It has perhaps become commonplace to compare the problems that one thought the world would face in the summer of 2020 with the realisations that may have dawned in the summer of 2021. In the summer of 2020, it was shocking that, so soon after the Conservative party had declared the end of austerity, governments around the world suddenly faced the almost unbelievable costs of the pandemic. Unbelievable, because the impact of austerity on the legal system had been profound.
Among the many costs, academics were aware that lawyers had lacked the resources to support their clients, courts struggled with delay, funding for children and other vulnerable persons was restricted; and, in a particularly sad development, a strong sense of ‘them and us’ started to grow in communities, alongside the suspicion that the legal system worked one way for the wealthy, and another way for everyone else. Worse, cuts to benefits, and other important services of the state, exacted a heavy price in human life expectancy, accessibility for disabled people, fairness for refugees and a list of other tragedies too numerous to count here.
So, in summer 2020, it seemed important for legal academics to be able to say never again. Austerity had cost too much. The inevitable drive to repay the sovereign debt that had funded 2020’s summer of furlough and other measures, it felt important to warn, should not be pursued at any cost. The impact of the winter of 2008 had continued for well over ten years, and had been immeasurably cruel. It seemed important to warn the government that the mistakes of the past should not be repeated in efforts to repay the costs of the pandemic.
This was an urgent message. There was no time, say, to wait and see what choices the government would make, collect the evidence of impact, and produce papers a couple of years on. The message that the legal system could not bear another decade of austerity-like cuts was urgent, and needed to reach policy makers. Thus, with the support of Bristol University Press, a collective of scholars set about writing short pieces, with remarkable alacrity, directed towards their areas of expertise. Our message: this is a time for reconsideration, not a time for funding restriction. We dare to propose that it is not only possible to make the legal system better, but imperative that we do so.
This collection came to print in less than a year. It contains pieces unlike any other many of us have ever written, some of us over fairly long careers. Written to be direct, accessible and to pull no punches, Pandemic Legalities aims to forge a partnership between policy makers and academia, and to provide a primer on the post-pandemic, post-austerity legal system. The collection is diverse, and contains a variety of messages, but there is a single, simple, unifying theme. When the authors started their chapters 12 months ago, it is fair to say that at least some of us expected that lockdown would end well before teaching began in autumn 2020. At that point, the global summer protests were yet to come. The pandemic still felt like an event that would end sooner rather than later. The size of the impact from COVID-19 had not then become discernible and, in truth, we now realise, is still not truly assessable.
This is not simply because we do not know when the pandemic is going to end, and when it will be time to determine how it is going to be ‘paid for’, although we remain alarmed at the prospect of who, without intervention, is likely to pay the price. Indeed, the interventions that might prove transformative are surprising. For example, choosing not to afford state protections to ‘fast fashion’ businesses that do not support workers’ rights is as much a part of a package of solutions as, say, ensuring that virtual courtrooms provide supportive environments for participants and their families. Considering the impact of yet another procurement scandal, or yet another example of government ministers not complying with their own rules, upon citizens from whom much will yet continue to be asked is at the least a sensible starting point for a discussion of the meaning of ‘Freedom Day’.
It appears that ‘Freedom Day’, or 19 July 2021, the day on which many restrictions were lifted in the UK, seems set to serve as one of those odd markers of the time. Remember the Remdesivir scandal, or Emily Maitlis’s brave remarks one evening in the summer of 2020 on Newsnight? No? Well, there is a strong chance that you noticed it at the time, but there has simply been too much news, too many developments to really be able to recall all of them from the past year. This final point, thus, is perhaps the most important: it is crucial to maintain focus. In supporting the post-pandemic legal system, there is a role for all of us to play. So, when updating our teaching materials for the new term, academics must not focus only on the ubiquitous ‘blended’ model, but on the lessons from the racialised pandemic. And, when making clear to government the importance of choosing next steps wisely, we must make clear that the lack of attention afforded to the Coronavirus Act 2020 will not be repeated for further actions taken by this government. Yes, we are watching, but we also have some ideas that might help.
Freedom Day may barely be remembered come summer 2022. As the pandemic promises to continue to exact a terrible cost over the next year, this seems likely. Yet as with the aftermath of the crash of 2008, the choices made in these months will be felt for years to come. This collection calls for thoughtful, informed and targeted reform in response to COVID-19; and, hopefully, sets out a path for pragmatic next steps.
Ann Mumford is Professor of Taxation Law at King’s College London.
Dave Cowan is Professor of Law and Policy at the University of Bristol.
Pandemic Legalities: Legal Responses to COVID-19 – Justice and Social Responsibility is available on the Bristol University Press website. Order here for £19.99.
Bristol University Press newsletter subscribers receive a 35% discount – sign up here.
Follow Transforming Society so we can let you know when new articles publish.
The views and opinions expressed on this blog site are solely those of the original blog post authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Policy Press and/or any/all contributors to this site.
Image credit: Witthaya Prasongsin on Getty images