Don't get your hopes up too high (well at all really) but there is a magic get out to LASPO which in theory could destroy the entire bill. Post from the Waugh Room
"The Waugh RoomNews, gossip and insight from PoliticsHome Editor Paul Waugh Tuesday 24th April 2012 | 08:54
Will Sundance Win the Day? The Government faces a second round of ping pong on the Legal Aid bill today. But as it gets ready to pong the peer's ping, news reaches me of a Hollywood celebrity appearance in the Lords last night.
Due to the late votes, some peers rearranged their evening engagements and brought guests into the Lords during the gaps in business.
Labour peer and film producer David Puttnam brought in Robert Redford* - yes, old Sundance himself - who spent the evening being very charming indeed to Jan Royall and Angela Smith.
Although it was defeated three times, the Government did manage to win five votes last night, mainly thanks to a strong showing from Lib Dem peers shoring up a relatively low Tory turnout. Given the Coalition's current troubles, maybe David Cameron and Nick Clegg will have a wry smile at the title of Redford's next film, a political thriller titled 'The Company You Keep'.
Then again, speaking of Sundance, maybe the PM and DPM won't want to be reminded of two gunslingers who were forced together by circumstance and both ended up dead.
More seriously, the legal aid bill today could prove quite a handful. Some insiders have been muttering that the real problems stem from a lethal cocktail of Jonathan Djanogly's inexperience and intransigence and Lord McNally's habit of dismissing crossbench concerns.
The key issue of saving legal aid for victims of respiratory diseases - including mesothelioma - was one of the three amendments passed by peers and returns to the Commons this afternoon.
I'm told that because financial privilege has not been sought, a rejection of the amendment by the Commons could lead to the entire bill being lost. This is all down to that rare Parliamentary event: 'double insistence'.
According to Erskine May, Page 639, 'double insistence' is where one House insists on an amendment to which the other has disagreed, and the other House insists on its disagreement. If this point is reached, and neither House has offered alternatives, the Bill is lost.
However, Erskine May goes on to say "there is no binding rule of order which governs these proceedings in either House, and, if there is a desire to save the Bill, some variation in the proceedings maybe devised in order to effect this object". ...................."
Post by Patrick Torsney on Apr 25, 2012 17:56:36 GMT
You're welcome James, and you too. Thank you for taking the time to post - much appreciated
I'm sure the readers of ilegal will appreciate your good wishes, especially Nickd and Jman who have worked tirelessly and at significant personal cost, throughout. We were never the 'formal' campaign, but we certainly were the voice of the people doing the work