HC Deb 11 June 1996 vol 279 cc103-4
5. Mr. Simpson

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much is being spent in the current year on private education and support of officers' children in the armed forces; and if he will break down this figure between male and female children. [30887]

Mr. Soames

The total cost to my Department of the boarding school allowance for the academic year 1994–95 was £107 million. Information concerning the breakdown of that by boys and girls is not recorded.

Mr. Simpson

I am sorry that the latter piece of information is not available, but it is good to see that the Government are not averse to all forms of public subsidy. How would the Minister justify that subsidy to schools in the east midlands, which can barely afford to cover their running costs and where at least one is having to seek commercial sponsors for its toilets and toilet rolls? Would not the subsidy policy make more sense if the Government shifted it from heavily pampered schools to those that are barely provided for?

Mr. Soames

That is an outrageous question. I hope that the services heard what the hon. Gentleman said. The boarding school allowance is not an education subsidy. It is a function to allow service personnel access to education. It is paid to assist service families in providing a stable education for their children in the face of an extremely turbulent and frequently mouvementé service life, which can lead to great difficulties for service families. The allowance is paid regardless of rank and it is an extremely important part of service life.

Mr. Bill Walker

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the ways to recruit and retain capable people—the leaders of tomorrow—is to ensure that they know that their children will have a stable education that is paid for by their employer during the critical stage of their schooling? There is nothing odd about that, especially since we have asked them to go off to Bosnia at short notice.

Mr. Soames

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who understands the importance of the scheme to the overall ethos of service life. It is extremely important that soldiers, sailors and airmen—of whom a great deal is asked—have the assurance that their families are being well cared for. That is something that we can do to help service families during what is frequently a turbulent period in their lives.

Mr. Murphy

Does the Minister accept that the Opposition agree with the boarding school allowance for those who are genuinely eligible, especially those men and women serving on UN peacekeeping missions abroad? Is he aware that many of us are deeply worried about the poor standards of some of the private schools in the scheme? Will he introduce a more thorough inspection system to exclude some pretty rotten schools?

Mr. Soames

In the light of what the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) said, the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that we accept no such proposition. We watch the intellectual gymnastics of the Labour party with admiration. Effectively, the hon. Gentleman is saying that everything Labour has said for 15 years has been wrong, and it has made a terrible mistake. We will not buy that, nor will the country.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith

In his supplementary question, the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) referred to the people who benefit from the boarding school scheme as "pampered". Will my hon. Friend remind the House that those people serve this country and risk losing their lives?

Mr. Soames

I am happy to do so. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out what the hon. Member for Nottingham, South said, which I thought was disgraceful. We owe much to our service men and women, who serve in serious and extremely dangerous conditions. They have every right to know that their families are well provided for, and the Conservative party will ensure that that remains the case.