Website of the Department of Health

The quality of education

  11.26  Teachers at Bryn Estyn estimate that between 500 and 600 boys passed through their hands between 1974 and 1984 and this may well be an under-estimate. But we know of only one who has expressed a degree of satisfaction with the educational arrangements; he said that the education was not too bad; it was of a fairly good standard but he dealt with only one teacher, namely, Gwen Hurst. All the other complainants who were asked about the matter were severely critical. They said, for example:

"all I was doing was reading a book and colouring in";

"received no education other than painting and decoration";

"didn't learn at all";

"used to ask to go to school but no notice taken";

"attended a minimal number of classes - after a couple of months put to work in the gardens";

"learned nothing";

"attempted to attend local school in order to take GCE but was not allowed to";

"lack of education was part of the culture at Bryn Estyn - working in the gardens was part of the education."

  11.27  This dismal picture did not apply to all the children who passed through Bryn Estyn. It is likely, for example, that a significant number of children who needed remedial education received substantial help from Gwen Hurst and Justin Soper. But very many others, particularly those who were emotionally disturbed at the time, some of whom gave live evidence to us, received virtually no educational benefit from their stay at Bryn Estyn and had to make up for lost opportunities in later years, if they had sufficient character to do so.It seems that, during the period of our review, only one Bryn Estyn resident,a Howarth victim, was permitted to attend a local school because of his potential; but the boy cited above who was not allowed to attend a local school has since obtained a university degree in his mid-thirties.

  11.28  According to Matthews, who became head of the education department from 1 June 1977, there was no curriculum at the school before 1978. He described it as a trade department establishment for painting, decorating, building, carpentry and gardening. Fortunately, however, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Wales, Barry Jones, who is and was Member of Parliament for a Clwyd constituency, had visited Bryn Estyn on 9 January 1976 accompanied by the Director of Social Services and two Welsh Office SWSOs[150]. Whereas the SWSOs who had made the three previous inspections[151] had expressed concern about the washing and lavatory facilities at Bryn Estyn, Barry Jones drew attention to the fact that "full advantage was not (being) taken of the educational provisions at the home", although he did note that "Social Work Service Officers believe the Headmaster and staff are doing a fine job". The result was that Jones asked for a joint visit by the Social Work Service and HMI[152] to be arranged urgently. This request seems to have highlighted the need for a survey of CHEs[153] in Wales "to assess the organisation and effectiveness of the education provided in relation to the total living situation".

  11.29  The joint visit to Bryn Estyn by an HMI and an SWSO took place on 30 March 1976. The SWSO noted "that staff/boy relationships as observed were friendly and the climate of the school was relaxed and without tension". However, the joint recommendation was that the Directors of Social Services and Education should consult together to ensure that teachers were given guidance and advice about the curriculum and to ensure that teachers in the CHEs, under the Social Services Departments, were not deprived of the opportunity to attend courses arranged by the Local Education Authority (LEA). They further recommended that young teachers in their first years of teaching, should not be appointed to these schools.

  11.30  The document presented by David Evans containing this information[154] makes the comment, "There is nothing in these papers to suggest that these recommendations were followed". The SWSO, G W Smith, did follow the matters up, however, and it was noted that the Education/Social Services Liaison Group was to press for teaching staff at Bryn Estyn to have the opportunity to attend LEA courses. It was stated also that, on the departure of Goldswain, Arnold had become more actively involved in the operation of the school curriculum; there had also been some re-planning of the time table to include more general subjects.

  11.31  A follow-up visit by Smith and the same HMI, John Garrett, took place a year later on 24 March 1977. On this occasion they spent some time talking to Arnold, when they considered the educational and daily programme for the boys and they noted that Arnold was in very low spirits. Smith commented that there had been an improvement in the educational standards at the school. He said "The work in the classrooms seen, appears to be of a much higher standard than on our previous visit. The classrooms appear to be more organised, the work more purposeful and the boys seem to be more interested in what they are doing". The stated conclusion was that no action was called for on this report.

  11.32  Garrett, however, remained critical. Following another joint inspection with Smith on 12 June 1978 he recommended that a team of educational advisers should be put into the school, and that a more balanced curriculum should be offered; for example, there were no music or science options. Barry Jones was shown that note and called for action on it but, despite discussions with Gledwyn Jones, Geoffrey Wyatt and Matthews in October 1978 and a further visit by Barry Jones on 2 February 1979, very little positive action ensued. This result is all the more remarkable because Clwyd County Council had set up a working party to consider support by the Education Department to social services establishments providing education, which had made the following recommendations in or about June 1978:

"i.  That a Senior Adviser in Special Education, in consultation with Social Services personnel, devise an education programme for

   a. Bryn Estyn Community Home

   b. Bersham Hall and Little Acton Assessment Centres.

ii.   That an Adviser in Special Education will be necessary to monitor and modify the programme.

iii. That an Educational Psychologist provide the essential services of,

   a. Assessments in individual children.

   b. Monitoring and assessment programme and advising the Officer-in-Charge and Teaching staff.

   c. Attending Case Conferences.

iv.  That the Education Department make available to the teaching staff of Social Services establishments, information and advice on 'In-Service' training opportunities and consideration be given as to how staff can be funded to attend these courses.

v.That a representative of the Education Department shall attend at the appointment of all teachers to Social Services establishments.

vi.  That the Education Department should provide a representative to the Social Services Management (as a consultant on professional matters) in their negotiations with Teaching Unions."

  11.33  Before 1978 there was no structure to the educational provision at Bryn Estyn. Christina Lyndon, for example, who taught there between September 1975 and June of 1977, said that the age span of boys being educated was roughly 11 to 16 years and they were split roughly according to their abilities. At that time David Massey, who left four months after the witness, taught the brightest children; the middle range were taken by John Ilton and Gwen Hurst, the latter dealing also with some of the more difficult children. At 15 years boys could go into workshops and they would return to the classroom for one day a week. Each teacher would devise his or her own curriculum as far as possible. But Matthews said "There was more or less what I must call an entertainment of the boys. In other words the child would go into the classroom and he would then go at a project of his own choosing. There would possibly be a little teaching in the sense of showing him where he might find information or assisting with spelling. But I saw no actual curriculum".

  11.34  Matthews told us that from 1978 the WJEC[155] syllabus was adopted at Bryn Estyn for those boys who were thought to be capable of, and willing to, sit the CSE examination in a particular subject within a limited range. He said that this was at Welsh Office insistence and that Garrett had facilitated his attendance at a seminar or course at Oxford Polytechnic at which widening the curriculum of CHEs was the subject of discussion between teachers and officials. In consequence, between 1978 and 1984, 37 residents at Bryn Estyn took CSE examinations in one or more subjects (an average of just over five per year). The most taken by any one candidate was five but the grades awarded were usually 4 or 5. However, there was some talent in art and design: three boys gained grade 1 in this subject and one of them staged an exhibition of his work. A team from Bryn Estyn also won two art competitions. Other successes, in Grades 2 or 3, were mainly in english, arithmetic and craft and design.

  11.35  These boys were clearly exceptions to the mainstream of pupils and it has been extremely difficult to obtain a clear picture of how the latter was dealt with. The picture is also complicated by the decline in numbers from about 1980: Matthews' opinion was that Bryn Estyn was being used as a dustbin. It seems that, after the WJEC syllabus had been adopted, it was Matthews who made assessments for the purpose of allocating new entrants to an appropriate class (not to be confused with the assessment centre function carried out by Hurst and Soper) and he used mainly a simple test of reading and comprehension. The pupil was then assigned to a class but it appears that there was more movement from one teacher to another for different subjects after 1978: earlier each teacher had kept the same class throughout the day, changing subjects more or less hourly.

  11.36  The clearest picture of the teaching arrangements then in place was given by Arnold in his report to the Management Committee in April 1982. There were five class or group teachers (Hurst, Soper, McLeod[156], Ilton, Cheesbrough) who were responsible for the english and mathematics teaching of their groups. Hurst, Soper and McLeod were also responsible for some general studies with their own groups. Soper taught art to the first three groups and to CSE students taking the subject. Hurst taught social studies to the oldest group (5). Ilton was responsible for geography in the CSE groups and group 3. Cheesbrough was responsible for PE and games throughout the school and human biology for the CSE group. Green offered a course for those electing building studies leading to CSE brickwork and a remedial course for older boys. G P Jones[157] took woodwork for CSE and as therapy for less able and younger boys. As for working boys and work experience, there were two 16 year old boys in receipt of supplementary benefit and several above the age of 15.6 years, who were given odd days of work experience, if any was available. Older boys worked with senior care staff on the grounds, gardening or work experience. The whole of Cedar House was then a teaching unit housing the remedial (group 1) assessment and remand groups.

  11.37  A recurring complaint from the teachers who gave evidence to the Tribunal was of their continuing isolation from the Local Education Authority and the lack of support from that authority, despite what has already been said[158] and the fact that Arnold raised the matter from time to time with the Management Committee. As late as 29 January 1982 Arnold reported to them:

"We are looking for ways to develop the educational programme, I personally wonder if struggling along with a few candidates for doubtful CSE results is worthwhile when we have little enthusiasm from children, and perhaps an education geared more to their possible lifestyles would be more easily achieved. We would value support from the County Education Department, members who have been on the Management Committee for some time will remember that this is a perennial complaint, but the isolation of Bryn Estyn is still evident."

  11.38  The minutes of the meeting of 29 January 1982 when this report was discussed are missing but the subject was raised again by Arnold at the next meeting on 23 April 1982, the minutes of which record:

"Mr Arnold expressed his concern at the fact that the assistance and advice which the Education Department had promised to the home had not materialised. This was particularly disappointing as he considered that a degree of liaison with the Education Department would be of benefit to both parties. Members supported the view expressed by Mr Arnold regarding this matter and it was agreed that the question of providing support to the Education unit at Bryn Estyn be once again taken up with the Director of Education."

There is no evidence before us, however, that this evoked any positive response.

  11.39  It is lamentable that little, if anything, had been achieved by way of LEA support, despite the intervention of the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Wales in 1976. It is all the more remarkable because the subject of education in CHEs was addressed by the Welsh Office together with the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Health and Social Security in Welsh Office Circular 194/73, dated 31 August 1973, in the following terms[159]:

"Where an authority have placed a child in their care in one of these homes, it seems reasonable that the authority should not seek to recover from the education account any part of the cost of the child's maintenance, although that cost will include an element in respect of the education provided. These establishments are not schools within the meaning of the Education Acts and any education provided in them should be regarded as provided otherwise than at school for the purposes of those Acts. Notwithstanding this, local authorities responsible in their social services capacity for approved schools and remand homes have rightly sought to ensure that the education in these establishments, whether situated inside or outside their area, benefits fully from the services they have developed as education authorities. Co-operation with the education service should be based on the following principles:

(a)  It is essential to the concept of integrated treatment that overall control should be unitary and should accordingly be exercised by the "responsible body" as defined in the Community Homes Regulations, 1972. The local authority in their social services capacity are the responsible body for a local authority home or "controlled" home; for an "assisted" home, the voluntary organisation providing the home are the responsible body. Their responsibility for the home thus includes the provision of teaching rooms and equipment, and the recruitment, payment and superannuation of teachers. In some instances however, possibly to meet a special need, the education authority may be willing, on request, to second teachers for specified periods to work operationally under the direction of the head of the community home.

(b)  The responsible body, however, should seek to avail themselves of all advice and assistance which the local education authority may be able to offer. For instance, its organisers should visit the home and the authority's advice should be sought in the appointment of teachers. So should its assistance in providing opportunities for teachers to move into and out of the community homes system and to develop their professional resources through participation in the work of local teachers' centres and attendance at conferences and training courses.

(c)  The Secretary of State for Education and Science will have no statutory obligation to cause inspections to be made of any community home, but it is hoped that responsible bodies will continue to avail themselves freely of the advice of H M Inspectors, on which the highest value has long been placed by the managers of approved schools and remand homes.

The preceding paragraph does not, of course, attempt to enumerate exhaustively the fields in which close co-operation between local education authorities and local authorities in their social services capacity may be fruitful. The provision of facilities for observation and assessment (whether within residential community homes or on a day attendance basis) is another field where it may well be to the benefit of both to pool their skills and resources."

  11.40  The problem of educational support, like other matters such as the provision of an educational psychologist for assessment purposes and staff reorganisation, was said to be insoluble, certainly in later years, because of lack of financial resources; and this became more acute as the future of Bryn Estyn came to be questioned. CHEs were a regional, rather than a local, provision so that a provider local authority such as Clwyd would instinctively look to the Children's Regional Planning Committee (CRPC) for Wales to provide additional resources when needed. But the CRPC did not appear to have had resources of its own for this purpose and additional cost could only have been funded by an agreed increase in the per capita charge made to user authorities by the provider authority. It is not clear that the CRPC ever was asked by Clwyd to agree an additional charge and the latter simply averted its eyes from the problem until both the CRPC and Bryn Estyn expired.

  11.41  Similar problems may well arise in the future, particularly in Wales, where the former counties have now been divided into smaller administrative units so that collective action is likely to become increasingly necessary. In our judgment, therefore, it is essential that clear express directions should be given identifying the resources likely to be required, where the financial responsibility for providing them lies and whence that finance is to be obtained.

Recruitment and training of the staff

  11.42  We deal in the next part of this chapter with the more general shortcomings of the Bryn Estyn regime, viewed in the light of the "Utting principles" enunciated in 1981[160], but it is appropriate here to focus particularly upon the inadequate arrangements for recruitment and training of staff in the period from 1974 to 1984.

  11.43  It is, of course, notorious that, throughout the period of our review, the recruitment of suitable residential staff for community homes was exceptionally difficult due partly, at least, to the comparatively low status of the work, reflected in poor pay and career structures. What is remarkable, however, is that the problems of recruitment and possible initiatives in that field were never discussed by the Management Committee in any depth throughout the period of its existence. Instead, Arnold seems to have been left substantially to his own devices as recruiting master. Even though he was regarded as a very experienced and competent approved school Headmaster, this should not have been permitted.

  11.44  In fairness to the Management Committee it must be said that Matt Arnold (May 1973), Peter Howarth (November 1973), Stephen Norris (March 1974), Paul Wilson (27 May 1974) and John Ilton (September 1972), had all been appointed before the committee held its first meeting (according to the available documents) on 10 December 1975. Looking at the history of recruitment generally, however, with particular reference to the members of the care and teaching staff whom we have named, it appears that the process was very haphazard and that few of them, received any training in the specific problems that they would meet in a large CHE successor to an approved school either before or after they joined the staff.

  11.45  As far as the care staff are concerned, Peter Howarth, although experienced, was the personal choice of Arnold, which proved to be a disaster. Stephen Norris had some relevant experience and had undergone a pre-qualifying course but he also appears to have been the personal choice of Arnold, if Norris' evidence is correct. In any event he was manifestly unsuitable for care work and should never have been given the responsibility of Clwyd House; and he did not undergo any further training. Paul Wilson was formally interviewed but it is questionable whether he should have been appointed once his reference had been seen and his conviction disclosed. More certainly, he should not have survived his probationary period, when his failings were known. He had some limited experience as a houseparent but he was unsuitable for further training and his employment should have been ended long before Bryn Estyn itself closed.

  11.46  The other members of the care staff named in Chapter 10 were all taken on when they had no training in residential care work and no experience of it, except for Phillip Murray and John Cunningham. Murray had qualified for the CRCCYP and had served at an observation and assessment centre, and he applied for a post as senior houseparent in response to an advertisement published nationally. Cunningham, on the other hand, was merely a temporary houseparent on contract, with very brief previous experience at a boarding school. The others appear to have heard of the possibility of employment at Bryn Estyn locally by word of mouth and to have been interviewed mainly by Arnold and/or Howarth before starting work. Four of them had undergone teachers' training (two in physical education) but only one of them, Robert Jones, underwent further relevant training whilst he was at Bryn Estyn.

  11.47  The picture in relation to the teaching staff was broadly similar, although they all possessed general teaching qualifications. In addition to their difficult teaching and assessment duties, they were expected to perform the duties of care staff for at least 15 additional hours each week, but none of them had received any training in residential care work[161]. The evidence before the Tribunal has been that a degree of hostility between care staff and teaching staff persisted throughout the period of Bryn Estyn's existence as a CHE and the lack of any provision for joint staff meetings further militated against the exchange of information and discussion of practice.

  11.48  Norman Green[162] did apparently arrange some seminars for the staff at Bryn Estyn during the winter of 1979/1980 at which a range of topics relevant to CHEs were covered[163]. The object was to cover subjects not always covered in depth by training courses and a number of "observational" visits were made to other establishments. It seems, however, that the staff were divided into two separate groups, ie residential staff and teaching staff, for the seminars, so that the opportunity for a full exchange was missed, despite the good intentions of the organisers. It was hoped to resume the seminars in September 1980 but staff morale was low by then and there is no further information about them in the reports.

The quality of care generally

  11.49  Finally in relation to Bryn Estyn, we must express our grave dismay at the lack of individual care of the children who were resident at Bryn Estyn between 1974 and 1984 that has been demonstrated by the evidence before us. Arnold undoubtedly started with high principles, as he expressed them, for example, in his first report to the Management Committee[164], but the subsequent practice at Bryn Estyn failed, disastrously for many, to implement those principles and the aspirations.

  11.50  Arnold had begun with the intention that every resident at Bryn Estyn would have a "key worker" on the premises to whom he could turn for advice and consolation, etc: to achieve this, appropriate members of the care staff would have a small number of residents attached to him or her so that a meaningful and caring relationship could be built up. None of the witnesses who gave evidence to us were able to recollect this arrangement in actual practice; in particular, none of the complainants whom we have heard were able to identify a member of the staff to whom they had been assigned.

  11.51  It seems likely that Arnold abandoned the "key worker" idea at an early stage in favour of organising residents on a "house" basis but this did not provide the kind of personal, confiding relationship that he must have had in mind originally. Before Clwyd House was opened, there may have been as many as four "houses" in the main building but from late 1979 there were probably only three: two in the main building (one for younger, and the other for older, boys) plus the separate Clwyd House (for 12 or so boys with disturbed behaviour patterns).

  11.52  There was also a blatant lack of close personal relationships between residents and their field social workers. This lack of contact was particularly felt by the many residents from areas outside Clwyd, particularly South Wales, who had limited contact with their families. They might see their social worker occasionally when on weekend or other leaves but, otherwise, contact was limited to case conferences at Bryn Estyn, when the field worker was able to attend. There was a better prospect for a Clwyd child of a visit by his field social worker in terms of practicality but, even so, the overwhelming majority of residents complained of lack of contact with, and inability to confide in, their assigned social worker. The problem was often aggravated by frequent changes of social worker. The result was that we heard evidence from only two complainants that they had made a specific complaint about abuse at Bryn Estyn to their social worker and in both cases, their evidence was that nothing was done about it.

  11.53  A weakness of our Inquiry has been that it has not been possible to undertake a comprehensive review of field social workers' practice because of the passage of time and the patchy documentation now available. In order to obtain as full a picture as possible in the circumstances we commissioned Elaine Baxter, an independent consultant in child care matters, to analyse the available evidence from social work staff and records in Clwyd. We refer to this in more detail hereafter in Chapter 31 but it is appropriate to say here that Baxter's evidence indicated that there were wide variations in practice. In the absence of established practice and procedure manuals, Area Officers and Team Leaders developed their own working practices.

  11.54  The only planning mechanism was the statutory review. Many practitioners applied the Boarding Out Regulations 1955 to visiting children in residential care, even though the Regulations applied only to foster children. There were heavy case loads and, due to time constraints, some would get in touch with children when they were in the local area visiting the family: contact with children in residential homes would then be by telephone and a child might not be seen for three to four months at the home (but some social workers claimed that they visited every three to six weeks). The analysis as a whole is dispiriting. In general terms the standard of record keeping overall was of a very poor level and Baxter commented:

"One other very significant omission from almost every file was any evidence of a long term planning or review system. Thus young people had numerous changes of placement without any apparent consideration of the fact, or the implications it might have on their ability to develop into adults with any sense of identity."

  11.55  Two aspects of the placement system are of particular concern in relation to Bryn Estyn. Firstly, it will be apparent from what we have said in Chapter 10 that it was customary for a resident who pursued a complaint against a member of staff to be transferred summarily to another establishment, usually to one perceived to have a harsher regime and in South Wales. Moreover, the threat of such a transfer was used from time to time to dissuade intending complainants from making a formal complaint. These decisions were made without any regard to the best interests of the child concerned, without any proper investigation of the complaint beforehand and without any case conference or the like. They appear to have been made solely in the interests of the member of staff pointed at, disregarding the paramount duty of the local authority towards a child in its care and without reference to appropriate senior officers.

  11.56  Secondly, it will be recalled that Arnold complained to the Management Committee[165] about children being detained unnecessarily long at Bryn Estyn because of the reluctance of social workers to permit them to return to the community. This was a serious consequence of the lack of planning of individual carers referred to by Baxter. This was exemplified by the evidence of a witness brought up in Gwynedd, who had been resident at Bryn Estyn from 14 February 1977 (his date of birth was 13 November 1962) until 24 May 1979. It seems that his departure was very long delayed whilst a placement at Ty Newydd was awaited. His six monthly review in March 1979 disclosed that his progress since the previous review had been disappointing and that his behaviour at Bryn Estyn had deteriorated considerably in the past six months, particularly following his 16th birthday. The boy felt strongly that he had been allowed to "vegetate" in Bryn Estyn: the continued delays in opening Ty Newydd hostel, which he was to enter, had had a marked effect on him.

  11.57  This criticism of the delays in moving residents on is linked with the lack of adequate preparation of residents for discharge from care or other developments in their lives as they approached the age of majority. The blame for this fault does not rest upon Bryn Estyn alone because we have not found any evidence of guidance given on this matter by Clwyd Social Services Department or of active field social worker involvement in the process. Bryn Estyn itself appears to have done what it could in a difficult employment situation, despite the demise of the working hostel in Cedar House, to provide job opportunities for residents when they could be found. Arnold reported late on for example[166] that they had a "leaving group" of older boys, well past the age of normal education, who were "used in a variety of tasks around the grounds and in a Careers Development Programme". The group was largely responsible to Matthews but it was "subsidised and supplemented" by Norman Green and Robert Jones. There was also a vocational group for boys interested in building and allied trades, largely taught by Green, with some trade training, career training and "thoughts to a future in a world where employment might not be possible".

  11.58  There was a striking absence, however, of preparation of the residents to be self-sufficient in the outside world despite the fact that most of them had spent many years in care and were wholly untrained in basic domestic requirements and skills. This was understandably outside the agenda of Bryn Estyn as an approved school but very different considerations applied once it became part of the care system. Yet, the only hint we found of this type of training was contained in the following comment by the HMI, Garrett, on his visit to Bryn Estyn on 7 November 1980, "Mr D Cheesborough (sic) is also responsible for an activity called "Living Today" which attempt(s) to help the older boys look after and cater for themselves in one of the hostel kitchens for a day. They purchase their own food, under the supervision of Mr Cheesborough and cook and clean for themselves".

Some concluding observations

  11.59  The transfer of direct responsibility for approved schools to local authorities at the same time as these establishments changed both their status and their purpose posed particular problems that were never satisfactorily solved at Bryn Estyn. It does not appear that Arnold received any substantial guidance or training to prepare for the change in his responsibilities: it was assumed that he was an expert in his field and he was left to run Bryn Estyn largely as his own fiefdom without close monitoring and control. The Welsh Office had not previously had any direct responsibility for such an establishment and control by the new local authority was to some extent weakened because of the community home's role and status in the Regional Plan as a facility available to the whole of Wales with consequential special arrangements for its funding.

  11.60  The Children and Young Persons Act 1969 demanded a significant change in thinking and approach, involving treatment rather than punishment, but Bryn Estyn continued to be regarded as a place catering essentially for aggressive and disturbed boys with a strong criminal element and the approved school culture continued untouched to a large extent, despite Arnold's early aspirations. The result was that there was an institutional, regimented regime in which, for many, there was a heavy atmosphere of fear; and little consideration was given to the needs of individual boys, including the most vulnerable, and the problems that gave rise to their admission to care.

Footnotes:

134   See paras 3.06 to 3.10.

135   See paras 10.21 to 10.23, 10.26, 10.27 and 10.47 to 10.49.

136   See paras 10.15 to 10.18, 10.20, 10.24, 10.116, 10.117.

137   See paras 10.19, 10.28, 10.29, 10.75, 10.97, 10.103 to 10.111, 10.134, 10.135 to 10.144, 10.149.

138   See paras 8.13 and 8.14.

139   See paras 10.26 and 10.27.

140   See para 10.28.

141   See para 10.143.

142   Letter dated 15 March 1973 from P J Hosegood to the Clerks of Counties and County Boroughs (Wales), Circular 69/73 dated 15 March 1973.

143   Circular 55/74 dated 13 March 1974.

144   See para 7.15.

145   Locking Children Up-Milham et al - Saxon House 1978.

146   By Schedule 2 para 50 of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983.

147   See para 11.09.

148   Minutes of the Children's Regional Planning Committee for Wales for 1970/1971.

149   At Para 2.

150   Social Work Service Officers.

151   On 14 May 1974, 17 July and 18 November 1975.

152   Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools.

153   Community Homes with Education on the premises.

154   Summary of Relevant Inspections and Visits of Community Homes made by the Social Work Service 1974-1985.

155   Welsh Joint Education Committee.

156   James McLeod, at Bryn Estyn from 1 September 1978 to 31 August 1982.

157   Glyn Price Jones, at Bryn Estyn from 1 January 1963 to 31 March 1984.

158   See paras 11.28 to 11.32.

159   Paras 6 to 9 inclusive.

160   Control and Discipline in Community Homes - Report of a Working Party (W B Utting), January 1981, DHSS.

161   See para 10.83 for particulars of Matthews' course whilst at Bryn Estyn.

162   See paras 10.84 and 10.91.

163   Reports of Arnold and others to Management Committee for the meeting on 16 May 1980, page 5.

164   See para 7.09.

165   See para 7.20.

166   Report to the Management Committee for the meeting on 29 April 1983.