There was an instructive moment during this week’s Labour party conference. It came when shadow justice minister Alex Cunningham issued a – qualified – rallying call to the legal profession.
‘We want your ideas for how to fix the system – just don’t ask for any money.’
It was notable on two levels. First, in line with party policy generally, Labour’s purse strings are as tight as a drum.
But second, it would appear that, with perhaps less than a year to go until a general election, Labour appears to have no discernible plan for how to fix what they roundly described as a broken justice system.
Pledges to increase the number of prosecutors and introduce specialist rape courts were welcomed by delegates, but many noted these were repeated from last year. Measures to give women greater employment protection and extra property rights if they are not married were also well received. Yet there remains a sense that, while this is a party with a keen and astute sense of the problems faced by the justice sector, there is no clearly articulated strategy for dealing with them.
Certainly, there is to be no more funding for the justice system until the economy has recovered – and no obvious timescale for when that might happen. In this respect there was probably more merit in listening to shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves than her justice colleague Shabana Mahmood (pictured). Reeves told the conference that change under a Labour government would only be achieved on the basis of ‘iron discipline’, and shadow justice ministers more than once talked of how they would have to sweet talk the Treasury in the hope of securing extra money.
Mahmood, a former barrister who became shadow justice secretary last month, said: ‘I am not in a position to make a big commitment. It is hard but I must be very clear the only policies we are putting forward are those which are fully funded.
‘I make no apologies for the fact we are in a fiscally constricted environment. The economic inheritance is going to be really difficult and there is not going to be much money around, so we have to act within those constraints.’
Shadow attorney general Emily Thornberry warned that the party would have to rebuild the justice system over time, but much of this would be unglamorous work. Cunningham told another fringe event that the Conservatives were guilty of a ‘dereliction of duty’ in their handling of justice, but cautioned that under Labour, ‘I can’t see [change] being delivered very quickly’.
Labour, led of course by a prominent lawyer, eschews the rhetoric coming from Conservative politicians about elements of the legal profession. There was even a fringe event dedicated to asking whether ‘lefty lawyers’ benefit the country. Mahmood’s enthusiasm for what she called her ‘dream job’ was palpable, and she was keen to strike a different tone from home secretary Suella Braverman.
‘I will never allow the judiciary or the legal profession to be scapegoated for doing their job, on which our democracy depends,’ she said.
‘It is beneath the dignity of governing and the rule of law when a flailing government attacks [lawyers].’
There was a poignant moment during one fringe event. Word got around that Leigh Day solicitor Jacqueline McKenzie, the subject of a critical briefing earlier this year from Conservative Campaign Headquarters, was in the audience. She was ushered forward to speak and gave an impromptu speech about the hate mail and threats she and her staff have endured in recent weeks. She is even scared to post on social media for fear of reprisals. McKenzie received a lengthy standing ovation from the audience, many of whom were clearly moved by her treatment and stoical response to it.
Certainly, there is no lack of ideas from the grassroots of the party. The Society of Labour Lawyers published a comprehensive 40-page document on the creation of a new National Legal Service to coincide with the conference. Many of the proposals involved upfront investment. But the authors stressed, for example, that increasing civil legal aid would boost Treasury coffers through reduced demand on the NHS and social housing, as well as offer indirect societal benefits from proper family, employment, housing and immigration advice.
If the Labour justice team wanted ideas, these members have them in spades. But while spending pledges are verboten, the prospect of substantive, far-reaching reform is slim.
