Liberal news - a bit of 'Potter Magic' at work?

[nickd]

A bit of Potter magic





But it's not Harry, it's George!




It looks like a young Liberal at conference by the name of George Potter has successfully argued for an amendment motion over some changes to ESA and legal Representation for appellants over protection of their benefits.

There was much late night tweeting and internal messaging over this, not to mention hurried finger twitching of keyboards to see what transpired. I'm grateful to a couple of new members on Mylegal for their sterling work on this and for the power of twitter for spreading the word.

I'm not sure who did all the magic and what will come of it yet, but it's a massive step in the right direction. Seems like James Sandbach from Citizens Advice has come in for some pretty good praise too! Well done James. See here..

diaryofabenefitscrounger.blogspot.com/

Brilliant work by Diary of a benefit scrounger; great work there!

And also....

www.libdemvoice.org/the-independent-view-coerced-bullied-and-fighting-back-living-with-multiple-sclerosis-and-welfare-reform-25224.html

You'll see the name George Potter and someone call Rachel, I know who she is and until I have her permission to use her name I'll just say she's a Mylegal fan!

Here's what Rachel wrote (amongst many other eloquently expressed letters) on the Libdemvoice blog post...

"I recommend Nick D’s of MyLegal’s piece on Welfare Reform which he started in June to enable people to pick their way through these, reforms. It is a massive read but very entertaining. It helps make a start on understanding the reforms and their intricate simplicity. I have copied a few paragraphs just to show how good it is and here’s a link to the (long) thread for your consideration;

"(1) The Welfare Reforms are delayed; it’s a good job, but it’s merely postponing one almighty car crash!!

Iain Duncan Smith radically launched welfare reform, actually he got off to a good start, but where this will go wrong is when you start to look at the detail…

By Nick D

I have to say that upon reading Lord Freud’s ‘introductory information pack’ of the welfare reforms into the House of Lord’s I was astounded at how attempts by the coalition government to simplify the system have been made so incredibly complex; – reading this introduction filled me with fear as to its consequences, what on earth will implementation of these reforms do to the lives of claimants?

Before you can get to Lord Freud’s ‘Vision’ statement, you’ll need to read through a full 102 pages; – it’s so textual that you’ll probably end up with a ‘visionary’ problem by the time you reach the end, I’d recommend you read it with a glass of wine or two, or three; – or perhaps a full bottle, you’ll need it. How on earth can anyone maintain this is simplifying the system? – it does no such thing. Any simplification measures which may be effective are far outweighed by others which will add further complexity.

This is the most bizarre attempt at trying to convince the Lords (who will consider the bill at some stage – thankfully it’s been delayed until September) that this is an effective simplification system. With no offence to the Lords, they are people that by and large won’t have the first clue about claiming benefits, if you introduce a bill like this and make it sound like all of the complexities have been carefully sorted out, people will probably fall for it hook line and sinker. The Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) warned that the ‘devil would be in the detail’, there’s no end of the devil in this bill – but the details leaves a lot to be desired; – it just hasn’t been thought through in terms of it’s practical application. This is not the way to fix a ‘broken’ benefits system.

mylegal.org.uk/index.cgi?board=frontline&action=display&thread=405&page=1"

All I'll say is a bit of power from those least able (in body but not spirit) seems to have mixed with a bit of Potter magic and to me that's just great!!


More on George Potter's site...

thepotterblogger.blogspot.com/2011/06/where-ive-been.html

Here's how the Telegraph reported a live blog of the motion being passed...


16.25 Conference is now debating disability benefit (ESA) and the Work Capability Assessment run by ATOS, a contractor.

Sarah Harding of Liberal Youth is asking for a "less stressful" test and say many subjects report suicidal feelings. She said the test is flawed, its descriptors unclear and consequently 40 per cent of appeals are successful. She is calling for reforms to the scheme proposed by Prof Harrington, taking into account fluctuating conditions, to be adopted. She also calls for those appealing welfare rulings to be given free legal representation.
Several delegates with disabilities have taken the platform to attack the new "tick box regime" of work capability assessments.
But Michael German, Monmouth, defends the WCA regime in bringing an end to the "ensnaring welfare trap" and says it is too costly to give legal aid to appellants.

Update: Motion passes - Conference, led by the Lib Dem's youth wing, have issued a rebuke to the Coalition's cornerstone welfare reforms. (Although the DWP is likely to argue the WCA was under review anyway following Prof Harrington's report).



More on this tomorrow folks, sleep is needed!

See www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/8768046/Liberal-Democrats-Party-Conference-2011-live.html

[nickd]

So what does Liberal leader say the following morning, any hint of what stance his party will take?

Nick Clegg on Andy Marr this morning explained how £18 Billion of what he said would be 'new money' would be ploughed into the economy to stimulate growth; - although he gave hints about where the money would come from and spoke of a mixture of public/private investment, nothing was clearly identified.

he talked of the wealthy paying their fair share, he said it was not right on morals to reduce the burden on the wealthy. 50 p rate stays; - but there was an 'unless'.

Liberals are there to support those on benefits who are prepared to work and play by the rules. (very much the same as Cameron I have to say)

Far too soft on repeat crime, supports Ken Clarke as revolutionary on criminal justice .

Denied claims he will only serve one term only, he says the Daily Mail is wrong.

Didn't deny coalition agreement beyond 2015.

Labour can look after poorer families and bankrupt the country.

There was no mention of anything which said his party is committed to challenging welfare reform; those within the party need to make sure he takes on board what the rank and file are saying.

People need to lobby their Liberal MP's intensively on this potential amendment! The rank and file must bring their leader into line.

[nickd]

If anyone has the precise motion details passed at the Liberal conference yesterday could you please post it on here as although it relates to changes in ESA assessment, It would be good to get some clarification over whether it supports the need for legal representation as well?

[nickd]

From what I can gather from the 'Diary of a Benefit Scrounger' website, the proposed amendments which were put forward were these:


After C. (line 25), insert:

D. That vulnerable cases like this, where a welfare recipient’s income is threatened ,should qualify for free legal representation.


Delete 2 (line 35) and insert:


2. Liberal Democrats in Government to oppose an arbitrary time limit on how long claimants can claim contributory ESA.


In 3. (line 36), after ‘representation’ insert: ‘and expert advice, and for Government to reconsider the exclusion of welfare benefits casework such as this from the scope of legal aid.


After 3. (line 36), add:

4. A presumption that ESA claimants with serious and uncontrollable life-threatening conditions should be allocated to the support group rather than the work related activity group.


5 A review of ATOS performance in delivering the Medical Services Agreement contract with
DWP in respect of the quality of medical assessments.


6. Effective contract compliance for contractors carrying out ESA eligibility assessments to avoid poor performance, and a presumption that in future ESA eligibility will be carried out by the public sector or non-profit organisations.

____________________________________________________


Here's some of my own thoughts on the amendments and how they could be further amended;


I'm still trying to track down the original amending motion as put forward, I reckon I may know someone who can shed some light on these.

Remember, this is only a motion - it is not one which will necessarily change the legislation, but it's definitely a step in the right direction.



(1) These amendments need a clearer definition as to 'vulnerable' and should be extended to and include any appellant who needs legal help to challenge a decision of the secretary of state.

(2) The instances where legal help or representation should be available should not be restricted to solely a loss of income, but should include any risk of the liberty of an individual as in a dispute against the secretary of state's decision under civil legislation which may give rise to the threat or action in a criminal court (as in overpayment related cases).

(3) That legal help be given to claimants where it is likely to lead to an earlier resolution of a dispute due to the complexity of the issues prohibiting an appellant from an understanding of the case against him without the appropriate level of legal help.

(4) That a decision-maker or Tribunal may authorise an appellant to apply for funding from the legal services commission; for legal help on any welfare benefit matter by way of an amendment on the Tribunal, Courts & Enforcements (procedural) Act 2008. In which case the secretary of state must authorise the application providing the appellant is eligible to receive help.

(5) That no contractor funded (indirectly or directly) by the state to provide welfare to work services should take part in any judicial determination over the level of support a claimant may be entitled to where it may have a bearing on the level of remuneration payable by the state to the contractor.

(6) No claimant who is terminally ill or suffering from (cross referring to other regs) or in receipt of the higher rate care of Disability Living Allowance, Attendance Allowance or Personal Independence Allowance shall be required to take part in any assessment (beyond what may be required to ascertain a qualifying diagnosis) and shall be entitled to contribution based Employment & Support Allowance beyond any time restricted claim period (unless otherwise entitled to an income based Employment & Support Allowance).

(7) That the bill be more properly scrutinised with a particular emphasis being placed on ensuring adequate impact assessments have been carried out by way of the commissioning of an approved & independent expert body who shall be commissioned to enquire into:

(1) The impact upon those who are physically or mentally disabled.

(2) The conduct of the media in reporting articles which are factually incorrect and likely to incite hatred against groups who should otherwise be fully protected by anti-discriminatory legislation.

(3) The full cost of private contracting the Work programme and other Private Funding Initiatives with projected accounts being placed in the accounts of each government department.

(4) The viability & costs of the IT systems needed to implement welfare reforms.

(5) Identification of areas of legislation which gives rise to the loss of right a claimant has to appeal to an independent tribunal a decision of the secretary of state within a reasonable time scale.

(6) The provision of annual reports which publicize the cost of implementing welfare reform against savings to the state in such a manner that a member of the voting public shall reasonably be expected to understand.

(7) The impact upon the voluntary sector as to loss of funds and reduction in services which may give rise to consequential loss in other funding by way of breaches in service level agreements with particular regard to matched funding and ensuring sufficient paid staff remain employed in sufficient ratio to adequately supervise voluntary staff.



I'm sure more will spring to mind !

[jman]

Guardian blog reports that Lib Dem conference voted for legal aid to chalenge ESA assessments. Lets see whether or not their MP's keep that promise

Quote


"..........................5.18pm: Delegates have passed a motion criticising the government over disability benefits. It relates to employment and support allowance, the new benefit being brought in to replace incapacity benefit, and the work capability assessements carried out by the private healthcare firm Atos which are used to decide whether claimants qualify. Here are the key points from the motion and the amendement (that was carried).

• Lib Dems voted for an amended motion saying that Lib Dems in government should "oppose an arbitrary time limit on how long claimants can claim contributory ESA". The government wants people to only be allowed to claim contributory ESA for a year, which became the subject of a row at PMQs earlier this year when Ed Miliband pointed out that cancer patients could lose out.

• They voted for people appealling against work capability assessments to be eligible for legal aid. (The government is excluding welfare benefits casework from legal aid.)

• They voted for the work capability assessments to be made "less stressful".

• They voted for a review of Atos's performance in carrying out medical assessments............"

confirmation of the motion passed is also on the Potter blog link below


thepotterblogger.blogspot.com/2011/09/victory.html

[nickd]

Have you got a link to the Guardian blog Jman? I suspect more will come out over this tomorrow via J4A.

[nickd]

Here's the full text from George Potter's blog...





Victory!

"I am typing this on the train home from Lib Dem conference - the conference doesn't finish until Wednesday but I have work on Monday. I am in a fairly ecstatic mood due to the incredible victory we won yesterday in passing the ESA motion along with an amendment to it which strengthened it significantly.

The full text of the version of the motion passed by conference, making it officially Liberal Democrat policy, is as follows:

Conference notes:

i) That eligibility for the Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) benefit is determined by the Work Capability Assessments (WCAs) which are currently carried out by Atos Healthcare, a private company.

ii) That currently 70% of assessed rejections which go to appeal are subsequently overturned, though the appeal success rate is lower for claimants without representation.

iii) That the way in which WCAs are conducted has been criticised by Parliamentary Inquiries and by the Tribunal Judiciary.

iv) That the Liberal Democrat-Conservative Coalition Government has stated its aims to support people who are fit to work move off state benefits and into work and support those currently unable to work to prepare for work in the future.

v) The on-going reviews of Work Capability Assessments led by Professor Malcolm Harrington, which have made recommendations on how the WCA process can be improved.

vi) That the Government has so far implemented the vast majority of the recommendations made by Professor Malcolm Harrington.

vii) The Government’s Welfare Reform Bill proposals to simplify the appeals process for claimants.

Conference believes that: (my emphasis in italics)

A. It is the duty of a compassionate society and government to provide the necessary support for those who are unable to support themselves.

B. The old Assessment procedure, when claimants were assessed using a ‘tick box’ questionnaire, did not take into account the claimant’s medical history as provided by their GP and/or Consultant.

C. The new Assessment procedure must aim to reduce the number of cases which are overturned on appeal.

D. That vulnerable cases like this, where a welfare recipient’s income is threatened, should qualify for free legal representation.

Conference calls for:

1. The Government to continue to implement Professor Harrington’s recommendations on reforming the WCA as a priority, in addition to an emphasis on:

a) Clearer Assessment criteria and descriptors, to make it more apparent under what circumstances ESA is paid.

b) Ensuring greater accuracy in Assessment, particularly for those with fluctuating conditions.

c) A less stressful Assessment process.

d) People with disabilities getting the support they need.

2. Liberal Democrats in Government to oppose an arbitrary time limit on how long claimants can claim contributory ESA.

3. All ESA claimants going to appeal to be given access to adequate representation and expert advice, and for Government to reconsider the exclusion of welfare benefits casework such as this from the scope of legal aid.

4. A presumption that ESA claimants with serious and uncontrollable life-threatening conditions should be allocated to the support group rather than the work related activity group.

5. A review of ATOS performance in delivering the Medical Services Agreement contract with DWP in respect of the quality of medical assessments.

6. Effective contract compliance for contractors carrying out ESA eligibility assessments to avoid poor performance, and a presumption that in future ESA eligibility will be carried out by the public sector or non-profit organisations.

Just before I left conference to catch my train, I also attended a meeting between members of the Liberal Youth executive (who sponsored the motion) and representatives from the DBC, a disability organisation. The meeting was in order to work out how best to push the story of the ESA motion in the media and in parliament to ensure the necessary changes are made. Having sat in and contributed, I am positive that there really will be a strong drive to convince parliamentarians of all stripes to support the changes and I am fairly confident of the changes getting made.

Sarah Harding, who made the excellent speech proposing the motion (due to my replacement as the proposer at the start of the week), will be appearing on the BBC in the morning along with Steve Webb, the Lib Dem Pensions Secretary, and possibly a representative of the DBC, in order to discuss the motion as the start of our media campaign.

I also happen to know that 50 out of 57 Lib Dem MPs apparently indicated that they would back the changes in the Commons. This means the focus must now be on the Lords where the changes can be made to the Welfare Reform Bill before it gets passed back to Parliament. And that focus is what Liberal Youth will be working on ahead of the vote in the Lords in two weeks time.

I'd just like to say thank you to the brilliant Sue Marsh and her fellow campaigners. Without them fighting on this issue I would never have known about the dangers of the changes to ESA or been inspired to write a motion to change the situation. They are the real heroes of this and any credit that there may be should definitely go to them.

Finally, in case you're interested, my own speech in the debate on the motion can be found here:

(need to insert video when I can get link)

Posted by George Potter at 19:19


Nick's Note:

I'm obviously pleased over this motion and welcome it greatly, but there remains a fair few unfilled gaps. I am far from convinced that people would be right to think the appeals system can be simplified given the enormous numbers of appeals before our tribunals and I remain greatly concerned over the Work programme and its 'real time' effectiveness in getting people back to work using private contractors who are paid by results.

I have no wish to put a damper on any of the positive work done here, I am confused over the mention of an 'old system', it has been modified and from what I see on the frontline there is little sign that the changes have made anything any better. The LIMA logic system is still in place as is the legislation and until such times as they are both dramatically overhauled, there is still a long way to go.

the fundamental misunderstanding which remains is the very purpose of Employment & Support Allowance. It is the mechanism by which people with a limitation should be recognised as needing help, rather than as a highly set bar which enables people to be more easily moved over to cheaper and less supportive Jobseeker's Allowance.

Please refer to my earlier post on amendments.

Please listen to those on the frontline!

[nickd]

Justice for All coverage

"Lib Dems condemn welfare benefit legal aid cuts"

Liberal Democrat party conference yesterday called on government to retain legal aid for people appealing welfare benefit decisions, as they voted through a motion condemning government’s welfare reform plans.

The Legal Aid, Sentencing, and Punishment of Offenders bill which is currently going through parliament will remove legal help for all welfare benefits cases, including for people appealing against government decisions, for example on disability benefits. This will come into force at the same time as radical changes to the welfare system, which are also being debated in Parliament this month.

The amendment to the motion, which was accepted, calls “for Government to reconsider the exclusion of welfare benefits casework such as this from the scope of legal aid.” In the debate, Liberal Democrat members pointed out that 40% of appeals on Employment and Support Allowance are successful, and that legal help and representation increases the chance of a successful appeal. The vote yesterday follows a motion at the Liberal Democrat Spring Conference condemning the legal aid changes, and disquiet among Liberal Democrat members over the Bill.

Cutting legal aid for welfare benefits will disproportionately effect disabled people - 58% of those affected by the change are disabled, 78,000 people a year. A Justice for All briefing, endorsed by major disability charities, has more details.

The Liberal Democrat stance sends a powerful statement to government, and we hope Lib Dem MPs and Peers will be strongly arguing for this change to the Bill when Parliament returns after party conference season."


www.justice-for-all.org.uk/News/L....-legal-aid-cuts

[nickd]

Law Society Gazette covers Lib Dems vote for legal aid for welfare benefits appeals.

Extract and link to full story below

"Lib Dems call for legal aid to be retained in benefits appealsMonday 19 September 2011 by Catherine Baksi"

The Liberal Democrats have condemned the cuts to legal aid for welfare benefits appeals.

At its autumn conference, the party called on the government to retain legal aid for people appealing welfare benefit decisions, and voted through a motion condemning the government’s welfare reform plans.

The motion included a call for government to reconsider the exclusion of welfare benefits casework from the scope of legal aid.

It followed a motion at the Liberal Democrat spring conference condemning the legal aid changes.

The Legal Aid, Sentencing, and Punishment of Offenders bill, which is currently going through parliament, will remove legal help for all welfare benefits cases, including for people appealing against government decisions, for example on disability benefits.

It will come into force at the same time as radical changes to the welfare system which are also being debated in parliament this month.

In the conference debate, Liberal Democrat members highlighted that 40% of appeals regarding Employment and Support Allowance are successful, and that legal help and representation increases the chance of a successful appeal........."

Rest at link below

www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/lib-dem....enefits-appeals