Mentally ill kept waiting for audits: MPs attack failure to improve backlog

NEARLY 900 mentally-ill patients have been waiting three years to have their financial affairs checked by government officials responsible for seeing their money is being handled properly.

Sir Thomas Legg, Permanent Secretary at the Lord Chancellor's Department, told MPs yesterday that there had been 'no improvement' on a backlog of 868 patients whose accounts had not been examined for three years in March 1993.

The affairs of the mentally ill are overseen by the Public Trust Office, part of the Lord Chancellor's Department. Day-to-day finances are managed by 'receivers' - relatives, friends, or professionals like solicitors or bank managers - who report to the trust office. They must pay a fee for its advice and services.

The fees are supposed to just cover costs. However, Sir Thomas, giving evidence to the Commons Public Accounts Committee, was asked by Terry Davis, MP for Birmingham Hodge Hill, if the office actually made a profit last year. Sir Thomas preferred the phrase 'unintended surplus', but said that last year there had been a gain of pounds 120,000.

Mr Davis asked why that money was not being used to employ more people to clear the backlog. After claiming the office was not allowed to keep the money, Sir Thomas acknowledged it could be enough to take on four to five extra staff.

The exchange formed part of an uncomfortable session for Sir Thomas and Peter Farmer, head of the trust office. MPs repeatedly questioned whether mental patients were getting a good deal. Each year, officials visit some 1,500 patients out of a total of 14,000 who do not live in a hospital or institution or do not have their affairs managed by a local authority.

For the trust office, the visit is the only face-to-face contact with the patient and the only way of assessing his or her well-being. A recent report by the National Audit Office, the public spending watchdog, said visits 'can bring immediate benefits to patients by identifying ways in which their quality of life can be improved'. They also provide direct feedback to officials as to how well the receivership is operating.

MPs were shocked that some patients may receive only one visit. As with delays in assessing accounts, a large visits backlog has built up. The committee accused officials of being slow to implement the findings of a 1992 review recommending the setting up of a dedicated section to deal with visits. Of particular concern were 12 cases of fraud totalling more than pounds 150,000. Eleven were carried out by 'receivers' and one was by a trust office employee.

More than pounds 40,000 has been recovered and police investigations are continuing. The receivers' frauds entailed the forging of signatures on bank or building society forms. In the internal case, a staff member made bogus phone calls and substituted his own details in cheques drawn on a patient's behalf.

Robert Sheldon, the committee chairman, described the fraud within the department as 'a very serious matter'. Mr Farmer blamed it on one official who 'took advantage of the system'.