CAB129-53 — Page 70

Page 70

and of exercising such of the Commission's functions as respects Scotland

matters particularly affecting Scotland as may from time to time be delegated to the Committee by the Commission." I hope this suggestion may be further considered.

Scottish Office, S.W.1.

19th JUNE, 1952.

Page 70

J.S.

Page 70

69

(THIS DOCUMENT THE PROPERTY OF HER BRITANNIC MAJË

ONFIDENTIAL

C. (52) 206

Page'& FONERNMENT)

62

COPY NO.

20th JUNE, 1952.

CABINET

70

THE BROADMOOR INQUIRY

Memorandum by the Minister of Health

Following the escape of Straffen, on 29th April, the Cabinet, at their meeting on 7th May (C.C.(52) 50th Conclusions, Minute 1), approved proposals made by my predecessor for an independent inquiry into the security arrangements at Broadmoor. The Committee appointed to conduct this inquiry have now reported.

2.

I attach a copy of the report. There is a convenient summary of the Committee's recommendations on pages 10 and 11.

3.

The report is, on the whole, reassuring. I think there would be every advantage in publishing it in full and without delay.

4.

The merits of

There is considerable detail in the recommendations. some of them (for example, that any communication by patients with the Minister or the Board of Control should be seen by the Medical Superintendent) are at least open to argument. But, in view of the circumstances of this inquiry, I feel sure that it will be wise to accept the report as a whole, without qualifications which would only provoke further discussion.

5.

--

It will be noted that the report finds that there has been no relaxation of security rules since Broadmoor passed to the Board of Control in 1949 (paragraph 15) and although this was not intended to be within the Committee's reference that it rejects any suggestion that the control of Broadmoor ought to be returned to the Home Office (paragraph 17).

6.

There is one matter, not dealt with in the report, of which my colleagues should be informed. The Board of Control, as managers of the Institution, have carried out in the normal way a full investigation into the circumstances attending the escape of Straffen. They found that responsibility lay primarily on a particular attendant, who was in charge of the patient at the time. He failed to keep the patient under continuous direct observation when he allowed him to go. to a door, which he knew to be open, into a yard, The Board's disciplinary inquiry established neglect of duty by this attendant, and the Board recommended a severe reprimand. A more severe penalty would have been recommended but for the fact that the attendant had nine years' otherwise unblemished record. Under Section 12 of the Criminal Lunatic Asylum Act, 1860, criminal proceedings can also be taken against an attendant for negligence in certain circumstances; the papers in this case were laid by the Board before the Director of Public Prosecutions, who has decided that prosecution would not be justifiable.

7. If my colleagues agree, I should now like to be authorised: -

(a) to publish the report of the Inquiry forthwith as a White Paper;

Page of the day it is laid before the House to makepagtatq5on

the lines of the draft which I append.

-1-

CONFIDENTIAL

PROOF