header-logo header-logo

12 January 2012
Issue: 7496 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Hidden cost of legal aid cuts

Knock-on expenses will undermine government targets

Cutting legal aid will cost the public purse at least an extra £139m in unbudgeted knock-on expenses, an independent report by King’s College London has found.

The proposed cuts to civil legal aid in the areas of family law, clinical negligence and social welfare law aim to save the government £240m.However, a report published this week, Unintended Consequences: the cost of the Government’s Legal Aid Reforms, shows those cuts will shift the burden onto other taxpayer-funded bodies, such as the NHS, leading to unbudgeted costs of £139m.

This would wipe out nearly 60% of all predicted savings. The report notes that numerous costs could not be estimated and so this figure “is likely to be a substantial underestimate of the true costs”.

Dr Graham Cookson, who was commissioned by the Law Society to produce the report, found that removing legal aid for clinical negligence victims would cost the NHS nearly three times more than it saved the Ministry of Justice (MoJ)—£28.5m each year against projected budget savings of £10.5m.

The removal of legal aid from private family law would create knock-on costs of £100m each year against projected savings of £170m, while scrapping legal aid for social welfare law would have knock-on costs of £35.2m against savings of £58m.

Peter Walsh, chief executive of Action Against Medical Accidents, says: “The government has failed to prove two of the key assumptions supporting its proposals, these being that the new regime will result in significant savings or that the potential savings alone justify the proposed changes.”

Emma Scott, director of the campaigning organisation Rights of Women, says legal aid is “key” to enabling women to protect themselves and their children from violence and abusive relationships.

Desmond Hudson, CEO of the Law Society, accused the MoJ of “kamikaze accounting” that “will do little to tackle the deficit while sacrificing access to justice”.

However, an MoJ spokesperson claimed that the government had been clear that the costs and benefits detailed in the impact assessment were the best estimate of the potential effects of the reforms.

“Considered alongside our wider reforms the department of health has confirmed that costs to the NHS are expected to reduce,” they said.

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill is currently before the House of Lords.

Issue: 7496 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll