It is little more than common sense to assert that acting earlier to forestall a problem, rather than waiting and then coping with its consequences, is likely to be cheaper in the long term, as well as better for those involved.

In his first ever speech as Prime Minister Tony Blair said:

“Government must not fall into the trap of short-termism. Huge sums are spent dealing with this year’s problems, but very little on preventing the problems that will arise in five years time… We need to go further if we are to avoid the double jeopardy of worsening social problems and escalating tax bills. We will be calling on departments to draw up plans for shifting energy and resources from cure to prevention, from clearing problems up to anticipating them, and I will judge their success by how far this is done.”

This government, in welcoming reports – like the Allen Review and the Field Review – has expressed very similar sentiment, and numerous government reports and other official documents have reached the same conclusion. Take this, for instance, from a 2009 Audit Commission report:

“A young person who starts showing behavioural problems at five, and is dealt with through the criminal justice system will cost the taxpayer around £207,000 by the age of 16. Alternative interventions to support changes in behaviour would cost about £47,000. Over £113 million a year would be saved if just one in ten young offenders was diverted towards effective support.”

Why, then, does today mark the launch of yet another report on the importance of acting early? The Early Action Taskforce’s new publication, The Triple Dividend: Thriving Lives, Costing Less, Contributing More partly asks why the rhetoric has so rarely been turned into action.

The Taskforce (a panel of experts, backed by Community Links) identifies, amongst other issues, the way this ‘early action’ spending is dealt with by the Treasury and in spending rules, and the difficulties with spending on early action, when the savings are not necessarily accrued by the department which makes the investment.

The report looks at the problems with evidence – not for the overall economic case for acting earlier but for the business case for each specific intervention. And it considers the issue of shifting from acute to preventative spending in a situation where government can’t just take limited funds away from the acute.

We hope our recommendations go further than others have before in addressing these specific barriers to progress, although they are intended only as the start of a conversation.

And for inspiration we needn’t look far: the Finance Committee of the Scottish Parliament concluded a report earlier this year, which argued that:

“the current reactive approach to public spending is unsustainable. There must be a shift away from reacting to crises to a greater focus on prevention and early intervention.”

The political interest this has engendered for early action in Scotland has culminated in a draft budget proposed this September containing a £500m increase in preventative spending, despite a 9.2% reduction in funding from Westminster. The SNP minister Angela Constance has recently remarked that:

“Apart from independence, preventative spend is the most radical and exciting agenda that this government is pursuing.”

Hopefully before long rhetoric on early action will give way to reality in a similar way at Westminster.

Left unreported is the tragedy that Ken Clarke’s £350m per year cut to the system – to be debated at Report Stage in the Commons next week  – will leave high-profile cases like these untouched. Nor will it properly tackle the extortionate £124m spent each year administering the system. Instead it will deny 650,000 people on low incomes access to vital help with issues like benefit appeals, getting out of debt, keeping their job, or avoiding harassment by rogue landlords.

These cases can cost as little as £150 each, are often delivered by charities and advice agencies like Citizens Advice Bureaux and Law Centres, and even save the taxpayer money – between £2 and £8 for every £1 spent – by stopping problems spiralling out of control at greater expense to the state.

The civil legal aid budget (where the cuts are concentrated) has shrunk 24% in real terms between 1997 and 2004 (pdf), and by 15% in the last 10 years. Over the summer two large legal aid charities closed, partly in anticipation of a 10% cut in legal aid fees which came in at the start of this month. Local advice charities are increasingly struggling as local authority cuts hit hard. And if the changes in the legal aid bill go through, many more will close next year, leaving people with nowhere to turn for help, other than perhaps their local MP.

In social welfare law, only housing and debt cases involving ‘immediate risk of loss of home’ and employment cases involving discrimination will remain eligible for legal aid funding. All other social welfare law cases, including 100% of benefits advice, is being removed – even for complex appeals and tribunals – just as the benefits system undergoes its most significant reform in decades. The Liberal Democrat conference voted in favour of a motion to retain legal aid for advice on appeals, but this is yet to manifest itself in a government change of heart.

Meanwhile almost all legal aid for family disputes is cut, for example with negotiating a divorce settlement and access to children. The only exception is for cases involving domestic violence, to ensure people will not have to face their abuser alone in the family courts. However, even this concession is unsatisfactory, as the qualifying definition of and criteria around ‘domestic violence’ contained in the Bill risk excluding many victims.

During committee stage strong arguments for amendments and improvements on a whole range of issues were bluntly rejected by government, who continue to argue for reform largely based on the need to save money. Yet their proposals, which could end up costing more overall, and seem to protect administration spending over advice for the vulnerable, must be improved.