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.

 

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

As you’re here, we have something to ask you. What we do here to deliver real news is more important than ever. But there’s a problem: we need readers like you to chip in to help us survive. We deliver progressive, independent media, that challenges the right’s hateful rhetoric. Together we can find the stories that get lost.

We’re not bankrolled by billionaire donors, but rely on readers chipping in whatever they can afford to protect our independence. What we do isn’t free, and we run on a shoestring. Can you help by chipping in as little as £1 a week to help us survive? Whatever you can donate, we’re so grateful - and we will ensure your money goes as far as possible to deliver hard-hitting news.

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

Comments are closed.