HC Deb 13 January 1981 vol 996 cc960-8

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Cope.]

11.40 pm
Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, Central)

In the early 1970s, a certain Mr. George Taylor-Bryant became notorious in Scotland when he opened private fee-paying schools for mentally handicapped, educationally subnotmal and other socially deprived children. One of those schools was in my constituency, at Corsbie Hall near Thornton, and another was in Newton Stewart, in Wigtownshire. After disquieting information was given to me by Granada Television, which operates in north-west England, I visited the Corsbie Hall school and was appalled by what I saw and heard.

I raised the matter immediately with the Scottish Office, and also with the Department of Education and Science, since most of the children were being sent to that school in my constituency from North-West England. I raised the matter in the House by question. I raised it also by correspondence and through debates in the House on 29 March 1972, 4 May 1972 and 2 August 1972. In addition, I was given leave to introduce a Bill to make it obligatory for local authorities to provide schools for such deprived children.

The Corsbie Hall school in Fife had been opened in September 1970, and my first visit to it was in the winter of 1970–71. Following my representations to the Scottish Education Department, the school was provisionally registered; that is to say, it was virtually put on probation. The fees charged at that time in 1970 were £800 a year, paid by the local authorities, and, if a child stayed at the school in the holidays, they were £1,200 a year. The fees at Eton College then were £850. I put those facts on the record at that time.

As I say, I was appalled by what I had seen for myself at Corsbie Hall school. I corresponded with the Scottish Office on the matter, and I received a letter from the Under-Secretary of State at the time, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), who is now the Minister with responsibility for sport. His letter was dated 21 April, and I quoted it—it is to be found at col. 764 of Hansard—in the debate in May 1972 but I think it worth putting on record again what he said: I think that it is relevant to mention that the school has been visited from time to time by representatives of education authorities and social work departments …no criticism of the school has come to us as a result of these visits. On the contrary, we have heard some favourable reports. For example, the deputy director of education for Dundee, which with 15 boys at the school is a major user, has recently told us that he considers the educational and child care provision at the school to be 'better than many'. I quote that letter because, in the light of events just three months later, it shows a disgracefully complacent and incompetent assessment of the situation. During my Adjournment debate on 4 May 1972 I quoted that letter again, which was written after the school had had its final inspection in March 1972. The Minister said that the school was adequate and that it might well provide a very much happier home than the children would otherwise have had, and he asked me to cease attacking it week by week and let it get on with its work. That was in May 1972.

In August 1972 there was another debate on the subject—four months after the school had been registered as adequate. There were no inquiries whatever into the finances of the school. The Minister admitted that even though the teachers had given evidence that the proprietor of the school was not paying the national insurance contributions of the teachers, he was not paying income tax on the teachers' salaries, and the teachers' salary cheques were bouncing. On 19 July the police moved in, and Mr. Taylor-Bryant disappeared—and so did the children. They had been sent home. In due course, Mr. Taylor—Bryant was declared bankrupt and the school was closed—three or four months after it had been declared adequate in all respects by the Scottish Office.

The Minister blamed me. He said: I think that he has grossly overplayed the whole affair." [Official Report, 2 August 1972; Vol. 842, c. 607.] That was typical of the Tory Party finding scapegoats for its own incompetence.

I give that historical background because now the same Mr. George Taylor-Bryant seems to be up to his old tricks again. An article appeared in the Glasgow Sunday Mail on 11 December 1980 by a Mr. Gordon Air, which I quote at some length. I have sent it to the Scottish Office and have asked it to make full inquiries about this man and about what he is up to, not only in Scotland but also in England. The article states: Jaunty George Taylor-Bryant—whose private boarding school crashed with £30,000 debts eight years ago—is making a come-back in Scotland. And it comes just three years after he was discharged as a bankrupt … and after a remarkable rags—to—riches transformation. The article describes his first school in Newton Stewart in Wigtownshire, which ran up an £800 deficit and had to be sold in 1971, and Corsbie Hall which is in my constituency which crashed in debt in 1972, making him a bankrupt. The article continues: now he has taken over the £5,000—a—year lease of the large Lumsden House, Maybole, Ayrshire—and plans to open it as a residential school for 30 maladjusted and educationally subnormal pupils. That is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes). I consulted him about the matter and he has kindly accepted that I am entitled to raise this matter because it is of more than narrow constituency importance. I am glad that he is present in the Chamber, and I hope that he will watch this man carefully. He is well worth watching.

Mr. George Foulkes (South Ayrshire)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for alerting me to the matter some weeks ago. I listened with interest to what he said and I shall certainly be keeping the position under review. Like him, I am disturbed about the implications of the matters that he is raising.

Mr. Hamilton

I am glad that my hon. Friend is taking that view. I know that he is interested in deprived children as in all education matters. I know that he is also anxious to protect those children from this sort of operator.

The article goes on to refer to the debts that Taylor—Bryant left in Fife. For instance, an elderly widow ploughed her life savings of £1,000 into his venture and lost it all. The article continues: And today I can reveal that while he was still an undischarged bankrupt Mr. Taylor—Bryant, 41, was … PAYING only £2.50 a week towards the debts. STARTING another problem-pupil school in Ludlow, Shropshire, just a year after his bankruptcy examination. BUYING a 13-bedroomed house which he is now selling for more than £90,000. BUYING a £155,000 18th century manor with 40 rooms and 35 acres to house two special schools. Now, three years after being discharged as a bankrupt, he also has ANOTHER large school building with 18 acres at Worcester… RUNS a fleet of 20 cars, three large buses, and a mini bus to help operate his three English schools. EMPLOYS more than 100 staff, including two secretaries, a personal assistant, two gardeners, and a man to run his cattle and sheep farm. CHARGES local authorities more than £600,000 a year to board and educate 100 pupils at a fee rate of £6,060—almost twice the £3,150 of Britain's top public school, Eton. All of which surprises one of his old creditors from Corsbie Hall school—teacher Miss Margaret Herbertson, in her 50s. She is the teacher who was diddled over her salary. She said: "He shouldn't be allowed to start a new venture in Scotland"— or anywhere else, I might add— until he has paid his old debts in full. The article continues: Mr. Taylor—Bryant now lives in luxury with his wife and two children in the 13-bedroomed Fishmore Hall, Ludlow, which used to be one of his schools—and which he has now put on the market for more than £90,000 complete with a heated pool. This week I visited Mr. Taylor-Bryant at his plush offices at Nash Court school near Ludlow, which he bought for £155,000 in 1977 after Fishmore Hall's success. After an hour of the interview, the reporter recalled that Taylor—Bryant had had certain experiences in Scotland. The man replied: I wondered when you would get round to that. This could jeopardise my chances up there if my past gets out. …if a story is published about me, public opinion will go against me and the local authorities, like the last time, won't place any children with me because of the fuss. He went on: Last time Willie Hamilton, MP, was at the bottom of it, and then local authorities started taking the children away, creditors wanted their money right away and I went bust. But I was not a good businessman then. I have learned a lot since. So he has. I sent all the details to the Minister before Christmas, so he has had plenty of time to make investigations. I hope that there will be no repetition of the Corsbie Hall scandal. In the earlier debates to which I referred the then Minister spelt out the procedures and the law for dealing with these matters. He explained that provisional registration of such schools must be applied for in respect of any school for more than five children of school age. The hon. Gentleman pointed out: This is solely a check on the proprietor and gives no indication that the premises or the instruction is adequate in the eyes of the Scottish Education Department. This provisional registration under the terms of the 1962 Act is automatically given before inspection."—[Official Report, 4 May 1972; Vol. 836, c. 767.] Why registration of any kind is given automatically before inspection beats me. However, that is the legislative provision. It may be our fault, as legislators, that we allowed it to go through.

The third step is final registration, which the Minister emphasised is a very different matter. Before final registration is given, the premises, the instruction and the staff must be satisfactory to Her Majesty's inspectors. Even after registration, checks are made and a closure can be ordered, subject to proper procedures of appeal.

Corsbie Hall had evidently passed all those tests. The Minister might say that these procedures will still be followed. They may be slightly different in England. I am not qualified to comment on those. However, the Scottish procedures will be the same for the school that is about to be established in Ayrshire as were applied to Corsbie Hall, and they were wholly inadequate. My recollection may be wrong, but I do not think that a Minister ever visited Corsbie Hall. Inspectors, social workers and other local authority people did, but at no time did a Minister. I appeal to the Minister to make sure that he personally visits the school that is projected in Ayrshire and does not leave it to inspectors, social workers, education authorities or anybody else.

Corsbie Hall was given the "all clear" by the Scottish Education Department. I suggest that neither the Minister nor the civil servants in the Scottish Office would have dreamt of sending their children to that school. It was for the children of inarticulate, poor, poverty-stricken parents. It is damnable when people in the top echelons of society can say "It is good enough for those kids. Sweep them under the carpet. Lock them away. Forget about them. Pay the fees and keep quiet, and perhaps the thing will resolve itself."

I find it strange that it is not the duty of the Scottish Education Department to look into the finances of such schools. If it had looked at the way in which Mr. Taylor-Bryant was living at Corsbie Hall, and how he is now living, it would have been clear that he was making extortionate profits out of the provision of so-called education for these deprived children.

I hope that I have said enough to indicate that there is a serious problem here, extending far beyond Ayrshire, Fife and, indeed, Scotland. There are operators in this area—Mr. Taylor-Bryant is a typical example—who must be rigidly controlled centrally by Government departments, and Ministers should see for themselves exactly what is happening.

I should like to quote a further comment by the Minister in the debate on 2 August 1972 to show the complacency of the department. The hon. Gentleman said: "He"— the Secretary of State— is not concerned with the financial viability of the school or the proprietor…Financial difficulty, or failure to pay staff, are irrelevant unless and until they affect the efficiency of the school."—[Official Report, 2 August 1972; Vol. 842, cc. 602–3.] Presumably a proprietor can go on not paying staff and the staff can go on growling and groaning—it is bound to affect their work if they are not being paid—and the Department has nothing whatever to do with it.

Over the years the Government have been given ample evidence of the activities of Mr. Taylor-Bryant in Scotland and now in England. It would be an understatement to say that it is not an impressive record. Nor is that of the Scottish Office in dealing with the matter. I have not been in communication with the English authorities that I have mentioned. If the Minister is not prepared to bring the matter to the attention of those authorities, I shall do so myself. It will be my duty.

I hope that the Scottish Office has learnt from its mistakes. I hope that the English authorities will have been alerted. This could be achieved by sending them copies of debates that have taken place in the House about my experiences and those of the Scottish Office in connection with Corsbie Hall. If we can prevent this man from pursuing these undesirable activities, the debate will have served a useful purpose.

12 pm

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher)

I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). I appreciate the concern that he has expressed regarding this matter. I am limited in what I can say in reply by the fact that, although Mr. Taylor-Bryant has sent for the application form for the registration of a new school at Maybole, and one was duly dispatched to him by the Scottish Education Department, it has not yet been returned, so the position is that, whatever we may have read in the press or heard from other sources, there is nothing at the moment about this application on which it would be proper for me to comment.

I can, however, explain once again—I know that it is largely familiar to the hon. Gentleman, but it is important that these matters should be recorded for the benefit of other hon. Members—the manner in which the Secretary of State for Scotland exercises his control over independent schools.

Mr. Foulkes

Will the Minister give way on a small matter?

Mr. Fletcher

I am sorry, but I cannot give way. I have nine minutes left in which to reply.

No independent school can be operated in Scotland until it has been entered in the register of independent schools kept by a statutorily nominated officer of the Scottish Education Department. Anyone who applies for registration must be granted it provisionally and thereafter it is not an offence for the school to operate. Final registration, however, as the hon. Gentleman recognised, is not granted until the Secretary of State is satisfied that it should be and that can be only after the school has been inspected. Inspection can be and very often is a long process, involving many visits at which not only the directly educational aspects of the school, such as curriculum and staff, are covered but also many other aspects such as the general facilities, the catering standards, the fire precautions, and so on.

If, after inspection, the school is considered to be suitable, final registration is granted. Thereafter, it can be removed from the register only if it is seriously deficient on one of four grounds—that efficient and suitable instruction is not being provided, that the premises are unsuitable in whole or in part, that the accommodation is inadequate or unsuitable having regard to the number, ages and sex of the pupils, or that the proprietor or any teacher employed in the school is not a proper person for the job. If one of those grounds exists, the Secretary of State may issue a notice of complaint that states what must be done to remedy the complaint and the date by which it must be remedied. If that is not done, the school is removed from the register and thereafter cannot legally be operated.

It is sometimes argued that provisional registration is too easy to obtain and that once it has been obtained there should be some way of retracting it short of the notice of complaint procedure. The fact is, however, that provisional registration leads more or less immediately to inspection. If, as usually happens, inspection shows that the school has shortcomings that can be remedied, the necessary remedial measures are specified and it is then essential that a period of provisional registration should be available to give the school time to put its house in order. That is what normally happens. But if inspection showed right from the start that the school had no hope of achieving the standards necessary for final registration, there would obviously exist grounds for a notice of complaint and not only would this be enforceable within a short period but the very fact that a notice of complaint had been issued would in itself act as a very strong deterrent on the recruitment of pupils. This applies with particular force to a case in which most or all of the pupils in a school are sponsored by an education authority. I shall return to this point in a moment.

This statutory sanction must be seen against a background of continuing activity by Her Majesty's inspectors of schools. All schools, of course, are open to inspection and independent schools are inspected at regular intervals in accordance with a programme of formal inspections. More important, perhaps, than these formal inspections, the inspectors make a practice of dropping into schools at short notice when they happen to be in the neighbourhood to offer them help, guidance, criticism or whatever they may think appropriate at the time.

It has never been the policy of any Government to require independent schools to observe standards identical with those prevailing in the public sector. One of the reasons why independent schools exist is that they provide different standards and because some people are looking for different standards. Of course, that does not mean poor standards. Apart from the guidance and supervision provided by the Government, which I have described and which obviously a very important safeguard against low standards, there is an even more significant sanction to which independent schools are subject, namely, that they have to recruit pupils in a competitive world. A school that has nothing to offer simply does not survive.

This sanction, of course, applies with particular force to a school most of the pupils of which are sponsored by education authorities. They, much more than parents, are in a position to consider the track record of any school in which they are thinking of placing children. In the case of a school for handicapped or maladjusted children they would be looking mainly to the success of the school in enabling children to overcome their handicaps so far as they possibly could and to play the fullest possible part in normal society. The hon. Member will remember that in the case of Corsbie Hall a stage was reached at which the Secretary of State advised the education authorities that they should satisfy themselves that the school could continue to meet their needs. This is a field, therefore, in which the consumers, that is to say, the education authorities, have a very powerful control indeed over the standards of provision.

I am sorry that I cannot say anything about the case in which I know the hon. Member is interested. As I explained, no application has yet been made and the school, despite forecasts that it would be opening this month, is not in existence. I can promise the hon. Member that, if and when an application is received, it will be considered carefully. I have instructed the Department to keep me personally in touch with any proposals which are received so that I can give them my attention.

I hope that that assurance will convince the hon. Gentleman that there is no complacency in the Scottish Office about the issue. When considering such an application we must consider the record and the total position. We must not take a narrow view. We must act fairly and in accordance with legislation.

I am satisfied that the powers are available to ensure that in relation to the safety requirements, if I may use that expression in the broadest sense, the best public interests are preserved. At the end of the day the customers are the local authorities in such cases. Local authorities, which provide the funds for such a school, also take a school's record into account and ensure that they are providing such funds in the best interests of the children involved.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Twelve o' clock.