We understand that all departments of the administration are required to reduce their expenditure by at least 20% – perhaps up to 40%. To the extent that this applies also to the administration of civil justice, that approach may be misguided and counterproductive.

Indeed, it may cost the administration and the state more in the long run than not reducing the budget for civil justice.

But to begin at the beginning, why does the state provide a system for civil justice at all? The proportion of citizens or businesses that actually use the civil courts is small. Why not cut the expenditure by 100%, and close all civil courts and tribunals?

Commerce as we know it would collapse. Those with rights to enforce would have to abandon them, or resort to non-judicial means (thuggery, probably); those with obligations would take their chance on thuggery not being deployed, and welch on their creditors. Now, if you think this is a little far fetched, dwell for a moment on what was behind Lord Woolf’s reforms and Lord Justice Jackson’s review: increased access to justice, which no one opposes.

It is axiomatic that delay and cost impede access to justice, and that increased access to justice is needed by the citizen (and, arguably, by the state and the community generally). No one disputes that the state needs a civil courts system. To be justified it must be effective. Even a Rolls-Royce is useless without tyres and petrol.

Before any cuts are made, look at the pros and cons. As my infantry sergeant used to say (more wisely than I realised at the time), start by finding out where you are and which way you are heading; if you don’t get those fundamentals right, nothing which follows will be right. Well, where are we? Very broadly, on the basis of the Jackson review, the Commercial Court and the Chancery Division work well. This may be because the amounts at stake and the resources of the parties make the relative cost of the proceedings less onerous; it may also be because those courts are better staffed than other courts (particularly county courts), and are used by more experienced practitioners with a business-like approach to disputes.

Otherwise, we have a civil courts system that is already strained to breaking point: overworked and under-remunerated judicial staff with insufficient time to carry out the effective case-management expected of them; underpaid administrative staff who are capable – apparently without supervision – of errors such as losing files (central London is legendary for this) and fixing appointments for non-existent days such as 30 February; infrastructure in terms of buildings, ratio of staff to workload, which is barely adequate even now (viz. phones which no one answers); and a conspicuous omission by successive governments to provide the IT required to meet the expectations of the Woolf reforms for robust case management.

Far from being a candidate for trimming, civil courts urgently need further investment. The provision of adequate funding for a proper court system may not be a vote-winner, but failure to do so may well be a vote-loser ultimately. Provision of a proper and reasonably quick civil courts system is an obligation of the state, like defence. The state must have these and no one else can provide them.

We are at a stage where the system is under such strain that it can be put right only by increased investment. Instead, we have a government threatening to reduce investment massively, among other things, by closing many magistrates’ and county courts and merging courts and tribunals.

Beware massive cuts. We may end up with civil courts so useless and ineffective that they are disregarded by all potential users. Cuts of 40% or even of 20% in the civil courts budget may result in there being no effective system at all. You may save 25% by putting a fence round only three sides of a paddock, but that will not keep the sheep in and is a total waste of the 75% spent.

It seems universally accepted that what is needed is increased access to justice. But substantial cuts will do the reverse.

Seamus Smyth is president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association