Public Trustee (Liability and Fees) Bill (Hansard, 15 October 2002)

§ The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Right hon. and hon. Members will know that this is a short but important Bill affecting the work of the Public Trustee and his office. I am pleased to say that the Bill has received support from both sides of the House. In essence, the Bill makes changes to the Public Trustee Act 1906 in two areas. It removes the requirement for full cost recovery for trust work in order to prevent the large increase in fees that the current provisions would necessitate. The Bill also amends the 1906 Act to make the Lord Chancellor responsible for fees in respect of the Public Trustee's work, rather than the current formula which places that responsibility with the Treasury—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order for the House to come to order so that those of us who are interested in the Bill can hear what the Minister is saying?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Alan Haselhurst)
I am ever grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that the House has heard his words.

§ Ms Winterton
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Keith Vaz (Leicester, East)
Will the Minister tell the House how many representations she has received from individuals, organisations or trustees about the Government's proposals?

§ Ms Winterton
As far as I am aware, we have received no representations other than the thoughtful and considered responses from hon. Members.
The Bill also repeals section 7 of the 1906 Act, which relates to the liability of the consolidated fund for liabilities arising from the activities of the Public Trustee and provides that for the future, were such liabilities to arise, they should be met from the Lord Chancellor's Department's estimate. The Bill also tidies up provisions on the Public Trustee's liability to beneficiaries. In preparing the Bill, we found that the purported exception to the Public Trustee's liability to beneficiaries in section 7 of the Public Trustee Act 1906 had no legal effect and thus serves no purpose. We have taken this opportunity to remove it.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, both sides of the House have acknowledged its importance and, in Committee, we had a constructive debate that did justice to the issues and the context in which they arise. 262 Following that discussion, I wrote to all members of the Committee to clarify the role of the Official Solicitor and the Public Trustee.

§ Mr. Allen
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which she handled the Committee stage. She made a complicated matter clear, even to a non-lawyer such as myself. She made several points about a case of great concern in my constituency—that of the Strelley social club and the amount of money that needs to be disbursed to former members. She was very sympathetic, which was much appreciated in my constituency. Will she take this opportunity to briefly update the House on the position in the case at the moment?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Before the hon. Lady replies to that point, it might be helpful if I inform the House that a large firework display will take place across the river at any moment. It might cause loud noises and I would not wish the House to be confused about the cause of any disturbance.

§ Ms Rosie Winterton
I should expect nothing less during the course of my speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) is as assiduous as ever in raising his constituents' concerns. I believe that 1,800 former members of the Strelley social club have been written to, and that about 1,000 have replied. Staff will look at the replies to sort out who will benefit from the residue of that fund.
I should also like to pay tribute to all those hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee and spoke on Second Reading. They drew attention to the work of the Public Trustee in dealing with the affairs of very vulnerable people, and in ensuring that the fee regime does not bear unduly harshly on them because of outdated legislative arrangements. I have appreciated the interest and good humour with which our proceedings have been conducted.
On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) noted the speed at which the Bill had passed through the other place. He has been replaced by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). We in this House have, rightly, spent a little more time on the Bill than was the case in the other place, but I hope that we can all agree that this modest Bill is worthwhile. I am happy to commend it to the House.

§ Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath)
I can certainly welcome what the Minister has said about the Bill's importance. I thank her for her welcome to me, although I am returning to old haunts in reassuming my present role, as I have previously been Opposition spokesman for Lord Chancellor's Department matters. After a year's absence, I have that responsibility again, and I am delighted to be associated with the latter stages of this important Bill.
However, the Minister will know that some concerns have been expressed about the Bill. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) intervened earlier to ask about constituency issues, and my hon. Friend the 263 Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) has inquired about matters arising from reports from the Select Committee on Public Accounts compiled under various Chairmen, among them my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis).
I have also encountered a case in my constituency that is not dissimilar to the one mentioned earlier in the Bill's passage through the House by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer). On behalf of those of my constituents who have been affected, I have expressed to one of the Minister's predecessors my concerns about the hugely long time it has taken the Office of the Public Trustee to respond to inquiries. I therefore take a particular interest in the changes that the Bill will make.
The Minister rightly said that there has been no dispute between the parties with regard to the Bill. The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) will speak for the Liberal Democrats on this matter this evening, and I am sure that he will confirm the statement by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) at an earlier stage of the Bill's passage through the House. That hon. Gentleman said that his party, both in this House and in another place, welcomed the Bill.
However, I want to raise a couple of further concerns. One is the confusion that may be caused to constituents by the renaming of the office. Those who have followed the passage of the Bill will know that, on 1 April this year, the office was relaunched as the Public Guardianship Office. As it turns out, however, the same person will occupy the twin roles of Official Solicitor and Public Trustee.
The Minister rightly said that the Bill transfers financial responsibility from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Lord Chancellor. I do not have much confidence that the change will improve the efficiency with which matters will be handled in the future. My experience, as both a Front-Bench spokesman and a constituency MP, has been that the Lord Chancellor's Department does not respond as quickly as the Treasury when questions are asked of it. It would be useful if the Minister were to give a binding guarantee that constituents will not have to wait for months and months for correspondence even to be acknowledged by the new Public Guardianship Office and by the individual who will be both the Public Trustee and the Official Solicitor.
Also, if there are concerns in future about the operation of the Public Guardianship Office, I hope that the Minister's Department will respond with dispatch when hon. Members write on behalf of constituents. That was a huge concern under the old regime, before this Bill was introduced.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North asked a question in relation to the Strelley social club. I do not think that it would help the debate if I were to take that further, but the Public Trustee has a responsibility to look after people who are often severely disabled as a result of the effects of pharmaceutical drugs. They are among the most vulnerable people in our society. The case in my constituency to which I referred earlier involved people trying to look after seriously disabled relatives whose financial assets were under the control of 264 the Public Trustee. When dealing with such cases, it is vital to be able to get quick answers. Some of the cases can be complex, but there should at least be a rapid acknowledgement of any matters that are raised.

§ Ms Rosie Winterton
indicated assent.

§ Mr. Hawkins
The Minister nods and I am grateful to her for acknowledging the problem.
I am also concerned about the size of the assets under the Public Trustee's control. We are talking about a very large amount of money. On Second Reading and in Standing Committee, the Minister gave general figures regarding the amount of money under the Public Trustee's management, but I hope that she will be able to give us in this debate the exact, up-to-date numbers. That will enable hon. Members who are not familiar with the Bill to see that we are talking about very considerable sums of money.

§ Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon)
Would not the hon. Gentleman be interested in knowing the size of the office's work load, the number of cases that it has to deal with and the number of people available to deal with them? Knowledge of those figures would help to keep this debate brief.

§ Mr. Hawkins
The only figures that I have available were given to the House in the debate on 1 July this year, and they can be found in the Hansard report for that date. However, I agree that that is the sort of detail that the Minister should give the House this evening.
The PAC has reported on the various problems encountered by the Office of the Public Trustee in the past. In the debate on 1 July, my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton referred to the Department's quinquennial review. The review stated: Corporate development, business modernisation, high quality client service and comprehensive, reliable financial management information services have not materialised. My hon. Friend remarked that that was Sir Humphrey-speak for a complete mess."—[Official Report, 1 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 49.] I want the Minister to tell us that as a result of the changes that the Government are introducing in the Bill, that mess will be sorted out. There is a sorry history of poor management and lack of financial accountability. In its various reviews of this office, the Public Accounts Committee concluded that this was the worst aspect of Government that it had ever come across. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton rightly said, there is no mileage to be had from making vulnerable people pay for the mistakes of Whitehall.
In another place, Baroness Scotland said on 27 May: the accommodation and other overhead costs attributed to trust work increased significantly from 1st April 2001, while the income from trusts work has reduced".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 May 2002; Vol. 635, c. 1050.] I would like the Minister's reassurance that the estates of vulnerable people, which are supposed to be looked after by the Public Trustee, will not, as a result of huge increases in charges from the Lord Chancellor's Department, be responsible for these overhead costs. I am always wary about seeing other people's money under the control of Whitehall bureaucrats. When the 265 matter was debated just before the summer recess, the Minister was asked specifically why the accommodation and overhead costs had increased dramatically. Having looked at the Official Report, I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton and others who raised that concern received a good enough answer.
Finally, although this is a welcome Bill that has received all-party support, I hope that the Minister will answer these important questions before we allow the measure to pass into law.

§ Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon)
I should declare that I am a lawyer, although I do not practise as such—[Interruption.] I am trying to get into everybody's good books right from the start. I welcome back the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins)—it is a pleasure to see him with us.
This is an uncontroversial Bill, which has been welcomed on both sides of the House and in the other place. Nevertheless, there are further points to be made arising out of it.
In the explanatory notes to the Bill, clause 8 appears to conflict with the note that the Minister sent to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 20 July 2002 which was circulated to all members of the Committee. The Minister's note makes it clear that the Public Trustee will continue to do trust work but that the trust work that it had been involved in on behalf of people with a mental incapacity was to be transferred to the Public Guardianship Office on 1 April 2001. That is a particularly inauspicious day for the clients of the Public Guardianship Office, and I shall refer to that in a moment. The Public Guardianship Office, it appears, operates under the aegis of the Official Solicitor.
The Minister will recall the debate that we had on 27 June 2002 when I and other hon. Members prayed against two statutory instruments. IF opened the debate and set out, among other things, the complaints of a number of individuals, constituents and others, as to the inefficiency, delays and expense in dealing with the Public Guardianship Office. I have checked with some of my constituents and am told that unfortunately the performance of the Public Guardianship Office, far from improving, is still appalling.
My second point is about accountability. The Official Solicitor and the Public Trustee are two distinct legal bodies, although the same person, a Mr. Laurence Oates, is appointed to both statutory posts. The Minister has assured us that he receives just one salary and that it is paid at the appropriate civil service rates. In other words, he does not get two dollops. The two statutory offices continue to exist separately but are currently held by the same person. I should like the Minister outline to the House—or, better still, write to me—[Interruption.] She can circulate the letter to other Members who are interested in this riveting matter. Will she let me know why a new single statutory post should not be created, combining both that of the Official Solicitor and the Public Trustee? What are the advantages of having the two posts, especially as both are held by the same person?
It would assist the House if the Minister were to explain in her letter exactly what cost savings would result from creating a new single statutory post. In that 266 letter, would she also outline what personnel are currently employed in management posts in the two offices and the approximate savings that would be achieved if they were combined?
As I said earlier, the Bill is welcome as far as it goes, and we shall not oppose it tonight.

§ Ms Rosie Winterton
First, I apologise to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). I thought that he was standing in just for this evening, but as that is not the case, let me extend a very warm welcome to him in his return to the position that he previously occupied.
A certain amount of confusion has been expressed about the difference between the various officers and the changes that took place following the quinquennial review and the report of the Public Accounts Committee. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath referred to the Public Guardianship Office, which is completely separate from the Public Trustee. The Public Trustee and the Official Solicitor are the same person.

§ Mr. Burnett
Will the Minister make it clear that the Public Trustee still acts in trusts, although not in trusts for those who are mentally incapacitated?

§ Ms Winterton
Yes, following the review, much of the trust work that dealt with very vulnerable people in particular, for example those who had been involved in road traffic accidents and so forth, was transferred to the Public Trustee. The Public Guardianship Office continues to look after people who are suffering from mental incapacity.
In addition, there has been some confusion about fees. The fee-setting powers have been transferred from the Treasury to the Lord Chancellor. In modern practice, the Minister with responsibility for the policy holds those powers. However, the powers to set fees for trust work as set out in section 9(1) of the Public Trustee Act 1906 provide for the Treasury to set fees with the sanction of the Lord Chancellor. We are regularising the position.
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) made some particular points about a constituent. I will be happy to explain some of the differences between the offices and where his constituent's problems may lie—he may be talking about a constituent who is having difficulties with the Public Guardianship Office, as opposed to the Public Trustee. I would be happy to deal with that if he would like to write to me or come to see me about those problems.
The amount of money under management is in the region of £250 million. I cannot give details of the exact number of cases at the moment, but I would be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman. I will also be happy to write to him about his detailed questions about the number of staff at the Official Solicitor's Office and the Public Trustees Office. He will know that I have written to explain that we did not think that it would be appropriate to separate the two posts at present. Indeed, that might well lead to increased, rather than decreased, costs. I will certainly write to him about the detailed matters that he discussed.
267 On beneficiaries making up money, we are trying to make it possible for a proper remissions policy to be introduced so that full cost recovery under the Act is not necessary—a public subsidy is allowed. Of course, the Public Trustee will work within the general Treasury rules. We wanted to ensure that these very vulnerable people would have the possibility of remissions in fees and, if necessary, therefore, there would be a public subsidy. I hope that that answers some of the questions.

§ Mr. Hawkins
I understand that the Minister is going to write to the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) with various details on the number of staff and so forth. She answered my question about funding, but she has not given the undertaking that I requested that people will no longer suffer inordinate delays in getting a simple acknowledgement of correspondence and papers, as some of my constituents have done, from the Office of the Public Trustee. That is the sort of problem that was highlighted by the Public Accounts Committee in successive reports on the manifold sins and wickednesses of the Public Trustee. I want an assurance that correspondence will be answered promptly.

§ Ms Winterton
Of course, we will do everything within our power to ensure that that happens. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we do not want those vulnerable people, or those who care for them, to suffer any inordinate delays. I hope that the changes that we have put in place following the criticisms from the Public Accounts Committee and the quinquennial review will lead to that result.
I commend the Bill to be read a Third time.