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

11 August 2010 by

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:

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

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


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

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

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.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: