HL Deb 17 July 1968 vol 295 cc412-35

7.37 p.m.

LORD FERRIER rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of the evidence in a recent murder trial in Edinburgh, they will institute an inquiry into the administration, security and discipline of the Loaningdale Approved School at Biggar. The noble Lord said: My Lords. I beg to ask the Unstarred Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. On Saturday, August 6 last year, a fifteen-year-old schoolgirl did not arrive home, although she had said "Goodnight" to a girl companion at about 7 o'clock in the Biggar High Street, and set off to walk the mile or so through the main road to her parents' house. The next morning her body was found in the cemetery by that road; she had been strangled, partly stripped and horribly mauled. Had she not been a good girl she might he alive to this day.

The occurrence stunned the town and countryside, and the people hardly dared to think that the culprit might be an inmate of the approved school, 500 yards away. However, police inquiries did in fact trace the murderer to the school. The boy had slipped out of the school in the dark and then slipped back half an hour or so later when he realised what he had done, and proceeded to clean up and destroy nearly all the clues to his guilt. The piecing together of the case against him took a long time, and I need not worry your Lordships with the details. He was convicted at the Court of Session in Edinburgh on March 7. An appeal followed on a point of law, but this was rejected and in May the conviction was upheld.

I would assure, your Lordships that had the case not remained sub judice for such a long time I would have asked this Question long before this. When your Lordships debated the Court Lees case on October 25, 1967, I referred, without mentioning names, to this school, and I hope that it will suit your Lordships if I quote extracts from my speech on that occasion as probably the quickest way to complete the background to my Question. I said then, inter alia: There is an approved school in Scotland, close to a prosperous little town of, say, 1,500 to 2,000 inhabitants. I went on: It is my present intention to put down specific Questions, one for Written Answer, and to follow this up as time goes on. The school of which I speak—the only one of its kind in Scotland, one which was accepted as an experiment—was established in 1963. Many people in the locality were surprised that it had been located in a property so very close to the town. But the public was assured that the boys to be sent there were those who appeared likely to make good as decent citizens in the minimum of time. It has been suggested, actually by one of the governors to me, that the townspeople did not try to co-operate. This was not at all my impression. They were naturally hesitant, as any country community would be, at the arrival of an organisation of this nature, but in general they were absolutely willing to help, despite the absence of a member of the town council or, indeed, of the locality at all on the Board of Governors. Unfortunately, from the first, discipline was such that the boys started making trouble almost straight away. Had they not done so, things may have been very different, because the sympathies of the neighbourhood were directed towards helping the whole scheme, and these were in a measure alienated from the beginning. If you want the local people to help, please make certain that discipline is adequate ab initio. Unfortunately, the trouble has continued, and in the case of which I speak the damage done to neighbourly relations of the locality is now so serious that it will take years to re-establish, if indeed that is ever possible."—0FFICIAL REPORT, 25/10/67, col. 1694–51 I would remind your Lordships that it was not known to me or to the public at the time I said this that the murderer had in fact been apprehended and that he was an inmate of Loaningdale School.

The murder was the climax of the local anxieties and reactions which I described at the time. Not that I wish to raise the matter as a parish pump complaint but rather in the very much more important context of the whole problem of the place of the approved school and of the importance of its task in our social environment and the absolute necessity for the future of taking advantage of experience such as ours has been, no matter how bitter. The story of Court Lees and its aftermath of local trouble under a new régime is there to see.

Let me turn to the further history of this school and the various errors of judgment which have bedevilled the whole undertaking. As I understand it, the position is this. First of all the school was intended to be near Haddington in a place which was an Approved School before, and perhaps it was a mistake that that school was ever closed down. Be that as it may, the Board of Governors, under the chairmanship of Lord Birsay the much respected Chairman of the Scottish Land Court, were drawn from East Lothian or from the neighbourhood of Edinburgh.

When one turns to the Articles of Association, it is indeed interesting to note that after Sir Harold Leslie, now Lord Birsay, there was Sir Gerald Reece of Bolton Old Manse, near Haddington; G. M. Carstairs, a professor in Edinburgh; Norman Murchison, Edinburgh; David Wyllie, a farmer in East Lothian; Mrs. Macdonald Watt, a married woman from Dalkeith, that is nearby; another lady; a farmer from Dunbar; a lady from Edinburgh, and a Mr. Walker from West Lothian.

When the building in East Lothian was found to be unsound, the house at Loaningdale to which I am referring, some 400 yards or so from the outskirts of Biggar in Lanarkshire, was purchased. That was some 60 miles away front the house in Haddington. In my view, error number one was that at that juncture the Board of Governors was not adjusted to include local people. We have seen from these Articles that it was obviously the intention of the original plan that such should be the case.

I would turn to the letter I had from the Church of Scotland Committee on Social Service, whom I had consulted, wherein appears the sentence: The Managers of our Approved Schools are the Social and Moral Welfare Board, which is of course a Committee of the General Assembly. In addition, in respect of each individual school, however, we have a local committee of management, on which the Board is represented, and on which there is a majority of local people, including a member or official of the local authority of the particular area. Error number two, as I see it, was that one of the several available houses not so close to the town as that of Loaning-dale might have been considered more suitable by a Board with local knowledge, which, as I have shown, the Board did not have.

Error number three was that although the property is only just outwith the burgh boundaries, little or no effort was made to make contact with the Provost or the council of this township which was to be an integral part, as it were, of the scheme to rehabilitate the boys by associating them with the community during the period of their treatment at the school. One side effect of the school is that it pays no rates to compensate the township for the extra load its existence places on the town finances, such as extended street lighting.

Error number four was that very considerable latitude, putting it mildly, was allowed to the boys by the headmaster. They were not only allowed into the town, often unaccompanied, but their unruly behaviour and dirty language caused great offence and had a bad effect upon the youth of the town, both boys and, I regret to say, girls. As for the latter, no doubt with the best intentions an invitation had been issued to the girls from the town to join in specific dancing parties—"Bring your own records" sort of thing—no doubt properly supervised in the school. That was a mistake because thus acquaintances were started up which eventually went a good deal further than was intended, especially as the boys could and did get out at night.

As to the cost to the public purse, in October I said that I would ask more questions on that topic, but I never did so orally, because of the long-drawn out trial with all its unpleasant details and grim legal arguments. It was the first time that tooth marks on a body had been used as evidence in a murder trial in Scotland. However, I put down a Question for Written Answer, and I elicited the fact that the original price of the property had been some £20,000 and that, as at March 31, 1967, a further £150,000 had been spent on extensions and equipment—and much more must have been spent by now. I must say that the school is a fine place and splendidly equipped, fully staffed with skilled and dedicated people. I have it on good authority that last year the running costs approached some £40,000 for an average of some 20 boys. The figures for previous years were given in the Answer to my Question for Written Answer, and they were: for 1964–65, £20,600, for an average of 16.6 pupils; for 1965–66, £20,200 for an average of 15.1 pupils; for 1966–67, £23,800 for an average of 17.1 pupils. The Answer to my Question also indicated that the number of pupils were thirty or so last Autumn.

Here I come to error number five, which consists of a combination of the number of pupils and the outlay, and in this matter I have considerable sympathy for the headmaster. The original plan was that the school should contain, say, 20 or 30 boys "who appeared likely to make good as decent citizens in the minimum of time", as I quoted before. It was enlarged to accommodate 40 or 50 boys, and the Department, I believe, despite the headmaster's protests, started sending boys to the school who had a number of convictions, and who were thus mixed in with the originally intended types, some of whom had no convictions at all. The influence of the new intake was a serious matter—trouble, trouble and more trouble ensued; driving away cars, housebreaking, shopbreaking, petty theft, minor assaults, carrying weapons. All this placed a heavy burden on the police and magistracy and a gradual crescendo of protest from the public. In some respects the community's pattern of life was changed. I can say that because it has even extended to the surrounding country, including the village in which I live some three miles away.

After two years, in 1965, two local people, including the Provost, had been co-opted by the Governors. So far, so good. After the murder in 1967, the Member of Parliament met the burgh council, and the Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Bruce Millan, has taken a close personal interest in the matter, meeting the council and introducing changes to widen the Board and to tighten the discipline. Two more local governors were appointed earlier this year, one being the minister of one of the local churches and the other a local doctor—both valuable additions. When the two original local directors had completed three years, one retired, and the other, the Provost, was not invited to continue. Two more local individuals were invited, but they refused, perhaps because they felt that the local authority should be entitled to nominate. This is my own conjecture. I make the conjecture because this point has now been conceded, and forthwith the burgh council nominated a lady councillor and another man who was in fact the brother-in-law of the murdered girl. So things have changed very much for the better.

But have the steps taken gone far enough? As I have said, I have a considerable measure of respect for the headmaster and for his theories, although he must bear his share of the blame for what has happened. He is dedicated to a permissive approach to the redemption of young delinquents which may ultimately be the right one. I wonder how many of your Lordships heard the item on the B.B.C.'s programme this morning called "To-day", about the Ipswich open borstal experiment, which I found quite fascinating.

I look forward to the Minister's reply to my Question, and hope that the Government will institute an inquiry, with the broadest terms of reference, to establish if nothing else, what went wrong: because, make no mistake, my Lords, a great wrong has been done. I repeat, over the past few months great strides have been made to meet the clamour of the burgh—a clamour which, in my view, should never have been induced. But the present strict control of the boys if they leave the premises, is contrary to the main theme of the experiment.

What, then, is to be done? If the permissive experiment in all its details is to be continued, it is fair to suggest that this might be done elsewhere. Why? Because it seems to me to follow that a continuation of the experiment where it is will mean a return to the comparative freedom of the inmates' movements, but from now on in a deeply injured and consequently antagonistic community. Would this be fair to the future of the school? It might take a generation, perhaps more, in a countryside such as the southern uplands, for what has happened to be forgotten.

Another point is that if it is too early yet to assess the success or failure of the experiment, in overall terms of the end-product who have passed through it, what are the present indications? We know that another horrid murder has been committed by an ex-inmate. We know that there have been fire-raising troubles. But I should like to know: are the after-care services adequate? If not, should permissive experiments be continued until the after-care services are adequate? Such and such would be the questions that an inquiry might answer.

It could go further. It could deal with such questions as: Is the screening of entrants adequate? Should a school of this size be established cheek by jowl with so small a community as 1,500 to 2,000 people? Has the headmaster power of summary expulsion? In a good establishment this would be punishment indeed, and a warning to other pupils. Should such a school have an active local committee of governors? If the chairman is not a local man, should he appoint a local deputy to act in an emergency? Has the extensive experience of the Church of Scotland's Social Services Committee been drawn upon?

Whatever happens, I look forward to some sort of public admission that mistakes have been made over Loaningdale, mistakes which have had terrible consequences, and the burden of which—an unnecessarily heavy burden—has been laid on a neighbourhood. The great bulk of the people—and I am one—say "Carry on with the experiment by all means, but do not continue here. Despite the heavy cost, cut the loss and start again elsewhere." Cannot the premises be used for some other social services?

My Lords, I conclude with a sentence or two from a letter I have had from a much-respected Scottish lawyer. At the end of his letter he says: There is, I fear, an increasing and dangerous clash of opinion appearing between the Judiciary and the Executive, and at the moment the civil servants are winning. The balance may be redressed when the general public, as in Biggar, see where this is leading. As I can only ask my Question, I should like to thank in advance any noble Lords who take part in this debate. I could have said much more, but I have tried to be as objective and as restrained as I can. The English Press carried hardly a word of the affair, which in my opinion is far more dreadful than the Court Lees case. There were, of course, banner headlines in the Scottish papers, so it will not surprise your Lordships if I remind you that feelings in Scotland have been deeply disturbed. One result of the experiment has been to show that error and miscalculation in planning can result in cruel blows to innocent people. Let us do what we can to atone and to provide that such a thing does not recur. My Lords, it is for that reason that I beg your Lordships' leave to ask my Question.

7.55 p.m.

LORD BALERNO

My Lords, before I intervene I must declare a certain interest in this matter. For nearly thirty years I have been a manager of an approved school in Scotland, and for about eight years I was chairman of the board of management. Since I joined your Lordships' House my visits to the approved school have been fairly infrequent. What the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has said about the anxiety of the people of Biggar over this sad case at Loaningdale is entirely true. But I would say this from my limited experience: that what has happened at Loaningdale could, I think, have happened at any approved school. I would go further and say that it does, unfortunately, happen elsewhere in society to-day; therefore, sad as we are at this event, we must not pin it, as it were, too precisely on this one particular school.

I do not know the headmaster—I have never visited Loaningdale—but I have every reason to believe that the headmaster is a most admirable man. Lord Ferrier supports me in that. I am informed that he is most sincere in his methods and in his ideas, although his methods are not those that I think would be generally accepted by those who are responsible for the running of senior ap- proved schools in Scotland. I suppose the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, expressed it rightly when he said that it was exceedingly permissive. The headmaster seems to be experimenting, and this one incident should not, I think, be regarded as a failure of the experiment. There can be no doubt whatsoever that a measure of freedom is of great therapeutic value in redeeming this type of boy. It is not easy to know where to draw the line, just as it is not easy to know where to draw the line in the administration of discipline. Discipline and freedom go together. But there is one lesson which we must learn from this particular incident: that in an approved school of this nature it is most important to have adequate night security. Lord Ferrier has drawn attention to the lack of this.

LORD FERRIER

My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, this has now been put right.

LORD BALERNO

My Lords, I am glad to hear that. The other point also made by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, is that of the value of close contact with the local residents. I can speak from experience and say that if you do not have the closest association with certain local residents then you are almost certainly bound to have trouble between the school and the community. The school of which I was chairman and of which I am a manager had, and has, members of the local authority ex officio. They are appointed by the local authorities to the board of management. Such persons are busy. They are on other committees of the local authority as well as being managers of the school. It is not reasonable to expect them personally to make very frequent visits to the school, but I maintain—and I speak from actual experience of having difficult incidents, not so bad as that which the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has recounted—the importance of having local authority representatives knowing about the school on the board of managers, because, sure enough, at any approved school there will come a crisis and they are invaluable people to have at your back at a time of crisis and to go to for guidance. For the day-to-day running of the school it is important to have other managers who are drawn from persons of experience and who are willing to spend, say, up to a couple of days a month at the school in contact with the masters and getting to know some of the boys.

Loaningdale and Court Lees seem to me to be merely the symptoms of a malaise which is due to the expediency of the moment being allowed to postpone long-term action. The purpose of an approved school is to rehabilitate and to educate the toys. It is quite unreasonable to think that this can be achieved with many of the boys in less than one year. The decision for a boy to be released from an approved school must rest on the headmaster's recommendation and be approved by the managers or by the chairman of the managers.

The consideration of the approved school cannot be separated from that of borstal. I beliese that a boy sent to borstal as a rule serves a shorter period than if he is sent to an approved school —at any rate, this certainly is a current belief among juvenile delinquents in Scotland. Such ones, if sent to an approved school, on occasion, perpetrate a crime which necessitates their being committed to borstal. Release before the time is ripe must not be done in order to clear a place for another boy, and that is what is liable to happen at the present time. The throughput at these approved schools or at borstal must not be art the expense of completion of the training of the boys who are already at the institution.

I am not entirely certain of my facts as regards the relative length of time at borstal and at approved school, and I would therefore, like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who is answering, whether he can give us an indication of the average length of time spent by a boy at borstal compared with the average length of time spent by a boy at a senior approved school in Scotland. Further accommodation for these delinquents is urgently required both at borstal and at approved school. In approved schools, to achieve success, treatment must be in groups, not too large groups, and it will not succeed if it is applied in the mass. The forward thinking of those who are concerned is for houses for small numbers, and these houses may indeed be linked to the existing approved schools and used for the final period of training.

The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has spoken of the cost of the construction of Loaningdale, and it is something of which we must he fully aware that for accommodation for something like 30 boys the taxpayer has to put up a capital of something approaching £200,000. It is costing, according to Lord Ferrier's figures, something like £2,000 a year to keep a boy at Loaningdale, apart from finding the capital. Nevertheless, I think it is important that some of the schools that we have in Scotland should be brought more up to date than they are and, if necessary, further schools should be opened.

As a result of my experience of the school of which I am a manager and of meetings at conferences of approved schools which I used to attend regularly, I am convinced that in Scotland—and doubtless the same is so in England, but my experience is of Scotland—a most dedicated set of men are the headmasters and the masters of approved schools. They are men who have set themselves very much apart for this particular kind of work. They are desperately interested in the boys and in their rehahilitation and education. They are men of great humanity, and their anxiety and determination to adjust their methods to meet the changing circumstances of the times, the changing circumstances of the juveniles, of the boys, is quite outstanding. They are always willing to try fresh ideas, and they must always be encouraged to do so. The Social Work (Scotland) Bill, which we have been discussing will, I think, lead to an increase in demand for places at what will be called "residential institutions". I would ask whether the Government are considering making provision for this when the Act comes into force.

I should like finally to re-echo what the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has said about the work of the Church of Scotland with boys of this type. I should not confine it to the Church of Scotland only; the Roman Catholic Church has done, and is doing, outstanding work, and I had the fear when we were discussing the Social Work (Scotland) Bill that full recognition might not be made, when the Act is put into force, of the work that has been done by the churches. I would reinforce the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for full consideration to be given to getting the assistance of those in the churches who have such experience and humanity in this type of case.

8.9 p.m.

LORD MITCHISON

My Lords, I apologise in advance for intervening in this discussion, but I shall not take long. I am only speaking on this matter—about which I know little more than what I have heard to-night—because a letter from the noble Lord, Lord MacLeod of Fuinary, was handed to two of my friends and they asked me (I hope it was not too irregular) to put his views before the House. His views are very definite. First of all, he thinks, as we all do, that this was a most deplorable incident, and I am sure he would agree with me in saying that we are in no position, any of us, to decide questions between crime on the one hand and irresponsibility or ill-health, or whatever it was, on the other. He thinks that the school was a very good one indeed and it was a very valuable experiment. That is what I rise to say in the first place to your Lordships.

The second point which I want to mention is in his letter and it has been strengthened a great deal by what I have heard this evening. This is not at all a hopeless situation. It is not a case where the school must be moved. On the contrary, the events which have followed on this crime, for such it was, are not unlike what, with foresight, one might have expected. It was natural, particularly if there was a little local feeling already, that it should become much stronger at this stage on both sides.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, will not think me condescending and impertinent if I humbly congratulate him on the complete fairness of what he had to say. I thought it was absolutely fair to both sides. That being so, an inquiry might do a great deal of harm. The trouble about litigation and inquiries is that people who are not certain of their views and who were prepared to listen to the other side of the case become a little more convinced of the rightness of their own case by what happens. It was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord MacLeod of Fuinary, that for that reason an inquiry might be a mistake.

I did not understand the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, to be pressing the question of an inquiry. Indeed, towards the end of his remarks he said something which was most encouraging for the view which I am humbly submitting to your Lordships—I know how humble an English-man has to be over Scottish matters—that is, that there had been a distinct and marked improvement. Anything formal in the nature of an inquiry might make it rather difficult for that improvement to continue, as one hopes it will. Is it not a matter which perhaps is better dealt with by the kind of inquiry which already seems to have occurred? I notice that Mr. Bruce Millian was there. I know him personally and would regard him as a very fair-minded man. Therefore I hope that the Government do not commit themselves to anything too formal. I express the hope, which I think we all feel, that this matter, I was going to say may blow over, but that is not quite the right term—may lead to an improvement of what obviously has been, and still seems to be, a very valuable experiment.

LORD FERRIER

My Lords, may I point out that I put down the Question on March 21? Many of the improvements have taken place since then.

LORD MITCHISON

My Lords, may I repeat how very fairly I thought Lord Ferrier put the whole matter. I hope that he will forgive me for intervening in what is only vicariously my business.

8.12 p.m.

LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONAN

My Lords, it is with some diffidence that I intervene, especially after the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, but I feel that what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, about the proximity of this school to the small town of Biggar must have some relation to the disturbances and incidents which occurred in the school. There can be no question at all but that the staff of these approved schools are of exceptional quality; I have visited several of them and I know from first-hand experience. But in this case is it not right that there should be an inquiry, not necessarily into the administration, security and discipline, but into the actual siting of the school so close to the small town of Biggar? No one is more sympathetic than I am to the tremendous work that is done for the rehabilitation of these boys, but, at the same time, we have a duty to have regard to the communities where these schools are placed. The trouble which has taken place, according to my reading of the affair, is that a great measure of the difficulty—even the tragedy—arose not from ordinary circumstances of discipline and administration, but mainly from the school's dangerously close proximity. For that reason I would back an inquiry, not necessarily into the type of administration or its quality, but most certainly into the location of the school so close to Biggar.

8.18 p.m.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will forgive me if I intervene very briefly before he comes to reply. I feel particularly apologetic to him because, if eventually he makes a long reply, I may not be enabled to remain to hear the end of it. I know that I am only an Englishman, but I am very interested in approved schools. I venture to think that if there are lessons to be learnt from this tragic Loaningdale story, they will be of value to approved schools throughout England and Wales, and not only in Scotland.

In listening to this debate I have been greatly impressed with the fairness and balance of all the speeches, and I was particularly glad that the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman, paid his warm tribute to the staffs of approved schools. It would be tragic if a debate like this were to take place in your Lordships' House and any of the men and women who work so devotedly for the benefit of the boys—and sometimes, too, of the girls—in approved schools were to get any impression that we were not fully sympathetic with them and failed to understand the tremendous difficulty with which they are coping, day and night, and the considerable success which in many cases is accompanying their efforts.

The Loaningdale story seems to me to emphasise the tremendous amount of care that needs to be taken in the allocation of boys to approved schools. I do not know how large a choice there is in Scotland. In England it is fairly wide. I am quite certain that, although the arrangements for the allocation to particular schools have been improved, there is continuing scope for further improve- ment. This is particularly important. If a school is going to be established with a permissive form of discipline, it is most important that the right boys sho rld be selected, particularly in the first year or two of the school, so that it shall have every chance of proving the experiment a success and gaining the confidence of the locality.

When I heard my noble friend say that not only had a boy at the school committed murder but that a boy who had been discharged from the school had also later been convicted of murder, and other-serious crimes were thought to have been committed by boys who had been in that school, it made me wonder whether there were boys in that school who should have been in borstal. I assume that there is under Scottish law, as there is under English law, provision—under proper safeguards, of course—for the transfer of a boy from an approved school to borstal, if experience shows that he is not really suitable for the approved school régime and that he is likely to do better at borstal. I must say that at first sight, I should have wanted to ask whether the boy who committed a murder while he was at this school had been behaving before that time in such a way as to raise the question whether he should have been in borstal; and whether in fact the arrangements were flexible and swift enough to ensure that the moment a question like that arose it was thoroughly considered.

My last point, which has been brought out in all the speeches, is the importance of gaining and winning the support and sympathy of the locality. The noble Lord, Lord Bannerman of Kildonan, questioned whether one should have an approved school near a small town like Biggar, which I happen to know. In this case, Biggar has quite clearly been put through a deeply traumatic experience, and I can well understand my noble friend Lord Ferrier asking whether, in all the circumstances, an approved school should remain there. In principle, I do not think it should be said that there should never be an approved school near a small town: one has to take all the circumstances into account. But when a new approved school is being started, just as when a new detention centre or a new borstal is being started, a tremendous amount of trouble must be taken to seek to ensure the understanding, the good will and the co-operation of the local community; and certainly it sounds to me, from what my noble friend said, as if there were defects in that respect on this occasion.

It appears to me to be even more important if the school is to have a permissive type of discipline, because that means that the boys will be about the place, outside the school grounds, the more. It is extremely important, therefore, that all who are living in the neighbourhood should be fully alive to what is being done in that school, and should be listened to if they have complaints to make. The obvious way of ensuring that complaints are quickly listened to is by building up a body of managers for a school, or a board of visitors for a borstal, largely from among people in the neighbourhood, so that the people in the neighbourhood know exactly with whom they should have a talk. If they know that Mr. So-and-So or Mrs. So-and-So is a manager, then that is an outlet for their complaints, and a channel through which their views can be conveyed to the authorities. There, again, it sounds to me from my noble friend's account that things did not get off to the right sort of start in this case.

I happen to know how much publicity the tragic event of this murder and its relationship with the approved school attracted in Scotland, even though it was hardly reported in the English papers. I am quite sure, therefore, that my noble friend Lord Ferrier was amply justified in raising the question. I simply express the hope that, whether there is an inquiry or not, all the lessons that can be learned from what has gone wrong in this case will not only be learned but will be disseminated through the approved school system in England and Wales, as well as in Scotland. There has been tragedy here and it is incumbent upon us to do all we can to see that that tragedy is not repeated.

LORD FERRIER

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, was kind enough to say that I had been fair but I might have been fairer. In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has said, it is only right that I should say that the headmaster himself told me that he did not want this boy any more, and he would have been moved within a day or two if things had not happened that way. He had already decided that the boy who committed the murder was not fit for the place.

8.25 p.m.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I should like to say at the outset how much I appreciate the way in which this Question has been put and discussed. Particularly I would express thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for the way in which he stated the case, coming as he did from the community concerned, and inevitably having stronger personal feelings on the matter than any other Member of your Lordships' House. I disagreed with only one thing he said, and I shall come back to it, because it was also touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor.

May I say how very much I appreciated what the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, said, particularly coming from his experience. I think he was absolutely right when he pointed out that we could not possibly regard the school as having failed because of an accident of this kind, since the one thing which is quite certain in this life is that there is no way of recognising a potential murderer, whether a boy of 16 or a man of 80. There is no such thing as the murdering type who should be recognised.

A variety of subjects have gone through the remarks of all noble Lords who have taken part, and one of those is the question of selection. The boys who are admitted to Loaningdale are accepted if they satisfy certain selection criteria, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, expected would be the case. They are, for want of a better description, not so bad boys as are admitted to other approved schools. No boy has been taken who did not measure up in the first examination to these requirements. But, naturally, there have been those who have proved on closer examination to be unsuitable. Some boys have been transferred to other schools to complete their training, and when a Loaningdale boy commits an offence in the locality he is automatically moved elsewhere.

I must point out the difference between the position where a boy is known to have committed an offence and the position where there is suspicion that an offence has been committed by a boy. One of the unfortunate things (and I do not suppose this is confined to Biggar or to Loaningdale) is that when there is an approved school in a particular area there is a tendency to regard everything which happens in the area as having been committed by the boys from the approved school. So when I say that a boy is moved, it is when he is known to have committed an offence; and this movement is automatic. This is a special arrangement in relation to Loaningdale, because of the special nature of the school, and this is something which is not ordinarily available at other approved schools.

As the noble Lords, Lord Ferrier and Lord Balerno, have both made quite clear, this school is trying new methods which, among other things, involve release after a fairly short period of detention—about six to nine months—and the results, so far as they are measurable, are being closely watched. So far, the proportion of Loaningdale boys appearing before the courts following their release is rather less than the proportion for the system as a whole; and this, considering the shorter period of training, may be regarded as a favourable sign. Evaluation of methods in the rehabilitation of delinquents is notoriously difficult, and more experience of a greater number of boys is necessary before any sound conclusions can be reached.

It has been suggested that discipline within the school, as well as outside it, falls short of what may reasonably be expected. There have been—not here—allegations of uncontrolled misbehaviour and of rudeness. Some of the incidents which have been looked into have shown cause for concern, and the managers have assured my honourable friend the Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State that they will try to ensure that behaviour by all connected with the school will not give cause for offence.

My Lords, while I deplore any shortcoming on the score of conduct, I am bound to point out, as I have already suggested, that in the case of some of the incidents reported it seems very doubtful whether any Loaningdale boys were in fact involved. And, of course, occasionally difficulties arose when the boys were, quite properly, in the town unescorted. On this point I should say that the managers had not previously received any complaints about behaviour. They would be very ready to investigate any points brought to their notice, and naturally it is important that incidents should be reported both quickly and directly to them.

So far as behaviour in the school is concerned, I understand that the general philosophy of the régime is to encourage self-discipline rather than to impose a discipline of conformity. Relations with the staff are deliberately informal, so that a responsible attitude may be achieved. This does not mean, however, that the boys are given licence to behave as they please. All are e expected to behave in a civilised way, and unacceptable conduct is penalised by loss of privileges or by extra duties. In general, sanctions are applied by the boys themselves, but the staff and the managers of course ensure that misbehaviour does not go undealt with.

On the subject of selection, this brings me to the one point in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, which I regretted—and it was something to which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, referred. That is when he said: "Another horrible murder has been committed by a former inmate". My Lords, the situation is difficult. Obviously, the community is not going to be helped, and the boys in Loaningdale School are not going to be helped, if there is any suggestion that all the boys in the school are potential murderers. I know that nothing that the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, said could be construed in that way. But I had reason to believe that there might be reference to this other murder, because it was so very recent. I think it would put things in perspective (and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, will be interested in this) if I were to give some information about this other case.

The boy concerned was admitted to the school in March, 1963, at the age of 13 years and 3 months. The only offence of which he had been guilty was persistent truancy (he came from an exceedingly bad home), and he went to the approved school for that reason only. In April, 1964, his conduct had so improved that he was released from the school. I have said that he came from a very bad home. The home circumstances were such that in July of the same year—that was four months later—the boy was readmitted to the school, and he remained there until March, 1965. He left the school at the age of 15-. Subsequently he got into trouble in different places; he was in borstal in England; he eventually came back to Scotland at the beginning of this year, and a month later he murdered his grandmother—an offence of which he has now been found guilty.

My Lords, how could that possibly be regarded as a criticism of Loaningdale in the case of a boy who, at the age of 13 years and 3 months, came in because of truancy; who, during the period he was in the school, was responding well to the treatment; and who left at the end of a year and then came back, because of the unfortunate effects of his family life, for another year? How could anyone in the approved school, in any institution, even in your Lordships' House, possibly be expected to know that a 13--year-old truant was to become an 18-year-old murderer? My Lords, this is so completely removed from any aspect of approved school administration that I have felt justified in giving the details of this case in order that your Lordships may realise just how completely different the outcome may be from anything which may be anticipated in the beginning.

On this subject of security, it is probably unnecessary for me to remind your Lordships that approved schools are not penal establishments. All schools have their share of absconders, but this is not, I am happy to say, a major problem in any of them. Indeed, so far as information is available from the police and from the school, abscondings from Loaningdale have not been numerous, although there have on occasions been undetected absences. The managers fully appreciate the need to assure the community of Biggar that the school does not constitute any sort of threat to them, and the security arrangements at the school, and the liaison with the police, have been strengthened to offer as great a safeguard as possible—short of adopting absolute prison standards—against abscondings. In particular, the managers have installed a night-alarm system in the dormitories, and have now also appointed a night supervisor. The daytime routine is such that the chances of a boy's absence re- maining undetected for more than a very short time are now very slight indeed.

On this subject of administration, local interests must certainly have a voice. At the same time, Loaningdale, even more than other approved schools, is carrying out a special kind of task with boys drawn from all over the country, and it seems right to have a broadly based board—and the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, stated this in a way which I could not possibly better. Thus, its members include those who have practical experience and interest in dealing with delinquent youth, and representatives of the County Councils and the Counties of Cities Associations, as well as representatives of the community. If a mistake was made—I do not think it can possibly be denied that it was in the beginning—in not having sufficient local representation on the board, as the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has been very fair to point out, this has now been remedied. It was not in fact until June, 1965—and I think he said this—that the Town Council had the opportunity of appointing a nominee, and another local person was adopted into membership at that time, too.

LORD FERRIER

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Is he sure that at that time they were nominees of the Town Council?

LORD HUGHES

One was.

LORD FERRER

With respect, I suggest that they were nominated by the governors.

LORD HUGHES

Yes, one was adopted by the governors, but he was the nominee of the Town Council. I think it was then that Provost Telfer went on the board, and there was another local person, not a nominee, who also went on. So at that point there was one from the Town Council and one other.

Following the difficulties which arose last autumn, the number of local representatives has now been increased to four, two of whom have been nominated by the town council; and the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, named these two representatives. It seems to me that these changes will ensure a reasonable balance of interest and should improve the lines of communication between the school and the community, which I must admit have been deficient in the past.

On the subject of costs, the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, quoted figures which by and large, are as accurate as I think we could expect, except in one thing. He under-estimated—I think it can only be an estimate on his part—the average number of boys. Although he did not turn it into a cost per pupil, he misled his noble friend Lord Balerno into an erroneous calculation. The noble Lord worked it out at almost £2,000 per boy. In fact, the estimate for the current year will be £1,180. It is very slightly more than the average for approved schools up and down the country; and having regard to the special nature of the school I do not think the figures are out. I would not have mentioned costs except that by taking the average at about 20 it produced an inflated figure; although the total running costs which Lord Ferrier quoted are accurate.

I should like to say that there has been a most careful appraisal of all the matters involving the management and the conduct of the school and the interests of the community, which have been most strongly, and I think properly, up-held by the town council. The changes which have been made should not be taken as a criticism of the able management and leadership which the school has enjoyed since its inception. I think they will offer a sound basis for re-establishing the good relations which are a necessary component for the success of the school. My honourable friend Mr. Millan has written in the past few days to the town council conveying to them assurances from the managers on the important points at issue. I am certain that closer links with the community will make for a better relationship—not necessarily immediately, but, I should hope, improving gradually and steadily.

I may say that before I came into the Chamber this afternoon I was handed a note of the reply which Mr. Milian received from Provost Telfer. It would be wrong for me to read the whole of the letter; but I shall read a little which I think is typical of the whole. It says: All of us appreciate that you and your officials and managers are pushing reform to the limit, consistent with the original concept of the running of the school. As you state, the measures may not conform in entirely with views held here, but that does not meen that we hope we are proved right. On the contrary. My sincere thanks to you personally for your deep interest in the matter, and I shall pass on the contents of your letter to my town council as soon as possible". For these reasons—and as the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, pointed,out, his Question was put down a very long time ago and he has very reasonably held it back while a lot of things were being done—the Government have come to the conclusion that an inquiry is not necessary.

I had intended to mention the reference that the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman, made to having an inquiry for totally different reasons from those stated in the Question. It was on the subject of whether the school was in the right place. It is true to say that most approved schools are in large communities; but I do not think that it can be argued that this is the only right place for them. I should like to point out that this matter came to a head because of this tragic murder. There would have been just as much outcry about it if the murder had taken place in the city of Glasgow or in Edinburgh. The impact on the community was very much greater because the probability is that everybody in the town knew the girl concerned. In a bigger community it may well be that there would be twice as many people who knew her; but they would represent only a fraction of the total population of the community.

For all these reasons the Government feel that what requires to be done in relation to Loaningdale has already been done as a result of a great deal of work done by all concerned, locally and in the Department. We therefore do not propose to instigate an inquiry such as has been requested. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, would accept that what has been taking place since his Question was put down originally has, in fact, been a very continuing inquiry into most of the subjects which he has mentioned as being suitable for inquiry. I would join with noble Lords in hoping that the tragedy and the unfortunate aspects of this school now all lie completely in the past. I know it will be more difficult to have complete acceptance in a small community than would have been possible in a much larger community, but I am satisfied, from what has been said during this debate and from the reception which the Provost has given to action taken by my honourable friend, that real efforts will be made by all in the town and in the approved school itself to make certain that the relationship in the future is as good as it can possibly be.