Memorandum submitted by Mr and Mrs S J
Phillips
LETTER TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE
My husband and I wish to respond to information
we have received about a discussion pending, regarding plans to
disband the Public Trust Office.
My husband, Stephen, has been involved with
the Public Trust Office for a number of years following a compensation
award after his road traffic accident in 1992. At that time, his
father was appointed receiver by the Court of Protection.
Each year, a visitor from the Public Trust Office
visits Stephen to ensure his individual needs are being met. Although
this may sound routine, the unique role of the visitor was made
more clear towards the end of 1999.
Stephen and I had been married just over a year.
We were a couple of months away from moving into our own home.
Unfortunately, communication difficulties between Stephen and
his father, as receiver, regarding his financial situation had
arisen. Without "control" of his own money, Stephen
and I were unable to plan our future. It seemed intolerable to
us both, in our late twenties, married and months away from living
independently, to rely on another person to provide Stephen with
access to his own money. As an independent, working, professional
person, I was quite angry that I may have to ask my father-in-law
what my husband's financial position was.
Although Stephen is physically disabled and
using both a wheelchair and lightwriter (electronic communication
aid) he fully understands what is said to him and can express
himself clearly and intelligently.
Stephen was fortunate to have a "visitor"
who not only listened to his/our concerns but put those concerns
into positive action. Stephen is and was treated as an individual
by the visitor. His physical disabilities were not seen as a barrier
to his independence and within six weeks of the visit, Stephen
and I travelled to London to meet The Master. This meeting enabled
Stephen to set wheels in motion and begin the process of taking
control of his own finances.
We doubt this would have been possible without
the Public Trustees.
Stephen is particularly distressed that a panel
of solicitors may replace the role of the trustees. The relationship
he has developed, he feels, would be lost.
Stephen would be hugely disadvantaged due to
his speech. Typing to communicate takes much longer than the oral
word. Also, charging an hourly rate immediately disadvantages
a person who takes longer to communicate than others.
In fact, the plan to move away from the Public
Trustees where both time and money are against the individual
seems rather exploitative and not supportive as our experiences
demonstrate. We firmly believe that without the Public Trust Office
visitor, Stephen's concerns regarding the receivership and his
future would not have been heard. He would not have met with The
Master and not gained permission to draw up papers to discharge
the receivership, make his own will and control his own future
as he is about to do.
Please do not be mistaken into thinking that
people with physical disabilities who come under the care of the
Public Trustees are also mentally disabled.
My husband and I believe quite strongly that
disbanding the Public Trust Office would be a negative step. We
feel its uniqueness in what its visitors achieve cannot be accomplished
through panels of solicitors.
It is not a service of checking benefits. It
serves to hear the voices and meet the needs of individuals in
a fair and open manner.
The Public Trustees have enabled Stephen to
control his life and future, enhancing his self-esteem and value
as a contributing member of society.
We trust you will consider our views during
your discussion.
Justine Phillips BS (Hons)RN(A)
Stephen John Phillips
28 March 2000
| 
