Memorandum submitted by Mr Phil Cosgrove
THE FUTURE OF THE PUBLIC TRUST OFFICE
I am concerned about the scandalous way that the
Public Trust Office (PTO) is to be broken up and the damaging
effects this will have on the mentally ill in our society.
There has been insufficient consultation from
which to form responsible proposals for change to the service
delivered by the PTO. The Chant proposals should have been referred
to all levels of the judiciary, lay receivers, carers, clients,
Trustees, and a proper representative sample of Local Authorities.
Generally all those who have a stake in caring for the mentally
incapacitated have not been given a proper say on the way they
would wish the current service to be improved.
The following are just some examples of the
misguided way in which the Chant Report is being taken forward
at the PTO:
1. Not one receiver, carer, Trustee or client
has been consulted over how their investments are to be managed
in the future. The PTO manages £4 billion worth of assets
and the Patrick Gifford report (on the PTOs Investment Division)
remains confidential!
2. Patrick Gifford who worked for Flemings
suggests that the minors funds and the Securities work in the
Court Funds Office (CFO) could "be conducted on an in-house
basis possibly by Flemings". There is no indication of value
to patients or certainty of impartial dealing. Two of the consultants
interviewed for the Gifford report work for Flemings. (See Annex
A[5]).
3. In the Receivership Division, where the
PTO acts as receiver, there has been NO consultation with patients
or carers.
4. In the Protection Division, which supervises
the activities of lay receivers, there have only been 43 replies
out of 22,000 to a bland newsletter, (See Appendix B*) which many
receivers claim they never received.
5. In the CFO there has been a total failure
to consult the Association of British Insurers who make the bulk
of payments in satisfaction. Clearly the CFO meets a commercial
need and it is insane to kill off an operation which returns £6
million to the Treasury.
6. Again in the CFO, there has been no consultation
with rank and file judiciary who deal up front with minors and
patients.
7. There has been a complete failure to
consult Trust Lawyers over the legal practicalities of privatising
Trust Division—further indication of the sheer superficiality
of the Quinquennial Review (QQR).
8. Total failure to understand the nature
of the "Who Decides" report recommending beefing up
an independent and impartial public sector operation.
9. Little consideration has been given to
Human Rights implications. All the more odd because this was a
point made vehemently by the PAC at the oral hearing.
10. Work is already going ahead, prior to
the Lord Chancellor's announcement, on disposal of cases where
the client has assets of less then £10,000. No arrangements
have been put in place to protect these funds. It is estimated
that up to 25 per cent of the caseload may be disposed of in this
manner.
11. Substantial numbers of skilled and experienced
staff are being diverted to other duties to do with the implementation
of the QQR recommendations. There has been a moratorium imposed
on recruitment and promotion. These factors mean that an intolerable
burden is placed on the remaining staff who are committed to delivering
a service under impossible conditions.
12. Staff feel pressurised into leaving
the office by unmanageable workloads and uncertainty about the
future. Approximately 100 agency casuals have been taken on in
a desperate attempt to maintain a basic service. There is an obvious
risk in this strategy from the point of view of confidentiality
and fraud prevention.
13. It is proposed to set up an Agency dealing
with Enduring Powers of Attorney (EPAs) in two years time. What
is the point of abolishing the PTO and setting such a new agency
after getting rid of the majority of the skilled and experienced
staff now in post? And how much will it cost?
14. How much will it cost to implement the
QQR and how much would it cost just to keep and properly resource
the PTO?
15. Newspapers have reported that both the
Inland Revenue and the Benefits Agency have had their accounts
qualified by the National Audit Office. It is also reported that
the Inland Revenue has lost £171 million of tax payers money
in purchasing their new computer system. Yet it is proposed to
hand the accounting functions to these two departments.
16. There is a conflict of interest in that
the main business of these two departments is to sort out social
security claims and tax returns. Can they really appeal against
their own decisions?
17. There is also a conflict of interest
inherent in the proposal that Social Services Departments should
be asked to administer those cases where clients are resident
in homes sponsored by the Local Authority. When it comes to checking
whether the correct residential fees are being paid to the Council,
who will check that the assessment is correct?
18. Cuts of £16 million are being proposed
in the Court Service Agency. It is therefore difficult to see
how any proposals to move functions of the PTO to the Court Service
could be financially viable let alone improve the service to the
PTOs clients.
What is needed is proper consultation with the
"Real Stakeholders" before any decision to implement
the Chant report.
CONSULTATION AFTER
IMPLEMENTATION IS
WORTHLESS!
The Lord Chancellor says that we must consider
very carefully the full implications of any changes we make. I
do not believe that the full implications are being considered
or property costed.
I believe that the implementation of Chant will
prove costly to the taxpayer while at the same time prove financially
lucrative to the City and Solicitors such as our former Chief
Executive. At the same time it will prove disastrous for the most
vulnerable members of our society—the mentally incapacitated.
Phil Cosgrove
31 March 2000
5 Not printed. Back
| 
