledge that radon was present at the site, it failed to negotiate a reduction to the annual rent of £1.5 million a year, or to negotiate safeguards to mitigate the financial risks associated with radon levels increasing. Furthermore, under the contract terms the department cannot terminate the lease until at least December 2033. Overall, HMPPS is currently paying around £4 million per year for an unusable prison. This includes rent, business rates and security costs. Additionally government must pay additional costs (around £68 million) on fabric improvements to the Dartmoor site over the period of the lease. We do not accept that the prison capacity crisis excuses such poor commercial decisions, which have resulted in this needless waste of taxpayer's money.

Recommendation 1. HM Prison and Probation Service should, in its Treasury Minute response, set out what it has learned from the failures of its decision making and contract management of the HMP Dartmoor lease negotiations, and how it will ensure that any future contracts deliver value for money.

Despite closing the prison in August 2024, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and HMPPS still do not have clear plans for the future of Dartmoor. MoJ previously assured us that its aim was to remediate HMP Dartmoor and bring it back into safe use. However, over a year since HMPPS closed the prison, MoJ and HMPPS still do not have clear plans for how and when they will do this, and are less certain that reopening the site will represent the best value for money. HMPPS is waiting for the outcome of a Health and Safety Executive review of current workplace regulations on radon before it assesses what work it would need to do to the site and by when. Once the review is complete, MoJ and HMPPS plan to base their decision about whether or not to reopen on whether continuing with the works represents the best value for money for taxpayers.

Recommendation 2. Once it has decided on its proposed approach to remediating the Dartmoor site, the Ministry of Justice and HM Prison and Probation Service should write to the Committee and set out in detail:

• its assessment of any proposed works against the Accounting Officer tests of regularity, propriety, feasibility and value for money;
• its estimate of when the prison will be fit for use and how much the remediation will cost.
• That it will continue to assess whether best value for money is served by continuing to spend money on an unoccupied prison or try to negotiate an early exit from the lease by carrying out a full commercial negotiation with proper professional advice.

We are not satisfied that MoJ and the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) are doing enough to ensure that people eligible for legal aid can access it, particularly those who are digitally excluded.  This Committee previously raised concerns that LAA's reliance on remote advice in areas of the country which lack face-to-face provision of legal aid risks disproportionately penalising those who are digitally excluded (estimated to be around 24% of the population), and who are often most in need of legal assistance. For example, individuals with disabilities or those living in poverty.  Significant gaps in face-to-face legal provision still exist in areas of the country, in particular for housing and debt advice.  LAA has begun to explore what it can do to remove barriers to providers meeting with clients face-to-face.  For example, it is looking at how it could adjust the terms of its contracts to make this easier. However, we were disappointed that MoJ and LAA could not demonstrate an improved understanding of whether those who are digitally excluded are able to access help.

Recommendation 3. In its Treasury Minute response, the Ministry of Justice and the Legal Aid Agency should set out:

• Outside of exploring changes to contracts, how it plans to better monitor whether digitally excluded individuals can access legal aid.
• What it is doing to close gaps in provision in areas where legal aid deserts still exist.

More than ten years since the legal aid reforms, MoJ has still not demonstrated a sufficient understanding of the additional costs of legal aid reforms, particularly the impact of litigants in person. A decade ago our predecessors urged MoJ to get a better understanding of the wider costs of its reforms, which removed access to most early legal advice, and the previous Committee pressed on this again in its 2024 report. MoJ's continued failure to demonstrate meaningful progress in this area is disappointing. While MoJ has done some work with the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government to understand where it is funding additional legal advice, it was not able to demonstrate significant changes it had made as a result of the work. Meanwhile, organisations including the Law Society and the Public Law Project have pointed to research which suggests several areas where the lack of early advice is leading to additional costs, such as healthcare.  Given continued widespread concern about the impact of the increased number of litigants in person on courts, we were also dissatisfied with progress MoJ has made on improving its data to ensure it can get a more accurate understanding of the problem.

Recommendation 4. The Ministry of Justice should write to the Committee alongside its Treasury Minute response setting out:

• The results of and its response to its survey of local authorities about the effects of shunting costs to other government departments, and any further investigations it plans. For example, exploring where a lack of early advice creates additional costs for other areas, such as healthcare.
• On the impact of the increase in litigants in person on courts, including any additional time and cost as a result, and how it will improve the data it bases its analysis on. For example, taking into account how active a LIP is in court processes.

We remain unconvinced that MoJ has put in place sufficient measures to ensure the future sustainability of the legal aid market. In its 2024 report, this Committee raised concerns that while MoJ was undertaking large scale reviews of both criminal and civil legal aid it had not put in place mechanisms to routinely review the profitability of legal aid fees. MoJ has since committed to increasing legal aid fees for housing and immigration but it has not yet implemented these uplifts. Further, fees for other areas of civil legal aid, which have not increased since 1996, remain under review. Even after these commitments, organisations such as the Law Society remain concerned that these uplifts are insufficient to tackle the long-term sustainability of the market. LAA is exploring what it can do to reduce the administrative burdens on providers and has made entry into the market for providers easier. However, there remains no mechanism in place for routinely reviewing the profitability of all types of legal aid. While we accept MoJ's argument that setting legal aid fees is a decision for Ministers, regular reviews of profitability and sustainability would provide Ministers with the information they need to make informed decisions.

Recommendation 5. Although Ministers are responsible for setting legal aid fees, the Ministry of Justice should better support them by routinely reviewing profitability and sustainability for all types of legal aid. It should set out its plans to do this in its Treasury Minute Response.

Despite lessons learned from the cyberattack on the LAA, funding to address weaknesses across MoJ systems is uncertain.Vulnerabilities in LAA's systems had been on MoJ's risk register since 2021. However, MoJ's investment of over £50 million to transform and stabilise LAA's systems was insufficient to prevent hackers accessing a large amount of both provider and legal aid applicant data. While the investment led to improvements that enabled LAA to identify the breach in April 2025, this came four months after attackers initially accessed the system in December 2024.  LAA recognises that contingency measures it put in place as services were taken offline have created additional pressures for providers and its staff, and that there are several lessons to be learned from the crisis that can be shared across government. For example, the importance of longer-term continuity plans, and of ensuring that senior leaders understand the vulnerabilities associated with their systems.  Following the attack, MoJ reviewed all of its systems to identify where vulnerabilities exist but addressing these vulnerabilities will depend on its internal decisions on how it allocates its Spending Review settlement.

Recommendation 6. In the Treasury Minute response, the Ministry of Justice and the Legal Aid Agency should set out:

• the lessons it has learned from the crisis and how and when it plans to share these lessons with other government departments.
• whether it has sufficient funding to address the key risks identified from the review of its systems, once allocations are decided.