HC Deb 23 March 1979 vol 964 cc236-8W
Mr. Macfarlane

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is yet in a position to report the outcome of his investigations into the circumstances of the employment of Mrs. A. R. Mitchell at the Royal Marsden hospital between 1974 and 1976.

Mr. Moyle

Mrs. Mitchell, who falsely claimed a social work qualification, was employed in March 1974 by the board of governors of the Royal Marsden hospital in hospital social work at its Surrey branch. In April 1974, as a consequence of the reorganisation of the National Health Service, she was transferred to the employment of the Royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea, though she continued to work at the Sutton branch of the Royal Marsden.

In 1975, the Health Service Commissioner investigated a complaint that the Royal Marsden had failed properly to deal with a complaint of improper handling by Mrs. Mitchell of money belonging to a patient. The Commissioner criticised some aspects of the board of governors' treatment of the complaint. At about the same time, a complaint had also been made to the Royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea about Mrs. Mitchell's handling of money due in respect of another patient to a private nursing home. Early in 1976, other complaints were made about Mrs. Mitchell's handling of money. She was dismissed in May 1976. In January 1978, she was convicted of fraud, and imprisoned. Mrs. Mitchell had previous convictions for similar offences; and had been dismissed from two previous Health Service appointments for financial irregularities and had left a third under suspicion. During the course of these appointments she had three different married names.

I am satisfied that, on the information available to them at the time of her first employment with the Royal Marsden, the health authority could not reasonably have been expected to find out about Mrs. Mitchell's previous convictions and dismissals. Information on the circumstances of her departure from the previous NHS appointments did exist in the superannuation and audit records of my Department, but, partly because of her changes in name, it was not possible to trace it at that stage.

My inquiries suggest that, even in the absence of information about her record, the Royal Marsden and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea might reasonably have been more sceptical about Mrs. Mitchell's explanations of her conduct over the two complaints made about her early in 1975; and in particular that they could have taken greater account of the warnings implied in the outcome later that year of the investigation of the Health Service Commissioner into one of these complaints. However, they both adopted correct procedures for investigating the issues, and were influenced by Mrs. Mitchell's reputation for otherwise effective work with clients and colleagues. It must be acknowledged, too, that they had to deal with the situation at a time when the management of social workers in hospitals had recently become the responsibility of social service departments, and lines of communication and accountability may not have been fully clarified.

In July 1975, as a result of inquiries by the Health Service Commissioner, the Department's records about Mrs. Mitchell came to light. However, as a result of misjudgments and failures in communication, the Department did not pass the necessary information to the two authorities. Had it done so it is likely that she would have been dismissed several months before she actually was.

I am satisfied that appropriate lessons have already been learnt by those concerned.

There is no absolutely certain safeguard against the employment or re-employment in social services of people with criminal records. But my Department will be discussing the general issues that arise from this case with representatives of health and social service authorities, and other relevant bodies.

Those who suffered financial loss as a consequence of actions taken by Mrs. Mitchell in the course of her employment in the hospital have been reimbursed.

I am placing a full copy of the report of my investigations in the Library of the House. I am satisfied that the case should not be regarded as a general reflection on the high standards of personal integrity in the profession of which Mrs. Mitchell falsely claimed to be a qualified member.