I read in the Financial Times this morning, whilst sitting in Willi’s cafe in Jesmond, that Mitie had issued a profits warning. This is no surprise. I know Mitie only because I visit Courts and I see their staff cleaning the buildings. The article explained that the company employed a large number of minimum wage earners, it’s CEO was a peer and that shareholders would be worried.
I asked myself: why is a company paying so many people at NMW rates? How come the person in charge is a Tory peer? Why are shareholders benefitting out of Government contracts?
If people are paid more than the NMW will that not mean that money filters up through the economy? Won’t the State be subsidising what it is already paying for through working family tax credits? Wouldn’t the profits paid to shareholders be better spent on workers’ wages and on improving the service offered?
But it’s not just Court cleaning that is outsourced. Prisons are outsourced. HMP Northumberland is in a mess. A complete mess. It’s run by a French company and its in a mess with prisoners locked up 23 hours and the smoking of spice and other drugs rife amongst the inmates. The Lord Chancellor Liz Truss talks about prison reform but this Government and the coalition before it starved the Justice system of cash and resources by making so many people redundant.
There aren’t enough Probation Officers, Police officers or support staff, court and tribunal staff, court sitting days, crown prosecutors and support staff. Trials are still delayed or cracked far too often causing delay and a justice deficit which can’t be justified.
No-one of influence will speak out and instead talk about more efficiencies through information technology and the better use of resources. It’s a huge Emperor’s Parade with all sorts of people falling over each other to tell the Ministry of Justice how marvellous everything is. Well, if anyone could be bothered to visit a Magistrates’ Court or Crown Court and talk to the people who work there-as opposed to the people who mange the people who work there-then they’d find out the truth.
Regulation 110 of the Road Vehicle (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 makes it an offence to:
use a hand-held mobile telephone or a hand-held device, other than a two-way radio, which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data
cause or permit an other to drive a motor vehicle whilst the other person is using a hand-held mobile phone or a hand-held device as described above
supervise a provisional driver whilst as supervisor using a hand-held mobile phone or a hand-held device as described above
using the device to call 999 or 112;
unsafe or impracticable to stop driving in order to make the call
A mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held if it is, or must be, held at some point during the course of making or receiving a call or performing any other interactive communication function.
Therefore if you hold the phone to make a call whilst driving and then put on speaker phone and place the phone on the central console or on your lap whilst you talk then an offence has happened. Like wise if you answer the phone by pressing a button or interacting with the screen and then place the phone on the console or your lap.
Currently the normal fixed penalty is £100 and 3 penalty point. It seems that is to be increased to £200 and 6 penalty points.
The only queries I have about all of this is:
What are the implications for employers of people using their vehicle as a mobile office or as part of their work duties?
How come the police and others can use hand-held devices whilst driving and apparently do so safely?
The law includes an offence of “causing or permitting” a driver to use a hand-held phone while driving. This can apply to employers who will be guilty of an offence if they require or permit their staff who drive for work, to use a hand-held mobile phone while driving.
Employers would be unwise to respond by supplying their staff with hands-free kits. Even if the use of these while driving does not contravene the specific ban on hand-held phones, employers could fall foul of health and safety laws if an investigation determined the use of the phone contributed to an accident.
The “Driving at Work” Guide from the Health and Safety Executive makes it clear that employers have a duty under health and safety law to manage the risks faced by their employees on the road. And one of the biggest risks they face is when using mobile phones while at the wheel. Research clearly shows that using a hands-free phone while driving is just as dangerous as using a hand-held phone – there is little point in having both hands connected to the steering wheel, if the brain is not connected to the hands.
There are good reasons for providing mobile phones to staff who drive for work, especially for lone workers and staff who will be travelling through areas where access to a public phone is difficult. If a member of staff breaks down, for example, they need to be able to summon help. Some employers provide mobile phones for certain staff and others reimburse the cost of work related calls made on private mobile phones.
But, this should not mean that staff use the phone while driving. As part of the management of work related road safety, employers should provide employees with clear guidance on the use of mobile phones. The use of hand-held or hands-free phones while driving should be prohibited, particularly as there is a simple alternative – let the phone take messages and return calls when stopped in a safe place.
RoSPA has produced a free guide, “Driving for Work: Mobile Phones” to help employers and line managers ensure that their staff do not use mobile phones while driving.
As to question 2, I would imagine that the response from fire police and ambulance-and others-is that staff are given training so they can drive safely whilst communicating and that it is an essential part of their job-as emergency personnel-to be able to communicate whilst driving. Then why can’t other people access this training, become certified in the safe use of hand-held mobile devices if, for whatever reason, that is necessary for them?
Working in the height of Summer brings its own joys. First, there’s less traffic on the road so you can get to work-but better still home from work-much quicker. The warm weather means that tempers can be frayed but its also a great excuse for a few cold wet ones before home time.
In good weather clients seem less rushed, less demanding and even more grateful.
On the down side you are at work when other people you know are on holiday and when you are on holiday-and you are the boss-people still feel willing to email you to ask the most ridiculous questions.
This year we have had the vote on Brexit and we now have the Olympic Games. What a great source of entertainment the Brexit process was but how absolutely fabulous the Olympics is for Great Britain.
Interest rates are low but here in the North East people are still buying houses and businesses are growing. “Never mind the economy. Let’s get on with life!!” There appears to be confidence in the economy despite Brexit, the worst fears of the media and the political comedy show that is Labour. Who ever thought politics and politicians could be so funny-if only they had a real job and had to work for a living!!
I’m not Conservative by nature but I do like some of the things Theresa May is doing and saying.
If only Ms Truss, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice would start reforming prisons properly (instead of talking about it) and start resourcing the Justice systems properly then a lot of the mess created by Grayling (aka the worst Lord Chancellor ever) could be undone. In Court, every day, the Crown is ill-prepared, cases have been poorly investigated, probation don’t have the staff to do their job properly and court sittings have been reduced so that cases take a long time to get to trial. The Justice systems are in a mess-and no-one gives a damn. Those who could complain-Judges, the Police, Prison Governors etc say nothing and try to make the system work. The only way to get the Justice system properly resourced is for all of those in it to embarrass the Government. Then we shall get a Justice system we all deserve.
“Despite all that Tories and Labour and LibDems have said about fighting crime, they have all dismantled the Justice systems to the extent that they are barely functioning.” If you don’t believe me, visit your local Magistrates’ Courts-if you still have one-and look at the chaos.
Very few people cry over the plight of prisoners. The fact that there are prisoners in custody serving Indeterminate sentences for Public Protection (even though such sentences have been repealed for new offences) raises little concern. Such prison sentences cost a lot of money and fail to deliver the very basic requirements of the sentence which is that a prisoner has to show that the risk he/she poses to the public has reduced. This is shown by attending courses and demonstrating a new way of thinking. The courses can’t be run in sufficient numbers to ensure that prisoners serve a realistic sentence that equates to what they would now get or which is less than the statutory maximum for the offence if the prisoner had been sentenced for the offence in accordance with normal sentencing guidelines, as opposed to the IPP system. So prisoners languish in jail without their offending being addressed. It wastes time and money.
Today I read that when Police phone the CPS to get a charging decision they have to wait, on average, 37 minutes. That’s a lot of wasted time-and expense. If the money wasted on unproductive activity was spent on more staff then waiting times would reduce, thus saving time.
But the most shocking thing today was a report about assaults on prison staff, suicide in custody and how many prisoners are wasting time, on drugs, in prison. There’s been a lot of talk about making the Justice systems more efficient. Usually its people who really want to say “we are going to spend a lot less on Justice but we expect the same service, but even if the service is worse it doesn’t matter as we will be spending less on it”. The value of the service, the worth of the service is not considered. It is all to do with £££. Unfortunately this then causes increased costs elsewhere through absenteeism, sickness, claims arising out of injury or delayed release.
What’s also worrying is that the cuts to Justice has resulted in the wrong people being released from prison; ineffective trials; increased assaults on Prison Officers; acquittal when there should not be one; innocent people trying to represent themselves in Court; a lack of experience and timely consideration of evidence; the failure to process cases effectively; in short, money and time wasted and people expected to do a lot of work in too short a period of time.
The response to this from the Legal Aid Agency has not been to query the cuts or the determination by the Ministry of Justice to introduce a more “efficient” system
by cutting resources but to introduce a new clause for the 2017 Crime Contract by which the LAA can end a contract if the provider embarrasses the LAA and brings the LAA into disrepute. What a joke!? Instead of worrying about Justice and access to Justice and the administration of Justice the LAA is concerned about its own reputation. If the LAA was a human being, such thinking would make one conclude it was sociopathic.
We have a new Lord |Chancellor/Secretary of State for Justice. Rt Hon Elizabeth Truss MP was appointed recently as part of the new Theresa May Cabinet.
I have absolutely no problem with a woman as Lord Chancellor (and yes, even though she is a woman she is Lord Chancellor). However, yet again, for the third time in a row, we have a non-lawyer filling one of the great legal posts of State.
She has already said that she wishes to reform prisons-don’t they always?-and to reform Courts-don’t they always?-but what Liz Truss really needs to do is to ignore the bureaucrats and consultants and advisers that populate the MoJ and talk to people who work in prisons, in probation, in the courts, at CPS and in private practice.
Too much reform of “Justice” has been piecemeal and politically motivated. There needs to be a consensus as to what Justice looks like. A definition of key reform terminology would also help eg “efficiency”. Too often the term “efficiency” is used to mean “reduction in resources” which, of course, does not necessarily help improve efficiency. It would help if a vision of the Justice system could be created in open dialogue with those at the coal-face and then the resources found to deliver that vision. Justice should be funded to the extent that the system requires to deliver Justice. Without proper definitions of key terms no Lord Chancellor can guarantee that the system over which they preside delivers Justice.
The LAA has announced a new contract for 2017. There will be a totally unnecessary non-competitive tendering process (which costs more money than is necessary for the award of a legal aid contract). Most legal aid fees are fixed fees. There is no need for the Legal Aid Agency at all. Legal aid could be granted by the Courts/Tribunals and any bills requiring assessment could be assessed by the Courts/Tribunals.
One new clause appearing for the first time in the new contract is one which prohibits providers from embarrassing the Legal Aid Agency. What this might be used for is to prevent criticism of the Legal Aid Agency. However my guess is that it is a way to address the issue of those Solicitors who share fees with clients, who make payments to third parties for work and who use non-duty solicitors to intercept clients at court and represent them when the client would, ordinarily, be represented by the Duty. It will be interesting to see what happens if the LAA tries to argue that open criticism of how it undertakes its role as commissioner of public-funded legal services causes it embarrassment such that the critic should lose his right to undertake legal aid work.
What would be much more helpful would be if those in charge at the LAA stopped behaving like poodles and instead spoke openly about how bad the Justice system is due to lack of resources and the affect this has on people.
I listened to the Home Secretary speak at the Police Federation Conference the other day. Amongst what she said there was little with which to disagree-except she described the Police as the “Custodians of Justice”. Later someone from the College of Policing emphasised the factual basis of this statement.
One of the reasons that cases collapse and the acquittal rate in the Crown court is at 40% is because the focus forced upon the Police is to deal with issues which should not be a priority. The role of the Police is to investigate crime and to maintain the Queen’s Peace. The statutory obligation to investigate cases is set on in the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996
(1)For the purposes of this Part a criminal investigation is an investigation conducted by police officers with a view to it being ascertained—
(a)whether a person should be charged with an offence, or
(b)whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it.
This is what the Police’s role is. They are NOT Custodians of anything. Judges, lawyers and juries are “Custodians of Justice” and the Police Officers and Staff, Probation Officers and Staff, Court Staff and Prison Officers and Staff as well as NOMS and Parole Board Members and Staff upon which our Justice system relies are the Servants of Justice.
Victims of Crime deserve to be treated better-but that should not be the Police’s responsibility. There is no reason why the Government should not finance and support Victim Support Services so that access to support services such as the NHS can offer or other charities can offer are free and available to all victims of crime.
The Police should be impartial. The Crown Prosecution Service can take account of a Victim’s views on their case and apply the variety of Codes which guide decision-making as to whether cases should be charged, how they should be charged and whether they should continue.
Too often the Police are called to a domestic incident and remove the male about whom there has been a complaint. Barriers to a proper investigation as envisaged by CPIA section 22 are created by domestic violence protocols and policies which have been forced upon the Police. Far better would be a Victims’ Legal Service which could advise victims of crime and apply for injunctions eg Restraining orders and Non-Molestation Orders and Domestic Violence Protection Orders and compensation on a Free basis (ie without a fee to pay and without charge to a victim of crime), funded out of taxes and costs orders made against convicted Defendants. The Police should not have to worry about being a victims new best friend. They should be engaged in gathering evidence in an objective, impartial manner. In my view current applications for DVPOs are actually made to protect the Police from criticism and are granted by Magistrates for precisely the same reason all because for the minute we are obliged to take domestic violence seriously. Remember ASBOs?
We need a system which is based upon consistent application of the law rather than on sipping up the latest flavour of the month. In this way victims and defendants will get better Justice and there will be less acquittals.
The fact is that the system is so under-resourced that it is a miracle that anyone is convicted. The manner of case investigation, preparation and prosecution-along with intrinsic inefficiencies in the system which digitalisation alone won’t cure-make defence advocates look great as cases splutter from one poor, late decision to another before the case is dropped or cracked ie a lesser charge is accepted and pleaded to.
You may wonder why it is necessary to have a Lasting Power of Attorney, what benefit would this be to you or your family?
There are two types of Lasting Power of Attorney, one which allows an attorney(s), appointed by you, to deal with your financial affairs on your behalf and another which allows your attorney(s) to make decisions about your medical care or living arrangements. The idea is that you appoint attorneys now and give them directions as to how they should handle your affairs if you are unable to do so later.
Many of you will be aware of the fact that Powers of Attorney are often used by relatives when a person loses mental capacity. This could be following a stroke or vascular dementia. But have you ever given any thought as to just how this is possible?
The answer is that the donor/ patient planned ahead. Most people have no idea whether they are going to lose mental capacity. It is a little bit like insuring your home. There may or may not be flooding or theft. But if there is, and you are insured, you know that your insurer will look after you. In the same way that you would not risk leaving your home uninsured, Emmersons Solicitors Lasting Power of Attorney clients would not risk a situation where there was no one able to manage their affairs if they could not do so themselves.
Many of our clients attend to a number of issues at once. They make their wills, they may make lifetime gifts at the same time, organise how their home is owned, arrange for the storage of their important documents and attend to a Lasting Power of Attorney. Usually this will involve two visits to our office. However, once dealt with our clients often comment that they are relieved that they have planned ahead and sorted out their affairs.
Notably, it is still possible to make a Lasting Power of Attorney even if you have been diagnosed with Dementia. Contact us if you are worried about this.
What are the likely consequences of not making a Power of Attorney?
Let’s imagine that your father lives alone, he owns his own home and all of his investments and bank accounts are in his sole name. Now imagine that he has a stroke and loses mental capacity. You set about trying to work out where he is going to live. You may decide that he is going to live with you. You decide that as he will not be able to live in his own home again it should be sold. Or it may be necessary for your father to move into a residential care setting. In which case someone has to authorise payments from your father’s bank accounts to a care home. Without a Lasting Power of Attorney you cannot do this.
In order for your father’s home to be sold someone has to be able to instruct estate agents and solicitors. Someone will have to sign the necessary legal documents. You are not an owner of your father’s home and therefore you cannot sell his home. Your father no longer has mental capacity so he cannot sign the legal documents which would enable the sale to take place.
Had your father appointed you as his Attorney, then under the circumstances you would now be able to step in and deal with sale of his home as well as the receipt of and investment of the sale proceeds. You would also be able to run his bank accounts and thus pay for his care home fees.
All is not lost however. You could still apply to The Court of Protection to become your father’s deputy. A deputy is a person appointed by the court to manage the affairs of a person who is, because of mental incapacity, unable to do so for themselves. This will take a number of months to achieve and you must prove to the court that you are a suitable person to take over your father’s affairs. It requires the completion of some rather lengthy forms including details about your own finances. It is also necessary to prove to the court that your father has lost mental capacity. At Emmersons Solicitors, we are frequently called upon to make such applications by people in your situation. Once granted there is also annual insurance to pay and at any time in the future you may have to be interviewed by a Visitor appointed by the Court of Protection. Their role is to investigate how you are managing your father’s monetary affairs.
Ultimately however, the court may determine that you are not a suitable person. At Emmersons Solicitors we have had a couple of cases recently where the court have determined that the local authority should take over instead of relatives. How would your father feel about that?
In short, the point of a Lasting Power of Attorney is to enable your relatives or friends to help you run your affairs if you are unable to do so. You will have peace of mind knowing that you have appointed people you trust. They will not have the added stress of dealing with the Court of Protection at a time when they are trying to help you with your care and housing needs. They will not have to worry about being interviewed by a Court of Protection Visitor.
If you expect your relatives or friends to look out for you in your hour of need then you should make this as easy as possible for them.
Act now in order to help them help you.
If you require any help or advice relating to this topic then please don’t hesitate to contact us on 01912846989 or 01915676667 or firstname.lastname@example.org