R.A.F. EDUCATION OFFICERS (Hansard, 28 November 1946)

§ Mr. Ralph Morley (Southampton)
I wish to draw the attention of this House to the very serious grievances which the education officers of the R.A.F. suffered in their service during the late war, and to suggest to the Secretary of State for Air that, unless these grievances are rectified, with retrospective effect, he is not likely to make up his full establishment in the new education service which he is now organising for the R.A.F.
Since the hour is late and the time limited, and I know of at least one other hon. Member who wishes to take part in this Debate, I will content myself with epitomising as rapidly as I can the position of these education officers in the Royal Air Force. They joined under civilian conditions of service, and since they joined under these conditions of service, they did not receive Service pay or allowances. They were paid the Burnham scale, with a slight addition. Nor did they receive the tax reliefs paid to officers in the Service, and if they received injuries in the course of their duties they were awarded civilian compensation and not the higher rate of compensation applied to the Services. In spite of these disabilities, they were compelled to wear the Service uniform: they carried the normal Service identity cards, were subject to Air Force law and were frequently called upon by commanding officers to perform the duties of a fully mobilised officer. They had one advantage at the beginning of their service. They were employed on a con- 1918 tract which could be terminated by a three months' notice on either side. In May, 1945, under Regulation 58AA of the Defence and Civil Service Regulations they were told they were to be treated as civil servants and could not be released unless with the consent of the Permanent Officer of the Ministry. And that consent was not often given.
As the German war concluded, these education officers were retained in the Service against the contract under which they had entered, while other teachers were being released under Scheme "B". As a result of being retained they came back to the schools later and lost opportunities of promotion, of which some of those who were released earlier were able to avail themselves. When they were released they received no leave with pay, no gratuity, and no clothing allowance. In fact these education officers had the worst of both worlds: they suffered from all the disadvantages of both Services—the Royal Air Force and the Civil Service—and had the advantages of neither. It is little wonder that these officers have returned to the schools with a feeling of deep resentment against their treatment by the Royal Air Force. They have had a raw deal and they have not forgotten it. As a result they are advising other teachers not to enter the educational service of the Royal Air Force. I would not altogether put past their advising the boys whom they are teaching against service with the Royal Air Force. If the new and fully mobilised educational service of the Royal Air Force is to reach the required standard, something will have to be done to rectify this injustice.
A few weeks ago I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many applicants he had had for the new educational service in the Royal Air Force. In reply he said he had 131 applicants. But a few weeks before that the Financial Secretary to the War Office stated that for 300 vacancies in the Army, he had had over 1,500 applications. The difference is due, no doubt, to the memories of the bad treatment received by the education officers in the period of the war. On several occasions I have led deputations to the Air Ministry to plead the case of these officers to the Under-Secretary of State and his predecessor, the present Minister of Food. On both occasions, 1919 we were received most courteously; our view appeared to elicit a considerable amount of sympathy and agreement from both Under-Secretaries and we left the conferences feeling that our requests were going to be granted. But they have not been granted. To-night I ask the Under-Secretary if he can give us a promise that he will pay these people the gratuities to which they claim to be entitled and also give them their clothing allowance. If he does so, I can assure him that he will do very much to expedite the building of the full establishment in the new R.A.F.

§ Sir Ian Fraser (Lonsdale)
In the closing months of the war, a flying bomb fell on an R.A.F. school in St. John's Wood, and blinded for life a young education officer of the R.A.F. Had he been in the Army or in the Royal Navy, he would have been treated as a blinded officer and pensioned accordingly. But because he was in the R.A.F. he receives a civilian pension which is less than half the amount he would have received had he been in the other Services. He is the only one in that category. I have asked successive, Under-Secretaries for Air that this should be remedied; I have asked about it at the Ministry of Pensions, but the Ministry of Pensions cannot move, unless the Secretary for Air moves first. Is it too late— surely it is not—for the Government to make an exception in this case and grant this man what he would have had, had he been in either of the other Services?

§ Mr. George Thomas (Cardiff, Central)
There has always been a feeling of uneasiness among hon. Members of this House about injustices to ex-members of His Majesty's Forces. The Under-Secretary is acquainted with the fact that the education officers of the Royal Air Force have had a raw deal. On many occasions the matter has been brought before the Minister and the hon. Gentleman will know, and the House should know, that these men have given gallant service throughout the war, have faced the same hazards as the other members of the Services during the war, and have had all the responsibility of mobilised people. But they find at the end of their service that they get no gratuity with which to face the difficulties of "Civvy Steet," and they have the further increased hardship to which the hon. Member for Southampton 1920 (Mr. Morley) has drawn attention, in connection with their clothing coupons and allowances. We have been considering in recent days the question of conscription, owing to the admitted difficulties of providing sufficient numbers by voluntary service. But I think it right to say that, so long as there are manifest injustices suffered by those who are in the Services, or those who have been in the Services, we cannot expect much from the voluntary recruiting campaign which is being attempted. I hope that my hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary, will be accommodating to-night. In the St. Athan station in South Wales there is a large proportion of these education officers, who have had very high commendation for what they have done. Are we to allow them to leave the Service disgruntled and dissatisfied after all they have done? I am certain that the Under-Secretary will render a great service, not only to the Royal Air Force, but also to recruiting at this time, if he takes steps to wipe out the injustices and grievances which these men feel.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas)
The championship of the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Morley) of the members of the old civilian R.A.F. educational service is well known to me, as it is to all those in the field of education. I have discussed this matter with my hon. Friend in the extreme discomfort of the Lobbies and corridors of this Palace, in the relative comfort of my office at the Air Ministry, and in the relaxed ease of the Members' smoking room. At all times, he has told me the line of attack that he would use when this matter was raised upon the Adjournment. The case presented tonight is that our civilian education officers during the war had the worst of two worlds, military and civil, and as a result the officers have left the Service and taken with them a feeling of resentment. It was further said that this resentment will cause them to influence other members of the teaching profession not to join the education branch of the R.A.F. and may even cause the pupils in the schools not to join the R.A.F.
The facts of the R.A.F. educational service are as follow—and, of course, the history is here relevant. It was formed soon after the 1914–1918 war as a civilian service. The Government of the day no 1921 doubt decided to make it a civilian service because it was cheaper but, unfortunately, successive Governments followed this policy. Thus it was that at the beginning of the 1939 war the Royal Air Force, in so many ways the most progressive of the Services, was the only Service without a militarised education branch. It is that point, to which I will return in a moment, which is relevant to the point made by the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser). It was the only Service without a militarised education branch. It had only the civilian service established 20 years before, and this is the whole crux of the matter. The R.A.F. educational service remained civilian until 1st October, 1946.
It has been said that in some way this civilian status was changed because of the way these men were employed in the R.A.F. during the war. It has been said that they were commissioned. That is true. It was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) that they were in a similar position to other mobilised men. That is not so: they were not mobilised—

§ Mr. G. Thomas
But they had the same responsibilities.

§ Mr. de Freitas
I will deal with the Point about responsibility in a moment. hey were commissioned in the R.A.F.V.R. but they were not mobilised. Other civilians were also commissioned—members of the works, the audit, and the scientific staff. It is said they were put into uniform. That is true, but so were other civilians. It is said they were under R.A.F. law, and so they were. They were subject to R.A.F. law as members of the R.A.F.V.R. but, as one of my predecessors said in this House, on 26th November, 1941: As unmobilised officers of the R.A.F. Volunteer Reserve, they are subject to the Air Force Act only to the same extent as are other civilians accompanying the Air Force on active service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1941; Vol. 376, c. 732.] It is said that they had Service identity cards. So they had. They had Form 1250 but that had nothing to do with their status and was merely because they were in uniform.

§ Mr. King (Penryn and Falmouth)
What is an unmobilised officer?

§ Mr. de Freitas
An unmobilised officer is a well recognised category. It is a 1922 man Who is commissioned but not mobilised.

§ Mr. G. Thomas
It is a contradiction in terms.

§ Mr. de Freitas
It is not a contradiction in terms. There is art unmobilised officer. He is a man who receives a commission but is not called out or mobilised.

§ Mr. Pritt (Hammersmith, North)
Are they demobilised—they are not mobilised?

§ Mr. de Freitas
No, they are not. A further point that has-been made by the hon. Member for Southampton is that they were called upon to perform the duties of fully mobilised officers, That is not so. They were not called upon to do so, but it cannot be denied that many of these education officers were from time to, time entrusted by station commanders with duties which as- civilians they could not be called upon to perform. I remember myself in the R.A.F. meeting an education officer acting as an orderly officer, but in such cases the education officer volunteered for those duties as a public spirited and obviously educated man, who-realised how important it was to, give all the help he could especially on routine and uninteresting jobs in the Service.

§ Mr. King
As a personal experience I recall that on an R.A.F. station, where I had the command of the defence troops, the education officer was taking an active role in the defence of that place, and he did not volunteer for the job. He was detailed to do it.

§ Mr. de Freitas
I should like to have information on that, because the Air Ministry letter of 28th May, 1942, which was sent to all commanders-in-chief, expressly laid down conditions on that point. It stated that many education officers were anxious to take part in. station defence, and after detailing how they could do so and how they could be accepted if they volunteered—that point is made plain— the letter makes it quite clear that these men were civilians and remained civilians, and it adds: If education officers sustain death or injury while taking part in defence duties they are eligible for compensation, under the Civilian Injury Warrants. That means that they were civilians and that their status was not changed. If, however, they volunteered to do a certain job they could do it.

§ Mr. Pritt
It should have been explained to the Germans that it would have been cheaper to have shot them than the others.

§ Mr. de Freitas
I have dealt with the points which were raised to show that nothing had been done to take away their civilian status from them. Then there is the last point which the hon. Member for Southampton made/ that these men were subject to three months' notice. That is correct. They remained subject to three months' notice and at the end, as has been stated, they had the Control of Employment (Civil Servants) Order applied to them.

§ Dr. Segal (Preston)
Is it a fact that these education officers were subject to these very serious disabilities because they were not liable for operational duties?

§ Mr. de Freitas
No they were not. These education officers were civilians, and as civilians they had certain functions to perform, but in addition to that, because as I have said they were public spirited men and obviously wanted to help, they were allowed to do certain volunteer tasks, but at all stages their civilian status was emphasised and safeguarded.

§ Mr. G. Thomas
Did the three months' notice ever operate?

§ Mr. de Freitas
I have been informed that the three months' notice did operate, and the fact that clinches the argument has been submitted by one of the speakers tonight—that these men were subject to the Control of Employment (Civil Servants) Order. How can they really expect to be treated in any other way? They were treated as Civilians throughout the war. Therefore, it is natural that at the end of the war they should also be so treated. It follows from that that it is impossible to give them military benefits. There is the sad case mentioned by the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser). Naturally, we must all have the greatest sympathy with this man, but we cannot alter the fact that he was a civilian.

§ Sir I. Fraser
As that is the only case in the whole of this great war, can the hon. Gentleman say whether some special effort could be made through the Dispensing Warrant, or in some other way, to meet it?.

§ Mr. de Freitas
I will certainly look into that particular case, but, fundamentally, of course, that man was, as I have pointed out, a civilian. The wartime education officers did great service. We are grateful to them; we are especially grateful to those who volunteered for work outside their strict duties. But we are faced with the fact that the Government have endorsed the general principle that military benefits can only be paid for periods of war service in the Forces on full Service pay. This particular decision, as it applies to education officers, does deprive them of military benefits, but it is not a small back-room Air Ministry decision; it is a considered decision of His Majesty's Government.
As my hon. Friend has pointed out, and as I have announced in this House on more than one occasion, from 1st October this year we have a R.A.F. Education Branch, the members of which are full officers, equal in status to the general duties officers or officers of any other branch of the R.A.F. This Government have done what no other Government have done; they have recognised the enormous importance of education in the Service, and have, therefore, raised the status of the education officer from that of a civilian in uniform. The terms of service for education officers are such that I am sure they will attract the high type of man which we need for this job. I ask the House to recognise that it is because we began the war with civilian education officers that these disadvantages flow, and I particularly ask my hon. Friend who raised this matter to use his great influence among teachers to persuade them that the men of the R.A.F. today and tomorrow should not be prejudiced because of the disdeeds of yesterday.

§ Sir I. Fraser
Put it right now.

§ Mr. de Freitas
I also wish to deal with the point that he made concerning the figures given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office. I cannot speak for the War Office, but I think mat, if those figures are closely examined and if he puts down another Question to the War Office, he will find that the high number of applications which the Army have received are applications for forms on which to apply, whereas the low number which I gave was actually the number of applications for commissions received by the R.A.F. and that the 1925 Army's position is much the same as ours. There has never been a time when there was such a great opportunity for adult education as there is in the Services today. I appeal to all who are interested in adult education to help us. Our education branch begins in lean times when teachers are in short supply. It begins at a time when it is maintained that there is a feeling of resentment among our former civilian employees. If that is so, then there is a good deal against us, and that is why we rely more than ever on the help of all those who believe in adult education.

§ Mr. Pritt (Hammersmith, North)
I am sure that the Under-Secretary, who I think is a man with a sense of honesty and a desire to serve his Department, must have bitterly regretted the task he has had to perform. I do not think it is good enough to appeal to officers and others and say," They swindled me, but they promise not to swindle you." I think my hon. Friend ought to have tendered his resignation rather than come down and present such a sorry case to the House. There is no excuse at all, except 1926 The "red tape "excuse of these people being, in fact, civilians. In the first world war I was a civilian in the War Office, graded for pay, I think, as a staff captain. I never told Sir James Grigg— it would have shocked him—but it was a fact. I was engaged on confidential duties. At the end of the war, I found that because I was graded for military pay, I was entitled to a gratuity. I had not the insolence to take it, but what a contrast to the end of this war when men who had performed military service were told," You are technically civilians, and technically we can swindle you." The Under-Secretary ought to be ashamed of himself.

§ Mr. de Freitas
The word "swindle" is surely not justified. These men were civilians and they knew they were civilians. We did not lead them "up the garden path," saying that we were going to treat them as something else, and then later treat them as civilians. There was no swindle.