By chance, I came across an old newspaper cutting. ‘The Palace Christening’ was an undated story, from an unnamed newspaper, of the baptism of Prince Charles. Apparently, it took place in the ‘white and gold music room at Buckingham Palace’ and Princess Elizabeth (now known as ‘R’) wore an ‘off-the-face brown hat’ trimmed with ribbon to match her coat. The ‘photograph on page 3’ was missing, as will be familiar to anyone who has asked clients to bring their papers in.

Overleaf, however, the half-article with a partial headline caught my eye: ‘… AID SCHEME … Estimated at … and £750.’

A bit of Googling revealed that the date of Prince Charles’s christening, 15 December 1948, was also the day of the second reading in the House of Commons of the original Legal Aid and Advice Bill. This groundbreaking major piece of legislation to establish a proper national system of civil advice and assistance was celebrated in LAG’s 2019 booklet Legal Aid Matters, published to mark the 70th anniversary of its royal assent.

How interesting to see what those who set up the scheme said at the time – the time of the post-war Attlee government when the Labour party had swept to power in 1945 with a huge majority. The country had fought a devastating ‘total’ war where no one had been spared and the people had decided it was time for change. This session of parliament had passed numerous significant reforms, most notably the groundbreaking National Health Service Act 1946. In 1948 alone, parliament had already legislated on national service, criminal justice (abolishing penal servitude, hard labour and whipping), a major overhaul of British nationality, factories, agricultural wages and radioactive substances. There was also the monumental National Assistance Act, which remains so important today.

The first thing reported in the newspaper clipping (or at least the part that survived) was the comment of the former Conservative attorney-general and future lord chancellor, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, that ‘the opposition was in general agreement with the bill. The necessity which underlay it was one which nobody could overlook’.

Brigadier Medlicott – who, in 1948, was Norfolk East’s National Liberal MP, a party then in alliance with the Conservatives – said ‘it might seem the bill was not vitally urgent’, no doubt referring to some of the major legislation I mentioned above.

However, the newspaper reported, the brigadier continued, ‘the efficient working of the system of justice was an essential element in the working of democracy. It was with some concern he found the annual expenditure under the bill would be as much as £4,370,000 … They had already seen in the National Health Service the estimates made being exceeded, and they must be prepared to find that these estimates were too low. In all the circumstances, he thought this expenditure was justified by the needs of the day. A vast amount of injustice was being suffered through people not always being able to go to the courts’.

Powerful stuff indeed. Precisely why adequate legal support was needed then and is still needed today.

Several other MPs pointed out that the bill did not go far enough. Hector Hughes (Labour, Aberdeen North) pointed out that ‘the class which found it difficult to get justice and who were not assisted by this bill was the middle class’ – a problem that successive governments have worsened rather than improved. A note of surprise to today’s reader are the calls by MPs Bessie Braddock (Labour, Liverpool Exchange) and Emrys Roberts (Liberal, Merionethshire) for legal aid to cover defamation cases.

Returning to the comments of Brigadier Medlicott, he was reported to have complained, ‘with regard to the remuneration to the lawyers engaged in the scheme, which was limited to 85 per cent of the taxed costs, he could not agree this reduction was justified’.

Imagine any MP in today’s parliament supporting legal aid lawyers being paid 85 per cent of assessed standard costs, let alone arguing they should get the full market rates. Legal aid would be a very different thing and we would certainly not have the advice deserts to which so many of today’s population fall victim.

Of course, what is most astonishing to us now is that the legal aid scheme was created at a time of genuine austerity and many other incredibly pressing social needs. I dare say the brigadier was made of sterner stuff than many of today’s MPs.