That points to a problem for me, and this is a problem that a lot of people tell me about when they come to my office. It is not a problem at your level, but perhaps a problem in the bureaucracy of the Department of Veterans Affairs, where, if cases are at all contentious, it might be--and I don't want to cast aspersions on the department--it might be safer to refuse them. Maybe they would appeal; maybe they wouldn't.
I am assuming that not 100% of people who should appeal do appeal. Perhaps some who would have a story to tell don't appeal because of the problems there are. I have a couple more points I'd like to make, but I'd like you to reflect on whether you see that as a problem.
Second, and again, I don't want to cast aspersions.... I am not sure that there is, but the number makes me nervous at that level--anything above 30% should make us nervous when they are refused and do find favour with the tribunal.
The second question is on the advocates who are named for these individuals. Are they named by the tribunal, by the department? Are they employees of the department? Are they private sector legal people who are on a call list? Perhaps before I continue you could answer that for me, because it's important in the remainder of my comments.