Lords Sitting of 30 March 1960

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans
The Viscount Hyndley—Took the Oath.

THE NEW £1 NOTE
2.35 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Bank of England loves bad design for its own sake or has offered some other explanation of the new pound note.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, as I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Conesford will wish to develop his thoughts on this matter for your Lordships' benefit by way of supplementary questions, I will begin by saying only that the Answer to both parts of his Question is in the negative.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this country can win a great and growing reputation for design and for quality? Is it not therefore deplorable that the Bank of England has set such a bad example, and how can we be certain that those who make such a mess of a bank note will show greater wisdom in other matters? Finally, in regard to the Answer which my noble friend has already given me, when he says that the Bank of England does not love bad design for its own sake, how does he know? Has he inquired?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, when I was last questioned on this subject, on December 8 last, I undertook, in response to the wishes of your Lordships, to ask the Bank of England whether it would specially design these new notes for the benefit of the blind.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, surely those who can see should also be considered.
A NOBLE LORD: My Lords, we are not all blind.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am afraid I always find that money slips through my fingers so quickly that I never have time to pause and admire its beauty.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!;
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, does not the noble Earl think that the common people of Britain, at any rate, are much more interested in whether a pound is still worth a pound?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I saw a cartoon of the new £1 note the other day on which was written, "I promise to pay 11s. 3d."
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, can my noble friend answer the last part of my first supplementary question: how does he know that the Answer to the first part of my Question on the Order Paper is in the negative? What steps did he take to find out?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I tried to answer that by showing the steps I had taken to represent your Lordships' wishes that these notes should be designed for the benefit of people who could not see them.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that my noble friend Lord Lansdowne will be making a statement on South Africa and the Security Council at approximately 3.30 p.m.
LONDON AND SURREY (RIVER WANDLE AND RIVER GRAVENEY) (JURISDICTION) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS OF LONDON BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
GLASGOW CORPORATION CONSOLIDATION (GENERAL POWERS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I beg to move that these Orders be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Windermere, be approved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of West Penwith, be approved.—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DISTURBANCES AT CARLTON APPROVED SCHOOL
THE EARL OF AYLESFORD THE EARL OF AYLESFORD rose to call attention to the recommendations contained in the Report of the Inquiry by Mr. Victor Durand, Q.C., into the disturbances at the Carlton Approved School on August 29 and 30, 1959; to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, for some time now, and in fact before the occurrences at Carlton Approved School took place, I believe that there has been some disquiet, not only in the minds of the public but also in the minds of magistrates, approved school managers and the police. I should have raised this matter before your Lordships earlier, but in view of the fact that the Report of the Inquiry into the disturbances at Carlton Approved School was coming out, I decided to wait; and I am very pleased that I did. I believe that the Report is excellent, and it is my personal opinion that Mr. Victor Durand, Q.C., should be congratulated on its excellence.
I will not weary your Lordships in going through the full Report. Most of
472
your Lordships will have read it, and others will be familiar with approved schools—or should I say with the running of approved schools. With your Lordships' approval, therefore, I should like to turn straight to the recommendations, which will be found on pages 56, 57 and 58 of the Report. These form the three sections, and Section C refers specifically to Carlton. Sections A and B appear to me to be general. It is about the 15 recommendations in these two sections that I should like to refer as briefly as I can.
But first may I make two points clear? I am not one who subscribes to the view that there is anything at all wrong with the youth of Britain to-day. I am certain in my own mind that they are perfectly first-class. Having made that clear, may I go on to make a second point, and that is—I am sorry to see that the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, is not in his seat—that I feel that there is a tendency nowadays, as he mentioned in his speech in the debate on adult education, to muddle up education and training. In view of the fact that there are other noble Lords who are going to speak after me and who are far better qualified to deal with these matters than I am, I should like, if I may, just to mention one or two matters of policy and leave the administrative side of the question to them. I am grateful to the noble Lords who are to join in this debate, and I know that your Lordships will be looking forward to hearing from them, so I will get on as fast as I can.
In the main, I feel that this Report, as I have said before, is excellent. The only recommendation with which I quarrel slightly is recommendation 5, because I fail to see that, whatever we call an approved school, it will be anything different from an approved school, and by changing the title I do not think we shall have much effect on whether boys resent it or not. The only recommendations that come my way under the word "Policy" appear to be Nos. 1 and 2 in Section A and Nos. 11 and 12 in Section B. From various talks which I have had with Members of your Lordships' House and people in other walks of life I find that opinions appear to be fairly evenly divided. So far as I can gather there are two definite schools of thought: one feels that approved schools ought to be stricter and that there ought to be more

473
discipline, and the other feels that more ought to be done on psychological lines and that teachers should be better qualified from that point of view. I think there is a certain amount of truth in both those statements. The underlying difficulty occurs where in an ordinary approved school, which should rather rehabilitate boys from the psychological side of the question, we try to cater for the unruly boy who could well do with some more discipline. The classifying schools were designed more or less to try to obviate this difficulty, but in view of the present population bulge I do not think they are able to do their job properly; there are not enough places. I think something might be done in that regard.
The first category of boys, the unruly ones, I feel can be divided into two different types: one what the Report calls a hard core of anti-authority, and the other the persistent absconder. Both these types very much disrupt the running of an approved school and interfere seriously with the rehabilitation of others, who mostly come, may I mention in passing, from broken homes and whose only fault is that the sins of the fathers and mothers are being visited on them. Obviously, a few anti-authority youths in an approved school—and they seem generally to be of a forceful character and to be lacking in self-discipline—can dangerously disrupt and do damage out of all proportion to their numbers. I feel, my Lords, that they should be promptly segregated, as is mentioned in paragraph 12 of the Report, and as nearly promptly removed, as mentioned in paragraph 1. These troublemakers may then either be sent to Borstal, for which purpose the age limit could be lowered to fifteen to receive them, as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the Report, or to a more suitable approved school. I think it unfair to send boys of this nature to a similar type of approved school to the one they have just left, and obviously unfair to the approved schools themselves. I suggest that they be sent to some form of school as is envisaged in paragraph 11 of this Report.
Many who are connected with the running of approved schools, not only in running them themselves but also in sending them customers, feel that paragraph 11 is the most important of all the recommendations in the Report. We from the Midlands have been trying for
474
eighteen months to get something on these lines to deal with just the sort of cases mentioned in the Report, with slight emphasis towards persistent absconders. The persistent absconder class of boys, again, can do damage out of all proportion to their numbers. As things stand at the moment, if a boy who runs away does not commit another offence he is sent straight back to the school from which he came. If he persists, he may be transferred, if a place can be
found for him. But further offences are bound to be committed by boys if they are going to stay at large and obtain their objective of getting home. Thus they produce a sort of by-product of running away. Boys in this way can build up a quite horrifying record. The, offences usually are, so far as one can see, taking and driving away, and breaking and entering in search of food, money and clothes. That is hardly conducive to the goodwill of the local neighbourhood. The complaints from local neighbourhoods are certainly not frivolous.
I know that the quoting of statistics is slightly unfashionable, mostly because they can be made to prove anything, but, in spite of that, I will quote some rather staggering figures from an approved school close to my neighbourhood. The figures cover a period of a year from October, 1958, to October, 1959. The school concerned has a maximum number of 90 places. Within that year, 101 people absconded, and, while doing so committed 56 other offences. Action was taken to weed out the worst offenders, and there has now been a great improvement; but I am afraid that this improvement has been achieved at the expense of other approved schools. I was able to follow up only three cases, and in all those three cases the boys concerned ran away within the first fortnight of being at their new schools.
My Lords, we have open prisons and closed prisons; we have open and closed Borstals. I feel sure that your Lordships will agree that it is only logical to have, and that a very good case can be made for having, what, for the want of a better term, I will call open and closed approved schools; or, to be more accurate—and this is the way in which I wrote it down—some form of closed training and educational establishment where security and discipline, whilst not being harsh, is adequate to deal with

475
persistent absconders and those from among the disruptive influence type. The boys for that particular form of school should be those considered not bad enough to be sent to Borstal but who would benefit from some form of modified approved school training. A suggestion I should like to make if such a system were put into force is that the traffic should, so to speak, be two ways: that is, if a boy is sent to a closed type of school he can win his way back to an ordinary one if he mends his ways.
My Lords, I have not mentioned finance—but, then, the Report does not mention finance, either. However, I hope that, as one noble Lord mentioned—and I am afraid I cannot remember who it was—the dead hand of the Treasury will not be allowed to stifle the putting into effect of any of these excellent recommendations. I know there must be a number of causes (and excellent ones at that) competing for a limited amount of money, but I do beg, please, that cheeseparing be not permitted to interfere with this: I think it is far too important. Many of the boys who go to approved schools can be made into very reasonable citizens—some of them, indeed, are of leadership material. I should like to thank your Lordships for being so kind to one making his maiden speech, and for listening so patiently. May I trespass one moment more on your kindness, and ask your Lordships to support me in asking Her Majesty's Government to implement the recommendations in this Report? I beg to move for Papers.
2.53 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will wish me to congratulate the noble Earl on a most effective and very charming maiden speech. I only wish that he had spoken twice as long: certainly the House would have listened with great pleasure to a much longer speech. He revealed great knowledge of his subject, and spoke to us in a most pleasant and lucid way; and I know that everyone will hope to hear from him often in the future.
We must all agree that the noble Earl has done a real service in raising the Report of the Inquiry by Mr. Durand into the disturbances at Carlton Approved School—and, in effect, raising
476
at the same time the whole situation in our approved schools. If I may say so without disrespect to the whole House, I think the noble Earl was perhaps almost too flattering to your Lordships in suggesting that all of us have an intimate knowledge of approved schools. We have all been to schools that were admired, I suppose, but not approved. I am afraid that if I asked how many noble Lords could claim to have any first-hand knowledge of the approved schools in this country, I should hardly expect to see a forest of hands arise from the Benches. I feel that this is very much a neglected corner of the social field.
Indeed, I think that we are all too much inclined to take approved schools for granted. We have a dim awareness that there are a lot of disturbed or awkward boys tucked away there, and as long as no trouble impinges on the outside world we seldom remember to give much credit to those who are looking after them. But, of course, if anything goes wrong and hits the headlines, the Press descend on the scene in a big way, and we are very quick to look for scapegoats, whether among individuals or in the nature of the system. Without any disrespect to a devoted band of officials, I cannot pretend that the Home Office, collectively speaking, have done much to educate us in recent times. Nothing could exceed their kindness and courtesy if one seeks, as I and other noble Lords have done recently, to visit these schools; but, by and large, we, the general public, are left pretty much in the dark about what is going on there. For example, the Home Office publish no annual report on the work of the Children's Department, under which the approved schools come. The latest Report was published in November, 1955; and, although another Report is, I believe, in process of publication, the date when it will appear is not known.
May I say, in passing, that if one goes back to the 1955 Report it is not easy to find much evidence of progress. There are certain ideas—and one has been mentioned to-day in the form of "closed facilities." That is one of those euphemistic terms meaning a place from which it is very difficult to escape. But the idea that there should be closed approved schools has been knocking about for the best part of ten years, and not a lot of progress has hitherto been

477
made with it. Again, if we take No. 15 of the recommendations of the Durand Committee, we find a suggestion that an official handbook should be available for individual managers, giving them information about the approved school service, their duties as managers, and so on. It seems to me a rather shocking fact that a recommendation of this kind should be necessary: that apparently to-day an approved school manager has no authoritative source to which he can go for information about his duties. I am afraid it seems to me rather typical of the obscurity in which this whole subject has been allowed to languish, and of the very low priority given it in our official thinking. I am not exonerating anybody, and least of all myself, for if there has been insufficient interest in our approved schools there should no doubt be plenty of blame going for all of us, but the Home Office can certainly not escape their share of it—and I say that, well aware that there are individuals in the Home Office who have worked themselves to the bone in trying to help these schools in recent years.
I shall have some critical things to say in these remarks: but not only I, but I feel all Members of this House who have any interest in approved schools—and, in the last resort, I think that is all of us—will wish to pay a strong and wholehearted tribute to the work which is being done there, and to the devoted men and women who give up their lives without much material reward to this great work of redemption. The whole Carlton episode, with its attendant publicity, has been a very distressing experience for all those in the world of approved schools, and I hope and believe that a clear vote of reassurance will go out from your Lordships this afternoon.
EARL WINTERTON: Hear, hear!
LORD PAKENHAM: I know that the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, is leading the general opinion when he supports that hope with his friendly gestures.
I do not wish to dwell on the events at Carlton except in so far as they throw light on the general problems of our approved schools. I agree entirely with the noble Earl, Lord Aylesford, as I do in so many other respects, that this is an excellent Report. It is a Report of great ability—as one would expect, of course
478
—and authority; and, may I add, of great charity. Some would think that it was almost too charitable, but that surely is always a mistake in the right direction; and I have no grounds for disputing any of the verdicts reached by Mr. Durand in relation to the disturbances themselves. Some of the gentlemen involved there on different levels must have long since bitterly regretted the failures on their part to which the Report calls attention, and I have no desire—I think few of us will have much desire—this afternoon to rub further salt into the wounds of those whose sense of duty and public spirit can hardly be disputed.
The facts however are unmistakable. Between the evening of August 28 and the evening of August 30 last year, at a time when the headmaster, through no fault of his own, was absent on annual leave, there were prolonged acts of defiance which culminated in a mass absconding by all but 4 of the 95 boys present in the school. Afterwards there were various court cases, and some of the boys were found guilty of various offences. Mr. Durand concludes, in paragraph 146 of his Report:
"The continuation of the school as a satisfactory training establishment for senior boys is in my view dependent also on a removal forthwith of blemishes disclosed at the inquiry."
He then lists a number of blemishes—and it is a considerable list. I do not propose to run through them all, but I will mention two in particular. There is, first:
"the headmaster's resort (shown in two cases) to the use of force in physical control in a form inconsistent with the dignity of a headmaster or with the setting of good example to staff and boys."
Then there is:
"the resort to irregular punishment on occasion by certain members of the staff. …"
This, apparently, mostly took the form of slapping. I have never yet seen people slapped in a big way, and I do not quite know what kind of picture that conjures up; but, at any rate, there were a number of activities under the name of "slapping", and all that is strictly against the rules.
From the widest point of view, it is particularly striking that certain of the recommendations made following the Home Office inspection of October and November, 1957, had not been carried out by August, 1959; that is to say,

479
nearly two years later certain vital recommendations following this inspection had not been carried out. To use a phrase that occurs in the Report:
"Little or nothing has been done to implement them."
That applied to five recommendations, but it applied to two in particular: first, that the manager should take a closer interest in the licensing of each boy; and secondly, that the headmaster should hold full staff meetings at regular intervals. In those two cases, and in others the recommendations of nearly two years before were virtually ignored. There were two other signal failures, though here I think it would be unfair to blame individuals connected with the school. There was the failure to obtain a visiting psychiatrist—and a visiting psychiatrist is somehow or other obtained in the most progressive schools; and there was also the failure, in spite of advertisement, to obtain a second housemaster.
I gather that the recommendations made by Mr. Durand, which he calls "specific to Carlton School", are likely to be carried out; and so far as that particular school is concerned, I think that most of us would be prepared to leave it there: I do not think that any of us wishes to hound to destruction the gentlemen in any way involved. But what light—and this surely is the main interest this afternoon—does the story throw on the approved school situation generally? Mr. Durand divides his recommendations into those not requiring legislation—which the Home Secretary appears to have largely accepted—and those requiring legislation—which I gather the Home Secretary is still considering. And it may or may not be possible for the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, to say anything further about it this afternoon.
In Recommendation (8) Mr. Durand calls
"for urgent consideration of the housemaster's scale of remuneration in the light of the inability of approved schools to recruit sufficient suitable people on the present terms.…"
It seems to me essential that the housemaster should be much better paid. The housemaster is supposed to be under the headmaster and the master with the most direct personal responsibility for the care, as distinct from the teaching, of
480
the boys. His present remuneration, which runs on a scale of £575 to £845, is ludicrously low, and he should certainly be paid on the same scale as qualified teachers, who receive the Burnham scale with certain additions. I would add that a further part of that recommendation seems to me equally essential—namely, that the housemaster should receive some special course of training. I am not sure whether the noble Earl who is to reply has had notice of this point, but I would lay before the Government the suggestion that, in view of the difficulties of the work, all who teach in approved schools, whether they be housemasters or teachers, should undergo a short course of training—perhaps for three months or six months.
I venture to think that the whole problem of the housemaster should be looked at again. Since the Reynolds Report (as it is called) of 1946 these officers have been conceived as being a somewhat different race from the ordinary masters, the teachers; they are supposed to be possessed of social service training—and that is a matter that we have discussed in various connections in this House. On the other hand, some successful approved schools, unable to obtain housemasters of this kind, have used for this purpose ordinary teachers of proved ability and worth. I must say that I cannot help feeling that many schoolmasters, particularly if they had had this short course of training, would make perfectly good housemasters. I cannot believe that there is this necessary distinction between the two types. Most of us with experience of our own schools will remember housemasters who had not had social service training. My own housemaster—and I regard him as the greatest of all—was a wonderful classics scholar and an equally good cricketer—and at the age of 89 he is in better form than ever. I feel that there are many housemasters, from many schools, who would be able to do this kind of job of housemaster in an approved school without being, so to speak, segregated. In any case, I do not think we shall get the housemasters of this peculiar kind if we insist that the
work can be done only by them. So I hope that the whole question of the line between the housemasters and teachers will be looked at carefully again.

481
Among the other recommendations of the Report not requiring legislation are the establishment of one or more schools with "closed" facilities; that is to say, with premises from which it is impossible to escape easily. Attention is also called to the desirability of having one or two secure rooms for boys who suddenly become very troublesome. I think that proposals of this kind are hard to resist if the members of the profession, those who have the keenest and most direct responsibility, regard them as absolutely necessary. But they certainly need careful thought when they are being implemented.
The Carlton Report, as was mentioned by the noble Earl, lays great stress on the emergence in the last two years or so, not only at Carlton but in approved schools generally, of a greater proportion of difficult, disturbed and intractable boys; and the most important of Mr. Durand's general recommendations are aimed primarily at dealing with the problem of this relatively small number of exceptionally difficult boys. Those I have spoken to in the Approved Schools' Service do not dispute the urgency of this problem, but they are all very anxious that the whole tradition of the approved school should not be undermined by any steps taken in the light of this new situation. The whole tradition of the approved school has relied increasingly on the idea of co-operation, with coercion in the last resort in the background. I asked one headmaster on Monday what he would say if he were speaking in this debate, and he replied: "I should tell the House of Lords that our approved schools in recent times have undergone a revolution in a Christian direction"—that is the gist of what he said'; and when I say "Christian" I do not forget that some of the finest work in this field has been done by the Jewish community.
The Carlton Report itself refers to the work of approved schools as non-penal training; and the Report of the Select Committee on the Estimates of 1948–49 contains this passage:
"It cannot be too widely known that children are not sent to approved school as a punishment. They are committed to the care of the school managers in order to give them a chance to make a new start in life."
I am sure that those who are actually looking after these boys would feel that
482
it was a tragedy if the underlying ideas of the whole approved school system were to be undermined by anything which made these institutions less like schools and more like prisons.
The best suggestion that I can arrive at seems to be this—and I think this kind of thing was in the mind of the noble Earl, if not exactly in this form. It seems to me that you ought to start with one school—not altogether a closed school, but with a considerable closed wing. I realise that there is a small experiment already going on, but nothing on this scale. Use a large closed wing for boys who are not so hopeless from the approved schools' point of view that they ought to go to Borstal, but who are too disturbed and disturbing to be allowed to remain in open conditions. Bring them from other schools if necessary. In view of the limited amount of psychological training at this school, train on them a full battery of psychiatrists and psychologists. I agree with the noble Earl that we should not keep the boys there longer than needed. Give them the inducement to make use of what he calls the "two-way" movement.
I turn for a moment to the general recommendations which require legislation. I appreciate that in this connection the Home Secretary may be waiting for the Ingleby Report and, maybe, other studies. The first recommendation requiring legislation calls for a statutory provision to facilitate the prompt temporary removal from an approved school by the police of unruly or subversive youths when it is necessary to avoid a serious threat to discipline. It might be supposed—I think some well-informed people do suppose—that such a power exists already if there is something resembling a minor mutiny, but I gather that there is in fact some doubt about it. I gather that Mr. Durand, an eminent man of the law, felt that there was some doubt as to whether the police could be called in when acts of disorder occurred on the school premises. If there is any doubt at all, and if that is the point of the recommendation, I quite agree that a recommendation of this sort should be implemented as quickly as possible, but with emphasis clearly on the temporary removal by the police with, I suppose, court proceedings to follow.
What are much more controversial are the second and third recommendations.

483
One of them facilitates removal from an approved school to Borstal, and the other empowers the courts in the first instance to leave it to the Secretary of State, after a report from the classifying school, to decide whether boys should be sent in the first place to an approved school or to Borstal. Speaking generally, we can say that these were rather controversial recommendations, facilitating the movement as between approved school and Borstal. On the face of it, there is everything to be said for holding Borstal as a readily available sanction for those who misbehave in approved schools. Without, however, disparaging the training outlook of the Borstal establishments—I do not want something I said earlier to suggest that Borstals are like prisons, because there is a great gulf between them—one must point out that the Borstal housemasters are members of the Prison Service, though some of them (and maybe quite a number) would have had some experience of teaching before they went there. They are not schoolmasters like the authorities in an approved school. A boy who is moved from an approved school to Borstal has been moved half way to prison and, at the very least, before that is done it seems to me that he should be sent back for further study to a classifying school, and it may be that psychiatric aid could be given him there. Others feel that before a step of that kind is taken—before one is removed from an approved school to Borstal—the courts should be brought into the picture.
Assuming it to be a fact that there is a higher proportion of intractable boys than there were two or three years ago, one may ask, "What is the explanation?" I will not accept the view that our youth generally is getting worse. I am not quite sure whether I should be quite so wholehearted as the noble Earl who said that our youth are first-class. They are first-class only in the sense that we are all first-class, and in the sense that we are none of us first-class. The same is true of youth. I do not think they are better than their fathers, but I am not prepared to say that they are worse. There are vast numbers of magnificent potentialities. I agree that this does not, in itself, provide an explanation. We cannot say that our
484
youth are getting worse and, therefore, that a lot of these difficult boys are arriving at approved schools. I am not sure about the explanation which was offered me recently, that our very skill in identifying awkward customers is tending to bring them increasingly together; that we are spotting them and concentrating them. That may be so, but I am not too sure.
I incline to the view that, at any rate in a psychological sense—at any rate in their own eyes—our young people are maturing earlier, so that a rather rebellious young man of seventeen is a good deal harder to deal with than his father would have been at the same age, particularly under conditions of confinement. It seems to me that this earlier psychological maturity is probably the explanation we are looking for. It may be suggested that as time passes we shall find it necessary to reduce the maximum age at which our young people should be admitted to approved schools. I would feel, on the whole, that that would be a retrogressive step. But if approved schools are to retain and enhance their co-operative educational character, it may be that boys who some years ago would have been sent to approved schools will in future have to be sent to Borstal. It may be that the conditions of admission will have to be tightened up. I do not want to talk as though sending them to Borstal is like sending them to the gallows, and on other occasions we shall have to discuss what we can do for them.
But there is one point where I am sure the Durand Report is wrong—this is apart from the terminological point, where I agree about the change of name. It seems to me that it would be a great mistake to lower the Borstal age from sixteen to fifteen in the case of these young people. I am sure that that would be a mistake, and the best opinion I have been able to consult in the world of approved schools is strongly against that suggestion.
I offer one personal suggestion which I do not think will be accepted by the House this afternoon, but, with great diffidence, I hope that it will at least be considered. It has the support of my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger, who has had a great deal of experience with this problem and who is unfortunately not with us this afternoon.

485
It seems to me that if we tend to blur in the way suggested the line between approved schools and Borstals, the whole educational ethos of the approved schools may be threatened. For this, and other reasons, I believe that the approved schools should be transferred from the care of the Home Office to that of the Ministry which looks after other schools, the Ministry of Education. I know that if the noble Earl had to say anything to that, he would say, "No"; but I hope that at any rate he will say that he will think it over and place those thoughts before his right honourable friend.
Is that all that I have in mind to say? It is not quite all. There is one very disquieting thing about the Carlton Report. It is all the more disquieting if we accept, as I am perfectly prepared to, the tributes to the excellent characters and intentions of the managers and leading masters. Why did they break the rules in this persistent way? Why did they fail to carry out the recommendations of the inspectors? How did they come to fail to secure a visiting psychiatrist or a second housemaster? We are told that Carlton is very remote. I suppose you could get there in an hour from London, and it is not exactly the back of beyond. I would give my own surmise in a sentence. The managers and the masters were left too much on their own. They lacked sufficient support from the Home Office, and they lacked sufficient supervision from the same quarter. As regards support, I can hardly doubt that if the Home Office had really thrown themselves into it, they could have helped Carlton to acquire an extra housemaster, or teacher converted into a housemaster. I can hardly believe that it would have been impossible to secure, if the Home Office had really put their backs into that, the services of a visiting psychiatrist. I say that, well aware that in recent years the Home Office have bestirred themselves in a very helpful way to equip the schools with more psychiatrists than hitherto.
As regards supervision, the breaches of the rules and the failure to carry out the recommendations of the inspectorate involve a responsibility which certainly lies fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the managers. But the Home Office must take their share of that responsibility. They ought to have known what
486
was going on, and still more obviously they ought to have seen, when they did know something and recommended something, that those recommendations were carried out. Take, for example, page 42, paragraph 149, of the Report. It states:
"The managing body was, over the period investigated, inclined to leave too much to the sole discretion of the headmaster. The managers delegated virtually all their statutory responsibilities for the licensing of boys at Carlton School to the headmaster."
If this in fact was so and it was clearly wrong to be so, surely it was the responsibility of the Home Office Children's Department Inspectorate to discover these facts and place them before the Secretary of State, and to oblige the managers either to keep to the rules or resign. The Home Office it seems slides out of this, in paragraph 60, by not knowing what was going on or not knowing the whole truth. Do we need more inspectors or more inspectors with greater experience? Where is the corresponding recommendation in the Report that deals with this aspect of the failure? If it is said that the Home Office found out all that was necessary, why were their recommendations not enforced? There was a gap of nearly two years between the inspectorate's inspection and this very unhappy outbreak.
Let us take a final and still broader look (and I am now about to close) at the system as a whole, including the strange, invidious position in which the managers find themselves, many of them self-co-opting bodies responsible to no one and carrying very onerous responsibilties. Certain obvious remedies spring to mind, and some of them, which I myself would not support, in their entirety at least, would cut at the root of the whole voluntary system of approved schools. At the present moment, I would tell the House that there are 25 schools which come directly under local authorities; there are 41 which come under charitable organisations, many of them the organisations of leading churches; and there are 52—and Carlton is one of these—where the managers are a committee, so to speak, responsible to no one. It is certainly an odd set-up. As Mr. Durand points out;
"There is no Home Office control over the appointment, removal, or selection of managers of approved schools".

487
A little earlier he reminds us that
"Virtually the whole cost of the service is met from public funds".
It is tempting to suggest that the voluntary system has shot its bolt and that all the schools should be brought directly under the local authorities. I myself should feel that that was much too drastic a development. Certainly there is no justification—and I am speaking for many in the schools—for panic measures as a result of the Carlton Report alone. The all-Party Select Committee of 1948–49 did not recommend any major change in the present system of dual management, but they were of the opinion that greater efficiency would result if there were local government representation on all voluntary management boards. For some reason or other that recommendtaion has not been carried out. As was pointed out at that time by the Committee, boards of voluntary managers are mostly composed of people who take a great interest in child welfare and who often dedicate themselves in a noble way to the care of these schools. Frequently there is a religious background and there is a spirit in many of these schools which few of us would wish to see in any way diminished. It might, however, be possible to distinguish—and I throw out this idea, not aware that it has been canvassed widely hitherto—between those voluntary schools which are run by recognised charitable organisations, something over 40, and the rather larger number which like Carlton, are run by local committees who, so to speak, hang in the air and are responsible to no one. It might be possible for the latter, those completely unrepresentative committees, but not for the former, not the committees acting under large charitable organisations, to be brought entirely under the control of the local authorities. In any case it seems that there is a need for a closer watch and stronger backing at the centre.
Some of these are tentative thoughts. My own Party is still considering the matter and it would be wrong to talk as though the Labour Party was already committed to some particular line. But we can all be at one, I am sure, quite irrespective of Party, in the reflection that the Carlton episode will have done more good than harm if it stirs all of us up,
488
including the Home Office, to take more interest than hitherto in the problems of the approved schools; and for that reason we have every cause to be grateful to the noble Earl who introduced this Motion. We should do all we can to study and share the problems of the managers and staffs and boys and girls, who, after all, are our own flesh and blood and have their own lives ahead of them, in which as fellow citizens and fellow Christians we are all inextricably involved.
3.28 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, it is now some fourteen years since the then Secretary of State did me the honour of asking me to undertake the chairmanship of a newly opened approved school and to appoint my own board of managers, and I have occupied that position ever since. I have, I gather, in the opinion of the noble Lord, been hanging in the air all that time; nevertheless I shall venture to give your Lordships a few observations on the Carlton Report.
I should like to say in the first place that it seems to me not to have been so serious an affair as this long Blue Book, of 60 pages, would suggest. After all, nobody was hurt and very little damage was done. Although it has been very regrettable, your Lordships will see, if you look at the figures on page 16, that up to this time the school had been very successful—and that in spite of the defects which the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, has mentioned. I do not wish to go in detail into these defects, but there is one point which I think I must make. As the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, has said, a number of the staff (I think it was six of them) admitted to having slapped the faces of some of the boys, and the fact that so many of them admitted that is bound to give one the impression that this is a recognised method, in spite of its being contrary to the law, of dealing with insolent boys. I should like to assure your Lordships that, to the best of my knowledge (and I have some knowledge, not only of approved schools but also of Borstals) that sort of thing, which I should have supposed was unthinkable, is certainly extremely rare. I am practically certain that in my school nobody ever slaps a boy; nor in the Borstal of which I have the honour to be a visitor does anybody

489
ever slap a boy. Not only are the orders to obey rule 38, which is mentioned in the Report, but the instructions to members of the staff are that if any boy is insolent or insubordinate they are to report him to the governor or headmaster, as the case may be; and I know that that is very often done.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, also mentioned, the governors of this school at Carlton, and the staff of the school, failed in other ways to conform to the regulations; and Mr. Durand points out that if the regulations had been properly carried out it is at any rate quite likely that no disturbance would have taken place. Yet his recommendations, in so far as they affect Carlton School, which are not very drastic, although they are numerous, propose to alter in a good many respects the whole approved school system. He seems to suppose that the danger of outbreaks of this kind is so great that the whole system at the approved school must be subordinated to the business of taking precautions to prevent outbreaks.
The whole idea of the approved school is, of course, to reform. The boys go to the approved school to be taught to behave properly. If you want people to behave properly—including the noble Viscount who is Leader of the Opposition—you must set them an example. Your Lordships will know that in all good regiments it is taken for granted that orders will be obeyed; it is only in bad regiments that there is any doubt about it. If it is taken for granted that orders will be obeyed, orders are obeyed. The whole idea of a good approved school, like any other good school, is to get an atmosphere in which everybody is expected to do what is right; then, to a large extent, they do do what is right. Most of the recommendations of Mr. Durand in this Report are liable to act in quite an opposite sense. As soon as he gets to the approved school, the boy is to be threatened with the police; he is to be threatened with Borstal; he is to be threatened with solitary confinement. He is to be shown from the start that he is expected to be a bad boy. In consequence, I think he will partly be a bad boy.
I should like to go into these recommendations in a little more detail, in the first place as regards the police.
490
Your Lordships will see from the Report that although the police were sent for to go to Carlton School, they were not actually used. To my mind, it is, and should be, quite unnecessary to call the police to any approved school. If the staff are not competent to deal with an obstreperous boy, they are not fit to be where they are; and to introduce the police in that way would be deliberately to institute a challenge to obstreperous boys to make themselves more obstreperous, so as to have the honour and glory of bringing in the police.
The second matter is Borstal. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, has said, I think quite correctly, that all the authorities are against lowering the age of admission to Borstal. Now the lower limit for Borstal is sixteen. It is rare for boys under seventeen to be admitted to Borstal. Quite a number of the boys in my Borstal are married. To introduce boys of fifteen into this environment would, I suggest, be quite out of the question. There is further, this question of solitary confinement—what are, I think, called "secure" rooms, where boys can be kept locked up. On one occasion we tried this in my school when we had a persistent absconder. But it does not work, for the reason that an approved school has not the staff available to look after boys in these conditions: somebody has to feed them; somebody has to exercise them; and there are not the people to do it. Then the fact that a persistent absconder was placed in confinement for a time would only make him more likely than previously to abscond, if possible, when he was let out. It simply does not work. These recommendations seem to me not only undesirable in themselves but, taken together, to run counter to the general principles under which approved schools are, and should be, conducted.
There is one more recommendation of Mr. Durand which seems to me to be far more serious—namely, that boys should have a statutory right to appeal from the headmaster to the managers. I cannot imagine anything more calculated to ruin the discipline of any school. We have all been to school. We all know that the idea of appealing from our housemaster to the headmaster would never have occurred to us; and as for appealing from the headmaster to the governing body, the idea would have been quite

491
ridiculous. It seems to me that it is even more ridiculous in an approved school than in a public school. Why should these boys, who, after all, are delinquent boys, be given legal rights such as none of us would ask for our own children? Then there is the further disadvantage, that delinquent boys are more likely than others to bring false accusations against members of the staff. It is, I will not say prevalent, but not in the least rare, for boys at approved schools to bring entirely fictitious charges of indecency against members of the staff—so much so that it is now regarded as an occupational risk. If we allow these boys to appeal to the managers if they are dissatisfied with what the headmaster has done, to my mind that is an incentive to them to bring false accusations against members of the staff.
As regards headmasters generally, I would say that the idea that it is the business of the managers to try to teach a headmaster his business is entirely mistaken. The managers should not go questioning the boys about what they think of the headmaster; but they should go about the school and notice the general tone and demeanour of the boys, and speak to them. From that they should be able to see whether anything is seriously wrong. If they do not think that there is anything seriously wrong, they should let the headmaster, who is a trained man, who spends every day there, whereas they are there only once or twice a month, carry on with the staff. If they do not do that the school will not succeed.
The members of the staff at approved schools are really dedicated persons. They have a much more difficult job than have masters at ordinary schools. They are there every day and most of the day. They do not get their evenings or their weekends off, as do masters at ordinary schools. They cannot carry out these difficult duties which are imposed upon them unless they have, and know that they have, the full support of the managers. It is one of the most important duties of any manager to show the boys that the staff, and particularly the
headmaster, have his full confidence. I am quite sure that anyone who has the interests of discipline at heart will oppose this proposal that the boys shall have a right of appeal to the managers. I am
492
afraid that at certain approved schools there are managers who enjoy occupying a position of authority and like to fling their weight about, and those managers may approve this proposal; but anyone who really considers the interests of approved schools will, I am sure, be against it. That is the point in this Report and in the recommendations of Mr. Durand about which I feel most strongly.
I have one or two other points to make. The noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, referred to the name of these schools. I agree entirely with them. Mr. Durand proposes that instead of "approved" schools they should be called "registered" schools, or something like that. I have no doubt whatever that in a very short time the word "registered" would come to have the same connotation as "approved" has now. As to the housemasters, I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, said. I think it would be far better if all housemasters were schoolmasters. As it is now, although they are supposed to be in charge of the boys, in fact for most of the day the boys are in the charge of teachers and instructors and not of the housemaster. They are put on to various odd jobs during the day. They do a lot of work—I do not say that they do not; but they have little chance of promotion, and they are really "nobody's children." Their position is a most unsatisfactory one and I do not think it is at all surprising that Carlton School was unable to get its complement of housemasters.
Finally, my Lords, persistent abscondings are a problem which no one has yet succeeded in solving. I believe that there is perhaps a case for having separate schools to which the boys can be sent, but one must always watch the danger that both managers and masters at ordinary schools may jump at the chance of getting rid of boys who are difficult. The good approved schoolmaster prides himself on being able to deal with any boy in his charge. Although he does not always succeed, it is a good thing that he should be allowed to try, so long as it is possible to permit him to do so. As the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, has said, there may be there a case which will require careful consideration.

493
Another point I should like to mention is that Mr. Durand in his Report expresses the hope that the Home Office will restore the grant for sending boys to camp. That was a most valuable provision previously. It was done away with, for motives of economy, I believe, some three or four years ago. A fortnight by the sea did the boys a world of good, physically and morally, and I very much hope that it may be found to be within the power of the Home Office to restore the grant. There is just one more point. I should not like it to be thought that I felt Mr. Durand had done a bad job. He was obviously unfamiliar with approved schools; he could not fail to be otherwise. I believe that he carried out his task and prepared his Report in a very fair and conscientious manner, and I do not wish it to be thought that in expressing disagreement with him I am in any way denigrating the public service he performed in carrying out the inquiry. But I hope that the Home Office will not allow themselves to be stampeded into making quite unnecessary changes in the approved school system.

SECURITY COUNCIL AND SOUTH AFRICA
3.43 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I will repeat the statement on the Security Council meeting to-day which has just been made by my right honourable and learned friend, the Foreign Secretary, in another place.
As your Lordships are aware, a meeting of the Security Council is at present taking place to decide what action to take on a request from a number of African and Asian countries that it consider the situation arising from the recent tragic events in the Union of South Africa.
The first business of the Council is the agenda for the Meeting. The United Kingdom representative has instructions not to oppose the discussion of the item requested by the African and Asian countries. We do, however, adhere to our view that in accordance with Article 2, sub-paragraph 7, of the Charter, nothing in the Charter authorises the
494
United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State.
It is the primary responsibility of the Security Council to promote the maintenance of international peace and security. We have a very delicate situation. I am sure the House will join with me in hoping that the Security Council discussion will contribute to an alleviation of the situation.
3.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are much obliged to the noble Marquess for giving us the statement which has been made by the right honourable and learned gentleman, the Foreign Secretary, in another place; and, of course, we welcome very much the decision that has been made that our representative at the Security Council will be instructed not to oppose the inclusion of the request from the Afro-Asian countries to include in the agenda of the Security Council for discussion the recent tragic events in South Africa. When we come to consider the very well expressed hope that the noble Marquess mentioned in the last part of his statement, it seems to me that in the interim period many people in this country will be wondering exactly what action the representative of Her Majesty's Government will take, in view of the nature of the submission of the Afro-Asian nations that the events in South Africa constitute, in their view, a threat to peace—
EARL WINTERTON: Why?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: —in a very widespread area of the African nations. On that, although I fully realise the great importance this country plays in the Commonwealth, as the senior, the oldest, member of the Commonwealth—it is very important, and I recognise that it is a delicate situation—I hope that we shall not be lacking in forthrightness in expressing our view on this matter so far as it represents a growing danger to peace in the sphere of the African countries. Certainly I hope that it will be borne in mind that other members of the Commonwealth did not hesitate, for example, to state their view and cast their vote when a threat to peace was being considered by the United Nations in the case of Suez; and in a matter of this

495
great importance, while I do not want in any way to harry Her Majesty's Government on the matter, I hope that the instructions given to our representative there will be adequate and will really seek to express views so clearly held by the nation at large.
3.48 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, may I venture, with great trepidation, to put forward something that I should like to have considered by your Lordships and possibly by the Government of the day? It seems to me that there are two principles involved: one, that one country should
not intervene in the internal affairs of another, and, the second, whether the action (whether it is internal or external) of one country is threatening the peace of the world. I would venture to point out that where what purports to be the internal action of a country deals differently with different races, and the races within the country have a relationship with persons who form the citizens of other countries, what appears to be an ordinary internal question becomes automatically an external question as well, because it brings in the peoples of the other sovereign States.
May I remind your Lordships of what was the case when we were still in control of India? There was discrimination in South Africa and, I believe, in other parts of Africa affecting persons from India who had gone to Africa to work as labourers. The Government of India, which was then British, frequently protested to the African country about the treatment of the Indians in its midst. That seems to me to be a precedent which, I hope, Her Majesty's Government will not entirely forget when this question is dealt with at the United Nations.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I just say from this quarter of the House that we very much support what has fallen from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence. In fact, I am again in the embarrassing position, as always, of finding what the noble Lord says highly admirable. With regard to Article 2, subparagraph 7, of the Charter, might I impress upon Her Majesty's Government that they should instruct our representative at the Security Council not to take too rigid and technical a view of this, for
496
the very reasons which have been so clearly expressed by the noble Lord on my left.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I feel it is desirable that someone on this side of the House should say a word on this subject. I do not want to take part in a debate, but I hope that the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Party, and the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, will take some other opportunity of explaining what they mean by the statement that events in South Africa, deplorable as they are, are jeopardising the peace of the world—I think that was their term. Perhaps they will have some opportunity of explaining what they mean by that. When they do so, may I respectfully invite their attention to other events in Africa which might in their opinion also be endangering the peace of the world: the situation in Ghana, where members of the Opposition are locked up and about to be flogged and where the Leader of the Opposition is in flight in this country; or the situation in the Congo. I hope we shall have some explanation at some later date of the views of noble Lords opposite on these subjects.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I do not think that any of your Lordships would wish to embark upon a debate on this very grave situation. I think it is perhaps unnecessary for me to point out to the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, that, of course, no resolution has yet been tabled, and I think we should consider this matter in that light. So far as the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, are concerned, of course we will take note of what he said. I think we cannot escape this thought: that if the United Nations were to intervene in matters which are within the domestic jurisdiction of any State, a really impossible situation would be created. With your Lordships' permission, I should prefer not to say any more at this juncture. I should also like to thank noble Lords opposite for the manner in which they have approached this problem.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, may I ask one question? I understand that thousands of British subjects move from Nyasaland or the Protectorates to

497
work in the Union. They are advised by officers of the Government—I presume, labour officers. What instructions are given to them about obeying the pass laws of the Union Government?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I do not think that has a direct bearing, and I feel that the noble Viscount would not wish to press me to say anything which might exacerbate the present situation.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I am far from wishing to exacerbate a tragic situation, going from bad to worse. There is the declaration of Mr. Mboya; the speech from Mr. Erasmus—dreadful! But when a Basuto goes to work in the Union, do we tell him to get a reference book or not?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, the noble Marquess has really answered the question and repeated the statement which was made by the Foreign Secretary. The noble Viscount will have the whole of the Order Paper for the rest of the Session on which to put down any Question.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I should have thought that the noble Earl the Leader of the House as Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations would have investigated this matter for himself, because the land is in a blaze.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I do not suggest that I do not know the answer to the noble Viscount's question, but I am not going to give it unless he puts a Question on the Paper.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged for the answer which the noble Marquess gives, but I ought to point out that the nature of the communications of the Afro-Asian countries certainly lead back to what is to be discussed in the Security Council and what is on the agenda of the United Nations. I would only ask him to consider objectively and very carefully the words I used and to show them to his right honourable friend. As to the intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, we are always willing to debate on these questions at any time.

DISTURBANCES AT CARLTON APPROVED SCHOOL
3.55 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to those expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, to the noble Earl, Lord Aylcsford, for putting down this Motion for debate to-day. I hope there will be many other opportunities of hearing him speak in this House, for I greatly enjoyed his maiden speech. I should like to pay my tribute to Mr. Durand for the full and careful appreciation he made of the situation in the Carlton School, and for what he said about its history in present circumstances and its needs. I should like to add that I believe marked fairness and patience were shown to all who came forward to give evidence at this Inquiry.
I rise to speak in this debate because Carlton School is in the diocese of St. Albans. I cannot help feeling that if any of your Lordships, even using the M.1, were to reach Carlton School within an hour it would be exceptionally good fortune. I know the school; I know the buildings; I have visited them. I care for the place. I know some of the staff; I know some of the managers, and I am glad to count them among my personal friends. I value the Inquiry, but, my Lords, I regret that the terms of reference did not include the opportunity of considering the relationship between the Home Office and Carlton School. For this reason, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have already drawn attention to the responsibilities of the Home Office with respect to this school.
Relations between the managers and certain Home Office inspectors are cordial. During the disturbances the managers were aware of strong support from the Home Office, and considerate support. But, my Lords, may I make this suggestion? May I ask the department concerned in the Home Office to look at their correspondence files? If they would do so I should expect them to find that replies to letters from Carlton School have been at times dilatory, if not exasperatingly slow. I should expect them to see that weeks, at times, have passed without a reply to a letter, or even an acknowledgment. It is this lack of first-rate backing from

499
the Home Office that has at times handicapped the managers in their work. In making that comment I would endorse what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham; I do not for a moment question the devotion of many in the Home Office to the cause of the approved schools. Nevertheless, there is an uneasy feeling in Carlton School, I understand, and in those who care for the school, that the Inquiry has not really revealed the root causes of the trouble, just because it was too limited.
When you visit Carlton School you are immediately struck by the handicap its buildings present. Admittedly it was built as a reformatory in 1855; admittedly it was designed for some 30 boys, and admittedly it now has just under 100. But when we look at the buildings we must be aware of the heavy demands made on the staff in meeting the needs of these boys, demands which are increased by the inadequacy of the buildings. I do not want to say much about the boys themselves. They may be, as the noble Earl, Lord Aylesford, said, first-class; they may be, as the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, said, no better than their fathers. What is a fact, however, I think, is that they are certainly richer than their fathers, and this adds to the difficulties which the staff inherit. The managers can only out their coat according to the cloth provided; and what they are well aware of is the fact that for years they have had just to "make do and mend". When there were 115 boys in this school they had hardly any indoor recreational facilities; no club room; no games room; a swimming pool unfiltered and unheated, and a gymnasium with a derelict floor.
When we read the Report we notice that there are comments on bullying, references to boredom and to the fact that the problems of leisure become acute. The boys' need, as this Report brings out, is to be loved and understood. But these buildings do not suggest that such is the aim of the authorities.
The managers, the headmaster and the staff have had, as I know a most trying time meeting harsh, damaging and unsympathetic publicity—not always so, but a good deal of it unsympathetic. I believe, my Lords, that the headmaster and staff have been subjected to rather
500
unfair criticism, and I say that having in mind the success figures in this Report which have been referred to already. They have had to maintain order in the school among boys who have testified against them. I am told that a big improvement in discipline is already to be discerned, and I think that this speaks well for the headmaster and his staff. I welcome this chance to say a word of thanks to those ladies and gentlemen who serve on the management committees and on the staffs, not only of the Carlton School but of other approved schools, and to assure them of the great appreciation that many of us in this House have for their courageous devotion to their work.
My Lords, at the time of the Inquiry favourable comment was made on the work of the last chaplain. During the Inquiry there was no chaplain, because a neighbouring benefice was vacant. A chaplain has now been appointed, however, and I know that he finds the work extremely interesting and well worth while, and the headmaster and staff extremely co-operative. The boys attend services in Carlton Church each Sunday, and the chaplain sees the boys individually. He is at present preparing six of them for Confirmation. What a help it would be to him in his work, and what a great help to Carlton School, I submit, if the Home Office would consider providing some building which could serve as a chapel!
Reference has already been made to the duties of housemasters; and, from my own experience of championing boys who have been before the courts, I know the difference that a good housemaster can make. It is disquieting to learn the impossibility of securing the appointment of another housemaster for Carlton School. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, has said, when we consider the salary offered to a housemaster it is not surprising that the post cannot be filled. I hope that the Home Office will reconsider the salary offered to housemasters for the responsible duties they undertake.
May I add one word to what has already been said about licensing? I speak, I think, for some with first-hand experience of this work when I say that Rule 40 needs redefining. Granted that licensing should be effectively brought within the responsibility of the

501
managers; nevertheless, there must surely be the closest consultation between managers and staff. Managers have not the same opportunity of knowing boys individually: they must rely on staff reports, and on the headmaster's recommendations. Recently, three boys were licensed from an approved school against the advice of the headmaster and staff, and all three have already appeared in court again.
Finally, one word about the future of the school. I am glad the Report recommends that the school should continue at Carlton. I consider that the school has good support locally, and I regard this as of great importance. I consider the school has been fortunate in its chairman of the managers. For years he has given great service to the County of Bedfordshire. His example at the time of the troubles, and the stand he made on behalf of the staff when he gave evidence at the Inquiry, have been greatly valued. I am told that, so far as the recommendations in the Report refer specifically to Carlton School, the managers have already intimated to the Home Office that they will implement every one—and I submit that that indicates the value of a closer accord between the managers and the Home Office. Prompt action has already been taken on these lines. The managers are prepared to show initiative, and they have, particularly since the Inquiry, shown this initiative. But if the premises are to be brought up to modern standards, the requisite authority for capital expenditure must come from the Home Office. I therefore hope that Her Majesty's Government will take prompt action on the lines of the recommendations set out in this Report, and particularly that they will attend to Recommendation (10):
"The adequacy of capital expenditure for bringing the older approved schools such as Carlton School up to modern standards should be considered as a matter of high priority."
4.6 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Aylesford, for having put down this Motion and for having introduced this debate to-day, and I join with my noble friend Lord Pakenham in congratulating him on his maiden speech. If it was a model of brevity, I would only say that perhaps we could have done with more of it; and I hope very much
502
that we shall hear the noble Earl from time to time on this and on other subjects.
The Report before the House, although one does not agree with all of it, is, I think, on the whole, thoughtful and well done. Arising out of it, I think there are lessons which have to be taken note of and learned by everybody concerned. If I may say so, I thought that the right reverend Prelate who has just sat down was perhaps a little over-considerate to the school itself and to the managers, but he no doubt feels a paternal interest in it as it is in his diocese. That is understandable, and I should feel exactly the same if I were he. But they have all got to learn from this Report—the managers, the headmaster, the Children's Department at the Home Office, the Home Office as a whole, and the Secretary of State. They have a duty to investigate all matters which are within their jurisdiction, and to think carefully what improvements and what changes of a beneficial character can be made. That, indeed, is the purpose of such inquiries, and I hope very much that they will all do so.
I must say that I am not sure about the constitutional set-up of this school. I understand that it has done good work in its time, and that in this class of school many are very good, though probably some, like the rest of human effort, are not so good. I understand that this school was established about a hundred years ago by voluntary effort; that it is not part of any local government organisation; that managers have been more or less co-opted by the existing managers from time to time; and, therefore, that there is a lack of responsibility to public authority except the Home Office. The Home Office, among others, as I have said, must learn from this experience.
Now I do not want to be dogmatic, and I do not want to get into trouble by referring to what ought to happen to the religious approved schools—that would be "asking for it". But as to this type of school, which presumably started as some foundation a hundred years ago—probably somebody left some money, or gave some money towards it—it seems to me to be questionable that there should be this body of schools (even though I am assured that some of them are very good) which is

503
not part of the public administration. I must say that it is news to me that this is so. Perhaps that is due in part to my London County Council experience, where the managers of approved schools were appointed by a committee of the Council; where there was a member of the Council in the chair; and where reports were forwarded to the appropriate committee of the Council from time to time—and, of course, the schools were inspected by Council inspectors as well as by inspectors from the Home Office. I ought to say that my noble friend Lord Silkin was for a long period responsible as chairman of the managers of an approved school of which I was a member earlier on—namely, Mile Oak, near Brighton. I think it is worth consideration by the Government whether this body of what might be called independent approved schools should not be passed to the county council or the county borough council, as the case may be.
EARL BATHURST: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but I am not clear as to whether he was a member of the school or a member of the Board.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I was a member of the Board. I am not sure that the school existed when I was a boy, otherwise it is quite possible that I might have been a member of the school.
As I say, I think the Report as a whole is a good thing, investigating as it does an unhappy incident in connection with Carlton School, which no doubt the school feels is rather a blot on it for the moment. But if the school gets over this, and puts itself right, it may in the end have done good. We must not exaggerate the incident, serious though it undoubtedly was, when these boys got completely out of hand. There are revealed some possible criticisms of the headmaster, of whom, however, good things are also said. The Report reveals criticism of the management and some criticism, actual or implied, of the Home Office. One cannot help wondering whether the Home Office inspection was adequate; whether it found these weaknesses, and, if it did, what was done about them. I think that that is a matter which is worthy of inquiry by my old Department, for which I have an
504
affection and for which everybody who has ever been at the Home Office seems to retain an affection over the years—I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, had he been here, would have risen with valiant vigour in defence of the Home Office.
The Report itself, in the Summary of Recommendations, makes a number of proposals. I agree with my noble friend Lord Pakenham that to reduce the age of entry to Borstal institutions is a rather doubtful proposition. The crimes and offences of those who are inmates of Borstal institutions are more serious than of those at approved schools, and it might not do any good if that were done. Apart from this Borstal point, there may be something to be said for the idea that the courts should order residential training, and then, under the responsibility of the Secretary of State, for a decision to be reached as to where the boys should go.
Then there is the proposal which crops up every time there is criticism of something; that is, that the name should be changed. It is a strange thing how this repeatedly happens. I remember that when there was controversy about Public Assistance, when a number of people did not think they were getting enough relief—and sometimes it was true—and various politicians, Communists particularly, were running demonstrations against Public Assistance, in the course of a year or so people began to say that we ought to alter the name "Public Assistance" because it was a dreadful name. But there is nothing wrong with with it; it says what it means; and it is a good thing that Public Assistance should exist in a civilised State. I forget whether it was changed or not. I think the London County Council changed the name of the Committee to the Welfare Committee, which did not seem to be a particularly accurate description. But in order to put that right, along came the Government in due course and established the National Assistance Board, which we now call the Assistance Board, and therefore we are back where we were.
Another thing that happened was that public relations suddenly came into disrepute, largely as a result of political activity and denunciation of this service by the Conservative Party in another place. "Public relations" was looked on with disfavour. And yet it says what

505
it means, and it is clear what it means: it is relations with the public which somebody ought to take care of. At that time I was in charge of this service and was responsible for getting these officers, called public relations officers, re-named information officers, which I thought was sensible and quiet and not sufficient to provoke anybody even in the House of Commons Now we have these approved schools. I do not know that there is anything wrong in the term "approved school". It is a school which is approved for a purpose. What are you to call it? It does not seem to me right to call it a registered school; that, if anything, sounds worse. I do not know that you could improve on the name, though I should be perfectly willing to consider any proposition that might come along. Maybe the name of Carlton School should be changed. That might lead to misunderstanding, as suggesting that it was a branch of the Carlton Club, which would be a little rough on the school, and might account for the naughtiness of some of the boys. I think we ought to beware, just because a bit of bother blows up, about changing the name, because it might be an excuse for not doing anything real about improving the situation. Therefore I do not think, on the face of it, that there is anything sensible about that.
There are other recommendations, but it is impossible to deal with all of them. I am inclined to think that the point about the housemaster is right; and, indeed, while not in general an advocate of putting up public expenditure for the fun of it and without good cause, I think a sympathetic view ought to be taken of the duties of the approved schools' staffs in general. They have a difficult job. They are living a somewhat isolated life, usually well away in the country, and spending many hours in the company of these boys. That in itself is not bad; in fact, much of it is pleasant and useful. Nevertheless, there ought to be times when they can get away from it and do something else and enjoy themselves. So that their hours ought to be considered: they should be adequate, but not overdone. I hope that their pay is appropriate. Mr. Durand thinks that it is enough except for the housemaster. But a sympathetic view ought to be taken of the job that these men have to do. It is, as I say,
506
a difficult job, and it can be a depressing one.
The other point is that in appointing staff it is profoundly important to try to find the right people, not only educationally and in other ordinary ways. They should be people who can walk about with a cheerful face in the midst of trouble and can spread sweetness and light in the school as they go along; because if they spread darkness and misery, that will only add to the troubles of the school. Certainly the licensing of boys working outside the schools should be brought under proper examination and control; and I agree that the advice of the headmaster and staff should be taken into account on this matter, although the responsibility should rest with the managers. As I have said, there is a difficulty in placing the responsibility for all this. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, who was inclined to want far more Home Office control over the management.
LORD RAGLAN: I did not say that.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Then it must have been another noble Lord, and I apologise if I have gone wrong. I thought one noble Lord suggested that there should be a greater degree of Home Office control, including control over the management committees, and I was not sure whether some noble Lords did not want the Home Office to appoint the managers. This is another possible danger—namely, the tendency to take control out of the hands of local people and put it in the hands of the State. I want the Home Office to have adequate powers, and I want them to use them sensibly. But if they take too much power, which means that being a member of a management committee will be nothing but a position in which you are taking orders from Whitehall, then I think that will be one of the best ways to get the worst type of manager on these bodies. There must be responsibility, and it must be impressed upon the managers that they have a great deal of responsibility. If you take too much power away from them and put it in Whitehall, I think it could have a bad effect.
The school of which my noble friend and I were managers does good work, and I should think that most of them

507
do good work. It was claimed that 90 per cent. of these youngsters were reformed and became quite good citizens afterwards, which was a big achievement. It was a residential school, as they usually are, and, of course, they are very costly to run. I well remember that in the days of the Conservative majority on the London County Council, the chairman of the Committee was the Honourable Lady Lawrence. Every time we met, about half a dozen or eight of the new boys were brought up before her ladyship, as the Chairman, and the Committee. I must say that the bulk of them looked like little angels—you could not believe they would do anything wrong at all. There was one boy of nine who was positively sweet, and yet he was the leader of a gang. They all addressed her ladyship as "Miss"; they did not know any better, and there was no reason why they should. I think it is a good thing that the new arrivals should come before the Committee and be spoken to in a kindly and friendly way, to wish them luck and to advise them to take advantage of the opportunities of being there. Many of them were problem boys, but not all. I am not at all sure that all of them ought to have been there. I am glad that my noble friend agrees with me. At any rate, they did not look like it and did not sound like it. I am talking about only some of them. It was a bit doubtful whether they ought to have been there, with the consequent heavy cost to the ratepayers and taxpayers of the country.
When I was a boy at school we used to play cricket and football between lamp-posts in the streets at Stockwell. Nobody interfered with us, except one lady who was afraid that we would break her windows, and she criticised us very strongly. Unfortunately, one day we did break her window. Now and again a policeman would come up the road and, as is the way with policemen, he was on top of you before you knew he was anywhere in the vicinity. The policeman would come along and, with those heavy black woollen gloves, would give you a really good swipe on the ear, which you felt. It did not hurt you much. He would say, "Look here, my boys, you stop it. If I catch you doing that again, you will be in real trouble." It frightened us out of our lives, and we
508
were good for at least a fortnight. I am not sure what would have happened to us in these days—whether we should be run round to the children's court, and eventually find ourselves in an approved school, though I should think not for that degree of offence.
It is possible that the kindly, well-meaning people who want to be helpful and good to the children have overdone it just a little in that way. I was once a stairs monitor at the elementary school, and my duty was to see that the boys did not slide down the stairs or banisters, or misbehave themselves. Unfortunately for me, I was caught sliding down the banisters while I was a monitor. I got six "handers", and it hurt. It taught me my lesson, and I never slid down the banisters again. We have now reached the point where, if a policeman hit a boy to-day, I rather think it would be a disciplinary offence and he might be before the disciplinary board. Headmasters and others have to be careful about using the stick and cane and, Heaven knows!, I do not want it used too much. But we really must be a little careful not to get too sloppy about things. In dealing with youngsters I have found that there is a lot to be said, in conversation with them and relations with them, for treating them almost as grown-up—assuming they are responsible young people—and, as a whole, they tend to respond to that kind of consideration.
Therefore, I think a little more patience with the youngsters before they are marked off as on the edge of the criminal classes must be to the good, and that other methods would help. Whether the psychiatrist would be an improvement, I do not know. As between the psychiatrist and the policeman, there is a lot to be said for the policeman. I believe many psychiatrists do very good work, although I am afraid that my late friend Ernest Bevin had a violent objection to the use of psychiatrists in the Army. He said that they ruined more soldiers than did any other single influence. That may be an exaggeration, because he could exaggerate now and again. But it is a thing to be careful about, and you want to be very careful in the choice of psychiatrists.

509
There was something wrong about this school, as the Report reveals. Things were not as they ought to have been. This is the way we British do things. Some trouble arises, and it causes a lot of excitement in newspapers and so on, as it ought. A person was appointed to inquire into this trouble, and that was right, too. The Report tells us all about it from the point of view of Mr. Durand. I trust, as I have said before, that everybody concerned will take his comments to heart, together with any other experiences they have had, and try to get the thing right. But let us have a little consideration for everybody—the Home Office, the managers, the staff and the youngsters themselves—and recognise that the running of these places is perhaps one of the most difficult jobs in public administration.
4.29 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I, too, must add my congratulations on the most delightful maiden speech made by my noble friend Lord Aylesford. He has chosen for his maiden speech a subject about which he knows a great deal. He has chosen a subject upon which there are many experts in this House. And, as many experts as there are, each of them, it seems to me, has chosen a different line—in fact, different lines—from my noble friend. I believe that he is a brave man to have initiated this debate, but his courage has been rewarded is the success of the debate and the great and thoughtful speeches which have been made by your Lordships this arternoon. I am quite certain that when those speeches are read in your Lordships' Hansard we shall find we owe a great debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Aylesford.
My noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack has given me the honour of replying to this debate and he has also given me the great assistance of having his speech. Your Lordships well know that the noble and learned Viscount is a very great expert upon all affairs of juvenile delinquency and crime; no one has done more in the field of approved schools over a great many years of service than my noble and learned friend. Should I leave many "i's" undotted and "t's" uncrossed, I assure your Lordships I will bring those points to the attention of my noble and learned friend, and he will be only too willing to give
510
your Lordships the answers to those points.
I, too, before I go further, want to add my words of praise to those already uttered in your Lordships' House to the managers and the headmasters and their staffs in approved schools. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, and the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, with his great experience, saw fit to put those remarks at the very beginning of their speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, too, with his vast experience, brought out this point.
As has been said, there are 117 schools, 82 for boys and 35 for girls. Out of that total, 41 are under the charitable trusts and 52 are run by independent committees, and I think that here we must agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth; that, in view of these numbers, there seems to be very great scope for the voluntary work of school managers. I do not think it would be right to assume that "Whitehall knows best" in all cases, and I do not believe (and I am quite certain that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, would agree with me) that waving a wand and installing as managers representatives of local authorities would make a Utopia in the approved schools. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, as I am sure he knows, and as many of your Lordships are aware, that on the boards of these independent schools, of the type of that at Carlton, and the type mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, there are a great many local authority members, whether by chance or by invitation of the committees of management themselves. Really, that the system works at all in the approved schools, I believe, is thanks to this courageous work, often in difficult circumstances, such as the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, and the right reverend Prelate described. No thanks and admiration are great enough for those people who give such service. They are devoted to the cause which they are running.
That is not to say that everything is perfect, as indeed this Report of Mr. Victor Durand, Q.C., brings out. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, and the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, have shown that certainly the affairs at Carlton School at the time were not all that could be desired. I believe that the school will get over that, and that in

511
a few months or years this sad episode will be no more. When the dust has settled, as indeed it is settling very fast, I believe that great good will have come out of it, as so many of your Lordships have already said. And one of the best things will be that your Lordships and others in the country will be able to take a greater interest in the problems of approved schools, and perhaps more people will be encouraged to take on boys as apprentices when they come out of the schools, often with great skills and abilities in their heads and in their hands. If any of your Lordships can help in any direction I am quite certain that that would be a fitting result to the great service which the noble Earl, Lord Aylesford, has done by bringing this Motion before your Lordships' House to-day.
There are certain points which various Members of your Lordships' House have brought forward, and I should like to clear them out of the way forthwith, as they do not enter into the main line of my speech. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, suggested that the Ministry of Education might be responsible for approved schools. I must remind the noble Lord, however, that we are reforming delinquents. The majority of these boys have been, at one time or another, delinquents. We are educating them also, but they are delinquents. We have to remember that the approved schools are part of the administration of the law. Also at the present time they are run under the, Children's Inspectorate of the Home Office. In fact, at the present time the Ministry of Education has all it can do without the extra burden of approved schools being added to it. I just throw these ideas out to the noble Lord in case he should have forgotten them.
LORD PAKENHAM: May I say that if I had forgotten those points I should indeed have erred in my duty; and if I had made the suggestion I did make without having let those thoughts stray across my mind I should have fallen a long way below the required level. I hope that the noble Earl is not dismissing the suggestion, of which he has had little notice, but will take it up and have it examined by his colleagues.
EARL BATHURST: I am quite certain the noble Lord's words will always
512
be examined, but I just wanted to point out those factors which he did not mention. I am quite certain that he will consider those also.
The noble Lord also brought up the question of a handbook. There are rules, and so forth, available for the managers, and I do not think there should be any reason why a manager should not be able to know everything that is necessary with regard to running an approved school and the methods that should be employed. However, we agree that the position is not satisfactory and a small handbook is in fact being produced. The noble Lord also mentioned the five-year report and said he would like to see something on the lines of an annual report. I am advised that these reports are most complicated to compile. It is not only the figures which are important, but the trend over a number of years, and that is the main reason why a five-yearly period has been chosen. Towards the end of this year the next report will be published. I should, however, like to go into this aspect further, and I will write to the noble Lord about it.
The noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, talked about psychiatrists. My experience of psychiatrists was fitting little coloured squares together for their satisfaction; and apparently it did help one in the Army, or so the authorities considered. There must be one or two of your Lordships who have been subjected to that treatment. But really the difficulty of the psychiatrist, more especially at Carlton, as the noble Earl mentioned, is that there are not enough of the right men, apparently, in the area of Bedfordshire, which possibly does not hold so much with this particular profession. It is not just a psychiatrist who is needed; it is the right sort of man who can undertake the most exacting tasks in the approved schools. In fact 65·5 per cent. of the boys' schools already have psychiatrists. I should like to mention, too, that the psychiatrist in an approved school is really carrying on a process of "brain-washing"; it is a similar process to that publicised so much recently in a different connection. The most skilful handling is needed of every individual child to make contact with him and change his ways.

513
The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, asked if the grant for camp had been restored. I am glad to be able to tell him that it is being restored this year. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the Duke of Edinburgh's award scheme and the "Outward Bound" courses are considered most important in the approved schools. Already 75 silver awards and 54 bronze awards of the Duke of Edinburgh's pilot scheme have been gained by boys from approved schools, and there are twelve places which have been reserved for them in the "Outward Bound" courses for 1960. I am glad to be able to say that this most important part of approved school training is going ahead.
I noted what the right reverend Prelate said with regard to letters from the Home Office. If he will show those letters to me afterwards, I will do my best to take up the matter with my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, to see what can be clone. I also noted what he said with regard to a chapel. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, and myself actually saw a chapel in the course of construction on Monday. In fact only the furniture had arrived, but apparently within a short time it was believed that a chapel would be built, largely by the boys' own work. Whether something like that could be done at Carlton, I do not know, but I will take up the matter with my right honourable friend.
My Lords, having got those points out of the way—there are many others which noble Lords have brought up—I come to the main facts to be put before your Lordships. Last year, at the Carlton School for senior boys, there occurred from the evening of the 28th until Sunday, 30th August, a series of outbreaks and disorders, which we have heard so aptly described by the right reverend Prelate. Order was eventually restored—and here we cannot admire too greatly the work of the chairman, the deputy master and others of the managers who stepped into what could have been a most dangerous situation. Although it is easy to criticise the actions of people in such moments, it is not always quite so easy to be as clever as apparently one would like to be, having seen the Report. Order was restored, and especially so by the help of the Bedfordshire police, who cooperated in every way possible. As a
514
result of this outbreak my right honourable friend appointed Mr. Victor Durand, Q.C., to investigate and report, and he gave four headings upon which to report. They were: first, the state of discipline; second, the relations between the staff and the pupils at the school; third, all matters connected with conduct at the school which might throw light upon the circumstances which gave rise to the disturbances. Finally, Mr. Durand was asked to make recommendations.
I should like to pay tribute, as your Lordships have done, to the Report—a most considerate and detailed Report—that Mr. Durand has produced for my right honourable friend. He decided that there were two underlying causes of this disturbance: first, the existence of a number of defects in the personal relations within the school, which we have already mentioned, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Raglan particularly referred; and secondly, the deterioration of the type of boy coming to the school, with the consequent emergence of a hard core of trouble-makers. Reference to this group of trouble-makers appears right through the Report. Many of your Lordships have already mentioned this. I believe that we have to face this fact, and especially the rights and wrongs of the different methods of approach in regard to recommendations Nos. 1 and 2 and 11 and 12 between the views of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, and my noble friend Lord Aylesford. What we must bear in mind all the time, according to the Report, is this core of trouble-makers.
The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, with all his vast experience, mentioned especially the deterioration of the type of boy who is going to an approved school. There may be many reasons for this. I understand that my noble friend Lord Aylesford sits in a children's court, or has a great deal to do with a juvenile court. Possibly he is some way responsible. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, who has such great experience, and to whom Lord Pakenham referred, is also in some way responsible. But it is certain that trouble-makers are turning up. One of the reasons, which I do not think has been brought forward, is that possibly the other child care services which are run by my right honourable friend are taking up the better sort of boy mentioned

515
by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, so that he never finds his way to an approved school at all. I must say that I was surprised, in listening to the speech of the noble Lord, which we were delighted to do, as always. I thought I had misheard him for a second time, and that he was just the sort of boy who might have been a member of such a school. But I was glad to find out that that was not in fact so.
My Lords, the recommendations made by Mr. Durand are summarised in paragraph 181. As your Lordships have already mentioned, they are split up into three categories. I will not go over them in detail, but with regard to the individual recommendations of a general character, I think it would be helpful if I referred to those that are directed to the provision of more effective measures for dealing with these unruly and uncooperative boys whom I have just mentioned. Mr. Durand's Report says that the existence of such a number of boys in Carlton was a contributory factor, but not an overwhelming one by any means, in what happened there.
As we have heard, recommendations 1 and 2, 3 and 11 and 12 show up a gulf between the views of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, and those of my noble friend, Lord Aylesford. Approved schools are institutions for boys in which the only security arrangements existing are the detention room in the four classifying schools and similar rooms at one of the intermediate training
schools. The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, referred to that matter. As we have heard to-day, there are many ideas upon which is the best procedure, but I ask your Lordships to keep uppermost in your minds, when thinking of this problem, this hard core of unco-operative boys. Apart from the sanctions which are authorised by the approved school rules—corporal punishment, withdrawal of privileges and the temporary separation from other boys—the only powers that are available to the managers of an approved school in regard to a boy who acts in defiance are to ask the Secretary of State to transfer the boy to another school, or to bring him before the court, with the consent of the Secretary of State, if he either absconds from the school or is guilty of serious misconduct within the
516
school. It is extremely difficult, as the noble Lord, Lord Raglan again said, to find out exactly what the misconduct is. No doubt for that reason Mr. Durand has made the contentious recommendation that there should be a power—not that it should necessarily be used—by which a court before which a boy is brought on this ground should be able either to return him to an approved school for a longer term or, if he has reached the age of sixteen, to send him to Borstal training.
Here we come to the contentious point of Lord Pakenham, that fifteen would be too young. I think it has been the tendency of all your Lordships to agree that boys are maturing earlier, and therefore that we get the problem of the sixteen year old at the age of fifteen. I have heard it said that this extends even to the fourteen year old. The boy may be a lovable-looking little boy, but in fact there is no reason why he should not be the sort of thug which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth mentioned. Unfortunately, it is a fact that younger and younger boys are exhibiting these tendencies. It is for that reason that Mr. Durand makes the recommendation which my noble friend Lord Aylesford supports.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, who, as always, has been most interesting and informative, but do I gather that Her Majesty's Government have not yet pronounced on these recommendations which the noble Earl is now discussing? He has not told us so, but perhaps that has not yet been decided.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I have not yet come to that part, but in fact that has not yet been decided. I am trying to build up to the reasons why my right honourable friend, and no doubt my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack, have not formulated this matter in their minds. All these expert opinions have been heard, and I assure the noble Lord that many others are available to them. Boys of sixteen, seventeen and eighteen can all be in approved schools or Borstal institutions. The number of boys aged sixteen in Borstal is small when compared with the number of older boys; and the number aged sixteen sent to approved schools are between three and four times the

517
number of that age who are sent to Borstal. I believe that that is one consoling factor.
This situation may derive in part from the limitations of the power of juvenile courts who send to Borstal offenders who are under seventeen. That is another factor which helps to build up this hard core of offenders. Usually offenders in juvenile courts are in the fifteen-year age group. I believe I have made that point quite clear. The whole subject is within the terms of reference of a Departmental Committee, about which we have heard, which is now sitting under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Ingleby, who is not in his place to-day. The noble Earl, Lord Aylesford, the noble Lords, Lord Pakenham and Lord Morrison of Lambeth and my noble friend Lord Raglan have all pressed the urgency of this problem, and my right honourable friend is consulting with my noble friend Lord Ingleby to try, as a matter of urgency, to solve these problems on the lines of the recommendations 1, 2, 3 and 11 of Mr. Durand's Report.
My right honourable friend has indicated recently in another place that the recommendations involving legislation require consideration in relation to the treatment of young offenders which was foreshadowed in the Gracious Speech. He referred to the desirability of making comprehensive proposals for the treatment of young offenders, even if the implementing of these suggestions were to involve some delay in producing the Bill he has been preparing. Further suggestions which my right honourable friend is considering are those in the White Paper, Penal Practice in a Changing Society. That brings up a completely new set of problems which my right honourable friend has to balance. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, thought disturbed and disturbing boys should perhaps be sent to some closed institution—I believe that was his idea—
LORD PAKENHAM: An institution with a considerable closed wing seemed to me to be the best idea.
EARL BATHURST: —where it would be possible to concentrate psychiatrists, specialists and others, for the boys' treatment. That is very desirable, but I am quite certain the trouble is that these disturbed and disturbing boys,
518
like the apparently nice little boys, can turn out to be no less than just true thugs. That is the problem that headmasters and managers are up against, and at present there is no way in which a boy can be taken out of an approved school and sent to such an establishment. If the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, wishes that, or believes that such a plan would be right, then recommendations Nos. 1 and 2, or some form of them, would have to be considered.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but it is still early in the evening and this is a most interesting subject. I do not quite follow the noble Earl here. Surely no special legislation would be required to transfer boys from an open institution to one with a closed wing. I do not see that that would involve transfer to Borstal or anything of the kind dealt with in the earlier recommendations to which the noble Earl has just alluded.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, the trouble is that at present there is no such institution to which to transfer them. It would be possible to make a school as such with a closed wing, but, as my noble friend, Lord Raglan, with his vast experience, has indicated, there are many experts who believe that that would be the wrong policy, and that possibly there should be a closed room in individual schools. That is one of the points which will be dealt with in the Ingleby Report which my right honourable friend is urgently considering.
My noble friend, Lord Aylesford, and Lord Morrison of Lambeth, were both inclined to reject the idea of changing the name. That suggestion is in recommendation No. 5, and I am not sure that the arguments which have been advanced in favour of a change of name are wholly convincing; but no doubt my right honourable friend will be considering that recommendation, and especially so in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, with his great experience has said. I wonder whether the noble Lord was responsible for renaming rat catchers as "rodent operatives"?
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: No.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I was most interested to hear from my noble friend, Lord Raglan, that he so much disagreed with recommendation 7.
LORD RAGLAN: It is recommendation 6.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, the noble Lord does not really agree with recommendations 4, 6 or 7, but I understood that he especially disagreed with recommendation 7. I assure my noble friend that I will put his point of view, as that of one with great experience on this matter, before my right honourable friend, who is in fact examining those three recommendations.
I have covered the recommendations in the first group and we now come to the administrative proposals which form the second group. The noble Lords, Lord Pakenham and Lord Raglan, and the right reverend Prelate, specially referred to the question of housemasters' pay. That is in recommendation 8, section (1). That is a matter within the province of the national negotiating committee on which the Home Office are not represented, because the Home Office are not the direct employer—your Lordships must remember that—but I am sure the position will be fully considered by the Committee.
It is proposed that training facilities for approved school staff—a point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, should be extended by the development of preliminary training courses for senior and supervisory staff, including special arrangements for the training of housemasters as suggested in recommendation 8 (2). While almost all the teachers and a large proportion of the trade instructors in approved schools service are qualified, the only special initial course for entrance to the service at present is a small experimental course for housemasters and housemothers; and I would point out that obviously if a teacher already in the Approved School Service is serving under the Burnham scale, having reached his qualification as a teacher, there is not a very great incentive to him to transfer to become a housemaster.
I believe that that is really the gist of the whole problem on which the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, and my noble friend, Lord Raglan, have been speaking—and the sooner the negotiating committee
520
are able to arrange a different scale, or however they may decide, the sooner this problem of the housemaster which, I believe, has been endorsed by everybody in the Approved School Service, will be defeated. Hitherto, it has been possible only to spread the advantage of training as widely as possible among the existing staff of approved schools by means of short courses and part-time refresher courses; and about 15 per cent. of the teachers every year take part in some course or another.
As regards recommendation 9, it would seem to be inappropriate that the Home Office—this is a point I have just made to the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham—which is not the employer of approved school staff, should be represented at the meetings of the national negotiating bodies concerned with the settlement of the salaries of the approved school staff. But I am quite certain that we can rely upon these bodies to look into this whole situation, and it has already been referred to the national negotiating committee.
We have heard of the capital investment point, particularly from the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of St. Albans. I understand that one of the least of the problems that the managers and headmasters have to cope with is difficulty in obtaining sufficient capital. Now, of course, the restrictions have been relaxed. However, if the right reverend Prelate has any specific points to raise—he mentioned the chapel, of course, which he has in mind—I am sure I could bring those points before my right honourable friend.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, would the noble Earl give way? He has also referred to the importance of a gymnasium and games room. I understand that this school was overcrowded and that there were not the proper facilities, and the gymnasium was out of order. It is important that these matters should be put right. If this voluntary body have not any funds other than grants from the Home Office—because it is not a matter for local authorities—it is necessary that funds should be provided.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, those are some of the recommendations made first by the inspector to the managers in 1957. The noble Lord, Lord

521
Pakenham, referred to that. It was partly because of capital restrictions at the time that many of those proposals were not fulfilled. However, those are the recommendations my right honourable friend has made to the managers, and I am glad to say that pretty well all are under way towards being met, as your Lordships will see in one moment. As to the recommendations in the third group—those are the recommendations specifically referred to by my noble friend—agreement has been reached regarding action to be taken upon them.
The Home Secretary has accepted the recommendation that the school should be continued subject to improvements of the kind indicated in the Report. They are the sort of improvements to which my noble friend was referring. Whether or not a chapel was included, I do not know, but I will find out and write to the right reverend Prelate later. The school managers have already given effect to a number of these recommendations and they may continue, I can assure your Lordships, to rely on the advice and assistance of the Home Office in the discharge of their responsibilities. In conclusion, I am certain that in the
very near future this tragic situation which happened at Carlton School will be a thing of the past. My tight honourable friend and his Department will help the managers in every way that is possible to get back to the great success which has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and the right reverend Prelate—the most successful work which the Carlton School has undertaken.
5.4 p.m.
THE EARL OF AYLESFORD: My Lords, in rising to beg leave to withdraw this Motion I should like once again to thank noble Lords who have taken part in such a very interesting
522
debate. I would also thank them for the kind things they said about me. Then I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Bathurst for that most helpful speech. As he said, there have been many lines and points of view taken, and much has emerged. That more or less bears out, I think, that most of the recommendations are pretty fair. I shall not attempt to try to answer the points that have been made, for that I think would only confuse the issue. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported, with Amendments.
BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
IRON AND STEEL (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Bill had been endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911.

LEGAL AID BILL
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Bill had been endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911.
House adjourned at five minutes past five o'clock.