GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION

HC Deb 05 June 1967 vol 747 cc553-74

10.14 a.m.

The Under Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Maurice Foley)

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, 1968, which was laid before this House on 11th May, be approved. This is the first occasion that I have had the privilege of moving a Motion of this kind. In doing so, I wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade and to my noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works, who have guided the fortunes and have so diligently looked after the affairs of Greenwich Hospital School and the associated activities covered by the Foundation.

As the House will know, the hospital meets expenses and provides its benefits from its own income. The estimates show how the income will be obtained and how it will be spent. They do not show the capital transactions but these are included in the annual accounts of income and expenditure which are presented to Parliament with the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

It will be seen from page 2 of the estimates that the income has topped the £½ million mark. This was forecast by my hon. Friend the then Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy in the debate on the estimates last year. It will be noted, too, that the income from other property has doubled while interest and dividends have gone down considerably. I assure hon. Members that this is not due to a Rachmanlike attitude over rents nor to a bad choice of City investments. It reflects a policy decision, which was reached on the advice last year of the Greenwich Hospital Panel on Investments, that we should increase our holding of commercial properties. As will be seen, this has been done most successfully, since the net increase in income by switching in this manner has been £24,000. I should like to pay tribute, as my predecessors have done, to the work of this advisory panel, whose members give their services free to Greenwich Hospital.

It is well that the income has increased, because the costs of running and developing the school are high. Moreover, it has been found possible to give higher pensions to the widows of ratings, so that there are currently 645 of these pensions in issue at an annual cost of £31,500. This compares favourably with 333 pensions at about one-third of the cost in the year 1959–60.

It has also been possible to keep the fees at £120 per annum and to ensure that no one pays more within this figure of £120 than he or she can afford without hardship, although the estimated cost per boy for 1967–68, as indicated on page 6 of the estimates, is £464.

I turn briefly to the school. That the school is in good heart can be realised from the fact that in the General Certificate of Education examinations held in 1966, 130 boys gained between them 38 subject passes at advanced level and 424 at ordinary level. The Certificate of Secondary Education was taken by another 42 boys, who between them gained 272 subject grades 1 to 4, including 27 in grade 1. On these results of the senior boys, five gained places at university and another three gained admission to teacher-training colleges or to colleges of technology for degree courses, while another four gained naval cadetships. Of former pupils, three gained entry to university and another a naval commission in the medical branch.

Of the 66 boys leaving the school to commence their careers in 1966, 13 entered the Royal Navy and five the Merchant Navy. Thus 27 per cent. adopted a seafaring life. Five of the remainder entered service in Her Majesty's Dockyards and another five joined the Army, the Royal Air Force or the police.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) and to the hon. Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Humphrey Atkins), who represent the House on the Committee, for their interest and help in all matters pertaining to the Foundation and the school. I shall listen with great interest to the debate and endeavour later to deal with the points which are raised.

10.20 a.m.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins (Merton and Morden)

I welcome the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for Defence to these debates, of which he is now in charge, and join in his tribute to his predecessors, particularly to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) who took such an interest in the affairs of Greenwich Hospital not only when he was Under-Secretary but for many years before, when he served on the committee of the school. We are glad that the hon. Gentleman is now in charge of the school's affairs and we hope that he will be for as long as his Government remain in office, which, of course, we hope will not be very long.

I must comment on the ineptitude of the managers of Government business in having this debate today. I do not object to its being held on a morning, but of all mornings that of 5th June was the worst possible one to choose. The reason, as the Government know perfectly well, is that the Management Committee of the Royal Hospital School, of which the hon. Gentleman is chairman and of which I and the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) have the honour to be members, meets three times a year and only one meeting, that in the summer term, can be held at the school.

Because many distinguished and busy people are on the Committee, these arrangements have to be made some time ahead and it was decided months ago that the summer term meeting should be held at the school this morning—

Commander Harry Pursey (Kingston upon Hull, East)

I should like to be clear as to whether the hon. Gentleman's criticism, which I support, is of the decision to have either the debate or the other meeting today or of holding this debate on a Monday morning.

Mr. Atkins

My criticism is that, of all Monday morning sittings of the year, this is the most inconvenient, because the Management Committee meeting had been fixed for today. Because so many other members of the Committee are extremely busy, it is not possible easily to arrange the meeting at the school for another day. The managers of Government business knew this but said that the debate would nevertheless be held. Of course Parliament's claims should be paramount, but the Government ought to be able to organise their affairs better than this—although we are getting accustomed to the fact that they cannot, so perhaps we should not be surprised.

In the corresponding debate last year, I suggested that, because of the pressure on Parliamentary time, we should consider holding these debates either less frequently or somewhere else. Since then, of course, morning sittings have been introduced, which have theoretically eased pressure on time, but I should like to know what thought has been given to my suggestion and whether it is proposed to pursue it or whether the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues consider that morning sittings have solved the problem.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the remarkable increase in income of Greenwich Hospital and I see that the estimate is for an increase of nearly 10 per cent. which, in these difficult days, reflects great credit on those who advise the hospital on its investments. The greatest increase has come from the switch of investments from British Government securities, debenture and ordinary stocks into property. I was glad that the hon. Gentleman said that this was not the result of a "Rachmanlike" approach by the hospital, and I take it, therefore, that the increase is almost entirely the purchase of new property rather than the revising of rents on existing property. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would confirm that.

The income from fees at the school shows an increase from £74,000 to £79,000, yet there is no increase in the rate of fees. These were established at £120 on 1st January last year and there has been no change since. How, therefore, is there an increase in the estimate for the ensuing year?

The most notable feature of the expenditure is the alteration in the figures for pensions to officers, seamen, marines and widows. There is a notable drop, of about 25 per cent., in the pensions payable to officers. Why is that? Is it because fewer officers are applying for pensions, rather than a deliberate act of policy to restrict the sums payable to make them more readily available to seamen, marines and widows?

The figure for headquarters administration is virtually static and reflects considerable credit on all those concerned. The cost is about 6 per cent., which compares favourably with the cost of administration of many other charitable organisations. I congratulate those concerned.

The school represents, of course, the bulk of the hospital's work. As to its size, we see on page 6 that the number of boys enrolled has been steadily increasing over the last six years and that the figure for 1965–66 was 679 boys. At the beginning of the spring term this year, there were 697 boys on the roll. Is it intended steadily to increase the number of boys or is there a particular target? If the latter, what is it?

The hon. Gentleman gave figures about educational successes achieved at the school, for which I am sure that we would all like to congratulate the headmaster and his staff. However, is it not true that the school has been developing as a good school should over the years in accordance with modern trends and that, in particular, there has been considerable recent expansion of the sixth form, with many more boys staying on longer for higher qualifications? We should be grateful for some idea not only of how the sixth has expanded in recent years but of the plans for it to do so over the next few years, which would show the House and the country how the school is developing in accordance with modern trends.

I have said in these debates before that this is a very fine school and I have no hesitation in saying so again. I have been reinforced in my view as a result of having the privilege of serving on the Management Committee for over a year. I have, in this position, been able to see at close quarters much more of what is being done. This has reinforced my belief that the Royal Hospital School at Holbrook provides an absolutely first-class education for a large number of boys.

The headmaster, his staff and all concerned deserve a great deal of praise for the way in which they run the school. They are fully conscious of the need to change with the changing times and to develop the school. Naturally, the business of the Management Committee, in so far as it can, is to help the school to do that. I like to believe that the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs and I do a little to help the school to do that.

This is a first-class foundation which is providing a first-class education for a large number of boys and our business on the Management Committee is to do all we can to help the school develop in the right way. It will be the wish of the House that we should do this and the House as a whole will wish the school to make still further improvements.

10.31 a.m.

Commander Harry Pursey (Kingston upon Hull, East)

These annual Greenwich Hospital estimates are in respect of an ancient and wealthy nautical charity, the Greenwich Hospital, which, as the White Paper shows, has capital assets of over £4 million and an annual income which has gone up to about £½million. The two main purposes of this charity are pensions by selection for a limited number of retired officers, ratings and widows and, as the Navy's orphanage, the Royal Hospital School at Holbrook, Suffolk, is designed to provide an education for the sons of seafarers—the Mercantile Marine as well as the Royal Navy—with a preference for orphans from the age of 11.

I intend to confine my remarks to the Royal Hospital School, where, as an orphan, I was educated 60 years ago; and afterwards I served in the Navy for 30 years. My first duty, however, as the senior hon. Member present today—and the only one who has taken part in debates on this subject for the last 22 years—is to welcome my hon. Friend the new Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy as a novice to the Greenwich Hospital lobby and also as the Chairman of the Board of Governors of this school.

My second duty, as the senior hon. Member here, is to welcome the introduction of morning sittings, particularly Monday morning sittings, because the subject we are debating is typical of what can be discussed on a Monday morning. This enables us to debate estimates of this kind at the proper time of the day, in the forenoon, instead of late at night or early in the morning—or even at 4 o'clock in the morning, as happened one year.

Last year the hon. Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Humphrey Atkins), in his first speech from the Opposition Front Bench—if not the first speech he ever made on this subject—argued that we ought not … to consume hours in this Chamber debating the affairs of Greenwich Hospital."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd November, 1966; Vol. 735, c. 527.] He made the same argument this morning and pointed out, in particular, that we should debate these estimates less frequently. What is frequent about debating them once a year? What is the alternative? Would the hon. Gentleman prefer us to discuss them once every five or 10 years, or once in a lifetime? Fortunately, the reform of our procedure provides a better opportunity than hitherto during the last two centuries.

The hon. Member for Merton and Morden further argued that we have these debates because of the Greenwich Hospital Act, 1883. That argument is nonsense. He did not appreciate then, and he probably does not appreciate now, that debates about Greenwich Hospital have taken place from 1714 in this House. They probably took place earlier than that, but our records are not as good pre-1714 as after that date. Most of those debates dealt with the accounts.

In the early part of 1727 Greenwich Hospital was debated on no less than four occasions, but I will not go into that today. The subject was included in the King's Speech of that year, and later the estimates and accounts were debated. The reason, of which the hon. Member for Merton and Morden is probably not aware, is that the first naval pensions were Greenwich Hospital pensions, a long time before they became State pensions. Although there was a certain amount of charitable and prize money involved in these pensions, Government funds were also provided. Consequently, it was Government money that was then being discussed—and it is Government money still that is being discussed, because some of the money in these estimates comes from the Treasury.

We see that there is every reason why the estimates of this wealthy nautical charity should continue to be debated annually, as they have been for so many years. After today's debate, which may last for only an hour or so, the hon. Member for Merton and Morden will have no reason to argue against these estimates being debated on the Floor of the House once a year, in the way they have been debated for so long.

It is obvious that those of us who have been closely associated with this school over the years and who have been worried about the deterioration in its use—the misappropriation of the school, to which I shall come later, and the wrong people being entered and the right people being kept out—should wish to continue to bring this matter before Parliament at regular intervals. It is obvious, too, that there is only one object in the mind of the hon. Member for Merton and Morden, and that is secrecy. He wants to stop these debates in the presence of the public and the Press. Have not we every right to attack the wrong-doings of the school?

The hon. Gentleman suggested that this matter should be debated in Committee, where less attention would be given to it, or, alternatively, that it should not be discussed at all. Thus the object of his argument must be that the wrong policies and developments should continue in future, as they have occurred in the last three decades, as I shall show. In other words, the whole suggestion is a phoney one for the sake of secrecy. The object is to prevent people from knowing what is going on.

In previous years far more information has been made available, not only about the school but about other matters. We used to have printed in the Estimates the number of staff and salaries paid. The Navy List used to contain the names of the officers who were receiving Greenwich Hospital pensions. Evedybody was able to know what was going on, but that information is now being withheld.

In recent years the conduct of this orphanage has been a matter of acute controversy, notably between the former Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu), and myself. When debating previous Estimates it has been virtually impossible, even with a diamond drill, to get him to understand the accurate position of this orphanage and the documents relating to the purposes for which it was founded. On many occasions, I have tried to point out the way in which this orphanage was run for centuries and how its use has changed in recent decades to the serious disadvantage of the sons of seafarers and particularly to the disadvantage of orphans. It is to be hoped that we have better luck with the present Under-Secretary of State and that he will be on the side of the poor widows and orphans of ratings rather than on the side of the "brass hats" still serving on a high rate of pay whose sons are accepted into this orphanage at the expense of the sons of ratings.

The school was founded in 1712 at Greenwich, opposite the College, in the buildings now used by the National Maritime Museum. The buildings were given by William and Mary as a tribute to the casualties caused in the wars of those days. The object is clearly on record in the original Charter as the free maintenance and education of the children of seamen both mercantile marine and Royal Navy slain or disabled in … service. Obviously this meant that orphans should have first consideration.

This policy was carried out for over 200 years at Greenwich with a complement of 1,000 boys in the school. The hon. Member for Merton and Morden asked what the target was for Holbrook. He should appreciate that there are only half the number of boys there for which the plans of the school were originally drawn. The original number was 1,120. Therefore, the question he should be asking is: where are the other 500 boys' places; why is not the number 1,000, as it was at Greenwich; and why has not the number been increased to 1,120, which is the figure given in all the estimates and records for the 1930s?

In the early 1930s the Admiralty and Greenwich Hospital came in for a heavy windfall both in land and in money. A wealthy New Zealand sheep owner, saved by the Navy after the ship in which he was a passenger was torpedoed, gave the Admiralty a free gift of no fewer than 680 acres at Holbrook where the school now is and a large sum of money and further sums which accrued from his estate, as shown in the estimates, under the Reade Foundation.

The Admiralty decided to build a new orphanage on the site—but what an orphanage! The original plans were for a complement of 1,120 boys and they were priced at £1 million. As the money was not then available, two of the hostels were cut out and have never been built, in spite of the fact that an appeal was made to the Services by the Poppy Day organisers, experts in appeals, to get the money to build the missing hostels as a memorial to Admiral Jellicoe and Admiral Beatty. But even the Navy would not contribute, knowing the way in which the money was being thrown away in hundreds of thousands of £s at Holbrook. Hence the reason why the present complement is only about half what it should be.

Further large sums of money later became available and the Admiralty had the option of building the missing hostels or a church. The obvious thing to do was to build the hostels in order to accommodate the full complement of boys, particularly as the church services are held only once a week and had been conducted in the gymnasium in which there was adequate accommodation. But, no, the Admiralty decided to build a church and not the two missing hostels. Therefore, we have the most expensive school in the country if not in the world with the largest, most fabulous church, with a large organ which can be played properly only by an organist from an Odeon cinema or Westminster Cathedral, and the largest swimming pool in the country. But all this has been done at the expense of about 500 missing places for the sons, preferably orphans, of seamen, for 30 years.

The school was moved from Greenwich to Holbrook in 1933—three decades ago in a 250-year history. For another 16 or more years the same regulations continued in force. There were seven classes of entry, the first four being the various categories of orphans: first, both parents dead; secondly, father killed on duty; thirdly, father dead, mother living; fourthly, mother dead, father living. The selection was restricted, as it had been throughout, to the sons of lower deck men, namely, the sons of warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, petty officers and men of the Royal Navy and Marines, men of the Royal Naval Reserve—that is, the Mercantile Marine and other seafaring people, which included fishermen and lifeboatmen.

The first breach in these regulations was made in 1949, or less than 20 years ago, when the Admiralty decided to enter commissioned officers' sons at the expense of ratings' sons—because obviously every officer's son must take a place which should be given to a rating's son, preferably an orphan. The result has been that in the last 18 years over 500 commissioned officers' sons have been entered and over 500 ratings' sons and orphans kept out. What a scandal!

What is the present position at the school? The figures vary from term to term, but the following figures give a fair picture. The total number is about 690, or less than two-thirds of the total number of boys who should be there. During one term, 79 fathers of the boys were direct entry cadet officers. None of those boys should ever have been entered. The number of boys of officers commissioned from the lower deck was 157. They should never have been entered. Every one of us who obtained a commission from the lower deck realised that when we left the lower deck we would lose certain privileges and gain certain officers' privileges. One of the privileges which we always understood we would give up was to send our sons to Greenwich Hospital School, because it was reserved for the sons of seamen. The number of ratings' sons was only 458, which means that one-third of the boys were officers' sons as against two-thirds who were ratings' sons. It will not be long before it is two-thirds officers' sons and one-third ratings' sons, and then three-thirds officers' sons and no ratings' sons.

The number of orphans was 84, not 1 in 8. They were made up of 13 direct entry officers' sons, seven sons of commissioned officers from the lower deck and 64 ratings' sons. The number of new entrants during that term was 24. On one occasion, there were 15 sons of ratings, 8 sons of lower deck entry officers and one son of a direct entry officer. Thus, 9 places out of 24 were lost to ratings' sons.

Some cases of ratings' sons being rejected are quite scandalous. For example, the son of a petty officer with a fine school record of work and play and excellent conduct was refused. Two ratings' sons from the same school in a naval port were rejected. The headmasters of all three boys considered they should have been accepted, and, in fact, they were accepted elsewhere for a higher standard of education. Such ratings' sons stand no chance, however, and orphans even less chance, in competition with officers' sons specially prepared for entry.

Officers' sons can be educated at other schools and the full fees paid, so why should not this school be reserved for ratings sons, for whom it was intended and for whom the money has been provided throughout the years? In 1957, another and more serious breach was made in the regulations. This time it was to charge fees for what, for over two centuries, had been an orphanage providing both free maintenance and free education. The first fee was £120 per annum but there have been discussions about that being increased—again to the detriment of the ex-Service rating and the widow.

Every parent or guardian, as he or she should do, endeavours to get the fees reimbursed but the results in this case are quite incredible. "Brass hats" pay nothing out of their own pocket yet the widows of ratings have to pay part of the fees for their sons from their miserable pittances and go out to work to get the money. This is another incredible scandal.

The explanation is that serving officers and ratings can get full reimbursement from the naval education allowance. This served last year to cover 322 cases, or nearly half the complement of the school. What happened to the other half, who were largely the sons of ex-naval men—some of whom are disabled or have been invalided from the Service—or of ratings' widows?

A widow can, of course, apply to her local education authority, but some authorities pay only part and others none at all for education which they claim can be given within their own facilities. This applies particularly to Scotland, so that a limited number of boys are entered from Scotland now, whereas in bygone days a large number of boys at the Greenwich Hospital School came from Scotland. The school makes some reductions but there still remain serious cases of hardship for ratings themselves as well as for widows. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of Defence for the Navy said something to the effect that, in compassionate cases, consideration was given so that no hardship would result. I will take other cases in a moment, but I give him an example now.

Some few years ago, a member of the staff of this House was asked to pay fees of £100 per annum. At that time I was being challenged to produce a case but obviously I was not going to produce that one. Here was an ex-Serviceman on the staff of this House, with a meagre pension and the sort of pay he gets here—which is no concern of mine in this argument—being asked by the wealthy Greenwich Hospital to pay £2 a week to educate his son at the Navy's own school. Yet, the captain of his last ship, drawing £3,000 a year, would have been able to get his own son into the orphanage and educated at no expense to himself.

How can this be justified either in equity or in common sense—in particular, in fairness to ex-naval men and the widows of naval men? In one term, 13 of the 64 ratings widows with orphan sons at Greenwich Hospital had to pay fees. How can Greenwich Hospital, the Admiralty and my hon. Friend say that these charges to widows are justified? There are 13 of them, but my hon. Friend and the Department refuse to give details. They say that these ladies are charged because they are out at work and their income is above a certain level. But how do these widows get the money for their children?

I quote the example of a widow with three children. When she goes out to work, she has to get in another woman to look after the children and to pay that woman out of the meagre income she gets. I see wireless going on in the passing of notes from the civil servants to the Minister, but they cannot bypass this argument, for the figure of 13 widows out of 64 paying fees cannot be disputed. It is on record in HANSARD in reply to a Question I put.

Today's estimate shows that £79,000 is to be charged for fees this year as compared with £74,000 last year. The hon. Member for Merton and Morden rightly asked why, and I support him. If the fees have not been increased—and my hon. Friend did not challenge the hon. Gentleman to say that they had—and numbers have not greatly increased, it means that more parents and possibly more widows are paying fees than hitherto. There can be no other explanation and thus the position about fees being charged is getting worse.

I will concede one point to my hon. Friend to help him in his reply. If he can say that the increase of £5,000 in fees is largely being met by the naval education allowance or by local education authorities, and that there has been no increase in the number of ratings or widows being charged and no increase in the amount of fees already being charged, that will be a satisfactory explanation. Either he or his staff should have come here prepared to give a detailed answer such as I have given to the hon. Member in answer to his question.

What has been the position of widows? One was charged £15 per annum to help make up the sum of £74,000, when that was the figure. Another widow, who had been awarded a war widow's pension of £70 from the Admiralty, then paid it back to Greenwich Hospital for the education of her orphan son at the Navy's own orphanage. Gilbert and Sullivan in "H.M.S. Pinafore" could not have produced a more crazy example than that. Another widow, with, three young children—I have referred to this case before—had to pay £15 per annum. The only equivalent I can give for that is that of stealing the milk from babies' bottles.

What is the rank of the senior officer with a son at Holbrook? I have sent my hon. Friend a list of questions I want him to answer. Last year, his predecessor did not deny that it was a captain. We thus have the incredible position of a "brass hat" with £3,000 per annum having the full school fees reimbursed through the Navy education allowance. He does not pay a penny out of his own pocket. I hope that I will have detailed answers to these questions. If not, I shall put down a series of Questions over the following weeks to get the information. On the other hand, the widow of a rating with only the basic pension of £4 a week has to pay fees into the £4 million capital of Greenwich Hospital.

Is it any wonder that the school does not receive a greater number of applications for entry from ratings' widows and, for that matter, from ex-ratings themselves? This is just what the Admiralty wants. The Admiralty's motto is that it is not looking for orphans. Surely every fair-minded person would argue that no rating's widow should have to pay any fees for the education of a son at the Navy's orphanage. With no help from the naval education allowance, she is dependent on the local education authority, and any fees then outstanding should be wholly paid out of Greenwich Hospital's annual income, which is now £500,000.

The Admiralty's intentions, even under a Labour Government, are obvious to anyone like myself who has knowledge of the present position and of future trends. These are further to reduce the number of ratings' sons, particularly orphans, and to increase the number of officers' sons. The objects are to have the sons of only serving officers and ratings, so that all the fees are paid out of the naval education allowance; secondly, to have more officers' sons, to the exclusion of ratings' sons, until the result is a school for the sons of officers only with no ratings' sons; and, thirdly, for the ratings' orphanage to become a wholly fee-paying school, with fees paid out of the naval education allowance and with nothing out of the pockets of the officers, so making the school a preparatory school for the entry of cadets into the Navy.

Where will that get us? It will take us back to the previous early entry into Dartmouth College from a limited class of parent, whereas the one object of the democratisation of the Navy was to abolish early entry and take the main entry from the special entry schools so as to widen the range of intake. Here the object is to limit the range of intake.

I will now deal with the argument about the development of the school. It was intended to be a secondary school, and the fact that certain developments have taken place to improve it are all to the good, but they should not put it completely out of the ambit of the boys for whom it was originally intended. An easier way to describe that is to say that if a boy of my type and standard were to apply for Greenwich Hospital School today, he would not be able to get in. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] It is no good saying "Nonsense", because I can give dozens of cases. Yet from among my contemporaries came three captains in command of cruisers when the last war started, officers who eventually became admirals.

When it comes to what the school can achieve, there can be no criticism of the previous school at Greenwich and there is no question but that the same class of boy should have entry and be given an education equivalent to that given in other schools. There should have been no question of giving the school the high standards which it has today, with the object of making it a school for the sons of officers only. When the new school was completed, it was said that it was too good for the sons of ratings and should be used for the sons of officers. That proposal could not be steamrollered through right away, and so it has been done piece by piece, with the support and connivance of Labour Party Parliamentary Secretaries.

What should be done? The entry of officers' sons into this seamen's orphanage should be stopped forthwith. Officers are able to enter their sons in any school in the country and to have the full fees paid from the naval education allowance. What more do officers want? Why should the sons of officers—and senior officers at that—be allowed to enter this seamen's orpanhage at the expense of men who have served loyally under them in the Navy and to whom they should owe some loyalty, not competing for places for their sons in this orphanage?

More places would then be available for the sons of serving ratings whose full fees would be paid from the naval education allowance, so that Greenwich Hospital would have no financial problem with those boys. More places would also be available for the sons of ex-Servicemen and particularly for the sons of widows. Surely the Admiralty has a serious responsibility for the education of the sons of disabled men, particularly for orphans. I agree that local education authorities should be asked to reimburse the fees for these boys in whole or in part, but for the orphans of ratings the balance should be paid out of the £500,000 annual income of the hospital. That is one of the objects for which the original funds and the funds built up during the years were provided. In other words, no fees should be charged to the widows of ratings for the education of naval orphans at the navy's orphanage. It is as simple as that.

Whenever social security benefits are discussed in the House, hon. Members on both sides argue that benefits should be awarded where most needed, that is, to the disabled, the widows and orphans. In fact, a plank in the Conservative Party's present policy is to stop the payment of benefits where they are not needed, in order to provide higher grants for the needy. Why should the Admiralty and Greenwich Hospital have precisely the reverse policy for this seamen's orphanage? In particular, why should the Labour Government continue to support a policy by which "brass hats'" sons get free education at this school, whereas ex-matelots and their widows have to pay fees? Surely this position should be reversed as early as possible and the orphanage returned to its original policy, the policy followed for more than 200 years. This was the free maintenance and education of the sons of seamen slain or disabled in the Service. Equity, common-sense and justice demand that this should be done without undue delay.

11.9 a.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson (Stirling and Falkirk Burghs)

I do not want to say very much, but after what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hill, East (Commander Pursey) has said, I must add my voice to the expressions of good wishes towards the school. I should not like the debate to finish with only my hon. Friend's reply to my hon. and gallant Friend's accusations.

My hon. and gallant Friend has started from a premise which he should be leaving by now, the premise that this is an institution and not a school. It was the Navy's orphanage, but I hope that it is not now. I hope that the days of naval orphanages have gone. I hope that even my hon. and gallant Friend will begin to look on this as a school, a place where intelligent and civilised people spend their time educating intelligent and civilised youngsters who will form the next generation, whether they are orphans or not.

My hon. and gallant Friend is at least a testimonial to the worth of the school in his day in the pertinacity which he shows year after year in pursuing his various points, but I do not think that it has usually been found that his cases are borne out. What matters is not whether a certain parent is a widow or a rating. What matters is whether hardship is caused by the imposition of fees. If no hardship is caused, it does not matter that the parent is a rating and not an officer, or a widow and not a married woman. The policy of the school and of the Foundation has been to avoid the imposition of hardship in any individual case. This has been borne out in all the investigations made by the predecessors of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary when individual cases have been taken up at the instance of my hon. and gallant Friend.

I hope that we will get accustomed to the notion that the school has moved from its status as an institution to a new status as an ordinary boarding school. When I say "ordinary boarding school", however, it is not quite that. My hon. and gallant Friend referred to its size. It is, I suppose, after Eton, the biggest boarding school in the country. Eton is very much an outsize school, and I do not know that any of the well-known public schools or other boarding schools come up to the size of the Royal Hospital School.

It is not in every respect, therefore, an ordinary boarding school although in most respects it is. It is a school, not an institution. If it bears traces still of its institutional past, one hopes that those will gradually disappear.

With the hon. Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Humphrey Atkins) and ray hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, I have the pleasure of serving on the Management Committee. The hon. Member for Merton and Morden referred to the growth or development of the sixth form. The sixth form in the school has been so far a comparatively small proportion of the school. The sixth form of many of our major public schools represents, perhaps, half the total number of the boys. At Holbrook, the proportion of the sixth form is nothing like as great as that but it is beginning to move in that direction. This is one of the best of the changes which have taken place.

One of the things which is wanted, in naval or any other kind of education, is a gradual increase in standards, an improvement in the kind of education that is given and encouragement to the boys who feel that there is more and more to be learned at school and that it will be of benefit to them to stay on. That is what is happening all over the country. More and more boys are staying on for their later years in school. It is a healthy sign that this is happening at Holbrook and I hope that it will be encouraged.

I hope, too, that what might be called the parental diversification, of which my hon. and gallant Friend disapproves, will continue. It is not a bad thing that the children of officers and ratings should be educated at the same school. It would be a thoroughly bad thing to have the children of ratings educated separately from the children of officers and officers' children educated saparately from ratings' children. Indeed, one of the comparative weaknesses of the school seems to me to be that it is essentially a school for the children of parents of a more limited professional type connected with the sea.

The school does not take children whose parents are architects, railway porters, farmers or accountants, for example. It does not take the children of parents from a very wide range of occupations, and this is to some extent a weakness. In the careers followed by its pupils, however, the school is gradually breaking into a wide range of occupations. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has explained, one-quarter of the boys still take up seafaring careers, but the range of other careers that they now follow is just as wide as the range of careers followed by boys from any other school. The more that Holbrook becomes like a very good school for a wide range of boys from a wide range of types of home, the better will be its future.

I should like to add my congratulations to those which have been expressed on the developments which have taken place. The headmaster and the staff deserve congratulation. The school is doing a good job. It is making changes in the right direction. I hope that it will continue to do a good job and will be supported in this, and that it will continue to make changes in the right direction and be supported in doing so.

11.16 a.m.

Mr. Foley

The first question raised by the hon. Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Humphrey Atkins) was the timing of the debate. Clearly, one cannot disagree that this was an unfortunate day in terms of choice because this was the day on which we had planned to have the meeting of the Management Committee at the school. This has meant certain alterations in the arrangements of individual members of the committee.

I find it a little difficult to go along with the hon. Member in his strictures concerning the efficiency of the conduct of Government business. Prior to being aware that this debate would take place today, I looked up the debates on this matter over the last 20 years, most of which took place during the time when the hon. Member's party were in Government. Generally, they contrived to have those debates round about midnight or in the early hours of the morning. The fact that we have arranged this debate in such a way that it takes place at least when we are all alert can be regarded as progress in that respect.

As to the frequency of debates, we have heard from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) the need for this annual debate. The hon. Member for Merton and Morden has put an opposite point of view. At least, he is consistent. He put the same view last year and he has maintained it. All I would say is that his remarks were replied to last year by my hon. Friend the then Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy and I have nothing further to add to what my hon. Friend said on that occasion.

Reference has been made to certain items in the estimates, particularly increases in income. There are slight increases in the rents of property but the major increase is due to a switch in our investment policy to commercial properties. The increase of £5,000 in fees reflects no change—we have not altered the fees—but rather a better estimate than we were able to make last year.

Reference has been made to the size of the school and the sixth form and to the work of the staff, particularly the headmaster. I am sure that the House would like to join me in paying tribute to the work of the headmaster and his staff and the excellent quality of their work, which is reflected in the results which I indicated in opening the debate.

As to the size of the school, it is felt that there should be a target of 700. As was indicated, there are about 697 in the spring term. The number of 700 relates to an expanding sixth form, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson). One welcomes this. It means that youngsters are staying on longer, and that they are taking not merely their 0 levels but their A levels. It enhances the status of the school, and having a virile sixth form contributes to its spirit. It gives the youngsters in the lower forms something to look up to.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East raised a number of issues which he has raised in previous years. One recognises his depth of feeling on this matter. I do not want to reopen the debate which has been conducted over many years on the origins and orientation of the school. It is clear that we shall not change my hon. and gallant Friend's mind, and I do not think that he will change the mind of the House or of the management committee on this question. He has again implied that there are serious cases of hardship in terms of orphans refused entrance, widows and their fees, and ratings not being able to get their sons into the school.

I am new in this debate and this responsibility. I want to make it quite clear to my hon. and gallant Friend that if he has any specific instances or case which he wishes to raise with me I am at his disposal at any time. But he will do his own cause a great disservice if he generalises without being able to substantiate cases and facts. If there are cases, I am anxious that we should look at them together in a spirit of understanding to see if we can resolve them.

My hon. and gallant Friend was kind enough to send me a number of questions and points of clarification on numbers that he required, and I am only too glad to give them to him because they will be useful to the House as a whole. There are about 695 boys in the school. Seventy-three are cadet entry officers' sons and 622 are sons of ratings and ex-ratings, of whom 159 were promoted to commissioned ranks. There are 83 orphans. Every qualified orphan is offered a place. The idea that somehow we reject orphans because they contribute nothing to the coffers of the Trust is disgraceful, and I hope that the suggestion could never be substantiated and will not be repeated.

In terms of parents, officers' sons, and the payment of fees, all I can say is that 135 serving officers' sons are in the school, 24 from cadet entry and 111 from the promoted ranks. There are 16 ratings' widows paying fees, three of whom have remarried. Contributions range from £16 per annum to £120 per annum. As I said in my opening remarks, none is encountering hardship in making her contributions. If my hon. and gallant Friend or any other hon. Member feels that that is not so, I am willing to discuss any individual case with them at any time.

The debate has, been useful. It has helped us to explain to the House, to whom we are accountable, the workings of the school and the Foundation and to be able to report useful progress.

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, 1968, which was laid before this House on 11th May, be approved.