Hospital Endowments (Scotland) Bill
As amended ( in the Standing Committee), considered.
New Clause No 1
Duty Of Trust To Obtain Advice On Investment
(1) It shall be the duty of the Trust to obtain advice on the investment of any property held by them under this Act from a person whom the Trust reasonably believe to be qualified to give such advice by his ability in and practical experience of financial matters.
(2) For the purposes of the foregoing subsection, the advice referred to therein may be obtained from a person other than an officer or servant of the Trust on such terms as may be agreed between the Trust and that person.—[ Mr. Edward Taylor.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
11.0 p.m.
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This is one of several new Clauses and Amendments which we are proposing following the helpful suggestions made by hon. Members opposite in Committee. The Clause deals with an important matter which was raised by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). In Committee—it is columns 207–8 of the OFFICIAL REPORT—I promised to look again at the provisions in paragraph 3 of the Schedule relating to the appointment of agents to advise the Trust on investments. We thought that it might be desirable to be a little more specific, and I have, on reflection, come to the conclusion that the best way to proceed would be to insert this new Clause and delete the corresponding paragraph in the Schedule. The Clause makes it obligatory for the Trust to obtain advice on investment from an expert in these matters. It leaves it open to the Trust to decide whether this person should be employed as an officer or servant of the Trust—who, in practice, would be the secretary—or be an adviser who would be specially appointed on terms to be agreed. If he is an officer of the Trust, his terms of appointment will be covered by regulations made under Clause 7(2)(c). The arrangements we now propose are consistent with the recommendation of the Working Party that the Trust should be required to employ as investment manager and secretary an individual or firm skilled in the management of investment money. The only difference is that we are allowing the Trust to employ the expert without necessarily making him its secretary. We think that the Trust, which will comprise members with financial skills, should be allowed to judge which of these alternatives will suit its arrangements better.I thank the Under-Secretary of State for taking note of the points which we raised in Committee. I am sure that he will agree that it is evident from the Amendments and new Clauses which he has put down that, although our proceedings went on longer than he might have wished, our labours in Standing Committee were not in vain.
The new Clause is the tidiest and best way of meeting the point which we raised in this connection, and I should advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to accept it.Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.
New Clause No 2
Audit Of Trust Accounts
(1) The accounts of the Trust shall be audited annually by an auditor appointed by the Trust.
(2) No person shall be qualified to be appointed auditor under this section unless he is a member of one or more of the following bodies—
but a Scottish firm may be so appointed if each of the partners therein is qualified to be so appointed.—[ Mr. Edward Taylor.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
Since the Committee stage, we have been asked by the bodies mentioned in the new Clause, through their Parliamentary agents, to insert this provision in the Bill, following a number of precedents, including, in particular, an amendment made to Section 124 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962 by Section 27(1) and paragraph 35 of Schedule 2 to the Education (Scotland) Act, 1969. We believe that it is inconceivable that the Trust would appoint an auditor who was not qualified in these terms, but, in view of those recent precedents and the amount of funds involved, we think it desirable to put the matter beyond doubt. The Secretary of State exercising the function of recognition of auditors under Section 161(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1948 will, in practice, be the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. In the circumstances, we have thought it best to include all the references to audit in a new Clause. As a consequence of subsection (1), the reference to audit presently contained in Clause 1(4) will be deleted by the next Amendment.Again, I must thank the hon. Gentleman for taking up some of the points that were raised during the Committee stage. However, there are two points on this Clause about which I am a little concerned. The first concerns the last two lines which read:
I understand that these words are necessary because there is a difference in the law relating to accountants in Scotland as against those in England, but I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could confirm that. Secondly, if this Amendment is thought to be necessary, may I ask whether it will be possible at some stage to make a similar Amendment to the 1953 Act which is considerably amended by this Bill?"but a Scottish firm may be so appointed if each of the partners therein is qualified to be so appointed."
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his very interesting questions on this new clause. On the fist point, I can assure him that the word- ing of the Clause is the standard form, which has been introduced in recent Scottish legislation because of our special Scottish situation. On the second and, perhaps, more important point of whether we should amend the 1953 Act, the position is that we have been inserting Clauses like this in recent legislation at the request of the professional organisations. Of course, in all such matters it has been the normal practice for qualified persons from these organisations to be so appointed.
I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that, if we received an approach from the professional organisations, proposing that such a provision should be inserted in previous legislation such as the 1953 Act, then we should certainly give it sympathetic consideration when a suitable opportunity arose. I hope that with those explanations the hon. Gentleman and the House will be able to accept the new Clause.Since this is being done not at the desire of the Government, but in order to placate the professional organisations, and since the Bill includes Amendments to the 1953 Act, I should have thought it was only right to make a similar Amendment there. Otherwise, it would appear that the Amendment to this Bill is not really necessary. I do not have the slightest doubt that even without this Amendment we should still get qualified auditors. It is interesting that the Government found it necessary to introduce this Amendment, bearing in mind that under the first new Clause the Trust has
There is no guidance given as to what should be the qualification in respect of the professional adviser. It is difficult to understand why it is necessary to insert this provision here, but not to apply it to the 1953 Act which set up the Hospital Research Trust unless somebody asks for it. It would be as well to show initiative and to make the Amendment in the earlier Act, if it is considered necessary here. But I raise no objection to the new Clause."to obtain advice on the investment of any property held by them … from a person whom the Trust reasonably believe to be qualified".
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.
Clause 1
Scottish Hospital Trust
I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 1, leave out from 'cause' to 'an' in line 2. The Amendment is consequential on new Clause 2, which provides that the accounts of the Trust shall be audited annually.
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 3, at end insert:
The Amendment results from a very important point raised in Committee by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). We were impressed by his argument, and have accordingly tabled the Amendment, which will enable Boards to have access to the Trust accounts so that they may obtain information about items in which they have an interest. I undertook in Committee, as reported at columns 11–13 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings, that we would examine the matter and make whatever arrangements were appropriate. We had thought that if specific provision was required it could be made in regulations under Clause 7(2). But in view of what the right hon. Gentleman said we felt on reflection that it would be better that the right of access should be provided once and for all in the Bill. I hope that with that explanation the House will be prepared to accept the Amendment.Provided that the Trust shall give reasonable access to the accounts to Boards of Management and Regional Hospital Boards.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the Amendment, and commend to him further the process of consideration and reflection that has produced this worthy improvement.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3
Powers Of The Trust
I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 26, leave out 'and administer' and insert:
The Amendment results from a point raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael). It specifically enables the Trust to dispose of any property it may receive in the future. It was pointed out in Committee that legacies and donations to the Trust might include heritable property. The working party had expressed the view that this type of property was not in general a very suitable type of investment for the Trust to hold, and Clause 2(4) provides for heritable property in the relevant endowments to be dealt with as may be determined in any particular case. I undertook in Committee, as reported at column 122 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings, to consider whether, as the Bill stood, the Trust had the appropriate powers in relation to heritable property received under paragraph (f). I now think, in view of what was said by the hon. Gentleman then, that for the avoidance of any doubt disposal should be expressly provided for. The Amendment will also extend to any other type of property received by the Trust under this paragraph. This is another example where, after further reflection on what was said in Committee, we have introduced an Amendment to cater for the point raised.'administer and dispose of'.
There was confusion about heritable and other property, and I think that the Amendment clears it up. There should be a very clear distinction, and the Trust should have the power to dispose of property, since we do not want it to become involved in large-scale landowning. I am very pleased that the Minister has moved the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 30, at end insert:
In Committee, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) raised the very interesting suggestion that it might be right to enable the Trust to give advice on the management of endowments still retained by boards after the new legislation took effect. This was a new point which did not arise directly from the Bill. We promised to look into it, and we now accept that it is very valid. The Amendment simply makes it clear that the powers of the Trust include the giving of advice on this matter. I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is necessary and reasonable that where the Trust is to provide such a service it should not be out of pocket in so doing. That would in effect penalise all the boards from which funds are transferred to the Trust. Provision for recovery of expenses is, therefore, included. This is also consistent with the provisions in Clause 6(1) that the expenses of the Trust should be deducted from the total income of relevant endowments before this is distributed in accordance with schemes to be made and, putting in that one proviso, we accept that this is an interesting and valid addition to the Bill. In those circumstances, I hope the House will accept the Amendment.(g) to give advice to a Board of Management or a Regional Hospital Board relating to the investment or management of any such endowment or income as is referred to in paragraph (e) of this section and which is not transferred to the Trust under section 4(1) of this Act, and to recover any expenses reasonably incurred by them in giving such advice from the Board concerned.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4
Administration Of Trust
11.15 p.m.
I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in Clause 4, page 3, line 32, after 'may', insert 'by agreement'.
If it is agreeable to the House, I wonder if it would be possible to consider this with Amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 34, after 'behalf', insert:'subject to any terms or conditions set out in the agreement'.
If that is convenient.
In Committee it was pointed out by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) that it might be desirable to spell out the right of boards to withdraw from the Trust endowments which they had transferred to it voluntarily under Clause 3(e).
We agreed to ensure that the Bill left no room for doubt on this point and the Amendment has this purpose. Rather than make a statutory rule which would have to apply to every case, we thought we should try to adopt the more flexible arrangements of leaving it to the Trust and the Board concerned to agree the terms and conditions under which these voluntary arrangements are made. I understood there was a little doubt about the point and I hope that the words proposed will clear up the matter and that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North will feel that we have introduced suitable Amendments to deal with the point he made.I thank the Minister for bringing forward these Amendments to cover the points we raised in Committee. It makes the effort we all put in that Committee very much worth while.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: No. 6, in line 34, after 'behalf', insert:
'subject to any terms or conditions set out in the agreement'.—[Mr. Edward Taylor.]
Clause 6
Distribution Of Income Of Endowments
I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 4, line 39, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
Would it be possible to consider this with Amendment No. 9, in page 5, Clause 9, leave out lines 38 and 39 and insert:(4) No scheme shall be made under this section unless a draft has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(2) No regulations shall be made under section 2(2)(c), 2(3), 4(2), or 5(2) of this Act unless a draft has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(3) A statutory instrument whereby the power conferred by section 7(2) of this Act is exercised shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
If that would be agreeable to the House.
This Amendment follows the undertaking which I gave after a great deal of discussion in Committee to the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, (Mr. Ross) that the affirmative Resolution procedure would be adopted for the schemes of distribution of endowment income made under Clause 6 and for most of the Regulations made under the Bill. Negative Resolution procedure is being retained only in respect to administrative Regulations made under Clause 7(2).
On Amendment No. 9, the undertaking which provides for affirmative Resolution procedure for the main Regulations was given at column 162 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee on 26th November, 1970, when the right hon. Member pointed out fairly that the reasons for making the procedure negative or affirmative were those of Parliamentary time. He suggested that these matters should be subject to affirmative procedure and on reflection we feel that the right hon. Gentleman was correct, so the House will have an opportunity of considering the Regulations when they are introduced.This is an important Amendment and I am grateful to the Government. Involved here is the distribution to every single regional hospital board area in respect of the hospitals of Scotland. If anything merited affirmative Resolution procedure it was this. I have argued both for and against affirmative Resolution procedure in the past, and when I was Secretary of State I usually said "No, we cannot have that", but in this case I am glad that we have got a measure of agreement. I am sure this will equally please the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison), because he has a personal interest, which I share as a Member of Parliament, about what happens to well-endowed boards of management under the new scheme.
Equally, of course, I have considerable interests in those hospitals which are not at all well endowed but which merit a greater share in the past generosity of people who left money to various hospitals. I do not except that there will be a great deal of trouble but this procedure will give us further opportunities to see what is happening and what still needs to be done. It will also give us the opportunity, which we will be glad to take, to remind people that there is still a place for private generosity towards our hospitals, and for that alone, it will be worth while. I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) for the amount of work he put into the Bill, having been a member of a regional hospital board. The Bill has benefited from his attentions.I agree with the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and I am glad that the Government have introduced the Amendment. In agreeing the schemes and drawing them up, will my hon. Friend be sure to contact the hospital authorities in each case and to listen to their views with great care? Is he seeing now or in the near future the authorities who run the Infirmary in Edinburgh, because I think that they have some doubts about the Bill? I should be grateful if he would listen to their advice.
Indeed I do accept the great importance of consultation on such matters. This was one of the main reasons why it was thought in the Committee generally appropriate that we should have the affirmative Resolution procedure in this way. It means that, in the absence of what was regarded as full consultation, a full opportunity would be available in the House for full discussion of such matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) rightly drew my attention to some of the fears of another hospital board. I have had the opportunity to meet the board following an approach he made, and I hope that the explanations I gave at that time were satisfactory. I attach great importance to consultation and I feel that the Amendments introduce a further safeguard in this connection.Amendment agreed to
Clause 7
Administration Of Trust
I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 5, line 8, leave out from 'payments' to 'they' in line 11 and insert:
Once again I am in the position of paying tribute to the Opposition for the penetrating way in which they pursued our deliberations in Committee. This Amendment again follows a point raised by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). He raised an important point about the limitation of earnings in respect of loss of earnings. I told the Committee that while we would accept the Amendment proposed at that time for drafting purposes, we might wish to alter it. As it stands, the Clause is somewhat awkwardly worded. The word "prescribed" could give rise to doubt because it usually, although not necessarily, refers to prescription by means of Regulations. The appropriate method of fixing such mandatory limits from time to time is by way of administrative determination by the Secretary of State as, for example, in Section 37 of the Health Services and Public Health Act, 1968, under which rates are determined for members of health service bodies. The Amendment gives practical effect to the intention of the previous Amendment and goes a little further by extending the Secretary of State's powers of limitation to travelling and subsistence expenses as well as loss of earnings payments. I hope the Committee will accept the revised wording of the Amendment which was introduced in Committee by the Opposition.'not exceeding limits to be determined from time to time by the Secretary of State from the funds of the Trusts to the members thereof in respect of any loss of earnings'.
This Amendment is an improvement to the Bill and we feel that in all such legislation, when public money is involved, it is right that the wording should be properly tightened up so that nobody is in doubt as to how payments will be decided. This is particularly important when considering funds to be administered in the hospital services. It is important that such funds should be guarded very closely. After all, people who do voluntary work in our society are given little in the way of allowances, and so on, and it as well that it is made clear that the provisions in regard to loss of earnings should be decided by the Secretary of State.
The Under-Secretary of State has provided exactly the right words to tighten up the payments, and in so doing has met the sentiments and intentions of the Opposition who moved such an Amendment in Committee.Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9
Regulations
Amendment made: No. 9, in page 5, leave out lines 38 and 39 and insert:
(2) No regulations shall be made under section 2(2)(c), 2(3), 4(2), or 5(2) of this Act unless a draft has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(3) A statutory instrument whereby the power conferred by section 7(2) of this Act is exercised shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.—[Mr. Edward Taylor.]
Schedule
Scottish Hospital Trust
I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in line 4, leave out from 'and' to end of line 5 and insert
The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has been liberal in his praise, for which I am grateful. I hope that he and his colleagues feel that their labours have been well rewarded. In regard to his comments, I feel that perhaps we shall have to be more conservative in the number of Amendments we accept from the Opposition or perhaps must look more carefully at them. However, I am sure our reason for accepting them has been because of the weight of arguments in Committee. Once again I am glad to put forward an Amendment dealing directly with a point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael). He suggested in Committee that it would be sensible to prescribe both a maximum and a minimum number of members, other than the Chairman to be appointed by the Trust. We have thought about this matter a great deal and we now agree that it would be appropriate, because it would make for a sensible size of the Trust. The Amendment will give effect to the proposals advanced in Committee by the hon. Member for Woodside. We agree that if the Trust is to be a success it should be capably managed by not too large and not too small a number of gentlemen. We fully accept the hon. Gentleman's argument. That is why we have introduced the Amendment.'not more than seven and not less than five other members so appointed'.
Amendment agreed to.
11.30 p.m.
I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 7, line 7, leave out paragraph 3.
This Amendment is consequential on new Clause I which was introduced following points raised by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). The new Clause makes the more specific provision relating to the appointment of an investment expert which in Committee it was agreed seemed desirable. It is now thought better to provide this by a new Clause, and this paragraph of the Schedule is no longer necessary.I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has met our wishes in this respect and has made the consequential change to deal with the earlier point. I am beginning to think he should go away on honeymoon a little more often! It has been wonderful to see his agreeable reaction to suggestions which we have put forward in respect of Bills. We will encourage him in this direction. In fact we can probably provide him with a "pair".
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 ( Third Reading) and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
Guardianship Of Minors Bill Lords
Order for Second Reading read.
11.31 p.m.
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The House will appreciate that this is a consolidation Bill prepared under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, which allows only the making of minor improvements in the law, apart from pure consolidation. In accordance with that Statute, it has been considered by the Joint Committee of both Houses, which has reported, having made certain Amendments which seemed to it necessary to improve the form of the Bill to bring it into conformity with the existing law. The Committee considers that the Bill, as amended, is pure consolidation and represents the existing law. The Committee drew the attention of Parliament to Clause 8 of the Bill, which contains a reference to an antique statute of 1660. It recognised that that statute had to be referred to in the Bill because it retained a residual implication in relation even to the present law, but the Committee regretted that that had to be so. The marginal note to that Clause has been altered to make it look as unimportant as possible in contrast to the original marginal note. In addition, the House may like to know that the repeal or other disappearance of the statute of 1660 is currently under consideration by the Law Commission to see whether it can be disposed of. The other matter which the Bill finally makes clear is that infants in this sphere are hereafter minors. Section 12 of the Family Law Reform Act states that infants hereafter may be called minors, which was an implementation of the recommendation of the Latey Committee. This means that we have said goodbye to what used to be known as "G of I" proceedings, which are now presumably "G of M" proceedings. The Bill does no more than consolidate. The only question is whether the House is agreeable to such consolidation, which will in fact simplify and make the law on this important subject more accessible and more amenable to such reforms as hon. Members on both sides have from time to time canvassed in the underlying principles to this part of the law.11.34 p.m.
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his explanation of the Bill. I had half-expected, at this relatively early hour of the evening, that, fresh from the last night or two, he might have been tempted to give us a rather lengthier exegesis of the Measure and, indeed, find it refreshing to escape from the turbulence of the waters of the last couple of days into the relative calm of this uncontroversial Measure.
I was rather looking forward to a lecturette on sockage tenure, but I gather that that is not to be. However, it is a relief to hear that steps are being taken, and very properly, by the Law Commission, as advocated by my noble Friend, Lord Gardiner, in another place, to bring up to date the powers conferred by the Tenures Abolition Act, 1660, which is referred to in Clause 1, and I hope that that progress will be rapid. I hope, too, that there will be progress on the other paragraphs of the Report to which my noble Friend referred. As the Solicitor-General said, it is a little sad to say goodbye to the "guardianship of infants", but I am sure that "minor" and "minority" are more appropriate than "infant" and "infancy". I am only a little sorry that we have not gone to the logic of the terms used and talked about "major" and "majority" rather than "ceases to be a minor" which the Solicitor-General will find in certain parts of the Bill. However, perhaps that is a pleasure to come. I conclude by expressing the gratitude of this side of the House to those who have undertaken the task of consolidating a very much larger number of Bills than one usually finds being done. I think that there are parts of 12 different Acts in this Measure, and I express my thanks to the Joint Committee which performed its task so admirably.Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[ Mr. Clegg.]
Committee to-morrow.
School Children (Sandwich Meals)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[ Mr. Clegg.]
11.37 p.m.
Before I embark on putting my case this evening I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) on his appointment. We are political opponents of long standing. We have agreed on occasions, but on the vast majority of occasions we have had to differ. However, I know that the hon. Gentleman's appointment has been obtained by virtue of the fact that he has been extremely industrious in relation to education matters, and I wish him every success in his appointment. I hope that at the end of what I have to say and what he has to say the score on agreements and disagreements will be altered in favour of agreements.
The subject that I wish to bring to the attention of the House is the proposal of the Birmingham education authority to make a charge on those children who eat sandwiches at school instead of having a cooked meal. The proposal, though I must admit that it has not been finally decided upon, is that a child will pay about 1s. per week should he eat sandwiches. In my opinion, this is a proposal which the whole House will wish to condemn. Only last week, it was condemned by the National Union of Teachers, who have asked their members not to collect. In addition, the proposal has been condemned by Professor John Yudkin, head of the department of nutrition at Queen Elizabeth College of London University, a man of immense authority in this field, who has suggested that a section of children could end up with a "coke and doughnut" substitute for a hot meal at the middle of the day. I gather from the letters which I have received and the publicity which the proposals have gained that it has been condemned by everyone who cares for the health and welfare of our children. The root cause of this proposal is the Government's action. It is a direct result of their proposal to increase school meals charges. To support what I say I would quote the Birmingham Evening Mail of Tuesday, 24th November, after the Chairman of the Education Committee, Alderman Dawes, made public discussions which had been held within the committee:Alderman Dawes was merely taking off at a point already reached by the Wolverhampton Education Committee, which for some months now has levied a charge of £1 per term on those children who eat sandwiches at school. After that piece of publicity, I was contacted as the Member for Birmingham, Northfield by a number of parents who were very concerned at the proposals. As a result, I put down a Question and in an early reply to me and the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) the Secretary of State said that the charge was not illegal. I was very disturbed at that reply, because I should have liked the Secretary of State to say that she was not in favour of its being levied, but nothing of the kind came forth. The right hon. Lady also said that the matter would be referred to a working party. On the question of illegality, I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that, when the proposal was recently debated by Birmingham Education Committee, the Clerk to the Council said—once again I quote from a newspaper report—"It was said, and it has not been denied, that the review is being made in the light of the Government's proposal to increase the school meals charge and the likelihood that many more parents will want to send their children with sandwiches as a result."
I should like some reassurance on this point. In my opinion, the charge is the bitter harvest which some sections of the community are now reaping as a result of the Government's economic measures last year, and it is up to the Government to remedy the situation. I would urge the Minister to request Birmingham and other education authorities to reconsider, and, further, that all schools, within Birming- ham and every other education authority, should make it possible for children to eat sandwiches at school. Apart from the fact that some authorities are proposing to levy a charge, many schools will not allow children to eat sandwiches at school. I am not suggesting that the Government are responsible for every child who wants to eat sandwiches. That is not so. Some children prefer sandwiches. Only last week, I had a number of letters from parents who were less concerned about the charge than about the fact that some head teachers would not allow the children to eat sandwiches at school at all. This whole subject of school meals could be tackled through the working party and advice could be offered to local education authorities. I make this appeal on behalf of a great many parents and children, but particularly on behalf of those who, for economic reasons, cannot afford a cooked meal. The Minister may say that no child need go without a cooked meal because those who cannot afford it can claim the money back via the education authority. However, as we know, many parents are reluctant to claim free meals. In any event, it is divisive that some children should be asked to pay and others not. The ideal situation would be a free school meal for all, but we do not live in an ideal world. In the absence of that element of idealism, at least children who cannot afford school meals should be allowed to eat their sandwiches in the places that they would normally occupy when eating school meals, and should not have to pay as a result. In the economic debate at the beginning of this Parliament the Prime Minister said that he believed in one nation. The vast majority of my constituents believe in one nation, too, but when issues like this crop up, one tends to see divisions created which nobody likes. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will indicate tonight that this iniquitous proposal will be dropped. I have put the case in an unemotional way because it is not a subject about which we should get heated. However, I have received a tremendous response from people not only in Birmingham but from many parts of the country as a result of the interest that this subject has aroused. In this connection, I praise the Sun newspaper for giving prominent publicity to this issue. I urge the Minister to weigh up my remarks carefully and to give an indication that this proposal will not be carried out in Birmingham and that elsewhere this charge will be withdrawn wherever it is applied."… that he did not believe that it would be possible and within the law for the Education Authority to make this charge."
11.48 p.m.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) began his speech, which I gladly acknowledge was made with a careful lack of emotion, with a kind and courteous reference to myself and, on a personal note, I warmly reciprocate. I am not sure whether he is still one of my constituents, but I have always hoped that one day I should learn that he had voted for me in a General Election, which shows that I am full of hope.
I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for giving the hon. Gentleman time in which to raise this matter because, as there have been some misapprehensions and misunderstandings about the position, I welcome this opportunity to get the record clear. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that in recent years there have been certain factors which have tended to lead to an increase in the number of children being provided with sandwiches at school. Perhaps I might remind him of a very recent factor which has not been often commented on. I am advised that, for example, one of the results of the local government manual workers' strike which, unfortunately, in some parts of the country led to the withdrawal of school meal facilities, was that, understandably, children were forced into the sandwich habit and that a number of them have stayed with it. It illustrates, I think, how in a strike situation like that people will change their habits, first because they have to and then because they find that they like to. It is also perfectly true, as the hon. Gentleman said, that a small number of local education authorities have been considering making a charge for this facility. I should not be exaggerating at all if I said that it is only a handful. As far as I am aware, none is actually making a charge. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Wolverhampton. I understand the present position there to be that Wolverhampton is leaving this decision to the school governors and headmasters and that none is actually making a charge. The hon. Gentleman referred, and quite fairly, to Birmingham. Again I am advised, not being in any way personally responsible, that this was an idea being floated in one of the authority's recent sub-committee meetings. There was no firm proposal concerning it, and I am told that Birmingham has decided that nothing should be done pending receipt of advice from the Secretary of State and from the associations. It is on that that I can, perhaps, help the hon. Gentleman. I must just make a reference to the legality of the charge. I do so with some reluctance as a lawyer myself, but particularly so in the sense that I think it very unfortunate in a warmly human matter like school meals to give an appearance that all one is concerned with is legality or otherwise. The hon. Gentleman raised the question perfectly fairly, but I feel that some commentators and some organs of the Press have been very unfair to my right hon. Friend. All that my right hon. Friend did on 17th December was to give a direct answer to a direct question. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short), the former Secretary of State, asked my right hon. Friend a direct question and that she gave him a direct answer. The situation here—I hope that I can give the hon. Gentleman a very clear answer—is that the advice given to my right hon. Friend on the question of legality is that if an authority provides facilities for pupils to consume their own food it may charge for them. The legality of the charge, however, is a matter for the authority which intends to impose it, and my right hon. Friend has no power to give an authoritative ruling on the matter. The situation on 17th December was that my right hon. Friend was asked to express an opinion, and she accordingly informed the House of the advice that she had received. That is, as accurately as I can give it, the present legal position, but, as I have said, I should be very reluctant to feel, and I know that my right hon. Friend would be very reluctant to feel, that we were giving the impression of looking at this matter only from a cold, legalistic point of view. The fact is that the authorities themselves, the governors, managers, headmasters and headmistresses and the teaching profession as a whole are very much against the practice of the bringing of sandwiches to school, and for my own part I put myself in their camp. Their reasons have nothing to do with cost. The sort of reasons they adduce I would put in this way. I do not think I know of any well-run school—and such schools are in the vast majority—where the midday meal is not an integral part of the educational process in the widest sense. I believe that it is so regarded by the majority of the teaching profession. Of course, in addition to that, for a great many children it is of important nutritional value. I know that if at this point the hon. Gentleman were to interrupt, he would say, "That is all very well so far as it goes, but you are increasing charges" that is true—"and as a result you will increase the likelihood of families providing sandwiches for children." He and I clearly look at this from differing points of view. It was for the reason that the statement which announced the increase in charges was a package that it included the provision that the point at which remission of charges would be allowed would be increased. I remind the hon. Gentleman that families now drawing supplementary benefit will continue to qualify before and after the increase. As an illustration of the way in which the new scale will work I take the example of a family with three children at school. If after income tax, National Insurance, rent and rates and certain other outgoings detailed in the regulations the breadwinner is left with £16 a week net, the family would qualify for remission for all three children. In my view, so it should. That calculation probably represents a gross income of between £22 and £23 a week. I appreciate the difference between the hon. Member and myself, but I hope that more parents who might well benefit and be entitled to remission in whole or in part will make inquiries before the increased charges come into force. The hon. Member gave this part of his case away when he conceded, very fairly, that we did not live in a perfect world. If we do not and if we cannot have free school meals for all, about which principle I do not in any way comment, it seems that the right way in which to proceed is to have careful and generous scales of remission for the families we want to help, and this is directly relevant to families who might otherwise, for what they would think to be economic reasons, provide the children with sandwiches instead. I realise, of course, having said that, that it is the people next up the scale, that is to say, those who do not get any kind of remission, who might be tempted. However, I do not believe—and here I agree with the hon. Member—that by any means all those who exercise the practice of bringing sandwiches to school are doing so for economic reasons. First, there are children who simply do not like institutional food of any kind. This is a slightly old-fashioned view. Some parents are a little weak on this. I suppose that I take this view because I was brought up always to eat what was put before me—the results are for all to see—but personally I still think in principle that that is a good procedure. Secondly, there are young people who simply prefer it that way. I was the chairman of the governors of a voluntary-aided school in South London, not a plush part of London, and there were always a significant number of boys who brought sandwiches every day, for no reason connected with economics. I used to look at this with some care and attention in case that was the reason. But they frankly preferred it that way. Curiously enough, they happened to be the rather intellectual boys, although I think that it had grown into a certain amount of "clubbery".But it is in the band just above those who qualify for free school meals that we hit the problem. It is because of that that the chairman of the education authority issued the statement that, with the increase in school meal charges, the numbers taking sandwiches would increase in that band.
That is quite fair. Incidentally, if they believe that it is economically beneficial, they would be wise to think about it. I have not time to give the full quotation, but in an article in the Teacher of 8th January doubts are cast on whether it is economically or significantly cheaper to provide school children with sandwiches.
I do not think that the bringing of sandwiches can be compared with school meals. But it must be reasonable that, if there are parents who wish their children to bring sandwiches, they should be free to do so. In this country, we do not seek to impose this kind of condition upon parents. If they wish to do so, is it not reasonable that, within the resources available to schools, authorities provide conditions as nearly approximating as possible for the eating of sandwiches as are provided for those taking school dinners? That could mean supervision, a place at a table; it might mean glasses and cutlery; and there are circumstances in which the provision of these conditions could involve a local authority in additional expense, at any rate if the practice became very widespread. The hon. Gentleman reminded me that, on 17th November, my right hon. Friend said that she would consult local authority associations to see whether any general guidance could usefully be given to local education authorities about charging for the facilities needed to ensure the conditions that I have described; in other words, the conditions similar to the child who is having the school dinner. I am able to announce, which is why I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter, that there have now been discussions with representatives of the associations and, in the light of those discussions, my right hon. Friend will shortly be advising authorities not to impose a charge of this kind in present circumstances. The significance of my words "in present circumstances" is that, for reasons that I have explained, if the practice were to become very widespread, it is possible that some local authorities might find themselves with a significant rise in expenditure. If that were so, it might be necessary at that time to review what I have just said. I have made clear my personal view and the importance which I attach to the school dinner. In this, I speak with the authority of my right hon. Friend. But, in present circumstances, it is my right hon. Friend's intention to give the advice referred to because the consultations have now taken place. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that this has been a profitable evening.I want to thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said. I am sure that it will give a great deal of reassurance to those parents and children in Birmingham who might have suffered had the charge been made.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Twelve o'clock.