Post by Patrick Torsney on Feb 16, 2011 19:43:49 GMT
We didn't need the Gazette to 'confirm it'. I confirmed it via Twitter some time before, via a live broadcast of the Committee hearing itself, and the email Alert to over 1,400 subscribers shortly after and still well before any of the online media managed to get something up. The Gazette was throwing out what was, by then, old news. In fact, if any of you had been following @ilegalbytes on Twitter, you would have known last night
Does this sound grumpy? It's been that kind of day, so no apologies
Post by Colin Henderson on Feb 17, 2011 8:32:56 GMT
Well that's me told! I must never have doubted ilegal would be first with the good news and it is my own fault for not being a twitter geek. I must be punished... I know! I'll do five thousand lines to appease the fearless one's wrath. Here goes:
I must never skim read my ilegal Alerts again. I must never skim read my ilegal Alerts again I must never skim read my ilegal Alerts again I must never skim read my ilegal Alerts again I must never skim read my ilegal Alerts again (this could take some time... ) I must never skim read.....
Post by Patrick Torsney on Feb 22, 2011 10:03:15 GMT
Hi carita, afraid not. If anyone else has any idea, please feel free to reply
The other thing while I remember, is that we have now begun alphabetising/ordering the responses within this section. This will take a little time. If you can't find a particular response in the meantime, don't forget that this section now runs over onto 2 pages so you might need to look over the page
How many is "over 5,000". It could be 5001 but it could be 10,000 or more. Can we get some MP to ask Djanogly for precise figure? How many people have they got reviewing the responses? They say they will respond by Easter- 8 1/2 weeks from now! Is it possible to review 5000+ properly in that period and respond properly and draft legislation if that is their plan ( which it is ,"if necessary"-see their business plan available on line) in such a short period? I think we should be told.
Post by Patrick Torsney on Feb 24, 2011 14:56:15 GMT
We do not yet know how many responses exactly. From re-listening to Djanogly at the Justice Committee's fifth session, he says "about 5,000" and at another point a member of the panel says "5,000", indicating a dead 5k. I doubt the latter, that would be just too strange
So, you would have thought it was just short of 5,000 or just over. As soon as I find out, I'll post it here. If anyone else picks it up first then please share
By the way, for those new to this area on ilegal (I'm aware that the Guardian has linked to it today in a piece by Jon Robbins so you may have come through from there) the list of responses runs to two pages now so please go over the page if you wish to see the whole 'collection'
We've also been trying to group responses wherever practical and appropriate. It's not an exact science. If you can't find anything or need some help post a message and let us know
If you know of more available responses then also please either post the links yourself or draw mine or the team's attention to it. Alternatively, feel free to email me any responses directly and I'll host it on the ilegal servers if this is easier
Post by Patrick Torsney on Feb 28, 2011 20:24:18 GMT
Please carry on posting your responses. They'll automatically go onto the second page of the listed responses at the min but will be incorporated into the main listing, alphabetically, as soon as we're able. It's a big job, please bear with us
Interesting stuff-how to avoid answering specific questions from our Parliamentary representatives ! On line today from Hansard on 28 Feb 2011, Mr Djanogly MP avoids answering precisely how many responses there were to the legal aid consultation paper when questioned by Andy Slaughter MP. The MOJ has 36.5 staff working on various aspects of policy-does not answer specifically how many working on legal aid consultation response. Click on "Hansard source" on right side of page once opened link below to see further questions to him from MP's on legal aid yesterday. Perhaps we should put in a Freedom of Information request don't think they are allowed by law to fudge that?
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many (a) legal firms, (b) individuals, (c) law centres, (d) citizens advice bureaux, (e) advocacy groups and (f) others responded to his Department's recent consultation on proposals for the reform of legal aid in England and Wales.
Jonathan Djanogly (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (HM Courts Service and Legal Aid), Justice; Huntingdon, Conservative):
The consultation responses are still being processed therefore we are not able to provide this information at this time. I will write to the hon. Member with the information requested as soon as it is available.
Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the timetable is for bringing forward legislative proposals arising from his Department's Green Paper on legal aid reform. 
Mr Djanogly: We will bring forward legislative proposals to the House as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Mr Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what steps he is taking to improve access to mediation services as part of his legal aid reforms. 
Mr Djanogly: The Government propose to retain legal aid for mediation in family matters. The 2010 bid round run by the Legal Services Commission saw an 11% increase in the number of mediation providers, with 201 organisations providing services in 1,002 locations across England and Wales. The Government are also working with the Family Mediation Council to ensure there is sufficient mediator provision and to increase awareness of mediation for the future.
Alun Cairns: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the five highest amounts of legal aid paid in respect of a single case were in the last 10 years; and in which areas of law these cases were brought. 
Mr Djanogly: The information requested is not readily available as it involves matching data in different formats from several current and legacy schemes. The information therefore could be provided only at disproportionate cost.