Memorandum submitted by the Public and
Commercial Services Union, Lord Chancellor's Department Group
SUBMISSION TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS HOME AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE ON THE FUTURE OF THE PUBLIC TRUST OFFICE
1. INTRODUCTION
Our primary objective is to protect jobs and
careers. Our members are not opposed to change and are actively
involved in the current change programme. We represent a well
trained, professional and caring work force who, given the opportunity,
are committed to taking forward government policy for the mentally
incapacitated.
2. ALTERNATIVE
OPTIONS
Chant concentrates on the transfer of the work
of the PTO to the private and voluntary sectors. Other public
sector options are simply not considered. For example:
— retain the PTO with agency status;
— retain the PTO without agency status
as an associated office of LCD;
— break up the PTO and disperse its
various functions/divisions to LCD and/or the Court Service.
So far as we are aware, no cost benefit and
risk analysis of these have been undertaken for comparison with
similar analysis of the Chant proposals.
3. EFFECTIVE
MANAGEMENT
Chant was extremely critical of senior management
at the PTO, yet all members of the Management Board responsible
for past failures remain in post. The only "casualty"
is the former Chief Executive who has been recruited by a leading
firm of solicitors to head up their Court of Protection team as
it seeks to take over much of the work which Chant recommends
should go to accredited solicitors.
We believe that the staff have been seriously
let down by senior management and LCD and that if effective management
were put in place the PTO could reform and would thrive.
4. INVESTMENT
IN SERVICES
One of the past failures has been to secure
adequate resources to invest in the PTO to allow effective service
delivery.
Sources indicate that the likely one-off cost
to the taxpayer of implementing the proposals to break up the
PTO as recommended by Chant will be in the region of £39
million. Sources also indicate that the likely ongoing cost to
the taxpayer (based on the best estimates that can be produced)
of passing the work of the Receivership Division alone to accredited
panels would be in the region of £6 million per annum in
subsidies.
We believe that the investment in the PTO of
a proportion of these sums will prove more beneficial to both
clients and the taxpayer than Chant's proposals.
5. CONSULTATION
We believe that the attempts at consultation
with the current body of receivers and patients themselves have
been nothing short of disgraceful. The newsletter which purported
to be an invitation to receivers to take part in a receivers forum
is attached at Annex A[2].
There were 43 responses to the newsletter which went out to 25,000
receivers. Receivership Division patients were not consulted.
6. MENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES
(a) Disposal of cases with assets below £10,000
We believe that this will discriminate against
the poorest patients. It would mean that only the wealthiest patients
would be afforded any meaningful protection for their assets and
it could potentially open the floodgates to the unscrupulous to
prey on the poorest section of the most vulnerable people in society.
We understand that, in addition to a review
of all cases to identify those which fall in this category, the
disposal of some of these cases has already started before any
announcement is made on the future of the PTO.
(b) Receiver of Last Resort
The Chant proposals negate the concept of a
receiver of last resort. It is probable that accredited panels
would be unwilling to take on the whole of Receivership Division's
caseload as it is currently constituted. This would lead to the
least attractive and most problematic cases remaining in the public
sector making it extremely difficult for whatever body is left
holding the rump of the caseload to have any realistic chance
of covering operating costs through fees. Consequently this body
is likely to require a substantial subsidy besides that paid to
the accredited panels.
Sources indicated that Receivership Division,
with its present caseload, will require a subsidy of £3 million
per annum following the introduction of a proposed flat fee regime.
(c) Freedom and Protection
It is important to strike a balance between
the need to protect a patient's assets and providing an external
receiver with the freedom to handle a patient's affairs. Unfortunately
Chant is not very helpful in pointing the way forward here. There
is no attempt to strike a balance between two extremes. Rather
than seek to find some middle ground, Chant recommends that external
receivers are given as much freedom as possible with patients'
finances but are then harnessed by a robust accounting regime.
We believe that one result of this will be to reduce the number
of lay receivers who will be willing or able to act and to increase
the number of professionals who will doubtless charge "the
going rate" for what at present can be done voluntarily by
a family member or friend.
(d) Use of other Government Departments or
Agencies
We are opposed to the proposal to use the Inland
Revenue and the Benefits Agency to carry out some of the functions.
These organisations already have severe problems of their own
and we believe that transferring work to them would result in
the work being marginalised when what is needed is for it to be
given a higher priority within the PTO. We understand that the
recently established Consultative Forum is not in favour of the
involvement of these bodies as they perceive a potential conflict
of interests.
7. INVESTMENT
FUNCTIONS
We believe the further report into the PTO's
investment function written by Patrick Gifford contains factual
inaccuracies and omissions which cast doubt on its findings. To
expand on this highly technical area, a copy of a letter written
by some of our members who work in Investments Division is attached
at Annex B.[3]
8. CONCLUSION
We are very much aware that our members face
further major challenges when the proposals set out in "Making
Decisions" (Cm 4465, October 1999) are actually implemented.
We believe that a strong PTO will be better situated to implement
these changes than the fragmented administration which will result
from the implementation of Chant.
We would ask the Committee to ensure that there
is proper and detailed consideration of all options and alternatives
for dealing with all of the work of the PTO, and full and meaningful
consultation with all interested parties.
We would be happy to give supplementary oral
evidence to the Committee to expand on these and any other points
which it has not been possible to cover in this brief submission
if it is felt that this would be useful or desirable.
J C Pizey
Branch Secretary,
Public Trust Office Branch
April 2000
2 Not printed. Back
3
Not printed. Back
| 
