One major part of the MOJ budget is legal aid. Legal aid is an essential way of ensuring that those in need of legal representation are able to receive it without incurring huge costs. It is fundamentally important in preserving the principle of equality before the law. Without it, there is a very real danger that the poor will be unable to effectively contest hearings that may have significant consequences for their lives. Cutting the number of people within the MOJ who help to administer legal aid may have negative results in terms of provision and accessibility. This just cannot be right.
Reducing MOJ staff may also lead to delays in childcare proceedings. In the most serious cases, it is essential that legal actions are brought in the shortest possible time in order to remove children from abusive families. Baby Peter and Khyra Ishaq are shameful examples of system failure arising from delay. Under MOJ plans, fewer staff will be left to deal with an already massive case load. The result will be more children kept in dangerous situations.
Underlying these plans is a general obsession to cut the budget deficit. Most people in economics agree that maintaining a long-term budget deficit is unsustainable. There is, however, disagreement on the way in which the deficit is reduced. The Conservative Party has consistently argued that cuts need to be made as soon as possible with minimal increases in tax. The Liberal Democrats also now believe this to be necessary (apparently they changed their position a day after the election, which may have co-incidentally been the day they decided to negotiate with the Tories). By contrast, the Labour Party has always argued that cuts should be phased over a number of years, coupled with tax rises, in order to mitigate the damage to public services. This view is supported by economists like Danny Blanchflower, former MPC member, and Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winner.
In my opinion, there is no pressing need to take such a sharp knife to budgets relied upon by the poorest sections of society. Yes, action does need to be taken in the next few years. But to decimate services designed to protect vulnerable individuals is a morally reprehensible course of conduct. This is especially so when such a course is justified in terms of 'necessity'. In reality, the position taken up by the Conservatives is motivated by an ideological desire to shrink the state. Has anyone noticed that support for the savage cuts agenda is always forthcoming from the right-wing media?
So when the next tragic story about the failure of child protection reaches the headlines, keep in mind budgetary decisions taken by central Government. Ask yourself whether they are really 'necessary' or whether they have been taken for other more vague reasons.
