Website of the Department of Health

19.01  Ysgol Talfryn was a Clwyd Education Authority day and residential school on the outskirts of the village of Brynford, one mile south of Holywell. Its purpose was to provide education for children, in the age range of six to 16 years, with emotional and behavioural difficulties, who generally had special educational needs (it was formerly described as a school for maladjusted children). The school was purpose-built and was designed to provide residential accommodation for 40 children in four house units of ten. It opened in April 1978 and the first of the residential units began to operate in April 1980 and all four were open by September 1982. In the summer of 1988 there were 63 pupils on the roll, of whom 31 were residents. The Headmaster throughout the 1980s and until 31 July 1992 was George Eric Austin, working with a Board of Governors. Numbers have declined in the 1990s and the latest information that we have is that only 22 day pupils remain (eight from outside Flintshire). The school will remain open until September 1999 but its future thereafter is problematic.

  19.02  It is important to stress that many of the children attending Ysgol Talfryn were not in care. The school would not, therefore, have been within the ambit of our inquiry but for the fact that 18 former residents who had been at Ysgol Talfryn in the 1980s subsequently made complaints to the police of abuse in one form or another against one or more members of the staff; and some of these complainants had been in care at the time. None of these allegations were, however, directed against the Headmaster.

Allegations of sexual abuse

  19.03  We are aware of only one complainant who alleged that he had been sexually abused by a member of the staff at Ysgol Talfryn. At the time when the complaint was made to the police in 1992 the complainant was himself serving a sentence of imprisonment for rape committed when he was still a minor and his allegation was uncorroborated. No prosecution ensued and the complainant has not provided any evidence to the Tribunal.

Allegations of physical abuse

  19.04  The remaining allegations, all of physical abuse or complicity in such abuse, involved ten identified members of the staff and one who was unidentified but the majority of these members of staff were the subject of only one, or at the most two, allegations. Moreover, most of the complaints were of the use of excessive force in restraint, not causing any significant injury, in circumstances in which a degree of physical restraint appears to have been necessary on the complainant's own account of the matter. It must be said also that several of these complainants said that they had benefited from their stay at the school, the object of which was to fit them, if possible, for a return to mainstream education.

  19.05  Against this background we heard oral evidence from three complainants who had all been in care at or about the time when they were resident at Ysgol Talfryn. The first of these chronologically, A, spent two years at the school from September 1981, starting when he was 13 years old, following a year at Gwynfa clinic. He is of above average intelligence but had serious emotional and behavioural problems at that time with the result that his mother and adoptive father regarded him as beyond their control. His behaviour had deteriorated at Gwynfa and it seems that he had been received into voluntary care by Gwynedd County Council in July 1981 to enable him to stay at Y Gwyngyll until he went to Ysgol Talfryn, at which point he was to be discharged from care until the following vacation. His later history is unclear but he said in evidence that, although his education suffered, for which he is paying now, he has obtained two A levels in media studies at a college in Rhos-on-Sea.

  19.06  A was very critical in his evidence of Ysgol Talfryn. There was a far stricter regime than he had previously experienced ("much more like a prison or borstal") and some of the houseparents were very domineering and bullying. There was teaching to CSE level but he regarded it as very limited and craft orientated. However, A praised the outdoor activities, which he thoroughly enjoyed, and said that he got on very well with some of the teaching staff: one of them was particularly helpful, taking an active interest in him and making him feel positive (the Headmaster's view, according to A, was that he ought not to have been at the school). A's main allegation was that one member of the care staff, X, was a "vicious bully", who assaulted him (using just hands) many times. X would goad him with (or about) extracts from his personal file but he would not rise to the bait. A alleged also that he had witnessed far worse assaults upon other residents by X, including one with whom the latter had a fist fight on the day that A left.

  19.07  The weakness of this witness' evidence is that he named the other residents who had been the victims of assaults by X but they did not support his allegations. One other witness, whose evidence was read, did make complaints about X: he said that X, had on one occasion, grabbed his hair and then dragged him through ground floor corridors, punching and kicking him. This witness alleged also that he had seen X assaulting another boy. We are left, however, in some doubt about the veracity of these allegations, bearing in mind how disturbed some of the children, including A, were at the time, although the number of allegations made against X is troubling. X himself strongly denied them in his written evidence and he alleged that A had telephoned him between 1992 and 1996 threatening that A was "going to have him".

  19.08  The second oral witness (B) was at Ysgol Talfryn for about two years from 9 March 1987, when he was just 14 years old. He had been adopted three years earlier but his adoptive father had died. He had been attending Holywell High School but was transferred to Ysgol Talfryn following suspension from the former for disruptive misbehaviour. A serious breakdown in his relationship with his adoptive mother occurred in late 1987 with the result that he was received into voluntary care on 12 February 1988 and placed at Park House as his "home base" whilst continuing to attend Ysgol Talfryn. Thus, he continued to board at Ysgol Talfryn but spent week-ends and vacations at Park House. He remained at the school until the incident described in the next paragraph.

  19.09  B's only complaint about Ysgol Talfryn is that he was assaulted by a teacher there at about 10.10 am on 22 February 1989. His account of this was that the teacher (Y) asked him, unusually, to read aloud, whereupon B told Y to "fuck off". Y then grabbed B by the collar and punched him on the chin. B gripped Y back but Y manhandled him out of the class and to a nearby lavatory, where Y pushed him around further whilst another teacher stood guard at the door. Eventually, B smashed a window with his fist and this brought the incident to an end. B had suffered a bang on the head from a wall or the floor (when he had slipped in the classroom); there were also scratches on his neck, where Y had gripped him, and his jaw was sore. His T-shirt was ripped and his coat was torn.

  19.10  We have seen substantial documentary evidence relating to this incident, which was reported by B when he returned to Park House at about 4 pm; and a very full account of the matter was recorded by Kevin Bird, one of the residential care staff. That account was much fuller than the summary we have given based on B's oral evidence and it differs in many details but it is unnecessary to repeat it here because it does not affect the substance of the complaint or reflect adversely on B's veracity. Bird's record does indicate, however, that, according to B, Y admitted shortly afterwards that he had probably "gone over the top" and apologised to B at the end of the school day. Y had also offered to shake B's hand and had asked if they were still mates but B had merely said "OK" without shaking Y's hand.

  19.11  B had not been offered any treatment or examination at Ysgol Talfryn but he was taken to see a local doctor at Prestatyn, who noted bruises on the back of his head and the left side of his neck. The doctor saw also a minor scratch on the boy's throat, adding (rightly or wrongly) "which apparently he had on a previous incident". A sketch made by Kevin Bird the same day suggests that the injuries were more extensive, albeit minor. A complicating factor was that B had been involved in an incident with the police two days earlier, in which he sustained injuries, some of which were rather similar, but we have been able to distinguish them broadly in the light of the police surgeon's report on the earlier injuries based on his examination of B at 11.40 pm on 20 February 1989.

  19.12  It is unnecessary to go into great detail about subsequent events in relation to Y's assault. Michael Barnes was informed and the Child Protection procedure was set in train. A case conference was held on 1 March 1989 at which Barnes, the Assistant Child Protection Officer, various Delyn Area social workers, the police, the Area Health Authority and Park House were represented but Ysgol Talfryn and the NSPCC failed to send representatives. It was decided that the police should be requested to carry out a full investigation and that the Social Services Department ought to discuss the implications of the incident with the Education Department. The view of the conference was that B had been abused and that his attendance at Ysgol Talfryn should be discontinued pending investigations.

  19.13  A second case conference was held on 18 April 1989 at which the representation was similar but wider. The NSPCC was represented and George Austin attended. The purpose of the conference was said to be "to consider conclusions resulting from police interviews of abused child and alleged abuser and to receive representation of events related to the incident of alleged abuse from Education Department representatives". The rather surprising conclusion of the conference was that no child abuse had occurred. No legal proceedings were to be instituted and no further investigations were necessary. Dialogue was to be resumed with the Education Department about B's educational needs. B had a chequered career in 1989, however, including a number of court appearances. He was made the subject of supervision orders in June 1989 and again in December 1989. It seems that he moved to Chevet Hey in June 1989 and then to independent accommodation in Wrexham in December 1989 before being discharged from voluntary care on 17 September 1990.

  19.14  Y who received excellent references about his rapport with children on his appointment to Ysgol Talfryn gave oral evidence to the Tribunal and provided a written statement. He said that B was an aggressive and unco-operative person whose usual reply when asked to do anything was "fuck off". He was frequently restrained because of his behavioural problems and complete lack of self-control (but Y's first training course in physical restraint was four years later, in 1993). Y recalled that there was an incident in February 1989, but not the details: Y could certainly have grabbed B's lapels to remove him from the class, because he was unlikely to go willingly and because of his conduct towards Y in front of the other children, and it was inevitable that B would have retaliated. In his oral evidence Y said that he might have held B down on the floor. But Y denied punching B or deliberately banging B's head or causing any scratches to his neck. Y took B to the toilet block so that B could wash his face but did not push him around. Y waited outside the wash room but went in when B broke a window out of frustration and temper. Y denied also that he said to anyone that he had gone over the top but it was not unusual to offer to shake hands after an incident to bring the matter to a close.

  19.15  We have not seen the contemporary statements obtained by the police about this incident in 1989 but we have seen what was said by three fellow pupils in the course of the wider investigation in 1992. Our conclusion is that Y certainly did go "over the top" in provocative circumstances on this occasion and we believe that he admitted doing so shortly afterwards. It was not an occasion when physical restraint or any other use of force was called for and, on Y's own evidence, B's choice of offensive language was habitual. In our judgment Y was fortunate to escape disciplinary action for what he did on the basis of our findings and it would have been salutary if he had been given at least an official warning.

  19.16  The third oral witness, (C), was also in voluntary care for part of the period during which he attended Ysgol Talfryn. He was a Shropshire boy who was admitted into care on 1 October 1987 and started attending Ysgol Talfryn as a boarder 16 days later, when he was just 14 years old, because he had been suspended from his last local school for unruly behaviour. He continued to attend Ysgol Talfryn until December 1989 or possibly April 1990 but was discharged from care on 4 February 1989. His reviews and reports referred to him as essentially a gentle person who needed tactful handling, despite his record of unruliness, but his home situation was a cause of recurrent stress. In his oral evidence C said that being at Ysgol Talfryn was better than being at home: the teaching was quite good and he achieved a GCSE[269] in woodwork. However, he did not get on with Y, who took physical education. There was mutual dislike and C complained that, on one occasion, Y pulled him by the hair down the football pitch, marched him into a building and prodded him around because he had responded with "fuck off" when told to play goalkeeper. On other occasions Y pushed him to the floor and jumped on his chest with both knees. But C said in his written statement and in his oral evidence that Y did not punch him in the football incident or on any other occasion.

  19.17  C's other main complaint was against a careworker at the school who drove two staples into his head with a staple gun, apparently as a joke and without any provocation. C complained then to another member of the staff but nothing was done about it. More generally, C was critical of the methods of restraint used at the school, alleging that four or five men would hold one boy down and that there were always "kids being hit".

  19.18  Y told us that he does not recollect B and has no memory of marching him off the football pitch. On the question of restraint generally, he said in his written statement that there were three occasions when children had to be restrained, namely, if they were hitting themselves, if they were hitting or hurting other people or if they were damaging property. If restraint had to be used, it would be the minimum necessary and consisted always of holding, never kicking or punching. The witness referred to in paragraph 19.07 whose evidence was read said that Y enjoyed throwing his weight round and would punch and kick boys for no apparent reason.

  19.19  The evidence of one other former resident at Ysgol Talfryn not previously mentioned was read to the Tribunal. He was at the school at a much younger age than the other witnesses, that is, from about nine to 11 years (between 1983 and 1985), but it seems that he was not placed in voluntary care until the first half of 1988. His evidence was that he was treated fairly at the school and he had no complaints about it. He was occasionally slapped but he thinks that it was no more than he deserved.

Welsh Office inspections

  19.20  Ysgol Talfryn was visited by Her Majesty's Inspectors in the summer term of 1988 and we have seen a copy of the comprehensive report that they presented. Of the 63 pupils then on the roll, only seven were girls (five resident). Ten of the pupils had been placed there by authorities other than Clwyd. The report recorded that in its first ten years over 60 pupils had been re-integrated into other schools, of whom only six had gone to special schools; and only a few transfers had been unsuccessful.

  19.21  The Headmaster was well qualified and experienced in teaching pupils with behavioural problems. However, none of the nine members of the teaching staff had received "appropriate post-initial qualification relating to work with pupils with emotional, behavioural disorders", although five of them were then studying to obtain such qualifications. The inspectors commented that the general level of experience and qualification was barely appropriate.

  19.22  The care staff were headed by an SRCCO, who was responsible to the Headmaster for the residential provision. Under that officer were 14 leaders, 12 houseparents and two night attendants, one of whom was a qualified nurse. Some of these did not have relevant qualifications for the work and a significant number of the staff were recent appointments. Attempts were being made to provide appropriate in-service training.

  19.23  The school was organised into nine classes on the basis of "age, ability and socio/emotional compatibility", producing classes of between five and eight pupils; and all classes were taught for varying amounts of time by teachers other than their class teachers. Through contacts established by the staff, work experience was available for pupils over 15 years of age.

  19.24  The Inspectors' comments on the quality of care provided by the school were generally favourable but, on behaviour management, they noted that some groups were difficult to handle and some members of the staff showed the need for additional support and training in coping with unruly and disruptive behaviour. Their overall conclusion was that Ysgol Talfryn provided a good level of care and a wide range of opportunities for pupils, which could readily be consolidated to provide more effective education. They commended particularly the school's staff development programmes and its policy of planning for the re-integration of pupils into mainstream education.

  19.25  Subsequent inspections by HMIs disclosed much less satisfactory teaching and care. By September 1993 the number of pupils had diminished to 32 boys (ten resident four nights a week). The complement of teachers remained as before but the number of care staff had been reduced to 11. There were six classes, most with no more than five pupils. The classrooms were described as dismal and bleak environments for learning. Aspects of the residential accommodation were better than this but the bedrooms were dismal, "unpersonalised" with much damaged furniture. Relationships between children and care staff seemed to be sound but the inspector described the overall situation as dire. The penultimate paragraph of his report read:

"Numbers on roll are falling (even though there is a national demandfor places for pupils with EBD[270]), staffing levels are high, outcomesare poor, resources inadequate, accommodation and learning environments arid."

  19.26  The most recent and very full inspection took place in September 1996 by a team of four inspectors over a period of two and a half days. The outcome of this inspection was much more favourable and the number of pupils had increased to 47. (Surprisingly the 25 page report did not disclose the number of resident pupils). Improvements had been made in most of the relevant areas and the school was said to provide good value for money within the available financial resources. A member of the teaching staff had been appointed the Child Protection Co-ordinator. The quality of teaching was assessed as satisfactory or better in 77% (56% good) of the 52 lessons observed, despite an increase to 12 in the average teaching group size and an increased pupil/teacher ratio of 7.6 : 1. The school was said also to function as an orderly community: the staff made every effort to promote a good quality of life and the majority of pupils felt safe and secure in its surroundings.

Conclusions

  19.27  It is clear from the successive reports of HMI Inspectors that Ysgol Talfryn has had an up and down history in the 20 or so years that it has existed so far but it has met, at least in part, a widespread need. On the limited evidence that we have received about the school it would be wrong to conclude that there was regular physical abuse and there has been only one unproved complaint of sexual abuse. However, we are satisfied that in the 1980s there were occasions when excessive force was used in restraint of troublesome pupils and others when improper physical chastisement occurred. This underlines the importance of the criticism made in the first of the Inspector's reports (in 1988) that none of the teaching staff then had received any training in dealing with emotionally and behaviourally disturbed children. We regard such training as essential for teaching staff as well as care staff in any school catering for such children; and it is particularly necessary for teachers such as Y, of some physical prowess, who, without training, are likely to rely upon their strength inappropriately to maintain order and discipline.

  19.28  Although the quality of care is said to have improved latterly, the history of this to 1993 is disappointing, particularly in the standard of residential accommodation. The school began with quite high aspirations in thisrespect but there seems to have been a progressive decline, mainly because of inadequate financial resources, and we regard this as a serious failing,bearing in mind the importance of the home environment to an already disturbed child in care.

Footnotes:

269   General Certificate in Secondary Education.

270   Emotional and behavioural difficulties.