§ 100. Mr. C. CROOKasked the Under-Secretary of Stat for War how many instructors in the Army Educational Corps are ex-Army schoolmasters; how many are non-commissioned officers who have been transferred from regimental duties; and whether, in view of the experience and extended professional training of ex-Army schoolmasters, it is proposed to retain their services in preference to the continued employment of non-commissioned officers who have not been trained for those particular duties.
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSThere are 202 ex-Army schoolmasters employed as 2569 instructors in the Army Educational Corps and 208 non-commissioned officers transferred from regimental duties; many of the latter have had previous training as teachers in civil life. If further reductions are necessary, due consideration on their merits will be given to the claims of ex-Army schoolmasters for retention on grounds of experience and training.
§ 101. Mr. C. CROOKasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the undertaking given to ex-Army schoolmasters on transfer to the Army Educational Corps that, if approved, they would be promoted to warrant officers, Class I, on completion of eight years' service from the date of confirmation in their appointments, the acceptance of compensation by them as a condition of abrogation of their rights of promotion, as published in Army Order 54/1923, is entirely optional?
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSNo, Sir; I regret that, owing to the reductions effected in the establishment of the Army Educational Corps last year, it is impossible to allow time promotion of warrant officers, Class 1 and 2, to continue. The acceptance of compensation is therefore not optional, but the alternative would have been the discharge of those concerned in addition to the other
§ discharges which were necessary on reduction of establishment.
§ Mr. R. C. MORRISONIn view of the terms of the War Office letter with reference to this matter, is not this decision a distinct breach of faith?
Lieut-Colonel GUINNESSIt is admitted that a promise of employment was held out to these officers, but owing to the exigencies of the public service that promise could not be carried out and generous compensation was substituted.