Suppression of abuse report denied: Council defends decision not to close private homes. Rosie Waterhouse reports

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE County Council last night defended its decision not to seek the closure of two private homes for mentally handicapped adults, where it is alleged that residents were physically and sexually abused.

In a letter to the Independent, Audrey Bainbridge, chairman of the council's social services committee, denied that the council had suppressed an internal report detailing the allegations or that the decision not to take action was a result of fears over the cost of legal measures.

'I can categorically state, as the person who chaired the meeting of the sub-committee, that the cost of action was not the reason for our decision. Legal advice was that on the evidence available an application for urgent cancellation of the homes' registration would not have succeeded, particularly because of changes in the homes' management.'

However, it emerged yesterday that the council had written to Herbert Laming, chief inspector of the Government's Social Services Inspectorate, on 16 August, sending the confidential report on the allegations, but saying the council had decided it did not have the powers to close the homes.

Mr Laming read the report, and was so disturbed by its contents he took it to the department's solicitors for advice. Mr Laming then wrote to Mrs Bainbridge and told her the council did have powers under the Registered Homes Act to go to a magistrates' court and seek an order closing the homes if they thought those running them were not 'fit and proper'.

A Department of Health spokesman said: 'Mr Laming was utterly appalled the council didn't think they could take action under the Act because they could and that is what he told them'.

Mr Laming's advice emerged after Mrs Bainbridge wrote the letter to the Independent, published today, which denied suppressing the confidential report. Leaked to the Independent and published last week, the report revealed allegations that residents in the two homes run by Longcare Ltd. were raped, beaten and humiliated.

In her letter, Mrs Bainbridge says: 'We spent a great deal of time considering whether to propose cancellation of the homes' registration. The company would undoubtedly have required a full hearing of the case for cancellation and would then have been able to appeal to an independent tribunal. All of that could well have taken many months, during which there might well have been no changes to the running of the homes. Also there was no guarantee we would have succeeded.

'Unpalatable though it was, we were faced with a stark choice - should we pursue action to close down the homes, or should we act to achieve the swiftest possible improvements for the residents? In the face of this dilemma, the sub- committee decided that it must act in the interests of the residents.'

Responding to further questions the council issued a statement last night saying: 'Two of the directors and one member of staff who were considered to be unfit persons must sever all connections with the home, including relinquishing any shares held in the company. If these requirements were not met the department would seek cancellation of the registration.

'The people involved have now severed their connections with the homes and the two directors have given written undertakings not to visit or have any part in the running of the home'.

Other measures included increasing the number of inspection visits, notably those carried out without notice, and no resident should be allowed to visit the directors who were severing their connections with the company.

Letters, page 17