HC Deb 22 July 1957 vol 574 cc169-79
The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Christopher Soames)

I beg to move, That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation for the year ending on 31st March, 1958, which was laid before this House on 25th June, be approved. It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak at the end of the debate, in order that I may then answer any points which hon. Members wish to raise.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Steele (Dunbartonshire, West)

I am very pleased indeed to see the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty here this evening, because I am sure that he will be interested in this debate. This year, the debate has returned to the form which it took in previous years until last year, when the Parliamentary Secretary, when moving the Estimate, indicated that he wished to speak first, as he had an important policy decision to announce to the House. He told us last year about the mounting expenditure, and the fact that the necessary maintenance and renewal work on the Royal Holbrook School was being held up. With some reluctance, he announced to the House that it had been decided that parents would have to make a contribution towards the school, which meant that fees would be asked for this school for the first time.

Naturally, we should like to ask one or two questions this year about what has happened. First, the hon. Gentleman told us that one of the things that was necessary was the reorganisation of the kitchens. He said that this work had to be put in hand, and perhaps he can now tell us if, with the extra money that is is being made available, something is to be done about it.

In regard to fees, I have read with some interest the debate that took place last year, and I must confess that the answers given to some of my hon. Friends were not too clear too me and not altogether satisfactory. That applied particularly to the replies to some of the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), who is here this evening. The calculations which my hon. Friend made last year I have examined with care, and I think we ought to have some further explanation this year.

The Parliamentary Secretary said that, in the first year, that is to say, not a complete year, they expected to receive about £500. I should like to know how much was received, because the Parliamentary Secretary went on to say that in a full year he estimated that between £5,000 and £7,000 would be received for fees. I tried to work out the estimate from the White Paper. Unfortunately, it is very difficult. In page 5, we read: Grant by the Ministry of Education and fees payable in respect of boys in the School. £15,485". I do not know whether the Ministry of Education grant is higher this year than last, but I hardly expect that it will be.

Last year it was £1,485, which, I understand, was based on a grant of 45s. per year for each boy. If that is the case and that was the Ministry of Education grant for the year which we are discussing, it means that the estimate of £14,000 for fees is twice as much as the Parliamentary Secretary estimated would be the return for a full year. We ought to know why the estimate is shown at so high a figure. Perhaps in a future year, when the White Paper is published, the grant from the Ministry of Education and the fees which it is estimated will be paid by the boys can be shown separately, so that we may know exactly where we stand.

If the Parliamentary Secretary can give us a little information about the experience of the school I think we shall be grateful. What about the sons of serving sailors? Is the full £72 being paid by parents, or is it all being paid from the Government Vote? Can we have a little information about how the money is being obtained? Could the hon. Member tell us whether the local authorities are co-operating, how many boys are being assisted by the local authorities and how many are being paid for by the parents? Could we be told whether any boy has been unable to take his place because the money is not available? That is important. We want to know exactly how the scheme has been working and whether the decision that fees should be asked for the first time is in any way denying the right of any boy to attend this school who, otherwise, might have been able to attend it.

I wish to ask one other question, merely for information, and it concerns an item in page 3 which intrigued me. I have done some research into it. It reads: Parliamentary Grant: Receipt from the Consolidated Fund in lieu of Merchant Seamen's Sixpences Act, 32 & 33 Vict, c. 44–4,000. I thought I would do some research to see what this was all about. I looked up the original Act, and the proceedings in 1869 when it was passed, and I found a very interesting speech by a Mr. Liddell. He informed the House that the Bill recognised for the first time the claim of merchant seamen to some share in the emoluments of the Hospital. He thought that that was right and reasonable, and went on to say how satisfied he was with the finances of the Hospital and how flourishing they were.

As I read his speech, I discovered that in 1869 the Government were, in fact, taking away a grant of £16,000 a year which they had been giving and that one of the speaker's complaints was that, under the Bill, the School was being asked to do more with less money. That is, perhaps, not anything new on the part of Governments.

The other interesting thing was that he said that a committee had been set up to examine the Greenwich Hospital and one of his complaints was that, by the Bill, the Board of Admiralty was doing exactly opposite to what the committee had reported. Again, that is nothing unusual for the Board of Admiralty.

This sixpence was paid by merchant seamen each month from their wages and went to the Hospital to enable them to get some benefit there. This £4,000 which the Government agreed to pay out of the Consolidated Fund was in lieu of those sixpenses. The year 1869 is a long time ago, and the interesting thing is that the £4,000 which the Government agreed to pay out of the Consolidated Fund remains at that figure in 1957. This sum was, in fact, paid to assist the merchant seamen.

The Parliamentary Secretary might look at that. I have tried to work it out for myself, and as far as I can measure, the present-day equivalent sum would be £14,000. I hear an hon. Friend say that it would be a lot more. I was disappointed myself, but my calculations, which were examined by the statisticians in the Library, assured me that £14,000 would do. If the Parliamentary Secretary can convince the Treasury that it should raise the £4,000 to £14,000 I think that we should all be a bit happier. There is no reason why it should not do so. Those are the two points that I put to the Parliamentary Secretary and perhaps he will be able to say what he thinks about them.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart (Fulham)

I should like to add just a few words to what my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele)has said about the Royal Holbrook School. Last year we regretted the fact that the school, at which there had never before been any fee paying of any kind was to introduce such a system; that the system of completely free schooling was passing away. The Under-Secretary of State for Air then said that he joined with us in lamenting its passing. Well, we are still lamenting it. If any attempts were made to soften the hearts of either the Board of Admiralty or of the Ministry of Education they were, apparently, unsuccessful, and the system of fee paying is now being planted on this school.

I followed with interest my hon. Friend's calculations, and I would agree with him that we ought, in the returns, to have stated separately the Ministry of Education contribution—abjectly small though it is—and the amount paid in fees. I agree that, from the information that we have, the amount paid in fees is already in the neighbourhood of £14,000 although, if I have the matter aright, it applies only to boys who have recently come into the school. Whether or not that is so, we have this fact.

There are 640 to 650 boys in the school. A total amount in fees of £14,000 is being paid. That means that the average amount being paid per boy is £25 and not all the boys, I believe, come into this fee-paying scheme yet. The maximum sum that any parent was to be asked to pay was £72, and it is expected from what we were told last year that in time the total amount collected in fees will be not £14,000, but £30,000. That will be getting on for £50 per boy on the average, which means that quite a lot of them will be paying up to the full maximum of £72 a year.

In the light of those figures, it would be interesting to know how many of the boys now at the school are paying fees at all, how many of them are paying the maximum scale and what is the experience so far gained of the way in which the scale is working out? Is it, as my hon. Friend asked, precluding any boys from going to the school who would otherwise have gone there, or is it imposing really unreasonable hardship on the parents who are just managing, and perhaps no more, to be able to find the fees?

Another point that I should like to raise is this. We were told last year, as part of the consolation for what was happening, that in a number of cases the local education authorities would pay the fees. I never quite see how one achieves an economy with public money and takes a step forward in the battle against inflation by causing the ratepayers to find it, instead of the taxpayers, but that is by the way. We were told that the local authorities, in a number of cases, would pay the fees. I have two questions to ask, one of which I think the hon. Gentleman will be able to answer and the other I am not quite so sure about.

What I think the hon. Gentleman will be able to answer is this. In how many cases are the local education authorities paying either the whole or part of the fees that are charged in respect of these boys? Could we possibly be told if there are any local education authorities which have proved unwilling to pay fees for any boys for whom they are responsible who are going to this school?

The other question is this, and perhaps it lies a little outside the hon. Gentleman's province. We have recently been provided with the Government's proposals relating to local government finance, one result of which will be that if any local education authority, once those proposals are in force, elects to pay fees of this kind instead of getting a 60 per cent. Government grant, the whole cost will have to fall on the rates. Does the hon. Gentleman think that if the proposals on local government finance go forward local authorities will be more or less likely to pay the fees for the boys going to this school?

10.28 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis (Edinburgh, East)

I join with my hon. Friends in asking one or two questions about the Royal Holbrook School, because I have had an interest in this school for a great many years. In fact, for about fifteen years I was responsible for sending boys to this school, and I am bound to say that what has been happening during the last ten years causes a considerable amount of concern that there is a departure from the intentions of the original founders of the school.

I remember quite well the debates that took place immediately after the war, when the higher standards were introduced in this school, and the same questions were asked then as my hon. Friends have asked now about fee paying, namely, whether this would bar any boy who is entitled to go to that school from doing so. We had the answer which, no doubt, my hon. Friend will get tonight, that no boy will be barred from going to that school. But in my practical experience of boys going to that school, because of the higher standards that were set for entrance to this school, boys whom the committee with which I was associated would have sent to the school were not sent. That indicated to me quite plainly that certain boys were not enjoying the rights that they should have enjoyed at the school.

It seems to me that with the introduction of fee paying to the school, that departure from principle will be extended. I cannot imagine education authorities paying fees for boys who do not measure up to certain standards, and in course of time these standards will be raised still higher. What is happening here is the same thing as has occurred concerning a vast number of schools which were founded in past centuries for the children of poor parents.

The original foundation of the school, which goes back considerably into history, was for the care and maintenance and education of children of seamen, naval and mercantile, and especially the orphans and sons of poor parents. Those are the children for whom it was intended. I cannot see how the present developments will lead to the school being kept for that purpose. In fact, as I have indicated, my own experience was that when the standards were raised after the war, that did not happen. I am very much afraid that with the introduction of fee-paying, the departure from that principle will be much greater.

Commander J. W. Maitland (Horncastle)

Can the hon. Member say in how many cases it did not happen?

Mr. Willis

I was not responsible for sending hundreds of boys, but the committee with which I was associated and for whom I happened to be secretary did send to the school each year a few orphaned boys who had reached the age of 11 and for whom it could no longer cater.

For many years, until the end of the war, these boys went almost automatically to the school, no matter what educational standard they had reached. After the new standards were introduced, however, we had to find other outlets for these boys. We could not send them there and we had to send them to one of the other naval orphanages which catered for boys of 11.

Commander Maitland

indicated dissent.

Mr. Willis

The hon. and gallant Member shakes his head. That is practical experience.

Commander Maitland

Very interesting.

Mr. Willis

Of course it is, but that is what has been happening. That is a process which, I fear, will develop more and more.

I cannot imagine education authorities paying considerable fees for boys to go to this school unless they measure up to certain standards. As soon as we commence to introduce these qualifications for entry to the school and make it more difficult, we depart from the original purposes of the foundation.

In that connection, I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies, can give information about the number of orphans now being admitted to the school, the number of entrants with one parent alive and the number with both parents living. We might also be given information concerning the total number of orphans at the school as well as the number who entered last year.

In asking for this information, I appreciate that developments have taken place during the past twenty-five years and that the demand for assistance for orphans has to some extent diminished as a result of the Welfare State, which, I agree, creates a problem for the managers of the school. Nevertheless, we ought to be told what is happening, so that we might judge what I fear to be the inevitable process of the departure of the school from the original purposes for which it was set up.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Soames

We have had an interesting debate, and I am grateful to the hon. Members who have taken part for raising the various points that have been made. I know that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis)would agree with me that there is no difference on each side of the House in the way we feel about the imposition of fees at Holbrook School. Of course we regret it, but whoever is responsible for the administration of this great and important trust is responsible to the trust as a whole, of which the school forms part. It was, of course, with regret that it was decided that it was necessary to impose fees. My right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Air explained the matter in some detail last year and I do not want to go into all the arguments, but we regret as much as does the hon. Member that it was found necessary.

The standard of entry will not be altered as a result of this imposition of fees. That there is greater competition now arises from the fact that the number of applicants exceeds the number of places that are available. There is inevitable competition, but I can assure the hon. Member that preference is definitely and deliberately given to cases in which there are compassionate grounds for the boy to enter the school. The question of fee paying does not in any way interfere with the selections made by the Selection Board. The hon. Member asked me how many orphans there were in the school. Last year, there were seven with both parents dead. 73 whose fathers' death was attributable to service, and a further 46 whose fathers' death was due to other causes, making a total of 126.

Mr. Willis

In the school?

Mr. Soames

Yes—orphans in the school last year.

Commander Maitland

Can my hon. Friend say definitely whether boys who were orphans, and had the right to go to the school, were refused admission?

Mr. Soames

I certainly have no record or any knowledge of such a case, but I will look into the matter and let my hon. and gallant Friend know.

I come now to the main points raised by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele)and the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart). They will appreciate that this fee-paying system has been in operation for only two terms and not for a full year and that it is difficult to assess the full effects. It is natural, however, that hon. Members should take this, their only opportunity until this time next year, of raising the matter in debate. I will endeavour to give them all the information I can, based, as they will understand, on the experience of only two terms.

I am glad to be able to inform the House that the system has worked smoothly and satisfactorily. We are grateful that so many local education authorities in a large number of counties have been able to give assistance to parents. I could not give the numbers of local education authorities which have or have not refused, but I can say that in the relatively few cases where assistance has not been forthcoming the trust has found ways and means of avoiding hardship. It is true to say—as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East predicted that I would say—that no boy has been turned down through the inability of his parents to pay the fees.

It is understandable that the different local education authorities may have different ideas and different conceptions of the needs concerned. So, indeed, might the trust if there came up a case of a boy to whom a local education authority had not felt able to provide a grant. But the important point, about which the House would wish to be satisfied, as was foreseen by my right hon Friend when he explained the introduction of fee-paying last year, is that no boy has been turned away because of the inability of his parents to pay the fees.

The question of the kitchen was raised. I am looking forward to visiting the school on Saturday, and I intend to look at the kitchen. I understand that it needs considerable improvements. The fact that we have been able to raise a sum of money for two terms has not enabled us yet to tackle that problem. It is appreciated that the work needs doing. It is one of the things that need doing in the school, and it was one of the reasons why it was necessary to impose fees. So far, the extra money found by way of fees has gone to meet the increased cost of running the school and has not been devoted to structural or other improvements.

The hon. Members for Fulham and Dunbartonshire, West referred to the estimate of £14,000—that is, in fact, the figure; the grant from the Ministry of Education is the same as it was last year—which compares with the figure, of between £5,000 and £7,000 which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend in his speech last year.

I would point out that the reason why that very conservative estimate was given by my right hon. Friend was that we did not know—it was not known at the time—in how many cases it would be necessary for the trust itself to provide money for the schooling of boys in order to implement the pledge that no hardship would fall on a boy. It was a deliberately conservative estimate. We had no experience of it, and we could not tell to what extent the load would fall upon the Trust. In fact, it has worked out, with the co-operation of local authorities, that the receipts are considerably greater than what was intentionally a very conservative estimate.

Reference was made by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West to the £4,000 which dates back to 1869. It is a very interesting point. I find it hard to believe that a figure of £14,000 now would represent the fall in the value of money since 1869. If that is so, the cost of living cannot have gone up much recently. I found the general conception put forward by the hon. Gentleman most interesting, and I will certainly have the matter examined. I cannot hold out any assurance that we shall be successful in getting an increase in the Parliamentary grant, but there is no doubt about the validity of his argument that the £4,000 of 1869 is worth a lot less than that in terms of real money today. But I will certainly look into the matter.

We have had a most interesting debate. I hope that I have been able to cover the majority of the points which were raised, and that the House will see fit to approve the estimate.

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 on 31st March, 1958, which was laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.