Public Trustee (Liability and Fees) Bill
Public Bill Committee, 9 July 2002.
Standing Committee A
Public Trustee (Liability and Fees) Bill
John McWilliam (Labour, Blaydon)
Before I call the Minister to move the motion, I should inform hon. Members that, at a meeting of the Chairmen's Panel last week, the decision was taken that we should be firm with Standing Orders. The Room is slightly warm so, to avoid embarrassing anyone, I shall allow gentlemen to remove jackets if they wish.
Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)
I beg to move,
That, during proceedings on the Public Trustee (Liability and Fees) Bill [Lords], the Committee do meet on Tuesdays at half-past Ten o'clock and at half-past Four o'clock and on Thursdays at half-past Nine o'clock and at half-past Two o'clock.
It is a pleasure and great honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. McWilliam.
The sittings motion is straightforward, but perhaps I should point out that if our proceedings are not finished by 1 o'clock today, we will sit again on Thursday at 9.30 am. [Interruption.]
John McWilliam (Labour, Blaydon)
Order. The hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) is not a member of the Committee. She was taken off the list of its members, so she should stay behind the Bar of the Committee.
Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)
The Committee is clearly already so popular that my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley has gatecrashed and is being escorted out by the Whip.
The Bill is short but important, as I said on Second Reading. Only one amendment has been tabled, and I tabled it. However, I am sure that hon. Members will raise issues on some of the substance of the Bill, and I stand ready to answer them.
Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)
I want to oppose the motion. We already know about the amendment and that there are no other amendments. We had a full discussion on Second Reading, when there were no inherent objections to the Bill. Now, we have an increasing number of knives and programme resolutions. The time of the House is precious, and it seems thoroughly unfortunate merely to spend time on the issues of principle in the Bill, given that they have been thoroughly discussed.
I am sure that other Opposition Members want to get on with the business, as I do, especially as we know the score. Many Bills are extremely controversial and require more time than they are given. As there is agreement across the House on the Bill in the interests of the public, two Committee sittings on it are not needed.
I propose to divide the Committee on that point, and I need say no more.
Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)
I am taken aback at this turn of events. If I understand the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) correctly, the
Opposition are requesting less time rather than more. I am sure that he would tell me if I were wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) thought long and hard about the sittings motion. He and his colleagues in the Whips Office would be distraught were it not to be approved.
Mr. Fraser Kemp (Houghton and Washington, East) indicated assent.
Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)
My hon. Friend agrees. No doubt, my hon. Friend the Minister also agrees that it would be a complete waste of time to have a protracted debate on the sittings motion. Indeed, the Government might lose the vote on it.
Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)
There will be no need for a protracted debate if the hon. Gentleman stops filibustering.
Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)
I am sorry, but I did not catch the end—
John McWilliam (Labour, Blaydon)
Order. The hon. Member for Stone must withdraw his last word. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) is not filibustering; if he were, I would stop him.
Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)
I would be delighted to withdraw the word ''filibustering''. Instead, I shall say that the hon. Gentleman was protracting the discussion.
Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)
I understand your strictures, Mr. McWilliam. I have known the hon. Member for Stone over many years, and I particularly remember his participation in the Maastricht debates. I shall not go into that now, because we are not meant to, but one would have been completely wrong to accuse the hon. Gentleman of filibustering during those debates. He made some extremely positive contributions, which hon. Members on both sides of the House greatly appreciated.
It is strange that the Opposition are saying that the sittings motion gives us too much time. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) agrees that Oppositions traditionally say that we do not have enough time to debate matters.
I am not a lawyer, although several Committee members are distinguished lawyers. My hon. Friend the Minister has impressed everyone with her knowledge, and she is now very much on top of her job, having come new to her brief. As a mere mortal, however, I should clarify why those of us who are not lawyers need certain matters explained.
John Burnett (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon)
I welcome you, Mr. McWilliam. I have sat before most Chairmen, but this is my first time with you.
I should tell the hon. Member for Nottingham, North that I am a lawyer, although I do not practise at present. I agree, however, that some matters in the Bill need exploration, particularly future funding and the way in which the Government will conduct the catch-up of funding. Significant probing will be required in that department.
Mr. Allen rose—
John McWilliam (Labour, Blaydon)
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman resumes, I should say that he was drifting slightly wide. The question before us is how long we should sit,
not how many lawyers are present, or how good or bad lawyers are.
Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)
Indeed. I take those strictures to heart. I was simply noting that most Committee members, including the Minister and, indeed, you, Mr. McWilliam, would quickly cotton on to arcane legalistic concepts. However, ordinary laymen such as me will require a little more explanation. I shall need the hon. Member for Stone to elaborate on his position. I am sure that he will cut straight to the chase, because he is a distinguished parliamentarian, who is experienced in legal matters. Indeed, we all listen to him on matters pertaining to Europe. However, he will put things so succinctly that people such as me, who are, unfortunately, not versed in the law, will soon be lost.
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition spokesman has the rare virtue of having had a distinguished legal training and being able to cut to the chase, rather than spinning things out on a word-per-hour basis?
Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)
Absolutely. To return to my earlier point, those of us who listened intently to the hon. Member for Stone throughout the Maastricht process found that every word from his lips was as a piece of gold before the parliamentary swine that we were. To use another jewellery analogy, it was wonderful to listen to those gems. I hope that he does not mind me reminding him of the fact that he even embarrassed his own Government during that process.
Stephen O'Brien (Conservative, Eddisbury)
I am listening with a mixture of fascination and consternation. Since he left the Government, the hon. Gentleman has created a creditable reputation for himself in the House by demonstrating the genuine need to balance the Executive and the power of Parliament in scrutinising legislation. I have read his writings to date, and one of the themes that I have picked up is his belief that where there is consensus and a lack of controversy, Parliament should not waste its time on political ping-pong and game fighting. His credibility is not enhanced by his current speech, and I hope that he will quickly conclude so that we can get on with the real business of scrutinising the Bill.
Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)
Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to get on to the scrutiny of the Bill. The intention is that time should be allowed for two sittings. That does not mean that we have to use two. Indeed, I hope that rather than compressing the time—
Stephen O'Brien (Conservative, Eddisbury)
See how it goes.
Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)
The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that we should see how it goes. If we pass the motion, we shall not be able to see how it goes, because we shall guillotine our discussion.
John McWilliam (Labour, Blaydon)
Order. Whatever happens to the motion, it does not stop discussion of the Bill, nor does it guillotine it.
Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)
I am listening with interest to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North about the length of the sitting and whether we have a second sitting. He mentioned the lawyers on the Committee. Some of
them speak quickly and to the point, although on other occasions they speak in a sort of lawyer jargon—not a loya jurgah, as in Afghanistan—that is difficult for non-lawyer members of the Committee to follow.
John McWilliam (Labour, Blaydon)
Order. Standing Orders are clear; interventions should be just that. The hon. Gentleman was developing a speech.
Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)
I was just becoming fascinated by my hon. Friend's remarks. I hope that he will catch your eye later, Mr. McWilliam. Given the assurances that have been received via nods and winks on the Committee, I want to finish with a question to the Minister. One complication for a layman such as me is that I do not know the difference between the Public Trustee and the Official Solicitor. I have been in communication with the Minister about the matter and I hope that she will take an opportunity during the discussion on procedure to enlighten me. Having had your assurances about the Standing Orders being tightly enforced, Mr. McWilliam, I welcome you to the Chair and wish all Committee members a positive and constructive debate.
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. McWilliam. We are now in the thirteenth minute of consideration of the sittings motion and the Government have still not secured a majority—they probably will not. However, it is in the interest of the Committee to make progress on the Bill, which, although brief, is important. I suggest that we proceed.
Question put:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 4.
Clause 3 - Short title and extent
Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)
I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 7, and leave out subsection (3).
As I am sure many hon. Members will know, the background to the privilege amendment is set out in ''Erskine May''. Where a Bill originates in the other place and contains provisions that may infringe the privileges of this House with regard to the control of public money, a privilege amendment is formally added.
Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)
Is the Minister aware that there is some controversy in the Government about this? Lord Williams, who is a highly distinguished and important member of the Government, has proposed that such arrangements should be withdrawn and that the Lords should be able to amend legislation with regard to public funds. There is huge embarrassment in the Government—to which I do not want to add in any way.
John McWilliam (Labour, Blaydon)
Order. I have already admonished the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead for a long intervention. The intervention of the hon. Member for Stone was long, too but it was also a matter of order. The Standing Orders have not changed. Nor have the arrangements between the two Houses. The situation is as it is today and not as it might be according to the future decision of another Committee.
Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)
I am sure that the hon. Member for Stone was merely casting further—my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North put it very well—pieces of gold before parliamentary swine. Thank you, Mr. McWilliam, for your clarification.
A privilege amendment is required where a Lords Bill contains provisions that deal with charges upon the people or upon public funds. Since 1972, this House has generally proceeded with a Lords Bill that would have as its main object the imposition or, as in this case, the alteration of a charge upon the people or on public funds, provided that it contains the standard formula that no such charge is imposed or altered and that a Minister of the Crown takes charge of it in the Commons. The standard formula is incorporated into the Bill before it leaves the Lords to avoid the formal infringement of the Commons' privileges.
Hon. Members will see that the privilege amendment negates the financial consequences of the Bill and thereby demonstrates that the ability of the other place to legislate on such matters is not absolute, but subject to the tolerance of this House. The provisions that, but for the privilege amendment, would have the effect of creating or altering a charge have now been authorised by the money resolution, which was agreed to immediately after Second Reading in this House. Therefore, the privilege amendment may safely be removed. As Hon. Members will recognise, this is a purely technical and formal process, and I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment.
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
This is, of course, a technical amendment, and we all understand why it is necessary, but it has a certain resonance in this Bill because it will remove the disclaimer that nothing in the legislation shall impose any charge on the people or on public funds, which is one of the points that I raised on Second Reading. I asked the Minister precisely how the shortfall in funding that has been experienced so far, and which will continue until the matter is rectified, would be made up. I asked whether a cross-subsidy would be introduced to protect the most vulnerable recipients of the service of the Public Trustee at the expense of others who will end up paying more. Given that the explanatory notes set out a time scale in which the shortfall should be made up, it would be extremely helpful to the Committee and
the House if the Minister could make available at least a draft scale of the fees and charges that she is thinking of introducing, because it is by no means clear what they will be.
Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)
All the points that needed to be made were made on Second Reading, when we did not oppose the Bill. There are no amendments apart from this one, to which I have no objection, so it seems to me that nothing further needs to be said.
John Burnett (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon)
I want to endorse one or two points that I mentioned during my intervention on the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, which have also been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). I do not want to go over the same ground again, but I would like to know how the charges will be fixed. What qualifications do people at the Public Trustee office have? Is it necessary for the good functioning of that office, which does not deal with vulnerable people, to recruit more people?
I should like to know what the Government's plans are for the future of the Public Trustee office. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome made a valid point on Second Reading, which I was unable to attend. He asked the Minister to confirm that the legal person of the official trustee is now identical to the legal person of the Official Solicitor, and if it is, how that has been achieved in law. The Minister said that she would write to my hon. Friend, but I should be grateful if she could respond to that question now. There is a significant deficit. How do the Government propose to catch up? Do they propose a perpetual subsidy? If there is to be an increase in fees, we should have an opportunity to debate that.
John McWilliam (Labour, Blaydon)
Order. I gave the hon. Gentleman considerable latitude. Most of his speech was more appropriate for a clause stand part debate, so I hope that hon. Members will bear that in mind.
Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)
I will seek your guidance, Mr. McWilliam, on whether my point would be better made during the stand part debate. My point is brief, but it follows from the point made by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), with whom I have served on Committees in the past. He made an excellent point about the relationship between the Official Solicitor and the Public Trustee.
My hon. Friend the Minister will know that I have been in correspondence with her Department about a Mr. Eric Walker and his Strelley social club, which became bankrupt and was wound up, leaving assets that were available for distribution to the individual surviving members. Those members are ageing, as we all are. Some have passed away. The sum to be divvied up among those members is in the hands of the Official Solicitor.
The Minister knows the ins and outs of the case. Does she feel that it is appropriate to refer to the matter of funding under clause 3(3), or should I refer to it in the clause stand part debate? That is my only technical question about the Bill.
Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)
Hon. Members have raised several points, some of which were also raised on Second Reading. I shall reiterate my answers for the benefit of
the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. The debate refers only to public subsidy to support genuine last resort work where there is a socially desirable need for it, which will not be cross-subsidised by additional fees to other clients. The hon. Gentleman may recall from debates on the Public Guardianship Office that the issue of cross-subsidy caused the Public Accounts Committee some concern. Changes have been made to avoid some of those problems recurring.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the new fee structure. The details of any future fee system remain to be settled, so it would be impossible to place draft fees before the Committee. In the short term, the current fee arrangements are based on fees linked to the size of the trusts and are likely to continue. However, the future system will be based more on charging commensurate with work done, as opposed to making a percentage charge, as happens now.
John Burnett (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon)
What the Minister said is interesting because it reflects what happened in private practice 30 or 40 years ago, when a percentage charge was left for a proper hourly rate charge. However, we would like to know how that hourly rate would be fixed. The public should be made aware of that, too.
Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)
The hon. Gentleman will probably be aware that, when we considered fixing the fees for the Public Guardianship Office, several matters were taken into account. When we consider the hourly rate charge, we shall take into account commercial charges and how we might take heed of Treasury rules. Balancing that, we shall also take into account the charges made in other agencies, such as the Public Guardianship Office. When we consider setting a rate, we want to achieve a balance and ensure that hardship is not caused to any of the beneficiaries. Therefore, we would strike that balance, using benchmarks in similar situations. I am sorry that I cannot give further details of future fee structures.
John Burnett (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon)
I hope that the Minister will bear it in mind, when her Department introduces an hourly fee structure, that there should be the same ability to appeal fees as there is to appeal lawyers' fees where clients can apply for taxation of those fees.
Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)
The hon. Gentleman will know that we have published a widely welcomed remissions procedure in the Public Guardianship Office. I will bear his comments in mind.
The hon. Member for Stone firmly claimed that there was nothing more to be said, which obviously follows his probing speeches on Second Reading. I am grateful that he feels that most of his questions have now been answered.
The need to recruit more people was raised by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon. I think that 90 people have transferred from the previous Public Trust Office to the staff of the Public Trustee to continue the necessary work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North mentioned an important problem. I know how concerned he has been about his constituent and Strelley social club. In many senses, his point is
relevant to the amendment because we are considering the use of public money to alleviate difficult situations. He has written to me on the subject, we have discussed it and I am ready to meet him on any occasion about it, as he has worked extremely hard on it.
As my hon. Friend said, there has been some confusion, not only in this debate but on Second Reading, about the duties of the Official Solicitor as compared to those of the Public Trustee. His question relates to the Official Solicitor, and we will be more than happy to pursue the matter outside the Committee.
Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)
I will be brief, as I do not want to detain the Committee on the subject. If the Official Solicitor were to move expeditiously, the matter could be resolved in a timely fashion. Does my hon. Friend accept that as a possible way forward?
Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)
Yes. I understand that my hon. Friend, in his usual helpful fashion, has suggested to the Official Solicitor that he will talk to his constituent about tracing some of the other 1984 members of the Strelley social club. That is a good example of how we can work together to solve problems that sometimes seem intractable.
John Burnett (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon)
I asked the Minister about recruitment, and she kindly confirmed that 90 staff had been transferred to deal with the trust cases. However, I have read somewhere that 2,500 cases were transferred. Is that correct? I see some of those near the Minister nodding. If it is correct, each member of staff will deal with about 28 cases. That is an enormous work load. Will she look into the matter and see whether there are sufficient personnel to deal with such matters?
Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)
The Official Solicitor and the Public Trustee will no doubt take heed of the hon. Gentleman's comments. I shall make every effort to ensure that staff do not have an undue workload.
Finally, it might be helpful if I quote from the letter that I sent to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome on 4 July, following the Second Reading debate on 1 July when a question was asked about the posts of the Official Solicitor and the Public Trustee and the statutes concerning them:
''The Official Solicitor is appointed to that post by the Lord Chancellor under section 90 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, and the Public Trustee to his post under section 8 of the Public Trustee Act 1906. The Lord Chancellor has appointed the same person, Laurence Oates, to both statutory posts. It follows that the two statutory offices continue to exist separately but are currently held by the same person. It would be beyond the scope of the current Bill to change this and create a new single statutory post, and in any event I do not believe that there would be any substantive benefit in doing so.''
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
I have not yet received the letter, so I am grateful to the Minister for that extract. However, I am still not clear. If the Government intend the Official Solicitor to carry out the duties of the Public Trustee—presumably that is an ongoing situation; it is not because of the particular qualities of the present incumbent—is this not an opportune point at which to unite the two roles? A single clause amendment to the Bill could simply say that the Public Trustee shall be the Official Solicitor or vice versa. That does not seem to be beyond the scope of the Bill and I am surprised
that there are any serious objections to reducing confusion.
Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)
I am afraid that we may have to beg to differ. We believe that it would be beyond the scope of the Bill. We do not wish to merge the two posts at this stage but think that we should let the current position stand and the new roles of the Public Guardianship Office, the Official Solicitor and the Public Trustee become more familiar to the public. That will reduce the scope for confusion.
Mr. Heath rose—
John McWilliam (Labour, Blaydon)
Order. The hon. Gentleman's point is not only beyond the scope of the amendment—it is beyond the scope of the Bill. He could have made it on Second Reading but cannot during the Committee stage.
Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)
Can the Minister give an indication as to the salary of the Public Trustee and the Official Solicitor, perhaps in writing after the Committee if the figures are not available now? It would be interesting to see them. Does the individual receive both salaries as he is in both posts?
Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)
That is possibly not the position, but I understand my hon. Friend's concern about public money and I shall ensure that he has the information.
Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)
There is a degree of confusion, of overlap and of complexity. Would it be helpful were those in the offices of the Public Trustee and the Official Solicitor to take it upon themselves to write to hon. Members on one side of A4, explaining what they do and what services they offer to hon. Members of all parties?
Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)
That is an extremely good idea. The Second Reading debate indicated that there was confusion about the various roles—not necessarily those of the Official Solicitor and the Public Trustee but perhaps concerning the Public Guardianship Office and the work that has been transferred. It might help hon. Members if we try to clarify that.
Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)
My hon. Friend the Minister was helpful with the case that I mentioned. Would her office telephone me and let me know the name of the person in the Official Solicitor's office who deals with the case? Many middle people would then be cut out.
Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)
I shall certainly ask if that can be arranged.
I hope that I have answered hon. Members' questions on the amendment and that it will be accepted.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)
For the record, I thank the Minister for being extremely helpful and constructive. I believe that her comments will be of great benefit to my constituent.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)
I thank you for your excellent chairmanship this morning, Mr. McWilliam, and for the advice that you have generously given.
Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)
I concur with those remarks.
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
I, too, concur.
John McWilliam (Labour, Blaydon)
I thank hon. Members for their kind words and add that my peculiar posture this morning is not the result of hanging intently on to every word—I always do so. It is because my chair is broken.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Committee rose at twelve minutes past Eleven o'clock.