WETHERBY BORSTAL (ABSCONDERS) (Hansard, 26 January 1970)

§ Mr. Michael Alison (Barkston Ash)

I am glad of the opportunity, at this relatively early hour, to raise on the Adjournment a matter which is causing a good deal of local concern in the Wetherby area of my constituency; namely, the large and growing number of trainees in the Wetherby open borstal who are breaking out and doing damage in the locality.

1168 Some idea of the scale of the problem may be obtained from the statistics of break-outs in recent years. I take as the base year, in making a comparison, 1961, when the average daily population of Wetherby borstal was 105 trainees. During that year 22 trainees absconded. To make the comparison meaningful, let us assume that all the break-outs occurred on one day. We then find that, taking the average population of the borstal, there was a break-out rate of 20 per cent. In other words, 22 out of 105 trainees absconded.

In 1968, the latest year for which I have full figures, there was an average daily population of trainees at the borstal of 229. No fewer than 147 of them absconded in that year. Represented on the somewhat artificial basis of assuming that all the break-outs occurred on one day, 63 per cent. of the trainees absconded, a three-fold increase.

Two facts emerge. First, the number of absconders, as a percentage of the average daily population of this open borstal, has been rising dramatically; and, secondly—perhaps more seriously from the point of view of my constituents—the absolute numbers of those who break out are now considerably greater than they were, say, a decade ago; from 22 per annum to 147, as I have told the Minister.

I wish to make it clear that I do not blame or charge with responsibility for these break-outs the Governor or officers of the Wetherby open borstal. On the contrary. They deservedly enjoy a high reputation locally, as do most of the trainees who, this being an open borstal, are frequently seen in the locality. They have a good reputation and many of the trainees do useful work and contribute actively and helpfully to a number of local communal and employment needs. Having referred to the officers and staff of the borstal, it may help if I quote from some words used by the local bench of magistrates. This was said in July of last year: We do not in any way blame the borstal officers … for this deplorable state of affairs", and they say that they have known those officers to be excellent as a result of magisterial visits which have been paid over many years.

1169 The blame for this spate and growing number of absconders from Wetherby open borstal rests squarely upon the Minister's Department. I think that that charge is best expressed in a statement which the Wetherby bench issued on 3rd July, 1969. It more adequately summarises local views than any words of mine can: It is our opinion, based upon good evidence, dart borstal accommodation is now quite inadequate to deal with the increasing number of young offenders. As a result, closed borstals are full, and the allocating authorities have no option but to send to open borstals, youths for whom such conditions are quite unsuitable, to the detriment of those who are suitable, and the possible public disrepute of the whole excellent principle of open training for those who can benefit from it. Unless the authorities can provide proper accommodation, the efforts of officers in open borstals will be increasingly difficult, as will the problems facing the courts. Perhaps I may underline that view by referring to a not dissimilar but briefer statement from the Magistrates' Association in the middle of August, 1969. The Association was reported in the Press as having declared that lack of facilities for dealing with young offenders was bringing the law into disrepute, and was forcing courts to do less than justice in many cases". The allegation, therefore, is that responsibility for the number of absconders from Wetherby open borstal rests on the infidequate close borstal facilities and the policy of the Home Office in directing to open borstals those who really are not suitable for them. I believe the charge to be fairly and reasonably levelled at the Department, because a letter which it wrote to the chairman of the Wetherby magistrates admitted in terms, as far as I can see, that there was a genuine national shortage of places in closed borstals.

This is what an under-secretary at the Home Office wrote on 14th August, 1969, at received by the Tadcaster and Wetherby divisions of the local magistracy: We are well aware of the need for more closed borstal accommodation at the present time, and are trying to find ways of increasing the number of such places available. Unfortunately, this is a slow process beating in mind the conflicting demands of other parts of the penal system for capital expenditure, land, buildings and personnel. Certain increases in existing establishments are planned for the next year or two, but we cannot hope to alter the position to any marked degree in the near future. New building is the only 1170 real solution and there are, of course, longterm plans for this. I believe that those words frankly admit the difficulty which the Government face: there is a shortage of closed borstal accommodation, and there may be a real danger—indeed, it may actually have happened—that those who are more suitable for closed borstal training in security borstals are being posted to open borstals, particularly to Wetherby borstal.

In the light of the admission in the Home Office letter, which explicity states the need for more closed borstal accommodation, I seek a reassurance from the Minister of State on two questions. First, can she categorically state that at no time in the past, and at no time in the future so far as she can influence it, have there been sent, or will there be sent, to the Wetherby open borstal trainees whose circumstances and character properly require closed or secure borstal training?

I believe that it is unfair to the reputation of the officers of the Wetherby open borstal. It is unfair to the reputation of the borstal itself locally, which is now a high one. It is also unfair to the majority of trainees in open borstals if, surreptitiously, there is introduced into the number of trainees in such a borstal those who properly belong to security borstals. If this has to be done, it is much better that it is done with a quite explicit admission publicly that this is the case because of shortage elsewhere. It is important that we do not have an open borstal surreptitiously sown with the tares of those who properly belong elsewhere. If the Minister cannot give the assurance which I seek, namely, that there will not be any of the wrong type admitted to this borstal, I hope she will admit to the public that they are having to dilute the intake so that the responsibility for the trends and developments at that borstal are clearly seen to belong to the policy of admissions.

The second point about which I seek some general assurance is to ask the hon. Lady to put in hand a review of the methods by which ex-gratia payments are made by the Home Office to compensate local residents for damage which is done to property when absconders break out. It does not need much imagination for the Minister to reflect upon what disruption is likely to be caused, and is caused, locally, when the figure of 1171 absconders is as high as 147 per annum, about one every three days. They are almost bound to break into local houses to get money or, most regularly, to seize private motor cars to dash off north or south along the Great North Road.

It is of considerable interest locally to try to discover exactly what formulae or criteria govern the payment of compensation. I understand from a letter sent by the Home Office to a constituent of mine, Dr. K. Simpson, that in certain circumstances ex-gratia compensation payments may be made without admitting legal liability. However, such payments can be made only where the loss or damage occurs in the immediate neighbourhood of the borstal from which the inmate absconded, and in the case of this constituent the locality was too far removed from the borstal for the ex-gratia criteria to apply.

Another constituent of mine, a Mr. Newis, a builder, had his car parked adjoining the Wetherby open borstal. It was broken into by absconders and driven off. Substantial damage was done to it, but again, for some reason, the criteria, which appear to be remarkably vague, did not apply in his case, although the vehicle was left adjoining a borstal. It would be of great help to the local community if the Minister could say quite clearly what are the criteria for the payment of compensation.

I think I ought to warn the Minister that so far as I can see the writing is on the wall for her Department on this issue of compensation, because she will know of the recent High Court case of Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. v. Home Office in which the plaintiffs brought a case against the Home Office arising from the fact that a number of trainees from an open borstal who were accommodated on a special excursion in a house in the Isle of Wight broke out of that house in the middle of the night, seized a local yacht off the island, and did damage to it amounting to more than £1,000.

In the first hearing of the case it was held, according to The Times Law Report, that the Home Office, their servants and agents, owed a duty of care to those in the neighbourhood, and that duty was capable of giving rise to a liability in damages. 1172 It was held that there really was a case to answer in the court for damage caused by borstal absconders.

The case went to appeal, and Lord Justice Denning, in ruling that the appeal be accepted and that the plaintiffs lose their action, said: An action does not lie except on proof of negligence. It is not negligence to keep an open borstal, nor to let the boys have a great deal of freedom. The prison authorities are only negligent if, within that system, they do not take such care and supervision as a reasonable person, operating such a system, would take. It is one of the risks of the system—a conscious and deliberate risk—that boys will sometimes escape and do damage. So the fact that boys escape and do damage is no evidence of negligence. There must be proof of something more. The Minister will, however, appreciate that the ruling of Lord Justice Denning in rejecting the plaintiffs case on appeal was assuming that an open borstal was what it purported to be, namely, an institution where a deliberate risk was taken with a type of inmate or trainee who was held to be of a different category to the sort of people who would be sent to a security type of borstal.

If the Government, through lack of security borstals, are having to sow the tares of security-qualifying trainees into the wheat of open borstals, I do not think that the Court of Appeal would have found in favour of the Home Office in this way, because it cannot be assumed that people who are properly accommodated in a security borstal can be expected to behave in an open borstal in the way that Lord Justice Denning assumed.

One would go even further nowadays. There is not only the fact that open borstals are, perhaps, being diluted with the wrong sort of people, but I suspect that even the very numbers themselves of those who may be suitable for open borstal training are beginning to have a deleterious effect upon morale and the problems confronting the officers in such borstals.

Perhaps I may quote some words uttered by a governor of whom I have knowledge, mentioning no names. He said: An open borstal of a certain limited size gives the governor the chance of seeing and influencing personally every boy with great frequency. Once it grows beyond a certain size, this becomes far more difficult. 1173 I believe that the growth, for example, of the Wetherby open borstal from numbers in the region of 80 or 90 in 1959 to something approaching 230 or 240 nowadays entirely alters the character of such a borstal.

To sum up, I am anxious for the Minister, first, to give us categorical assurances that the tares are not being sown amongst the wheat in the Wetherby borstal, and that they will not be and, secondly, that she will appreciate that the question of compensation is a live issue from the point of view of the community when as many as 150, or possibly more, break out in a year, and that the changed character of open borstal, with the increasing number of people and the tendency for the wrong sort of trainee to be sent there, makes it necessary for the Government to revise and put on a more explicit and more generous basis the question of compensation for damage done when trainees break out.

§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Shirley Williams)

In thanking the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) for raising this matter, I hope that he will not mind my asking him to forgive me for what will necessarily be a rather abbreviated reply, because I do not have much time left to me.

I would not for one moment underestimate the difficulties that both the prison service and the borstal service face, difficulties which arise partly from the size of the prison population and also from the fact there are many overcrowded and unsuitable buildings.

In responding to the point made by the hon. Member, may I say that it would be a great help to the Home Office if a few local authorities recognised that to bring about better prison and borstal conditions we also need to have additional sites. I make this point because it is not only the Home Office which is one of the reasons why we do not have perhaps as many new prisons as we would like. One of the main difficulties is getting local authorities to support us in pursuing the, I hope, enlightened policy of trying to create new buildings and better conditions.

Having said that, I want briefly to refer to the first part of what the hon. Member said. This relates to the selec- 1174 tion for open borstals of young offenders. Out of 25 borstals which in 1968 served 5,153 young offenders committed to borstals—and these, of course, come from the quarter of the prison population between the ages of 17 and 21—there were 12 open borstals, of which Wetherby was one.

Wetherby is not one of the larger ones. It has 220 places, which brings it very much into the average size of an open borstal. The process of selection is very careful. Every young male offender is sent to one of two borstal allocation centres—if in the South, to Wormwood Scrubs, or, if he is in the North, to the North Borstal Allocation Centre. In this place he spends at least a fortnight or three weeks, in which a very careful assessment is made of his past record, his recent behaviour, his offence, his family background, his likelihood of rehabilitation, his mental abilities, his educability, and so on. Only after this process is he taken either to a closed or an open borstal.

I want to stress two points to the hon. Gentleman. First, neither I nor any other Home Office Minister can give an absolute assurance that no false selection is ever made. He would not expect such an assurance, since the choice is based on human fallibility and judgment.

Secondly, there has been no change of policy in the choice made for open borstals. As the hon. Gentleman asked for evidence of this, whereas, 10 years ago, over half the young offenders allocated to borstal went to open borstals, the figure fell last year to about one third. In other words, we are being very careful in selecting for open borstals. We are not sending anyone accused of serious violence or sexual offences to Wetherby borstal—he can take that assurance for certain—and we are prepared to put up with some overcrowding to fulfil our first duty of protecting the public. That is my assurance to the hon. Gentleman and beyond that he could not reasonably expect me to go.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the damage caused by lads who escape from borstal, but in all fairness I should say that, out of 94 absconds last year from the open borstal, there were only 12 incidents of any kind involving reports to Wetherby police station. Therefore, although in no way excusing this or the 1175 distress which it causes the local community, it is fair to say that many absconds take place without anyone in the neighbourhood of the borstal or in the more extensive area around being affected.

I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman pointed to some of the work which the inmates of this borstal are doing with the help of the prison staff—work in the social services, with old people and in local hospitals, which has been appreciated by some of his constituents. If there had been time, I would have quoted at least one rather impressive letter from one of his constituents about the work that these boys do.

But perhaps more relevant to the immediate debate is the reorganisation which took place last year in Wetherby. This was the introduction of an induction centre followed by a careful foundation course, then by the normal senior training and then by a release period. It has been interesting that, since this system was introduced in the late summer of 1969 the figure of absconds has fallen impressively. Whereas there were 84 before this system in the first eight months of the year, the figure fell to 25 in the last four months. This means a reduction of approximately 50 per cent. in the rate. If we are right in thinking that this has gone some way to meet what I admit was a disturbing problem, we can look forward to a fall in the rate bearing favourable comparison with the national average.

On ex-gratia payments, the policy of the Home Office has not changed from what it has been for many years. This is a policy of making ex-gratia payments to those who live either in the immediate neighbourhood of a borstal, including in the residences around and in neighbouring villages and, in addition, along recognised escape routes. The hon. Gentleman's constituents who live along the main road from the North will know that this policy extends to them if they 1176 live close to the Borstal. He mentioned one case which I cannot understand and of which I should be grateful for details.

The other case, of Dr. Simpson, was well beyond the normal neighbourhood area. The hon. Member said that the case is standing before the House of Lords, where it has gone on appeal from Lord Justice Denning's decision, and he will not expect me to comment on it in detail. But any case which involves any form of personal violence can be referred to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, whether committed by an absconder or by someone committing an offence who is not in custody or who is supposed to be in custody.

No doubt all Ministers in the Home Office, and our predecessors, would like to be able to say that an ex-gratia payment would be paid to anybody injured by an absconder, but the hon. Member will appreciate that there are difficult lines to be drawn. When does an abscond cease to be an abscond and when is someone out of the custody of an institution from which he has escaped? These are difficult questions which cannot be resolved purely by administrative decision. For the time being I can only inform the hon. Member's constituents that those who are at special risk because they live close to a borstal are covered by the ex-gratia payment and that those who live beyond the immediate neighbourhood would not be regarded as at any greater risk than the entire population of the island.

I hope that I have given the hon. Member at least one assurance that he seeks. I appreciate the references which he made to the staff and the governor because they feel strongly, as he does, that links with the local community are a crucial part of the rehabilitation of these young men and they would hate to see that damaged in any way.