Fight Back - Persuade a peer to say NO!

[nickd]

Fight Back!




Lord Bach - fights for social justice


Keep welfare benefits legal aid


It's vital funding which we need to help thousands of people with their benefit appeals



What we need people to do is contact their local or representative peer in the House of Lords by Monday April 23rd when the legal aid (LASPO) bill goes back to the House of Lords. It's also worth contacting your MP as they can speak with Peers.

The best links we can find are here..


www.writetothem.com/lords


www.parliament.uk/get-involved/contact-a-lord/lord/


It's really easy via the 'write to them' link, just enter in your area (Town or County) and it will locate you a 'peer' in the House of Lords.

We need as many Peers as possible to be contacted by Monday. Don't worry too much about the legal aid bill not being their specialist area or which political party they represent (some 'cross bench' peers belong to no particular party).

The aim is to contact them to show how much it matters to you.

The site helps you draft your email (you could use my template in next post) or you can write your own. When its ready just copy (by pressing 'CTRL' and 'C' on your keyboard) then paste into the dialogue box on the 'write to them' site' (by pressing 'CTRL' and 'V').

You can find out the full list of peers who voted 'yes' or 'no' via the links here (it was then listed as amendment 11)

mylegal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=frontline&action=display&thread=601

If you need convincing that welfare benefit specialists don't just fill in forms read this..

mylegal.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=frontline&thread=649&page=1

Here's how people end up winning their benefit appeals with legal aid

mylegal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=frontline&action=display&thread=558


It's very easy!
& very important, here's why...[/i][/size]


For the last 12 years many CAB and law centres have been funded by legal aid and some are very reliant on it because they specialise in areas of law like welfare benefits. The Government has voted to axe this funding which means around 135,000 people per year will no longer be able to get specialist help from paid professionals who win around 75% of their cases. For each case their organisation gets paid a fixed fee of just £150 regardless of how long it takes to complete.


The Tribunals judiciary has predicted that the welfare reforms will result in over 2.5 million people appealing for their benefits between 2010 and 2015; the current figures are seeing a huge increase in appeals - the highest ever. Many people do not realise how vital this funding is to people, especially the disabled. Government has chosen to make savings of £16 million at a time when the need of this help could not be greater, they expect people to fight their cases on their own without help. The Lords have already voted heavily to keep this funding but government says no, they have asked the Lords' to agree with them - you could make all the difference by persuading them to say 'NO'.

Here's Lord Bach's amendment..




Lord Bach's amendment for welfare benefits

Schedule 1

LORD BACH

Lord Bach to move, as an amendment to the motion in the name of Lord McNally not to

insist on Amendment 168, at end to insert—


“but do propose the following amendment in lieu—

“(1) Civil legal services for an appeal to a first-tier tribunal, in respect of a social welfare decision relating to a benefit, allowance, payment, credit

or pension under—

(a) the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992;

(b) the Jobseekers Act 1995;

(c) the State Pension Credit Act 2002;

(d) the Tax Credits Act 2002;

(e) the Welfare Reform Act 2007;

(f) the Welfare Reform Act 2012;

(g) the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979;

(h) Part 4 of the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008;

and

(i) any other enactment relating to social security.

(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1), civil legal services includes

independent advice, assistance and representation.””


Fight back - persuade a peer to say NO!

[nickd]

Want some help?





Draft template letter (1)


Here's a draft template you could consider using, it is aimed at refuting Government's claim on estimated financial savings - it challenges the Ministry of Justice on their figures over the cost of welfare benefit appeals in the first tier tribunal. We have all the evidence from official statistical sources to back this up.




Dear..........


Lord Bach's amendment to 168 - to retain legal aid for welfare benefit cases up to the first - tier tribunal. In the House of Lords' on April 23rd.


For the last 12 years many CAB and law centres have been funded by legal aid and some are very reliant on it because they specialise in areas of law like welfare benefits. The Government has voted to axe this funding which means around 135,000 people per year will no longer be able to get specialist help from paid professionals who win around 75% of their cases. For each case their organisation gets paid a fixed fee of just £150 regardless of how long it takes to complete.


Official figures from the Tribunals judiciary has predicted that the welfare reforms will result in over 2.5 million people appealing for their benefits between 2010 and 2015; the current figures are seeing a huge increase in appeals - the highest ever. Many people simply do not realise how vital this funding is to advice agencies in helping people, especially the disabled, to state their case in the first - tier tribunal. in 2010/2011 418,500 appeals were lodged with the Tribunals. This is predicted to have risen to 644,000 a year by 2014/15 as the result of the most radical welfare reform we have ever seen. The Parliamentary under secretary for legal aid Jonathon Djanogly has quoted a figure of £280.71 per appeal for the Tribunal costs alone. In addition to this he has stated in Parliament that the DWP made a contribution of £26.3 million pounds in 2011/2012 to cover the additional cost of ESA appeals. If this figure is applied to the 176,567 ESA appeals in 2010/2011 the extra DWP cost is £148.95 per case.


The addition of the Tribunal cost + the DWP cost means that the total cost of each appeal is £429.66. When this is applied to the Tribunal judiciary figures for 2010 - 2015 it comes to a staggering £1,093,140,972.00 per year (over a billion pounds). The Media has reported the appeal costs as £50 million a year - this cannot be correct and is a considerable underestimate upon which the Ministry of Justice must be challenged on its economic argument.


Government has chosen to make savings of a fraction of the appeal costs by withdrawing legal aid for people with a welfare benefit enquiry requiring the intervention of a benefit specialist. The government's estimated savings figure has been challenged by Justice for All who say it is £16 million a year rather than the £25 million quoted by Government; - this comes to around £90 million by 2015. With success rates of 75% and around 605,000 people being helped by 2015 (subject to scope definition) it is obvious that legal aid for welfare benefit has a significant role to play by contributing towards earlier dispute resolution and avoidance of unnecessary costs incurred by the State in bringing too many defective decisions before the Tribunals. These must be more effectively challenged by way of statutory funded legal aid to lay down a marker aimed at better standards of decision-making.


I thank you for your consideration and would be grateful if you could support Lord Bach's amendment on financial grounds. I also ask you to accept that the intervention of specialists in the first tier tribunal is necessary to deal with the legal issues which arise in these proceedings.


Yours sincerely



[Name]

[nickd]

Want some help?





Draft template letter (2)


Here's a second draft template which you could consider using, it is aimed at appealing to the simple principles of commons sense in backing Lord Bach's amendment.



Dear ( ),

Lord Bach's amendment to 168 - to retain legal aid for welfare benefit cases up to the first - tier tribunal. In the House of Lords' on April 23rd.


On the 23rd April the House of Lords' will ask peers to vote upon amendments to the legal aid, sentencing & punishment of offender's bill. The lords' originally defeated government on no less than 11 amendments at the report stage and I am disappointed that the coalition government has chosen to reject your well considered consideration.


One of the amendments which the Lord's were heavily in support of was amendment 168 which provided for legal assistance to be given to people who had a need of it in respect of a review or an appeal at up the first - tier level in social security appeals. Government has rejected this and made a concession, but only in respect of upper tribunal & higher court proceedings. I do not think this concession goes anywhere near far enough in meeting the needs of thousands of vulnerable & disabled people who need help to challenge the state when it makes the wrong decision. The impact which this can have upon individuals is immense and I strongly reject the Justice Minister's suggestion that people can more effectively get effective help from their Members of Parliament, it is not the same as seeking the help of paid professionals who know what they are talking about and who are currently accessible through CAB & law centres.


Please support Lord Bach's well considered amendment to 168 in support of thousands of people getting the right help at a time of great need. Welfare reform will see thousands of unfair decisions being made and it is vitally important to the principles of justice that people are helped in challenging the state at a time when government's need to reduce the claimant count appears to be more targeted towards economic savings than it is in establishing what is fair. Opposing this amendment will only lead to increased state expense and will do nothing to reduce our deficit; it will have quite the reverse effect.


I would also like to encourage you to try and oppose access to legal aid via a single point telephone gateway - it will do nothing to promote access to justice and will transpire to restrict people who need face to face advice, it will be impractical in its application and serve as a great source of frustration to those who need to see a specialist in person.


I thank you for your consideration and would be grateful if you could support Lord Bach's amendment on financial grounds. I also ask you to accept that the intervention of specialists in the first tier tribunal is necessary to deal with the legal issues which arise in these proceedings.


Yours sincerely



[Name]

[edyourself]

edyourself.org/articles/DLAhouseoflords.php#emailaddressesLibDemandCrossbench

as it says on the tin, LibDem and Cross Bench peers email addresses (bearing in mind the point about Xbenchers being the ones to get mylegal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=frontline&action=display&thread=601

Fiona

[nickd]

Many thanks Fiona to have included the direct links to peers - excellent!!. I would also remind people to contact Labour Peers as in turnout terms a fair number stayed away, this was also the case with cross benchers and cons/liberals. Maybe don't go giving a wake up call to conservatives unless they are likely to go for voting against their own party - it may be better if some definitely stayed away!

I'm losing faith in all of these liberal promises to rebel, when push comes to shove they go with the conservatives; - usually after getting helpful publicity over saying they will stand their own corner.

It's a difficult call. Definitely worth trying to persuade a few conservatives, if you think they'll listen. Whatever people do, they need to do so today - this is being called tomorrow!