The financial and personal cost of the legal aid cuts laid bare

Left Foot Forward looks at the legal aid cuts, and the costs to services, people and the taxpayer of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.

Did somebody eat all the pies?


By Jonny Mulligan of the Sound Off for Justice campaign

On Monday evening, the government bill to cut legal aid suffered defeats in the House of Lords. The government do not need to be in this position; the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (pdf) does not have to go the way of the welfare reform or NHS bills.

Lord McNally and the Lord Chancellor, Ken Clarke, know there is another option on the table. A few simple things can be done today that will save the taxpayer millions and protect the most needy in our society.

Today peers will vote on amendments that will decide the future of the legal aid budget for more than 645,000 women, children, families, pensioners and citizens in England and Wales.

Sound off for Justice, the Law Society and many of the groups campaigning against the bill all recognise we must save the taxpayer money. What is in contention is how we do this; what is ‘fair and reasonable’?

The impact assessment (pdf) in support of the cuts contains 15 separate statements that the Ministry of Justice does not have evidence for its predicted savings and 30 admissions that they are based on speculation.

So in essence they are asking peers and the taxpayer to take a punt on their cuts without any analysis of the financial impact – costs to us the taxpayers.

Much to the chagrin of Lord McNally we can give you the facts now:

• Today 250,000 cases of divorce receive legal aid. If the bill is passed this will be reduced to 40,000. This will leave leave 210,000 families and women with no support. This will cost the taxpayer an estimated £100 million in knock-on costs.

• Today family mediation is provided to 80,350 families and couples to prevent divorce cases going to court. If the bill is passed this will be reduced to 35,350. I will remind you that this is when the government are saying they want more cases to go to mediation.

It is impossible when the budgets are being cut. It is impossible to account for the knock on cost for the taxpayer. But the assumption is that without mediation more couples end up divorcing.

• The cuts to legal aid come on top of massive cuts already being experienced by advice services for young people.

Seventy five thousand children and young people are set to lose legal aid. An estimate that 6,000 children under the age of 18 and 69,000 vulnerable young adults aged 18 to 24 will lose access to legal aid in their own right as a result of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.

• It would cost just £10 million to protect legal aid for all children and £40 million to protect all young adults – figures dwarfed by the knock-on costs for government that will result from these cases being left unresolved.

In addition, 140,000 children will be affected by legal aid being removed from their parents. If the bill is passed then none will be supported out of poverty.

Proposed government saving is £60 million. This figure from the MoJ has no substance to it. It is not based in fact and due to lack of an impact assessment, no analysis of knock on costs and the fact they have no up-to-date accounts.

• Today 32,250 elderly people are helped with legal aid every year. This will be reduced to no help if the bill is passed. So if you go to hospital and have the wrong hip replaced you would have to sell your house to fight your case.

• Two thousand, three hundred and seven cases of clinical negligence are supported by the legal aid budget every year. These are cases where the NHS has carried out an operation that has gone wrong or ended in fatality.

It could be a child who is brain damaged at birth, a pensioner who has the wrong hip replaced, or someone who is killed under local anesthetic in an NHS hospital. If the bill is passed this number will be reduced to 807. The government proposed saving is £10.5 million; the actual cost to the taxpayer will be £28 million.

• Today 135,000 welfare claimants use legal aid to gain access to their rights. If the bill is passed this will be reduced to none. The government’s proposed saving is £25 million. Citizen advice has calculated that for each pound spent on the benefits advice the state saves £8.80.

If this support is axed the cost to the state and the taxpayer will be £220 million per annum.

These are the issues that peers must vote on today; let’s hope they win and we will deal with the financial privilege and the dirty tricks later.

Join the campaign here.

See also:

Time for Ken Clarke to deliver peers the evidence on the real cost of legal aid cutsJonny Mulligan, March 5th 2012

The insurance industry’s millions to the Tories are set to pay offAlex Hern, January 30th 2012

The principles of British fairness, the rule of law and Magna Carta are at stakeJonny Mulligan, January 16th 2012

Osborne’s slashing of legal aid: Another false economyDr Graham Cookson, January 10th 2012

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

  • Anonymous

    Just winging by a bunch of overpaid lawyers looking to protect their turf and pay.

    Lets get rid of the restrictive practices.

    If the judges don’t sort out their bloated process, sack them.

    That’s the way to bring costs down dramatically.

  • Jonny mulligan

    Lord Blagger – just shows you don’t understand the system. I take exception to you and the Lord Chancellor saying that he is attacking legal aid layers and ‘lawyers fees’. It is misleading and untrue. Legal Aid lawyers are not the magic circle corporate lawyers or the ones you might see in a John Grisham movie. These are not the ones working at the glamorous end of the scale dining in Chelsea and holidaying in the Hamptons.

    Legal aid lawyers make up 4% of the profession they are a rare bread and they are not at the expensive end of the profession. The average salary is £25 k per year and you do not do this job if you want to make money. These are the ones that have chosen to take a vocation in life and working with some of the poorestpeople in our society. Having worked with them I am amazed at the work they do and the hardship they witness on a daily basis. if you are a lawyer wanting to make money then you would not do legal aid.

    If passed, these £350 million cuts will see the most vulnerable Britons in our society who typically rely on legal aid the most – such as the elderly, homeless, single mothers, children, clinical negligence victims and victims of domestic violence – lose their voice in court, leaving them with no where to turn if they want to challenge unfair or unlawful decisions. In short, at least 650,000 people would have nowhere to turn for legal advice and counsel.

    if you want to learn more go to

  • Pingback: Peter Garbutt()

  • Pingback: Steven Preece()

  • Pingback: neil lambert()

  • Pingback: sueworld()

  • Pingback: H. O.()

  • Pingback: liane gomersall()

  • Aaaaargh!


    You say “This will leave leave 210,000 families and women with no support” and I agree.

    But it will also affect men…. or doesn’t that matter?

    You can’t write against inequality then discriminate yourself.

  • Jonny mulligan

    Apologies you are dead right and i am in the wrong. i was just today giving out about the attitude of a journalist who called an interviewee on womans hour who said that men suffer from domestic violence a ‘dickwad’.

    you are right and we will get wise to this – thanks

  • Mr. Sensible

    A fundomental part of a system such as ours must be access to justice.

  • Pingback: Mason Krangle()

  • Aaaaargh!

    Appreciate the quick response – good luck with the campaign.

  • Pingback: Samuel Miller()

  • Pingback: Gregg Beratan()

  • Pingback: BevR()

  • Pingback: Tory and Crossbench peers lead the revolt against Clarke’s legal aid cuts | Left Foot Forward()

  • Newsbot9

    End the justice system, there’s no need for any of that nonsense, after all.

    Typical far right…

  • Anonymous

    It certainly is.

    e.g. Change the law retrospectively to get people.

    Mind you the left have done that too.

  • Anonymous

    And how much do the tax payers pay to that 4%?

    ie. How many people are the 4% you are talking about?

    What is the average cost in legal aid spent by us on those legal aid lawyers?

    ie. I don’t care about what they take how. I care more about what we pay for their services.

    For example, the Peers claim they are cheap at 300 pounds a day in expenses (Their take).

    However the cost to us is 2,700 a day, per Peer. [Not exactly cheap are they]

  • Pingback: Look Left – Spotlight shone on legal aid cuts as Clarke urged to think again | Left Foot Forward()

  • Anonymous

    There is one interesting part to this, not mentioned so far.

    In these cases where people who are denied legal aid, who are the people they are fighting against?

    It’s the state.

    Clinical negligence – the NHS. The same organisation that on the quite admits to contributing to the deaths of 20-80,000 patients a year.

    Not surprising the government and the NHS want that stopped.

    Of the rest the majority are accused by the state. The state doesn’t want them fighting back.

    1. The cost is too high, because of the ‘legal union’

    2. The state is also core to the problem.

    Time to smash the state.

  • Pingback: Lib Dem conference gives Clegg a get out of jail free card on the legal aid cuts | Left Foot Forward()