Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
With National Pro Bono Week taking place as of yesterday, Francine Ryan, lecturer in law and member of the Open Justice team at the Open University, talks to Lawyer Monthly about Pro Bono work, getting involved, and the values behind Pro Bono legal work.
National Pro Bono Week takes place from 6th to 11th November 2017, it is an annual event in its sixteenth year, sponsored by the Law Society, the Bar Council and the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEx). It unites the legal profession in a celebration of the commitment and dedication to supporting individuals, charities and local communities.
National Pro Bono Week is a great opportunity to highlight the incredible volunteering provided by law students and legal professionals in their communities. Lawyers are often maligned by the media and yet the value of free legal advice provided by solicitors in 2015-16 was estimated at 1.8 million hours[1] . National Pro Bono Week promotes and raises awareness of pro bono and hopefully inspires more people to get involved and encourages the expansion of pro bono across the legal sector.
What is pro bono?
Pro bono means for the ‘public good’ and for lawyers it is the provision of free legal services to those who cannot afford to pay. There are a number of ways lawyers are involved in pro bono from volunteering in Law Centres, supervising law students in law clinics, or providing free representation in court.
How can you get involved?
Legal professionals and law students can all take part in National Pro Bono Week as there are events happening across the country. So, if you fancy channelling your inner quiz master you can take part in the Great Legal Quiz on November 8th which is fundraising for legal advice charities or if you want to be inspired listen to Edgar Cahn’s ‘Pro bono reflections of a civil rights veteran’ on 9th November.
Law students should check out the Student Pro Bono Conference at the University of Manchester on Saturday 11th November. This is a fantastic opportunity to find out more about pro bono and network with legal practitioners involved in delivering pro bono legal advice.
There is more information on National Pro Bono Week at www.nationalprobonocentre.org.uk with details of the events that are running during the week.
There will be lots of media coverage in National Pro Bono Week showcasing the commitment of the legal profession and many law schools to providing free legal services. It also provides an opportunity to raise awareness of the access to justice crisis and the plight of many vulnerable individuals who are without legal representation because of the significant reduction in the availability of legal aid.
Pro bono is more than National Pro Bono Week
National pro bono week is all about celebrating the valuable pro bono work provided by the legal community but it is also about fostering a sense of commitment to supporting access to justice. It is an opportunity to highlight the importance of pro bono to local communities.
Law students should relish the chance to get involved in pro bono. Law schools offer a variety of ways students can support individuals, charities and community groups by providing free legal advice in clinics, delivering Street law presentations or working on a miscarriage of justice project. For example, at The Open University law students provide an online legal advice clinic.
Cuts to legal aid have had a devastating impact on vulnerable individuals and although pro bono should never be a substitute for legal aid, law students have an increasingly important role to play in the provision of legal advice and public legal education to ensure access to justice.
Pro bono offers a fantastic opportunity for law students to support their local community but also to develop professional skills that will be invaluable in their legal career. Participation in pro bono will hopefully ensure law students develop an ongoing commitment to being involved in pro bono projects.
So, this week, reflect on how you can get involved in pro bono by engaging in events through National Pro Bono Week and beyond. Don’t forget to tweet about what you’re doing or what is going on in your local area #WeDoProBono.
[1] https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/Support-services/Practice-management/Pro-bono/National-Pro-Bono-Week/
The Bar has confounded decades of critics and doomsayers through fearlessness and competition for excellence, Chair of the Bar Andrew Langdon QC told the 32nd Annual Bar and Young Bar Conference last week.
The Chair’s full speech is available here.
As over 500 guests and speakers gathered in central London today for the Bar’s flagship event, including Sir Keir Starmer QC MP, Lady Justice Hallet, and terror-law watchdog Max Hill QC, Langdon explained why the Bar is such an irrepressible profession.
He said: “Our professional opportunities are limitless if we are prepared to stick to our core ethos whilst being intelligent about how we should adapt. Our international work increases and not only for the commercial Bar: the overall size of the Bar and its earnings continues to increase, confounding those who predicted our demise.
“Our demise has been prophesied since I was called 31 years ago, since which time we have tripled in size. Why? Because you can’t keep a good idea down. The idea of independent referral advice and representation from fearless individuals who compete for excellence, is an idea that not only refuses to die, but gains traction wherever it is given the chance. It is highly prized, here and abroad and rightly so.
“Our great strength as a profession is that we are motivated by acting in the public interest. We should put our collective effort into turning the tide which has been running against those who, without legal assistance, are unable to make a case for themselves.”
Diversity
The Chair warned that the pace of change on diversity in the profession has been “too slow”, and said that predecessors had “underestimated the conscious effort and depth of change that is required.”
“We still do not have a profession that sufficiently reflects the society we serve and we must continue to tackle that deficit.”
Langdon also hit out at proposals to introduce later and earlier court sitting hours, claiming they could wind back the clock on the work done by the profession to achieve a more equal gender balance at the Bar.
He said: “We do not like the sound of so-called ‘flexible operating hours’. Sitting intermittent early and late shifts will deter those with caring responsibilities. Diversity is a recognised problem not just for the profession but for the judiciary largely drawn from our ranks.
“Instead of making it harder for women with caring responsibilities to remain in the profession, we want to achieve the opposite – to bring more consistency to the court day.”
Technology
With speakers at the Conference including Professor Richard Susskind OBE, whose work has focused on the likely impact of AI on the legal profession, the Chair made clear that the Bar was no stranger to technology and would lead, not stand in the way of progress.
He said: “Our ability to adapt to the challenge of technology is not in doubt.
“We have taken to digital working much more readily than many, with their homely but outmoded Rumpolian caricatures, believed possible.
“I have suggested not merely that we can adapt to digital working but that we can lead it and help shape it.”
Morale of the judiciary
Echoing concerns raised this week by the House of Lords Constitution Committee, the Chair of the Bar warned of low morale in the judiciary.
He said: “It isn’t just about money. The morale of judges and of the Bar is affected by the way we are treated by officialdom in many guises. Sometimes, frankly, it borders on contempt. There are symptoms of low morale not merely amongst judges and lawyers but also critically, amongst court staff.”
The young Bar is shrinking
The Chair advised that the Bar is shrinking at the junior end. He said: “We are currently losing young barristers who see how hard it will be to pay back the debts they incur in training.
“Although the research is incomplete, most believe the lack of confidence in public funding is partly what has caused chambers to recruit fewer junior members.”
(Source: The Bar Council)
Last week, in an opportune turn of events, President Donald Trump's @realdonaldtrump Twitter account was deactivated as a stunt pulled by a disgruntled employee of the social media platform on their last day of work.
Leon Deakin, Partner at law firm Coffin Mew, had this to say for Lawyer Monthly: “The revelation that Donald Trump’s Twitter account was taken down by a disgruntled Twitter employee is a perfect example of the risks employers run when staff with access to sensitive information or with the ability to do harm to the business leave.
“Indeed, under UK employment law when a departing employee decides to go rogue and fire off some form of parting shot there is often little the employer can actually do about it other than apologise to the affected parties and do as Twitter appears to be and ‘conduct a review’ whilst expressing contrition.
“Unless the action results in some form of financial damage to the employer which it can evidence and quantify, the options tend to be extremely limited. Certainly, if the employee was leaving imminently anyway or happy to part company, firing them is pretty impotent. The employer could threaten to withhold a reference or even include mention of the act within any reference given but in many cases, this is unlikely to act as much of a deterrent. The option to litigate may seem attractive, but situations where this is viable are rare.
“This Twitter employee might’ve had ambitions of becoming an ‘internet sensation’ and boosting their profile with non-Trump supporters with this petty parting act – embarrassing their former employer into the bargain, but incurring relatively little punishment.
“Having said that, getting on the wrong side of the President of the United States may well carry more clout than any litigation or workplace sanction could!”
Hey Aluxers, a while back we did a video on the richest lawyers and that video sparked our curiosity. We looked around for people who were widely regarded as criminals but got away because they had a good lawyer. So we dug around and put together this top 10. This video is meant to shine a light on the fact that while good people use their fortunes to better themselves and those around them, bad people use them to escape the law. In this Alux.com video we'll try to answer the following questions: Who is the best lawyer in the world? Who are some criminals that got away because they had a good lawyer? Who was OJ Simpson's lawyer? Who is the best celebrity lawyer? Did Kim Kardashian's Father Helped O J Simpson? How to get away with murder? What makes a good lawyer? How much is an expensive lawyer?
Killian Garvey, planning & environmental law barrister at Kings Chambers, discusses with Lawyer Monthly the recent High Court ruling to re-impose fixed costs for disputes in planning and environmental cases.
You will likely have the seen the headlines which accompanied the decision taken by the High Court in September to re-instate fixed costs for disputes in planning environmental cases – overturning rules introduce by the Ministry of Justice in February.
To understand the full implications of the ruling, it is important to first understand the background against which the decision is set. From there, we can understand the likely impact of the ruling, and what it will means for disputes in planning and environmental cases going forward.
The background
Going back to 1st April 2013, we can see that the Civil Procedure Rules were amended to include new rules for claims that fell within the Aarhus Convention.
This applied to any claim for judicial review that, in simple terms, engaged environmental matters. The definition of environmental matters within this context was intended to be broad and comprehensive.
Moreover, it provided a strong incentive against challenging whether the matter is environmental. If such a challenge was unsuccessful, the defendant would be ordered to pay indemnity costs for having raised the matter (per CPR 45.44).
Where the matter was a judicial review that engaged environmental issues, CPR 45.41 provided the claimant with the mechanism to secure a protective costs order. This meant that, even if the claimant lost their claim, they only need to pay £5,000 in costs to the other side, or £10,000 where the claimant was an organisation.
In Venn,[1] it was held that these provisions could be read across to statutory challenges to an Inspector’s decision.[2] However, they did not apply as a matter of course. The Claimant would need to demonstrate that they required the protective costs order in light of their financial resources.
These provisions in the CPR had, therefore, acted as a mechanism whereby claimants can pursue judicial reviews, whilst significantly limiting their costs exposure.
However, on 28 February 2017, at the behest of the Ministry of Justice, the CPR was amended to soften these provisions through CPR 52.19A.
The changes meant that the Court had the power to vary the costs cap of £5k or £10k, to a much higher figure depending on the claimant’s personal resources and or access to funds (including from supporters).
Accordingly, the previously fixed costs cap became a flexible figure, which could be varied on each occasion.
The challenge
A number of charitable groups invested in environmental decisions (eg. the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) pursued a judicial challenge of these provisions in R. (RSPB and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] EWHC 2309 (Admin). They contended that the rules were in breach of the Aarhus Convention.
The challenge was pursued on three grounds, namely:
Dove J found that the amendments to the CPR were not unlawful, however, he provided clarity on their application.
As regards ground 1, Dove J held that where a protective costs order is to be challenged, it should be done in the acknowledgment of service. The level of costs should be determined at the outset of the claim, so that the claimant can know early in the process their potential costs exposure.
As regards ground 2, the Court found that where the claimant’s financial resources were to be considered, the hearings should be in private with such information being kept confidential.
This was to avoid ‘the chilling effect, which the prospect of the public disclosure of the financial information of the claimant and/or his or her financial supporters’ could have.
As regards ground 3, the Court found that the Claimant’s own costs were relevant to assessing whether the costs were prohibitively expensive.
Following the ruling the law firm acting on behalf of the charitable groups claimed they had won ‘major concessions’ from the Government which ‘make it radically better for access to environmental justice and go a considerable way to allay legitimate concerns of a chilling effect on otherwise meritorious legal claims.’
In particular, as result of Dove J’s judgment, the costs cap must be set at the permission stage of the proceedings; whereas previously it was understood that at any stage of the proceedings the Court could vary the costs cap.
Similarly, the Secretary of State for Justice has equally claimed success, on the basis that the amendments to the CPR have been upheld in substance, albeit their application might have changed.
For practical purposes, the judgment confirms that the previously fixed costs cap can now be varied in judicial review claims. However, only time will tell as to whether the Courts will typically be open to varying the costs cap in any appreciable manner.
Moreover, in light of the need for hearings in private, it might be the case that the costs associated with arguing this point outweigh the savings made in varying the costs cap in any event.
At this stage there is potential for the High Court ruling to play out in a number of ways. Planning and environmental lawyers will watch with interest to see whether the amendments to the CPR have much difference in practice.
[1] Venn v SSCLG [2013] EWHC 3546 (Admin)
[2] Pursuant to s.288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
The structure of law firms means that they face very specific challenges when a merger occurs. Below Chris Roberts, Practice Director at Accelerating Experience, explains how the role of a strong people strategy can be central to seeing through a successful M&A in the legal sector.
The recent merger between law firms Norton Rose Fulbright and Chadbourne & Parke has seen the global firm now reach a total of 4,000 lawyers in 33 countries. This is one of the latest in a long line of high profile mergers and acquisitions in the legal sector, following the likes of CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang and Herbert Smith Freehills. Increased pressure to expand geographical reach, develop a strong sector presence, and improve market position has triggered a period of consolidation in the legal sector as firms look for inorganic ways to grow or build cost synergies.
However, when firms undergo a merger of this scale, there is no guarantee of a successful transition – especially in the legal sector. The nature and partnership structure of law firms offer unique hurdles, frequently preventing the leadership from creating a cohesive, high performing culture across the new firm. Only a strong people strategy will help mitigate some of these issues, allowing the leadership team to unlock the full potential of a merger or acquisition.
Industry hurdles and opportunities
Each sector has its own particular challenges when it comes to mergers, but when it comes to the legal sector, can the partner system be an obstacle to success?
There are a range of partnership structures used in the sector, each offering a slightly different challenge. But many partners in law firms run essentially small “independent” businesses in their practice areas, directly accountable to their clients, with their own particular specialism. Often with a narrow focus, individual partners can prove obstructive to a merger should they feel the deal does not materially benefit them.
Attitudes to only focusing on billable time can impact the motivation needed to focus on company-wide strategy, and the successful integration of a firm following an acquisition. If one firm values non-billable time more than the other, it makes it more difficult to engage colleagues to develop relationships with new colleagues beyond billable work, or engage with initiatives designed to create a new working culture. In fact, for partners whose bonus depends on reaching a minimum number of billable hours, focussing on company-wide or non-billable activity may be seen as a distraction. One of the issues to confront therefore, is how to build an understanding of the long-term personal benefit of a merger deal to partners, and assist detail orientated specialists to see the bigger picture for the firm.
However, the typical skill-set of lawyers can prove highly useful in times of a merger. They are extremely organised and flexible - able to manage clients’ changing needs in a world of rapidly changing legislation and regulation. It is through a collaborative approach that lawyers are able to develop high degrees of trust with their clients, demonstrating their value as reliable and trusted consultants. These strengths in the leadership are hugely beneficial during the often highly changeable times of a merger. However, to create a high performing team, it is vital that the leadership also bring out this collaborative approach across the business, and articulate the need for, and benefit of, cohesion.
Communication
Defining a common purpose for the new firm is paramount to driving it forward. However, clearly communicating this purpose to employees is equally important. Too often the communication around the strategy driving the merger is clouded by rhetoric and nonspecific language, with a frustrating lack of clarity about the benefits of the firms coming together.
In order to maintain and improve business performance, the leadership team need to communicate regularly and clearly with all employees about the merger, as well as setting out very specifically how to measure its success. This is often missing and the leaks are the only part people see.
Partners in particular will have their own personal requirements and fears, as well as ambitions and aims that they expect to achieve in the new environment. It is important that they feel that these are heard and understood by the leadership team. Moreover, people throughout the firm will be at varying stages of understanding about the process. Some will be only just hearing the message, others will be resistant to the plans, and some may be struggling to understand their role within the new firm. There will also be a group that are fully supportive and excited about the possibilities of the new organisation. This means there can be no ‘one-size-fits all’ approach to engagement throughout the new business.
Leaders in law firms are faced with significant management challenges constantly, often expected to work 24/7 and navigate a global network of lawyers where team members are working across several time zones. The partners need to create a sense of trust, purpose and transparency when working in this exciting but challenging environment.
Failure to take these factors on board may lead to teams becoming dysfunctional and creating barriers to achieving the optimal business outcome, thereby reducing the success of the transaction. A clear common purpose firmwide needs to be adopted and fully supported.
With this trend of consolidation continuing, there are likely to be further opportunities for law firms to come together, find synergies to reduce costs, and capture certain markets. However, it would be a wasted opportunity if the lack of a clear people strategy prevented the optimal result of a merger. The key is understanding the concerns and ambitions of employees, addressing them, then shaping the internal communication to ensure they feel trusted, heard, and valued. Law firms need to be fully transparent in a negotiation process and make a positive effort to ensure that both parties are fairly represented in the new environment.
At some point during their education, each and every law student, regardless of geography or concentration, will come face-to-face with the same question: what type of law do I want to practice? Here Kenneth Cutshaw, President and CEO of GCG, continues Lawyer Monthly’s series on law school and legal careers by discussing the global-based steps each budding international lawyer should consider alongside their legal specialization.
Some will know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, what practice area interests them. Others may take internships in the hopes of narrowing down their options. But while the fields of practice are nearly endless – corporate, financial, IP, class action, defense – there is one thing each has in common: the practice of law, in all its forms, is increasingly global in nature.
It is truer today than ever before: we live in a global economy, so whether or not a young lawyer intends to practice international law, there is a strong likelihood that, throughout the course of her career, she will face matters of international significance or, at minimum, cases that require some knowledge of the international legal landscape.
It is advisable for all law students and young legal practitioners to prepare for the practice of international law. This can be achieved through a deliberate approach to course scheduling, careful selection of internships, diversifying early professional experiences, expanding one’s personal knowledge base through literature, and ensuring the expectations and realities of international legal practice are aligned.
Course Scheduling
In addition to required international legal courses, law students should prioritize courses in international business, intercultural communication, and foreign language to prepare for success in the global legal sphere. They should aggressively seek out opportunities that broaden their experiences with people of myriad backgrounds. For example, consider studying abroad or participating in clubs that welcome and help international students adjust to life on campus. The goal is not necessarily to be fluent in several languages upon graduation, but to be prepared for – and sensitive to – differential cultural practices and ideas that might arise during the course of one’s legal career.
Choose Internships Carefully
There are few resources more valuable to law students than their internship experiences, so choosing them carefully and thoughtfully is critical. Do your research to ensure that any law firm you join has a proven track record of success and a strong international reputation. Internships often turn into job opportunities, so aligning yourself with a firm whose international presence is established is key both to your professional development and to your future prospects.
Diversify Early Professional Experiences
As a young lawyer, it can be easy to get pigeonholed into one practice area within the firm, and if that isn’t satisfying your appetite for international experience, take matters into your own hands. Carve out 1-2 hours per week to “volunteer” your time with a partner or mentor within the firm whose caseload is international in scope. Not only will this demonstrate your drive and initiative, it will diversify your professional experience, making you more marketable later in your career.
Read, Read, Read
Law students and young legal professionals are very busy people, and it can be challenging to make time for anything leisurely in nature. That said, one of the best investments you can make in your future as an international legal practitioner is simply reading. Read about anything – biographies of esteemed historical figures, the manipulation of financial markets, the rise and fall of the Greek empire. At the end of the day, deviating from your day-to-day schedule will afford you the opportunity to broaden your perspective, which will only serve to make you a more capable lawyer, international or otherwise.
Align Your Expectations
Before committing to any area of practice, law students should do their due diligence to ensure their expectations align with the realities of the job. There are unique challenges for international practitioners, including substantial travel requirements and the need to keep unconventional hours to serve clients in different time zones. The more informed you are at the outset of any career endeavor, the greater the likelihood you will be successful and find your work enjoyable.
Judicious law students, even if their chosen practice area lies outside of international law, will prepare for a law career that, at one point or another, could become international in scope. Those who have systematically challenged themselves to diversify their course load, extracurricular activities, and early professional experiences will always be one step ahead of their peers and, as lawyers, there is no better place to be.
Even as adults, half of us still don’t know our rights as tenants, our landlords skirt the law, and we end up out of pocket or unjustly evicted. So how are younger generations supposed to fare? Here Leon Ifayemi, CEO and Founder of SPCE, explains the student rental market and the essentials students need to be aware of.
Ask anybody about their university experience and amidst stories of eccentric lecturers, infamous nights on the town and class romances, you’ll no doubt hear a few horror stories about the trials and tribulations faced when looking for and living in private accommodation. For first year students living in residential halls, the transition from university accommodation to the rental market can often be a trying experience.
No longer able to rely on the services readily on offer from on-campus support, students are flung into an alien environment where they must navigate landlords, agencies, mountains of paperwork and, perhaps most importantly, find a house whose location, amenities and charm make it a fitting place to live.
The student rental market is a complicated beast which is why it is extremely important for you to understand your rights as tenants. According to a recent survey of more than 400 landlords across the UK, only 1% say students are their favoured tenants. This is a shame given that university students are often misrepresented in the press – portrayed as loud and inconsiderate tenants more interested in indulging in life’s pleasures than bedding down and studying.
In reality, it is wrong to stereotype students as party animals; in fact, almost all students are backed by their parents as guarantors, meaning they are far less likely to be unable to meet their rent or pay for any damages during their tenancy.
Students should no longer been seen as a last resort for a landlord, but instead must be recognised as a demographic of renter requiring greater support. Living away from home, they are often unaware of what to look out for, and ignorant of the rights they possess as a tenant. Looking back to my days as a student ambassador, one of my duties was to connect students with landlords and rental accommodation.
Almost immediately, you would see groups of students hastily signing leases in the fear that they could lose out on a property, without properly assessing the conditions of the house or reading the fine print of the contract. The worst thing you could possibly imagine is to move into a house in September only to discover soon after that is has damp, a faulty boiler and poor insulation.
It’s important for students to realise that their rights as tenants can vary according to which part of the UK they reside in, with some variation between England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, protection laws exist across each jurisdiction to ensure that landlords must deliver accommodation that satisfies certain conditions.
Before moving into a house, it’s wise to put a few hours aside to properly review the state of the property. Check for signs of dampness, make note of any previous damage to the property such as marks on the wall and stains on the carpet, and test that the locks are in good shape. There’s no harm in being thorough, particularly if you want to receive your full deposit back at the end of the tenancy.
Students must also be aware of the laws governing the return of their deposit. The landlord must return your deposit within ten days once the amount refunded has been agreed upon. If the landlord refuses to send the full deposit back, or seeks to make deductions to compensate for damage to the house, students are in a position to dispute by using the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) service. Through an independent review of the case, the ADR ensures students can resolve any problems without having to go to court.
The student letting market has been traditionally marred by issues of communication between landlords, letting agencies and students. Thankfully, innovations in the digital space are having a positive impact on the student rental market, with new apps enhancing accessibility and streamlining the process so that there is greater transparency. By embracing such proptech solutions, both landlords and tenants will benefit from a superior rental experience.
Another month, another #WednesdayWisdom from our expert clerk Scott Haley, Family Practice Manager at One Pump Court. This month Scott provides Lawyer Monthly with an exciting explanation to the classic ‘jabot’ barristers wear.
The jabot is that other ‘associated accessory’ that has no proven practical purpose to court wear; although, it has been known to help catch the tomato ketchup from a breakfast bap.
The jabot, also known by its less impressive names such as a band, court bib or sometimes neck doily, is quite literally a white bib that hangs from a stiff white collar, which is worn around a barrister's neck.
The style arose around 1640, when fashion conscious barristers swapped fancy neck ruffs for 'falling bands' of plain linen to conceal the collar of their shirt; known as jabots, these pieces of linen were thought to be an essential component of upper class, male fashion in the baroque period, and were originally very wide and flamboyant.
By the 1860s, they had become two simple rectangles, which are still worn by barristers today; the two rectangles are even said to represent the tablets of Moses in the Old Testament.
Today, whilst the jabot serves no real practical purpose, it is essentially worn for tradition's sake, much like the barrister's wig.
An example of a barrister's classic jabot.
From benefits to IT, government systems are what keep society together, but they’re not always as effective as they are intended to be. Here Stephen Norman, author of Trading Down, to be released on November 9th, delves into some prime examples of government systems and the development, management and gears behind them.
2nd Oct 2017: Universal Credit is ‘a disaster waiting to happen’ but Teresa May says Universal Credit roll-out WILL go ahead.
Sound familiar? You are not mistaken. 20 years ago, Gordon Brown set his heart on a major overhaul of the benefits system. The project aimed to replace two allowances with tax credits i.e. negative taxes in which the taxman pays you. The project was a disaster: late, over budget and over generous to claimants on an eye-watering scale. By 2008, HMRC was chasing £4.3billion in overpayments.
However, the tax credit system worked, eventually. Unlike the “National Program for IT for the NHS”, which cost £10 billion and absolutely failed to live up to its bold vision. Likewise, UK farmers have bitter memories of the Single Farm Payments project. Perhaps magistrates mourn the failed Libra system which aimed to transform their lives for £146m and failed to do so for £389m. Then there is the e-borders project and the (5 years late) Ministry of Justice GPS based tagging system. Just to list the public fiascos of the last twenty years would take up the rest of this article.
Why public sector IT so accident prone? The Public Accounts Committee publishes frequent critical reports and there is a substantial independent literature on the subject[1]. The same themes come round again and again:
Panic finally sets in, leading to cuts in scope, and crisis hiring of call centre and back office staff. All of which increase the ultimate cost.
It’s all pretty obvious, isn’t it? I haven’t told you anything that you (and Sir Humphrey) didn’t already know. Assuming that civil servants don’t want to be pilloried in the Daily Mail or roasted by the Public Accounts Committee, why these endless failures?
Let’s get realistic. In a democracy, politicians will always come and go. They will always want quick results. They have electorates to please. Few ministers (or civil servants) understand IT or have a gut feeling about the risks of a big project, and this is not likely to change (David Gauke, the Work and Pensions minister responsible for Universal Credit, is a solicitor and Ian Duncan Smith started life in the Scots Guards). So the political pressure to want everything, by unrealistic dates and then to move the goalposts during the match will always be with us.
But wherever you look, there are huge opportunities to save money while providing the public with more personal, immediate and helpful services. In my local hospital, patient records are still handwritten and wheeled around between wards (automation has arrived – the trolley is electric!).
The need for big national IT is growing and politicians will always be politicians. So what can we change?
Some enterprises are born digital. Born digital enterprises don’t have an IT department; they are an IT department. Everyone from the CEO downwards lives and breathes technology. The born digital worship good design and simplicity. They know that a few smart people can build systems that thousands of ordinary people cannot. They understand agile development and incremental change. They accept that innovation brings failure.
Born digital enterprises are all software companies, right? No. Take Tesla. Tesla is an automobile company but its management from Elon Musk down are all geeks. The best of the challenger banks, the world’s largest advertising company, the world’s largest retailer… these are all born digital.
Let’s contrast this with the acquired digital. Management in acquired digital enterprises are not geeks, but they care about IT and they feel accountable for its delivery. They pay attention. They hire the best techies they can and fire them when they don’t deliver. They understand the constraints of the iron triangle: money, time and resource. The majority of today’s successful corporations are acquired digital.
The third category have “digital thrust upon them.” These enterprises have been burned by past failures, are running on a shoestring, or are just poorly managed. For them, IT is SEP, “Somebody Else’s Problem”. Often they achieve this by outsourcing. They put their faith in competitive tenders, complex contracts and penalties. In 2007, a consortium of banks bought ABN AMRO. ABN AMRO saw IT as “Somebody’s Else’s Problem.” They had outsourced it once to EDS, and then – disappointed with the results – tried again with IBM. Managing their own IT was just too hard for them, but they weren’t competent to manage their suppliers either. When RBS Markets re-insourced their piece, costs dropped by over 40%.
HM Government has for the past twenty tried to make IT “Somebody Else’s Problem”, “Somebody Else” being a small club of suppliers familiar from the records of the Public Accounts Committee: Cap Gemini, Capita, Accenture, IBM, HP/EDS and so on.
HMRC, for example, outsourced its IT to EDS under a 10 year contract signed in 1995. This contract was not a ticket to a gravy train. EDS were blamed for the failure of the Tax Credits project and ultimately lost the contract to Cap Gemini.
Reliable public sector IT will not be achieved by hand wringing over the proximate causes of failure listed earlier. Simply put, the departments of UK Gov need to “acquire digital.” This does not mean to re-insource all IT. John Yard, who spent 5 years as the head of IT of HMRC, puts it, “what you need is a small cadre of high calibre IT people who understand the business and the complexity of the existing environment.” Such people would not throw IT over the wall to an EDS, but would outsource selectively to a broader range of suppliers, including smaller and more specialised suppliers with new ideas.
Progress is being made. HMRC are bringing IT management back in-house. The GDS (Government Digital Service), a Cabinet Office agency set up in 2011 is a catalyst for change, preaching the benefits of agile, of listening to users and short projects. One of its successes has been to migrate government services onto www.gov.uk. Perhaps even the incremental roll-out (of Universal Credit) is a smart move. After all, Tesla does it. Well, go to www.gov.uk/universal-credit/eligibility and imagine that you speak little English, have 3 children and an elderly mother. You may wonder if the incremental delivery of Universal Credit is merely a car crash being brought to us in slow motion. Time will tell.
Stephen Norman spent 20 years at the forefront of investment banking IT in a range of high powered roles including Chief Technology Officer at Merrill Lynch and an unusually long 7-year stint as CIO of RBS Global Markets. In 2012, he left the world of finance to focus on his writing. Trading Down, Stephen’s first novel, is published by Endeavour Press on 9th November.
[1] See for example Conundrum, R Bacon and C Hope, and The Blunders of our Governments, A King and I Crewe
