Legal Aid Cuts Will Hit Women, Warns Conservative MP Anna Soubry

Huffington Post UK   Dina Rickman First Posted: 19/09/2011 23:11 BST Updated: 19/11/2011 10:12 GMT

Senior backbench Conservative MPs are concerned about the government’s changes to legal aid, Huffington Post UK can reveal.

As the government prepares to cut £350m from the legal aid budget, Conservative MP Anna Soubry has said she and some backbench colleagues are concerned about how this will affect women.

"We're not happy about the changes in legal aid… we're fearful they will affect women who are separating from husbands. We've identified that as a problem."

The coalition’s cuts to legal aid mean that in civil law cases, those going through divorce will no longer be entitled to help from the state.

In a meeting on Saturday attended by the attorney general Dominic Greive, the Chairman of the Family Law Bar Association said families, and victims of domestic abuse, could be hit by the cuts.

"If the government pushes through its proposed cuts to legal aid, the future for family justice looks bleak.

“This is not a matter of lawyers bemoaning further fee cuts: we have the support of a number of voluntary organisations representing women, children and victims of domestic abuse. These reforms will result in 54,000 fewer people represented in the family courts annually, affecting 68,000 children at the centre of traumatic family breakdown.”

The lawyer representing the family of Milly Dowler has also joined a rising chorus of objections to legal aid cuts, saying the reduction in so called ‘no-win-no-fee’ agreements would make it more difficult for individuals to take on large corporations which retain extensive and highly-paid legal counsel.

Tory MP Anna Soubry told the Huffington Post UK that she would not have a problem with the coalition's agenda, so long as there was test under which new policy would be examined to see if it strengthened female support.

There is widespread concern among Tories that female voters are deserting the party. The backbench MP says it’s clear they will impact women more than men.

“We have to persuade people that we are in touch with the needs and desires of all sections of society. And perhaps we haven't done a great job of that… the cuts will affect those women more profoundly. It's a very sad fact but hopefully when the growth comes, they will see why we had to do that.”

But Soubry said that the prime minister was sensitive to backbenchers’ concerns.

The internal tension over legal aid comes as Liberal Democrat coalition members have been pressured not to support the changes to legal aid.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “At more than £2 billion a year we have one of the most expensive legal aid systems in the world. It is also a system that has grown to encourage lengthy, acrimonious and sometimes unnecessary court proceedings at taxpayers’ expense.

“We are clear we must reform the system to ensure that legal aid will continue to be available to those that need it most.

“These serious cases, including those where protection is sought against domestic violence, child abuse, child abduction and forced marriage, will continue to routinely receive legal aid under our proposals. We have also extended the powers for Courts to require one party to pay towards the other's legal bills.

“We are also providing £25 million, more funding than ever, to help separating couples finalise their arrangements through mediation.”

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK POLITICS

 
 
  • Comments
  • 12
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
European1919
I am the PigmⒶn
12:23 on 21/09/2011
They'll hit men as well, so where is the problem?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tim Haselden
An Enemy of Rupert Murdoch, since 1984.
11:35 on 20/09/2011
THEY'RE NOT HAPPY? What are we , the long suffering british public, ecstatic?
02:47 on 20/09/2011
The only vacation I can afford is traveling to the news column under "UK" on the front page. *sigh* Hello UK! :p
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
floodberg
Attorney (ret.)
05:07 on 20/09/2011
Welcome, Briana Anway, to the other side of the Pond!  It's actually as bad as our ole USA, with the added joy of the EU, except it's more cerebral and civil on this side!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
John michael Adams
05:55 on 20/09/2011
well... at least we dont have a tea party bunch of people who keeps on whining about taxing the rich.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tim Haselden
An Enemy of Rupert Murdoch, since 1984.
10:23 on 20/09/2011
You forgot to tell her, she may find us a bit socialist.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tim Haselden
An Enemy of Rupert Murdoch, since 1984.
10:16 on 20/09/2011
Our put downs are a lot wiittier & we don't make death threats like some of the tea party chaps.
Floodberg, is on the whole correct. We are a lot a like, The EU ? Really Flood ;-) Oh and there are fewer trolls.
Oh and a last word of advice, you may find us a bit "socialist" to your liking.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
floodberg
Attorney (ret.)
18:31 on 20/09/2011
Tim, there has to be counterbalance to big money's ability to buy legislation and favours.  Given that, I have issues with UK and US pols in both parties. On the US boards, the party ideologues can't do a logical rebuttal (because the educational system here stopped teaching writing, outlining and logic in the early 1960s, and economics is a foreign language.) 

If Britain hadn't the guts to stand alone in WWII, the US and Europe would be very different. Current EU/€zone policy is designed to remove UK as a military/political obstacle to DE; and that counterbalance is critically important to world politics. 

The economics and trends (disparity, disposable income, price inflation/wage depression) of UK and US right now puts them on equal footing with Russian citizens in 1917, the Arab Spring countries...this never ends quickly or well.  People can only be pushed so far economically before violence erupts; and that's why Cammie's being hard-line on rioters.  My country is 3rd world poverty without safety nets; I hate watching suffering being imposed just to make folks rich. (Can you smell 'Utopia'?)

I got an MBA/JD; kept my staff for 30 years (intact) because they did their jobs brilliantly and let me do what I loved with no worries. Their salaries were double market, and benefits (flextime, fully paid medical, sent 'em all to college, most had grad degrees, and great retirement benefits); they made more than 90% of the established lawyers I know and retired without worry.  My father knew and liked my staff; 'your biggest fear is losing them; you pay them in line with how they benefit you, not what the market says is their value.'  I'm good, but I couldn't have done any of it without them working as a team.