HC Deb 25 October 1946 vol 428 cc189-205

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation for the year ending 31st March, 1947, which was presented on 5th June, be approved."—[Mr. John Dugdale.]

12.57 p.m.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas (Hereford)

I think that the accounts this year seem to have taken their normal course. There are two questions, however, which I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. One arises on page 2 of the accounts halfway down the expenditure list, with regard to "Greenwich Hospital Pensions to Seamen and Marines." The estimate for 1946 is £32,391, as compared with the estimate for 1945 of £71,191. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary is probably in a position to account for that, and the House would be grateful for an explanation.

My second question relates to page 5 of the accounts with regard to the Royal Hospital School at Holbrook. I hope that the wearer of its old school tie on the other side of the House who I suspect has much to say, will forgive me for asking two questions. The accounts give us the average number of boys borne at the school up to the year 1944–45. Has the Parliamentary Secretary the figure for the year 1945–46? And in view of the fact that this is the first school year of peace, the House might like to know, now that the dangers which surrounded Holbrook during the war are withdrawn, how the school has progressed in this year. I should be grateful if, at the end of the Debate, the Parliamentary Secretary would give an answer.

12.59 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay (Combined English Universities)

I would like to say a word or two about this school. In the last Debate the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) called it a "first-class charitable ramp" and the Financial Secretary said that it was "a very good example of national control." These two descriptions are not easy to reconcile coming from Members of the same party but that is a minor matter. I am worried about the position of the school. It ought to be doing valuable work but it seems to be having a rather stormy passage. Two years ago my predecessor in the representation of the Combined English Universities—Mr. T. E. Harvey—and I both stressed the importance of an advisory committee. The advisory committee is now formed with the Headmaster of Harrow and several other friends of mine like the Director of Education for East Suffolk and Cambridgeshire, all very experienced men. The headmaster was advertised for about two years ago. A very good man was secured, with the proper knowledge to run a big secondary boarding school, and he built it up in accordance with the new Act; in other words, he wanted to bring the school into line with the general education of the country.

The new Minister came along, succeeding the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas), and there was apparently a change of policy. The first question, therefore, is, Has there been a change of policy? There was a lot of talk about not wanting to make a "posh" school of it. The hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) mentioned this matter several times. The Financial Secretary said that he did not want a school of that kind but a school to suit this particular class of boy. Who are these boys? They are an average cross-section of the country. They want the best school possible, a comprehensive secondary school, with grammar, technical, and every other side. The new head-master was the man to do the job.

Now, I understand, he is going to leave at the end of this year, that he has got notice to quit on the last day of this year. Is that true? Is that because the policy has changed or because the headmaster himself is not the right man? Is this a "good example of national control," which were the words used by the Financial Secretary? It is very dangerous if, when schools come under Government, every time the Government changes and the policy changes there has to be change of headmaster. I am strongly in favour of the individual freedom of the school, with a proper governing body. When you have a man of this high experience, whom we asked should be put in, I think his advice might well have been taken. Now, I understand, there has been an inspection of the school by the Ministry of Education. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when the results of the inspection will be made known, and what the policy will be?

At this moment, the country is worried about children who are deprived, as it is called, of a normal home life. I hope that the Financial Secretary will see this school is the best answer possible to the criticisms. I do not know how far he himself is responsible for the school, but as he is the Minister I must direct my criticism to him. It seems to me that the school has not had a very good passage in the last year or two, but the school should not be judged by its numbers. I do not believe that there should be 8o boys in one house under one master or that that is in accordance with modern practice. I would much sooner see, on balance, a slightly smaller number, properly looked after. After all, this is a boarding school and some of these boys are orphans. They cannot go to any other home; this school is their only home. I should be very grateful if the Financial Secretary would answer some of these questions. Some of us expect from the present Government a lead on educational policy. Although this school is but a small section of the larger whole, I hope the Financial Secretary will be able to give us a thoroughly satisfactory answer to the questions, and if any of my facts are wrong or inaccurate I hope he will tell us so.

1.4 p.m.

Commander Pursey (Hull, East)

I think the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) Will approve if I take his points in the course of my speech rather than deal with them separately. This is the annual opportunity of referring to Greenwich Hospital Estimates, and in particular to the school to which reference has been made from the other side. I have a special interest in the school, having been educated there myself and knowing its history and vicissitudes over the last 3o years. The school cost £I million to build and equip, which was quite fantastic, and the expenditure has gone on upon that scale since, throwing charitable money away ad lib on bricks and mortar, staff and so on, instead of upon the orphans. Yet, it has been open for only a matter of 13 years in the new premises.

This year, the cost is £101,600, an increase of £7,500. I ask the Financial Secretary why. Then there is the question of the number of boys accommodated. The hon. Member for the Combined English Universities is in favour of low numbers. May I remind the House and him, that this school was intended to accommodate 1000 and that it did so upon its old site? The premises now occupied limit the number to 860. In answer to a Question I was told that the number was 516 on 1st April, so the school at the moment caters for only half the number it ought. I ask, therefore, why the full 86o are not being entered and educated there. In point of fact, there has been no increase during the four years since 1941, when the numbers were reduced for air-raid precautions. Tying up with the low numbers of boys is the high cost per boy. This year that cost is £145, and I would ask why that is so. I know that this year's figures are not comparable with those of 1939, but we had 785 boys in 1939, and the average cost was £97. Much charitable money, given by a generous benefactor, is available. Why should there be any question of fees? An illustrated pamphlet about the school, entitled "Your Boy's Career," says: Fees ranging from £3 to £6 per term are normally payable according to the means of the parents. In the case of boys who are fatherless no fees whatever are charged. I say, in view of the money available, that no fees whatever should be charged.

I come to the question of buildings. The school was only opened 13 years ago, but it seems as though almost anyone with authority has wanted to knock it about and rebuild this part or that part. Before the school was completed there was a change of policy; it went from a company system to a house system, and there was a lot of rebuilding and expense. Now we are told, in answer to a Question, that the full number cannot be accommodated without further alterations. There is a new idea, put up presumably by the new headmaster, that, in addition to having one resident headmaster and matron for each hostel, there should be a second one. I understand that estimates have been got out to instal another master in each house. Accommodation can be taken only at the expense of accommodation for boys. We therefore get another example of the boys' accommodation being reduced.

Then we get smaller items such as the new headmaster bringing a woman secretary into the place for the first time to do a job that has always been performed previously by naval pensioners. Then came the question of her accommodation and, it having been decided to provide her with rather sumptuous accommodation, of again altering a building. Then came the question of somebody to look after her.

The information that I received on quite reliable authority was that the chauffeur and his wife were going to be provided with accommodation in order to look after the secretary. When I raised the question in the House, the answer was given that this accommodation was not being altered for that purpose but in order to provide accommodation for parents and guardians visiting their sons. That is an idea with which I agree, but these are examples of wasteful expenditure on continuous alterations to what is, in fact, practically a new school. Presumably, as the Admiralty built it, it was built with the best information and architectural advice available 13 to 15 years ago.

Then there is the question of the headmaster's salary. The hon. Member for the English Universities referred to the getting of a new headmaster. I have here the advertisement from "The Times Educational Supplement" of 8th April, 1944, in which the post was advertised as being one for a school with a complement of 860 reduced to 615 as a wartime measure. Therefore the headmaster was appointed on the understanding that he ought to be taking charge of 860 boys, but that the number was down to 615. In point of fact, his policy has been—it is a wrong one—to keep the numbers down. He advocates that the number should be in the region of 500 or 600, which is not the terms of the agreement on which he was engaged. That is only by the by, and I have only dealt with it because of the reference which has been made.

The school was referred to as a technical and secondary school. I shall have something to say about that in a moment. I am concerned here with the question of salary. It was advertised at £1,250–£1,500 according to qualifications and experience, a rent-free residence and certain minor perquisites. That was quite a good salary. At the time there was a superintendent there who was getting £865 plus an entertainments allowance of £75, a total of £940. The then headmaster, who had run the school well and had produced very good results with his boys, was getting goo and a war allowance of £52. The total for the two was £1,792. We find that in this year's and last year's estimates the headmaster's salary is £1,650, with an official residence, presumably of the value of the order of £200. In addition, he is allowed £250 entertainment allowance, which gives him in cash £1,900. That is more than the total salary of the other two officials, and it is no answer to that argument to say that he has replaced them. I would like to ask why, as the captain superintendent, who was a naval officer and, because of the school's proximity to certain naval establishments, had to do a considerable amount of entertaining, was able to do it with an allowance of £75, the headmaster, who has nothing to do with the Navy and, on my information, does very little entertaining at all, has £250. In addition to the headmaster's salary, the change from captain superintendent plus headmaster to headmaster alone resulted, I am informed, in a new second master being introduced, as well as the secretary to whom I have referred. The second master's salary is £700. On this change we have a total increase in salaries of £800. I see no justification for the second master being introduced when there are these low numbers. If the school was running to capacity with 860, it might well be. Neither can I see any necessity for the headmaster to have a woman secretary requiring additional accommodation in a school out in the country and isolated, in a job previously well done by naval pensioners.

I now come to the question of the present headmaster. Quite frankly, I had no intention whatever of dealing with the present occupant of the office as an individual. I would have dealt simply with the question of salary and accommodation but for the remarks which have already been made. The hon. Member for the Combined English Universities spoke of the headmaster's high qualifications. My information is to the contrary. The headmaster ran only a small school—which I know, as I have been to the place—and he had no experience of large scale boarding schools of this nature. In fact, to those who knew him it was a complete surprise that he ever got the job. I have no knowledge of the reasons, for his dismissal, and that is obviously a matter for the Financial Secretary to deal with, but as the hon. Member wanted to justify the apparent—

Mr. K. Lindsay

I must make this clear. I have no wish either to justify it or not justify it. All I am asking is, why he was dismissed. Is there a change of policy? I am not standing up for him. The post was advertised and he was appointed, presumably, by the Admiralty. They must justify his being sacked after two years. I do not wish to take any sides.

Commander Pursey

Surely the hon. Member does not object to my dealing with the points he raised as regards the individual. The hon. Member said that the headmaster was a man of high qualifications. I am not in a position to judge his qualifications, and presumably they were checked, but as far as experience is concerned, he had no experience of this type of school and his previous school was a small school down in the country with considerably fewer numbers. I repeat that it was a surprise to the educational world and the people who knew him when he got this job. Moreover, one of the qualifications in the advertisement was naval experience, and his naval experience was very limited. There is no question at all that his main interest is in educational examination results and not the interests of this institution, which is primarily intended to be an orphanage, and the interests of orphans. Having said that, I will say no more about the individual as such.

I now pass to the question of the policy of the school. Two of the original main objects were one, the care and maintenance and education of children of seamen, naval and mercantile, especially orphans and sons of poor parents, and that dates back two centuries. The second object was to train them for the sea, either the Navy or the Merchant Service. It is now no longer a stipulation that each entry must be prepared to go into the Navy. In other words, entrants are being taken and trained in the school and then they go into other walks of life. I would like to know why boys should be sent to this institution instead of being educated in the normal schools of the country if they are not going to adopt a seafaring life, either in the Navy or the Mercantile Marine. Moreover, from the point of view of the staffing and running of the school, this situation of a double objective of tuition must be wasteful. There I take the point of the hon. Member opposite in advocating that boys from this school should go to Dartmouth. He has obviously got the wrong idea, because the entries to the two establishments are practically coincident. The entry age to the Royal Hospital School is 11–13 and for Dartmouth 13. It is, therefore, impracticable to go from Holbrook to Dartmouth. What the hon. Member may have had in mind was to go from Holbrook into the special entry scheme, but even so there is a gap of years which Holbrook cannot fill.

Here we reach another point. Reference was made to them going into high grade schools and so on. This orphanage should be for the orphans of poor persons for training for the Navy for entry on the lower deck, and the individuals who are coming into Holbrook for entry as special entry cadets are not the type for which the school was originally intended. We are therefore getting the wrong type of boy entry—the cream of certain types of boys being educated up to a high standard with the idea of producing examination results. And that is where the argument arises that it is too "posh" a school. It should be for the poorer type who cannot get a fair crack of the whip in ordinary life.

I now come to the advisory committee, which consists of seven members. Naturally, one would expect to find some Admiralty officials there. Taking them in reverse order, there are the Director of Greenwich Hospital, the Director of the Education Department, and the Director of Naval Training. Then we get four educationists, the Director of Education for Cambridge, the Secretary to East Suffolk Education Committee, of whom I have no complaint to make. The last two are the Headmaster of Berkhampstead, and the Chairman, the Headmaster of Harrow, to whom reference has been made. I am not so much concerned with the Headmaster of Berkhampstead, although I cannot see what his knowledge and experience of a school of this character are, or what contributions he can make on this committee, as the boys are not going from Holbrook to his type of school. But the individual I am considerably concerned about is the Headmaster of Harrow, and why he should be the Chairman of this advisory committee. So far as I know, the Headmaster of Harrow has had no experience of this type of school. It does not tie up with Harrow. The whole thing is completely out of proportion. The Headmaster of Harrow ought never to have been appointed. It ought to have been someone with experience of secondary and technical school education, who could advise the Admiralty on the school as such, not one with experience and knowledge completely removed from it. The main criticism I make of the advisory committee, however, is that there is no one to represent the interests of the orphans. That is an omission which ought to be rectified forthwith.

The shortage of candidates for entry is a special problem, which requires investigation. Before 1914, this school accommodated and educated 1,000, and had a long waiting list. But today they cannot get more than 500, yet we have just had a second world war. If we cannot get orphans from the Navy and the Mercantile Marine just after a world war, what is going to be the position in 12 years' time, when the last war orphan has passed the entry age? In 12 years' time there must automatically be a further reduction in numbers. Is it the case that with the increased orphans' allowances and the attitude throughout the country that, instead of putting boys into institutions, parents and guardians wish to keep them at home? That is the policy of the country, not to put them into institutions. Is it the case that the parents and guardians of these orphans prefer to keep them at home and have them educated in the schools of the country? If so, this is fundamental to the future of the school, certainly when there are no more orphans for whom they can cater.

The Admiralty have two means of educating these orphans. One is at this Royal Hospital school and the other is in schools and institutions at the expense of Greenwich Hospital funds. The question I would ask the Financial Secretary is what factors decide where a boy should be educated? Why should "A" go to Holbrook, and "B" remain at home and be educated at one of the schools of the country at Greenwich Hospital expense? Why not educate all these boys at schools in the country at Greenwich Hospital expense? Then all this money, at present spent on buildings and staff, could be devoted to education. That is a matter which requires thorough investigation. On my present knowledge arid information I would advocate that, unless the school can accommodate the full numbers of the proper type, the Admiralty should give serious consideration to closing this school down, in order to educate these boys in the schools of the country. There is a shortage of buildings of this type for various things such as T.B. hospitals, and so on. The Minister of Health may be keenly interested in a building of this nature, particularly as it has a home farm. It may be a far better T.B. hospital than an orphanage at 'his stage in our national development.

To sum up: I would advocate that the Admiralty should seriously consider the reconstitution of the advisory committee, in particular the question of getting a chairman who has knowledge of a school of this type, and someone to represent the orphans. As we have been informed that the present headmaster is to go and a new one will be selected, he should be a man of far greater vision with an interest in the boys as boys, rather than in examination results as such. Given the right man, it may be possible to carry the school on for another decade or so, even if it then has to close down, and during that period it may do good work. Then there is the question of getting the right entries and, in particular, there should be an investigation into the running of the school as regards the large staff employed, and the high cost. The reason for shortage of candidates for what appears to be a good school with a good education, if it were properly run, should be considered.

1.27 p.m.

Major Bruce (Portsmouth, North)

There are one or two questions I would like to put to the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty. On turning to page two of the Statement of Income and Expenditure, one finds with considerable pleasure that the estimates for the year under review show that there will be an estimated balance of income over expenditure to the tune of £15,002 as compared with a £146 deficit for last year. I am sure that is extremely welcome, as one likes to see a fund of this kind on a sound financial basis. But, on looking through the reasons for this, one observes that Greenwich Hospital pensions to seamen and marines, including Greenwich Hospital, Canada, pensions, pensions to widows, and education of children, has declined from £71,191 last year to a figure for this year of £32,391. It appears on the face of it—I shall be glad to be corrected if the Financial Secretary has other figures available—that the amount payable to Greenwich Hospital pensioners is due for a decline during the year we are now considering.

The amount of pensions which have been payable to seamen and marines under this scheme has always been on the small side. In fact, from my own city of Portsmouth, which contains a large number of Greenwich Hospital pensioners, I often receive representations, many of which are considerably justified, for an increase in the rate of some of the pensions that have already been granted. We are living in a time when, quite rightly, some of the pension rates which have been in force up to the present are being revised owing to the increase in the cost of living. It appears that some of the pensions granted to seamen and marines are also due for up-grading. I observe that when we come to pensions to officers and grants towards the education of children, the expenditure for the current year is to be £700 more than in the last year. I should be glad if the Financial Secretary would give some reasons for this. The statement we have before us is, of course, a statement of estimated income and expenditure. But it would be useful to the House to know, if possible, exactly how the capital position of the Fund stands. It would be useful to know what accummulated balance of income does, in fact, remain in the Fund at the present time, because it may well be that we shall have to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to increase the benefits payable under the Greenwich Hospital Pensions Scheme in order that the outgoings may more adequately absorb the income it has accumulated.

I am pleased to note that interest on British Government securities is due for a rise, according to the estimates, of no less than £10,000 during the year. With the national credit standing as high as it does now, we may anticipate that that figure may increase even further under a Labour Administration. If that is so, one requires some information as to how such increases in the future are likely to be utilised. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give us some information as to whether it will be possible for him to increase some of the pensions now being paid at the moment, and as to what he intends to do with the balance available in the Fund, if it is not, in fact, possible for him to do so.

I would ask him how long it is intended to maintain the rule that people in receipt of public assistance relief are not eligible to receive a Greenwich Hospital pension. Many people who have served our country very well, and who have sufficient length of service and all the other qualifications to entitle them to come under the Greenwich Hospital Pensions Scheme, are, I am informed, ineligible for pensions once they come under public assistance relief. I should be grateful if I could be corrected on that point. Though no responsibility can attach to this Government for that state of affairs, I feel that if any measure of relief could be afforded to those people who, I repeat, have served their country well, it will be much appreciated. I hope that my hon. Friend may be able to give an answer to some of these questions.

1.33 p.m

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale)

The last time this subject came up for discussion it was also one o'clock, but then it was one o'clock in the morning; fortunately it is now one o'clock in the afternoon. I have a number of points to answer, and I shall be as brief as possible, but not as brief as I should have liked to be, since there are a large number of questions. Before dealing with the school, let me first take the question of accounts, starting with the questions raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce). The total capital account is roughly £7 million.

With regard to his other point, which overlaps that made by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas), Greenwich Hospital pensions have dropped from £71,000 to £32,000—not for a bad but for an excellent reason. It is because my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has taken over a large part of the work we are doing. Roughly £40,000 which was previously contributed by us, is now being contributed by the Treasury and that does not mean a reduced pension. As to what will be done with the money that is available, I should be anticipating future events were I to talk on that subject, so I say no more about it. As regards receipts, about which the hon. Member for Hereford asked, the interest on loans this year fell by £21,000. As hon. Members know, interest rates generally are tending to fall, and Greenwich Hospital Fund reflected that tendency. Further, last year, Greenwich Hospital had a windfall of £14,000 from the Mayfair Estate, who were apparently in arrears with their payments for a considerable number of years. That windfall has, of course, not been repeated this year.

I now turn to the question of the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay). He asked what had happened about the headmaster. What happened was that some months ago the headmaster expressed a wish to the Admiralty to seek another appointment. The Admiralty said that they had no objection to this, but after careful consideration they felt that it was necessary to fix a terminating date to his appoint- ment of 31st December, 1946, as we could not be in the position of having the headmaster seeking another appointment, not knowing when he might get it, and finding ourselves unable to take steps until he had got it.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) raised a large number of points, with which I shall try to deal as best I can. He has great knowledge of this school, and many of his suggestions were of a most constructive nature. First, with regard to the cost of the school, I admit it is high, though this year's increases are due to facts that can easily be explained, namely, the increases in prices and wages which have been taking place in large parts of the country quite outside Holbrook. Already, we have set up a committee to inquire into the financial position of the school. That action was taken some time ago, and the Director of Greenwich Hospital will be the chairman of this committee. I hope we shall be able to get some useful results from the inquiry. It is a difficult school to run, from a financial point of view. As my hon. and gallant Friend rightly said, it is a school which was built on a very lavish scale. Neither this Government, nor indeed the previous Government, were responsible for that. For reasons, which seemed best to those who built it, it was built on this scale, and there it is; we have it. But we have not, as my hon. and gallant Friend maintained, thrown money away on bricks and mortar in recent years. Since 1935 there have been two exceptions, namely, a water tower, which had to be constructed, as otherwise there was no adequate water supply, and air raid precautions, which were naturally necessary in view of the war. Apart from those exceptions, the total expenditure since 1935 has been 1,034. I think that that sum on bricks and mortar since 1935 is not excessive.

I will take some other points. First, there is the question of the cost per pupil. It is true that there are not as many pupils as we should like; we want to get more. It is true to say that not more than 60 or 7o boys can be properly supervised in a house, and the opinion of the advisory committee is that it should be 60. The number in each house is 52, and it is rising. The hon. Member for Hereford asked what was the number of boys this year. The average number for the year is 540. During the war numbers were reduced for air raid precautions purposes. We now want to see them increased as rapidly as possible. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Hull asked about fees. I am glad to inform him that no fees are payable. I am sorry if the particular document he has in his hands has not been altered accordingly, but it is a fact that no fees are now payable: I can state that that is so because I gave instructions myself that no fees should be paid. I think hon. Members will agree that it would be bad to have too high a standard of education in a school to which we must be certain that all the people for whom we are bound to provide by the charity—that is, all the orphans—are going. We do not want to start running the school as a secondary school of such a standard that the boys whom we must look after cannot go there. Many of them are very able and can reach a high standard of secondary education, but we want to be certain that the boys can go, and if it is found that the standard is too high, it must be adapted to these boys, because they are our primary responsibility.

Mr. K. Lindsay

Will the hon. Gentleman answer this question? This is crucial. Is there any change in policy? Is the fact that the headmaster is going connected with the change of policy? What does the hon. Gentleman mean? Does he mean that these children are not capable of absorbing the best possible education in the country? If he does, that is a strange doctrine.

Mr. Dugdale

I do not think that it is an altogether strange doctrine. I think there are some children who are not capable of passing all the examinations necessary to reach the highest secondary schools. I think that is a point with which the hon. Member will agree. If there are such children, some may be orphans for whom we have to provide. Therefore, we must be quite certain that we do not exclude those children by having a standard which is too high. That is all I mean and I think it is very important. There has not been a change in policy but I will say that there is, if the hon. Gentleman likes, a slight change in bias to the extent that we do now attach more importance, perhaps, to the question of being quite certain that we take all the orphans. By experience we have dis coverd if the standard was raised too high we would not be able to take so many of them, and we may find it necessary to have a standard of education which is rather lower than before. When I say "lower," I mean it will be a very good standard, an admirable standard. After all, there are a large number of modern schools in the country, and also technical schools, which are admirable. We hope to have a combination of modern and secondary education more on the lines of the multilateral school. However, we have not made a final decision upon that point. I wish to make that perfectly clear. H.M. Inspectors have visited the school and while that is the direction in which our minds are tending to move, naturally if the report of the Inspectors is of a different character—I have not yet seen it—we may alter our views. We await that report and until we get it I cannot say precisely what future policy will be.

Mr. Lindsay

Then it is still an open question? My hon. Friend will not be prejudiced towards the view that orphans necessarily have a lower intelligence quota?

Mr. Dugdale

No, Sir. I have not said so. I wish to make it clear. For example, take Members of Parliament. It may be that an examination might be fixed which certain Members of Parliament might not pass. It may be that if we wanted all Members to pass that examination we should have to lower the standard. I am not casting any aspersion whatever upon orphans.

Mr. Guy (Poplar, South)

It would not be true to say that by reason of the fact that the headmasters of Harrow and Berkhamsted are members of the advisory committee, the standard is regarded as being much higher?

Mr. Dugdale

No. It cannot be said that the standard is higher because the headmaster of Harrow is a member of the advisory committee. That has nothing whatever to do with the point. The hon. and gallant Member for East Hull made some very strong criticism of the advisory committee. I would say that advisory committees can be very useful. They can give expert advice and this committee from time to time has given very useful advice indeed. It is a matter for consideration, which has not yet been decided, whether it might not be better to have a committee which had limited powers more on the lines of the management committee of an aided school. If that were done there would have to be a complete reorganisation of the committee which would be put on a different basis. There again, we await the inspectors' report. I cannot say what will be done, because I think it would be wrong to make a cut and dried decision here and now, in view of the fact that the inspectors are just about to present their report.

Commander Pursey

Will the hon. Gentleman consider adding a representative who would have the interests of the orphans in mind, in addition to the present Members?

Mr. Dugdale

I will bear that in mind, if there is to be any reorganisation of the committee but, as we have not yet decided that there will be reorganisation, I think it is a little premature to decide who the Members should be. I agree that much needs to be done. We have already started. I cannot possibly agree that the school should be scrapped. It may be that the cost is high and that the buildings are too grand but, in conclusion, I would like to contrast this with another type of education for orphans which we have had described recently in the Curtis Report. Here is a school for orphans where the criticism is not that they are ill-used, ill-clothed and ill-fed but that the school is on a scale which is too grand. Frankly, I would rather have criticism of this kind than the other.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved: That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation for the year ending 31rst March, 1947, which was presented on 5th June, be approved.