Members Dining Room, Artichoke and tomato salad with truffle dressing for £2.05, Seared breast of pigeon with aubergine purée and spiced couscous for just £4.15. Risotto of pea and broad bean with Golden Cross goat’s cheese costs £2.40, Char-grilled rib-eye steak with hand-cut chips and béarnaise sauce pay £7.80.
Green tea and white chocolate brûlée for £2.05 Cheese board for £3.10.
Terrace restaurant, Spinach, ricotta and sundried tomato pizza with a rocket salad costs £2.75,
Moncrieff’s restaurant Roasted half spring chicken with stuffing for £2.95.
Pugin Room bar, Glass of malt whisky, Cointreau liqueur or Grand Marnier costs £2.55. Glasses of 2009 Sauvignon Blanc or 2010 Merlot are £2.35.
Sales in Parliament’s 19 restaurants, nine bars and one coffee shop fell 8pc to £7.5 million in the financial year 2010/11. This means for every £10 an MP spent on lunch, the public contributed £7.60. Total subsidy £5,800,000
Where is the Like button when you need it? Nickd and Ikbikb, thank you both for these posts. They are just the tone and content that are needed to help persuade many people I meet (who do not see themselves or their families as ever likely to be affected by changes in WB Law) that the LASPO cuts WILL contribute to returning us to the social welfare condtitions of pre-Victorian England, and WON'T save much money in the process. Thank you.
Hugh Barrett's view is that the Government will not bring back a re-worded Regulation. His view (like McNally's) is that this was a 'use it or lose it' situation - a 'one off' offer - and not part of a negotiation. He said the situation in the Lords was 'bizarre' and that now the ltd WB advice for UT matters would be out of scope forever (700+ cases would now not receive legal aid thanks to the Lords).
Although his later presentation did include f2f WB advice from Oct 2013.
Post by Patrick Torsney on Dec 5, 2012 16:28:00 GMT
Briefed by McNally you think?
Thanks Chris, that's really useful
For info, Hugh Barrett is Director of Legal Aid Commissioning & Contract Management at the LSC. His background is Dept for Communities and Local Government. Previously, CEO of the Office of Government Commerce buying solutions. Prior to that, he held commercial roles in British Telecom, Mars and British Airways
As to whether Barrett is correct? Well, I don't know but I guess we'll know soon enough. More generally, I have to say that it does disappoint me that someone in such a position would describe justice being pursued in our highest constitutional house as "bizarre", but there you go, nevermind
Post by StephenMichael on Dec 5, 2012 16:46:24 GMT
nickd (Mylegal) How judges will love rushing though thousands upon thousands of appeals only to end up having to spend a good few hours typing up and reasoning their decision because appellants aggrieved by unjust judgements will continually want to know why; what's more advice agencies will be telling them to do just that!
A tribunal clerk told me yesterday that if a tribunal judge only has one statement of reasons to do then they don't get paid. If they have more than one to do then they do get paid So I think there will be huge cost implications to HMCTS
Anyway this answers my question as to how is it that sometimes you have to wait ages for a statement of reasons (The judge has been hanging back waiting for a 2nd request so that they get paid)
Post by Colin Henderson on Dec 6, 2012 10:19:43 GMT
I do think the MoJ will tough this out and not reintroduce the regulation. Why? Mainly because I predict Tom Brake and co will let them. Hugh Barrett was just repeating the official line - which is take it or leave it. McNally is quoted as saying so in the Gazette:
"Justice minister Lord McNally rejected the accusation and said he did not believe the regulation removes access to justice. He said concessions had been made to retain legal aid in a ‘vast swathe’ of welfare cases, but said that further concessions could be made.
‘Having listened carefully to the arguments we agreed to make available legal aid for advice and assistance for welfare benefit appeals on a point of law in the upper tribunal. In addition we agreed to make legal aid available for advice, assistance and representation for welfare benefit onward appeals in the court of appeal and the supreme court,’ he said.
But he said that at no point had the government pledged to provide legal aid for all first-tier benefit appeals. ‘The government's position throughout has been that in these economic times we need to target legal aid at cases of the highest priority and where it is needed most,’ he said.
He urged the house not to take the issue to a vote, warning: ‘I must make it clear that, if the amendment is carried and this concession is lost, the act is still an act of parliament and will still be implemented in April but without this concession. I would consider that a rather pyrrhic victory.’ The government was defeated by 201 to 191." www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/no-legal-aid-cuts-social-welfare-appeals
I haven't checked Hansard but I presume that is right.
Post by Patrick Torsney on Dec 6, 2012 11:37:40 GMT
Yes, it's right. For completeness, here's Lord Bach's official statement released afterwards:
In response to the Government’s 201-191 defeat in the Lords this evening over Lord Willy Bach’s ‘fatal motion’ to the LASPO Act, Lord Bach said:
“This is a victory for Parliament in holding Ministers to their word. What the government should now do is fulfil the undertakings given in the House of Commons at ‘ping-pong’ by the then Lord Chancellor. That would do something to alleviate the position of those highly vulnerable people, including many with disabilities, looking to appeal to First Tier Tribunals on points of social welfare law.”
“Ministerial threats to withdraw any concession whatsoever were particularly unappealing to the House, and government now has a duty to respond in a more generous manner.”
I did ask the question of the Labour Lords Twitter account on the night - click on picture to enlarge: