I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the better protection of areas of special scientific interest; and for purposes connected therewith. In asking leave to introduce this Bill I am asking for a Bill which makes special provision for the better protection of areas of special scientific interest in the countryside. The House will realise that these are areas which the Nature Conservancy has designated with its powers under Section 23 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949.

In that process the Nature Conservancy has a duty to notify the local planning authority that these particular areas, which are known for easy reference as S.S.S.I.'s, are areas of special scientific interest from the botanical point of view or of special interest to naturalists. We have about 2,080 such sites in the British Isles. My Bill, which I seek leave to introduce, has the wholehearted support of the County Naturalists Trust, and I think that those Members of the House who take an interest in these matters will be aware that the Lincolnshire Branch of the County Naturalists Trust is one of the most active and successful.

The spirit behind the Bill is in no way restrictionist. It is to give better powers of protection, so that a greater use can be made of S.S.S.I.s once a site has been designated. If it is to be used for educational purposes, then one must have the proper powers to protect it if one shows more people what is the merit of the site and what is so rare and important. The example in the county of Lincolnshire is where the S.S.S.I.s are used as outside laboratories for the education of school children. This is something which should be followed throughout the country. If we get this Bill, and I trust that we shall, then we will be able to build upon the powers given to protect valuable assets of the countryside, and to create a far better understanding of it among town people, who have no knowledge.

In asking leave to introduce this Bill I am conscious of doing so at a late stage. On the other hand, we have a rather unique situation. We all know that the Government have bags of time on their hands. I hope that all outside bodies which have useful Measures like this that they want to get on the Statute Book will approach the Government at once to see that our morning sittings are used for such valuable Measures as these.

Even if there is not time for my Bill to go through all of its stages, I would suggest that a very important precedent has already been created by which a full Second Reading debate on one whole morning is given to a Bill which gets the right to a Second Reading without opposition. I hope that at least we will have a full day's debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, as has already been done on a previous occasion.

There are three very important reasons why it is vital that this should be done during the month of June. First of all, we have seen a complete failure by the Government to deal with the problem of sites of special scientific interest in the Countryside (Scotland) Bill, now going through the House. We know that the odds are good that the Government will come forward in November with a Bill to deal with the problem of the English countryside. I would argue that there is a very good case for the inclusion, after we have debated them in this House, of many of the provisions of my Bill into the Countryside Bill for England, because the provisions which have been found inadequate to protect S.S.S.I.s were included in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Bill, 1949.

Thirdly, the Bill is urgent because of the recommendation of the Legislative Committee of the Duke of Edinburgh's Study Conference on the Countryside in 1970 that more priority should be gvien to the protection of sites of special scientific interest. I asked leave to introduce a similar Bill about 18 months ago. At about that time most naturalists were prepared to give this Government the benefit of the doubt. They felt that the Government had some interest in the scientific preservation of the countryside. However, once the Tees Valley Water Bill was launched on its course, all illusions about the Government's sympathy in this matter were shattered and we now see what is the underlying trend of Government inaction towards these issues.

In asking leave to introduce the Bill I should declare an interest. I am the owner of an S.S.S.I. It is a botanical one, amounting to an area of about two acres. When the area first came to be scheduled by the Nature Conservancy it sent me a copy and said that it would advise the local planning authority that it would be forced to schedule an area of about 150 acres. We finally settled for a scheduled area of 30 acres.

The House should realise the reasons for this devious procedure. If an area of simply one acre is scheduled, everybody knows where the site of special scientific interest is. There is a very good case for security in these matters. It is the visiting public or the visiting naturalist who wants to take a particular plant or sedge against whom protection is needed. People may be keen to take things home and establish them elsewhere without full knowledge of the problem or realising that such things are not likely to grow elsewhere. Under the existing provision, one is also forced to designate much larger areas to protect them for agricultural operations such as spraying and the making of muirburn.

We have also the extraordinary situation, which the Bill would rectify, whereby one Government Department gives a grant for something which another Government Department wishes to preserve. This is one of the shortcomings of the present procedure. As the House knows, we have got rid of the ploughing grants, the merits of which it would not be appropriate to discuss at this stage, but we are still faced with the land reclamation grants. The Minister of Agriculture has no power to refuse a reclamation grant for an area which may be a site of special scientific interest if it would be good agricultural practice to plough up and destroy the area. My Bill would make provision for a standstill until a proper arrangement could be made.

On the other hand, one has to realise that if we take away from an owner of land the right to cultivate it—if we tell a person that he can only graze an area and cannot plough it up, and that he cannot chop down scrub trees to carry out the proper practices of forestry—some form of compensation must be paid to the owners of sites of special scientific interest. I do not think that the House has ever considered whether somebody who operates his woodlands under a dedication scheme is entitled to retain an area in unproductive timber production simply because it is a site of special scientific interest.

We are fortunate that the Forestry Commission takes such a sensible and tolerant attitude on this matter. That is reflected in the Commission's appointment only the other day of a special conservator for all wild life in the private and State woodlands of the United Kingdom.

The final problem with which the Bill would deal is that many owners do not even know that they have a site of special scientific interest until a naturalist comes along and tells them, "You cannot do that to this area". There is no existing procedure for notifying owners. All that the Nature Conservancy has to do is to notify the county planning officer.

I trust that in these brief ten minutes I have made the case why such a Bill is urgently necessary. I look forward to the Leader of the House granting me the opportunity of a full morning sitting during the month so that I may develop all the arguments on the Bill and have the opportunity to explain to the House the reason and need behind all its seven Clauses.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Kimball, Mr. Costain, Mr. Ramsden, Sir J. Gilmour, Mr. Longden, Mr. Eldon Griffiths, Sir G. Sinclair and Sir J. Eden.

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.

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—

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I beg to move, That the Cinematograph Films (Collection, of Levy) (Amendment No. 5) Regulations 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th May, be approved. I think that it would be for the convenience of the House to take with these Regulations the following Regulations: That the Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th May, be approved. The regulations are made by virtue of the powers conferred by Sections 2 and 3 respectively of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1957. This Act gave statutory form to a scheme which had been operated voluntarily by the industry since 1950 and which is often referred to as the "Eady Levy". Under these arrangements, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise collect from cinema exhibitors one-ninth of the excess on any seat price over lld., except in respect of educational and charitable entertainments and indoor entertainments in rural areas.

Customs deduct the expense of collection and thereafter the proceeds are paid to the British Film Fund Agency. After deduction of the cost of administration and after making a payment to the Children's Film Foundation, the Agency distributes the fund to producers of British films in proportion to their earnings.

The Regulations at present in force expire in October of this year. The relevant films legislation was also due to expire in October, but its term was extended by the Films Act, 1966, for a further three years in order to provide time for a comprehensive review of films legislation. The main effect of the regulations now before the House will be similarly to extend for another three years the life of the existing regulations. We propose, however, to take this opportunity to make, as from October of this year, two small changes, both of which are designed to assist the cinemas whose box-office takings are low.

Amendment No. 5 to the Collection of Levy Regulations embodies these two changes. At present, a cinema which takes at the box office no more than £350 in any one week, disregarding takings from charitable, educational and children's entertainment, pays no levy on its takings for that week. The amendment raises the exemption limit to £400. The number of people going to the cinema continues to fall, and both the Cinema Exhibitors' Association and the Association of Independent Cinemas have made representations asking for some measure of relief for the cinema owners. It is not possible to assess exactly what the cost of this proposed raising of the exemption limit by £50 will be, but our estimate for what it is worth, is that the figure will be, in a full year, about £100,000.

The second change gives a new and, I think, more sensible form of relief to cinemas whose takings marginally exceed in any one week the exemption limit. Up to now, cinemas have had to pay into the levy fund the full amount of any excess of takings over the exemption limit whenever such payments are less than they would have to pay if they paid levy at the standard rate. This is a severe discouragement to enterprise and effort to attract more custom.

The amendment now proposed provides a marginal rate of 25 per cent.; that is, an exhibitor whose takings marginally exceed £400 in any one week will pay 25 per cent. of the excess until levy at that rate equals levy at the standard rate. Again, I cannot give an exact forecast of what the cost of this change will be to the fund, but we estimate that it will be in the region of £200,000.

The effect of the two amendments may be to reduce the fund by about £300,000 in a full year. The fund is at present yielding £4½ million or thereabouts. I believe it is in the best interests of the industry as a whole that these small adjustments should be made. The film studios, I am delighted to say, are busy at present. I do not think that a reduction of this order in the yield of the fund will significantly affect the level of British film production. The increased reliefs will enable some cinemas, which otherwise might have to close, to remain open and this will benefit producers and distributors as well as cinema owners.

Amendment No. 2 simply prolongs the existing arrangements for another three years. Various proposals for amendment of these Regulations have been made and they will all be very carefully considered during the review which is now taking place of film legislation and policy. The Government do not think it right to make changes in the levy distribution arrangements in advance of completion of this review. Accordingly, we propose as regards distribution of levy simple prolongation for three years of the present Regulations.

The Cinematograph Films Council has been consulted and recommended the proposals I have outlined. I hope that they will prove acceptable to the House.

11.32 a.m.

I understand that the purpose of both these Regulations is to deal on the one hand with the collection of the levy and on the other with its distribution, but I also understand that a certain amount of taxpayers' money goes to support the film industry. Am I right in assuming that what we are dealing with here is merely an adjustment between the payment and collection of the levy and we are not in any way expending any Exchequer contribution which goes to the film industry?

That is quite right. No taxpayers' money is involved.

That is what I understood, but I thought I should get it on the record.

The only other point I make is not a criticism in any way of the amendment proposed, but simply to put to the hon. Gentleman that in view of the recent Report by the Monopolies Commission the House will expect in due course to have the Government's views on the Report and to be given some indication of how the Government view the recommendations and what they are doing about implementing them. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is in a position to tell us about this, but from what he said about the continuing fall-off in cinema audiences it seems that probably a rather radical review of the present situation is called for.

I should have thought that probably in the more artistic field it might be sensible to bring in the Arts Council for cinemas in exactly the same way as for theatres rather than attempt to subsidise films which, for various reasons, the public do not appear to want to see and to make them economic. This is a wider problem, but if the hon. Gentleman could give some idea of when he hopes to make a statement on the Monopolies Commission Report, it would be helpful. I have no adverse comments to make on the Regulations themselves.

11.34 a.m.

I speak again by leave of the House. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield). The review of legislation and policy on the film industry will take a considerable time yet, but my right hon. Friend will make a statement on the Government's views on the Monopolies Commission Report very shortly indeed.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) (Amendment No. 5) Regulations 1967. a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th May, be approved.

Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1967 [draft laid before the House 5th May], approved. —[ Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu. ]

I am glad of the opportunity of raising a matter which has concerned me for some considerable time as an ex-university lecturer and one who has had considerable correspondence on the government of our universities and its impact on students. It is obvious that from time to time students will feel indignation. Therefore, one has to be careful about how to take the observations they make, but when carefully considered observations are made indicating that there is something seriously lacking in our universities, I think it time that Parliament brought some attention to them.

I am raising this matter primarily because I understand that new charters are now being provided and certain charters are being redrafted. Consequently, the advice of the Minister is being sought. Therefore, on the basis of past experience and justifiable complaints, future charters ought to contain additional provisions to protect both academic standards and students' rights. This is absolutely essential. Universities are the highest centres of learning. They are the holders of everything which we value in the academic field. I take second place to no one in supporting the work done by the universities and the University Grants Committee, but the universities must not mistakenly defend reaction, inefficiency and muddle. In university life there is much too much which is open to question.

I shall deal with four particular aspects of the problem: first, the question of the standard of instruction or lecturing given to students; secondly, the relationship between the student, the parent and the university, particularly in regard to examinations; thirdly, the fields in which I think there should be greater student participation in the government universities; and, fourthly, the problems faced by students when they are alleged to be in breach of discipline.

I hope that no one in the universities will attack me for undermining their academic freedom. It is the universities themselves which have decided that lectures shall be the order of the day. It is the universities which have decided that seminars and tutorials shall be held. In no way do I want to interfere with the way in which they organise this work, but they ought to make quite sure, having decided that this is the method by which they are to impart knowledge to students, that the work is properly carried out.

There are large numbers of university lecturers and university staff who carry out an absolutely first-rate job of work, but, unfortunately, there are all too many who are guilty of slipshod, inaccurate, dog-eared, mumbled types of lectures which show no preparation whatever. I have been told by many students that it is no wonder they stay away from lectures as they are so badly prepared and delivered. This is not a defence of academic freedom. Anyone who produces inferior work at the universities, which should be the centres of high standards, deserves our condemnation. This is something which the universities themselves must put right.

The standards of imparting knowledge to students will probably improve when students have a greater say in the running of the universities.

I am not suggesting that universities should be taken over by students or that the university government should be dominated by students. I am merely saying that they should be given a reasonable amount of discussion control, and power. They have a contribution to make which the university itself ought to recognise.

When it comes to sustaining academic integrity a student can quickly become disillusioned because he expects high standards from his lecturers and professors and administrators. Unfortunately this is not always true. Those who try to achieve high standards deserve high honour in our society, and we must guard those standards and that high honour. If something goes wrong within the walls of the university they ought to take immediate steps to rectify it. If in the future things go wrong, the Charter ought to provide for public pronouncement of that which has gone wrong.

It has been drawn to my attention recently that certain examinations which took place last June at Aston University in the Industrial Relations Department were open to question in that the examinations were not conducted as well as they ought to have been. There was good cause for complaint, and complaints were made in June of last year. The university admitted there were errors and they promised to set up a select committee. They did this, and from 12th October to this date there has been glorious silence. I do not believe that any university should hide behind the concept of forgetfulness or sub judice. This is no substitute for honest academic integrity. Something went wrong and the university owed it to its students to reveal what went wrong.

The third field in which I am vitally interested is the right of the student to participate in the government of the university at the highest level. Let me repeat that the university ought not to be run by the students, but at the same time I would argue that the students have a right to active participation in the running of the university itself.

These are young people who are on the threshold of adult life. They are some of our better brains, people of great intellect, and very shortly after leaving the walls of the university they have to accept responsible positions. They take over responsible jobs and many of them become responsible for teaching the young. If the university denies them the right to participate actively in self-government then it is no wonder that sometimes they get turned out from these places of learning without adequate experience of Government.

I do not think that they are asking for a great deal. They are asking for that which many of us would say was a minimum right. I would have thought that in future charters the Minister could strongly advise and recommend that students should be given a much greater say in the running of the affairs of the university.

Sir Eric Ashby, when he talked about students, said: The student must have expert knowledge. That is what he gets from his lectures and laboratories. He must also have the confidence which comes from participation in community living. That is what he gets from belonging, as a co-equal, to a society of Chancellor. Masters and Scholars. Unfortunately, all too often our students are denied the right to participate in this way.

My hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is to reply to the debate, and I were both educated at the University of Wales. It is rather surprising that some of the rights we possessed in our early days before we took on our grey hairs are still being denied to some of the students of our universities today—ordinary, simple, elementary rights. Students were allowed to associate quite freely in our university and yet today in this country we have a situation of responsible young men and women being denied these rights.

It is also highly significant that where students are given rights one tends to get the best type of relationship between the staff and the students. I do not think that this is a paradox. I believe that responsibility begets responsibility and that experience has shown the ability of students and others to make a greater contribution to the wellbeing of the country as a whole. I would ask the Minister to consider very strongly indeed extending the powers and the rights of students.

One other thing I ought to mention is that Ministries and universities tend to have a good method of shelving good reports without acting upon them. I would commend—I have every right since I was sent a copy—that the Department of Education reads again the Hale Report on University Teaching Methods. It will find within this report much that is good. I would urge that in future charters the universities should take account of the teaching methods and criticisms which are made of them in that report.

In conclusion, I should like to refer to the rights of a student when he is being disciplined. I cannot do better than refer to an article by David Gourlay, in The Guardian. He talks about the difficulties which arise and about university responsibility for disciplining students. He says: The main points of discussion involved a student's right to be informed of charges against him,"— this is ordinary common justice— his right of adequate representation, his right of appeal against sentence, and the guarantee that whoever chairs the first disciplinary court shall not occupy the chair or any subsequent chair of an appeal committee. He is asking for ordinary, straightforward, common-or-garden justice. Many universities following the experience of Glasgow University appear to have realised with shock that their procedures, although previously considered 'traditionally adequate', were not necessarily consistent with principles of natural justice. The universities ought to be the guardians of natural justice and they ought not to deny it to their students. It is the organisation which represents students—the National Union of Students—which has asked for the following code of discipline to be built into every charter. They are straightforward simple human rights: first, there shall be an advance notice of the charges. This is reasonable. Secondly, they should be represented at any proceedings. This, again, is straightforward, ordinary justice. They should have the right to call witnesses in their defence and they should have the right to cross-examine those who bring the charges.

I urge my hon. Friend to consider these requests most carefully. They are the requests of reasonable people. If these young men and women are to go into life, the products of our universities, inadequately trained to accept responsibility, the universities have no one to blame but themselves.

I greatly admire all the work that the universities have done, but they must not be reactionary in the matter of allowing students the ordinary, decent rights which are allowed to others.

11.50 a.m.

I want to comment on some of the excellent points which have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones). There is a danger in the British community in treating the universities, as we constantly do, as a totally special and isolated element in our institutional structure for higher learning.

I do not take this matter too seriously, but my hon. Friend said that the universities are our special custodians of research and of high standards; but it must be remembered that there are research institutions outwith the universities which do a tremendous amount of the higher level academic work and that there are many institutions—technical colleges and colleges of education—that teach people to teach and teach people to do all sorts of things and which are quite as high in their standards as that which goes on in universities.

I have often been bothered at the tendency to attribute two different standards of accountability, the right to look after their own affairs, to the universities and to other institutions. It is time we began to look upon universities more as part of a large spectrum of organisations conducting the teaching and the research and stopped giving them this very peculiar privileged position which has led to much of the difficulty in thinking out how they should fit into our educational and social pattern.

From this it is reasonably argued, as I have always argued, that there should be accountability by the universities, because they spend large sums of public money, because they fit into a broad pattern, because they turn people out who go into our society, because they are maintained by public money, because they draw people from the schools. The universities are in a whole chain of the training of people's human experience in certain walks of life, going through from the schools to their ultimate activities.

It is wrong that a particular sector should be singled out and left less accountable than schools, than professional associations, the bodies who produce the young men and women before they go to the universities and which take them on after they leave. This is an anomaly. It stems from a confusion between intellectual freedom, which we would all defend—I would defend it to the last—and the question of how public money should be spent on organising the provision of teaching of research, which is quite another matter.

I often think that oligarchial methods of government are defended in the universities on the quite erroneous grounds that these have something to do with intellectual freedom, the right to pursue one's own researches, the right to train one's students and tell them what one believes to be the truth on any particular academic subject.

I come on to the point raised by my hon. Friend about the standards of teach- ing. I agree that much rather poor teaching goes on in Britain, not merely in the universities. This is a very difficult problem indeed to handle. It is one of those matters about which one must be fairly brutal. A great deal of the standard of performance depends on the incentive. While university teachers tend to be hired for many virtues, their teaching capacity is not usually one of them; it is not usually something which is rated very highly.

When teaching has been important to university teachers, they have shown that they can perform as well in this field as well as in any other. Years ago the Scottish universities used to remunerate their professors by allowing them to charge a fee of all who took their classes. The result was that the better the lecturer was the more people went to his classes and the higher his fee. The professors then insisted on taking the first-year class, because it was the largest class, with the most students, and the professors performed so well that large numbers of students flocked to hear their lectures. The professors stood at the door and collected the fees as the students entered.

I am not suggesting any particularly crude method of this kind now, but it shows that when the universities were organised in this way a tremendous premium was put on good lecturing. When I taught in an American university the students conducted a popularity poll in a very serious fashion as to which department or professor or lecturer did a very good job, who performed well and who stimulated his students. The department that did well took great pride in ensuring that its new products could lecture.

When I was there, due to one or two other arrivals besides myself, the standard of the department slipped. We became second in the popularity poll. Immediately this was realised, I saw a large lecture hall where the junior members of the lecturing staff of the department took it in turns on the rostrum, while the senior members said, "No, you are inaudible. I cannot hear you from the back row. Speak up. That diagram was too small. The illustration you gave was not clear."This went on until they "revved up" the standard of their own department and got back to the top of the ratings.

Nobody wants to be cheap about this. However, no teaching is given to university lecturers on how to teach. Not a great deal of attention is paid by those who are really good at the craft to showing others. It is almost regarded as an impertinence for a senior to go and hear a junior member of the department lecture. It is regarded as an impertinence to suggest that he cannot be heard from the back row because he is mumbling into his notes.

I myself would not lay much stress on student advice in this matter, because I concede that some of the greatest teachers have been bad teachers. Some of the greatest teachers have stimulated people when one would not have expected them to do so. However, I would expect the heads of universities and the heads of university departments to take a more general interest in the capacity of their staff to teach and help them to overcome what are often elementary defects which can be corrected by a little advice and a little suggestion from those with more experience.

I am very much in agreement with my hon. Friend on the question of charters and student discipline rights. On the question of discipline particularly, one or two principles can be laid down which I would like to see embodied in university practice. What bothers me most is when universities set out to try people for offences which are not necessarily offences according to the law of the land and to punish them; because sending a student down is usually the ultimate punishment.

This is the kind of punishment which denies a man the right to practise as a doctor for the rest of his life. It denies a man the right to be a lawyer or a teacher. It takes away from him much more than a two months' prison sentence or some such sentence would, which might be lived down later. It takes away from somebody the whole right to carry on a certain type of livelihood in a speciality.

In these circumstances, I am doubtful when tribunals of people, whose expertise is in quite another field—an academic field—determine to try people, especially when the offences would not be offences according to the normal law of the land. I suggest that university charters should provide that for all things which are offences before the normal law university authorities hand over the student to the police.

This is often regarded with horror in university circles. I have listened to university professors at disciplinary committees saying, with hands held up in horror, "This would be a disaster. This would be frightful. We do not want our people to go before normal courts". I do not agree with this. These students are citizens. They are adults. If they have broken the law, they should face the consequences.

The second point about it is that often the police courts are much kinder in the last resort. One or two of the recent rather unpleasant university cases have been cases which the university concerned proceeded with after the police had said that there was not anything on which they, the police, had grounds for prosecution. This was particularly so with the Glasgow students' case. The case was handed over to the police. They said that there was not enough evidence to proceed. Then the university went ahead on its own. This was one of the reasons why I think that the university got landed in very acute difficulties. Universities should confine themselves in their disciplinary activities to what I would call academic offences, which are things like not working properly, not turning up, and cheating at examinations.

For things of this kind, where there are offences which are contrary to the nature of the institutions, I still think that for these offences a procedure should be laid down which accords with natural justice and allows for an appeal to a normal court on the question.

Only in this way can one safeguard oneself from the rather claustrophobic atmosphere which one gets in institutions where people find themselves being tried not merely for a specific offence, but for their general reputation and the fact that they have been troublemakers. The fact that there have been stories about them tends to creep into people's minds; it is hard to keep it out when one is in a small institution, and often evidence or innuendo lurks about in this kind of trial which would not be considered in an outside independent court, trying someone simply for the prescribed offence before it.

One could lay down quite a reasonable code of discipline, which would say that any offence against the normal law of the land must be tried by the courts. Students would welcome this, and it would put their position very clearly. If there was a "Rag Week" and there was some violence, or a small offence committed, the student in question might be cautioned or fined, or might be imprisoned for a short period. Then he could go back to his work, graduate, and go through life in the normal fashion, wiser and perhaps better behaved. It would be much more serious for him to go before a university court and be deprived of his right to go on with his career, to be sent down for a year, when this would mean his being unable to sit his finals and graduate.

This would lead to a clear-cut procedure which would strip the universities of that irresistible tendency among small corporate bodies, which are continually dishing out advice to people, to believe that in some curious way they know better what is good for young people than the students themselves. There is this tendency always to take on moral offences, to take on things not really punishable by the normal courts.

How could all of this be embodied as students' rights? In this case, the Scottish universities provide a good example, in the concept of the rights of the students' council. I see no reason why this should not be incorporated in subsequent councils. The students could have the right to organise, hold elections and have a representative body. This body could have stated statutory rights to be consulted on all matters concerning status to give their opinions, but not to have powers to enforce them.

I would distinguish between consultative and executive power. One wants to build this into university affairs. In my experience of over 20 years with Scottish universities, the system has produced people who have been most responsible. Quite a number of hon. Members went through this training. On the whole, the people who became president of students' representative councils and President of the Union have gone on to show that they have been leaders in other spheres and responsible members of the community.

We would welcome this. A lot of the trouble that we have recently had would decline if principals and authorities in universities established a better relationship with students' leaders. Although I support the students' case in this way, theirs is only part of the right to be consulted. A university works through a number of groups. It works through its senior and junior staff and its students. In some cases one might say that its administration plays a distinct part in total policy-making. All of these four elements have their rights and each has a rôle to play. Clearly, some have a directing rôle and others an advisory rôle. One can arrange for this in the charters.

In the last resort I come back to my first point—none of this is a substitute for an element of public accountability for the total position of the universities in our educational structure.

12.5 p.m.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) has raised a question of very great interest, and he has been joined in a most informative and stimulating speech by my other hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). It is right that we should debate this matter although, for reasons which I shall give a little later on, I must make it clear that in these matters, rightly in my judgment, there are severe limits on Ministerial responsibility. Nevertheless, I think that some of what I have to say will prove reasonably encouraging to my hon. Friends and others who I know are concerned about this vital matter. It is a matter on which strong feelings have sometimes been expressed, and it is important to try to hold the balance between the various points of view: the point of view of the student, the point of view of the academic authorities, who have the heavy responsibility of running the vast organisations constituted by a modern university, and the point of view of the community at large.

Any discussion of the government of recently created universities inevitably centres round the drafting and granting of their charters, a process which, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State indicated in his statement on 9th May, has now been virtually completed, at least with regard to institutions for which university status is at present contemplated. It is right here that I should point out that it is not possible to alter charters already granted unless the university concerned voluntarily petitions for such alteration. There is no legislation whereby amendments can be forced upon a university, and indeed I think any such legislation would be undesirable, defeating the whole concept upon which charters are granted.

It is fitting therefore that I should confine my remarks to the arrangements for granting charters and to facts as to the provisions they make regarding students and their affairs, and that I should refrain from comment on the merits of provisions in existing charters or on the question of whether these might, with advantage be amended. It will be appropriate, too, that I should limit myself to fairly recent history—to the granting of charters to our distinguished new technological universities, formerly known as C.A.T.s—the colleges of advanced technology—and the central institutions in Scotland, which were the subject of my right hon. Friend's statement on 9th May.

May I take a little time in outlining the process of granting a charter. In the first place, the granting of a charter with its associated statutes, to a new university falls within the Royal Prerogative, following on a petition from the body desiring incorporation. Amendment of an existing charter, in accordance with its provisions regarding amendment, is subject to the approval of Her Majesty the Queen in Council or the Privy Council following, likewise, on an application from the chartered body.

From the side of the new university, the charter would normally be drafted by an Academic Advisory Committee. The members of this committee, appointed by the governing body of the college, in consultation with the University Grants Committee, would be people of academic distinction, well-practised in university affairs, who could be depended on for expert judgments of what would be desirable and practicable in a new university's constitution. A petition for the charter would then be formally lodged, and would be referred by Her Majesty the Queen to a Committee of the Privy Council for its consideration and report.

Notice of that is published in the London Gazette and, in the case of Scottish establishments, in the Edinburgh Gazette also, specifying the period, normally one calendar month, during which representations can be made to the Privy Council Office. I emphasise that it is open to any citizen or organisation at that point to make representations. Any representations which are received are taken into account by the Committee of the Council before deciding on the advice to be offered to the Queen about the granting of the charter.

Under the College Charter Act, 1871, the petition, draft charter and annexed statutes for any new university which have been referred to a Committee of the Council are laid before both Houses of Parliament for a period of one month. While it is open to those drafting a charter to suggest the inclusion of any provision—for instance, for consultation with students on student discipline—the suggested provision may be tempered by Privy Council policy as to general desirability one way or the other or as to practicability—for instance, too much detail could lead to unnecessary work of amendment later—or it could be tempered by the Privy Council because of the need to meet representations made by a third party.

There is in England and Wales no general legislation relevant to university government and my right hon. Friend has no statutory powers in these matters. The position is slightly different in Scotland. Where, then, does the Secretary of State for Education and Science come in? He comes into it because he is, as a Privy Councillor and also as a member of any Privy Council Committee considering university matters, consulted by the Privy Council about all draft charters for new universities. The responsibility, however, for deciding what, if any, amendment is needed in any particular case rests with the Privy Council Committee as a whole.

If deadlock between the Committee of the Privy Council and the petitioners were to be reached in a particular case—happily, this has not so far happened—the only sanction which could be applied would be for the Committee to advise the Queen not to grant the charter. Presumably, in such an improbable case, the petitioning body would come back with an amended statement, which might meet the wishes of the Privy Council to a greater extent or conclusively.

Turning to the specific issue of student rights, I should like to emphasise the point which I have just made generally that before a charter is granted, full opportunities are given to anyone interested to make representations to the Privy Council. I assure the House that this is no formality. Indeed, in recent instances, numerous representations have been received and considered. As a result of this procedure, a number of amendments have been made to the draft charter and statutes as originally submitted.

An especially important instance concerned the draft charter of the University of Surrey—which, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, I examined in great detail—with regard to which the National Union of Students represented that it wished to see certain provisions included. These were mainly the right to form a students' union not subject to control by the university authorities, to have representation on the governing bodies and to be given a fair hearing in case of disciplinary offences involving suspension or expulsion, with right of appeal to an external body.

What happened was this. With Privy Council concurrence, my right hon. Friend made it known that the Privy Council had put to the sponsors of the new charters who had already applied, and would continue to put to the sponsors in future cases, the desirability, where this had not already been done, of embodying provisions in the charter and statutes to cover the following. This comes reasonably close to what my two hon. Friends have put forward as desirable provisions.

The first provision is that the senate and council of the new universities should be expressly empowered to establish joint committees of themselves and representatives of the student body. The second is that provision should be made whereby a procedure would be laid down for a right on the part of a student who was suspended or expelled to be formally heard by the senate or by a body appointed by the senate before the decision became final. The third is that provision should be made for the establishment of an association representing the student body. The charters and statutes for all the new technological universities incorporate provisions on those lines.

There have been beneficial results from this exercise on the part of my right hon. Friend. These provisions—indeed, all provisions under a charter—are subject to the general rule of our law that they should be exercised in accordance with natural justice. This point was made forcibly by my hon. Friends who have spoken in the debate. They, like others, have suggested that this, too, should appear in charters. That suggestion rests, however, on a misunderstanding. No authority may lawfully act against natural justice, and it is not for a charter to enjoin that it should be carried out according to what is already the law. Students and universities, like everybody else, are subject to the law and no charter can or should purport to put them above it or separate from it.

I have been referring to the charters of our new universities. I should mention, however, that these are only about one-quarter of all our universities. The rest derive their constitutions from charters granted over a long period of time or, in certain cases, from Acts of Parliament; and these can only be amended if the university authorities themselves apply for that to be done. Neither my right hon. Friend nor the Privy Council can require a university to do this.

Charters and statutes are, however, only part of the fabric of university government, albeit the main structure. Provision is generally made in the charters whereby the university bodies themselves can make ordinances and regulations. Mostly these are not subject to approval by the Privy Council or any other external authority.

Whether the charters and statutes provide, as do those recently granted, an outline of arrangements for student consultation and for procedure in cases of serious breaches of discipline, or whether, as in many earlier cases, they simply confer on one of the university bodies a general responsibility for student discipline, implementation is likely in either case to be through ordinances and regulations and not through a statute annexed to the charter. This is the practicality and the actuality of the position whichever method is adopted.

That is not to devalue the charter and statutes but it is why I have said before, and I am ready to say again, that the onus of evolving a satisfactory relationship with their students rests on the individual university or college authorities and, for the students' part, on a responsible approach by them also to the matter.

If the students feel that they have not an adequate say in their university's affairs or that the disciplinary arrangements need liberalisation, the proper course, which most student bodies take, is to discuss the matter with the university authorities and to come to a workable arrangement. I am sure that any responsible proposal will be given a sympathetic hearing.

Students' well-being and the success of their studies depend largely on the atmosphere in which they work, and no one would deny the importance of ensuring that this is as calm and contented as it can be in a community of young people in an exciting and, perhaps, excitable stage of their lives. Many universities have achieved this and the subject is of great and continuing interest, discussion and action throughout the university world.

There have, however, been highly publicised troubles in one college—-in neither Scotland nor Wales—but I am very glad to say that commonsense and patience have now emerged on both sides of the argument and that there is every prospect that changes will be worked out which will enable that truly great institution to carry on its work with continued distinction.

I am told that there will always be tension between the young and the middle-aged. As the father of two teen-aged students, I do not accept this. Any friction is within student bodies and possibly within staff bodies and not between the two. My experience, having spoken to staff and students of universities, is that there is likely to be variation of view about government in the universities in those two categories. The remarkable fact is that more than half of the university staff are under 40 and a high proportion are under 30.

Universities are places not for massive meek conformity but where work should be done and where it is a privilege to work. They are also organisations whose glory is that they are independent— neither staff, nor students nor Government would wish it otherwise—and indepedence implies responsibility. As I said to a conference organised on this subject by World University Service recently, the university authorities and the student bodies cannot contract out of the responsibility for finding a viable solution.

The stresses of the dramatic expansion of our universities in the last few years can be eased and removed by the steady search for basic rules and procedures—resilient and not too dogmatic—which will make a reality of joint membership of staff and students of the same community.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles also raised some questions which I find it difficult to deal with in this debate, such as that of the conduct of examinations. My right hon. Friend and I have no responsibility for this, which is for the individual university. Examples of laxity or irregularity are happily very rare, as one might expect when universities and their personnel are responsible for the arrangements and when there is a built-in interest in guarding against public accusation of laxity or low standards. Universities have an interest in making the best arrangements so that their examinations and their results are seen to be of the highest possible standard. It would, therefore, be wrong for my right hon. Friend to seek special powers of intervention.

My hon. Friend also referred to the need to improve university teaching methods. As one who has lectured and conducted a few seminars and tutorials, I may have some retrospective vested interest in agreeing wholeheartedly that the vast majority of university teachers do an extremely good job. It is the assumption not only here but in other countries that our university teaching is of a high standard.

Nevertheless, there have been calls, because of recent criticism, for higher standards and training for university teachers—not quite the same as for school teachers, although that is a reasonable analogy. Both the Hale and Robbins Reports made cogent comments and suggestions on this matter and the university world is fully aware of the need to help and train young lecturers to give of their best, whether by lecture, by tutorial, or by seminar.

We should remember that every university has its own techniques. I doubt whether the famous university whose staff was distinguished by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) would entirely agree with the situation in Oxbridge or the University of Wales, where there is a tendency to emphasise the tutorial above that in certain Oxford colleges.

This is the currency not of experimentation but of application. There are basic principles of university education and the widest possible variation in techniques. They are often personal to the tutor in relation to the group which he is teaching. The universities and the University Grants Committee have taken full note of both Hale and Robbins and there is substantial and fruitful discussions of means of improving teaching methods.

The debate will be examined by all with interest in the subject and I have no doubt that they will take note of what has been said. I expect the students will also note the remarks and suggestions about well-behaved but effective direct action by way of criticism which my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian described so graphically and attractively.

The debate having been concluded, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER suspended the Sitting until half-past Two o'clock, pursuant to Order.

Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.