• Home
  • Subscribe
  • Case table
  • About
  • Topics
    • Legal topics
      • Children
      • Criminal
      • Employment
      • Environment
      • European
      • Freedom of Information
      • Immigration/Extradition
      • Inquests and Inquiries
      • Family
      • International
      • Media
      • Medical
      • Mental Health
      • Politics / Public Order
      • Prisons
      • Religion
      • Terrorism
    • Introduction to Human Rights
    • Article 2
    • Article 3
    • Article 4
    • Article 5
    • Article 6
    • Article 7
    • Article 8
    • Article 9
    • Article 10
    • Article 11
    • Article 12
    • Article 13
    • Article 14
    • Protocol 1 Article 1
    • Protocol 1 Article 3
    • Protocol 2 Article 1
  • Archive
  • Contact

UK Human Rights Blog

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« Freedom of information: Redact, but don’t rewrite
When is a human rights claim a human rights claim? »

Where will £2bn of Ministry of Justice cuts come from? [Updated]

August 11, 2010 by Adam Wagner

Ken Clarke

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is to cut £2bn from its £9bn or so budget. But where will this 20% cut come from?

Kenneth Clarke’s MoJ are said to have got in early in agreeing spending reduction targets with the Treasury, and yesterday it was reported by the Public and Commercial Services Union that senior staff were informed by email that the cuts will amount to around £2bn of the overall budget. The Union suspect that around 15,000 of the MoJ’s 80,000 staff may have to be axed.

However the MoJ makes the cuts, a reduction of around 20% is likely to have severe effects on access to and provision of justice in the United Kingdom. Various MoJ-funded bodies have already been lining up to explain why their departments could not survive on much less. The criminal legal aid system has long been said to be in crisis, the President of the Family Division indicated last week that the child protection system is in grave danger of imploding, and the Chief Executive of the Supreme Court has said the cuts could cripple the new court.

So where will the savings come from? We already know that 157 courts are going to be closed down, which will save a paltry £35m or so. The MoJ also announced in March (at the time of New Labour’s final Budget) that it would deliver £343m of savings as the departmental contribution towards £11bn savings that are being made across Government. That leaves around £1.6bn to go.

The rest of the money will have to come from somewhere, and it is useful to look at the MoJ budget to see how its budget is currently spent. On the basis of the 2008-09 Annual Report, the department’s spending divides roughly as follows:

Item Spend % of        total
Staff pay £3,677,378,000 41
Prison service (public) £2,056,951,000 23
Criminal Defence Service £1,136,493,000 13
HM Courts Service £939,777,000 10
Probation £833,350,000 9
Community Legal Services £446,180,000 5
Youth Justice Board £438,667,000 5
Criminal Injuries Compensation £301,591,000 3
Tribunals service £285,970,000 3
Prison service (private) £259,426,000 3
Legal Services Commission (admin) £113,205,000 1
Information Commissioner £6,201,000 0

The percentages are based on a total spend of around £9.2bn, and the figures have been taken from the 2007/8 accounts, which are not easy to follow, so do take them with a small pinch of salt. Those who are mathematically inclined will notice that the total percentages add up to 116%, which is clearly incorrect. This is possibly because the total figure for pay may also be included in other aspects of the budged (e.g. prison workers within the prison services total).

That being said, the figures do give a rough indication of how the pie is currently divided, and where the biggest cuts are likely to arise from. The largest areas are staff pay, prisons, criminal defence (i.e. legal aid), probation and the court services. So it is difficult to see how the £2bn will be found without substantially cutting these outlays.

More evidence comes from the MoJ’s Draft Structural Reform Plan, released in July. Joshua Rozenberg called it a “mixed bag of plans” in a Law Gazette article analysing the document. However, is difficult to predict any particular direction for cuts from the short document, which is rather vague and mostly speaks of consultation and review  - for instance of the prison service – rather than specific figures or targets. The MoJ is also publishing monthly implementation updates, the first of which is here.

Along with most other government departments, the MoJ will have to make difficult decisions in the coming months as to how it can make around 20% cuts to its budget. It is not yet clear where the axe will fall, but on a brief look at the departmental budget it is likely that staff salaries, prisons, legal aid and the courts will be first in line. However apportioned, the cuts will have a significant effect on justice in the UK and the pain will be felt for years to come.

Update 11/8/10: Joshua Rozenberg writes in the Guardian that most of the ‘economies’ will be false ones, and that: “If the courts cease to command public confidence, what’s left? Ministers? Only noticed when they resign. Parliament? Not recovered from the expenses scandal. The church? The monarchy? The press? Sure, there will have to be job losses in justice as in every other public service. But Clarke will cut the core functions of criminal justice at his peril. Beyond that, anarchy reigns.“

Read more:

  • End of the age of terrorism for human rights campaigners
  • Ministry of Justice a “nest of liberals”
  • Human Rights Act may be safe under new Justice Secretary Ken Clarke [updated]

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Rate this:

Share:

  • Email
  • Digg

Like this:

Like
Be the first to like this post.

Posted in Art. 6 | Right to Fair Trial, Case summaries, Judges and Juries, Politics / Public Order | Tagged budget, cuts, Ministry of Justice |

  • Welcome!

    UK Human Rights Blog is written by members of 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscription is free.

    Editorial Team

    • Adam Wagner
    • Rosalind English
    • Angus McCullough QC

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 10,250 other followers

  • Browse by legal topic

  • RSS Recommended

    • Assange v The Swedish Prosecution Authority [2012] UKSC 22 (30 May 2012) May 30, 2012
      Supreme Court rules by 5-2 majority that Julian Assange must be extradited to Sweden. Definition of "judicial authority" is a wide one.
    • Supreme Court judgment: Assange v Swedish Judicial Authority - Carl Gardner May 30, 2012
    • Julian Assange's extradition stayed thanks to quick legal footwork | Joshua Rozenberg | Law | guardian.co.uk May 30, 2012
    • New Judgment: Assange v The Swedish Judicial Authority [2012] UKSC 22 May 30, 2012
    • What if Julian Assange loses in the Supreme Court? May 29, 2012
    • Secret justice concessions won't silence its critics | The Spectator May 29, 2012
    • ICLR's case summaries are now on Guardian Law | Daniel Hoadley | Law | guardian.co.uk May 29, 2012
    • The High Court is unable to agree on Twitter Joke Trial appeal - David Allen Green May 28, 2012
  • RSS Case law

    • Assange v The Swedish Prosecution Authority [2012] UKSC 22 (30 May 2012) May 30, 2012
      Supreme Court rules by 5-2 majority that Julian Assange must be extradited to Sweden. Definition of "judicial authority" is a wide one.
    • SCOPPOLA v. ITALY (No. 3) - 126/05 [2012] ECHR 868 (22 May 2012) May 23, 2012
      ECtHR Grand Chamber: automatic and indiscriminate disenfranchisement of prisoners unlawful but up to individual states how to implement changes were such a ban exist
    • Dishonesty in entry clearance applications May 21, 2012
      An Upper Tribunal (UT) decision confirms that, where an application for entry clearance is “marred by dishonesty” – whether in the applicant’s knowledge or not and even where the applicant is presently eligible for entry – it is not a disproportionate response for the Home Secretary to refuse the application, even in light of Article 8
    • MM and AO (A Child), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 668 (18 May 2012) May 18, 2012
      Secretary of State acted lawfully in not ordering independent inquiry into 2009 protest at Immigration Detention Centre. Challenge by children separated from parents during protest and claiming pschiatric damage as result.
    • British Sky Broadcasting Ltd & Ors, R (on the application of) v Chelmsford Crown Court [2012] EWHC 1295 (Admin) (17 May 2012) May 17, 2012
      Sky, BBC, ITN etc. succeed in JR of decision by court to order production of 100+ hours of video footage to Essex Police of Dale Farm protesters: "... there were no reasonable grounds for believing that the footage of over 100 hours included material likely to be of substantial value to the investigation"
    • Humphreys v Revenue and Customs [2012] UKSC 18 (16 May 2012) May 16, 2012
      Supreme Court: paying child tax credit to "main" care giver not discriminatory under art.14 ECHR to father caring for child 3 days per week. The specific test for justifying discrimination in the context of state benefits is that with questions of social and economic strategy the Court will generally respect the legislature’s policy choice unless i […]
  • Wikio - Top Blogs - Law
  • UKHRB on Twitter

    • #Assange loses SC appeal 5 votes to 2. Like to be #ECtHR application to block #extradition 4 hours ago
    • #Assange Supreme Court decision imminent bbc.co.uk/news/uk-182594… #extradition 5 hours ago
    • Also fresh on the blog- The Erika: Cour de Cassation has its thinking cap on by David Hart QC ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/05/29/the… 5 hours ago
    • Good morning all, @IsabelMcArdle here. Justive and Security Bill- the govt is not for turning by Angela Patrick ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/05/29/jus… 5 hours ago
    Follow @ukhumanrightsb
  • Adam Wagner on Twitter

    • RT @simonmckay: Catt v Metropolitan Police. Important case on #protest and #dataretention. Would be surprised if it was not appealed:htt ... 41 minutes ago
    • For anyone who hasn't read it > Justice & Security Bill: Government is not for turning - Angela Patrick of @justicehq: wp.me/pJiO3-3Gc 57 minutes ago
    • RT @CrowtherSimon: Excellent piece by @justicehq's Angela Patrick on Just& Sec Bill on @ukhumanrightsb ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/05/29/jus… #secretj ... 58 minutes ago
    • RT @I_am_peevee: @AdamWagner1 @gideonconn "and excellent artist"... 1 hour ago
    • My friend and brilliant musician @GideonConn has a brand new video: youtube.com/watch?v=tX-ZrZ… 1 hour ago
    • Excellent from @joshuarozenerg on the potentially embarrassing mess surrounding the #Assange ruling is.gd/4Qs0h3 1 hour ago
    Follow @adamwagner1
  • RSS Recent posts

    • The Erika: Cour de Cassation has its thinking cap on May 29, 2012 David Hart QC
    • Justice and Security Bill: The Government is not for turning – Angela Patrick May 29, 2012 1 Crown Office Row
    • We need to think about Kevin May 29, 2012 Rosalind English
    • Key Justice and Security Bill resources May 29, 2012 Adam Wagner
    • Free Speech at Work: A 1COR Seminar and Mock Trial – Wed 27th June May 29, 2012 1 Crown Office Row
    • Time and time again: Article 6 to the rescue May 27, 2012 David Hart QC
    • Prisoner voting, Bratza’s replacement and peaceful protest – The Human Rights Roundup May 27, 2012 Wessen Jazrawi
    • The case for letting prisoners vote – Reuven Ziegler May 24, 2012 1 Crown Office Row
  • Links

    • 1 Crown Office Row
    • 1COR Human Rights Update
    • 1COR resources
    • A(nother) Lawyer Writes
    • Ashley Connick's Blog
    • AVMA Blog
    • BAILII
    • Beneath the Wig
    • British Institute of Human Rights
    • Cearta.ie
    • Charon QC
    • David Allen Green
    • ECHR Blog
    • ECHR News
    • Education Law Blog
    • EJIL Talk!
    • eutopia Law
    • Family Lore
    • Free Movement Blog
    • Garrulous Law
    • Guardian Legal Network
    • Halsbury's Law Exchange
    • Head of Legal
    • Human Rights in Ireland
    • Inforrm's Blog
    • Inner Temple Current Awareness
    • Jack of Kent
    • Jailhouse Lawyer's Blog
    • Joint Council for Welfare of Immigrants
    • Joshua Rozenberg's Blog
    • Law and Lawyers
    • Law Think
    • Lawbore
    • Lawyer Watch
    • Legal Week Legal Village
    • Meeja Law
    • Mental Health Law Online
    • Nearly Legal
    • Panopticon Blog
    • PHD Studies in Human Rights
    • Pink Tape
    • RightsNI
    • RPC Privacy Blog
    • Strasbourg Observers
    • The Human Rights Blog
    • The Justice Gap
    • The Magistrate's Blog
    • The Pupillage Blog
    • The Small Places
    • The Time Blawg
    • UK Constitutional Law Group blog
    • UK Freedom of Information Blog
    • UK Immigration Law Blog
    • UK Supreme Court Blog
    • Venables legal resources
    • Watching the Law
  • Disclaimer

    This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Theme: Customized MistyLook by Sadish.


loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.