Greenwich Hospital Bill [H.L.] (Hansard, 14 December 1989)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran)
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Royal Hospital School at Holbrook, near Ipswich, provides a boarding secondary education for about 700 sons and grandsons of seafarers. They include both the Royal Navy and the Merchant Navy. The school was set up in 1712 in accordance with the charter of 1694 given to the hospital by King William III and Queen Mary, one of the provisions of which was for the education of the children of seafarers. Greenwich Hospital pays about half the cost of running the school and for all its capital expenditure.
The Royal Hospital School has been extremely successful; but in recent years the number of applications to attend has fallen, partly because the Navy has been getting smaller and partly because of the demographic trough. It is thus necessary to take action now to ensure that the school continues to be viable.
Legislation is necessary because of the restrictive nature of the Royal Charter given in 1694, which limits the objects of financial support to purposes closely connected with naval service. That does not relate with certainty to the present proposal to admit children of no-seafarers. It is important therefore to eliminate any such uncertainty, and it is necessary to do that by Act of Parliament in accordance with previous practice under which there have been various amendments to the Greenwich Hospital Acts.
The Bill is an enabling measure to allow the governors of the school to widen the basis of entry. There is no intention to alter the school's naval ethos. The first change would be to take in daughters and granddaughters of seafarers; but a consultancy study has suggested that there might not be enough girls from that source to produce a balanced school, and that the best way ahead would be to take powers to take some children from non-seafaring families as and when the need arises.
Perhaps I may briefly explain the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1(1) widens the scope for entry to the Royal Hospital School in the way that I have just described. Within that overall framework, Clause 1(2) preserves the powers at present enjoyed by the Secretary of State for Defence to make detailed regulations covering the admission of children into the school. Clause 2 deals with the Bill's short title and citation. I commend the Bill to your Lordships. I beg to move.

§ Lord Graham of Edmonton
My Lords, we on this side of the House appreciate the clear and lucid way in which the Minister has encapsulated the history and purpose of the school and the Bill. We give the Bill a warm welcome.
1405 The Minister from his researches will have been as aghast as I was at the amount of parliamentary heat engendered when this matter was raised on previous occasions. It is amazing that the honourable function of the House and of the Bill should have been the subject of so much carping criticism. There is no carping criticism now; but the Minister will understand that the House and those outside it will welcome a little more information.
One is always concerned about finances; indeed, the Bill is needed because the school's viability would appear to need strengthening. Will the Minister tell us a little more about the school's sources of income which enable it to continue? The finance comes substantially from the Greenwich Hospital charity and the fees. Will the Minister help the House by giving some figures about, first, the amount of money raised by the charity; and, secondly, the amount of money raised by the fees? Will the Minister tell the House what the fees are? I understand and appreciate the need to widen the intake from sons and grandsons to daughters and granddaughters, and even beyond that. The Minister and his advisers have been well advised to take two bites at the cherry and not merely to widen the intake on a family basis, but to take powers to allow those unable to claim a previous seafaring link to attend what is, from all that I have seen and read, a fine school.
I have a note which says that for a pupil of a naval family the fees paid are 10 per cent. above BSI. Will the Minister help decipher those initials? I have no information—the Minister must have it—of precise figures. Will the Minister also tell us whether the powers-that-be have it in mind to differentiate in fees between those who can claim a seafaring link and those who cannot? This side of the House believes that it is eminently sensible.
The Minister told us that at the moment there are 700 sons and grandsons in the school. Can we be told the figure that he has been advised will make the school viable? Are we talking about increasing the roll from 700 to 800 or to 1,000? I can assure the Minister there is no malice in these questions. It is an interest that I have found when looking at the matter.
Will the Minister also tell us—particularly when charitable money is being used—what inquiries are made in respect of entitlement to attend the school? We know, as does the Minister, that the House is currently in the middle of a matter in respect of war widows that I believe will be resolved satisfactorily. Many of the children with whom we are dealing here will be sons and daughters of men who have given their lives. The House will be interested to hear from the Minister something about the finances that will be involved when the Bill becomes an Act.
The Minister can be assured that we believe the Bill is timely and sensible. From the thrust of what the Minister said and bearing in mind what those outside the House believe is necessary, we on this side of the House give the Bill a warm welcome.

§ Lord Callaghan of Cardiff
My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships, but I heard my noble friend 1406 correctly say that he had read what a splendid school this was. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that two years ago I was invited to the school. I spent some time there, and stayed overnight. I confirm what has been said by the Minister and by my noble friend: it is indeed a school of which the House can be proud.
I enjoyed the companionship and the mental agility of the sixth form boys and the hospitality of the headmaster. There is one former First Lord here this afternoon, in the person of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham; I do not know whether he shared with me the privilege of having been chairman of the Greenwich Hospital Committee, but at least I have left my mark on it because there is a Callaghan copse there from 30 years ago. I hate to say that it was partly destroyed by the great storm, but I understand that the committee is replanting it.
I have a feeling of slight nostalgia and regret that the step we are discussing is necessary. However, it is a great school. I attended the school ceremonies in the morning and was impressed by all that I saw. I am happy to see that steps are being taken to maintain and, I hope, to expand the school so that it will continue its great traditions.
I urge, although I am sure that it is unnecessary to do so, the Minister to think about the Navy's recruits who were drawn from this school. A former scholar of the school, Commander Pursey, who used to make so much trouble there, rose to be a commander and then entered the other place as the Labour Member for Hull. It was he who used every year to make the lives of Parliamentary Secretaries to the Admiralty a misery. The school has been under the notice of the House for many years. I commend the Bill to the House and am very glad indeed to see that these active provisions are being made.

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say initially that I welcome the kindly comments of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, on the warm experiences he has had at the school in the past.
In his usual perceptive manner, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, asked many questions about certain aspects of the school and I hope to deal with all of them. If there are some which I cannot answer I shall write to the noble Lord or they may come up at the Committee stage in your Lordships' House.
First, perhaps I may take the fees that parents pay. I can tell the noble Lord that fees for the sons of a seafarer, a serving officer or rating on BSA—which by the way stands for boarding school allowance whereby the parents make a 10 per cent. contribution—are currently £1,628 per term. The average fee for assisted seafaring families is £428 per term. Non-seafarers would pay more than seafarers and the current fees at the moment are approximately £5,000 per annum.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, also asked about the current income. For the year ended March 1988 the total income was just over £3 million. The total expenditure was just under £250,000. That does not take into account the capital assets that have to 1407 be spent on refurbishing and other such capital requirements.
The assets of the hospital amount to some £88 million, in which I understand that no public money is involved. Furthermore, regarding what the money is spent on, there are a number of items. For example, there are special pensions for seamen and their widows and other projects such as sheltered housing for naval pensioners, which is under consideration at present.
Another question which the noble Lord asked us, is if the Bill is successful and passes through Parliament, what number of pupils will be envisaged. We hope and intend that the number of pupils will be in the region of 700. I hope and trust that I have been able to answer the majority of the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I believe that the Bill is necessary for the future of the Royal Hospital School. I commend it to your Lordships' House.