It is not risky any longer to predict that our new prime minister will be Andy Burnham. It is more difficult to predict what difference he might make for our profession. (If the new prime minister is Wes Streeting or another as yet unknown candidate, what follows is still valid in terms of assessing the decisions that have to be taken.)
Andy Burnham – like Tony Blair and Liz Truss, he will never be known by his full first name - has been shifting position on some issues recently to accommodate his predicted new role. For the time being, he is mainly known for policies like nationalisation of public utilities, support for cost of living, and more regional devolution.
But the challenge facing any prime minister is where to find the money – and none of Andy Burnham’s policy positions come cheap. Regardless of his personal programme, there is more or less common agreement that there needs to be a painful shift in spending from welfare to defence, since, first, the country cannot afford to fund both areas fully at the same time, and, second, our armed forces are not ready for growing military challenges (unreliable America, warlike Russia, increasingly powerful China). The delay in finalising the Defence Investment Plan was among the fatal accusations against our current prime minister’s reputation.
If Andy Burnham wants to distinguish himself from his predecessor, and meet the hopes of the country, he will have to be decisive, and make difficult decisions quickly and firmly. We have been warned that all departments need to make cuts to meet our defence needs.
That is not good news for our profession. The Ministry of Justice needs much more money, not a penny less. The backlogs in court and tribunal cases and in other institutions like the Probate Registry, the pitiful levels of legal aid remuneration, and the poor state of court infrastructure are the most glaring examples of lack of public investment.
Given that Andy Burnham will need to be quick and authoritative in his opening days, I predict – it is not difficult - that defence will receive more and justice will receive less. If we take off our solicitor hats and put on our citizen hats, we may welcome that. But it will make our professional life, and access to justice for our fellow citizens, much harder.
There is a range of other political issues in which we have an interest.
Before discussing them, we will of course be changing from a lawyer prime minister to a non-lawyer prime minister. Recent lawyer prime ministers - Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and Keir Starmer - have not necessarily brought better news for lawyers. Margaret Thatcher broke the conveyancing monopoly, Tony Blair introduced the Legal Services Act 2007, and Keir Starmer tried to diminish the right to jury trial. Lawyer prime ministers have never proved an easier ride for lawyers. (Their supporters would no doubt point to other policy issues on which their legacy has been better for our profession.)
It is probable that the right to jury trials will be reinstated to its present greater universality, to give the new prime minister a quick win among Labour MPs.
The future of the conveyancing changes announced last week is more difficult to predict. I expect the crackdown on immigration to continue, to mitigate the threat to Labour from Reform.
But what about anti-SLAPPs legislation? This has been discussed throughout this government’s life, after its partial materialisation in the last government’s Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. We are now faced with two anti-SLAPPs bills at once, through separate private members’ bills in the Lords and the Commons, because of the government's failure to include the issue in the latest King's speech. Neither has much chance of becoming legislation, given their place down the list of private bills. If they do proceed, there will be future difficulties for our profession, since a powerful group of defamation lawyers is opposed to further action, placing the Law Society in the invidious position of having to navigate conflicting views within the profession itself.
Bigger questions remain as to whether a Burnham government will be any different to a Starmer government on issues like the regulation of, and the UK’s growing dependence on, US technology – which should be tied in to our overall review of national security – and, more pertinently for us, although too granular a detail at this stage of the political process, the future of the Legal Services Act 2007 in the light of the recent regulatory disasters.
Who would want to be prime minister? It is a thankless task at any time, but now even more so. At least Andy Burnham will not have to worry about alienating his former professional colleagues as he shovels large amounts of money out of the justice sector into our nation’s defence.
Jonathan Goldsmith is Law Society Council member for EU & International, chair of the Law Society’s Policy & Regulatory Affairs Committee and a member of its board. All views expressed are personal and are not made in his capacity as a Law Society Council member, nor on behalf of the Law Society
No comments yet