The Press WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 1943. Seacliff Inquiry

Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 23969, 9 June 1943, Page 2

The Press WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 1943. Seacliff Inquiry

The report of the commission of inquiry into the disastrous fire at SeaclifT Mental Hospital contains no surprises in evidence or in finding, The commission was required to answer questions about the fire risks of the building, the cause of the fire, the alarm and fire-fighting system, and the system of supervision, and to indicate what can be done to reduce fire risks at Seacliff and in other mental hospitals. The answers are all clear, except on the cause of the fire, which remains uncertain. The stafi' was properl/ organised and did its duty but was too small for “ the requisite super- “ vision of all patients at all times.” The alarm system, manual-electric, was not adequate. The institution lire brigade was efficient but neither its equipment nor the water pressure was good enough “ to combat “ a major fire.” But the answer of chief importance concerns the building, Ward 5. This, in the commission’s “ very definite opinion,” presented excessive fire risks, “ irre- “ speclive of the number of patients accommodated.” The design was bad; the material, inflammable. The shuttered ■ windows could be unlocked from the inside only; patients in single rooms were locked in at night. There was no automatic fire alarm. The commission’s recommendations, which need not be discussed in detail, follow directly from its findings in fact, • those immediately above and others. The main one, it is fair to say, corresponds with present practice; that is, all new buildings to accommodate patients have for some time been detached single-story villas. On incidental questions the Minister in charge of Mental Hospitals may be expected to let the public know what is decided. The recommendations concerning fire personnel and equipment are of immediate importance, affecting many more institutions than Seacliff, Finally, the report turns to a matter emphasised in .“ The Press ” on December 12. The commission points out that, because the Seacliff site is unstable, it has always been difficult and expensive to maintain the 60-year-old central block. The question of moving to another site was first raised five years after it was built; but the move has never been made. Old and unsuitable buildings have been preserved and repaired, “as “urgency required”: new ones have been built, “as the necessity for “ extra accommodation arose.” But—

No doubt the ’extremely heavy cost of transferring the Institution to another and more suitable site has each time the matter w'as considered been looked upon as an insuperable obstacle.

The problems of the Seacliff site are abnormal. The problems of wornout and unsuitable buildings, however, are not peculiar to Seacliff There has been long and reprehensible neglect. The present Government vigorously attacked the problem of scandalous arrears of building and rebuilding, yet not vigorously enough. Its efforts in fields more conspicuous but Jess necessary Were greater. This disproportion reflects a very old political tendency in national works policy. Parliament should feel that, in the Seacliff report, it has been admonished to think more constantly of its duty by the helpless and the voteless.