Osborne’s slashing of legal aid: Another false economy

The government’s cuts in legal aid will cost the taxpayer more and simply shift the costs onto other government departments, writes Dr Graham Cookson.

Justice delayed is justice denied

 

Dr Graham Cookson is a lecturer at Kings College London

Today Lord Mcnally led the government back into the House of  Lords to debate the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. He and all peers had new evidence in front of them questioning the chance the Minsitry of Justice (MoJ) has of saving the £2 billion the department has committed to reduce the deficit.

The evidence now indicates that instead of making any savings the government’s cuts in legal aid will cost the taxpayer more and simply shift the costs onto other government departments.

Yesterday was the launch my of my long-awaited report (pdf) on the government’s legal aid reforms which found that for every £1 cut from the legal aid budget less than 42 pence will actually be saved from the public purse.

The MoJ will achieve its savings by largely cost-shifting to other cash-strapped departments. For example, for every £1 saved by removing clinical negligence from legal aid funding it will cost the NHS almost £3 (see FT report).

As part of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill currently before Parliament, the government is planning to save £350 million per annum through reforms to the legal aid system. The vast majority of these savings – some £279 million – are based upon altering the scope of legal aid, i.e. what is covered.

The proposals would remove almost 600,000 cases each year from the scope including clinical negligence, (private) family law and social welfare law. As 80 per cent of those receiving legal aid are in the bottom income quartile those most in need will suffer.

A key justification for the reforms was the need to save £2 billion from the MoJ budget as part of their contribution to tackling the fiscal deficit. Many commentators and stakeholders, however, have expressed concern these proposals would generate unintended costs in other parts of the system.

The justice select committee even said (see Hansard):

“We are surprised that the government is proposing to make such changes without assessing their likely impact on spending from the public purse and we call on them to do so before taking a final decision on implementation.”

In response, The Law Society commissioned me to investigate the likely impact of these scopereforms on the government’s budget.

You can read my full report (pdf) and a short summary on the KCL website but the message is clear: these scope reforms will generate substantial knock-on costs (circa £139 million per annum) and the government is unlikely to save more than 42 per cent of its predicated savings.

Much of the predicted savings are actually cost-shifting to other areas of government, of more than £80 million per annum. The proposals appear to be a false economy.

My conclusion is also clear: the government should conduct a cross-departmental review of the knock-on costs of these proposals before they are enacted. Give Parliament the full facts on which to make a decision. Today the House of Lords is debating an amendment which calls for such a review; let’s hope it gets support.

See also:

Disability minister ignorant on how legal aid cuts affecting disabled peopleAlex Hern, January 10th 2012

The missing millions in the legal aid cutsAlex Hern, November 2nd 2011

Exposed: The legal aid minister’s £97,000 conflict of interestAlex Hern, October 11th 2011

Tory MP: People opposed to legal aid cuts are “irresponsible and unhelpful”Jonny Mulligan, October 5th 2011

NHS report urges government to stop legal aid cutsJonny Mulligan, July 12th 2011

13 Responses to “Osborne’s slashing of legal aid: Another false economy”

  1. Unity

    Interesting #LASPOBILL piece from Prof. Graham Cookson, KCL, who wrote Unintended Consequences report http://t.co/Pwu1iOL1 @soundoffjustice

  2. Unity

    Interesting #LASPOBILL piece from Prof. Graham Cookson, KCL, who wrote Unintended Consequences report http://t.co/Pwu1iOL1 @soundoffjustice

  3. Lord Blagger

    Ah, yet another defense of the vested interest.

    Nothing like the legal profession for screwing people out of money, and what better than to get the government to do the screwing for you.

  4. Mr. Sensible

    Wonder what the government will do next if this happens…

    Interestingly, I think they’re looking at restricting which domestic abuse cases would qualify for legal aid, and yet just before Christmas they went out to consultation on expanding the definition.

  5. Michael

    Osborne’s slashing of legal aid: Another false economy – http://t.co/7rPGvvIm

  6. digital voice

    RT @TheRightArticle Osborne’s slashing of legal aid: Another false economy – http://t.co/ObjUoZMd

  7. Patrick Torsney ✔

    Osborne’s slashing of #legalaid: Another false economy http://t.co/JSv3Pq9W #LASPO

  8. Rebecca Saunders

    Osborne’s slashing of #legalaid: Another false economy http://t.co/JSv3Pq9W #LASPO

  9. Helen Williams

    Osborne’s slashing of #legalaid: Another false economy http://t.co/JSv3Pq9W #LASPO

  10. Newsbot9

    Except that the law society have put forward, and other organisations have put forward, fully-costed proposals which keep provision higher AND save more money.

    Tying the courts up with litigants-in-person serves NOBODY well.

  11. Look Left – Wonga’s student ‘scam’ comes unstuck | Left Foot Forward

    […] Alex Hern on the evidence the 50p top rate of tax is raising revenue; Dr Graham Cookson on the false economy of the legal aid cuts; and Daniel Elton on how manufacturing, even if it’s saved, won’t save […]

  12. The insurance industry's millions to the Tories are set to pay off | Left Foot Forward

    […] Osborne’s slashing of legal aid: Another false economy – Dr Graham Cookson, January 10th […]

  13. Time for Ken Clarke to deliver peers the evidence on the real cost of legal aid cuts | Left Foot Forward

    […] Sound off for Justice Kings College report (pdf) shows the cuts – instead of saving the taxpayer £350 million – will actually cost the taxpayer and […]

Leave a Reply