PUBLIC TRUSTEE OFFICE (Hansard, 5 July 1972)

§ LORD DAVIES OF LEEK
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps are being taken to implement the findings of the inquiry into the Public Trustee Office [Cmnd. 4913].

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE)
My Lords, as stated in the White Paper on the Public Trustee Office, it is the Government's intention to introduce legislation to relieve the Public Trustee from the duty of accepting new business and to implement the policy of running down his Office as stated in paragraph 3 of the White Paper.

§ LORD DAVIES OF LEEK
My Lords, while thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, may I ask him four small questions? Has the number given in the White Paper of 11,910 cases under administration now diminished? Has a move already taken place, or will it need legislation, to merge the Trustee Office into the Official Solicitor's Office? What consideration is to be given to the management of the new investments unit? Is any discussion tentatively taking place with the Law Society anent this matter?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I cannot give an absolutely up-to-date figure for the cases now under administration, but they do not vary enormously because of course the same cases go on from one year to the next. The Report of the Committee anticipated a continuing decline. I should not like to say without notice whether there has been a continuing decline since the Report. In reply to the noble Lord's second supplementary question, I should like to say that there is no move as yet, and it will require legislation, to exonerate the Public Trustee from the obligation of taking new business. I think it will not need legislation for him to merge with the Official Solicitor's Office, as that would be a matter of administration. What will require legislation is to relieve him of the obligation to take new business.
I am considering the position of the new management unit. My present thought is that there are other parts of my Department which need to conduct investment, notably those concerned with monies in court and the Court of Protection. My thought is that they might well form a small but efficient management unit on their own, but no decision has been taken yet. The Law Society gave voluminous evidence to the Hutton Committee and in that sense was therefore fully consulted. I have had some representations from at least one local law society since. I would not charge my memory with how many.

§ LORD WADE
My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor agree that the Public Trustee has given and is still giving very valuable service? Arising out of his reply, may I ask two questions? For example, the Public Trustee is assisted by lady visitors, and that kind of service is very much appreciated. If this work is taken away from the Public Trustee will any similar service be provided? Will those who, by their will, have appointed the Public Trustee and still wish the Public Trustee to act as executor and trustee no longer he permitted, when the will comes into effect, to have their wishes carried out?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I quite agree that the Public Trustee has exhibited a remarkably high standard of service to those who make use 1342 of his Office, and is continuing to do so. I think that in every way it is a service of which we can be proud. According to the Hutton Report there are 250 cases, out of the 12,000, in which a lady visitor is implied. I understand that similar facilities are available in the private sector if one knows where to look for them. They are very much appreciated. If beneficiaries are under the Public Trustee they will not be compelled to move their services from him, but no new business will necessarily be undertaken—that is to say, it is only those trusteeships and executorships which he has undertaken and is undertaking that he will be obliged to continue with after the change. At least, that is the intention of the Government. I think those were the three questions.

§ LORD HALE
My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor consider that the remarks he made in his last sentence were a little disquieting? If the Public Trustee Office is going to continue until it runs itself down, case by case, handling the cases already in its hands—I personally make no criticism of the Public Trustee, who operated under strict limitations of investment for a very long time, which placed him under obvious difficulties in competition with banks and so on—we have another example of the constant fact that every time we review anything we make two organisations instead of one. If the business is mainly to be transferred to a new organisation it would be well for the noble and learned Lord to consider transferring all the existing business, too.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I am afraid I do not understand the noble Lord's supplementary. What we are in fact doing is to merge two businesses into one, and not the reverse. I understand that is what he is suggesting that I should do. If I am right in understanding him, we are at one.

§ LORD HALE
My Lords, I am very much obliged for that. It may be that I misunderstood the words the noble and learned Lord used in his concluding sentence. Hansard will show whether I have been misled by myself or by the noble and learned Lord.

LORD NUNBURNHOLME
My Lords, do the Government realise what a debt this country owes to the Public 1343 Trustee? May I also declare my own personal interest, having had my affairs dealt with by the Public Trustee's Office since 1916? The Office has always given the best possible advice, both financially and legally, and I feel it is a retrograde step to do away with the Public Trustee.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I am grateful for the tribute the noble Lord has paid. I am sure that that has been the almost invariable experience of beneficiaries, although, as with any other part of Government service, one does receive complaints from time to time. My opinion coincides exactly with the noble Lord's. If the noble Lord will study the Report of the Committee he will find that it said that the Office was dying for want of public support. I am afraid that as long as that evidence stands it is difficult to know how it can be continued. The choice which lay before me was, in practice, to let the Office die, which would have saved me a certain amount of trouble but I think would have been inconvenient for everybody, expensive to beneficiaries and inefficient and bad for morale, or to run it down in an orderly fashion, which is what the Committee recommended.