HC Deb 12 April 1961 vol 638 cc338-42
Miss Bacon

I beg to move, in page 9, line 23, at the end to insert: (2) It shall be the duty of the managers to review the circumstances of a person detained in the school at the end of every six months of the period of detention in order to decide whether he should be released. The managers of an approved school exercise all the rights and duties of parents. One of these very important rights is to review the circumstances of the child and to decide when the child should come out on licence. It was shown at the time of the Carlton Approved School inquiry that the managers there had not been carrying out their duties in the manner in which it was intended they should do. We want to make clear here that every child shall have his circumstances reviewed to decide whether or not he shall go out on licence at the end of every six months.

I know that Rule 40 of the Approved School Rules says that this shall be reviewed towards the end of the first year in the school and thereafter as often as may be necessary or at least quarterly. I am not sure how far the Approved School Rules are as legal as anything that would be written into the Bill. We feel therefore that it would be much more satisfactory to write this provision into the Bill rather than to leave it in the rules. In any case the rules make provision only for review at the end of the first year.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Renton

We agree with the object of the Amendment. Clearly the managers should have the duty to review periodically the progress of each child with a view to seeing whether and when he is fit for release on licence. As the hon. Lady pointed out, this object has been achieved in practice for 28 years now by means of the Approved School Rules of 1933 which are still in force. Rule 40 requires a review to be held towards the end of the first year and thereafter as often as may be necessary and at least quarterly. We propose to amend that rule as soon as Clause 14 becomes law by providing for the first review to be held at the end of the first six months, as suggested by the Amendment, instead of at the end of the first year. As the hon. Lady will realise, when this is done the review will be held more frequently than it would be if the Amendment were accepted.

The question is whether it is right to do this by rule or by writing it into the statute. We feel that the established practice of dealing with this matter by rules instead of by statute has certain advantages, chief of which is that the Home Secretary can prescribe in more detail than would be appropriate in a statute the way in which the duties should be carried out. Another advantage is that it gives greater flexibility and therefore greater ease of amendment to meet changing circumstances.

Mr. Weitzman

What is the binding effect of the rules supposing that the management does not carry them out? That is the important point.

Mr. Renton

I understand that the binding effect is that if a manager failed to carry out a rule he could be directed by the Home Secretary to do so. That is how the matter would be handled. Therefore, it will be seen that the binding effect of the rule is just the same as if this were done by statute. I hope for these reasons that I carry the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) with me in feeling that this is the best way of doing it. We have the advantage of twenty years' experience in doing it this way. It has not given rise to difficulties and we feel that it would be better than writing it into the Bill.

Mr. Ede

I think that the Joint Under-Secretary's account of what has happened in the past is a little too flattering to the management of some of these schools. Certainly at Stanton a few years ago and at Carlton House these provisions were not carried out. Whilst I should like to see the rules continued. I think that there should be greater insistence by the Secretary of State on their being complied with. I should regret to see it being regarded as sufficient if this assessment of the advance of the boys in their work at an approved school was done only at the four meetings during the year.

The headmaster should be encouraged to submit reports whenever in his view a boy is suitable for consideration in this matter, even if it does not happen just before one of the quarterly meetings. The failure of managers to deal properly with this matter is the cause of more misconduct and ill-feeling in the schools than anything else. On one occasion before the war, boys at Stanton who had a grudge against the headmaster lay in wait for him but instead of his coming along it turned out to be one of the assistant masters, who was shot on the spot.

It was believed in that case that one of the boys was being retained because he had been so helpful in the school as almost to amount to an unpaid teacher, and certainly a very high-grade monitor. Things like that should be very carefully watched by the Secretary of State's inspectors when they visit the schools in order to make certain that these matters are discussed at managers' meetings—probably at every managers' meeting—and that there should always be a report from the headmaster on the progress of any boy who appeared to have qualified himself for consideration for release.

To my mind, if we are to have good relationships in the school between the pupils and the staff this matter must be one of the highest concerns of both the staff and the managers, and the managers must be known to intervene. One of the problems at Carlton House was that the managers really did very little at all in this matter and it was entirely left to the staff. This is a very important matter, and to get good feeling into a school the proper working of these rules is a matter that must always give the Secretary of State great concern.

Mr. Weitzman

I very strongly agree with the remarks which have just been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). It seems to me that this is a matter of paramount importance. The headmaster must have a proper regard for the boys, and the managers must take the keenest possible interest so that no boy is retained who has reached the stage when he ought to be released.

I appreciate that the rules are very good, and it sounds as though, if put into practice and applied properly, they will do what we think is appropriate in the circumstances. One of the advantages of writing something into the Bill would be that it would be obligatory, but I recognise that if one applies the rules and the Home Office pays proper attention, by means of inspection, to the enforcement of the rules, the matter can be properly achieved in that way.

I hope that regard will be had to what has been said, and that the keenest possible attention will be devoted to ensuring that the rules are carried out in the proper manner.

Mr. Renton

The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has said, and I fully agree with him, that the managers should review the cases as often as possible; and the right hon. Gentleman is supported by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), and, I am sure, by all hon. Members. I think I should point out that if we stick to the rules and amend them in the way I have suggested, there will be an obligation to review more frequently than if we accept the Amendment. That ought to be made absolutely clear.

There is one respect in which I regret to say I may have misled the House. I was asked how the rules are enforced. The sanction is, technically, not the giving of a direction by the Home Secretary but the more drastic sanction of withdrawing his certificate of approval. That would be the case also if the Amendment were accepted. There is, of course, nothing to prevent anybody from complaining to the Home Secretary if he wishes to bring it to the Home Secretary's notice that the managers are not fulfilling their duty under the rules, and that is, indirectly, a further sanction.

With those factors in mind, perhaps the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) will agree with me that our best plan is to amend the rules as soon as Clause 14 becomes law.

Miss Bacon

I fully agree that if, as the hon. and learned Gentleman says, the new rules are to provide for review at the end of the first six months and then every quarter, cases will be reviewed more frequently than under the Amendment. However, I am not very clear about the legality of the rules. Will there be as much legal standing under the rules as there would be if the provision were in the Bill itself? If we could be assured of that and that the rules will be rigidly applied, I would not press the Amendment.

Mr. Renton

The sanction in either case is the withdrawal of the certificate of approval, and to that extent both methods have the same effect.

Miss Bacon

In that case, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.