Housing legal aid reforms would save the NHS at least £15m a year, according to independent analysis commissioned by the Law Society.
Frontier Economics was commissioned by Chancery Lane to identify the costs of applying for and maintaining a civil legal aid contract, and the associated profits or losses from doing the work. The research was commissioned to inform a major civil legal aid review commenced under the previous government. The outcome of the review has yet to emerge.
Research published earlier this year revealed lawyers were losing money doing housing legal aid work. Today’s report shows the wider economic benefits of properly funding civil legal aid.
According to the latest research, an average GP consultation costs the NHS £42. The least costly A&E visits cost £86. Issues that require hospitalisation cost £586 per day.
Read more
Nearly half of current UK tenants are living with at least one housing disrepair issue – and 10% have significant disrepair issues. In England alone, homes with significant disrepair issues are estimated to cost the NHS an additional £255m. If housing legal aid reforms reduced significant housing disrepair issues by just 5%, the NHS would save £15m a year.
Society president Nick Emmerson said: ‘Previous governments have slowly pushed the civil justice system to the brink of collapse by starving it of investment for decades. Legal aid is one way for citizens to have our voices heard and our lack of access to it has implications on health, employment and our children’s education.
‘Like any other public service, legal aid needs to be maintained with our research showing the economic benefits if the new government were to invest in the justice system.
‘The prime minister and his government have a chance to right the wrongs of the previous administration by properly funding civil legal aid. This will ensure that all public services can cope if a family is fighting eviction, tackling housing disrepair or addressing other life-changing issues.’
This article is now closed for comment.
2 Readers' comments