.
Dear Sadiq Khan. When you left Christian Khan to become an MP, you said you could bring about more change as a politician than a lawyer. What happened?
Sadiq, you and I have a shared history at the well-known legal aid firm Christian Khan, renamed when you became an equity partner, from the earlier Christian Fisher, where you did your training and got your first cases. When you left in 2004 to enter parliament, you said you felt you could have more of a role in effecting change as a politician than as a lawyer and this was a position I respected. I expected to see you do great things, pursuing the values and objectives we shared at Christian Khan, particularly when you became shadow justice secretary. Unlike many ministers, you have had a real job outside politics, and it was one which uniquely qualifies you to understand the importance of the rule of law.
But I and many other legal aid lawyers have been deeply disappointed by Labour’s failure to take a principled position on access to justice. There is nothing about it in the Labour Party manifesto and the commitment to supporting victims of crime rings hollow if, for example, some domestic violence victims are effectively denied access to the civil courts. The pledge to repeal the bedroom tax will not help those unable to get access to advice, when facing eviction for housing benefit mistakes.
It is simply unsustainable that Labour could let LASPO remain on the statute book, with people forced to rely on food banks unable to get legal advice.
Although you have spoken at demonstrations against legal aid cuts, you have just repeated a mantra about not reversing the cuts. There has been no passion, no commitment to principle, and no inclusion of access to justice among Labour’s core values. While there would be outrage if you said that your willingness to fund properly the NHS would depend on your ability to reduce the deficit, you apparently feel no such compunction about austerity affecting access to justice.
More recently, a better understanding of the damage which has been done to the rights of vulnerable people seems to have developed in parliament, not just in the Labour Party but among backbench MPs generally. As Lord Low said in evidence to the Justice Committee: ‘It makes more sense to put a fence at the top of the cliff, than to call the expensive ambulance when the person has fallen to the bottom.’
This increasing parliamentary awareness of the devastation to the legal aid system has been accompanied by some recent Labour promises. In January this year, you pledged not to implement the slashing of contracts for criminal duty solicitors and to review the planned cuts in criminal legal aid fees. Since then, you have also said you will repeal measures in relation to judicial review, which will have a chilling effect, and will look at the evidence requirements domestic violence victims have to meet to qualify for legal aid.
But these are still minimal pledges of very limited ambition.
What is needed after the election is a proper inquiry with outside experts to examine the legal aid system. Here are just two suggestions for increasing funding but not costs – but there could be others:
‘Unlike many ministers, you have had a real job outside politics, and it was one which uniquely qualifies you to understand the importance of the rule of law’
•Restore personal injury to legal aid in a new category of conditional fee, backed by legal aid cases. Before it was removed from legal aid in 1999, PI used to pay its way. Since then, claims managers, insurance companies and some solicitors firms have made huge sums from it. Excess fees (the difference between legal aid and commercial rates), or success fees could instead be paid to a new Legal Aid Board and help support welfare advice.
•Create a levy on City solicitors firms and on barristers earning very large sums of money.
I realise that getting agreement to set up a proper inquiry may need some political courage within your own party, but I really hope that you are coming to appreciate that access to justice is a requirement for our democracy and not an optional add on, depending on finances. If you did achieve the restoration of a fair legal aid system, you would more than meet your aim of achieving change through politics and assure your place in history
Yours truly, Louise Christian