Areas earmarked for savings at MoJ
Yesterday's story that the Ministry of Justice is discussing cuts of Β£2 billion in its Β£9 billion budget came as no surprise. That is of course, just below the 25 per cent figure the Treasury has demanded from every department whose spending is not ring-fenced.
It has been reported that the Justice Secretary Ken Clarke is among the first ministers to agree a deal with the Treasury over his department's cuts. But it's not a simple as that, I'm told.
Clarke is himself a former Chancellor and knows the system.
"He ain't gonna be pushed around," says a senior MoJ source. "He was only willing to offer Danny Alexander ballpark figures."
The reason Clarke was reluctant to agree specific sums is that two big areas of MoJ policy are still up in the air.
First, there is a consultation on the future of legal aid. Second, there is Clarke's famous sentencing review, and he wants to await the outcomes of both before committing himself to the Treasury.
Nonetheless, I'm told the ballpark figure for legal aid cuts is around Β£600 million, rather less than the Β£700 million Clarke was originally demanding from the legal aid system. That's still a big share - more than 25 per cent - of the legal aid budget of Β£2.2 billion.
Other areas for substantial savings at the MoJ are, I'm told:
• An EU directive which comes into force next year which will enable the UK to deport 4,500 EU nationals back to the EU, thus freeing prison places. And the numbers we will deport are far more than the prisoners likely to be deported back to us
• Changing the rules so that prisoners on parole who breach their licences are dealt with by magistrates' courts in future rather than crown courts, as now
• Stopping employment tribunals becoming mini-court trials with lots of expensive lawyers
• Limiting the number of non-custodial immigration appeals that each refused immigrant can make
I'm Michael Crick, and I'm Newsnight's political editor. My guiding rule is that in any story there's usually something the politicians would prefer the world not to know. My job is to find that out. Follow me on
Comment number 1.
At 11th Aug 2010, hehe wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 11th Aug 2010, stanilic wrote:Looks like our learned friends are going to have to go easy on the gravy in future.
There is an old saying that only fools and rich men go to the law. I have for a long time thought that this should be changed to fools, rich men and the taxpayer funded.
The law is a tricky thing and am always puzzled why going to law is so often presented as a solution when all it is is an opportunity to open you wallet and shower your particular learned friend with hard currency.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 12th Aug 2010, twillytumps wrote:We are going to hear lots of arguments for special exceptions from cuts but ... a large amount of the legal aid budget is spent on provisions for the children in family breakups. Not something we want to skimp on, either as a matter of protecting the vulnerable or for pragmatic reasons connected with the juvenile crime rate.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)